Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Indaarys" data-source="post: 9197325" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Sure, it does need to be considered as part of the procedures of a game. Thats an issue for example with people approaching solitaire rpgs is that the procedure to start a game is often an enigma until you really dig into it; playing tends to be straightforward once you're accustomed to the dynamics of being player and GM simultaneously.The issue though with the philosophy that an RPG is "just" a conversation is that when you buy into that idea too much, you're liable to inadvertently restrict the design space for the game. Simple example, the system can be just as much a "speaker" in the RPG-as-Conversation as the player or GM is, and apropos, solo-RPGs often embody exactly that, and you can technically (with a GME) play any RPG out there today solo. So clearly rpg-as-conversation isn't very precise.Unless one wants to go down the Edwardsian spiel on "coherence". Not that I wanted to bring that up, but that is where the idea was rooted from, the philosophy that games need to be laser focused on doing one specific thing or else they're incoherent and anyone who likes them anyway is brain damaged. If you emphasize rpg-as-conversation, then you're going to more or less influence design down a route of being very specialized. Hence, AW and its heritage all being individually poor at doing anything other than what they individually care about.</blockquote>