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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9214883" data-attributes="member: 70468">This assumes an animosity towards “improv” that I do not have (see below). I should also like to say that I find the personal turn the rest of this reply took rather disappointing.My disagreement is not because of whatever opinion I have of improvisational theater, which I would describe as neutral towards it. This is my disagreement:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I do not like the appropriation of the language and techniques from another creative form. The problem is not with the thing being appropriated but with the appropriation; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The construing of said techniques as foundational and identifying deviances as things to be fixed rather than as new ideas to be studied and incorporated into a revised model.</li> </ul>A distinction is being made between “improv game” and “improvisational theater” even though the techniques from the former come from the latter, and the structuring of the RPG’s rules are such they should be designed to operate within the “improv game” — “<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/thinking-about-the-purpose-of-mechanics-from-a-neo-trad-perspective.697190/post-9214338" target="_blank">The overall structure of the game is tied to the improv mechanisms, and the additional Rules act as a Player within those mechanisms.</a>” It’s a distinction without a difference.You seemingly agreed in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/thinking-about-the-purpose-of-mechanics-from-a-neo-trad-perspective.697190/post-9214338" target="_blank">post #256</a> when I made the same claim in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/thinking-about-the-purpose-of-mechanics-from-a-neo-trad-perspective.697190/post-9214213" target="_blank">post #255</a>, but now it’s incorrect? They’re not physics, internal economy, progression, or tactical maneuvering. The only category left is social interaction mechanics. They govern the interaction of players with each other, so that seems like a sensible classification. (Unless you’re proposing a sixth type of mechanics that are “improv mechanics”.)Passing judgement is not (or should not be) an instrumental purpose of a theory. It would be arrogant to think the model one’s theory provides has enough answers to pass judgement on other designers and designs that fail to conform to it, especially if they weren’t designing according to that theory in the first place.The problem is when things conflict with the “improv base”, and they’re identified as problems to be fixed rather than differences to be investigated and understood. Typically, when something conflicts with a model, that means the model should be changed rather than that those things are wrong.Would it matter what it’s called if it’s the same techniques with a different name that are being positioned as the base, and that designers should be conforming their designs to it?My disagreement isn’t because of the particular jargon used (see above).Being open-minded doesn’t mean accepting everything proposed uncritically. Part of evaluating a tool is determining its fit for purpose. I see “improv” (with reference to techniques from improvisational theater) as one set of possible social interaction mechanics, and the model proposed positions them as more than that.The problem you have identified as an “aesthetic” issue is one I would identify a cultural issue. While people aren’t wrong or bad for having trouble with a game that works differently from what they expect, there is a considerable RPG monoculture. Certain aspects of play (what I am identifying as social interaction mechanics) are passed down through oral tradition, and these may be taken as fundamental, which reinforces and propagates the monoculture.It’s like if people had to be taught how to move their pieces in a board game, everyone was taught it involved a randomizer, and then a game was released that had you move a fixed amount. When I see an RPG design that breaks an apparently base loop, and people are playing it successfully and having fun in spite of that, that makes me want to say, “Cool, what new ideas can I take from this?”That doesn’t mean the gameplay that came from existing loops and assumptions is bad or wrong either. Whatever theory is developed to incorporate the new development should definitely include existing practice as well. Otherwise, the new theory is just as incomplete as the old but in a different way.(A significant problem with RPG discourse is a tendency to position particular ways of playing as more correct or above other ways of playing. That discourse is arguably not about RPGs anymore. It’s culture war garbage.)</blockquote>

Verification