John Hughes' post read a little oddly to me, as he seemed to be replying to his own interpretation of the doctrine of "Maximum Game Fun," rather than looking at the circumstances in which it has been invoked by its proponents. I doubt you'll find anything even approaching the level of "exploding Ulerian were-hobbits" cited as an example of MGF by any serious poster to the Digest: rather, it tends to be cited as an enabler -- permitting deviation from "strict" or "literal" or "realistic" interpretations of "Gloranthan reality" (or, more important, "real reality") in order to increase players' enjoyment of a Gloranthan experience. We're striving to make some of the odder published details of the world into assets rather than obstacles to our gaming.
The point about MGF is surely that it's subjective. We invoke it when we think something is "good" -- not saying "this is funny/hilarious" but "this is something that will make Glorantha more enjoyable for your players." It has nothing to do with hack'n'slay adventuring, beer'n'pretzels gaming, backroom-humour gaming, or any of the other degenerate forms of our hobby. It's a way of focusing authors' work on the end product: we should be producing a non-dictatorial, enjoyable, usable game setting, not a thoroughly-researched but unplayable thesis. The difference between Sun County and the Glorious ReAscent, in a nutshell.
Powered by hypermail