anyway.



thread: 2013-08-02 : Conversations and Games

On 2013-08-05, Gordon wrote:

So, I mentioned this somewhere over on G+, but I’m not sure I did so in the right context (disclaimer: I’m feeling particularly lost right now about etiqutte on the interwebs, what to say where, the right way to stay focused on what the host seems to want to be focused on, and, well, all that).  So let me try here:

The character/player/designer goals you mention in the “In an RPG” section of 1.  Am I reading correctly that these are explicitly NOT the object of the game, built in by the designer?  I mean, I’m not saying I think you’re claiming they’re unimportant.  But defintely distinct from the object?

If so, I’d love to read a bit more about how they interact with the object, with design, and with play in general.  But would it be fair to say that part of the value here is in seperating them out from the object?  That we become able to talk about the object without talking about those things. I mean, still acknowledge that those things matter, just not include them directly in the discussion of objects and tools?

I’m a bit concerned that the effects of those things (esp. “player goals”) are so strong that trying to push ‘em out of the basic-level discussion is a bad idea, but I’m also excited by the idea of mitigating the headaches that happen when you do include ‘em so fundamentally.

(Yes, this ties into the “this vs. GNS” issues, but I guess I’m trying to avoid what I suspect is a totally unneccessary rats-nest of discussion.  For the record: GNS rocks! Vincent rocks!  Neither are sparkling-rainbow perfection - nor, in my experience, does either pretend to be.)



 

This makes GcL go "A (I hope) insignificant bit more for the record"
Saying GNS thinks that RPGs have 3 objects is wrong and inappropriately dismissive of GNS.

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":