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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6297133" data-attributes="member: 3192">If we want a game about playing a pterodactyl, presumably the rules should define what a pterodactyl or define player actions in the game in such a way that acting like pterodactyl arises from play naturally. If we want a competitive game, the rules (especially opposing game objectives) should be defined in such a way to to make competition a common strategy that occurs during play. If we want fictional personae to be performed by players during our games, then what constitutes personalities in the game rules should be defined or at least games should be designed in such a way that those personalities arise from play naturally.Suggestions on how to play a game, which are then not part of the rules, aren't necessary to playing the game. At best, they help some players get half way there.  "Orc Poker" shouldn't be poker with the suggestion to act like an orc. The mechanics need to back it up orcish behavior. The difficult thing here is, personality is an aspect of behavior and strategies in a game are player behaviors within that game. They are two different philosophical outlooks addressing human behavior with completely different understandings. Games can be designed to enable some strategies over others. They do this according to how objectives, game pieces and field of play, and actions are defined in the rules. Strategies aren't supposed to be promoted behaviors. Players are understood to be under no influence about how they wish to play the game. IOW, you are playing badly, if you're following the agreed upon rules. Instead, playing the game leads to players recognizing more optimal strategies to obtain the stated objectives. Whether players actually take those strategies is up to the Player.</blockquote>

Verification