Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8635246" data-attributes="member: 6801252">One observation is that it seems like the problematic element of the taxonomy and classification discussion, is a disagreement on the underlying philosophies and values that underpin the language being utilized. This presents to me an underlying truth: we cannot have definitive terminology that allows games (systems, whatever) from different movements to be encapsulated by a uniform language that accurately describes them, independent of reader and artistic context. Much as in lit crit circles, we can only discuss works through different <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_lens" target="_blank">lenses</a> that attempt to ground the conversation, but must also be accepted as a non-binding intermediary-- in other words, whether something works for you in the way that it works for Edwards, or if the categories he draws make any sense are an outgrowth of the degree to which you share his artistic values, and we aren't simply discussing values as goals but in the way he interprets the text, both literally, and the text of play around the table. In this context, its also important to understand that a tradition doesn't have to be articulated to be extant and valid.For example, some people here have suggested that they have a goal of inhabiting a character for its own sake, framing that goal as being in opposition to Step On Up, which concerns itself with engagement in competition (e.g. you aren't solely playing to inhabit the character if you're playing to win.) But I think the difficulty arises in that I know when I am playing the game, and I engage in games that are Step On Up in character, I understand that very differently, where the Step On Up elements are entirely there to help me get into a frame of mind that aligns me with my character. E.g. If I want to inhabit a character that is fighting a dragon, the act of fighting, and a game element designed to simulate the dragon, are simply tools to help me with the primary goal of inhabiting the character who is doing those things. At first blush, it might seem like the Step On Up elements and my desire to win would remove me from the wants of my character (people have expressed the trope of playing a character like a stolen car) into playing the game, but to my mind, they actually play a role in enforcing tone-- characters who behave like stolen cars aren't universally desirable stories, it can help me inhabit my character when the mechanics remind me of a need to be careful, which reflects my own characters good sense and need to survive and compromise in the course of pursuing their goals. Nothing makes me feel more like my mech pilot in Lancer than kitting out a mech with different systems and weapons and picking between frames, because that's a big part of mech stories-- the hardware and the pilot's self expression through their mech and their skill as a pilot, if I'm not engaged in those acts, then I'm not in the correct headspace to be the pilot.That doesn't mean my method works equally well for everyone, there are people in this thread that it certainly doesn't work for! But I think the takeaway from that is how agenda has a much less direct relationship with result than Edwards supposes in his work, because different participants actually need different tools to arrive at a given experience, predicated on how they're conditioned to read the rules-- e.g. are these things in the way or here to help me, how much do they help me, how important is X thing that is very present to the space I want to inhabit, and how important is Y thing that isn't very present at all. It also means that rather than discussing focus, we could be discussing utility towards a given end, in other words, how can the game help players arrive there. Whether those thins actually cohesively work to produce a given result is much more introspective, and probably requires a discussion of audience expectations for the experience in question.</blockquote>

Verification