How About a Change?

[fang_langford]

The ground covered by the Lumpley Principle is well trod. But what if it isn't the center of your game theory? What if the whole idea of apportioning 'credibility' and the conflict over whose 'turn' it is, doesn't fit your ideal at all

Comments

[lordsmerf]

Just thought I'd mention that I think that this is a very useful way of analyzing games. Not on its own, of course, but in addition to the more "traditional" modes of analysis in Indie design.

Thomas

[fang_langford]

That's quite a response. I do see your point, but overgeneralizing will always find similarities.

My point was that player-efficacy is targeted mainly at social ends. You get everyone to listen to you = spotlight time. You get everyone to agree with your changes = credibility.

I prioritize spotlight time or the social engagement of the group over a player's ability to affect the ongoing game. I'd sure welcome a chance to sit in on a game where credibility was more important than the social issues at the table.

The best example we've seen is how everyone knows (and possibly dreads) 'the GM's girlfriend'. That is clearly a social / spotlight issue and it overrides credibility as though it no longer exists.

As long as game had the GM carte blanche, I don't see this changing.

F

Well Said! Thanks

[fang_langford]

I'm glad you started off with your personal perspective on the core elements of role-playing games. You have to admit, though, that efficacy is only one of many personal agendas that can be brought to the table, right