Started by AzaLiN, August 04, 2009, 05:25:07 AM
QuoteI think it's because the gamist strength of roleplaying games is that they present more complicated situations than board games/puzzle books can.
QuoteThere's just something painful about having an effective and easy option hanging within reach,
Quotesuddenly mutate either the rules of the RP world or the puzzle itself.
Quotebut it's not something you can use unless the entirety of the game...
Quote from: Callan S. on September 26, 2009, 05:26:23 AMAgain, where is the council of elders who decided it's not something you can use? This is what fiction first seems to do - it seems to simply generate what you can and can't do out of thin air. It's never attributable to a person, it's always just 'how things are'.But I'm getting into all that again. I'll put it this way - if with a particular product, the instructions have not told the person to imagine stuff (which is clear from just reading it - and by clear I mean it has given no instruction to do imagine things) and yet they insist on imagining things and then when the next rules 'flippantly contradict the rules of the game world' they call it obnoxious, the problem was this person wasn't following the rules.
QuoteWhat I'm talking about is expected player enjoyment in a game that isn't specifically built to accommodate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'.
Quote from: Callan S. on September 27, 2009, 07:28:16 PMHow do you know it isn't specifically built to accommodate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world'? By that I mean, beyond hearing your assertion on the matter, what could another person look at themselves to indipendently confirm that?
Quote from: Callan S. on September 27, 2009, 07:28:16 PMIn terms of expected player enjoyment, if they expect something which is merely assertion and not actually supported by the game texts, they are simply bringing baggage to the table. It's possible for anyone to come to any game, even a card game or board game, with some sort of assertion which isn't part of the activity at all. How are you discriminating between assertions, or could I come to a game with you and say this game isn't specifically built to accomidate us not wearing funny hats? Seems absurd? So how is the assertion (it isn't specifically built to accomidate disregarding pre-established 'rules of the world') proven to be any less absurd?