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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Indaarys" data-source="post: 9214948" data-attributes="member: 7040941">The thing is is that I'd hope if one is seeking to discuss theory that they, in turn, are willing to then accept a more objective discourse. Its not lost on me that improv has baggage as a term, but I can also put that aside and focus on whats actually being said through the word, and not what we colloquially associate with it. Back in the day I used to run into the same issue with political theory, in particular the baggage of the word "anarchy" when it came to discussing anarchism. If one can't or won't be more objective, it just leads to the conversation being held hostage as we try to skirt around the least convoluted word to describe something because it has colloquial baggage. Its a lot more concise to just say anarchy than it is to say anarchist society or whatever, and we can take the steps to ensure that contextually we understand whats being said. The use of improv in this case is the same sort of situation. It'd be a mistake to assume I'm the only one with my thoughts. I do interact with people in real life, and we collectively think the way we do for a reason. But more than that, it misses what I meant by that, which is completely on me as I didn't elaborate. My bad. When I said those games aren't fun, I was referring to specific core elements of them, rather than the overall experience. What we might call the "G" parts of the RPG.The RP part is always consistently fun, and that tracks. The people I play with are all pretty good at it, even when entirely divorced from any sort of G, and that we all recognize that RP is what we're doing plays into that. The G parts however are seldom that consistent, and this is related to another wide reaching opinion of mine that finds the fact that so much of the hobby is the same 5 or 6 game systems copy and pasted a million times over distasteful. Too many games have more or less identical game loops, and even where the quality is at its best, its often not any more fun than the original was. I was saying that simplification requires abstraction. The jargon laden crosstalk I was referring to is more or less the opposite.I'm using analysis in the colloquial sense, not the literary. If you don't believe analysis is necessary for game design, thats fine I suppose, but that is so incredibly flabbergasting a stance to take that I can't even engage with it on an objective level. Its patently absurd.</blockquote>

Verification