thread: 2006-02-09 : A Question for J
On 2006-02-10, Emily wrote:
There is challenge, but not really competition in this game. So, conflict and struggle, yes, but there's not a sense of winner/loser.
Most party games are more like this: you can't really lose "in the manner of the adverb",(a game where you take turns trying to guess an adverb that other people act out in actions you have them take: eg "drink a cup of milk this way", if the adverb was "slowly" they do so etc.). Though you can freeze up, or just not enjoy it.
But the point of the exercise is in having fun doing the things, not competing over resources or making someone else look bad etc. That last is quite dysfunctional and contrary to the goal of sociality for this type of game, I'd say!
So, it's more like playing frisbee with friends, than playing ultimate.
This makes JCL go "funny, I was going to post about this once..."
I was going to write a Forge post some time ago about forms of Gamism where the Step On Up is fulfilled by keeping the challenge going instead of by winning. The example I was going to use from the non-RPG world was "balloon volleyball", where people start batting a balloon around with no formal rules other than "don't let it touch the ground". This kind of low-interpersonal conflict Gamism is implied by the Gamism essay, but pretty much never discussed.
This makes ecb go "balloon could be a good model for collaborative games.."
..if everyone is responsible for keeping the tension high, and the conflicts escalating it would make for a gripping story. Hi John! (talysman, yes?)
This makes JCL go "yep"
That's me. Hi right back!
