Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9340857" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That is probably happening for sure.Though I don't explicitly outline it, my post above is meant to be about the relationship of design priorities and usage (just as Forge analysis entails the relationship of play priorities, attendant design, and actual play...striving for synthesis of the three rather than discord).One thing (and that one thing is multivariate) I've found frustrating over the years is discussions on that parenthetical above.&nbsp; The following (empirically absurd) contentions come to mind (in no particular order):* There is no such thing as competing play priorities which result in discordant play.* Even if there is such a thing as competing play priorities resulting in discordant play, they can always be resolved via extra-system measures for any desired play experience; social contract or GMing technique (often the deployment of Force of Calvinball buggery) or deft hacking (and this assumes both deftness and that the game is amenable to the desired hacking).* There is no such thing as identifying and distinguishing play priorities in the first place!&nbsp; Humans and play are just so impenetrable!* Even if you can identify and distinguish play priorities, curated design that attends to a particular priority is impossible!Just quoting this here as cross-posted.&nbsp; My above addresses this a bit.Aren't games meant for play (consumption), though?&nbsp; Consumption of one or niche or mass is irrelevant to me here.&nbsp; Conversation always gets bogged down on that line and that is another frustrating facet of these conversations I could fold into the bullet points above!Oh, and its overwhelmingly deployed as a culture war cudgel to try to initiate collective action or influence designers-by-proxy while masking those partisan interests as &quot;I'm just talking sound business decisions bruh&quot;; &quot;you shouldn't include x thing (which person invariably hates and has seriously partisan priors) because that is niche and won't sell and that is bad for business!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9340857, member: 6696971"] That is probably happening for sure. Though I don't explicitly outline it, my post above is meant to be about the relationship of design priorities and usage (just as Forge analysis entails the relationship of play priorities, attendant design, and actual play...striving for synthesis of the three rather than discord). One thing (and that one thing is multivariate) I've found frustrating over the years is discussions on that parenthetical above. The following (empirically absurd) contentions come to mind (in no particular order): * There is no such thing as competing play priorities which result in discordant play. * Even if there is such a thing as competing play priorities resulting in discordant play, they can always be resolved via extra-system measures for any desired play experience; social contract or GMing technique (often the deployment of Force of Calvinball buggery) or deft hacking (and this assumes both deftness and that the game is amenable to the desired hacking). * There is no such thing as identifying and distinguishing play priorities in the first place! Humans and play are just so impenetrable! * Even if you can identify and distinguish play priorities, curated design that attends to a particular priority is impossible! Just quoting this here as cross-posted. My above addresses this a bit. Aren't games meant for play (consumption), though? Consumption of one or niche or mass is irrelevant to me here. Conversation always gets bogged down on that line and that is another frustrating facet of these conversations I could fold into the bullet points above! Oh, and its overwhelmingly deployed as a culture war cudgel to try to initiate collective action or influence designers-by-proxy while masking those partisan interests as "[I]I'm just talking sound business decisions bruh[/I]"; "you shouldn't include x thing (which person invariably hates and has seriously partisan priors) because that is niche and won't sell and that is bad for business!" [/QUOTE]

Verification