To me this distinction seems pretty arbitrary: as per the Lumpley principle, the only difference between those "rules" and "suggestions" is whether the group actually allows you to get away with it when you go against them. I've often felt the impossibility for a designer to actually make his text somehow authoritative, and this is very much more so when we're discussing game moves you make according to artistic judgment.Further...
AW could not make the parts it leaves up to MC consideration any more legislatively constraining without also removing the freedom of artistic choice inherent in those choices.My estimate is that it's contradictory - if you take it that A: rules can only be suggestions, how they can at all B: become legislatively constraining enough to remove freedom of artistic choice.
How does something which is mere suggestion somehow do that? Or is it not mere suggestion?
No comments:
Post a Comment