Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9633727" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I think a little more exploration of "gameful" is necessary here. Addressing the premise doesn't have a lot to do with the gameplay loop in question, and mutual understanding of how the game is to function is great, but doesn't actually have any bearing on the quality of the underlying game design. That the GM is in some way constrained about what they'll introduce next and how doesn't really do the player any good if they can't manipulate those declarations. "Gameful" isn't predicated on knowledge, so much as agency, and even then it's not enough to guarantee that the player's choices will matter. They have to matter in regards to getting what the player wants, thus that you can make moves that drag you toward victory.There are two points in here that I just don't think we can accept as axioms. Firstly, it's wild to expect to be able to consistently "inflict your desires upon the gamestate at each and every moment of play." I'd argue that most games are about adapting a limited set of tools to pursue a long-term desire to the best of your ability, and are intersting largely because you cannot make the gamestate do what you want it to do without consistent manipulation of events towards a desired end. And then usually you're then dealing with either coping with new unknowns that complicate whatever you're try to achieve, or you're in active competition with someone else trying to achieve the same thing or something incompatible. The whole reason we pursue strategies and not just "declare what I want to have happen again" is because the gameplay is interesting when it's not obvious.Secondly, "not being able to index how premise injects play with meaning, momentum, and purpose at each and every moment of play" is such a nar specific priority; I can imagine someone being bored that it's not happening if that's what they came to the table for, but I don't think that has anything to do with the gameability of what's going on. That's just the usual disagreement over the properly planned heist. I think it's fine if the gameplay was in the planning in that scenario, and the player just gets what they wanted if the proposal was ultimately strategically sound.I think this is sidestepping the point. The transparency of the meta is absolutely a nice to have thing, but I'm not persuaded it leads to an interesting evaluation of play. The criteria to see if a player's strategy worked and got what they wanted, the interesting "here to there" part of play can be perfectly clear, but if the player doesn't have a strong impact on the case they made to get there (and wasn't presenting with many interesting decisions to prioritize along the way), then it doesn't matter.Transparency is well and good, and absolutely can help with making the gameplay more engaging, but it isn't sufficient by itself. If you can buy better gameplay with secrets, then you should.</blockquote>

Verification