Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8628678" data-attributes="member: 71699">That possibly connects to something I like about the three-folds. If one divides the engaging activities - or you could say urges or impulses - of gaming, several seem really evident.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Solve a problem</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tell a story</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Make believe</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Construct</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Collect</li> </ul>The bolded ones share an important feature - they can be managed ephemerally. Which is to say they don't rest on records and artifacts. For each of them, it's interesting to think about different design and play approaches to the questions that can be raised. Extending and paraphrasing your comment.When I read GNS I see good answers to questions about what is vital to telling a story effectively. I don't see similar good answers in respect of solving a problem and making believe, but that doesn't mean there aren't some answers, nor that those aren't rightly called out as important impulses. And as you know, where Edwards saw incompatibility I see compatibility: greater strength, in fact, in weaving them together. That doesn't mean I think the theory isn't insightful... even though as a gamer I might feel it's not insightful enough on the solving a problem dimension. Must one theory be all things? Knowledge of what games are and can be is very much still evolving.Not bolded are two other impulses or behaviours that are invoked in a few RPGs and perhaps offer opportunities for the future. An obstacle is figuring out how to make them ephemeral enough to manage at the table? Some games are starating to look at this - Artifact perhaps being an example, or The Ground Itself. Earthdawn printed attractive cards for players to collect and track their threadweaving to the depicted items.</blockquote>

Verification