Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4472062" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think most players agree. But not all players agree that meaningful consequences for them are utterly coextensive with meaningful consequences for their PCs.Normally it would be the PC who died, or fought the mummy. But it is the player who suffers consequences (eg having to sit out of the game) and who presumably is aiming at accomplishments. It is possible to have consequences and accomplishments for the player without those real-world consequences and accomplishments corresponding to any particular fictional consequences or accomplishments that accrue to a PC in the gameworld.I buck up a little in response to the suggestion that those who prefer narrativist to 1st-ed style play are playing Candyland and can't make hard decisions. The point of metagame mechanics isn't to &quot;prop up&quot; those who can't cope with a certain sort of gamist play. It's to provide the mechanical tools to achieve a different goal of play.There's also something else a bit bizarre going on here. I'm prepared to accept that there is a fairly evident sense in which the typical firefighter is tougher than the typical playwright. But I can't really take seriously a rhetorical tone that suggests that a person who wants to play 1st-ed style AD&amp;D is more courageous, in some admirable or virtuous sense, than is a person who wants to play an RPG with narrativist goals in mind.My daughter is more comfortable eating with cutlery than with chopsticks. I'm not sure that anything very definite can be inferred from the fact that a child shares the tastes and/or habits of her parent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4472062, member: 42582"] I think most players agree. But not all players agree that meaningful consequences for them are utterly coextensive with meaningful consequences for their PCs. Normally it would be the PC who died, or fought the mummy. But it is the player who suffers consequences (eg having to sit out of the game) and who presumably is aiming at accomplishments. It is possible to have consequences and accomplishments for the player without those real-world consequences and accomplishments corresponding to any particular fictional consequences or accomplishments that accrue to a PC in the gameworld. I buck up a little in response to the suggestion that those who prefer narrativist to 1st-ed style play are playing Candyland and can't make hard decisions. The point of metagame mechanics isn't to "prop up" those who can't cope with a certain sort of gamist play. It's to provide the mechanical tools to achieve a different goal of play. There's also something else a bit bizarre going on here. I'm prepared to accept that there is a fairly evident sense in which the typical firefighter is tougher than the typical playwright. But I can't really take seriously a rhetorical tone that suggests that a person who wants to play 1st-ed style AD&D is more courageous, in some admirable or virtuous sense, than is a person who wants to play an RPG with narrativist goals in mind. My daughter is more comfortable eating with cutlery than with chopsticks. I'm not sure that anything very definite can be inferred from the fact that a child shares the tastes and/or habits of her parent. [/QUOTE]

Verification