Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2904267" data-attributes="member: 6777">This isn't competition so much as agenda conflict, from the sound of it. One group of players wants to pit their bad-ass PCs against some monsters and flex their rules-fu, while the other group doesn't care about that at all, and want to just immesre themselves or whatever.Neither group is &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;; their needs are just at odds.Seeten has a point (though I don't know why he quoted me at the start of it, as I'm pretty much agreeing with him).It is entirely reasonable to view D&amp;D as a competitive game with win/lose coditions. &quot;Winning&quot; is surviving the challenge, looting the dungeon, and leveling up. That's what you get XP for, that's how you amass kewl powerz. &quot;Losing&quot; is getting killed, not getting the loot, and having to lose a level (and maybe Con) when Resurrected... assuming your PC can even get Resurrected.Unlike some other systems, D&amp;D does not reward &quot;being there&quot;; your PC does not get XP just for showing up. And they definitely don't get XP for losing, even when doing so in entertaining ways.Thus, we can see the game as a competition between DM and players. The DM is pitting his rules-fu against the players', and (ideally) setting up appropriate challeneges to throw at them. This doesn't have to mean that it's adversarial; the DM is also obliged to maintain a level playing field. He should not be &quot;stacking the deck&quot; as seen in some of Seeten's examples. Nonetheless, the &quot;fun&quot; is not going to happen unless there's a good challenge, and the &quot;fun&quot; will only get &quot;funner&quot; if the challenge is met with skillful, imaginative play. Ergo, the overall &quot;win&quot; (&quot;lots of fun&quot; + kewl powerz) doesn't happen without that competition.(I think a lot of bad play stems from DMs who get the &quot;challenge&quot; part but don't get the &quot;level playing field' part. The DM is not an opponent; the DM is more like a director or referee. His job is to drive good play, and that comes from providing worthy oposition that brings out exemplary effort in the players, not from kicking the crap out of the PCs at every available opportunity.)Granted, this is one perspective on D&amp;D, though I think it's one that's well-supported by the rules. People certainly do play D&amp;D with non-competitive goals: &quot;story,&quot; immersion in characer, immersion in setting. And, really, I think some of the best games are born out of melding aspects of all these goals together. But, IMO, the challenge needs to be at the heart of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 2904267, member: 6777"] This isn't competition so much as agenda conflict, from the sound of it. One group of players wants to pit their bad-ass PCs against some monsters and flex their rules-fu, while the other group doesn't care about that at all, and want to just immesre themselves or whatever. Neither group is "good" or "bad"; their needs are just at odds. Seeten has a point (though I don't know why he quoted me at the start of it, as I'm pretty much agreeing with him). It is entirely reasonable to view D&D as a competitive game with win/lose coditions. "Winning" is surviving the challenge, looting the dungeon, and leveling up. That's what you get XP for, that's how you amass kewl powerz. "Losing" is getting killed, not getting the loot, and having to lose a level (and maybe Con) when Resurrected... assuming your PC can even get Resurrected. Unlike some other systems, D&D does not reward "being there"; your PC does not get XP just for showing up. And they definitely don't get XP for losing, even when doing so in entertaining ways. Thus, we can see the game as a competition between DM and players. The DM is pitting his rules-fu against the players', and (ideally) setting up appropriate challeneges to throw at them. This doesn't have to mean that it's [i]adversarial[/i]; the DM is also obliged to maintain a level playing field. He should not be "stacking the deck" as seen in some of Seeten's examples. Nonetheless, the "fun" is not going to happen unless there's a good challenge, and the "fun" will only get "funner" if the challenge is met with skillful, imaginative play. Ergo, the overall "win" ("lots of fun" + kewl powerz) doesn't happen without that competition. (I think a lot of bad play stems from DMs who get the "challenge" part but don't get the "level playing field' part. The DM is not an opponent; the DM is more like a director or referee. His job is to drive good play, and that comes from providing worthy oposition that brings out exemplary effort in the players, not from kicking the crap out of the PCs at every available opportunity.) Granted, this is [i]one perspective[/i] on D&D, though I think it's one that's well-supported by the rules. People certainly do play D&D with non-competitive goals: "story," immersion in characer, immersion in setting. And, really, I think some of the best games are born out of melding aspects of all these goals together. But, IMO, the challenge needs to be at the heart of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification