Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9615378" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Sure.&nbsp; A given game might be written poorly such that the actual systemitized play experience fundamentally doesn't work despite the designer expressly telling you &quot;follow the rules and this thing will work.&quot;&nbsp; That can certainly be a thing.&nbsp; But here, in the context of this particular exchange, I was disputing something different.&nbsp; That is the generalized cultural notion that the GM can and should do whatever they want (advice which is intended to supervene downstream engagement with rules which direct otherwise) and that this generalized cultural approach of system negation will lead to either (a) rendering dysfunctional play functional (&quot;game gone good&quot; from the default systemization which leads to &quot;game gone bad&quot;) or (b) inherently lead to &quot;game gone better&quot; than the default.I certainly don't see how the above follows (neither conceptually nor empirically) and I would definitely rather have a generalized &quot;if &gt; then&quot; cultural rule of &quot;if a game tells you to run it as-is with the full integrity of its default...then try that first before assuming the game is either inherently dysfunctional or can be...improved upon...by your drifting/hacking.&quot;&nbsp; Now if you run it as-is and it sucks and you're sure it isn't due to user error?&nbsp; Abandon with extreme prejudice or hack/drift away if you're committed to the project![USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] and [USER=6690965]@Pedantic[/USER] , I'll get back to you both at some point here.&nbsp; Engaging with you guys posts will take some time which I don't have presently!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9615378, member: 6696971"] Sure. A given game might be written poorly such that the actual systemitized play experience fundamentally doesn't work despite the designer expressly telling you "follow the rules and this thing will work." That can certainly be a thing. But here, in the context of this particular exchange, I was disputing something different. That is the generalized cultural notion that the GM can and should do whatever they want (advice which is intended to supervene downstream engagement with rules which direct otherwise) and that this generalized cultural approach of system negation will lead to either (a) rendering dysfunctional play functional ("game gone good" from the default systemization which leads to "game gone bad") or (b) inherently lead to "game gone better" than the default. I certainly don't see how the above follows (neither conceptually nor empirically) and I would definitely rather have a generalized "if > then" cultural rule of "if a game tells you to run it as-is with the full integrity of its default...then try that first before assuming the game is either inherently dysfunctional or can be...improved upon...by your drifting/hacking." Now if you run it as-is and it sucks and you're sure it isn't due to user error? Abandon with extreme prejudice or hack/drift away if you're committed to the project! [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] and [USER=6690965]@Pedantic[/USER] , I'll get back to you both at some point here. Engaging with you guys posts will take some time which I don't have presently! [/QUOTE]

Verification