Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="piou" data-source="post: 9153491" data-attributes="member: 7042024">There's a lot to unpack in that assumption IMHO. You're free to  have your opinion on the matter of course, but presenting it as a general truth hides lots of opportunities.We agree that having an intended way to play (IWTP) is beneficial to a game. Then what does it mean to have a wrong way to play it? Is it a question of rules? IMHO having rules providing a framework is a very effective way to convey the IWTP so that shouldn't be an issue at face value.Having a wrong way to play, if not related to the mere presence of rules, may have more to do with the gap in fun between playing the intended way and playing another way. If the gap is small (on average, among many different styles of play) then there is a best way to play the game and lots of acceptable ways to play the game. If the gap is large then there is a best way to play the game and very few or none acceptable other ways to play. In that case it's ever more critical that the game conveys that best way to play effectively, hence rules (I'd argue PbtA largely fall in that category).Is one better than the other? At first glance the "low gap" case seems preferable: if it can accomodate more ways to play it can reach a larger audience which matters commercially. It also means that the margin for error is bigger. And on the design side it means you don't have to be as tight when conveying the IWTP, it's alright if you leave out some ambiguities.But on the other hand, what if the experience you can deliver is much more fun with a "large gap" scenario? What if you can provide a truly awesome game but only if played one specific way? Such a game may not appeal to as many people, and may be more difficult to learn, but I'd argue that if your goal is to maximize fun these are acceptable things. There are tons of examples of niche games that manage to find their audience because they're awesome. But you need to really nail it because you're going to make it harder for people to tinker with your game and adapt it ever so slightly to what they prefer. Your experience needs to be so goo that they don't think they could do better by changing it essentially. In the case of PbtA games, I think this shows a lot: it explains why they're hard to hack effectively, why they're popular among so many people and why they're also so easy to misdesign, providing a subpar and dull experience marred by a strange rigidity.So, is one better? Is it true that "Design wise, its good to not design a game in such a way that theres a wrong way to play"? I'd say that's one of those good rules of thumb that absolutely must be broken if you think you can. It's certainly easier to design a good game if you design it so there's no wrong way to play, and there are tons of good games that exist that do just that. But if you think what fits your game best is a very specific way to play, if you think that you can increase the fun of your game by a lot at the cost of supporting other ways to play, I say go for it. This is no stone-carved truth.</blockquote>

Verification