Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7716316" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, at least I got called out by name.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />But, yeah, nothing I've seen here has particularly changed my mind.&nbsp; The notion that somehow back in the day, games were more &quot;challenging&quot; (whatever that's actually supposed to mean) is ridiculous.What does that even mean?&nbsp; What does &quot;challenging&quot; in this context mean?&nbsp; I can look at a game like Blades in the Dark, which is a heavily story driven game, pretty strongly in the Narrative camp, where &quot;getting the treasure&quot; doesn't really mean anything and combat isn't the point of play, and see that challenge in that game means putting in as good of a performance as you can in order to entertain the group.I used to play The Dying Earth RPG, some years ago.&nbsp; Fantastic game.&nbsp; But, the challenge there was to immerse yourself in a Vancian setting, complete with it's own idiom and language.&nbsp; Tons of fun.&nbsp; But, apparently, not a &quot;challenge&quot;?&nbsp; I'm going to tell you right now that if you actually played the game, you'd find it all sorts of challenging.And, again, all sorts of ignoring actual history going on here.&nbsp; I mentioned Dragonlance, and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] put that as a sort of 2e design thing.&nbsp; But, let's be honest here, that was being played in the 70's, LONG before 2e was a gleam in anyone's eye.&nbsp; 2e design didn't come out of a vacuum.&nbsp; 2e was a recognition of what was being played.&nbsp; Maybe not played by everyone, true, but, certainly a recognition of how the game was being played at a number of tables.Between the original article and Mr. Pulsiver's second post, I get the serious smell of troll coming from this thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7716316, member: 22779"] Well, at least I got called out by name. :D But, yeah, nothing I've seen here has particularly changed my mind. The notion that somehow back in the day, games were more "challenging" (whatever that's actually supposed to mean) is ridiculous. What does that even mean? What does "challenging" in this context mean? I can look at a game like Blades in the Dark, which is a heavily story driven game, pretty strongly in the Narrative camp, where "getting the treasure" doesn't really mean anything and combat isn't the point of play, and see that challenge in that game means putting in as good of a performance as you can in order to entertain the group. I used to play The Dying Earth RPG, some years ago. Fantastic game. But, the challenge there was to immerse yourself in a Vancian setting, complete with it's own idiom and language. Tons of fun. But, apparently, not a "challenge"? I'm going to tell you right now that if you actually played the game, you'd find it all sorts of challenging. And, again, all sorts of ignoring actual history going on here. I mentioned Dragonlance, and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] put that as a sort of 2e design thing. But, let's be honest here, that was being played in the 70's, LONG before 2e was a gleam in anyone's eye. 2e design didn't come out of a vacuum. 2e was a recognition of what was being played. Maybe not played by everyone, true, but, certainly a recognition of how the game was being played at a number of tables. Between the original article and Mr. Pulsiver's second post, I get the serious smell of troll coming from this thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification