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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5168511" data-attributes="member: 22779">Has nothing to do with bad DM's and everything to do with the mechanics.  It's not that older games weren't fun most of the time, it's that older games forced a very traditional setup of "act on your turn, not on someone else's".  Older, traditional games spent a HUGE amount of time doing not much of anything.  You sat and watched the other players doing something a whole pile.  You couldn't act out of turn.  Heck, going way back, you had a caller who would mediate between you and the GM, removing even your ability to really decide all your own actions.It might be hyperbole, but, there is a grain of truth there.  Older games, by delaying gratification, meant that you were spending more time not being gratified.  This should be pretty obvious.  If the rate of gratification is higher now, then it must have been slower before, with more time spent between points of gratification.Thus the hyperbole of 20 minutes of fun wrapped in 4 hours.  You spend a minority amount of time actively participating, and a majority of time passively watching and waiting for your turn.One thing that more recent games have done is break out of the turn based systems that characterize many traditional games.  Many games now have some sort of interrupt ability (to borrow a CCG term) that lets you "go out of turn".  Many games have abilities which allow you to make someone else take an action out of turn as well.  Whether it's something as simple as an Attack of Opportunity mechanic or something more complex, the idea of "wait your turn" is a good example of delayed gratification.Since gratification doesn't equal succeeding, but rather actively participating, again, I have to ask, is this trend really a bad thing?  Forcing more active participation from the players more often is a good thing isn't it?</blockquote>

Verification