thread: 2012-11-12 : Where were we...?

On 2012-11-14, Greg Pogor wrote:

It's all WARRGRBL in my head but I'll try to get it out, so if you don't get it, blame me for not saying things smart.

I have this nagging suspicion that if you want people around the table to do a thing while playing your game, having a rule that say "do that thing!" is dumb and doesn't work. Because that's not a rule, that's the effect you want the rules to have.

So you design a rule (or rules) that, if the players follow them, will produce the thing you want the players to do.

Like, in Dogs, you want the PC to risk their life to solve moral conundrums, but you don't say "GM, make moral conundrums! Players, solve them!". You make rules that will produce moral conundrums and give the PC means and needs to solve them.

Or like in AW, you want the players to produce concrete imagery but you don't say "hey, players, produce concrete imagery!". Instead you design your moves so that they don't work if you don't produce concrete imagery ("I'm going aggro!" "Okay, cool, how? With which gun of yours, and what do you actually do? Cause if you don't tell me I can't decide how much damage, AP or not, if the other one caves...")

0) anybody gets what I'm trying to say ?
1) am I alone thinking that ?
2) how do you do that !?


This makes GcL go "0-Think so 1-No, 2-With deep, sweet pain"

This makes GP go "nodding with approval."

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

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