clearstream
(He, Him)
You don't mean to say that popularity should be our measure of a great game, right? Perhaps this raises an interesting question about what a designer can demand of players? Is it okay if players need to learn how to play, and develop mastery? Are we in a rush? If so, why?Because the tool that does everything does nothing. There's nothing saying that games like Wisher, Theurge, Fatalist shouldn't be a thing. Just that Apocalypse World isn't actually one of those games.
To unpack what actually happens is that all mechanics produce drag; they slow things down and they produce barriers to entry. All of which slows down the game (a bad thing), disrupt peoples' flow (a bad thing), makes it harder to play (a bad thing), and makes fewer people want to play it (another problem).
I think when interested in the ludonarrative avant-garde, those qualities you list have lower priority. I'm okay with a design being demanding in ways that would be unacceptable for one with popular or commercial aspirations. Particularly when it is the qualities of game as game that I am here prioritising.
I agree, albeit it seems tangential. I'm not ruling it out as a worthy goal... AW is a ground breaking take on it's goals.They also have benefits - but what Vincent Baker has done is found ways to minimise the drag
So what you have is an intensifier and an additional element of randomness that stacks with freeform for as minimal a cost as possible. Working out how to do something better is itself a worthy goal.
- Apocalypse World moves have the rhythm of freeform; they are made when narration would be handed over in freeform which minimises disruption of flow and slowness - and makes it easier to remember when to play
- Apocalypse World moves are all the same - 2d6 + stat vs 7 and 10. That's simply adding three single digit numbers against a threshold. It's always the same roll and always easy math so it's again blindingly fast and easy to learn.
- Apocalypse World moves can lead to interesting decisions/questions and never leave you having wasted your time with a "roll to see if you have to roll again". You literally get more out of handing over narration with a move than just handing it over.
What I'm saying, however, is that having a ground breaking take on an apple can yet fail to satisfy one's desire for pear. Particularly when it's been apples all the way down until now. That doesn't mean I dislike apples, only that I can appreciate another perspective.
To connect our arguments, I think you'd need to show where pursuing what matters in Western dramatic story has delivered understanding of what ought to distinctly matter to ludonarrative. I've given some examples. And I suppose if you want to refute me directly, show that narrativism wasn't focused on casting what was important in Western dramatism into play.
Last edited: