Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7716396" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, I've been cogitating on this for a while now, and I think I'll present my rebuttal to the original argument of this article.  As I understand it, (between this thread and the thread that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] linked where [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] also posted a similar point) gaming has shifted from games of consequence to games of reward.  Now, I'm going to focus on D&D, since this is an RPG site, to provide three examples of why this is simply not true.  There has been no shift in games, not really.  D&D started out with "game of reward" built right into its DNA.AD&D Examples of Game of RewardExample 1:  Two characters, A and B, exact same in all ways save that Character A has a 17 in his prime stat and Character B has a 14.  The two characters go through exactly the same adventures, meet exactly the same monsters, play identical campaigns.  At the end of the campaign, Character B is high level and has 300 000 xp.  Congratulations!  Character A has 330 000 xp.  Why?  Because he has a high prime stat.  Despite not doing a single thing to earn that significant xp award, Character A receives a reward for playing that character.Example 2:  Same two characters, A and B.  This time, identical elves.  Same stats, same everything.  Both proceed in a dungeon and do exactly the same things.  However, in Character B's case, his elven find secret doors 1/6 (for passing by), discovers a secret door leading to a significant treasure trove while the DM in Character A's case rolled a 2 instead of a 1 for the automatic check and thus the treasure was missed.  So, Character B's group gains a significant reward - treasure, XP, possibly magic items - where the player of Character B did absolutely nothing to earn it.  Blind, random chance.  Drop your quarter, pull the level, get your prize.Example 3:  Two players beginning a new campaign are rolling up their characters.  Player A is on a serious hot streak, six rolls, nothing lower than a 13, fantastic.  Player B is unloved by the dice gods and his highest stat is a 13.  Now, Player A is rewarded in several ways.  Firstly, he can now play any character he wants to play since his rolls are so high.  Additionally, any character he plays will automatically gain XP bonuses, not for doing anything, but, simply for having high stats.  Finally, any character that Player A plays will automatically be more powerful and more effective in the game than anything Player B can play.  What did he do to earn that?  Dice fapped really well?  Do we really consider that earning an award?  It's not like these three examples are rare, corner cases that will never come up.  These are common, basic elements of the game that are likely to be seen every single session.  So, no, the notion that you had to "earn your award" back in the day just isn't supported by the actual game that was written.  So much of your reward was simple, random chance.  It was the Chutes and Ladders approach to game design where random chance is mistaken for difficulty.Compare those three examples to how they roll out in a modern RPG.  In every example, it becomes a case of player choice having consequences.  High stats?  Yup, you can do that, but, in doing so, you will have lower stats elsewhere that will cause problems.  Good abilities to notice stuff?  Sure, you can do that, but, it will cost you in other ways.  In every case, it is player choice that carries the consequences, not random chance and, in fact, random chance is often mitigated as much as possible.  We don't die roll characters anymore, we use point buy or standard arrays as the standard method for chargen.  So on and so forth.The more things change...</blockquote>

Verification