Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by clehrich, February 10, 2003, 11:42:59 PM
QuoteAnother example is groups who struggle to gain their Holy Grail of play -- frex, that moment of Narrativism they once stumbled across -- by using mechanics from traditional play and traditional styles are falling into this hole. They're thinking, "This is what role-playing is about, so we do it this way. But that cool moment of play I experienced/want to experience isn't happening (again)! Time to tweak the rules, again."
Quote from: clehrichgreyorm: Have I got this right?
Quote from: clehrich... sometimes in a given game, a player or group has something happen which does not normally happen in that game. They like this thing, and wish that it would happen a lot more. So they start tweaking the rules to create "that thing," whatever it is. Unfortunately, it is very often the case that the game system they're using simply does not support "that thing," and tweaking it so grossly that it does will create incoherence, because the vestigial elements will be at odds with the new goal and mechanics.
Quote from: clehrichBut at the same time, as others keep pointing out, there's no reason that GNS cannot be the basis for design. And this metaphor would support this: if the artwork is "broken," you can explain it in rules terms, but you can also deliberately construct an artwork that is not "broken" by following the rules. And this is precisely what is implied by the coherence/incoherence dichotomy: one should design one's games to be coherent.
QuoteBut the question I have is, are you saying that GNS is the foundation from which we break other rules, or is GNS the rules that must be broken?