thread: 2005-06-07 : Periodic Refresher
On 2005-06-07, Jonas Barka wrote:
One thought... (feel free to ignore it)
If the game is inherently less fun if the two circles just intersect a bit, do it automatically becomes better if we remove the part of "the procedures in the game text" that we do not use from the game book, using scissors or a black marker?
The result of this on stanard gurps play, as I see it, is something like the Dogs in Vineyard example, but with a smaller "the procedures in the game text" circle. With gurps freeform the circle would be completely gone. And as we do not have to remove the unused parts to ignare them, this would *always* be the case.
This would indicate that what you do not like is a game that do not tell you what to do in it very detailed, but leaves it to the players themselves. Is this the case?
For my own part, a game where the two circles cover each other (ideal game example), where everything you do in the game is covered by the book, feels pointless. A roleplaying game reduced to nothing more than a board game, and a board game with no meta game unaccounted for. I like boardgames, but would not like my game to be like chess. Capes, althou enjoyable, is not a roleplaying game to me, but more of an alternative to boardgames.
Is it possible that a large part of the "personal preference" when it comes to roleplaying lies in how big the "the procedures in the game text" circle is compared to the "how we actually play"? You like it big, and I, prefering a more free form approach, want it small?
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
