Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9199674" data-attributes="member: 71699">I agree with you, it doesn't have to be either or. Earlier posts in this thread appeared to be saying that Adams had it covered, and Baker contributed little to nothing. That's an assessment I resist.It's worth pointing out a subtle but to my mind important distinction between what that sidebar is saying and what TTRPGs may achieve.A distinction must be made between product and process. Play is a process. Traditional stories are a product. A distinctive problem of TTRPG design is how to play with story: it's not limited to how to generate a story that would be enjoyable to read. It can be enjoyable to say things that wouldn't generate a good story, for instance as implied in Tuovinen's &quot;sacrament of death&quot;.The question for me has always been - why resolve it at all? Why limit ourselves to &quot;traditional story experiences&quot; in games? A better framing is to ask - how can we play with story? Currently, that is hard to achieve in videogames, whilst (relatively) easy in TTRPG. That has naturally driven differences (between designers of the former and designers of the latter) in the sorts of design problems they've focused upon. That doesn't mean that they have no problems in common and nothing worthwhile to say to one another!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9199674, member: 71699"] I agree with you, it doesn't have to be either or. Earlier posts in this thread appeared to be saying that Adams had it covered, and Baker contributed little to nothing. That's an assessment I resist. It's worth pointing out a subtle but to my mind important distinction between what that sidebar is saying and what TTRPGs may achieve. A distinction must be made between product and process. Play is a process. Traditional stories are a product. A distinctive problem of TTRPG design is how to [I]play with [/I]story: it's not limited to how to generate a story that would be enjoyable to read. It can be enjoyable to say things that [I]wouldn't [/I]generate a good story, for instance as implied in Tuovinen's "sacrament of death". The question for me has always been - why resolve it at all? Why limit ourselves to "traditional story experiences" in games? A better framing is to ask - how can we [I]play with [/I]story? Currently, that is hard to achieve in videogames, whilst (relatively) easy in TTRPG. That has naturally driven differences (between designers of the former and designers of the latter) in the sorts of design problems they've focused upon. That doesn't mean that they have no problems in common and nothing worthwhile to say to one another! [/QUOTE]

Verification