Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SMHWorlds" data-source="post: 7716160" data-attributes="member: 6853809">I don't agree with the article at all, but what is most telling is the (again) bias towards a D&amp;D paradigm. Of course let me defend myself first, by saying I love D&amp;D and have loved all editions but 4th, which I still managed to play. Liked Pathfinder in its vanilla state. So I am not a hater, but you cannot have a logical and critical discussion of gaming, even old school gaming, where you only talk about D&amp;D or D&amp;D style games. You need to put them all on the table or at least the ones you have played and then take a critical look at how they exist and evolve. Gaming is changing and tabletop games do indeed have an element of risk. What they are getting better at however, is making it possible for everyone to have a better footing and role when they play, to give everyone agency as opposed to just a few. It also brings a different skill set to the table, as some people grok and understand the improv nature of role playing better than others. Since it is a role playing game, that is at least as important a skill as understanding how the dice work.What this and most articles like it ignore of course is the fact the consequences are almost entirely in the hands of the GM and to a lesser extent the players. All the rules do is offer tools that turn the desire for consequence into mechanical means by which we can adjudicate them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SMHWorlds, post: 7716160, member: 6853809"] I don't agree with the article at all, but what is most telling is the (again) bias towards a D&D paradigm. Of course let me defend myself first, by saying I love D&D and have loved all editions but 4th, which I still managed to play. Liked Pathfinder in its vanilla state. So I am not a hater, but you cannot have a logical and critical discussion of gaming, even old school gaming, where you only talk about D&D or D&D style games. You need to put them all on the table or at least the ones you have played and then take a critical look at how they exist and evolve. Gaming is changing and tabletop games do indeed have an element of risk. What they are getting better at however, is making it possible for everyone to have a better footing and role when they play, to give everyone agency as opposed to just a few. It also brings a different skill set to the table, as some people grok and understand the improv nature of role playing better than others. Since it is a role playing game, that is at least as important a skill as understanding how the dice work. What this and most articles like it ignore of course is the fact the [I]consequences are almost entirely in the hands of the GM and to a lesser extent the players[/I]. All the rules do is offer tools that turn the desire for consequence into mechanical means by which we can adjudicate them. [/QUOTE]

Verification