In a thread in the Scattershot forum entitled Vive La Resistance or System Doesn't Matter, Fang Langford raises the question of why incoherent games sell. He suggests that it is in part because there is a gamer market that expects games to be incoherent, inviting them to tinker and so fix them.

In contrast, Reverend Daegmorgan has suggested it's almost entirely commercial, that people buy the incoherent games precisely because these are the only ones about which most people know anything. Obviously if you ask the typical individual whether they've ever thought of playing a role playing game they are much less likely to know what you mean than if you ask them whether they've ever thought of playing Dungeons & Dragons or even Vampire: the Masquerade. A game needs publicity to reach people, or people won't buy it.

But Fang reasonably asks why these games are successful anyway, given that they are incoherent. Why haven't players by and large recognized the incoherence and abandoned the games in favor of games that work? He returns to his suggestion that people tinker; that some of us automatically without thought fix the things we find that don't work and others do so as part of the enjoyment of play. He also implies that because of this, role playing games have a more limited audience, because we're writing either for these people (in which case we lose ordinary people who aren't interested in fixing a game that doesn't work "out of the box") or for everyone else (in which case we lose the core gamer audience, who all expect to be able to tinker a game into something that works).

I'd like to suggest that there's another possible explanation for the success of these games. It lies in the way complexity causes obfuscation.

If I buy a board game, I sit down and read the rules in about five to ten minutes, and then I tell everyone how to play.

If I buy my first role playing game, I read part of the rules, and then over several days I try to absorb the entirety of the package, and figure out what parts I have to understand to get started and which can wait until later, and then explain to my players what I think they need to know, and we start playing.

We could be playing for years before I realize that there's something in the game that doesn't work; and even then, it might not be incoherence.

I think that my first fix for OAD&D was the creation of a leadership system. We had somewhere picked up the idea (it may have been in BD&D1, with which we started) that the character with the highest Charisma was automatically the party leader; but we recognized that as we brought new players and new characters into the game, it was entirely likely that one of them would have a higher charisma--and at the same time extremely unlikely that the party would suddenly start following this new person. Thus I created a system to determine leadership which was built on a combination of charisma, ability, and experience. It stood me in good stead for many years. But it had nothing to do with GNS incoherence; it had to do with a very minor uncertainty in the rules--who is the party leader, and under what circumstances does that change?

If I ever created a rule that addressed GNS incoherence in OAD&D, I don't know it even now. I can see the tension between the gamist priorities of most of the system and the efforts to use Alignment to mitigate the hack-and-slash aspects of play, possibly even to create narrativist priorities. I never felt any need to address them. The system worked well enough, in my experience.

People continue to buy and play incoherent games because the incoherence is buried in the complexity. They are not aware that they aren't playing "by the book" because the book is so big they can't absorb all of it and apply it consistently during games. Very few people were ever as close to the books in OAD&D as I was, and incoherence was never a problem in our games--which suggests that somehow I was modifying the rules on the fly to make them work, or understanding them in a manner which was non-conflicting. For example, I never told a player prospectively that a certain action was something his character would not do; I did use the DMG grade system and on (only) one occasion docked experience points for alignment inconsistencies. It all worked the way I understood it; but somehow I think part of that was that there were gaps in my knowledge, aspects of the rules that "never came up" because it didn't occur to me that they applied in a particular situation.

All this is to say that incoherent games succeed because the people who play them don't see the incoherence. They aren't consciously fixing them; they might not even be unconsciously fixing them. They're just using them as well as they can and failing to see the problems.

If you told the average D&D or V:tM player of any edition that his game was incoherent, he'd ask what you mean; and when you explained that you meant that the text promoted incompatible modes of play through emphasis on conflicting goals, he'd probably laugh and tell you that he's never had any problem with the game. These games may be incoherent, but you really have to understand them a lot better than most of the long-term regular players do to see that.

Does that make sense?

--M. J. Young

Here, here, I quite concur.

One related issue; Dungeons & Dragons and Vampire: the Masquerade have both been way commercialized and probably aren't the best examples. I worry more about the 'habit of Incoherence' that might be holding back less complicated games. Sure they reach a certain clientele, but doesn't the 'needed fix' hold them back outside the 'gaming community?'

I realize the usual response is that 'games need to be focused,' but I was trying to strike at the larger issue of audience. If 'games need to be focused' to 'go farther' doesn't that suggest that there are more than one audience to write to? I don't know; I also don't know if 'writing for both' will strangle most designs. That's what I desired to discuss.¹

Fang Langford

¹ That sounds off-topic here, but if your interested it is on-topic in the thread M. J. linked; you can take it up there.

I think incoherent games sell because they appeal, in part, to more people. A strictly Narrativist game appeals only to Narrativists (if I can mis-use the terms to make my point). A strictly Gamist game appeals only to Gamists. But an incoherent Gamist-Narrativist jumble has at least some elements that appeal to both people.

Then, people selectively ignore, forget, misinterpret and/or change the rules in the book to fit what they really want out of the game - just like you talk about, Mike.

I've seen it happen in my own game, where it's mostly Sim, but with some elements that I think lean towards Gamism. Some groups latched right on to those parts... in fact, one just had fun using it as a sort of vehicle arena combat simulator and dropped all reference to role-playing.

I'm still debating with myself on the topic of whether incoherence actually helps a game sell (as I brought up in a thread quite a few months ago). Coherence may produce a better game, but does it produce a better product?

This isn't a new topic before, and seems to fall in the same old debate pattern, why is X popular when Y is better? Before folks get all theoretical on this topic, I'd like to ask why we dismiss the historical answer? Namely, that X has traditionally dominated the marketplace and the mindshare of consumers, that network effects keeps X and things like X first in the public eye, and that few consumers are even aware there are other options. I don't see why we have to look to the qualities of the games themselves. It seems unlikely that the randomly selected game customer consciously chooses between say D&D and Sorcerer, so why he buys the first need not be explained based on their contents. If both games were equally live options to this customer, only then would such an explanation be called for.

I hate to play burden of proof tennis, but unless someone can explain why historical market position and network effects are not an adequate explanation, why look further?

Interesting post, M.J.

I wonder, though. I may be very much in the minority here, but I don't know of anyone who was the first person her or she knew to pick up an RPG. That is, you always heard about it from somebody else. So my experience, at least, was that there was always this sense that somebody (usually the GM) knew all the rules, but you didn't, and that was OK because the GM would adjudicate everything. By the time I was dealing with whole systems cohesively, I was not encountering basic RPG concepts for the first time.

If that's a common experience (though obviously it can't be universal), it's not until you start playing lots of games that you encounter an entire system as a unit, in which case the question of incoherence (as opposed to some other play problem, like group disharmony) only arises when you're already fairly experienced, and chances are have already made a stab at some rules tinkering and maybe even a limited Heartbreaker.

Doesn't this complicate matters? Is this experience unusual?

clehrich wrote: ....I don't know of anyone who was the first person her or she knew to pick up an RPG. That is, you always heard about it from somebody else.

I've been re-thinking my whole idea of "what sells" especially in light of the last time these ideas went around. (Well, actually that picked up again, but still....)

There was a lot of text about 'what is success' or 'what sells.' It bears mentioning, in light of the commentary about products 'being shoved in front of you,' what 'selling' means. But that wasn't what I was getting at elsewhere.

Success is a hard concept to nail down when many people have different measures. Certainly a monetary success model is pointless for a give-away pdf, isn't it? Not only that but there's also the 'spike sales' technique, where the hype for a game (getting it 'shoved in people's faces') sells it through in the first three months.

What I was getting at was the 'take it down and play it' type of success. I'd like to think this has more to do with 'repeat business' than meta-plots and fiction. I'm convinced that a game needs something to get people to come back again and again.

The reason I took aim at Coherency was because you'd expect, over time, that people would 'get tired' of an Incoherent game (with all the hype around Coherency). That might be happening (considering the financial ups and downs of companies like TSR and White Wolf).

A few issues complicate that. Take for example Ron's statements regarding Incoherency types:

Ron Edwards wrote: Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.

clehrich:
I can say that I was the first person to pick up an RPG and start a group as GM. I'd had two D&D experiences as a player a couple years prior but I was too young to understand iit and bored by dungeon crawling. When I picked up WFRP, I had only the most vague notions about what to do. Heck, it took me three months of looking at things in the bookstore to tell that BattleTech was a wargame (not what I was looking for) while WFRP was an RPG (what I wanted).

On "stupid" consumers
I wouldn't call the behavior of RPG consumers "stupid" but I think uneducated works well. Most gamers can't sit down and describe what they really want in an RPG game. They have to resort to anecdotes of what worked or just shrug their shoulders. My wife, after five years of playing, is still in this boat.

And look at most big debates in the industry. Why do people usually argue for Amber's diceless model? Because it aviods dice, which they don't like. That's the only argument I've heard from the non-Forge audience. I can bet those people are latching onto other GNS or style features in Amber that have little do with dice (or lack thereof).

Again, I think this is why incoherent games sell. Most people don't know what they want anyway, and the ones who do know are picking up on the aspects of the system they do like. An incoherent game has at least a small appeal for a wider variety of play styles, even if produces dissatisfaction in the long run. This dissatisfaction may even help sales as people go from one splat book, supplement and new edition to the next, hoping to improve the gaming experience. (Naturally, not everyone, or even a mjority, fits this model, but I've seen enough evidence to think it's common).

I think you raise some excellent points Fang.

I'm not quite sure if i agree that continued play is a result of repeatable results in the realm of feeling/impression, but you may well be right. I'll have to give it some more thought, but for now i think i can say that i agree with you. Now if we accept that the reason we continue to play a given system is that it provides us with a certain feeling every time (or almost every time) that we play it, the question arises: Are we cognizant of this? I know that, personally, i have not really looked at things in this manner, and so i couldn't really tell you what repeatable feeling i look for in games. However, i think that looking at things, from a design standpoint, in terms of what feeling you want to be repeated during play may in fact increase coherency.

Let me elaborate. One of the reasons i feel that games seem incoherent within the GNS continuum is that, as has been stated so many times, no one falls completely into any of the three categories. This means that people can enjoy some gamism in character creation and then enjoy a story that is narrative and simulationist. Of course, often players just ignore whatever parts of the rules don't do what they want, or avoid the parts of the game that cater to those rules.

I believe there is another reason, or perhaps an extension to a stated reason, that people play games that seem incoherent. Each and every game element that a player chooses to use forwards his ability to achieve a given "feeling" during play. As long as this "feeling" is achieved then the player is satisfied. For me, one of the repeatable feelings that i strive for (which i never thought about before) is the creation of a single memorable scene. The best example i can think of would be for me to recreate the opening scend from Xmen 2 with Nighcrawler. This scene generation may be elaborate or simple. It may involve the whole party or a single character. For me, if i come away from a session with the "feeling" that i've created a memorable scene then i feel that i've succeeded.

An in game example: I was playing a few weeks ago with a combat focused character of mine, and decided i needed some training in unarmed combat. So i seek out a dojo and observe. After a while the master comes and asks what i want, i explain. He has me demonstrate what skills i do have and then agrees to train me if i will do a task for him. I ask what it is, he tells me all i have to do is open a door. He takes me to the back of the dojo and points to a flimsy wooden door, he asks me to open it. I move over and pull the handle, the door is locked. I ask the GM how sturdy the door is, he says i could break it, no problem. I then ask the master if he has the key to the door, he smiles and hands it to me. As i unlock the door he informs me that he will train me.

Now, i don't know if anyone else finds this to be cool. But that single three minute scene in a five hour play session, made the entire night worth it. Now, the GNS continuum is unimportant in this case, all that matters is the creation of the scene.

Of course this raises the question of whether the ends justify the means, or if instead the path is part of the destination. I'm not sure if i know the answer to that. I think that it may be a case where the path is important.

Of course, i have again wandered from my intended point. What i'm trying to get at is this: Should games be designed from the standpoint of repeatable satisfaction? Should the first step of game design be to decide what repeatable "feeling" you wish to develop?

It's possible that this opens up an entirely seperate continuum for analysis than the GNS currently prevalent. Is there a dichotemy above GNS that leaves us with an entire branch unexplored? Could it be said that players play for GNS play or for Repeatable Experience play? In the second option there is an amorphus mix of GNS, as long as it furthers the Repeatable Experience then it is accepted.

I'm not quite sure if what i'm saying here is valid, or if it even makes sense. I'm kind of writing as i think. Does any of this seem valid? Or am i just babbling incoherently again?

Thomas

I figured I could toss something in on this thread that might or might not make people rethink the "why do incoherent games sell?" issue. it sort of grows out of this quote:

Le Joueur wrote: The problem with the 'the audience is stupid' model is there are other consequences that aren't present. I make no claim that I understand the underlying ideas of how 'stupid consumers' buy stuff, but I'm pretty sure that inertia is not the sole motivating force. As a matter of fact, looking around at other markets, I'd say that 'the flavor of the week' is more what 'stupid consumers' are interested in. Certainly, there is 'brand loyalty,' but if that were the only motivating factor why is the Swiffer so hot right now? How did The Matrix happen or The Blair Witch Project. I don't pretend to really have any idea what focuses these markets, but I do have a 'gut feeling' that 'sales momentum' isn't the reason that Dungeons & Dragons and White Wolf dominate the market.

talysman wrote: this is what happened to Dungeons & Dragons and later to Vampire: the Masquerade. a certain group played wargames. some of those wargamers experimented with one-to-one scale fantasy gaming with nonwargame elements, which swelled to a large enough size that Dungeons & Dragons became an established brand in its own right. afterwards, some role-players experimented with other brands, even giving a brand or two its own minor following. Vampire: the Masquerade was another brand experimented that created a large following. it grew perhaps mainly because it was able to draw in people who weren't familiar with or emotionally invested in heroic fantasy, but who were very famliar with Anne Rice, Bram Stoker, and the whole "romanticization of horror" subculture.

so, why are incoherent games popular? because they are familiar. people are looking for new material, but they would prefer it to fit in with what they already know. it's less work that way. sure, some rules of the game they already know may be incompatible with other rules, but you can always ignore what you don't like.

John Kim wrote: This doesn't make sense to me. The success of D&D and V:tM was that both were able to reach beyond the market of previous games. i.e. People who were not previously gamers *became* gamers through D&D and V:tM. It is not the case the D&D took over the existing wargamers. Instead, it found a new audience. To the new players, D&D was not familiar, at least in terms of mechanics. Many were fans of Tolkien and other heroic fantasy, but they did not know wargaming. (Note that I am talking about the original D&D explosion here. I do think the D&D3 was designed to appeal mainly to existing and former D&D players.)

grew perhaps mainly because it was able to draw in people who weren't familiar with or emotionally invested in heroic fantasy, but who were very famliar with Anne Rice, Bram Stoker, and the whole "romanticization of horror" subculture.

John Kim wrote:
Frankly, the tone to me here seems to be one of resentment. Frankly, both of these were grassroots successes. TSR and White Wolf only became big companies because of the success of their lines. There was no big-business marketting which drove their breakout games. If you are genuinely interested in what causes popularity, then you should look for what D&D and V:tM did right. On the other hand, if you aren't interested in what the unwashed masses think, then don't worry about popularity. Make the game that you feel is creatively the best.

I'm pleased to see all the response.

Jeffrey Straszheim wrote: I'd like to ask why we dismiss the historical answer? Namely, that X has traditionally dominated the marketplace and the mindshare of consumers, that network effects keeps X and things like X first in the public eye, and that few consumers are even aware there are other options.

Chris Lerich wrote: I don't know of anyone who was the first person her or she knew to pick up an RPG. That is, you always heard about it from somebody else.

Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford wrote: Now M. J. and Greyorm seem to collectively pose the idea that the audience is stupid. On one hand, that they won't notice Incoherency for a long time or that they just buy what's shoved in their face.

John Laviolette a.k.a. Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote: so, why are incoherent games popular? because they are familiar.

Well, that about covers it...

...for commercial and competitive successes.

But what about 'smaller' Incoherencies? Or more to the point, how do we put this to work for ourselves?

See, getting back to the 'feelings-sets' stuff, there's one I forgot to mention. The social gathering. If you get together with pals and have a nice evening, no matter how lousy the game was, you'll have a positive prediposition to the game (because you may attach it to the circumstances). This has been the explanation I've seen most for the 'D&D group that still meets even though their play rarely approaches functional any more;' they had great times, a long time ago, and are now living on memories alone.

Now, there are two issues with M. J.'s list. First of all, does each of us agree that they want market/commercial/competitive success? (I don't; I want people to keep playing the same game - mine - which means no further sales.)

The second issue is how to apply each item if we do seek that success. Should we make a complex game to hide the Incoherence that affords more diverse play styles under one brand name? Do we bank on 'branding' and do anything to establish a 'name' and momentum? Can we find and claim 'unclaimed territory' and play 'king of the hill?' Very interesting ideas, but I'll have to pull out; I'm not in it for the money....

Fang Langford

First of all, I'd like to apologize to John Laviolette. I meant to say that many other posts on these several threads about popularity have a tone of resentment. I may have misplaced some of that onto your article simply because yours was the last on the list that I replied to.

M. J. Young wrote: Why haven't the majority of players of these supposedly incoherent games discovered that the games actually don't work, and either looked for games that do or abandoned the hobby altogether?
...
I know from discussions that OAD&D is incoherent; I still run the game, and the incoherence never seems to affect our play. I don't know whether that's because my gamers all drift with the game, or I drift the game with my players, or there is some implicit means of fixing the incoherence that I've used without being aware of it.

M. J. Young wrote: So what do we have from this thread so far?

• Complexity does obscure incoherence.• Popularity and commercial success builds momentum for a game.• A game which manages to capture a major theme first can to some degree overcome subsequent competition.

jdagna wrote: I think incoherent games sell because they appeal, in part, to more people. A strictly Narrativist game appeals only to Narrativists (if I can mis-use the terms to make my point). A strictly Gamist game appeals only to Gamists. But an incoherent Gamist-Narrativist jumble has at least some elements that appeal to both people.

Then, people selectively ignore, forget, misinterpret and/or change the rules in the book to fit what they really want out of the game - just like you talk about, Mike.

I've seen it happen in my own game, where it's mostly Sim, but with some elements that I think lean towards Gamism. Some groups latched right on to those parts... in fact, one just had fun using it as a sort of vehicle arena combat simulator and dropped all reference to role-playing.

I'm still debating with myself on the topic of whether incoherence actually helps a game sell (as I brought up in a thread quite a few months ago). Coherence may produce a better game, but does it produce a better product?

John Kim wrote: I think that D&D was successful because it was easy to play. The dungeon map and key allowed a DM to run an adventure without a huge amount of work, without being a master storyteller, and without railroading the players. Dungeons are a limited environment, but they are non-linear.

Vampire was successful in my opininon because it was social. I was stunned by the first edition rules, where the combat rules were only a small fraction of the mechanics rules, and the sample adventure was a party.

I'll try to address Fang's goal of getting people to continue playing the game. There are I think two axis here, people can play a long time with a small number of characthers, or players can swap characrthers often, but still use the same game system. I think providing for both these modes is important.

I think the primary reason people will continue playing a game is what John Laviolette said about soap operas, play must be familiar and different as the time of playing grows. The difficulty is providing the correct ballance of these two things. There is the obvious DnD method, i.e. many classes, Prestigue classes, items, ect, i.e. a wide variety of flavors of familiar play(frex Diablo II).
This seems to be the dominant method in traditional games, and is favored by Complexity.
Other methods of providing a wide variety of familiar play would be generic systems(gurps)
and simply having a wide open system(Multiverser ??), or a bunch similar systems(WoD).
(Exploration of System?)
From a design point of view I think that it is interesting that Illussianist and Gamist systems must utilize the system to create a different/familiar play, while many Narrativist games utilize the creativity of the participants.

The other issues is that, I think in the long term, System disappears, i.e. people will play in whatever mode they want, no matter how Incoherent the system is. Of course an Incoherent system makes this point harder to achieve, also it will affect new people, along with having a residual effect on play(your unlikely to use modes the System discourages to much). I think this is different from drift(although they usually go together), rather than changing the rules, people know the rules well enough that they can 'go through the motions' for modes they arn't interested in without breaking stride.

My way of synthesizing this would be for the commertial/marketing reasons mentioned previously, people played Incoherent games long enough to render the Incoherence less relevent. Also, the incoherence becomes part of the familiarity, possibily why you still see new games with detailed combat systems. Finally, the Complexity of the system draws people in, helping them get past the initial Incoherence.

Hope that makes some sense, sorry for the long post.

(I apologise in advance for any incorrect termenology uses)

Balbinus wrote: Few people use all the rules of a game. Incoherence will often mean that with a little picking and choosing, a little homeruling, most people get something they want to play.

The irony is that one group playing V:tM is not necessarily playing the same game as another group playing V:tM.

Often I've been surprised in discussions of games which I have played for years to discover during a debate that rules exist which I was basically unaware of. On checking I usually find that I have simply always ignored the rule in question because it did not fit my playstyle. Similarly I am sometimes surprised to learn that a particular rule is not in a game but rather is a common understanding our group has in play, a houserule in effect although never written down.

jdagna wrote: I think incoherent games sell because they appeal, in part, to more people. A strictly Narrativist game appeals only to Narrativists (if I can mis-use the terms to make my point). A strictly Gamist game appeals only to Gamists. But an incoherent Gamist-Narrativist jumble has at least some elements that appeal to both people.

The tool analogy. That analogy says that the person playing wants the best tool for the job at hand. If that job happens to be tinkering, then great, make a tool that needs tinkering. But include with it a set of instructions for tinkering. If the buyer is someone who doesn't read instructions anway when kitbashing, no harm done. He can just ignore that part. OTOH, some may actually get something from the instructions.

This is why I subscribe to the Transitional model that Fang put out there. That is, make a game that can change using the system itself. That way, some participants will feel more comfortable. For those individuals like myself who will strip the game for parts anyhow, there's nothing that one can particularly do to make a game good for that individual in terms of throwing everything in. Because, if he's like me (and I think he is me), he'll be taking from more than one game, anyhow. And devising wholly new stuff on his own. There's no telling what he'll take from your system and what he won't. So designing to that spec is difficult to impossible at a guess.

Modular? Transitional? These all sound like value to the customer to me. Incoherent just means that for some people the game will be less than it could be.

That's my take.

Mike

Although he was not the first to suggest it, woodelf stated it clearly when he wrote: An incoherent game may, subconsciously, be the compromise that makes none of the group really unhappy--even if any individual member could be happier with a more coherent game of a particular type.

M. J. Young wrote:

Although he was not the first to suggest it, woodelf stated it clearly when he wrote: An incoherent game may, subconsciously, be the compromise that makes none of the group really unhappy--even if any individual member could be happier with a more coherent game of a particular type.

My wondering at this point, if I can steer the thread, is why don't such groups move to game systems that are more flexible, which allow players to define their own play priorities? I don't see any games that are on the top successes list commercially that fit this bill--they're either strongly tied to one approach (e.g., GURPS simulationist) or they're incoherent. Do we think there are no such games, or is there a reason why players would prefer an incoherent game which provides both support and conflict for each mode of play over one designed to drift or otherwise not to interfere with any mode?

--M. J. Young

The lesson to be learnt here is I think a simple one.

Either:

A) Incoherent games are more popular because in general they are more playable and more fun than coherent games; or

B) Incoherent games sell for reasons unrelated to coherency and the simple truth is that GNS coherency is largely irrelevant to how fun and playable a game is.

My money is on a mixture of both.

Concentrating on A though, I would argue that incoherent games are for most people simply better for that coherent ones.

Individual players may have play preferences, groups however generally have a mix of preferences. Few of us choose our gaming buddies on the basis of GNS preference. I have people in my group who's preferences are distinctly different to my own, however they are such good players that I find their presence at the table entertaining and desireable regardless of such differences and despite the fact our divergent priorities occasionally cause problems.

So, most groups are GNS divergent. That means a focussed game will only apply to a minority of players in most groups. An incoherent game by contrast has something for everyone, gamist elements for the tacticians, narrativist elements for the story bods and sim elements for the actors and immersionists. A bad incoherent design lets these disparate elements conflict. A good incoherent design gives each its space so that everyone in the group, whether G, N or S, is happy and served by that game.

For a game to have longevity in play in any given group everyone in that group must be happy to play it long term. That's obvious. Without incoherence that is unlikely though to happen.

So, I reject strongly the notion that consumers are uneducated or stupid. I think the opposite is true, consumers know what they want and GNS incoherence is a positive choice, not an accident.

To summarise, that GNS incoherent games sell is not an accident, it is a product of the fact that they are for most people inherently more playable than games which are GNS coherent.

Hello,

Max, you wrote,

Either:

A) Incoherent games are more popular because in general they are more playable and more fun than coherent games; or

B) Incoherent games sell for reasons unrelated to coherency and the simple truth is that GNS coherency is largely irrelevant to how fun and playable a game is.

Balbinus wrote: A) Incoherent games are more popular because in general they are more playable and more fun than coherent games; or

B) Incoherent games sell for reasons unrelated to coherency and the simple truth is that GNS coherency is largely irrelevant to how fun and playable a game is.