Author Topic: If I am already having fun, why should I change?  (Read 24478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #60 on: December 01, 2008, 09:06:39 PM »
You're using a very limited example to make a large statement, and you're confusing color and system again.  Let me elaborate.

In your example above, you suggest running D&D without magic, and further suggest that you could get the same experience from it having changed the system.  In a very limited, short term way, you could perhaps do so. 

That's all I'm saying, yes.

Quote
But if you really look at the D&D system, magic is integral to how how half the classes function, it is integral to the mechanical character development process (magic items, etc.), and it's integral to the color of the world.  If you remove magic, then you remove all magical healing, which changes the game from heroic to gritty.  If you remove magic, then you remove all ranged combat except bows and slings, which changes the tactics considerably.  Furthermore, if you remove magic but then replace everything that it does with something else (technology, maybe) , then the system is the exact same, but you've changed color.

You could get a single, limited play session or two to come out "the same" if you made those changes, but prolonged play of any sort will be very different.  Because the system is different.

It would be possibly different, maybe even likely different, perhaps (I can definitely concede) very likely different... but not absolutely certainly so.  There are nuanced instances where the "experience might be the same if done with different systems".  We don't seem to be disagreeing with my point, just how often it happens and under what conditions--which I have no issue with that being decively "limited".

Quote
If you want to run a game with no magic hoodoo, no magic characters, no magic anything, then the entire point of this discussion is that while you CAN use D&D, or any system, you are better off using one that specifically is designed to work without it.  Cutting out the parts you don't like is changing the system, and ignoring the parts you don't like is changing the system.

I agree, except that the point of this /branch/ of the discussion was me politely saying "in the games I've played and run, we could have had the same experience with a different system"--then being told that wasn't possible.

See my frustration?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2008, 09:10:58 PM »
Playing a game where no one happens to be an elf is effectively the same as a world with no elves.

The distinction is pointless except as a zen statement.  Like if a tree falls in the woods.

So is there something else or are you done?
Excellent... so you acknowledge that it is possible to have the same experience under a different system--now we're just haggling about how different one can get (which I conceded some general guidelines about that at the outset before you got snarky about "in all cases", scooter).

Phew... that was way more strenuous than it had to be.

Are you genuinely interested in what follows from that premise... or were you just being facetious about asking if there was more?

. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2008, 04:55:10 AM »
Excellent... so you acknowledge that it is possible to have the same experience under a different system-

Where are you reading that?

And define what "experience" means to you. Because if it means sitting around a table with friends drinking beer and talking shit, then you can have that with any system, of course.

If it means that system rules manage your game world and that the mechanics match up with the intended style of play, genre, atmosphere, etc, then IMHO you are still definitely wrong. Of course you can run the same adventure with two different systems that provide rules fitting for such a setting and genre, and have similar results, but not identical.

Now the reverse argument, which you seem to be in fact making, is true, however: You can sometimes have different experiences with the same system - given that adaptibility is a part of the system, or that it offers different settings.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2008, 11:57:43 AM »
Pardon me a moment. I'm going to interrupt this argument that is of no use to me in order to actually address the original poster's question. Frightfully rude, I know.

I think you're over-stating your case, here. It's not the same as staying in the harbour. Playing a game you like and enjoy and not branching out to other systems is more like sailing that ship up and down the same coastline that you know and love and can rely on. There may very well be fantastic vistas and beautiful sailing if you strike out for a few days and take the time to look for them, but there's nothing wrong with sticking to the shores you like. I realise I'm saying basically the same thing you did, but I think I'm creating a more appropriate sense of scale, and I'm being neither as witty nor as sarcastic about it. ;)

Analogy is illustrative not demonstrative.  That means a counter via twisting the analogy is not a counterargument to the original analogy.  You need to counter the original sentiment. 

that sentiment is "it is cool to see new things have new experiences and broaden your horizons."  So you would be saying "you should not see new things have new experiences and broaden your horizons because blank."

Or you can offer the point that revisiting safe known things is fun.  Which we will agree to.  We think you should do both.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2008, 11:59:34 AM »
Playing a game where no one happens to be an elf is effectively the same as a world with no elves.

The distinction is pointless except as a zen statement.  Like if a tree falls in the woods.

So is there something else or are you done?
Excellent... so you acknowledge that it is possible to have the same experience under a different system--now we're just haggling about how different one can get (which I conceded some general guidelines about that at the outset before you got snarky about "in all cases", scooter).

Phew... that was way more strenuous than it had to be.

Are you genuinely interested in what follows from that premise... or were you just being facetious about asking if there was more?


This had better be good.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2008, 02:29:06 PM »
Excellent... so you acknowledge that it is possible to have the same experience under a different system-

Where are you reading that?

The acorn of "its pointless except"--the "except" is a small, but crucial first step.  Its a giant leap forward from "no exceptions".

Quote
And define what "experience" means to you. Because if it means sitting around a table with friends drinking beer and talking shit, then you can have that with any system, of course.

That's the next step.  Step one was getting to a place where we can acknowledge that there might be possible (even if absurd) situations where one can have the same literal and observable experience with different systems.  Step two is acknowledging that "experiences had" for people are not always literal--your beer and shit talking example is perfect.  That's a harder argument to make, but impossible to open unless we can honestly acknowledge possibility for what it is (if we can't admit that the first part is possible, we have no footing for exploring a more "gray" area like "experience").

I wasn't making any sort of "earth shattering" comment when I said that in the games my friends and I played, we would have had the same experience (our experience) with other systems (some minorly, some mechanically, some even fluffily different).  Then, I got hit with how I must either be mistaken or fraudulent (the only two conditions for why someone's words aren't true), and I'm in the process of showing how I'm not mistaken.

. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2008, 02:55:33 PM »
First off, all cases where your point is true they are known as trivial.  Like two games where people meet but they don't play they just drink beer for a few hours. 

In the example of the elves you have found a way that can be technicaly correct.

However, given the nature of 'system' there are no, non trivial, cases where this is true.   
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #67 on: December 02, 2008, 03:38:10 PM »
First off, all cases where your point is true they are known as trivial.  Like two games where people meet but they don't play they just drink beer for a few hours. 

In the example of the elves you have found a way that can be technicaly correct.

So, and don't let me put words into your mouth here, boss... you're acknowledging there are circumstances (trivial, absurd, insignificant, etc. as they may be on a case-by-case basis and held to other standards) where "it is possible to have the same experience with different systems". 

Man, I think you and I are going to be best friends... this is a major breakthrough for us.  Finally, you give a little ground and get a little less stubborn about the whole affair and we just established (huzzah) a first premise, some agreeable place to start.  How often does that happen, eh?  I feel like we should be very proud that after all the back and forth, where my position hasn't changed a smidge or a drop, we finally get around to acknowleding it.

I might cry, paetto.  : )

Quote
However, given the nature of 'system' there are no, non trivial, cases where this is true.

Alrighty, now we can explore this further (knowing where at least one of the limitations are to our dialogue).  Now we would have to establish a mutual groundwork for what constitutes "system", and "trivial".  We've got "true" finally out of the way (thank you, honestly, for coming around on that), and we can get to the cases that are significant and see what falls in and out of a new set of standards.

Now, systemwise, I fully and heartily admit that my definition is likely less nuanced than yours.  Its evident that you've put a lot more thought and effort (the podcast project by itself as an example, chief) into questions like "what is a game" and "what is system" and etc.--I'm a relative newcomer to having to be terribly specific about those ideas.

Now, the idea of what is or isn't trivial?  That's more my speed based on my background, significance and insignificance, justified and unjustified, sound, valid, reasonable, rational, etc.  Those are my kind of questions, I dig 'em mad crazylike. 

I guess what I hope to know is are you game for settling on those two terms--"system" and "trivial"?  Or are you immovable and uncooperative, high on the notion that because you are merely smart that must mean you're naturally correct on analytical things?  I concede from the start, and always do, there are always areas I might be wrong in--even those dear and near to me.  If you can give to the notion that your definition might become more nuanced by exploring it back and forth with me, I'm just as willing to learn something new, too.

This had better be good.

Incidentally... what if it weren't?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2008, 10:09:38 PM »
This had better be good.
Incidentally... what if it weren't?
What indication do you have that it was?



So, and don't let me put words into your mouth here, boss... you're acknowledging there are circumstances (trivial, absurd, insignificant, etc. as they may be on a case-by-case basis and held to other standards) where "it is possible to have the same experience with different systems". 
Yes.  For example if people don't play, the experience is the same.

Quote
Quote
However, given the nature of 'system' there are no, non trivial, cases where this is true.

Alrighty, now we can explore this further (knowing where at least one of the limitations are to our dialogue).  Now we would have to establish a mutual groundwork for what constitutes "system", and "trivial".  We've got "true" finally out of the way (thank you, honestly, for coming around on that), and we can get to the cases that are significant and see what falls in and out of a new set of standards.

Now, systemwise, I fully and heartily admit that my definition is likely less nuanced than yours.  Its evident that you've put a lot more thought and effort (the podcast project by itself as an example, chief) into questions like "what is a game" and "what is system" and etc.--I'm a relative newcomer to having to be terribly specific about those ideas.

Now, the idea of what is or isn't trivial?  That's more my speed based on my background, significance and insignificance, justified and unjustified, sound, valid, reasonable, rational, etc.  Those are my kind of questions, I dig 'em mad crazylike. 

Let me give you a trivial example from geometry.  What is the shortest distance between 2 points?  The shortest distance is if the points are the same point.  Then the distance is zero.  Is that useful?  Not usually, depends on the question.

A trivial answer is one that is technically true but not useful to use.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2008, 10:28:00 PM »
What indication do you have that it was?

You misunderstand, boss.  I don't mean "it is, so what would you have done had it not been", I meant "what would you have done had it not been?".

Was it just you being rude or was there a consequence there or what?

Yes.  For example if people don't play, the experience is the same.

And there are examples which include people playing, right?  Or are we sliding backward?

Quote
Let me give you a trivial example from geometry.  What is the shortest distance between 2 points?  The shortest distance is if the points are the same point.  Then the distance is zero.  Is that useful?  Not usually, depends on the question.

A trivial answer is one that is technically true but not useful to use.

Definitely noted.

Now, can you answer the question I asked after that part?  About whether you're willing to approach questions of system or triviality (the other two big parts to the equation) with some objectivity (pertaining to the object, not the subject--yourself, such that you entertain the notion that your current view of it might change in favor of a more complete or better explanation)?  I know it seems a bit silly to try to make that clear, but I'm game for a little exploration of the space if you are, I can always acknowledge where there might be a better definition so long as its got better reasons.

How about you?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #70 on: December 04, 2008, 03:06:56 AM »
Yes.  For example if people don't play, the experience is the same.

And there are examples which include people playing, right?  Or are we sliding backward?
OK, another trivial example would be, if they are playing the same game. 


Quote
Now, can you answer the question I asked after that part?  About whether you're willing to approach questions of system or triviality (the other two big parts to the equation) with some objectivity (pertaining to the object, not the subject--yourself, such that you entertain the notion that your current view of it might change in favor of a more complete or better explanation)?  I know it seems a bit silly to try to make that clear, but I'm game for a little exploration of the space if you are, I can always acknowledge where there might be a better definition so long as its got better reasons.

How about you?
The subject you are talking about is pretty minute.

Is there a better definition of system?  Sure, I imagine there is and that might be a better topic.  If you have some suggestions lets hear them.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #71 on: December 04, 2008, 12:13:46 PM »
OK, another trivial example would be, if they are playing the same game.

We appear to be losing the ground we'd made up.  Clearly put (and this is just about a "yes" or "no" question, I don't know that I can make it much simpler), are there possible instances where people playing can have the same experience with systems that are different (which would naturally preclude "not playing" and "playing not different systems" as options)?

I don't know that I can break that down further, and it seems silly to have to ask it (certainly given the several examples of such play already given), but it seems you don't want to answer that question assertively in favor of shying away from it.  Not an accusation, but a very well susbstanced observation.

Quote
The subject you are talking about is pretty minute.

I disagree.  When you go off and make a statement of absolution ("X is Y" and "No S are P" kind of stuff), breaking down what you mean by X and Y and S and P are entirely germaine... certainly if we keep finding you putting it in very black-and-white terms (like "there are no instances where" kind of stuff when you might be suprised at what instances are possible).  Past that, though, it says a lot about a man's character--how he makes decisions and judgements. 

The subject I'm talking about, your ability to acknowledge your own fallability in the face of as yet unknown factors?  Very large, sir, very large subject--its a foundation for all Reason and Logic.  Without it?  It says volumes about your opinion, of both yourself and others and the subject, and paints you with colors either showing an intellectual curiosity and objectiveness or a pettiness and defensiveness.

Its huge.  And relevant.

Quote
Is there a better definition of system?  Sure, I imagine there is and that might be a better topic.  If you have some suggestions lets hear them.

At least part of what I mean by "system" is the challenge resolution mechanics (and we'll find, we probably have different nomenclature here for the same or similar things--hopefully we're not likely to get hung up on those, rather than simply acknowledging them and moving forward).  I've been looking for ways that "system" can be more than that, maybe in fluffy ways or setting ways, but I keep coming back to the idea that its just the "rules" as they are literally.

Very textualist, in that.

What's yours (definition of system, then)?

As for triviality?  I think that'll have to wait for exploration until "system" is done with--I think you'll fight on that one and I'll have to get technical again and it won't be productive.  "System" is a good deal more polite.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 12:19:00 PM by flannel »
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #72 on: December 04, 2008, 03:42:46 PM »
Ok, so if "system" is only the "rules", as in, things you CAN and CANNOT do in a game, and HOW you do and resolve those things that you can do, in other words, game mechanics, then we, at least, are agreeing entirely.

Now I'll repeat my earlier statement: You can't build an identical gameworld with different systems, because the gameworld must match the mechanics. (That being said there are a ton of games being sold where mechanics and world are not sepparated well enough and the game-world doesn't match the mechanics at all.)

Now experience, which is a concoction of play style, genre, scope, and a few other aspects is based largely on gameworld. I'll hand you that the second biggest contributor to experience, if not even surpassing the first, is entirely irrelevant of the system, and that is your fellow PLAYERS. But that's not something we're talking about here.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #73 on: December 04, 2008, 08:52:52 PM »
Ok, so if "system" is only the "rules", as in, things you CAN and CANNOT do in a game, and HOW you do and resolve those things that you can do, in other words, game mechanics, then we, at least, are agreeing entirely.

We may put that to bed, absolutely.  No matter what we find, we are in agreement that at the very least "System", as we'll be using it, is that definition.  Spot on, hoss, spot on. 

Quote
Now I'll repeat my earlier statement: You can't build an identical gameworld with different systems, because the gameworld must match the mechanics. (That being said there are a ton of games being sold where mechanics and world are not sepparated well enough and the game-world doesn't match the mechanics at all.)

"Gameworld".  That's a tough one.  What are examples of "gameworld"?  I imagine metaphysics are (games where there are supernatural elements are different than games without them, due to supernatural element rules).  Definitely physics are (the amount of "damage" one takes from a "fall" or a bullet, or how much things weigh in D&D).  But are "pointy ears on elves" or "accents" or names for things a part of the gameworld?

A stark example would be--and here I wear my VtM roots on my sleeve, I know--that I don't think we're disagreeing that a change in the mechanics of vampirism would change the gameworld for Vampires in V:tM.  There might be a threshold for that, though, small changes yielding small divergeances in the gameworld, big ones making it almost unrecognizable--but not matter how little or much, its different... and that's the point. 

I lean heavily towards the idea that if you change the system, you're likely going to change the world--yes.

Quote
Now experience, which is a concoction of play style, genre, scope, and a few other aspects is based largely on gameworld. I'll hand you that the second biggest contributor to experience, if not even surpassing the first, is entirely irrelevant of the system, and that is your fellow PLAYERS. But that's not something we're talking about here.

Well, yes and no, boss.

Experience might rely on the gameworld for many things (ranging from flow to genre to style to "how" and whatnot), but I think its safe to say it also relies (in part) on Story (narration, perhaps?), Participants (the human factor?), and Environment (the RL when/where/many-other-variables).  To what degree someone's experience relied on each of the four (Gameworld, Story, Participants, and Environment), I just don't know.

Someone who is far more interested in Story might not notice a bit any divergeance in the Gameworld or much care who played.  Someone being a literalist on Game might not make note or walk away after with any real involvement in Environment.  If, like some of my more colorful ex-ladygirls, one couldn't care less about what was going on or how it was going on or under what circumstances it were going on might just be there for the people.

I suspect in the same game, those three might relate very, very different experiences.  As such, its not meaningless, is it, to take into account not just "what occured in all comprehensive detail" but also "what everyone experienced"?

In which case, for a given group of people, might there not be a different experience with the same System (the torchbearer for Gameworld)?  And if that's possible, a similar experience with different ones?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #74 on: December 04, 2008, 11:34:26 PM »
OK, another trivial example would be, if they are playing the same game.

We appear to be losing the ground we'd made up.  Clearly put (and this is just about a "yes" or "no" question, I don't know that I can make it much simpler), are there possible instances where people playing can have the same experience with systems that are different (which would naturally preclude "not playing" and "playing not different systems" as options)?

I don't know that I can break that down further, and it seems silly to have to ask it (certainly given the several examples of such play already given), but it seems you don't want to answer that question assertively in favor of shying away from it.  Not an accusation, but a very well susbstanced observation.
No.  As I said initially there are trivial cases, they are unimportant and you wanted to talk about them.  So here they are.

Other than those trivial cases the answer is no, you cannot have the same experience. 

And I say this in the sense of someone who figured this out objectively and am now telling you what I know.  And If I am wrong, I am open to hearing what you have to say.  So try. 

Might I be wrong, yes.  And I strive to be the most correct I can be. 

Quote
"Gameworld".  That's a tough one.  What are examples of "gameworld"?  I imagine metaphysics are (games where there are supernatural elements are different than games without them, due to supernatural element rules).  Definitely physics are (the amount of "damage" one takes from a "fall" or a bullet, or how much things weigh in D&D).  But are "pointy ears on elves" or "accents" or names for things a part of the gameworld?
Gameworld is the setting.  Or rather the manifestation of the setting. 

Now experience, which is a concoction of play style, genre, scope, and a few other aspects is based largely on gameworld. I'll hand you that the second biggest contributor to experience, if not even surpassing the first, is entirely irrelevant of the system, and that is your fellow PLAYERS. But that's not something we're talking about here.
Players are important.  But they are rather like the legs of a tripod.  You have to have good players, good system and a good setting in order to have a good game.  Loose any one and the game falls apart.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #75 on: December 05, 2008, 12:14:46 AM »
No.  As I said initially there are trivial cases, they are unimportant and you wanted to talk about them.  So here they are.

Other than those trivial cases the answer is no, you cannot have the same experience.

And I say this in the sense of someone who figured this out objectively and am now telling you what I know.  And If I am wrong, I am open to hearing what you have to say.  So try. 

I do like the trying.

So, only in the cases of "not playing" or "playing the same system" is it possible to experience the same game with different systems?  And cases where there are subtle differences that don't effect gameplay at all (for instance, those differences that don't come up in play) aren't possible?

I realize how frustrating it might be to get hit with a variation of the same question, but you seem to not want to answer it directly.  You appear to want to talk about triviality or importance of a category of examples when all I'm asking about is their possibility, not their importance.  For someone who is boasting "objectivity" you do realize that your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge a basic objective truth without heavy editorialization kinda robs you of the Speaking Authority you're promoting that you have.

We can get into whether examples are significant or not, but are you admitting that they're possible at all?  That an experience can be the same given, say, a system difference that never comes into play?  Is that merely possible?

Quote
Might I be wrong, yes.

Oh, there we go then.  Well done, hoss.

Quote
Gameworld is the setting.  Or rather the manifestation of the setting. 

The "manifestation"?  Its a colorful, spicy bit of prose, but... huh?

Quote
Players are important.  But they are rather like the legs of a tripod.  You have to have good players, good system and a good setting in order to have a good game.  Loose any one and the game falls apart.

I muchly disagree, a "good game" could be had without one of those three--also that there are other big variables in play.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 11:44:42 AM by flannel »
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #76 on: December 05, 2008, 12:31:28 AM »
We can get into whether examples are significant or not, but are you admitting that they're possible at all?  That an experience can be the same given, say, a system difference that never comes into play?  Is that merely possible?
Let me try a different tactic.  No, it is not possible.

Quote
Quote
Gameworld is the setting.  Or rather the manifestation of the setting. 

The "manifestation"?  Its a colorful, spicy bit of prose, but... huh?
The setting includes lots of things, the gameworld is just the physical part of the world.


Quote
Quote
Players are important.  But they are rather like the legs of a tripod.  You have to have good players, good system and a good setting in order to have a good game.  Loose any one and the game falls apart.

I muchly disagree, a "good game" could be had without one of those three--also that there are other big variables in play.
There are tons of other variables.  But you need all of those for a "good" game.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #77 on: December 05, 2008, 11:55:59 AM »
Let me try a different tactic.  No, it is not possible.

M'k... square one then, it is.

So, a game where bullets do different damage (that being the system difference, the "subtle variation" I mentioned) than another game (say a 2d4 vs. 1d8)... given that nobody (either players nor ST) brings up gunplay in favor of bats and knives (PCs or NPCs) and the rules for shooting things never come up.

It is not possible for the people playing to have the same experience given everything else about the games are identical--characters, storyline, rules for beating people with bats and stabbing people with knives, etc., etc., etc.? 

How is that not possible?  I mean, again, for someone boasting an "Objective" either nature/process-of-judgement, this should obviously be possible because it is--strictly speaking--not impossible (the only pre-requisite for something being possible).

Quote
The setting includes lots of things, the gameworld is just the physical part of the world.

So the Setting is made up of a bunch of things, one of them is the Gameworld, and the Gameworld is made of a bunch of things, one of them is the System?

And, going forward, the Game is made up of a bunch of things, one of which is Setting?  I guess the relational-frame needs clarification here (less prosey words, more mapping).

Quote
There are tons of other variables.  But you need all of those for a "good" game.

I still muchly disagree, you could have a failure of one of those and still have a good game.  Unless you're using some very subjective norms ("good"ness, "bad"ness, value-establishing).  It would be possible to have a good game (given good is a meeting of personal objectives of participants, and entertaining--possibly) with a poor system.  Or a poor setting.  It would greatly depend on what the objectives were.

That's just... well, logic.
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #78 on: December 05, 2008, 12:41:07 PM »
Quote
So, a game where bullets do different damage (that being the system difference, the "subtle variation" I mentioned) than another game (say a 2d4 vs. 1d8)... given that nobody (either players nor ST) brings up gunplay in favor of bats and knives (PCs or NPCs) and the rules for shooting things never come up.
Nuances don't make a different system. However, having or not having firearms, for instance, pretty much does.
The big differences matter more, obviously: HP or wound levels? Player mortality? Resolution mechanics, etc. Even the scale of probability for a succes makes a big difference:
Big dice or pools? D6s or D10s? Easy success vs difficult success (4s-6s or 6-10s vs. 5-6 or 7-10). Bell shaped probabilities vs. linear scaling, etc.

As a simple test: Try playing Vampire with Shadowrun resolution mechanics.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #79 on: December 05, 2008, 12:49:37 PM »

So, a game where bullets do different damage (that being the system difference, the "subtle variation" I mentioned) than another game (say a 2d4 vs. 1d8)... given that nobody (either players nor ST) brings up gunplay in favor of bats and knives (PCs or NPCs) and the rules for shooting things never come up.
Again, trivial.  Compare two actual games.  Can you have the same game with DnD vs WoD?  No, you are not even rolling the same dice.



Quote
Quote
The setting includes lots of things, the gameworld is just the physical part of the world.

So the Setting is made up of a bunch of things, one of them is the Gameworld, and the Gameworld is made of a bunch of things, one of them is the System?

And, going forward, the Game is made up of a bunch of things, one of which is Setting?  I guess the relational-frame needs clarification here (less prosey words, more mapping).
It only matters if it matters.  Do you need a definition?

Quote
Quote
There are tons of other variables.  But you need all of those for a "good" game.

I still muchly disagree, you could have a failure of one of those and still have a good game.  Unless you're using some very subjective norms ("good"ness, "bad"ness, value-establishing).  It would be possible to have a good game (given good is a meeting of personal objectives of participants, and entertaining--possibly) with a poor system.  Or a poor setting.  It would greatly depend on what the objectives were.

That's just... well, logic.
You can have fun, but I always have fun with my friends. 

Fun from the game depends on the three, for most groups of people.

This is stuff covered in episodes of the show.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009