Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5080520" data-attributes="member: 3192">Okay, so I disagree with most of the maxims. (please don't take it personally)1. The hypothetical is imaginary, but character identity is not central to roleplaying (when roleplaying was originally posited and termed, fictional identities were not thought to be part of it at all).  That we are performing fictional personas whenever we express fiction (i.e. something we believe is false) is why roleplaying is theatre and not a "third mode of being" as Dr. Moreno created it to be.2a. D&D was created for role exploration of class, not personality. It was and is highly popular, which I see as a measure of success.2b. Equal ability to explore or affect the game is divided by role with each role having its' particular niche in OD&D.  This means not everything in the world is open to every player unless they pick up another class or character.  Narrative equality in story rights differs vastly by game design.  Designing in equality in every instance is a something of a myth anyways (re: balance).3. I agree4. In logic pattern finding games (PFGs) the majority of the "rules" are hidden, even though they are being expressed throughout the game.  A storygame can do what you say, but they tend to be competitive games for story rights rather than cooperation games.  The rules are peripheral, if complementary to the improvised fiction.  5. Fair, balanced, and customizable are going to be debatable terms, but otherwise this makes sense. I think it makes more sense in a d20 game design than any other though.6. A PFG requires one by rule, storygames can be GM-less though.  So this is not an assumption I'd make into a maxim.7. I like this.8. This is more of a preference.  As a maxim it will constrain your conclusions.9. I think "non-standard rule adjudication" needs to be better defined.All in all, these aren't bad ideas.  What I do see is a great deal of assumption to a particular game form, something that will limit both PFG and storygame design discussion.  It's hard to break out of old paradigms and common practice, but I think you are moving in the right direction.  Having fewer rather than more maxims may aid in opening up new areas of thought.  I say, let the theorizing define more to be followed up on or not rather than having a number of agreed upon principles limit your scope at start.  Too often in theory the conclusions are inherent in the premises held.  A truism for logic, but not the best for a systematic forecasting method.I didn't know about the Delphi method before, but it find it interesting.  Thanks.</blockquote>

Verification