Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9058236" data-attributes="member: 6690965">This is interesting, because the sort of scholarly understanding of Exploration laid out here feels as or more relevant to my board game play, than how I've interacted with RPGs. I play largely low-no randomness games that are usually rated highly on &quot;interaction&quot; between players, or described as &quot;sharp&quot; or &quot;cruel.&quot; The joke about Splotter games is that if you can't lose on the first turn, then there was no reason to have a first turn.The games are competitive, and all the players will try to win to the best of their abilities and we keep vague track of victories, note our relative final scoring positions relative to each other, and so on over the weeks, but the point of the game is not to win, or to demonstrate that we can win, it's to experience interesting board states. All the competitive decision making is in service of finding out what can be made to happen inside this given ruleset, what will emerge when we iterate on the incentives and interactions. Generally we stop playing a given game not when we've all won, or when we know who will win consistently, but when we are no longer confident we won't see something new and interesting by spending a few hours spinning the thing up and going through the motions.Anyway, fundamentally, that interaction felt more like Exploration and a scholarly appreciation and analysis, as that article presented it, than anything else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9058236, member: 6690965"] This is interesting, because the sort of scholarly understanding of Exploration laid out here feels as or more relevant to my board game play, than how I've interacted with RPGs. I play largely low-no randomness games that are usually rated highly on "interaction" between players, or described as "sharp" or "cruel." The joke about Splotter games is that if you can't lose on the first turn, then there was no reason to have a first turn. The games are competitive, and all the players will try to win to the best of their abilities and we keep vague track of victories, note our relative final scoring positions relative to each other, and so on over the weeks, but the point of the game is not to win, or to demonstrate that we can win, it's to experience interesting board states. All the competitive decision making is in service of finding out what can be made to happen inside this given ruleset, what will emerge when we iterate on the incentives and interactions. Generally we stop playing a given game not when we've all won, or when we know who will win consistently, but when we are no longer confident we won't see something new and interesting by spending a few hours spinning the thing up and going through the motions. Anyway, fundamentally, that interaction felt more like Exploration and a scholarly appreciation and analysis, as that article presented it, than anything else. [/QUOTE]

Verification