It seems to me that a lot of what you're saying in this new post is radically different to what you said in the previous one, which I was disputing. If, indeed, we don't disagree on so much, that's fine, and there's not much need to continue in those areas.
> What I'm saying is that what's not a good idea is to alter the rules
to make
> them so that they try to support more than one style of play (and,
again,
> only if it's problematic). Because in doing so, you allow the
underlying
> problem to persist.
IMO, to the extent that it allows the problem to exist (which, arguably, isn't very much), so would your alternative approach.
> But if a particular game supports
> a particular agenda well (and, as I've said, I think HQ is closest
to one in
> particular), then you can deliver a single agenda best by not
changing the
> rules.
Again, I don't agree - its perfectly possible, IMO, to create an agenda of your own by changing the rules of a system.
> Some
> RPGs, however, simply don't require any house rules to work best.
Again, I don't agree that that's the case - or, at least, not for all people.
> That said, why use a rule set that doesn't support your agenda and
needs to
> be altered in order to do so?
If you agree with 99% of the agenda of a given system, then changing the 1% part seems to me to be a reasonable strategy. This is doubly so if there is no system that supports your agenda 100%.
> >I confess to not seeing how what you're advocating isn't 'trying to
> >force players to play a particular way'.
>
> For shock value, I'll agree that it is forcing them. If they have
fun, this
> is bad, because???
If they do, great. But I maintain that one cannot always ensure that they *will* all have fun with any given agenda - be it one for a published ruleset or some homebrew version. That's my objection; your suggestion is not 'wrong', but neither is it necessarily superior to the alternative. If you agree with that statement, we have relatively little to argue about :) (Which would be good, obviously).
> From another perspective, it's only "force" in the same way as
having laws
> are "force." That is, it's a social contract to which the players are
> voluntarily agreeing.
Indeed; and I would maintain that changing the rules is just as good a way of maintaining that social contract as any other, assuming everyone agrees.
> >Indeed they are. And that's why D&D is a big seller. But, you know
what,
> >all those people who tried it and said 'we don't like it' - they're not
> >deluding themselves either.
>
> I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
You stated that 'all agendas are potentially fun' (that's an exact quote). That's what I disagree with, perhaps more than anything else you have said. You may find all agendas potentially fun, and that's great for you, but I maintain that there are some agendas which I do not find potentially fun, and that I am not unique among gamers. If all agendas were, indeed, potentially fun for all people, then it would logically follow that people who say they don't like (say) the agenda of D&D would be either deluded or lying, which is, IMO, simply not the case.
Y
> >Why do you assume that, if I say I don't like something, that I must be
> >either a liar or self-deluded, when somebody who says they *do* enjoy
> >something (except, apparently, a game with a house rule) is obviously
> >telling the truth?
>
> I haven't said anything like this whatsoever.
That seems to me to be the only obvious interpretation of the 'all agendas are potentially fun' line, and the associated paragraph in the original post. If that isn't what you meant, we may not have a disagreement, which is cool :)
> You are correct. I misspoke (typed?). I should have said, "As soon
as you
> change the limit on augments to be this particular sort of hard
limit..."
>
> That is, the limit I advocate is the soft limit implied in the book
where
> the narrator at some point starts providing push back in the form of
improv
> mods and such.
It seems to me that, where the group cannot agree on where, even approximately, the soft limit would be, that, if everyone can agree to a hard limit, you've fixed your problem and agreed your common agenda. If they can't agree, or only pretend to agree so they can avoid an argument, then, no you haven't solved it. But sticking with the soft limit wouldn't fix that, either.
> >You're left, ultimately, with 'which is more enjoyable for the group?'
> >And I maintain that that differs between different groups, and that it
> >is not the case that anyone can enjoy anything, if only someone
politely
> >asks them to do so.
>
> I think you're correct in that people often do refuse to try new or
> different things.
Actually, I'm talking about the situation where they already have tried it, and decided they didn't like it.
> But there's nothing about any agenda, I propose, that
> makes it superior to any other neccessarily. We're talking about many
> enjoyable ways to play. Yes people have preferences. But just
because you
> like Rock music, doesn't mean that you can't enjoy Jazz, too.
No, but it doesn't mean that you *will* enjoy Jazz, either. If you refuse to even listen to Jazz, that's one thing, but if you've listened to quite a bit of it, and have decided you don't like it, I am unconvinced that anyone's going to have an easy time persuading you that, secretly, you do like it.
In short, trying to persuade someone to follow a different agenda will not always work. This is because, for most people, not all agendas are equally good - if they were, we'd all be using the same rule set.
> In RPGs, somehow, it's become the assumption that you should cater
to all
> forms at once. When this tends to be highly problematic.
This part of your argument, I don't disagree with.
> It's to present the game overall, not just this one
> rule, and to use techniques with these rules, such that the player
would not
> have the problematic agenda in the first place. The problem doesn't
occur,
> because the player for whom Rob is creating the adjustment is
playing like
> the other player for whom the change is unneccessary.
IMO, doing the reverse - that is, creating the house rule, and getting everyone to agree to *that* agenda, is equally likely to work. And, sometimes, neither approach will work.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Powered by hypermail