thread: 2013-10-28 : A Question about Objects
On 2013-11-06, Vincent wrote:
Gordon: I remain perplexed.
If valuing this aesthetic aspect of the fiction, for instance, is compatible with pursuing the object of the game, then as the designer, I don't have to think about it, not once, not ever. Posing you the object of the game fulfills my duty to your compatible goal.
If valuing it, on the other hand, is incompatible with pursuing the object of the game, then as the designer, I don't have to care about it, not once, not ever. You'll pursue your incompatible goal to the detriment of your play, and lose, and next time either you'll pursue the object instead, or else you'll persist, and in the latter case sooner or later your friends will stop trying to play the game with you.
In all cases, I'm content to have provided you the object of the game, and to let you tend to your own compatible or incompatible goals yourself. Aren't I?
This makes VB go "As an aside..."
Lots of games do provide concrete support for personal goals in addition to their objects. Super Mario Brothers, for instance, has a timer you can try to minimize, coins you can try to collect all of, secrets you can try to find, fun skills you can try to master. My view is that while rpgs CAN have the same kinds of things, and many DO, there's nothing about rpgs that means they MUST. The Doomed Pilgrim and Murderous Ghosts, in particular, don't.
This makes GcL go "Things games have vs. things people have/play has"
Maybe I'm claiming "personal" goals (shorthand, I think there's details that matter about that) can exist in play regardless of whether they exist in design? And design has both the opportunity to work with them and the obligation to account for them? And that "focus on the object" is an insufficient accounting?
