Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 5959378" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I don't think people do agree on this. Do I want a totally useless character during the entire length of the campaign? No. But i dont want a rationing of fun either. Choices should matter and there needs to be some variance in the game for me to enjoy it. This means having moments or circumstances where I am sidelined are important. I dont want to always have something meaningful to contribute (though i should always have a shot at doing something) because there will be times when it makes a heck of a lot more sense for someone else to step up. There is a fundamental divide in design philosophy here. Some peopke prefer (for lack of better terms) the Eurogame approach of keeing everyone in and giving people stuff to do each moment. That is fine and has its advantages. Others prefer the ameritrash approach, where there is substantially less baked in parity at each moment and the potential of being sidelined is a key part of keeping the game exciting. This functions on a number of levels from being sidelined by injury/death to being sidelined because you are the guy with the sword and getting across that chasm will take a bit of magic (unless you want to trek a few extra days or something). I believe this is what a lot of folks continnue to miss in these debates about fun design.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 5959378, member: 85555"] I don't think people do agree on this. Do I want a totally useless character during the entire length of the campaign? No. But i dont want a rationing of fun either. Choices should matter and there needs to be some variance in the game for me to enjoy it. This means having moments or circumstances where I am sidelined are important. I dont want to always have something meaningful to contribute (though i should always have a shot at doing something) because there will be times when it makes a heck of a lot more sense for someone else to step up. There is a fundamental divide in design philosophy here. Some peopke prefer (for lack of better terms) the Eurogame approach of keeing everyone in and giving people stuff to do each moment. That is fine and has its advantages. Others prefer the ameritrash approach, where there is substantially less baked in parity at each moment and the potential of being sidelined is a key part of keeping the game exciting. This functions on a number of levels from being sidelined by injury/death to being sidelined because you are the guy with the sword and getting across that chasm will take a bit of magic (unless you want to trek a few extra days or something). I believe this is what a lot of folks continnue to miss in these debates about fun design. [/QUOTE]

Verification