Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9198722" data-attributes="member: 7040941">So there's a lot to unpack here. First, there's a specific meaning to the word Actions in this context. Actions are what a player can perform under the pretense of the game to change its state. The interaction between these and whatever the Actions serve to change are what comprise the overall gameplay thats generated. Second, improvisational Actions are not inherently a part of any given game, and especially not if such Actions don't actually exist, implicitly or otherwise. oDND, as presented, for example, has no improvisation mechanic as part of the system it creates. People have said otherwise, but their comments just aren't relevant because its not in the goddamn book. If you put oDND in someone's hands, whose never seen an RPG before, has no idea what wargames are, and ask them to play oDND, they are not going to find their way towards improvising going off whats in the book. They just aren't. That conundrum gets obfuscated because of the oral tradition that basically taints new players before they can be exposed to what the game actually before its been house ruled. But anyway, unless a given video game designs for it, Improvisation isn't inherent to them either, though its a lot easier to recognize that for what it is. Thirdly, the sequence of events isn't always improvisational either. Most modern games of all kinds are, because emergence is generally more fun and adds better replayability, but progression games are also out there. Point and click adventure games like The Longest Journey have long since fallen out of vogue, but they're games where you can't do anything but ride the rails, and that can be quite fun in of itself. Visual novels and the like are another example. And theres a lot of weird, esoteric arthouse games out there that rub up against this.I can't remember the name but there's one where you're literally just staring at a mountain as things happen to it over time. If its not in the book, its not a part of the game as presented. House rules don't count. Accurate data gives you accurate fixes. If the problem lies in the improv game, no amount of mechanical jank added to the RPG is going to fix it. Likewise going in the other direction. Especially going in the other direction in fact. We even have a term for why this isn't the way to go: Oberoni Fallacies. Yes, but that doesn't contradict whats being said. Recognizing a TTRPG is 2-3 games in one doesn't negate the overall label, nor provide a value judgement. Its been kind of reoccurring in these two topics that people aren't really examining why they're reacting so negatively to that idea. The games aren't made lesser by making the distinction, there is no gatekeeping or badwrongfun accusations, so why the resistance? What, precisely, is the problem? I've already exhaustively elaborated on why i think its important to distinguish, because I think accurate data provides accurate fixes. I don't want to eyeball fixing my radiator, I want to take a wrench directly to the lugnut and tighten it. I can't do that if I'm refusing to distinguish between a wrench and a fork and the lugnuts and the wall socket. My impression over the last day has been that a lot of people have just not been exposed to games, nevermind just RPGs, being talked about in as abstract a manner as I've been doing, and for whatever reason thats making people uncomfortable. I still don't see why, because it shouldn't.  The point of what all I've been talking about is to design better, funner games that consistently do what they're supposed to do. That shouldn't be a controversial aim, and the discussions thus far have largely focused on debating more than anything actually constructive.</blockquote>

Verification