Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7342972" data-attributes="member: 4937">You whole post is good, but that's the best part of it.&nbsp; &quot;Good&quot; here does deserve the quotation marks.The big problem with the Indy games is that they very much have in the heads of the designers exactly what the game is supposed to do, how it is to be approached, how you are to think about it, and what they want it to achieve.&nbsp;&nbsp; They are games designed in the wake of the revelation that how you thought about the game was important.&nbsp; (Although, the Forge people didn't think about it in exactly that way, they called it &quot;system matters&quot; which I feel is misleading.)&nbsp;&nbsp; And there are several problems with that approach compared to the more organic sprawling designs of classic RPGS.&nbsp; One of them you describe really eloquently when you describe the game as &quot;opinionated&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Modern games frequently tell you the game that they want you to play, like it or leave it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hopefully, they at least do a good job of delivering on that game (which, in fairness I think GUMSHOE completely does).&nbsp; But if you want something else from the game, suck it up.&nbsp; That demands a ton from a group of players.&nbsp; Typically when I run a game I have a mix of players at the table who are power gamers, tacticians, problem solvers, thespians, casual, and so forth with their own agendas and aesthetics of play.&nbsp; They stick it out only if the game offers them a bone from time to time with respect to how they like to play - a shining moment of awesome.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thing is, the shining moment of awesome for a thespian is totally different than for a power gamer.&nbsp; Older more organic systems end up 'sharing play' better than the very tight modern systems.That's been my experience as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7342972, member: 4937"] You whole post is good, but that's the best part of it. "Good" here does deserve the quotation marks. The big problem with the Indy games is that they very much have in the heads of the designers exactly what the game is supposed to do, how it is to be approached, how you are to think about it, and what they want it to achieve. They are games designed in the wake of the revelation that how you thought about the game was important. (Although, the Forge people didn't think about it in exactly that way, they called it "system matters" which I feel is misleading.) And there are several problems with that approach compared to the more organic sprawling designs of classic RPGS. One of them you describe really eloquently when you describe the game as "opinionated". Modern games frequently tell you the game that they want you to play, like it or leave it. Hopefully, they at least do a good job of delivering on that game (which, in fairness I think GUMSHOE completely does). But if you want something else from the game, suck it up. That demands a ton from a group of players. Typically when I run a game I have a mix of players at the table who are power gamers, tacticians, problem solvers, thespians, casual, and so forth with their own agendas and aesthetics of play. They stick it out only if the game offers them a bone from time to time with respect to how they like to play - a shining moment of awesome. Thing is, the shining moment of awesome for a thespian is totally different than for a power gamer. Older more organic systems end up 'sharing play' better than the very tight modern systems. That's been my experience as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification