thread: 2013-10-28 : A Question about Objects

On 2013-11-05, Gordon wrote:

Vincent:All rpgs, potentially - not every rpg, as actually played by particular players at particular times. Maybe I think this because of the presence of "Exploration", and maybe I shouldn't, but - right now, I guess I do.

I wouldn't say that The Doomed Pilgrim is exactly like MF0. It can be, but there's a range between "capricious and individual goals ignoring [emphasis added] the object of the game" and "always let me win," isn't there? 

I could say more, but - am I honing in further where I'm consistent vs. bizarre?


This makes GP go "What 'bout "game studies?""
Like "I'm not overly concerned about winning this chess game but I wanna see if I can keep all my pawns till the end" or "it's severely cutting my chances to win but dammit, I'm choosing to play this Catane game without any wood-producing city or town, just to see if it's possible" or "I don't care if the Earth is in flames at the end, I will play this game of UFO:Enemy Unknown just to unlock all the tech" ? Isn't it basically the same thing? Ignoring the object to pursue one's own agenda? That's something I've seen a lot of people do, often when they mastered the game and are looking for more, and especially with "noble" games like Go or Chess. I've seen a lot of people not having mastered the game pissed off when someone's doing it at their table though.

This makes VB go "Sure!"
And if we all agree to it, we've changed the object of the game. Happens all the time. I think that Gordon's saying something stronger about rpgs, though.

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

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