I agree, and I obviously simplified my argument quite a bit by focusing on the Game Mechanics Design principles of the Forge as representative of the radical end of the spectrum. That's in part because I find the Forge work to be more radical than yours - by your own admission your games are using mainstream systems and, once play begins, the mainstream construction of a GM retaining his distinctive role.
The radical nature of your games comes in both selected subject matter and in the method of campaign selection. Of these the former is certainly important (and I'll admit the breadth of experimentation in your campaigns has been a large influence on my own gaming), but the latter is more radical (though, I hope, growing because even if it can only be partially implemented it is a wonderful idea that deserves dissemination). However, the radical nature of the campaign prospectus/dinner party model ends once the campaigns are selected and play begins. Players from other groups will be able to easily grasp the concepts of your play (even if they don't enjoy the subject matter); a player wandering into Dogs in the Vineyard or Prime Time Adventures would have a harder time.
Like you, I generally avoid the radical game mechanics end of the spectrum. I want the mechanics to provide the correct simulation of the chosen genre, but I don't want the larger break from the GM and Player relationship. I think these games have something to teach me, however - I adore PTA's "pitch" mechanic for getting player input in designing the series, even if I don't want to use the rest of the mechanics, or apply the pitch to every campaign.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 01:50 pm (UTC)The radical nature of your games comes in both selected subject matter and in the method of campaign selection. Of these the former is certainly important (and I'll admit the breadth of experimentation in your campaigns has been a large influence on my own gaming), but the latter is more radical (though, I hope, growing because even if it can only be partially implemented it is a wonderful idea that deserves dissemination). However, the radical nature of the campaign prospectus/dinner party model ends once the campaigns are selected and play begins. Players from other groups will be able to easily grasp the concepts of your play (even if they don't enjoy the subject matter); a player wandering into Dogs in the Vineyard or Prime Time Adventures would have a harder time.
Like you, I generally avoid the radical game mechanics end of the spectrum. I want the mechanics to provide the correct simulation of the chosen genre, but I don't want the larger break from the GM and Player relationship. I think these games have something to teach me, however - I adore PTA's "pitch" mechanic for getting player input in designing the series, even if I don't want to use the rest of the mechanics, or apply the pitch to every campaign.