Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thyrwyn" data-source="post: 4113820" data-attributes="member: 12354">I think this is a really key point.&nbsp; The nature/explainability/'mere existance' of pre-encounter and per-day abilities is probably the biggest source of contention/discussion regarding the new rules that we have seen so far.&nbsp; One camp wants a clear connection between player action/experience and character action/ experience.&nbsp; Any game affecting action dictated by the player has to have a mirrored world-affecting character action.&nbsp; For them, the player experience cannot be divorced from the character experience.&nbsp; If the player hasn't said it, the character hasn't done it - and vice versa.&nbsp; To them, the character is the vehicle through which they interact with the game world, and the story is the result of that interaction.&nbsp; Anything that intereferes with this correspondence takes them out of the world and into the game.&nbsp; They can accept a rules set that limits the chance a powerful tactic has of succeeding as long they can dictate when they try.&nbsp; This is why Primal says such elements are gamist, in the sense that the effect they have on the overall player experience is that of 'you are playing a game', not 'you are playing a character'.&nbsp; Primal (and others) - is that a fair summation?Another camp sees said elements as narrative because they give the player the ability to dictate the effect that their character has on the story.&nbsp; To them, the direct correspondence between player action and character action is not as necessary - they want a correspondence between player action and character impact, which is a slightly different focus.&nbsp; To them, the character is the vehicle through which they participate in the story, which happens to take place in the game world.&nbsp; How the character's interact with the world is secondary - to how they interact with the story.&nbsp; They can accept a rules set that limits the number of times a powerful tactic can be used, if it works when they use it.&nbsp; This is why Kwalish Kid says such elements are narrativist, not gamist - because the effect they have on the overall player experience is 'you are telling a story'.Kwalish Kid (and others) - is that a fair summation?Kamikaze Midget - I agree with you RE: Accidental Suck, though I am not sure what you mean by it being 'in character' - could you explain?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thyrwyn, post: 4113820, member: 12354"] I think this is a really key point. The nature/explainability/'mere existance' of pre-encounter and per-day abilities is probably the biggest source of contention/discussion regarding the new rules that we have seen so far. One camp wants a clear connection between player action/experience and character action/ experience. Any game affecting action dictated by the player has to have a mirrored world-affecting character action. For them, the player experience cannot be divorced from the character experience. If the player hasn't said it, the character hasn't done it - and vice versa. [b]To them, the character is the vehicle through which they interact with the game world, and the story is the result of that interaction.[/b] Anything that intereferes with this correspondence takes them out of the world and into the game. They can accept a rules set that limits the chance a powerful tactic has of succeeding as long they can dictate when they try. This is why Primal says such elements are gamist, in the sense that the effect they have on the overall player experience is that of 'you are playing a game', not 'you are playing a character'. Primal (and others) - is that a fair summation? Another camp sees said elements as narrative because they give the player the ability to dictate the effect that their character has on the story. To them, the direct correspondence between player action and character action is not as necessary - they want a correspondence between player action and character impact, which is a slightly different focus. [b]To them, the character is the vehicle through which they participate in the story, which happens to take place in the game world.[/b] How the character's interact with the world is secondary - to how they interact with the story. They can accept a rules set that limits the number of times a powerful tactic can be used, if it works when they use it. This is why Kwalish Kid says such elements are narrativist, not gamist - because the effect they have on the overall player experience is 'you are telling a story'. Kwalish Kid (and others) - is that a fair summation? Kamikaze Midget - I agree with you RE: Accidental Suck, though I am not sure what you mean by it being 'in character' - could you explain? [/QUOTE]

Verification