Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 7282384" data-attributes="member: 2205">Check out the run of Chris Perkins column &quot;The DM Experience.&quot;&nbsp; It's not the only thing that he talks about, of course, over 100+ columns, but he mentions it many times and devotes some columns to it entirely.Yes, you're being overly positive.&nbsp; It's as absurd as saying, &quot;the more money we spend the more money we have!&quot;&nbsp; I think you and pemerton are trying to redefine &quot;spotlight&quot; into something that resembles... I dunno; something that's nothing like a spotlight.&nbsp; I mean; I see the point of &quot;if you've got more engaged players, then it's a better game for everyone!&quot; but that goes back to my earlier comment; if you're using specific vocabulary, but all that you're really saying is that &quot;having better players tends to produce a better game...&quot;&nbsp; Well, yeah.&nbsp; No duh.&nbsp; But let's talk about the specific vocabulary, not redefine it to merely mean &quot;good.&quot;&nbsp; The spotlight is a limited resource.&nbsp; Otherwise, it's not a spotlight.&nbsp; It's a bank of floodlights.&nbsp; And no game works like a bank of floodlights.&nbsp; There's ALWAYS at least some element of spotlight.&nbsp; And class-based niche protection is completely unrelated to that.&nbsp; What it seems like you and pemerton are doing, the more I read this, is attempting to coopt one set of terminology (positive sum?!) to describe what really sounds more like &quot;a game where there are good players who are good at sharing the spotlight.&quot;&nbsp; That doesn't change the nature of spotlights.&nbsp; It just means that it's not an issue for you if your group manages it well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 7282384, member: 2205"] Check out the run of Chris Perkins column "The DM Experience." It's not the only thing that he talks about, of course, over 100+ columns, but he mentions it many times and devotes some columns to it entirely. Yes, you're being overly positive. It's as absurd as saying, "the more money we spend the more money we have!" I think you and pemerton are trying to redefine "spotlight" into something that resembles... I dunno; something that's nothing like a spotlight. I mean; I see the point of "if you've got more engaged players, then it's a better game for everyone!" but that goes back to my earlier comment; if you're using specific vocabulary, but all that you're really saying is that "having better players tends to produce a better game..." Well, yeah. No duh. But let's talk about the specific vocabulary, not redefine it to merely mean "good." The spotlight is a limited resource. Otherwise, it's not a spotlight. It's a bank of floodlights. And no game works like a bank of floodlights. There's ALWAYS at least some element of spotlight. And class-based niche protection is completely unrelated to that. What it seems like you and pemerton are doing, the more I read this, is attempting to coopt one set of terminology (positive sum?!) to describe what really sounds more like "a game where there are good players who are good at sharing the spotlight." That doesn't change the nature of spotlights. It just means that it's not an issue for you if your group manages it well. [/QUOTE]

Verification