Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7471611" data-attributes="member: 42582">Fair enough. But then I've lost track of your point.Yes, the start conditions for a game of Traveller are different for those of a hand of poker. But both are different from the start conditions for charades (to stick to games that might be thought of, at least broadly, as &quot;parlour games&quot;) or for football or some othr sporting or athletic game.In this game of chess, so-and-so uses the Sicilian defence. In this other game of chess, played by amateurs like me, the moves are pretty mediocre reflecting maybe some vague sense that the central pawns matter and opening is a useufl thing. Within a couple of moves those two games have different conditions and parameters for play, and will unfold pretty differently.The same thing will be true if my group plays KotB and your group does - that's how tournament competition is feasible.Conversely, if my group plays KotB and (say) G1, the moves we make might be quite similar if we're a robust, consistent team.I don't see that the theory of individuation and differentiation of games is robust enough to answer the question of where the boundary between two games lies, and what the point is of trying to mark out that boundary. I do know that I can turn up at many D&amp;D tables and basically join in, understanding what is going on and playing along, and at many of those tables it won't take me long to work out what the shared expectations and practices are.So I'm not sure what you think is at issue. Upthread I posted what I thought was a reasonable description of RPGs as a category of game, that distinguishes them both from shared storytelling games and from wargames/boardgames, but you didn't seem interested.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7471611, member: 42582"] Fair enough. But then I've lost track of your point. Yes, the start conditions for a game of Traveller are different for those of a hand of poker. But both are different from the start conditions for charades (to stick to games that might be thought of, at least broadly, as "parlour games") or for football or some othr sporting or athletic game. In this game of chess, so-and-so uses the Sicilian defence. In this other game of chess, played by amateurs like me, the moves are pretty mediocre reflecting maybe some vague sense that the central pawns matter and opening is a useufl thing. Within a couple of moves those two games have different conditions and parameters for play, and will unfold pretty differently. The same thing will be true if my group plays KotB and your group does - that's how tournament competition is feasible. Conversely, if my group plays KotB and (say) G1, the moves we make might be quite similar if we're a robust, consistent team. I don't see that the theory of individuation and differentiation of games is robust enough to answer the question of where the boundary between two games lies, and what the point is of trying to mark out that boundary. I do know that I can turn up at many D&D tables and basically join in, understanding what is going on and playing along, and at many of those tables it won't take me long to work out what the shared expectations and practices are. So I'm not sure what you think is at issue. Upthread I posted what I thought was a reasonable description of RPGs as a category of game, that distinguishes them both from shared storytelling games and from wargames/boardgames, but you didn't seem interested. [/QUOTE]

Verification