thread: 2015-03-23 : The Vengeful Demon of the Ring as a Con Game
On 2015-03-24, Tim Ralphs wrote:
An interesting thing has happened when you've changed it to a con game. You've got rid of the word "roleplaying."
I think that's significant, because it means we're now asking different questions. We're asking; Hey, does the idea that someone can be an unwitting player in a game lead us to better game design? Does it raise ethical questions? Do roleplay games need shared imaginary spaces? Is there a meaningful difference between a roleplay game and a con-game (or a parlour game) or is creating that distinction only going to limit game design?
Some of those questions are really interesting to me, others less so. The idea of shared imaginary space is something I'm still quite committed to. Good grief, just think of the impact of an idea like "unwitting players" on the "smelly chamberlain" discussion!
This makes AD go "I don't think chamberlain contradicts this"
When the other players all agree he's smelly and the GM doesn't, and doesn't notice, doesn't that make the GM an unwitting player in the game (at least the part concerning the stench of the chamberlain)?
This makes TR go "Maybe!"
I thought the overall consensus coming away from Chamberlain was that something was only true when all the players agreed to it. Yours would seem to be a wider interpretation.
This makes AD go ""Only true when all players agreed...""
I think that's for a narrow definition of positively functional play of "usual" RPGs, not all and every possible game (or even every RPG)
