Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6741481" data-attributes="member: 996">As I said, because it's a meaningless tautology.&nbsp; The distinction I thought I saw you make up-thread was that it wasn't the game that was conditioning players to be risk-adverse, as if that were some flaw of the game, but the 'genre' that required risk aversion.&nbsp;But, if the game /defines the genre/, then you're right back to the game, itself, being 'at fault' for setting those expectations.Like breaking any other bad habbit, I suppose.&nbsp; Well, I guess that'd be true.&nbsp; I'm not sure how meaningful it is.&nbsp; They learned different systems on a casual level, rather than a single one on a deep level.Meh.&nbsp; One of the things that appeals about a TTRPG system is that it takes something (heroic fantasy) that vaguely corresponds to life (which is wildly unpredictable and utterly beyond our control in the final analysis), and renders it systematic, understandable and controllable.&nbsp; It also takes something - storytelling - that we were previously consumers of, and makes us producers.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both are empowering. I don't really think 'genre' has much to do with it.&nbsp; D&amp;D is a game and early D&amp;D lent itself to certain sorts of play, genre emulation not being a big part of it.&nbsp; Umbran considers that 'D&amp;D created it's own genre,' while I consider it failing to model genre, but there's no functional difference:&nbsp; either way you had a game that didn't model any per-existing fantasy sub-genre, and did lend itself very strongly to the kind of play you describe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6741481, member: 996"] As I said, because it's a meaningless tautology. The distinction I thought I saw you make up-thread was that it wasn't the game that was conditioning players to be risk-adverse, as if that were some flaw of the game, but the 'genre' that required risk aversion. But, if the game /defines the genre/, then you're right back to the game, itself, being 'at fault' for setting those expectations. Like breaking any other bad habbit, I suppose. Well, I guess that'd be true. I'm not sure how meaningful it is. They learned different systems on a casual level, rather than a single one on a deep level. Meh. One of the things that appeals about a TTRPG system is that it takes something (heroic fantasy) that vaguely corresponds to life (which is wildly unpredictable and utterly beyond our control in the final analysis), and renders it systematic, understandable and controllable. It also takes something - storytelling - that we were previously consumers of, and makes us producers. Both are empowering. I don't really think 'genre' has much to do with it. D&D is a game and early D&D lent itself to certain sorts of play, genre emulation not being a big part of it. Umbran considers that 'D&D created it's own genre,' while I consider it failing to model genre, but there's no functional difference: either way you had a game that didn't model any per-existing fantasy sub-genre, and did lend itself very strongly to the kind of play you describe. [/QUOTE]

Verification