thread: 2013-09-24 : What even IS the object of an rpg?
On 2013-10-01, Gordon wrote:
Ben: Having different objects of the game at the same time (I'd say) can certainly be problematic, but also: divergence of GM- and player-object has been accepted (if not fully analyzed/understood) for, like, ever. Then again, with the "In The Labyrinth" example I posted over in "Game Texts on the Object of the Game", different objects using the "same" game are placed in different play-instances. That's surely easier, just like some CRPGs choose to have separate PvP servers and PvE servers. It's also interesting to me that one of the ITL objects clearly meets the "straightforward, easily understood, easily pursued" standard and the other mostly doesn't, but - different topic?
Vincent: I like the "straightforward, easily understood, easily pursued" standard, and I think that tell the truth is already covered (do it, unless [super-special case]). I'll add "vague" from my list as totally the same as "lie." But multi-layered and/or contradictory? My concern is, um, not fully formed. That there are common RPG objects of the game which are inherently (and often productively) not straitforward, nor easy to understand/pursue? I mean, a designer can still communicate that fact clearly, and there's usually a way to get easiER to pursue. But maybe I'm worried about skipping over the step of taking something multi-layered/contradictory (that is, NOT straightforward, easily understood, easily pursued) and turning it into something which approaches that standard. Then again, that's the job of the designer, isn't it?
Well, I've about talked myself into believing my concern is about something more pure-analytical than the practice of design, and "straightforward, easily understood, easily pursued" is a fine description for what the designer is striving for (if not strictly accurate about what she or he actually CAN do in some cases). So I think I can sit with that and move on, though insights from Vincent and others are of course welcome.
Josh "Conversly, games like sorceror find their object in finding out precisely how the core relationships of the game will break down, with the end game marking out the different ways that the original object has been voided in the case of this character." I'm going pick this apart a bit because it helps illuminate a distinction I've been making, and I hope I've been doing it right (or at least, as Vincent intends). Here goes: the object of the game in Sorcerer has nothing to do with the original object of the character, and is entirely with your "finding out precisely how." The design of the game uses the imagining of what the character wants to support the player in pursing the object of the game, but the two are not the same. Which maybe is what you meant, but separating the goal/object a character might have from the designed object of the game has been important to my following along here.
Hope this is somehow useful,
Gordon
