Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8638993" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>The way Edwards talks about this topic definitely makes me think he was around and actively thinking about game design in '70s and very early '80s, as it seems directed heavily at that set of game designers who seem to have been convinced that adding detail to either mechanics or setting (and usually these sorts of games basically merge the two) would somehow magically produce 'true story'. That is, if the imperatives governing what a character stance player was motivated to do perfectly matched with the participants ideas of verisimilitude that some sort of magic would happen where they would be able to play in a way that perfectly illustrated their character's concerns. This was of course nonsense, of the highest order in fact. It was however clearly a motive in the design of some games with very extensive rules and an aim of simulating some genre with great fidelity (and usually including an attempt to produce highly realistic outcomes). I think Edwards describes this quixotic quest in rather interesting terms! Systems like GURPS and the FGU system used in Aftermath (which I think is a descendant of the Bushido system too IIRC) are illustrative of this sort of thing. Steve Jackson was undoubtedly never really sold on that canard, his game system was certainly friendly to it though.</p></blockquote><p></p>