Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 5167651" data-attributes="member: 49017">I would argue, quite strenuously, that what designers are talking about here is player involvement, unrelated to success or failure of their actions. As you identify, there are fundamental differences between the turn-based nature of a TRPG and the real-time nature of (most) cRPG systems. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that nearly all players prefer being involved in activity rather than present but with nothing to do. What I read into statements about learning from cRPGs with regard to effects like stun is not that designers wish to remove any risk of failure; rather, it’s that removing people from any form of decision-making/activity leads to frustration, and that if it’s done for too long this will tend to leave them frustrated with the game. It is, incidentally, something I do see having been partly implemented in 4th edition D&D, primarily but not solely the form of ‘interrupts’ of various sorts which allow people to act outside their own turns. I do not agree though that it in any reflects a dislike for failure as such. Both failure and success occur more frequently in a cRPG than they do at the tabletop, simply because the rate at which actions occur is faster. I have not seen any evidence that recent tRPG systems make failure less likely than old ones – though I think there’s some evidence that designers are starting to implement concepts of play where they wish people to remain involved in activity even when it’s not their ‘turn’. In my opinion, that’s actually a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification