Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4897573" data-attributes="member: 80487">Yes. It is a matter not just of adversity but of surprise. Discovering what lies over the hill or beyond the door is different from dictating what is there.Likewise, &quot;play-acting&quot; an earnest attempt to accomplish something, when one in fact chooses to make it more difficult for the character (or even decides that the attempt shall fail) -- because it enables one later, as a player of an abstract game, to add a bonus (or even ensure success) -- is a big step out of the role.Adversity then is on another plane, separate from the character-role. It comes in via game limits on one's ability to enforce one's preferred story against the opposition of some other story.When role-playing itself is given a lower priority than adversity, it may be that &quot;authorial control&quot; of the imagined world is trivially acceptable so long as its effects are seen as trivial. &quot;I look for an X&quot; becomes, &quot;I find an X, and our interaction happens this way.&quot;When (as seems common among the &quot;GNS&quot; folks), everything is reduced to a question of &quot;narrative control&quot;, then role-playing ceases to be the actual means of play. One might end up with a &quot;role-playing themed&quot; game, just as one might dress up one's latest &quot;Euro-style&quot; board or card game as superficially &quot;about&quot; the Battle of Waterloo or farming on Fiji.There's nothing &quot;wrong&quot; with that, to the extent that people have fun playing. A &quot;war-themed&quot; game such as Stratego or Risk, though, is not quite what &quot;wargamers&quot; typically have in mind when they seek a &quot;wargame&quot;.The utilitarian purpose of such terminology is to facilitate matching game designs with players likely to appreciate them (and players with like-minded fellow players). Unfortunately, there is no well-intended enterprise that &quot;geek culture&quot; cannot pervert into yet another chance to practice the herd reaction against perceived threats.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4897573, member: 80487"] Yes. It is a matter not just of adversity but of surprise. [i]Discovering[/i] what lies over the hill or beyond the door is different from [i]dictating[/i] what is there. Likewise, "play-acting" an earnest attempt to accomplish something, when one in fact chooses to make it more difficult for the character (or even decides that the attempt shall fail) -- because it enables one later, as a player of an abstract game, to add a bonus (or even ensure success) -- is a big step out of the role. Adversity then is on another plane, separate from the character-role. It comes in via game limits on one's ability to enforce one's preferred story against the opposition of some other story. When role-playing itself is given a lower priority than adversity, it may be that "authorial control" of the imagined world is trivially acceptable so long as its [i]effects[/i] are seen as trivial. "I look for an X" becomes, "I find an X, and our interaction happens this way." When (as seems common among the "GNS" folks), [i]everything[/i] is reduced to a question of "narrative control", then role-playing ceases to be the actual means of play. One might end up with a "role-playing themed" game, just as one might dress up one's latest "Euro-style" board or card game as superficially "about" the Battle of Waterloo or farming on Fiji. There's nothing "wrong" with that, to the extent that people have fun playing. A "war-themed" game such as [i]Stratego[/i] or [i]Risk[/i], though, is not quite what "wargamers" typically have in mind when they seek a "wargame". The utilitarian purpose of such terminology is to facilitate matching game designs with players likely to appreciate them (and players with like-minded fellow players). Unfortunately, there is no well-intended enterprise that "geek culture" cannot pervert into yet another chance to practice the herd reaction against perceived threats. [/QUOTE]

Verification