Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by lumpley, May 19, 2003, 05:42:42 PM
Quote from: lumpleyHey, I just wanna pop in and defend my little principle.Fang, I'm with you ab-so-lutely when it comes to participation and inspiration. The only reason to play with mechanics at all, as far as I can tell, is because they ensure your right to participate and inspire you to do so. I think that mechanics are usually a poor choice if your group is having trouble coming to consensus. (That should be obvious from my original rant.)But that said, the way that mechanics work is by determining (or helping to determine) who gets to say what. Whether the mechanics are protecting or abridging your ability to contribute, whether they're inspiring your creativity or blocking it, they do it by controlling a) what b) you get to say. That's all the Lumpley Principle says.If people are invoking "the Lumpley Principle" to shoot down good, interesting mechanics, they don't understand what it means.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsRules serve as a means of arriving at consensus about the imaginary events of play.
Quote from: YouOn topic for this thread: moreover, taken with all the parts in place, I'd like to talk about the different effects of prioritizing them differently.
Quote from: lumpleyI'd rather not get drawn into something personal, but Ron would be hard pressed to water down the Lumpley Principle. It's actually really stupid, a triviality: mechanics are a tool for negotiation among the players, no frickin' duh. I wouldn't've ever mentioned it at all, except so many people seem to come into game design with the idea that mechanics exist to represent the stuff of the game world.