Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Simon C, March 18, 2010, 06:11:27 PM
Quote from: Simon C on March 18, 2010, 10:36:02 PMI think my point is more that calling it Right to Dream doesn't give me any tools for examining play, working out what the fun parts were, and finding out how to make other games similarly fun. Treating it as if it were Story Now, and looking at the premise of play, does give me those tools. It's more useful to me to ignore Right to Dream as a thing, and just treat all my play as Story Now for the purpose of examining my play.In other words: Cool. It's Right to Dream. What use is that to me?
Quote from: Simon C on March 20, 2010, 03:36:37 PMpeople are saying "Of course Right to Dream is useful - with Right to Dream you can think about simulation and appropriate emulation" and I'm all "nuh-uh, that works for ANY game".
Quote from: Simon C on March 20, 2010, 04:58:42 PMI'm not seeing any differences between Right to Dream and Story Now design and play that couldn't also be described as differences in premise within a Story Now agenda.