On 2008-04-15, David Berg wrote:
I can dig "unwelcome like good literature". Neat. So if I don't like good literature, or don't happen to be in the mood for it on game night, then I fall into the group of players for whom Vincent says, "live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better."
I have all sorts of questions about this:
If you were interested in getting faster with it, you would. You'd also figure out how to do it without breaking out of the fiction much at all. This'd be a matter of developing good informal rules - I agree that rules are crucial.
Easier said than done, man! My "rules-developing" process is progressing, but it's taken years and included a lot of frustrating moments. I don't really view it as fun for its own sake, either (at least not the part that happens during play). Where I'm at now, I've got some informal rules that are fucking great. So my inclination is to say, "I'll formalize these, add pretty pictures, and sell 'em! And others will want them, so they won't have to go through the time and effort of developing them themselves!"
Do you expect that formalizing will rob rules of their goodness? Do you think that what works for one group has only a random chance of working well for another group? Something else I'm missing?