It's an interesting read. He has a rather extreme view, to my mind. I think Implicit is rather different to Explicit - as we're seeing in several threads dominating the front page at the moment.

When the implicit matches up with the explicit in the setting/mechanics mash up, then i'd say you have a bigger problem than an implicit setting alone. Considering that Explicit mechanics are generally used to model behaviour to get a (more) restrictive range of outcomes, as well as in the more traditional sense of conflict resolution etc.

As usual, it's down to what you use that Implicit/Explicit material for.

Quote from: HinterWelt;257609A difference, put to game terms, seems to be developing in the Maid and Carcossa threads. In maid, underage sex seems more implied if you will, or possibly talked about but you could play the entire game light hearted and with nothing to do with sex. The group determines their comfort level.

(CLIP)

Sorry, rambling there. Like Paul says, probably only interesting to me and Clash at this point.

So, Clash, am I caffeine deficient and off base here?

Bill

No, I'm with you. I still think what you are calling "Intent" I would call "Enforcement of Intent" but that's just semantics. I agree entirely with your basic point, which is that system neutrality - i.e. avoidance of enforcement of the author's intent - allows but does not require. Thus the group can pitch the game at whatever level it wishes. I don't know the specifics of the games you mention, having no interest in their settings at all, but I think I can glean your meaning. By using mechanical enforcement of intent, the author of Carcossa ensures that anyone playing this game must either play at the level he dictates, or replace the magic system entirely. This mechanical enforcement is lacking in Maid, thus the group is free to play at any given level of squick. I am ALWAYS in favor of group decision over designer fiat. If what you say is true, I would have no problem playing a game of Maid if I actually liked the subject matter, while Carcossa would force me to rise up in righteous indignation.

-clash

Quote from: One Horse Town;257715It's an interesting read. He has a rather extreme view, to my mind. I think Implicit is rather different to Explicit - as we're seeing in several threads dominating the front page at the moment.

When the implicit matches up with the explicit in the setting/mechanics mash up, then i'd say you have a bigger problem than an implicit setting alone. Considering that Explicit mechanics are generally used to model behaviour to get a (more) restrictive range of outcomes, as well as in the more traditional sense of conflict resolution etc.

As usual, it's down to what you use that Implicit/Explicit material for.

I didn't see any reference to Implicit/Explicit in the Varney article, Dan. Where is this split defined?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;257764I didn't see any reference to Implicit/Explicit in the Varney article, Dan. Where is this split defined?

-clash

It's not (although i think there's mention of the implied setting of T2000), it's my own read on things.

Quote from: HinterWelt;257229This goes back to my point on modeling. A subtle but important (to me) point. Did you choose your stats because you feel people should know about faith, that you had something to share about faith or because you thought it the best way to model your setting?

For me it be modeling the setting--I don't want to influence people to a particular idea outside what the game is/does---in short my intent is nearly always to craft the genre and what's important to the genre and allow that to be shaped by the group who uses it.

QuoteIn the end, I guess it depends a lot on how you define "intent". To me, it is a capricious thing, an element from outside the design of the setting and system. Something from your personal life or a message you are trying to send readers like "Man-boy love is fine" or "Tolerance is good". To me, such messages do not belong in a game.

Bill

Well. In essence I have an intent with some of my games--for example there is a reason Hearts & Souls was my first entirely from the ground up game I put out. Because I want to write games about playing heroes.

That stays true in many games I create. Characters in my games are supposed to be standing for something--they may not always be right, or moral, but the end is the thing I'm after--standing on the right side at the end to make the big choice. Part of it is there are plenty of games with moral ambivalence.  (D&D, Most of WOD/NWOD, Rifts) where you can pick a side and play it. I don't want that in my games that I sit down at the table to play, so I don't write that into my games either.

Now its not entirely conscious choice. I write what I want to play. The way most people play "evil" or even "neutral", is simple, very basic and not complex. It isn't really a role-playing challenge to the players. (I can do evil, easily, its just not fun for me unless as a GM and the PC kick my NPC's tails--thats fun for me, I don't make it easy though. Ever.)


I prefer games where the moral choice isn't easy--where doing the right thing costs--requires effort and judgment and isn't always easy. So by writing what I want to play I create an intent--this also models the genres I enjoy, because they feed back to one another.

Now am I trying to make a point about evils in the real world, or being good? Not really. That isn't the purpose of a game, while I truly like to encourage more positive and thoughtful moral choices both in gaming and out, one is simply a side effect of me writing something--not a hammer to the head.

Plus if people don't like what I write, they can choose other games. So what influence my writing has, is only on people who are willing to buy into the basic genre conceits anyway.