Started by Ron Edwards, April 14, 2011, 12:56:50 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 14, 2011, 12:56:50 PMThe role of "saving the world" is the most conceptually problematic feature of the whole game. Is the game about overcoming one's attachment to the world or about saving the world? That distinction is utterly crucial ... making those two things uncritically synonymous unfortunately reduces the fiction to the level of an anime video game.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 14, 2011, 12:56:50 PMThe second option concerning Temptation shows that the game has a lot more to it than merely "can I get to the end square without becoming exhausted." At any point, depending on fictional events, the Prince player may decide that the Temptations have value to him - creating a different kind of victory.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 14, 2011, 12:56:50 PMThere may be a potential solution to this, (i) which might play the same excellent role as the option to yield fully to Temptation, but (ii) I'm not sure whether it's actually present in the text or merely inadvertently implied by the happenstance of the current phrasing. I'm talking about whoever narrates the fate of the world pulling a switch and saying, for instance, "Nothing happens to it." In other words, the option to obviate the fate-of-the-world content entirely, making the story utterly personal and incidentally - as I see it - adding depth. Is that actually present in the rules? If so, that's pretty cool.