Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4993657" data-attributes="member: 22779">Or, C:&nbsp; Take the Batman catching the Joker as written and then work within the framework of the game to determine exactly how that was achieved.I reject the notion that you must have a &quot;win&quot; condition in order to have a game.&nbsp; Or rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game.Again, you might call it &quot;shooting the breeze&quot; and that's fine.&nbsp; It's not for you.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; But, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a game.&nbsp; It all depends on what the focus of a particular game is.&nbsp; For you, it's about the events of the game.&nbsp; You state:thus, anything not specifically quantified by the game is irrelavent to your play.&nbsp; And that's fine.&nbsp; It's just not the only way to play.This statement:is a bit vague though.&nbsp; What exactly do you mean by the &quot;story of the game&quot;?&nbsp; Are you specifically referring to the actions?&nbsp; The encounters of the game, to use D&amp;D parlance?&nbsp; Is that the only thing you mean?After all, in a tragedy game, the outcome is fixed.&nbsp; I KNOW I'm going to die.&nbsp; The question is how.&nbsp; To me, the how is FAR more interesting than the what.&nbsp; I don't care particularly about the what of the story.&nbsp; At least, most of the what anyway.&nbsp; It's the how and the why that interests me.To be honest, this is one of the reasons I really dislike most SF rpg's.&nbsp; SF RPG's play out, typically, like D&amp;D in space.&nbsp; They're traditional games, go here, solve this problem, get the reward, move on.&nbsp; And they follow a specific branch of SF which is not the kind that I particularly like.&nbsp; I prefer SF that is focused on concept rather than plot.&nbsp; Stephen Baxter, Cory Doctorow, Isaac Asimov and Robert Reed rather than Heinlein or P. J. Farmer.So, if I want an RPG that follows the kind of SF that I want, traditional RPG's aren't going to get it done for me.&nbsp; I don't really give a toss about saving the galaxy from the invading aliens.&nbsp; I want to examine, within the context of a role playing scenario, how people and societies are affected by omniscience (a la Frank Herbert).&nbsp; You brush it off as &quot;shooting the breeze&quot; or &quot;Collective storytelling&quot;.&nbsp; My reply to that is, all RPG's are an exercise in collective storytelling whether you like it or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4993657, member: 22779"] Or, C: Take the Batman catching the Joker as written and then work within the framework of the game to determine exactly how that was achieved. I reject the notion that you must have a "win" condition in order to have a game. Or rather, the win condition must be directly tied to the events of the game. Again, you might call it "shooting the breeze" and that's fine. It's not for you. Fair enough. But, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a game. It all depends on what the focus of a particular game is. For you, it's about the events of the game. You state: thus, anything not specifically quantified by the game is irrelavent to your play. And that's fine. It's just not the only way to play. This statement: is a bit vague though. What exactly do you mean by the "story of the game"? Are you specifically referring to the actions? The encounters of the game, to use D&D parlance? Is that the only thing you mean? After all, in a tragedy game, the outcome is fixed. I KNOW I'm going to die. The question is how. To me, the how is FAR more interesting than the what. I don't care particularly about the what of the story. At least, most of the what anyway. It's the how and the why that interests me. To be honest, this is one of the reasons I really dislike most SF rpg's. SF RPG's play out, typically, like D&D in space. They're traditional games, go here, solve this problem, get the reward, move on. And they follow a specific branch of SF which is not the kind that I particularly like. I prefer SF that is focused on concept rather than plot. Stephen Baxter, Cory Doctorow, Isaac Asimov and Robert Reed rather than Heinlein or P. J. Farmer. So, if I want an RPG that follows the kind of SF that I want, traditional RPG's aren't going to get it done for me. I don't really give a toss about saving the galaxy from the invading aliens. I want to examine, within the context of a role playing scenario, how people and societies are affected by omniscience (a la Frank Herbert). You brush it off as "shooting the breeze" or "Collective storytelling". My reply to that is, all RPG's are an exercise in collective storytelling whether you like it or not. [/QUOTE]

Verification