thread: 2014-07-18 : Objects of RPGs
On 2014-07-24, Gordon wrote:
Vincent,
So I found (one of?) what's bugging me, and this thread is where it seemed to belong. I'm not sure if it really matters in the context of what you're driving towards. But for the record ... "Supplants," I think, is bad. Inaccurate and misleading - misleading in the worst possible way, pointing towards something that seems promising but ultimately bites you in the ass. Because gameplay is a "normal interest" - there is no keeping normal interests outside the game, as something into which gameplay fits. Normal interests are the very bones and tissues out of which gameplay is assembled. The game procedures/objects/etc. can only ever, um, "supplement"(?) other interests.
I think believing/expecting that procedures/objects/etc. supplant normal interests is a mistake. On the other hand, taking those procedures/etc. (interests provided/amplified by game design?) seriously *is* kinda required.
So like I said, not sure yet how much it matters. Maybe I mentally replace every "supplant" with "supplement" and we're golden. I mean, a claim that normal interests have no place in considering gameplay/game design might start me a-growlin', but I don't think anyone's saying that at the moment.
More, um, poetically, this thought came to me upon reviewing this for posting: Games are never "just games". Depending on the game, it can be easier or harder to ignore that fact. With RPGs, it's often harder.
