log in or register to remove this ad

 

What is "The Forge?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Staffan

Adventurer
MerricB said:
If I can just bring up a point here: The first edition of WEG Star Wars did not have the wild die! It was an additional rule that entered with the 2nd edition game. My group had been playing SWd6 for a campaign of two years standing beforehand, and the Wild Die was greatly disliked. It complicated a game that had been working well as a lighter system beforehand.
Going off on a tangent here...

I think the greater change in paradigm were seen in the chase/vehicle combat system. In 1e, vehicle fights were based on a simple one-on-one deal, where you simply had range bands - short, medium, and long (possibly something like "almost touching" and "very far" as well). Every round, you rolled the speed ratings of the two vehicles, adding Pilot skill if the pilot took an action specifically to get away/catch up. The one who won got to choose whether to increase or decrease range by one step. Shooting also used these range bands - someone at Medium range was at Medium range whether you used a light laser, an ion cannon, or a proton torpedo.

In 2e, you instead had a system where you tracked the position of each ship on a grid, with difficulties for various maneuvers. Weapons had ranges in units, and vehicles had their speeds rated in units as well (as opposed to dice). The way to use your greater skill to move faster was to use more actions for moving (up to four). In other words, a far more "crunchy" system.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
d20Dwarf said:
I don't really want to talk about game quality. I've not read much of the Forge's actual games, and I'm not here to bash creators for their work. If we don't agree on the mousetrap analogy, then we're not going to agree, because I define superior products by what the market wants, and especially in this day and age, the market can find what it wants.
You don't think the market wants crap and trite? Because that's 90% of what people seem to buy. There are small sections of the market that actively seek out superior products, and they often have the cash to keep those products in production. I might go so far as to say that the RPG industry is driven mostly by people looking for quality, and that people looking for crap don't usually play RPGs, or at least don't look for crap in RPGS. But I'd have to be convinced, hard, that superior products in general are exactly what people buy.
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Wayside said:
Unfortunately it's exactly the opposite. For years my friends and I used gaming as an excuse to do other things. We'd always start out gaming, but we never finished any game we started. To jump back to mythusmage, he replaced eyebeams' "fun" with "engagement." I still don't buy it.

Not engagement, enjoyment. If you're not playing a game because you enjoy it, why are you playing? People might work a job they hate, but they usually don't have hobbies they hate.
 

mythusmage

First Post
Dr. Awkward said:
Not engagement, enjoyment.

The latter precludes the former? The latter contradicts the former? The former cannot be a prerequisite for the latter?

To paraphrase an old punchline, first you get their attention.
 

Wayside

First Post
fusangite said:
No. Going to the movies for a date is not not about going to the movies it's just also, more importantly, about going on the date. Things can be "about" more than one thing at a time. Gaming is always about gaming; it's just also about other things too most of the time.
I'm going to disagree with you here and say that yes, while the aboutness of things can certainly be multidirectional, no, it doesn't have to be. A good example would be certain kinds of allegory. Now, if you want to say that I'm wrong, that I'm not gaming without my gaming being about gaming, that in fact I'm simply not gaming at all, or that I'm gaming incorrectly, then you can keep on trucking with that one. I happen to believe that on the one hand there's a concept in our culture, "going to the movies," and then there's an actual practice where I go to a movie, and in my case there's no requirement that the two should overlap.

fusangite said:
That's just not true. How can the word "gaming" have any meaning if it can potentially refer to anything and everything in in the entire world?
Philosophically speaking, the word gaming can already do that. We've been talking about language games, the construction of social reality and the concept of play for half a century. And none of this is that chaotic evil continental philosophy you and Akrasia seem to despise so much; it's all of the upstanding analytic variety (which doesn't mean it's not poststructuralist, since most analytic philosophy is).

fusangite said:
The moment you bound/define gaming, you introduce the possibility that people will do it wrong. Take "walking" for instance. If I drag myself somewhere with my lips, I'm walking wrong.
No, you just aren't walking. The idea that you're walking wrong here is absurd. Do snakes walk, but just do it wrong?

Look at it this way: in order to say that someone is doing something wrong, you have already to have a set of beliefs about a number of things. The most important of these is that you have to believe that they're trying to do right what you believe they're doing wrong in the first place, i.e. you have to believe that they're trying to walk by dragging themselves somewhere with their lips. If they're just in a "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race, they can't be walking wrong; in fact if they were walking as you or I do in that same "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race, they'd be doing that wrong. Here the wrongness is determined by the immediate context of the race and its participants, and not by any transhistorical notion of "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" wrongness.

But, you might say, it would always be wrong to walk as you or I do in a "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race, and that might be true, because that's already a very specific practice we've laid out, and it's difficult to break it down further into subsets of practices that might emerge and transform the sport of "drag yourself somewhere with your lips." I maintain, however, that it's still possible for this sport to change drastically through technological advances, cultural shifts, even through reassessments of what is significant in the sport--perhaps to the point where walking is no longer wrong when running a "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race. I want to go on with this quite a bit further but I'm starving, so I'm going to finish this off and grab some food.

First let's take a quick moment to think about how we might try and define gaming here. I think this is where eyebeams has a lot to say that some other people just aren't registering. On the one hand, you can try and come up with your totalizing definition of what gaming is right now, today, and then flip it from a description of current gaming practices to a prescription for all "correct" gaming practices forever. On the other hand you can--and this seems to be eyebeams' big issue with The Forge, because they don't do this, don't even seem to grasp why it might be important--take a step back from this totalizing, culturally isolated concept of "gaming" and look at the larger socio-political factors that are responsible for producing such concepts.

How does anyone fail to see that the latter simply makes more sense? If you'd defined gaming by what everyone was doing in 1970, then we'd all be gaming wrong today. So why, exactly, should today be the standard for tomorrow? And, to take this a step further, why shouldn't designers like eyebeams attempt to anticipate these shifts in how gamers go about doing their thing, or why shouldn't he attempt to develop games that even encourage certain shifts in gaming, based on his understanding of current and developing social contexts? Why shouldn't he, in other words, try and design the next Vampire:tM on purpose, try and capture the disillusionment of a generation, or anything to that effect?

fusangite said:
Glad you have come up with conditions under which I can be wrong. Clearly, then, the word "define" has parameters; why doesn't the word "gaming"?
If you couldn't tell, I was parroting your statement back at you. Still, you or me saying "you're wrong," and saying "Jimmy over there is gaming wrong," are two completely different things. While it may seem like an insane conceptual leap, even the idea of defining something can and has changed over time, can and will continue to change over time. Anyhow, tuna!
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
mythusmage said:
The latter precludes the former? The latter contradicts the former? The former cannot be a prerequisite for the latter?

To paraphrase an old punchline, first you get their attention.
Well, you know, you can be quite engaged by the experience of being in a car crash. Doesn't mean you enjoy it. I think the reason why people do stuff that is supposed to be "entertainment" like playing games is because they enjoy doing it. I don't think this is the most controversial hypothesis in the world. People only do things they hate if they're being forced.
 


mythusmage

First Post
Dr. Awkward said:
Well, you know, you can be quite engaged by the experience of being in a car crash. Doesn't mean you enjoy it. I think the reason why people do stuff that is supposed to be "entertainment" like playing games is because they enjoy doing it. I don't think this is the most controversial hypothesis in the world. People only do things they hate if they're being forced.

It therefor follows that you can't encourage people to do something they hate.

Get their attention, draw them in, and then present them with an experience that makes them want to come back. But it need not be done with empty rewards.

It is possible for the players to have a good time, even if their characters failed. What's important is the feeling they had a chance, while playing in a world that's well presented with interesting characters to interact with, interesting situations to get involved with, and interesting problems to solve.

The players don't have to always win. What they do need is a chance. And not always then, for sometimes there's just something about a lost cause that gets people roused. There's a stanza in an old filk (to Men of Harlech that goes ...

In the stories ancients hoary
Knew defeat was generally the price of glory
Still they fight in masses gory
Yes, they are full of ose.​

A sharp sword, a stout shield, and I shall go to Heaven with an honor guard.

But that calls for a good GM who knows what he's doing, and can get his players excited about what they're doing.

There are many ways to enjoy a game, and in the long run trinkets and doodads are a poor substitute for a good adventure.
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
mythusmage said:
It therefor follows that you can't encourage people to do something they hate.

Get their attention, draw them in, and then present them with an experience that makes them want to come back. But it need not be done with empty rewards.

Who's proposing empty rewards? I seriously have lost track. Anyway, when you "present them with an experience that makes them want to come back," you are causing them to enjoy the game. If they come back, it's because they enjoyed the first experience and are looking for more enjoyment. Of course, this is just a truism. If they happen to enjoy watching their characters get phat loot, it's the same as if they happen to enjoy a deep roleplaying experience. They could be capable of enjoying both, but latch onto whichever happens to be handy at the time.

My thesis here, such as it is, is that the reason people game is simply and concisely that it pleases them to do so. Someone might start gaming thinking that it will please them, and find out that it doesn't, but they won't keep at it for long if they're not getting some kind of enjoyment out of it, much in the same way that most people don't slam their fingers in a door and say to themselves, "yow! That sucked! I guess I'll try it again and see if it gets any better."

It is possible for the players to have a good time, even if their characters failed. What's important is the feeling they had a chance, while playing in a world that's well presented with interesting characters to interact with, interesting situations to get involved with, and interesting problems to solve.

Yup. So long as you enjoy the experience of trying to succeed and failing, you'll enjoy a game that gives it to you. You'll come back for more and enjoy challenges that you might or might not overcome.
 

evileeyore

Mrrrph
Wayside said:
How does anyone fail to see that the latter simply makes more sense? If you'd defined gaming by what everyone was doing in 1970, then we'd all be gaming wrong today.
I think this statement and attitude is the crux of the problem.

As far as I'm concerned we are still gaming the same way we were in 1970. We gather with like-minded people and play games that we enjoy. Just as we did in 1970. We just play different games.

If your doing anything else... you aren't gaming.

Your socializing, your gathering, your ... whatever. But it ain't gaming. I think your looking at the back of the cave and declaring the shadows reality when in fact they are but the two dimensional images of what makes up reality. In this case your trying to deconstruct 'gaming' and the idea is falling apart. Deconstruct games systems, genres, people preferences as you like. But gaming is gaming is gaming.
 

mearls

Adventurer
I'm terrible at nesting lots of quotes within a single post, so I'm going to try to answer a variety of comments without quoting. If I mess anything up, well, you can yell at me.

Fusangite: I find your ideas interesting and compelling, and would like to sign up for your newsletter. I really like breaking down player actions into player expectations, and looking at what drives/shapes those expectations. Interesting stuff.

Eyebeams: Two points, and they tie together.

RPGs as broad and flexible, as opposed to narrow and focused.

I think this one is a value judgement, or a dial that a designer can tune to fit his tastes. I happen to like broad, adaptable games. The best Mage game I ever played was one set in the Renaissance with background ripped wholesale from Ars Magica, run years before the Sorcerer's Crusade was released. One of the best D&D adventures I ran used mass combat rules and rules for siege warfare. Another one was almost pure roleplay and tactical planning that didn't involve the rules beyond a few Craft checks.

OTOH, when I think back to the sessions of Feng Shui and Dying Earth that I've played and ran, I'm always struck at the rules we used, and the ones we ignore. In Feng Shui, everyone wants to use the stunt rules to do cool and whacky things. The initiative system, the damage system, even the special kung fu maneuvers, most of these never came up in play. Dying Earth is similar: half-way through the first session, we were using the social interaction rules in every scene, but every other rule in the game had been dropped for a much simpler roll d6s and beat a target number system that I created on the fly.

"Gamers are bad at gaming."

I'd reverse this one: game companies are bad at telling gamers how to use their games, and I think this ties into the broad v. narrow rules debate. When a game tries to do everything, it lacks focus and makes it much harder for players and GMs to figure out what to do with it. A strong, well-supported core story can really help this, but few games clearer and repeatedly communicate their core stories.

Even worse, mainstream games in the 1990s were very, very bad at giving people realistic expectations of what an RPG can be. TSR in particular did a good job of telling people that the D&D they wanted to play was Bad Wrong Fun.

I have in my lap a copy of DMGR 1, the first DM-centric sourcebook for AD&D 2. This book has become an icon of sorts to me. It's the poster child for breeding bad DMs, unhappy players, and frustrated gaming groups. I think that a sizable portion, though not anywhere near a majority, of AD&D players suffered because of this book's unrealistic take on what makes D&D fun. Here's some quotes:

On "hack-and-slash" gaming:
"At first, most players love the thrill of battle. But all fighting eventually degenerates into boredom."

On the "righteous roleplayer" player type:
"This should be the preferred playing style, and is usually incorporated with other styles since it is essential that a fair amount of role-play place in order to create a believable game."

There's a very clear message here, and it's repeated throughout the text: using the rules is bad. Fighting monsters is bad. Spending an hour roleplaying the process of renting a room at an inn is good. Running a game where the PCs are spectators to your grand story is good.

These are obviously, as best, judgement calls that vary from group to group. Yet, they're presented as gospel. You play D&D to adopt a character and roleplay him out, while avoiding the rules and icky combat as much as possible. That not only isn't useful, it sets people up for disappointment. If you read this book back in 1991 and were convinced it was right, you had maybe a 5% chance of finding a group that would actually live up to what you were told is an acceptable gaming experience.

I think that, throughout the 1990s, this was a common mistake in RPG publishing. The industry as a whole was so intent on out-Vampiring Vampire that customers were either given unreasonable expectations of what to expect from a game, or they were told that the style of game they wanted was worthless. No wonder so many people (myself included) stuck with 1e.

Stuff like Robin Laws's work is a good first step, but there's still lots more that needs to be done. Stuff like the Fantastic Locations maps show us that D&D is more fun when battles take place in larger, more open areas with lots of options for movement and tactics. It took the gaming world 5 years to figure that out! That "innovation" has been hiding in the rules for all that time, yet if you look at adventures from WotC and d20 companies, you see room after room drawn in the 20 x 20 foot, 2e, non-tactical style.

All of this ties into why I find parts of Ron's theories interesting and useful, and why the Forge is good. Even if you don't fully understand what GNS is, you can think, "I want my design to emphasize this "gamist" style of play that seems to match what I want to do. How do I communicate that to the end user?"

As an aside, "teaching" players and GMs how to run a good Iron Heroes game played a big part of the design. All of the classes are good at fighting, and all the classes were fighting styles, rather than game roles or setting elements. It's almost impossible to build a PC who is useless in a fight - you have to try rather hard to do so.

This turned off people who didn't want to play a game with lots of crazy battles, but that to me was a good thing. Such people would not have been happy with Iron Heroes! There was no point in trying to sell them on the game.
 

fusangite

First Post
Wayside said:
I'm going to disagree with you here and say that yes, while the aboutness of things can certainly be multidirectional, no, it doesn't have to be. A good example would be certain kinds of allegory.
Like what? For example...

The thing is, though, even if you're somehow right about these specialized types of allegories, "gaming" is not an allegory. It is a term that refers to an activity or set thereof.

You're failing, here, to apply the most basic semiotics. Gaming is always about gaming. It just is. No amount of high-fallutin' nonsense and Forge-speak will make it not so. And, by the way, I think Ron, Chris and everybody else I've corresponded with down at the Forge would agree with me here. Gaming is always about gaming.

But rather than just repeat myself, I'm going to asak you to furnish me with an example of a time when gaming isn't about gaming.

Why don't you operationalize what you're asserting and we can see if it is really capable of passing muster intellectually.
Look at it this way: in order to say that someone is doing something wrong, you have already to have a set of beliefs about a number of things.
And, being human, I manage to do that.
The most important of these is that you have to believe that they're trying to do right what you believe they're doing wrong in the first place,
Nope. Some people deliberately choose to do something wrong.
Here the wrongness is determined by the immediate context of the race and its participants, and not by any transhistorical notion of "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" wrongness.
Look, I'm an historian by trade. And I'm big on the context. But this is just ridiculous.

Sorry, but not everything is a social construction. Walking is not a social construction. Giving birth, getting pregnant, not social constructions either.

[Faith Statement]Reality, as we experience it, simply, is not purely socially contingent. It arises from a dialectic between socially constructed realities and the actual physical world.[/Faith Statement]
 

mythusmage

First Post
Dr. Awkward said:
Who's proposing empty rewards? I seriously have lost track. Anyway, when you "present them with an experience that makes them want to come back," you are causing them to enjoy the game. If they come back, it's because they enjoyed the first experience and are looking for more enjoyment. Of course, this is just a truism. If they happen to enjoy watching their characters get phat loot, it's the same as if they happen to enjoy a deep roleplaying experience. They could be capable of enjoying both, but latch onto whichever happens to be handy at the time.

My thesis here, such as it is, is that the reason people game is simply and concisely that it pleases them to do so. Someone might start gaming thinking that it will please them, and find out that it doesn't, but they won't keep at it for long if they're not getting some kind of enjoyment out of it, much in the same way that most people don't slam their fingers in a door and say to themselves, "yow! That sucked! I guess I'll try it again and see if it gets any better."



Yup. So long as you enjoy the experience of trying to succeed and failing, you'll enjoy a game that gives it to you. You'll come back for more and enjoy challenges that you might or might not overcome.

The question now becomes, how do you do it?

Has anybody seen an RPG that provides guidelines for getting the players involved?
 

mhacdebhandia

Explorer
Samuel Leming said:
The essays in the articles section are fairly easy to read. Those didn’t contain anything about ‘The Big Theory’ though. Would somebody be so kind as to point me towards that or at least a summary of how it differs from GNS?
Believe it or not, I've been waiting to post this all thread (and when I started reading, this was seven pages with 50 posts per page, so!).

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=232712

Vincent Lumpley explains it in a way which makes genuine sense to me. It may not be Edwardsian Big Model theory, but it's at least Edwardsian-Lumpleyan Big Model theory.

(In the future, there will be a nation of gamers who keep Vincent Lumpley's body preserved under glasss . . .)
 
Last edited:

Wayside

First Post
evileeyore said:
I think this statement and attitude is the crux of the problem.

As far as I'm concerned we are still gaming the same way we were in 1970. We gather with like-minded people and play games that we enjoy. Just as we did in 1970. We just play different games.

If your doing anything else... you aren't gaming.
And if you want to give the argument up and say I'm just not gaming, more power to you. Obviously, that doesn't affect me in the least. But from the point of view of this argument, the idea of gaming is being theorized in much more complex terms than "like-minded people gathering to play games they enjoy." Much, much more complex terms. So, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that if someone had come along and devised a complex theory of gaming in 1970 the way they're trying to do now, it probably wouldn't have been able to account for what Vampire players were doing in the 1990s. By extension, I fully believe that any theory these people come up with today is only going to be provisional, because the variety of things gamers do in their games is only going to continue to increase as the decades go by. And if it happens that these people become intoxicated with the elegance of their own ideas (or the perceived elegance, at any rate), and continue to adhere to them long after they've outlived their usefulness, well, then you probably get something that looks a bit like this thread.
 

Wayside

First Post
fusangite said:
Like what? For example...

The thing is, though, even if you're somehow right about these specialized types of allegories, "gaming" is not an allegory. It is a term that refers to an activity or set thereof.

You're failing, here, to apply the most basic semiotics. Gaming is always about gaming. It just is. No amount of high-fallutin' nonsense and Forge-speak will make it not so. And, by the way, I think Ron, Chris and everybody else I've corresponded with down at the Forge would agree with me here. Gaming is always about gaming.
What Forge-speak? I've been to The Forge once, based on a ten-second google search/ctrl-F to get that link for WayneLigon. That's the extent of my contact with this place.

I think there's a turn in my argument that just isn't making it through. Let's say you think gaming = GNS. I know you don't think that's true, but the "you" here is in a more general sense. What I'm saying is that my specific game doesn't have to be about anyone's overarching concept of gaming, whether it's yours or The Forge's, ever. You can theorize and theorize and theorize, and someone can still come along and do something new that busts the theory of gaming but still is gaming. I'm not saying you can go to a movie without it being about going to a movie, I'm saying you can to go to a movie without it being about "going to a movie." Just like I can play a game that isn't about "gaming."

fusangite said:
But rather than just repeat myself, I'm going to asak you to furnish me with an example of a time when gaming isn't about gaming.

Why don't you operationalize what you're asserting and we can see if it is really capable of passing muster intellectually.And, being human, I manage to do that.
You can do it for me. Do you believe that any existing theory of gaming is so precise as to cover everything you do at the table? I imagine not. And do you believe it's possible to formulate a theory of gaming that this would be true for, not only for you but for everyone who will ever game? I hope not.

fusangite said:
Nope. Some people deliberately choose to do something wrong.
Which is trivially parasitic on what I just said, when it works; but your case is not universal. Say "it's cold in here" and mean "it's warm in here." You can mis-utter but you can't mis-mean.

fusangite said:
Look, I'm an historian by trade. And I'm big on the context. But this is just ridiculous.

Sorry, but not everything is a social construction. Walking is not a social construction. Giving birth, getting pregnant, not social constructions either.
Is there a point continuing this? It feels like you're stuck on the fact that I used a term for contemporary intellectual trends that you don't like, and you've decided to just not invest anything in the exchange. I never said walking was a social construction, or giving birth, or getting pregnant. I said you can't walk wrong, give birth wrong, get pregnant wrong, if you aren't trying to do any of those things in the first place. You aren't walking wrong by running, or sitting at your desk, or swimming; you aren't getting pregnant wrong by having other kinds of sex that can't get you pregnant. If I write a poem, you can't say "you wrote that book wrong." I wasn't writing a book, I was writing a poem.

At the same time, to pretend we don't have culturally constructed concepts associated with walking ("going for a walk," "power walking," etc.), giving birth (natural birth, Cesarian by appointment, etc.) and so on is silly.

fusangite said:
[Faith Statement]Reality, as we experience it, simply, is not purely socially contingent. It arises from a dialectic between socially constructed realities and the actual physical world.[/Faith Statement]
Yes, it does, and I never said otherwise. You may think, based on some words I've used, that I'm part of some totally alien intellectual trend, but in fact hermeneutics, which is where this insight originates, and ordinary language philosophy, which reiterates it, are my primary areas. I'm just not prejudiced against other forms of thought.
 

jgbrowning

Explorer
Wayside said:
And if you want to give the argument up and say I'm just not gaming, more power to you. Obviously, that doesn't affect me in the least. But from the point of view of this argument, the idea of gaming is being theorized in much more complex terms than "like-minded people gathering to play games they enjoy." Much, much more complex terms. So, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that if someone had come along and devised a complex theory of gaming in 1970 the way they're trying to do now, it probably wouldn't have been able to account for what Vampire players were doing in the 1990s. By extension, I fully believe that any theory these people come up with today is only going to be provisional, because the variety of things gamers do in their games is only going to continue to increase as the decades go by. And if it happens that these people become intoxicated with the elegance of their own ideas (or the perceived elegance, at any rate), and continue to adhere to them long after they've outlived their usefulness, well, then you probably get something that looks a bit like this thread.

So did anyone else get, "the people here are just intoxicated with the perceived elegance of their outdated ideas," from the above or is that just me?


joe b.
 
Last edited:

Wayside

First Post
jgbrowning said:
So did anyone else get, "the people here are just intoxicated with the perceived elegance of their outdated ideas," from the above or is that just me?
"These people" being the people at The Forge, who are apparently entirely dismissive of points of view that challenge their own. I'm basing this judgment off of anecdotal evidence from TB, fusangite and others.

My point is simply that grand metanarratives about gaming are useless. They don't have much to do with designing games, as eyebeams says, and they certainly don't have much to do with playing them.

Local narratives? Definitely. Larger trends with underlying causes we can discover and talk about and maybe even use to our advantage as designers (well, I don't design games, but you get the drift), maybe even take a part in shaping? Definitely. But trying to be the Czar of what is and is not gaming, trying to legislate everybody else's fun, or utility, or engagement, or whatever you want to call it? Meh.

edit: let me rephrase. I find Forge-type speculation interesting on a fundamental, broadly aesthetic level in terms of thinking on what gaming might really be "about," even though I completely agree with eyebeams that you can't just sit up on that mountain surveying the kingdom after you get there (you have to come back down and reevaluate the overview in terms of the points of view of the people on the ground actually doing stuff). Still, I'd find it quite a bit more interesting to hear someone theorize the contexts that produced a place like The Forge and its theories, led to its marginal successes among other internet theorist types, its conflicts with others, and so on.
 
Last edited:

mhacdebhandia

Explorer
One thing I recall Lumpley saying, very firmly, in the thread I linked earlier, is that the Big Model doesn't describe players, or game systems, it describes games (in the sense of "campaigns" or "chronicles"), and it can only really do so in hindsight by applying the model to find out exactly what kind of play you were actually engaged in moment-to-moment.

Which is a very different thing from GDS/GNS and so on.
 

fusangite

First Post
Wayside said:
I'm going to disagree with you here and say that yes, while the aboutness of things can certainly be multidirectional, no, it doesn't have to be. A good example would be certain kinds of allegory.
fusangite said:
But rather than just repeat myself, I'm going to asak you to furnish me with an example of a time when gaming isn't about gaming.
Wayside said:
You can do it for me.
So, basically, you're saying that you can't actually support your own argument. Why would I do it for you? You say gaming doesn't have to be about gaming. I say it does. You insist that it doesn't. I ask you to furnish an example of how it doesn't... and you refuse and ask me to instead. I think we're done here.
Wayside said:
I'm not saying you can go to a movie without it being about going to a movie, I'm saying you can to go to a movie without it being about "going to a movie." Just like I can play a game that isn't about "gaming."
I don't know what these quotation marks are doing for you. But I'll tell you what they're doing for me: they're telling me we're definitely done here.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top