Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 5197513" data-attributes="member: 58105">A discussion of this blog post goes on on therpgsite. I posted there, I copy-paste here -please pardon the fact but it saves up time.&quot;The &quot;problem&quot; [&quot;problem&quot; here is intended as the game's challenge(s) -while clear in context of the original thread I cant copy paste the whole original discussion over here] can be&nbsp; anything of interest. It does not have to be an encounter. But it should&nbsp; exist and it should be interesting. This means that players should have&nbsp; the possibility of a number of distinctly different but desirable game&nbsp; outcomes -which will be based on their individual choices and thus&nbsp; &quot;personalized&quot;. So, what I am saying is that the game's design goal should be about&nbsp; guiding GMs to be creating interesting problems. This can happen by&nbsp; design by creating clear limits and rewards to player characters for the&nbsp; GM to handle. Why for the GM? Simply because players are not meant to&nbsp; handle their own limits or rewards while both limits and rewards have to&nbsp; work in tandem with each other if they are to work at all for the game&nbsp; to take place.This on contrast to Wotc which seems to think that it is not about GMs&nbsp; but about players. It tries to offer the &quot;problem&quot; directly to players&nbsp; by focusing its design goals on player character building. Why? IMO&nbsp; because this way it is easier to commercially succeed towards selling&nbsp; product as a tabletop rpg. So after a certain point 3.x's design came at&nbsp; odds with extensive GMing in a smooth way. In 4e they created a game&nbsp; where they simplified the scope of the game to a board tactical game so&nbsp; that the GM does only have to play out the strictly similar encounter&nbsp; monster pawns and free-form what happens in between. They sort of made a&nbsp; game that does neither help nor creates difficulties for a GM due to&nbsp; the game's own design. While it wants to sell to roleplayers, I am not&nbsp; sure 4e, at its design level, wants to be a roleplaying game. It just&nbsp; wants to be an &quot;encounter&quot; game and offer inspiring fluff for GMs to&nbsp; want to GMer by their freeform capabilities. &quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="xechnao, post: 5197513, member: 58105"] A discussion of this blog post goes on on therpgsite. I posted there, I copy-paste here -please pardon the fact but it saves up time. " [I]The "problem" [/I]["problem" here is intended as the game's challenge(s) -while clear in context of the original thread I cant copy paste the whole original discussion over here][I] can be anything of interest. It does not have to be an encounter. But it should exist and it should be interesting. This means that players should have the possibility of a number of distinctly different but desirable game outcomes -which will be based on their individual choices and thus "personalized". So, what I am saying is that the game's design goal should be about guiding GMs to be creating interesting problems. This can happen by design by creating clear limits and rewards to player characters for the GM to handle. Why for the GM? Simply because players are not meant to handle their own limits or rewards while both limits and rewards have to work in tandem with each other if they are to work at all for the game to take place. This on contrast to Wotc which seems to think that it is not about GMs but about players. It tries to offer the "problem" directly to players by focusing its design goals on player character building. Why? IMO because this way it is easier to commercially succeed towards selling product as a tabletop rpg. So after a certain point 3.x's design came at odds with extensive GMing in a smooth way. In 4e they created a game where they simplified the scope of the game to a board tactical game so that the GM does only have to play out the strictly similar encounter monster pawns and free-form what happens in between. They sort of made a game that does neither help nor creates difficulties for a GM due to the game's own design. While it wants to sell to roleplayers, I am not sure 4e, at its design level, wants to be a roleplaying game. It just wants to be an "encounter" game and offer inspiring fluff for GMs to want to GMer by their freeform capabilities.[/I] " [/QUOTE]

Verification