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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9507692" data-attributes="member: 70468">Sorry, I meant to say “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent" target="_blank">affirming the consequent</a>”. It doesn’t follow that games are a storytelling medium just because stories can be produced by games. A trivial counterexample is playing a game to establish who advances in a tournament. It may be possible to turn certain moments into a story (e.g., <a href="https://youtu.be/JzS96auqau0?si=AvMPxlmaA_tHUlBt" target="_blank">Daigo vs Justin Wong in Evo 2004</a>), but the purpose of that game is not to tell a story.The middle ground I would draw is to say that games can be used as a storytelling medium, but they aren’t necessarily a storytelling medium. For example, I think people trying to play a pawn-stance hexcrawl in Moldvay Basic (or <a href="https://necroticgnome.com/pages/about-dolmenwood" target="_blank">Dolmenwood</a> if one wants something contemporary) would bristle at the suggest they’re playing to tell a story. On the other hand, those doing Actual Plays (or playing a game like that) might not like the suggestion they aren’t playing for the story they create.My point with these other examples is that they also have narrow premises. If you eschew the dice mechanic of Fiasco (or the card-based replacement in the second edition), then the game isn’t Fiasco anymore. It’s something else. The section read like more like a veiled attack on PbtA games rather than a discussion of types of railroads (though that’s a bit of RPG jargon I don’t particularly like much either since any utility it provides is outweighed by its negative connotation).I think the last time we discussed it was November 2023 if the ENW search is right.I was trying to get at the jargon overload that happens in RPG discourse. Adams and Dormans describe a particular design pattern for the purpose of encouraging specialization via rewarding avatar customization, but this is something else. Admittedly, this particular pattern is obscure as far as the discourse is concerned, but being familiar with it, I found the difference confusing.To put it another way, if it takes that much to explain the difference to someone familiar with the pattern, maybe the process deserves its own name? (In fairness, the name given is not exactly the same, but it’s close, and it reminded me of the original.)That sounds like an interesting situation that resulted from the game’s systems working together to generate thematically appropriate conflicts. Some games rely on the players and GM just knowing what to do to make things happen, but I like a game that is written and structured to make things happen. I find that especially important when you want to improvise a situation because it avoids feels of unfairness (e.g., the <a href="https://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/" target="_blank">Quantum Ogres</a>).Having systems determine this stuff is one of the primary reasons for designing my own game. I want to run a no-/low-prep hexcrawl game, which means needing to rely on the system to arbitrate and ensure fairness over relying on the GM and the GM’s prep. I don’t really think of this as having the Game as a player because the Game on its own doesn’t do anything. It’s a procedure the group follows (with the GM supporting) to achieve the intended result of the game’s design.Many games don’t work like PbtA games (particularly PbtA games that use moves). Given your past criticism of PbtA in general, it’s a little surprising that it seems like an important element in your structure of Game as Player.</blockquote>

Verification