>From: "ttrotsky2" <TTrotsky_at_...>
>My argument there is that the agenda(s) promoted by the rule set may not be
>exactly the one I require, and tweaking the rules might bring it more into
>line with what I want.
I completely agree. Again, I do this a lot myself.
>>If you can get everyone playing to that agenda, why mess with what's
>>causing it?
>Sure. The question being posited, however, was that this wasn't the case...
Right. Hence my alternative solution being to get them to play the same way.
>>I will say that the number who cannot be "converted" to enjoying other
>>agendas is pretty small from what I've seen.
>I would estimate, from my own experience, that it's probably quite
>high - on the order of 90% or so. But I grant you that I have no hard
>proof of that, and, like you, I'm just one data point :) And, of
>course, it would depend on how widely variant the agendas being
>suggested are.
I don't think this is a problem. That is, I know that people can have fun playing Monopoly, and I know that people can have fun playing the "Pass the Conch" storytelling game. It's only that people have gotten this idea that there's one right way to play RPGs (which comes from problems in trying to play in more than one agenda at once) that makes them resistant to trying different ways to play. Once they're presented with an alternate agenda in a clear way that they can understand - on in which they can see how there won't be the conflicts that they expect - they're usually quite amenable.
I think at this point the only thing we seem to disagree on is how difficult it is to get people to play in a single clearly presented agenda. I think we can only leave it up to the individuals who may try it to decide how perilous it is.
Mike
Powered by hypermail