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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6098477" data-attributes="member: 4937">As usual, I think Ron Edwards gets it mostly wrong, and mostly for the usual reasons - his tendency to be utterly condscending about anyone playing in ways other than his way and his continual mistaking system for play ('system matters').   He makes the classic designer mistake of assuming mechanics => aesthetics of play.For example, I don't think we can say how GURPS plays because its so loose with its expectations of play.  Ron's big contribution to design has been I think that we should consciously think about establishing the expectations of play, but he tends to in his own design run roughshod over any flexibility in play or assumption of flexibility in play.  If you look at a system like GURPS, what he describes is only one way of playing.  But there is text in the GURPS game the blesses negotiating the replacement of a flaw with a new flaw of equal worth in reaction to events that are happening in game.  There in a nutshell, admittedly perhaps a bit concealed and much less blessed and highlighted, is the basic mechanic of rechoosing your 'Beliefs' as used in BW.   Likewise, in a game like D&D, alignment gives a mechanical benefit, but there is an expectation that alignment can move around and shift in responce to player initiated actions, eventually changing to a new description based on how you play.  Especially since 3e, the player has no reason not to engage in this exploration if he wants to (unless he is 'Faithful', in which case the burden is higher).   The type of play Ron wants to describe as unique to Sorcerer, isn't, and doesn't involve breaking the system much or at all.  It simply involves breaking certain expectations about the goals of play.What Ron seems to consistantly fail to understand is that in older more popular games with more generic expectations of play, different player agendas aren't depricated simply because of less active support for those agendas.  However, in the games he makes and advocates - don't get me started on Sorcerer or I'll get really insulting - he's actually removing player agendas from the game and limiting play.  They are by definition niche games that are generally inflexible and inflexible by design.  There is nothing wrong with playing a niche game if it suits you, but as a general paradigm of game design its IMO terrible.  Imagine how Minecraft might play if it tightly focused on one player agenda instead of blessing the player to create his own agendas of play.  You want to self express - self express!  You want challenge - take up challenge!  You want casual fellowship - you can have that to!  You don't want fellowship, you just want abrogation - have it.  You want exploration - the world is limitless!   Minecraft is designed to engage players on multiple levels.  Most truly successful games are.</blockquote>

Verification