thread: 2013-10-08 : Recipe vs Game
On 2013-10-08, Josh W wrote:
"the object of a game is worth pursuing only because the contention with the rules makes it so"
That's odd. You could easily say that certain rpgs enable things that wouldn't otherwise be present.
Interestingly, a game that presents you with a recipe for something new will by definition be providing something novel. That means you don't get it till it works, unless it's an obvious derivative of other things. This also means that in the case of an rpg played by humans with it?s system enacted by us not computers, misplays of various kinds, miscommunications of that recipe or lack of applicability in certain circumstances, all of these can stop the finished bread from coming out edible.
The fact that you have to learn and perform the game yourself to achieve an end you haven't yet experienced, tricky!
Conversely, if the game primarily presents you with problems, then direct engagement with the structure of those problems is its own immediate reward. Learning how this game works is about learning how to get through its tangled webs to a natural known goal. The player's interests are aligned with the basic task of learning how to perform the procedures of the game.
But is that what we want? A series of games that give us the same outcomes we had before but with different obstacles?
I don't think so, but I do think that having the system be an obstacle can encourage system mastery, which can enable using it as a recipe for whatever it particularly produces.
