thread: 2005-08-11 : Selling Rules
On 2005-08-12, Merten wrote:
This Nordic scene-er thinks you hit a nerve, there. In a good way; reading Nir's first post and the first point there - that's pretty much where I come from. Granted, I haven't seen Dogs in the Vineyard yet, but based on quick reading of Dust Devils and some other Indie-games, I have a problem with them.
I dig the ideas and settings, but I dislike the rules. There's nothing exactly wrong with the rules - just that I dislike rules in general. And as most of the games feel like they've been designed on top of the rules (as opposed to, on top of the setting), I find it kind of hard to be compatible with the game.
Personally, I tend to think it's more my own problem than the designers problem, though. I'll try to elaborate this in near future.
This makes NInJ go "A game is composed of rules."
Dig Vincent's (much) earlier posts on the meaning of "system". The games that exist that are good are based in rules insofar as they are a way to facilitate the players addressing a theme. Setting alone, that just gives you the theme (if it's good). Rules give you a way to do something with it.
This makes Merten go "Agreed, in a way"
I'll check that, thanks. I agree that rules usefull tools, though not the only ones. I think the same can be achieved by good enough communication towards the players.
This makes BL go "I think that for our present purposes, we can consider any method of communication between players, formal or informal,"
