thread: 2010-03-01 : Reliable vs Unreliable Currency
On 2010-03-04, ThoughtBubble wrote:
I had one of those blinks that lasted eternity. And it's very hard to sum it up well but...
I read this as saying that we should design games that not only "take into account" player's tastes, that we should design to thrive on them.
It's like, "system matters" doesn't invalidate "it works with the right group". Because obviously the people we're playing with are important. Aren't they the most important part of all?
And then, why play a game that doesn't let us put in our unique perspectives and abilities in a fun and fulfilling way?
Like, say that I, as a player, don't care about the fact that Vincent, as a player, is contributing to this game and what he thinks of it. Then of course I'm going to run roughshod over his fun.
And if I, as a player, can't be counted on to be considerate to Vincent, as a player, why would Vincent want to play with me? Because it's a role-playing game and I'm entitled to be inconsiderate?
Shouldn't the starting point be "Play the right games with the right people"? And from there we can build rules that assume that people will be playing in good faith? We can account for the fact that fouls happen, but not have the whole game be caught up in "what if this gets misused?"
I think half my personal damage is from people who ended up misusing whatever was available, and thinking it was just "that game" or "those rules".
Is it really that far out there for me to play a game I enjoy with people who I'll enjoy playing it with?
And if I'm going to enjoy playing with these people, then shouldn't I pick a game that'll let us maximize the amount of fun we get from our particular set of people by using us as an integral component of the game?
Dan
