Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8142401" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Well then we only need to wait that this new paradigm inevitably takes over! (I mean it certainly could happen, though I'not exactly holding my breath.)My point was that if people are talking about how to handle things in a game X and your answer is just &quot;game X and all games similar to it are hopeless crap, you should play game Y instead,&quot; then it is not super helpful.That's overtly harsh. Even in such game players have agency, albeit not necessarily very much. There will be strategies, there usually will be several ways to solve problems and of course there is a possibility of failure. Besides, if it feels sufficient to the players, then what's the problem? (Not my preferred approach, but still.)So you finally agree with me that you can give players agency without the players having access to formal narrative-control mechanics! Hallelujah, that's what I've been trying to say for the last forty pages!Furthermore in reality most games are some sort of combination of the railroady adventure path and full reactive improvisation methods, containing some more rigid elements supplemented by more improvisational content.I don't doubt that these rules help you, people think differently. I remember when Exalted second edition introduced very detailed social combat mechanics and a lot of people loved that. &quot;Finally a social interaction system with similar rigidity than physical combat!&quot; I despised it. It was anathema to my LARP-influenced freeform handling of social situations. It bogged down my favourite part of the game with a ton of mechanics that interrupted the natural flow of the conversation and forced me to consider mechanics while I just wanted to be acting. But does this mean it was a bad system? No, it doesn't, a lot of other people found it very useful. It just wasn't suitable to my mentality. Same thing here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8142401, member: 7025508"] Well then we only need to wait that this new paradigm inevitably takes over! (I mean it certainly could happen, though I'not exactly holding my breath.) My point was that if people are talking about how to handle things in a game X and your answer is just "game X and all games similar to it are hopeless crap, you should play game Y instead," then it is not super helpful. That's overtly harsh. Even in such game players have agency, albeit not necessarily very much. There will be strategies, there usually will be several ways to solve problems and of course there is a possibility of failure. Besides, if it feels sufficient to the players, then what's the problem? (Not my preferred approach, but still.) So you finally agree with me that you can give players agency without the players having access to formal narrative-control mechanics! [I]Hallelujah, that's what I've been trying to say for the last forty pages![/I] Furthermore in reality most games are some sort of combination of the railroady adventure path and full reactive improvisation methods, containing some more rigid elements supplemented by more improvisational content. I don't doubt that these rules help you, people think differently. I remember when Exalted second edition introduced very detailed social combat mechanics and a lot of people loved that. "Finally a social interaction system with similar rigidity than physical combat!" I despised it. It was anathema to my LARP-influenced freeform handling of social situations. It bogged down my favourite part of the game with a ton of mechanics that interrupted the natural flow of the conversation and forced me to consider mechanics while I just wanted to be acting. But does this mean it was a bad system? No, it doesn't, a lot of other people found it very useful. It just wasn't suitable to my mentality. Same thing here. [/QUOTE]

Verification