Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5637079" data-attributes="member: 4937">Indeed.The corrollary of that is, &quot;Almost all game issues are social issues.&quot;&nbsp; The proof of the corrollary is that not everyone who plays a given system has the same issues with it, even if they use the same rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is actual a product of Celebrim's Second Law of RPG's(tm), &quot;How you think about playing a system is more important than the rules system itself.&quot;The meta-rules are more important than the rules themselves.&nbsp; This applies both to spoken and unspoken rules about how players will interact, and to what sort of game the GM prepares to play, and to what sort of game the players intend to play.&nbsp;&nbsp; None of these things are usually covered by the system rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most games for example tell you very little explicitly about how to create an adventure except in broad and vague terms.&nbsp;&nbsp; Regardless of the system, if you prepare a D&amp;D style adventure for it, it will play alot like 'D&amp;D' is presumed to usually play.&nbsp; I say presume, because there are groups that prepare and think about the game entirely differently, and even if they have the same proposition resolution rules, they are playing a different game.The system doesn't really define the game.&nbsp; At best it can influence it.Amen.&nbsp; One of the things I really hate about Forge Theory is that there is this assumption that a single game system can only create one kind of game, and that if it isn't played in that way then there is a type of badwrongfun going on (indeed, Ron Edwards often writes as if he's the only one that has ever had real fun gaming).&nbsp;&nbsp; I flatly deny the fundamental thesis of Forge Theory, namely: &quot;A good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Not only does it fail to notice that mechanics are of only secondary importance compared to the meta-mechanics, all the best gaming I've ever had are associated with games that supported everyones interest and could rapidly and seamlessly switch between them into subgames of various sorts.&nbsp;&nbsp; A single focus system might be great for 4-8 hours of play, but most RPGs encourage literally 100's of hours of play.&nbsp; If they aren't supporting diverse gaming tastes and habits, why in the heck would you want to keep playing them.Heck, look at the current video gaming market.&nbsp; Games are increasingly much less pure in their outlook.&nbsp; A game like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed may be losing some appeal to a purist, but by combining element's of an action game, with an exploration sandbox, and a narrative focused RPG, you are getting broadly appealing games.&nbsp;&nbsp; They wouldn't necessarily become better games by removing the subgames, as without those changes in tone and focus they'd far more quickly bore with repetition.&nbsp;Amen.&nbsp; Good post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5637079, member: 4937"] Indeed. The corrollary of that is, "Almost all game issues are social issues." The proof of the corrollary is that not everyone who plays a given system has the same issues with it, even if they use the same rules. This is actual a product of Celebrim's Second Law of RPG's(tm), "How you think about playing a system is more important than the rules system itself." The meta-rules are more important than the rules themselves. This applies both to spoken and unspoken rules about how players will interact, and to what sort of game the GM prepares to play, and to what sort of game the players intend to play. None of these things are usually covered by the system rules. Most games for example tell you very little explicitly about how to create an adventure except in broad and vague terms. Regardless of the system, if you prepare a D&D style adventure for it, it will play alot like 'D&D' is presumed to usually play. I say presume, because there are groups that prepare and think about the game entirely differently, and even if they have the same proposition resolution rules, they are playing a different game. The system doesn't really define the game. At best it can influence it. Amen. One of the things I really hate about Forge Theory is that there is this assumption that a single game system can only create one kind of game, and that if it isn't played in that way then there is a type of badwrongfun going on (indeed, Ron Edwards often writes as if he's the only one that has ever had real fun gaming). I flatly deny the fundamental thesis of Forge Theory, namely: "A good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." Not only does it fail to notice that mechanics are of only secondary importance compared to the meta-mechanics, all the best gaming I've ever had are associated with games that supported everyones interest and could rapidly and seamlessly switch between them into subgames of various sorts. A single focus system might be great for 4-8 hours of play, but most RPGs encourage literally 100's of hours of play. If they aren't supporting diverse gaming tastes and habits, why in the heck would you want to keep playing them. Heck, look at the current video gaming market. Games are increasingly much less pure in their outlook. A game like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed may be losing some appeal to a purist, but by combining element's of an action game, with an exploration sandbox, and a narrative focused RPG, you are getting broadly appealing games. They wouldn't necessarily become better games by removing the subgames, as without those changes in tone and focus they'd far more quickly bore with repetition. Amen. Good post. [/QUOTE]

Verification