anyway.



thread: 2006-01-26 : A Public Service Announcement

On 2006-01-31, Vincent wrote:

Roger, no -

All things being equal, a theory that expands the thematic range of RPG design is better than a theory that does not expand it.

A bookshelf with ten tightly focused games on it, each with its own narrow but unique thematic range, is better than a bookshelf with one game with a broader (but less than tenfold broader) thematic range, and better than one with a hundred games on it sharing the same thematic range.

I don’t see a trend toward narrower thematic focus - I see a trend toward thematic material at all. GURPS doesn’t have a broad thematic range; it has nil thematic range.



 

This makes DY go "Gurps' range is setting"
right? I'm still learning all this stuff.

This makes RC go "Makes sense to me."
And for the record, I don't have any special affinity for GURPS. Interesting to see how it has immediately gained such traction as a counterpoint here, though.

This makes SLB go "GURPS"
...is the canonical example of "Purist for System" Simulationist design (see Ron Edwards' essay on Simulationism). As such, it's also the canonical example of a game design that runs screaming from anything that might look like thematic play.

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

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