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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8500875" data-attributes="member: 71699">I had an inkling (maybe) about the nub of my concerns. The Lumpley Principle defines system as "the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." And this is not wrong: it leads to useful outcomes and can be taken to match the cloud-players-cues diagram.As a designer, I see it as giving system too passive a voice. We might rank systems for degree of success in leading to agreement, but we can't tell why [how successfully] BB is murder mavens versus Lovecraft or Dogs were Mormon gunslingers. We can't judge systems using it for success in their creative purpose (I'm not saying the LP is intended to do that and fails, I'm saying it does not do that.)The critique I linked is interesting to me because it asks something like Goethe's three questions. What was the game designer trying to do? How well have they done it? Was it worth doing? The critic argues that in judging a game it is right to ask - does the system have the consequences for play (drives the agreements) that the themes demand? What I find important about the critique is not so much what it says about BB, but what the critic argues ought to be considered in game criticism.My desired complementary principle would say something about that. Perhaps defining system as - "the means by which the group is driven to choose and go on choosing acts that match the distinctive and worthwhile themes of this game, over all other games."*That's a horrible first-draft but hopefully - hopefully - communicates something of the idea. I'm not sure if it needs to be tied to the intent of the designer, or if there isn't some established way in art criticism to speak about this work and this experience, rather than all possible works and experiences?[*Or maybe just insert "intended", "desired", "designed" or "distinctive" between "to" and "imagined"? I quite like "designed", taken in its broader sense.]</blockquote>

Verification