thread: 2006-01-11 : Two kinds of me

On 2006-01-11, Levi Kornelsen wrote:

Vincent, I'm going to have to argue with you, there, in a fashion.

I'd say that the fact that players MUST seek out theory in order to better their play is the indictment.

That is, it's not that the games are bad.  It's that the games don't ALSO teach their players the basic stuff - theory stuff, really - that equips those players design the games and gameplay to what they want.

In a way, given the way you're using the terms, many games fail because, in play, they don't teach their players how to design the game that they're playing.

...Okay, maybe I'm not disagreeing at all, now that I look at that.


This makes LBK go "Agh."
I type too fast. That should be "that equips those players to redesign the games and gameplay *to* what they want". Sorry.

This makes RIF go "Or maybe it's just..."
... that so far, theory discussions are the only place where "social contract" items, preferences of play beyond "genre" or "rules-lite/heavy" or even "powergamer/rules lawyer/method actor" are being seriously dissected and addressed?

This makes CS go "Or..."
It's that many people don't actually want plug and play one size fits many game designs, and so will need, no matter what, to be able to redesign and adjust the published games (should they be the sort who play published games).

This makes LBK go "You're both right."
Any game (that is, most) that's going to have those issues should naturally lead into discussion of them in the rulebook, I'd say.

This makes JK go "yah"
Especially like "or" -- RPGs aren't board games, and even board games frequently have optional rules that let the players adjust/tweak the setup. Theory is a tool that helps players decide how they want to tweak an RPG.

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":