Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6413203" data-attributes="member: 3192">I contend they aren't isomorphic, game play is code breaking. It's why we have a division between players and referees.His definition of game doesn't include games. It only includes group storytelling.No, they are arguing from a decade old usurpation of cooperation in games by attempting to make collaboration interchangeable. They are two different things. The previous posters' arguments all make sense for collaborative storytelling games. Not having read the entire thread I still suspect they don't touch on cooperative games or cooperative game designs.Never as a rule of the game. Cooperation is a strategy taken by players or the game wouldn't be about cooperation.4th and 5th edition are exclusively storygames in design and advice and not really imitating D&amp;D at all as a cooperative roleplaying game.It was universally understood that only really bad games told players the choices there were to take in games rather than solely defining the rules resulting in the game's design. The other is strategy advice, like examples for divvying up treasure or how to beat a troll.Competition or simply ignoring the other players are always options in cooperative games or the games wouldn't be about cooperating. They would be unreflective rule-following collaboration.They aren't disagreeing with me. And attempting to convince people they should tune out any voice that rejects the certitudes of a community isn't a sign of an open or diverse community. What are you engaging in with that last line?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 6413203, member: 3192"] I contend they aren't isomorphic, game play is code breaking. It's why we have a division between players and referees. His definition of game doesn't include games. It only includes group storytelling. No, they are arguing from a decade old usurpation of cooperation in games by attempting to make collaboration interchangeable. They are two different things. The previous posters' arguments all make sense for collaborative storytelling games. Not having read the entire thread I still suspect they don't touch on cooperative games or cooperative game designs. Never as a rule of the game. Cooperation is a strategy taken by players or the game wouldn't be about cooperation. 4th and 5th edition are exclusively storygames in design and advice and not really imitating D&D at all as a cooperative roleplaying game. It was universally understood that only really bad games told players the choices there were to take in games rather than solely defining the rules resulting in the game's design. The other is strategy advice, like examples for divvying up treasure or how to beat a troll. Competition or simply ignoring the other players are always options in cooperative games or the games wouldn't be about cooperating. They would be unreflective rule-following collaboration. They aren't disagreeing with me. And attempting to convince people they should tune out any voice that rejects the certitudes of a community isn't a sign of an open or diverse community. What are you engaging in with that last line? [/QUOTE]

Verification