On 6/23/2020 7:25 PM, David Johnson wrote:

> Can we really expect these folks who have brought us so much fun for so
> many years to have consistently brought their "A game" every day for
> forty years? They couldn't have a "bad day" or a project where they
> "needed the money" or a licensee who did creative work but didn't aways
> follow directions well?

They weren't working every day of those forty years.  That's just how
long we've been poking at and/or tearing apart what they did over the
course of a few, sometimes separated by several - more than enough time
to forget and/or contradict what came before. :p

(Though to be fair in both directions, these conversations themselves
tend to be cyclical, bringing up the same subjects, and the same
issues/concerns/problems, over and over again.)

As for the rest...
The reason why "how it works" matters beyond the purpose it serves in
the game is that it informs and constrains my choices as a player.
Otherwise, I might suggest doing something that makes perfect sense to
me, based on my understanding (of the mechanism, the terrain, etc), that
is completely nonsensical to the GM; or, on the other foot, they may be
waiting for me to do the "obvious" thing that I have no idea is even
possible.

The further up (or down) the scale of abstraction we have to go to find
common ground and understanding, the closer we get to "I have no idea
what's going on or what I can do, so I'm just going to roll the dice and
you tell me what happens."  Some people may find that satisfying
gameplay; I do not.

--
---------------
Kelly St. Clair
xxxxxx@efn.org