thread: 2013-09-24 : What even IS the object of an rpg?
On 2013-09-27, Gordon wrote:
I'd say it's entirely possible - and possibly more accurate - to say that the game-derived interactions are simply a type of "normal" (what wouldn't be?) interaction. Interaction that is influenced by the game-rules, certainly, but not in any absolute way outside "normal," nor exclusively controlled by the game-rules. But that thing I think Vincent is pointing at - where the game rules actively push away some of the (sweet OR malicious) interactions that would/could have happened without 'em - is real, and hard to name. Displace? Partially displace? Overlay? "Supplement, perhaps even replace?" Something that conveys a significant alteration without a full or absolute replacement ... "Actively alter?"
All of which, while at some level very important, is at another level mere quibbling. So I'm reluctant to distract from the surely quite useful focus you seem to be striving for, Vincent - what I'm now thinking of as the designed object of the game, and those game-associated interactions that are primarily attributable to that design.
This has inspired a bunch of thoughts, but out of that fear of distraction ... for now, I'm just repeating to myself "focus on the designed object is useful no matter what other factors enter in. Let Vincent keep building, dammit!"
One thing I want to check on does seem directly on-point, though: while it seems right to say that lying about the object is only rarely a good idea, is there a problem in saying that the games' design can certainly (and sometimes productively) make the object of the game vague, contradictory, multi-layered, and etc? I think you've said as much, Vincent, in agreeing with nolandda, but I want to make sure I'm not off-track there.
