Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9033352" data-attributes="member: 82106">Overall this is again where I think your analysis is fraught. Process is more basic and core than rules. I agree that rules are then instantiated, and I'll agree that mechanics are instantiated by constitutive rules, which regulate the underlying process and help to suit it to the agenda of the participants. But it is best to understand the principles/agenda and fundamental (I would almost say universal for TTRPG play) core process FIRST. So I think a focus on process as a construct of rules, while it may provide some kind of structuralist understanding of how most games are actually written, is not all that helpful in understanding them at a fundamental level. Baker, Edwards, Lumpley, et al seem to have done that and it produced really excellent results.I understand that people who are not that enamored of narrativist/SN/ZM kind of play are chapped by that because, frankly, they didn't spend nearly as much energy on actually figuring out how to build those other sorts of games (Edwards has a bunch to say, though there are mixed opinions as to the utility of his observations). Given that nobody went through that analysis and built a pure HCS or PFS (or whatever category you like) sort of game means there's a bunch left unexplored there! I think that would be a rich gold mine for further design work. Finally I also follow Baker and Edwards in believing that &quot;the proof is in the pudding&quot; and all the ink in the universe can be spilled, but you need to actually do the gaming and the game designing to gain real insight.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9033352, member: 82106"] Overall this is again where I think your analysis is fraught. Process is more basic and core than rules. I agree that rules are then instantiated, and I'll agree that mechanics are instantiated by constitutive rules, which regulate the underlying process and help to suit it to the agenda of the participants. But it is best to understand the principles/agenda and fundamental (I would almost say universal for TTRPG play) core process FIRST. So I think a focus on process as a construct of rules, while it may provide some kind of structuralist understanding of how most games are actually written, is not all that helpful in understanding them at a fundamental level. Baker, Edwards, Lumpley, et al seem to have done that and it produced really excellent results. I understand that people who are not that enamored of narrativist/SN/ZM kind of play are chapped by that because, frankly, they didn't spend nearly as much energy on actually figuring out how to build those other sorts of games (Edwards has a bunch to say, though there are mixed opinions as to the utility of his observations). Given that nobody went through that analysis and built a pure HCS or PFS (or whatever category you like) sort of game means there's a bunch left unexplored there! I think that would be a rich gold mine for further design work. Finally I also follow Baker and Edwards in believing that "the proof is in the pudding" and all the ink in the universe can be spilled, but you need to actually do the gaming and the game designing to gain real insight. [/QUOTE]

Verification