thread: 2012-06-11 : Ask a Frequent Question
On 2012-06-21, Vincent wrote:
Frank T: "Vincent, would you agree that the whole "play the game as written, dumbass" mantra (a.k.a. "alway add curcuma") also falls into the category of "destructive" theory, so that the time is maybe arrived to move beyond it?"
I wouldn't, but not just because.
"Play the game as written, dumbass" addresses itself to players, not to designers. It's not the kind of roleplaying theory I've talked about at all. I don't use theory to address myself to players.
But the corresponding "design the game to be played as written, dumbass," IS destructive theory, yes. It lays bare the foundation of roleplaying game design, so that we can build something worthwhile on top of it.
The time has absolutely come to move beyond it. But not just because!
It is, like "roleplaying is a social act," the starting point of design, not the end point of design. And, just like "roleplaying is a social act," drawing attention to it is almost always, and relying upon it IS always, bad design.
Don't presume that anybody will play your game as written. Design your game to win players over. Design your game so that it draws them into playing it as written, and so that it fails gracefully when they don't.
It's not enough to design a playable game. You have to design a game that's more seductive and more forgiving than the players' own laziness.
AND ALSO
Don't presume that anybody will limit themselves to playing your game as written. Design your game so that it supplements their play, so that it fits itself into the their preexisting persistent rpg design.
It's not necessary (or possible!) to design a complete, self-contained playable game. You can (and must!) design a game that relies for its completion upon what players already know and already want to do.
