Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7067737" data-attributes="member: 996">Minor epiphany, here:&nbsp;One obvious way is to have a market.&nbsp; Many game designers produce many, many games, each tailored to a very specific set of tastes and preferences.&nbsp; Gamers participate in the market, buying the game that's best for them, then find groups playing that specific game.&nbsp; If a group's collective tastes change over time, they change to playing a different game.Game designers have plenty to do.Now that I think of it, this would be the ideal state of affairs under the Forge's theories.&nbsp; And, the Forge were, of course, indie game designers.&nbsp; &nbsp;Or, of course, you could have a single game, played universally, that is so bad that the DM /must/ change or ignore the system to run it at all, so will naturally tailor the experience to the specific tastes and preference of his table (&quot;bad rules make good games&quot;).Gamers all pay the same game so there's no inefficiency of evaluating and learning many different games, instead gamers join groups based on commonly-held preferences and tastes.&nbsp; If those tastes change, the DM just caters to the new tastes.&nbsp; Neither of those ideals sound ideal, to me, nor do hypothetical 'middle road' compromises between them.&nbsp; ;(</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7067737, member: 996"] Minor epiphany, here: One obvious way is to have a market. Many game designers produce many, many games, each tailored to a very specific set of tastes and preferences. Gamers participate in the market, buying the game that's best for them, then find groups playing that specific game. If a group's collective tastes change over time, they change to playing a different game. Game designers have plenty to do. Now that I think of it, this would be the ideal state of affairs under the Forge's theories. And, the Forge were, of course, indie game designers. Or, of course, you could have a single game, played universally, that is so bad that the DM /must/ change or ignore the system to run it at all, so will naturally tailor the experience to the specific tastes and preference of his table ("bad rules make good games"). Gamers all pay the same game so there's no inefficiency of evaluating and learning many different games, instead gamers join groups based on commonly-held preferences and tastes. If those tastes change, the DM just caters to the new tastes. Neither of those ideals sound ideal, to me, nor do hypothetical 'middle road' compromises between them. ;( [/QUOTE]

Verification