thread: 2006-01-26 : A Public Service Announcement
On 2006-01-31, Vincent wrote:
Nobody Special: A broader thematic range is only one kind of "more thematic." A tight thematic focus is another kind of "more thematic." I don't prefer one to the other in individual game designs - once you start playing, every theme+participation game has a narrow thematic range.
That answers your question, I think?
Unless you really are asking why GURPS isn't thematically broad, in which case the answer is that GURPS isn't thematically a thing, broad narrow or otherwise.
Victor: It's within bounds to use whatever language you want, if you're backing it up with substance. It's extremely appropriate for each of us to choose our words to convey the tone and attitude we want to convey, and to be prepared for everyone else to respond to us based on the words we choose. That may include me telling you something like "good point but you gotta back way off on the 'ignorant fuckwad.'"
If you aren't backing it up with substance, it doesn't matter how polite or impolite you are, you're out of bounds.
This makes NS go "Yes, that answers it."
Very succinctly, thank you. Would you mind explaining "GURPS isn't thematically a thing" or pointing to an article? I agree but I'm new enough to this that I can't articulate why.
This makes NinJ go "GURPS just doesn't have any thematic content..."
That's all. There's nothing there that gives you storytelling tools. The rules are simulations to a certain degree of accuracy of how the designers think the universe works. The most thematic content you can say the game has is that we live in an existential universe where stories don't happen. A view which is, of course, immediately subverted by anyone who wants to have fun using the system. So, once again, you start writing a new game that you call "GURPS" because you roll 3d6 to figure out if you succeeded.
It gives you no tools outside of the social contract to determine if stuff happens that has any meaning.
