Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8457293" data-attributes="member: 71699">I was thinking about player motivations. So far, I have heard a (somewhat self-contradicting) argument that says something like -<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">it is possible to play a character as successfully with 14 in their primary ability as with 16</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">therefore a 16 is not required to play a character successfully, because a 14 will do</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">therefore to seek to have a 16 must be due to other motivations</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">the only other motivation for wanting a 16 that a player can have, is to maximise as much as possible their values aka power game</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">to power-gamers, a 16 is always better than a 14, and only power-gamers care about that</li> </ol>You can see that the explanation is teleological, and the putative separation between a normal player and a power gamer is that between playing successfully and playing to maximise. This might not be exactly right, but bear with me one step further.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The assumption in 4. is mistaken. There are other motivations that haven't being accounted for</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One such motivation is satisfaction. It is unsatisfying to have a 14 when a 16 is available and has some mechanical consequences</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Playing successfully if it is not simple maximising (as already excluded) can reasonably include being satisfied with that play</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If a player is not satisfied with their play, they are entitled to call that play unsuccessful</li> </ul>Something that is very noticeable in player behaviours - across games - is the scratching of itches. Putting things right. There are literally games about tidying up. People speak of the tactile satisfaction of moving a well-weighted Chess piece across the board. Games are played for satisfaction, as much as they are played to be won.For a player to be put in the position of making an unsatisfying choice in a game, is unappealing. This is quite aside from the power that might be associated with choosing one way or another. I notice this happening with races. A visible internal struggle as the player tries to reconcile themselves with unsatisfying aspects of a possible choice, and as often fails and goes with the one that - in the game design as presented - is more satisfying. For me, the 'doesn't require' and 'power gaming' arguments stumble at this hurdle: they attribute motivations too narrowly (as well as containing lack of clarity about what would be required, or successful.)</blockquote>

Verification