Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6404600" data-attributes="member: 177">The issue is that humans are usually *bad* at judging longer term risks and issues, and we should acknowledge that.&nbsp; What seems reasonable intellectually at the time the campaign started may not seem all that great a year later, when you realize that it isn't really all that fun.&nbsp; Social contract says she agreed, but she's not satisfied.&nbsp; Now she has to have the uncomfortable discussions, and might possibly screw up the game for everyone.&nbsp; Remember that we are talking about design, not table-execution.&nbsp; What you choose to do at your table is your own business, of course.&nbsp; But if you are writing a game, don't you want to eliminate obvious ways for folks to shoot themselves in the foot?&nbsp; I know you say you like this, but how often is it really a bug, not a feature?There are results and results - the timescale and level of commitment required by the player matter.&nbsp; An unexpected result in a combat here or there is one thing, and an unexpected result that you may have to live with for years of gameplay is another.Yeah, well, that attitude doesn't seem all that prevalent.&nbsp; And I've seen folks espouse it in theory, but in practice they still gripe about how they dont' get to do the cool stuff, 'cause the uber-character does it all....Not as much as you might think.&nbsp; I *loved* the FASERIP Marvel Superheroes game, though it often didn't have parity in play.&nbsp; This isn't about what I, personally, like or don't like. I'm thinking of this in terms of best practices in design, stepping beyond personal preferences, and thinking about what's better, broadly speaking, for games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6404600, member: 177"] The issue is that humans are usually *bad* at judging longer term risks and issues, and we should acknowledge that. What seems reasonable intellectually at the time the campaign started may not seem all that great a year later, when you realize that it isn't really all that fun. Social contract says she agreed, but she's not satisfied. Now she has to have the uncomfortable discussions, and might possibly screw up the game for everyone. Remember that we are talking about design, not table-execution. What you choose to do at your table is your own business, of course. But if you are writing a game, don't you want to eliminate obvious ways for folks to shoot themselves in the foot? I know you say you like this, but how often is it really a bug, not a feature? There are results and results - the timescale and level of commitment required by the player matter. An unexpected result in a combat here or there is one thing, and an unexpected result that you may have to live with for years of gameplay is another. Yeah, well, that attitude doesn't seem all that prevalent. And I've seen folks espouse it in theory, but in practice they still gripe about how they dont' get to do the cool stuff, 'cause the uber-character does it all.... Not as much as you might think. I *loved* the FASERIP Marvel Superheroes game, though it often didn't have parity in play. This isn't about what I, personally, like or don't like. I'm thinking of this in terms of best practices in design, stepping beyond personal preferences, and thinking about what's better, broadly speaking, for games. [/QUOTE]

Verification