Started by Callan S., January 05, 2008, 06:58:28 PM
Quote from: Ron EdwardsCallan,I think you're correct in that some kind of culturally-understood statement will have to be involved. However, plain old win-lose isn't going to cut it. I agree that "no one wins or loses" has often been a little dicey or dishonest in RPG texts. Still, win-lose simply cannot apply to Narrativist and Simulationist play. The key for them, or at least the beginnings of thinking about that key, lies in terms of successful vs. unsuccessful play, much in the sense that a musical performance might be. For instance, regarding My Life with Master, the answer to your query is functionally "no." The rules about that are subtle and superficially appear to support the possibility of the Master's survival, but successful play does mean his or her death. It was even a key point/principle during the game's design: "The Master must die" (I know, because I briefly debated about that point and lost).
QuoteI'm not just talking a checklist here - though in the end, it could mechanically just be a checklist. However, adding a win/lose condition to completing the checklist ties into general culture, and that makes it more than a checklist and instead important to forfil.
Quote from: Callan S. on January 08, 2008, 04:54:58 AMHow many times have they decided to hit the puck?If I sit down to say, play the card game 'lunch money', and I happen to play three games of it, the three games aren't one activity just because they happened one after the other. Nor is each hit of the puck part of some activity. Each hit is its own individual game. A games size is defined by your intent/goals, and how far those reach. In your example their goals don't go any further than hitting it once - they haven't planned to hit it a certain number of times, or until a certain number of goals are achieved.'Course, a lot of gamers are used to roleplay where they roll some dice here, or roll some dice there - but never with any real goal in mind except rolling the dice at that time. But they see the hours spent at it as a single session, even when its nothing of the sort. It's a series of small unassociated games, with some games forced to start from results of others, but not with any overall goal for all the activity. It's like the goalie throwing the puck back from the last goal and the next game of hitting a goal starts from where it lands - it's just hapstance result from the last game played, it's not an indicator of some larger activity.Playing the game of 'hit the puck' multiple times doesn't add up to anything bigger - you'll only learn whatever is to be learned from hitting a puck.
QuoteI believe you can have a win/lose situation in any game: Was your character successful? You win. Otherwise, you lost. But did you have fun? That's where there the successful/unsuccessful play comes in.
QuoteMy point is, I, sometimes play "hockey" for "playing hockey's sake" rather then "to make my team win the hockey game" and it was fun nonetheless and we played as hard as possible despite the lack of "winning" opportunities and/or incentives.
Quote from: Callan S. on January 08, 2008, 07:35:55 PMHow do you know you played as hard as possible, when you didn't measure it? When you didn't count goals and such, which would have measured that?