Specifically for Edwards, it seems that incoherence leads to dysfunction if not identified and resolved. Dysfunction being gameplay that is not fun or successful.
Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I prefer a less negative spin on it. That is, maybe the different players are playing 'their own game', but its quite possible that this works! It is possible, at least, that the ways it doesn't work are worth enduring so that everyone gets to do their own thing.
Now, case 2 seems worse to me. If the game doesn't work, well you can obviously drift/customize, but it would be straight up better if it better supported your agenda in a consistent way.
I would agree with that...but would Edwards?
Thomas Shey
Legend
Well, sometimes people just decide mid-campaign that what they're there about is not what they avowedly were there about in regards to what they said at the start. Admittedly I've been known to look at them and go "You couldn't have told me you wanted to do something like this at the start so I worked with a system that had more systemic support for it, could you?"
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I don't consider the second really dysfunction. It's not like optimal, but it's not like terrible either. It involves wasting some time and like ignoring / going around systems, but play can still be functional. How much you are willing to put up with is group dependent.
The first is absolutely dysfunctional in my mind. While in any group there will be some differences, we need to be there to play fundamentally the same game. It's something we're supposed to be doing together.
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Last edited:
Interesting--that's not a usage of coherent I'm familiar with. All the usages I know of (other than the scientific definition) are much more general than that, and don't require only a single unified purpose/direction. The closest I can find is Merriam-Webster's usage 3a of "cohere" to mean "to become united in principles, relationships, or interests" but even that is still far broader than the usage you're proposing as it allows for the possibility of being unified among multiple principles, relationships, or interests.
Do you have a specific dictionary in mind where you're seeing that narrow usage? If not, is it possible you're applying the specificity (and neutrality) of the physics definition of "coherent" to the context of the non-scientific definition? If you are (or if Edwards was) using a nonstandard definition of "coherent" that could explain some of the disagreement on the usage of the related term "incoherent".
Then again, there are a lot of dictionaries out there, so it's entirely possible that there's one that recognizes a useage where the specificity of the scientific definition bleeds over into the non-scientific definition! If so, please let me know which one.
(Emphasis added.) I tend to agree with the bolded statement. From what I've read it seems like that normative statement was practically taken as axiomatic at The Forge.
Actually, is it possible that "incoherent" at The Forge may best be understood simply as jargon referring to games or play that do not adhere to that normative axiom? That would nicely complementary the definition you discuss for "hybrid".
We don't need to speculate about what Edwards said about incoherence and dysfunction. His writings on the topic are easily available online.
In the original GNS essays, Edwards says some things about incoherence here:
In the next chapter he adds this:
In the subsequent three essays, Edwards says some things about "incoherent" game design here:
There is some elaboration on that last point here:
The first of the later essays has no use of the word "dysfunction" that I can find. The second does, and so does this one. The diagnoses of dysfunctional play about competing agendas among participants - eg gamists who wreck or break simulationist-oriented play, or would-be narrativists who struggle with the GM over control of the story in a game that the GM is intending to be high concept simulationist with the GM making the major plot decisions. I think this is pretty consistent with what is said in the original GNS pieces: dysfunction, when it occurs, is often (not always) a result of incompatible creative agendas.
The problem with incoherent game texts is not that they make such dysfunction inevitable - no claim of that nature is made that I can see - but that they make it more likely, by encouraging RPGers to refrain from asking What is their creative agenda? and How are the particular techniques and procedures set out in this rules text going to help achieve that agenda?
Edwards is obviously not unaware that a very common way to resolve these questions in the real world, playing a system like AD&D 2nd ed, is for the GM to take charge and impose their will. He does doubt whether that's the only resolution that's possible.
In the original GNS essays, Edwards says some things about incoherence here:
In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently enjoyed. I think that any and all RPG designs have some identifiable relationship with the GNS modes, out of the following possibilities.
Can multiple GNS goals be satisfied by a single game design? It may be possible, but it is not easy. As mentioned before, merely aligning topics of Exploration with those of Premise is probably not effective. I conceive of two types of hybrid: (1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time, of which I am highly skeptical; and (2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together, which might be possible. Some possible candidates for the latter include these.
Drift is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play. I do not think that "drift" reflects hybridized design (in which both modes are indeed present), but rather correctable incoherence (moving toward coherence in one mode). Historically, drifting toward Gamism is very common; it isn't hard to understand that a frustrating and incoherent context can be turned into an arena for competition. Internet play has illustrated some distinctive drifting: Amber moves from abashed Narrativism either to Simulation with Exploration of Character or to Gamism with the emphasis on interpersonal control; Everway moves from abashed Narrativism to Simulationism with the emphasis on Exploration of Situation. . . .
Unfortunately, functional or nearly-functional hybrids are far less common than simply incoherent RPG designs.
The "lesser," although still common, dysfunctional trend is found among the imitators of the late-1970s release of AD&D, composed of vague and scattered Simulationism mixed with vague and scattered Gamism. Warhammer is the most successful of these. Small-press publishers pump out these games constantly, offering little new besides ever-more baroque mechanics and a highly-customized Setting (Hahlmabrea, Pelicar, Legendary Lives, Of Gods and Men, Fifth Cycle, Darkurthe: Legends, and more). Another, similar trend is the never-ending stream of GURPS imitators.
The "dominant" dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general (usually derived from GURPS, Cyberpunk, or Champions 4th edition), a Simulationist context for play (Situation in the form of published metaplot), deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules. This combination has been represented by some of the major players in role-playing marketing, and has its representative for every period of role-playing since the early 1980s.
The design is hugely imitated, ranging from Earthdawn, Kult, and In Nomine, to the mid-1990s "shotgun attack" of Deadlands, Legend of the Five Rings, and Seventh Sea.
All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated.
Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in application, the results are inevitable.
The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing" and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option (which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.
One may ask, if this design is so horribly dysfunctional, why is it so popular? The answer requires an economic perspective on RPGs, in addition to the conceptual and functional one outlined in this essay, and is best left for discussion.
*Focused: the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise (or area of Exploration).
*Semi-adaptable: the design is at least compatible with more than one Premise and/or Exploration across GNS goals. (Whether this category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable incoherence, is debatable.)
*General: the design facilitates a specific mode, but permits a range of Premises or Explorations within that mode.
*Kitchen sink: the design utilizes layers and multiple options such that any specific point of play may be customized to accord with GNS goals. (This design often ends up being a general Simulationist one, however.)
*Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.
*Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.
In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any" RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the new goals as play progresses is even more substantial. This chapter discusses why that effort needs to be there at all. . . .*Semi-adaptable: the design is at least compatible with more than one Premise and/or Exploration across GNS goals. (Whether this category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable incoherence, is debatable.)
*General: the design facilitates a specific mode, but permits a range of Premises or Explorations within that mode.
*Kitchen sink: the design utilizes layers and multiple options such that any specific point of play may be customized to accord with GNS goals. (This design often ends up being a general Simulationist one, however.)
*Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.
*Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.
Can multiple GNS goals be satisfied by a single game design? It may be possible, but it is not easy. As mentioned before, merely aligning topics of Exploration with those of Premise is probably not effective. I conceive of two types of hybrid: (1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time, of which I am highly skeptical; and (2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together, which might be possible. Some possible candidates for the latter include these.
*G + S: Rifts.
*N + G: Champions 1st-3rd editions; I'm interested as well in seeing the upcoming Elfworld and a proposed game from Hogshead Publishing regarding fantasy weaponry.
*N + S: Little Fears and UnderWorld (these games' degree of "abashedness" exists squarely on the border of the two modes).
*N + G: Champions 1st-3rd editions; I'm interested as well in seeing the upcoming Elfworld and a proposed game from Hogshead Publishing regarding fantasy weaponry.
*N + S: Little Fears and UnderWorld (these games' degree of "abashedness" exists squarely on the border of the two modes).
Drift is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play. I do not think that "drift" reflects hybridized design (in which both modes are indeed present), but rather correctable incoherence (moving toward coherence in one mode). Historically, drifting toward Gamism is very common; it isn't hard to understand that a frustrating and incoherent context can be turned into an arena for competition. Internet play has illustrated some distinctive drifting: Amber moves from abashed Narrativism either to Simulation with Exploration of Character or to Gamism with the emphasis on interpersonal control; Everway moves from abashed Narrativism to Simulationism with the emphasis on Exploration of Situation. . . .
Unfortunately, functional or nearly-functional hybrids are far less common than simply incoherent RPG designs.
The "lesser," although still common, dysfunctional trend is found among the imitators of the late-1970s release of AD&D, composed of vague and scattered Simulationism mixed with vague and scattered Gamism. Warhammer is the most successful of these. Small-press publishers pump out these games constantly, offering little new besides ever-more baroque mechanics and a highly-customized Setting (Hahlmabrea, Pelicar, Legendary Lives, Of Gods and Men, Fifth Cycle, Darkurthe: Legends, and more). Another, similar trend is the never-ending stream of GURPS imitators.
The "dominant" dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general (usually derived from GURPS, Cyberpunk, or Champions 4th edition), a Simulationist context for play (Situation in the form of published metaplot), deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules. This combination has been represented by some of the major players in role-playing marketing, and has its representative for every period of role-playing since the early 1980s.
*AD&D2 pioneered the approach in the middle 1980s, particularly the addition of metaplot with the Dragonlance series.
*Champions, through its 3rd edition, exemplified a mix of Gamist and Narrativist "driftable" design, but with its 4th edition in the very late 1980s, the system lost all Metagame content and became the indigestible mix outlined above.
*Vampire, in the early 1990s, offered a mix of Simulationism and Gamism in combat resolution, but a mix of Narrativism and Simulationism out of combat, as well as bringing in Character Exploration.
*Champions, through its 3rd edition, exemplified a mix of Gamist and Narrativist "driftable" design, but with its 4th edition in the very late 1980s, the system lost all Metagame content and became the indigestible mix outlined above.
*Vampire, in the early 1990s, offered a mix of Simulationism and Gamism in combat resolution, but a mix of Narrativism and Simulationism out of combat, as well as bringing in Character Exploration.
The design is hugely imitated, ranging from Earthdawn, Kult, and In Nomine, to the mid-1990s "shotgun attack" of Deadlands, Legend of the Five Rings, and Seventh Sea.
All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated.
Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in application, the results are inevitable.
*The play drifts toward some application of Narrativism, which requires substantial effort and agreement among all the people involved, as well as editing out substantial portions of the game's texts and system.
*The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated.
*The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated.
*Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it can be a lot of fun. Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, and Call of Cthulhu all facilitate extremely functional illusionism. However, it is not and can never be "story creation" on the part of all participants, and if the game is incoherent, illusionism requires considerable effort to edit the system and texts into shape.
*Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the latter. . . .The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing" and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option (which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.
One may ask, if this design is so horribly dysfunctional, why is it so popular? The answer requires an economic perspective on RPGs, in addition to the conceptual and functional one outlined in this essay, and is best left for discussion.
In the next chapter he adds this:
When AD&D was released in its late 1970s form, its content encouraged a "more is better" approach. The more players, the better. The more time spent, the better. The longer the sessions, the better. The longer the sessions continued, the better. Nearly all role-playing games used AD&D as the starting point for presentation purposes, even those with vastly different systems and philosophies of play, and so this dysfunctional approach remains with us to this day. The term "campaign" is especially misleading, as in wargaming it denotes a specific set of events from point A in time to point B in time, whereas in role-playing it denotes playing indefinitely.
For those forms of role-playing that emphasize "story" in the general sense (see Chapter Two), this approach is completely unsuitable. What is a "story" to be, in terms of individual sessions and all-sessions? In role-playing culture, one is often assumed either to be playing a "campaign," which means it should go on forever, or a "one-shot" session which aside from the connotation of being superficial is simply too short for many sorts of stories. The functional intermediate of playing the number of sessions sufficient for the purpose of resolving a story is nowhere to be found in the texts of role-playing. . . .
I think the most common dysfunction . . . is GNS incompatibility. At the highest-order level, if the people simply have entirely different goals, then actual play continually runs into conflicts about priorities and procedures based on those different goals. I think everyone who's familiar with the theory knows that this is a "no fault, no blame" criterion. I like potatos, you like pink lemonade, have a nice game with your own group.
More difficult incompatibilities also exist within each of G, N, or S. People may share the the large-scale GNS goal, but be accustomed to or desire different standards for [various features of play]. In this case, dysfunction arises from (a) trying to resolve the differences during play itself, and (b) anyone being unwilling to compromise about the differences.
Drift is the usual method for dealing with this level of discord. It is a fine solution for resolving within-mode differences, if everyone is willing to give a little. However, drift has a dark side, or degeneration, the disruption or subversion of the social contract such that what is happening is not more fun, at least not at the group level. . . .
The tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is.
For those forms of role-playing that emphasize "story" in the general sense (see Chapter Two), this approach is completely unsuitable. What is a "story" to be, in terms of individual sessions and all-sessions? In role-playing culture, one is often assumed either to be playing a "campaign," which means it should go on forever, or a "one-shot" session which aside from the connotation of being superficial is simply too short for many sorts of stories. The functional intermediate of playing the number of sessions sufficient for the purpose of resolving a story is nowhere to be found in the texts of role-playing. . . .
I think the most common dysfunction . . . is GNS incompatibility. At the highest-order level, if the people simply have entirely different goals, then actual play continually runs into conflicts about priorities and procedures based on those different goals. I think everyone who's familiar with the theory knows that this is a "no fault, no blame" criterion. I like potatos, you like pink lemonade, have a nice game with your own group.
More difficult incompatibilities also exist within each of G, N, or S. People may share the the large-scale GNS goal, but be accustomed to or desire different standards for [various features of play]. In this case, dysfunction arises from (a) trying to resolve the differences during play itself, and (b) anyone being unwilling to compromise about the differences.
Drift is the usual method for dealing with this level of discord. It is a fine solution for resolving within-mode differences, if everyone is willing to give a little. However, drift has a dark side, or degeneration, the disruption or subversion of the social contract such that what is happening is not more fun, at least not at the group level. . . .
The tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is.
In the subsequent three essays, Edwards says some things about "incoherent" game design here:
Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two modes (or sub-modes) . . .
As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say, railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily subverted, leading to incoherence.
Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire). You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending toward more agenda-based play of different kinds. . . .
I think that we need to distinguish between Simulationist elements vs. coherent design - the former have certainly been widespread, but mainly in incoherent games, with AD&D and Vampire as the chief examples.
As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say, railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily subverted, leading to incoherence.
Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire). You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending toward more agenda-based play of different kinds. . . .
I think that we need to distinguish between Simulationist elements vs. coherent design - the former have certainly been widespread, but mainly in incoherent games, with AD&D and Vampire as the chief examples.
There is some elaboration on that last point here:
The most striking feature across role-playing history is the astonishing shift in the late 1980s from assuming that Gamist play was the default to practically nothing - limited mainly to "old AD&D," various D&D imitators, Shadowrun, or Rifts.
I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2 to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist play.
I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2 to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist play.
The first of the later essays has no use of the word "dysfunction" that I can find. The second does, and so does this one. The diagnoses of dysfunctional play about competing agendas among participants - eg gamists who wreck or break simulationist-oriented play, or would-be narrativists who struggle with the GM over control of the story in a game that the GM is intending to be high concept simulationist with the GM making the major plot decisions. I think this is pretty consistent with what is said in the original GNS pieces: dysfunction, when it occurs, is often (not always) a result of incompatible creative agendas.
The problem with incoherent game texts is not that they make such dysfunction inevitable - no claim of that nature is made that I can see - but that they make it more likely, by encouraging RPGers to refrain from asking What is their creative agenda? and How are the particular techniques and procedures set out in this rules text going to help achieve that agenda?
Edwards is obviously not unaware that a very common way to resolve these questions in the real world, playing a system like AD&D 2nd ed, is for the GM to take charge and impose their will. He does doubt whether that's the only resolution that's possible.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
coherent
1. Sticking together; cohering
2. Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.
incoherent
1. Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent.
2. Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner.
The reviewers of White object to 'incoherent' by stating it has ONLY meaning 2 above, and are oblivious to meaning 1. As to "multiple principles, relationships, or interests" I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think coherent definition #2 above talks about "aesthetically consistent relation of parts." It isn't a question of multiplicity, it is a question of aesthetic consistency and thus things 'sticking together' and possessing 'cohesion, connection, or harmony' (or the lack thereof). So I think what RE means by 'incoherent' is literally that, but the reviewers took the meaning #2 of incoherent and assumed that was the only possible reading he could have meant, and thus objected to the term on the basis of claiming it implies that a lack of adherence to a single GNS agenda literally implies that the game participants will be unable to express themselves clearly.
It simply appeared to be a rather narrow and ill-considered criticism by the podcasters. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt, you often stumble a bit when speaking live.
See above... this was simply the first dictionary definition that popped up for each word in a DuckDuckGo search. It is a commonly used and perfectly cromulent dictionary AFAIK (not being some great expert on such).
Yeah, I'd be interested to know if there is some great degree of divergence of opinion on these words. I mean, I certainly agree that people use 'incoherent' to mean "someone said something to me and it was impossible to understand." but that seems at best a specific variation of a secondary meaning of the word.
Well, hmmmmmm. I think games could legitimately 'just happen to be coherent' and that's fine. In fact the original D&D game is pretty darn coherent! Especially in its more realized B/X form, where it is QUITE clear what the object of the game is, and AFAICT all of its mechanics and advice are pretty focused on that. However, lets give the authors some credit, while they may not have thought in terms of specific ends WRT agenda, they were certainly conscious designers with specific goals.
I think it is fair to say that most games which are designed fairly naively will most likely exhibit some lack of coherence of design. Even when substantial intent exists, without a framework which can describe play in a way which allows a thorough analysis of agenda it is hard to 'get it right'. I mean, 2e is a beautiful example of a game that is VERY incoherent. OTOH in terms of how it was actually played by most people it probably worked fine, 90% of the time. I know it failed spectacularly for me in one instance (after which I never ran it again) but I think most people just ran modules or whatnot and assumed that the rough parts were just the cost of playing RPGs generally.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
So completely divergent from AD&D
Similar Threads
