Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5408557" data-attributes="member: 80487">Speaking from experience, I will say that this kind of trip is so different from where the familiar RPG vehicle goes that you may as well leave that baggage behind.Unexamined preconceptions, and legacy systems with no warrant but &quot;how it's always been done&quot;, will mess you up.Why are we rolling dice? Why do we have a Game Master? We ought to have answers to all such questions more sound than, &quot;We're just imitating what others have done, without any real understanding.&quot;Often, others did what they did as means to ends other than what we are attempting. They may be at cross purposes with our designs.In this example, there can be a real game-play element in that question of how and when Batman wins. It can be possible for the Joker player thereby to win the scenario despite losing the conflict in the imagined world, just as the player of WW2 Poland or France might be able to win a scenario by points with a skilled defense.(In a wargame, it typically would even be theoretically possible to defeat poorly played invaders.)Going even further afield, actual strategic or even tactical potential could be almost negligible next to some sort of use of game trappings as means for telling a story. This is one direction that computerized &quot;interactive fiction&quot; has taken since Zork, continuing from such classics of the heyday as Trinity and the very political A Mind Forever Voyaging.Great fiction can make for a poor game, and a great game can make for poor fiction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5408557, member: 80487"] Speaking from experience, I will say that this kind of trip is so different from where the familiar RPG vehicle goes that you may as well leave that baggage behind. Unexamined preconceptions, and legacy systems with no warrant but "how it's always been done", will mess you up. [B]Why[/B] are we rolling dice? [B]Why[/B] do we have a Game Master? We ought to have answers to all such questions more sound than, "We're just imitating what others have done, without any real understanding." Often, others did what they did as means to ends other than what we are attempting. They may be at cross purposes with our designs. In this example, there can be a real game-play element in that question of how and when Batman wins. It can be possible for the Joker player thereby to win the scenario despite losing the conflict in the imagined world, just as the player of WW2 Poland or France might be able to win a scenario by points with a skilled defense. (In a wargame, it typically would even be theoretically possible to defeat poorly played invaders.) Going even further afield, actual strategic or even tactical potential could be almost negligible next to some sort of use of game trappings as means for telling a story. This is one direction that computerized "interactive fiction" has taken since [I]Zork[/I], continuing from such classics of the heyday as [I]Trinity[/I] and the very political [I]A Mind Forever Voyaging[/I]. Great fiction can make for a poor game, and a great game can make for poor fiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification