Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5291873" data-attributes="member: 4720">My metaphor was more about the time and energy investment in character creation.&nbsp; The example expressed a binary situation wherein players and games come in one of two types.Some people just want to get into character (construction paper sword guy), and some games serve that.&nbsp; Some people just want to play with all the fiddly bits ($100 costume guy), and some games serve that.&nbsp; Aside from the sheer audacity of expressing that as a binary rather than continuum, Rogueattorney's original example also conflated the heck out of &quot;build&quot; and roleplaying.&nbsp; His construction paper sword guy is clearly the hero of his analogy, getting into the spirit of the character, while the guy with the $100 costume was obsessed with the mechanical trappings of the character.&nbsp; Again, this is a false dichotomy.&nbsp; Most people can switch back and forth or fall somewhere in the middle.&nbsp; My expensive hat guy was meant to more realistically split the difference: some interest in fiddly bits, some capacity to jump in with a character.&nbsp; Heck, for me, having some mechanical variance helps me figure out who my characters are, enabling better characters on multiple axes.It's related to the argument that I think I keep having with you.&nbsp; While repeatedly telling us that some of your best friends are &quot;build&quot; games, you also say that &quot;build&quot; games hinder certain kinds of creativity.&nbsp; Those two things are entirely distinct.&nbsp; Two separate axes that are not correlated in my experience.&nbsp; The same cats who make interesting, flavorful characters in &quot;build&quot; games make interesting, flavorful characters in less fiddly games.&nbsp; People who don't.... don't.&quot;Build&quot; games endeavor to prevent you from making a character that is unfairly powerful, because the social contract of most of these games implies a shared spotlight.&nbsp; So, a &quot;build&quot; game doesn't want Superman and Jimmy Olsen in the same party, unless it includes a plot mechanism to level the playing field somehow.&nbsp; Outside of an assumption of relative power level, they don't tend to curb stomp your imagination in the way that some people frequently imply.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 5291873, member: 4720"] My metaphor was more about the time and energy investment in character creation. The example expressed a binary situation wherein players and games come in one of two types. Some people just want to get into character (construction paper sword guy), and some games serve that. Some people just want to play with all the fiddly bits ($100 costume guy), and some games serve that. Aside from the sheer audacity of expressing that as a binary rather than continuum, Rogueattorney's original example also conflated the heck out of "build" and roleplaying. His construction paper sword guy is clearly the hero of his analogy, getting into the spirit of the character, while the guy with the $100 costume was obsessed with the mechanical trappings of the character. Again, this is a false dichotomy. Most people can switch back and forth or fall somewhere in the middle. My expensive hat guy was meant to more realistically split the difference: some interest in fiddly bits, some capacity to jump in with a character. Heck, for me, having some mechanical variance helps me figure out who my characters are, enabling better characters on multiple axes. It's related to the argument that [I]I think[/I] I keep having with you. While repeatedly telling us that some of your best friends are "build" games, you also say that "build" games hinder certain kinds of creativity. Those two things are entirely distinct. Two separate axes that are not correlated in my experience. The same cats who make interesting, flavorful characters in "build" games make interesting, flavorful characters in less fiddly games. People who don't.... don't. "Build" games endeavor to prevent you from making a character that is unfairly powerful, because the social contract of most of these games implies a shared spotlight. So, a "build" game doesn't want Superman and Jimmy Olsen in the same party, unless it includes a plot mechanism to level the playing field somehow. Outside of an assumption of relative power level, they don't tend to curb stomp your imagination in the way that some people frequently imply. [/QUOTE]

Verification