Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5898114" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, but the fact that the player can do it does not mean it engages the player.&nbsp; You say it &quot;automatically gives a real, tangible connection&quot;, and I don't think you are correct.&nbsp; Having an interesting and relevant task for the player may help with immersion, but the connection is by no means automatic.&nbsp; As an example: I play in a few live action games.&nbsp; For a little while, one group I worked with simulated pretty much any challenge to the character that was computer, engineering, encryption, or math related with a sudoku puzzle for the player.&nbsp; Their thought was yours - pretty much everyone in the game could manage simple sudoku.&nbsp; Everyone *could* do it.&nbsp; Let me tell you, flat out, that when my post-apocalyptic mechanic is trying to repair an engine while under fire by cannibal barbarians, handing me a sudoku puzzle and a pencil is about the last thing that'll engage me.&nbsp; I do sudoku in the newspaper on my way to work, it is *not* a suitable stand-in for a tense moment.&nbsp; (see footnote*)The trick to engaging the player is not merely in presenting something that it is possible for them to do, but to present them with things they actually like to do, that seems appropriate to the player in a frame that makes them feel like the character is invested in doing it.So, as Henry said - know your players. The corollary for the players is, &quot;Don't make your GM guess what you want.&quot;*That scene under fire actually happened, but the GM in question *didn't* hand me a sudoku puzzle - he thought those were lame.&nbsp; He did something completely else, that made the scene one of the most memorable of the three-year campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5898114, member: 177"] Yes, but the fact that the player can do it does not mean it engages the player. You say it "automatically gives a real, tangible connection", and I don't think you are correct. Having an interesting and relevant task for the player may help with immersion, but the connection is by no means automatic. As an example: I play in a few live action games. For a little while, one group I worked with simulated pretty much any challenge to the character that was computer, engineering, encryption, or math related with a sudoku puzzle for the player. Their thought was yours - pretty much everyone in the game could manage simple sudoku. Everyone *could* do it. Let me tell you, flat out, that when my post-apocalyptic mechanic is trying to repair an engine while under fire by cannibal barbarians, handing me a sudoku puzzle and a pencil is about the last thing that'll engage me. I do sudoku in the newspaper on my way to work, it is *not* a suitable stand-in for a tense moment. (see footnote*) The trick to engaging the player is not merely in presenting something that it is possible for them to do, but to present them with things they actually like to do, that seems appropriate to the player in a frame that makes them feel like the character is invested in doing it. So, as Henry said - know your players. The corollary for the players is, "Don't make your GM guess what you want." *That scene under fire actually happened, but the GM in question *didn't* hand me a sudoku puzzle - he thought those were lame. He did something completely else, that made the scene one of the most memorable of the three-year campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification