Re: Ho Much Rule fiddling Is Tolerable?

From: Brian Curley <bkcurley_at_54OXlSwmDxooQoaS70K-HhzPrSEy0pma0XhQzlM9ggcgGAzF0q-LzRxeOb7BNosWZAb>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:06:28 -0500

Sam Elliot wrote:
> Brian:

>> I'm not saying it's possible every time. Sometimes players are going to
>> get to the climax and just watch, even when given the chance to do
>> something important and exciting. But, again, I don't see as how that's
>> possibly a game system thing... it's a game *play* thing and no system
>> is immune to it.

>
> You know that isn't entirely true. Everyone always being involved is, for
> example, an explicit feature of game design in CAPES.

So, in CAPES, there is no way to have a scene or action in which everyone isn't involved? I know *THAT* isn't true. There is no mechanism in CAPES that *requires* every character to be involved in every action. Ergo, it is still not a game *system* thing.

> The mechanics of that
> wouldn't transport over to HQ directly, but it is an issue which can be
> addressed in game design. HQ has it to some degree in the group extended
> contest option, but we can sill run into the problem of disparate character
> goals, as has been discussed before, somewhere.

Again, there is no game system where the problem of disparate character goals *isn't* a possibility. There are gaming styles where they are more or less likely to be a problem, but not game systems.

BKC