Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9223600" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Indeed!At a high conceptual level a game (any game) is a pre-agreement about how to navigate ‘board states’.Some pre-agreements may explicitly say we need to agree on some specific details at a later moment (monopoly trades).&nbsp; Others may establish an authority to decide some specific details at a later moment (sports contact fouls). Most games decide most things up front.&nbsp; Some decide everything up front (chess - well maybe not who is white and who is black).The structure of these pre agreements can make games feel drastically different.&nbsp; Then there’s also the issue of disagreements about how particular rules work, what the particular game state is.&nbsp; We see more of these disagreements in ttrpg’s because of the mental nature of most play, but the same kinds of disagreements occur, albeit less frequently in games with physical tokens (physical game board and pieces) or logical processes (like score keeping).Exactly. Whatever we want to call it, there’s something different between group discussion about what the next board state should be and individual assertion granted by pre-agreement about what the next board state is.Thanks. Helps to know I’m not wording things so badly that no one understands me.&nbsp; I just want rpg theory that can be used to describe and design games like d&amp;d. If we can unify that theory to adequately do that for D&amp;D and Blades in the Dark, etc then I’m all for it, but Im not open to the only theory being one that inaccurately describes d&amp;d play.Otherwise I’m good having story now design theory and a separate d&amp;d-like design theory.&nbsp; It only has to be zero-sum if it’s insisted there can only be one theory and that having the theory accurately describe both d&amp;d and story-now is impossible. I don’t think anyone actually agrees with both of these premises. Maybe one or the other, but not both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9223600, member: 6795602"] Indeed! At a high conceptual level a game (any game) is a pre-agreement about how to navigate ‘board states’. Some pre-agreements may explicitly say we need to agree on some specific details at a later moment (monopoly trades). Others may establish an authority to decide some specific details at a later moment (sports contact fouls). Most games decide most things up front. Some decide everything up front (chess - well maybe not who is white and who is black). The structure of these pre agreements can make games feel drastically different. Then there’s also the issue of disagreements about how particular rules work, what the particular game state is. We see more of these disagreements in ttrpg’s because of the mental nature of most play, but the same kinds of disagreements occur, albeit less frequently in games with physical tokens (physical game board and pieces) or logical processes (like score keeping). Exactly. Whatever we want to call it, there’s something different between group discussion about what the next board state should be and individual assertion granted by pre-agreement about what the next board state is. Thanks. Helps to know I’m not wording things so badly that no one understands me. I just want rpg theory that can be used to describe and design games like d&d. If we can unify that theory to adequately do that for D&D and Blades in the Dark, etc then I’m all for it, but Im not open to the only theory being one that inaccurately describes d&d play. Otherwise I’m good having story now design theory and a separate d&d-like design theory. It only has to be zero-sum if it’s insisted there can only be one theory and that having the theory accurately describe both d&d and story-now is impossible. I don’t think anyone actually agrees with both of these premises. Maybe one or the other, but not both. [/QUOTE]

Verification