Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6021579" data-attributes="member: 40233">Responding to the original poster: while I agree with the basic point made, specifically how, if something is presented as a viable and fun to play option, it should actually be viable and fun to play...I think the comparison to Vow of Poverty is misaimed.Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the point Reynolds was trying to make was that, taking Vow of Poverty was akin to playing a game on &quot;hard mode&quot;.&nbsp; If someone chooses to, in real life, take a vow of poverty, they are choosing, for whatever reason, to place a burden on themselves that others aren't party to.&nbsp; If Vows of Poverty actually got you lots of sweet benefits, then it wouldn't really be any kind of sacrifice, would it?&nbsp; So Vow of Poverty, to simulate that, needs to provide at least enough benefit to make a character minimally playable, (since the game assumes a certain amount of player wealth in the basic math) while still increasing the challenge level of the game enough to make the playing of it a genuine burden.&nbsp; In other words...hard mode.Where Reynolds went wrong is trying to justify mechanical failures like &quot;Death or Glory&quot; with the same broad brush.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with the concept behind &quot;Death or Glory&quot; but a player who takes it is not trying to play &quot;hard mode&quot;, he instead is looking for something like high stakes poker; big risk for big reward, and &quot;Death or Glory&quot; doesn't provide any kind of big reward, merely the risk. I think it's okay for some options to not be as powerful as others.&nbsp; All else being equal, daggers shouldn't be the equal of a sword, and an equally trained swordsman should beat someone of equal skill who is unarmed (I know this one is going to get arguments, but let's agree to disagree).&nbsp; A person who chooses to make use of an inefficient choice should be rewarded for it with a more challenging game.&nbsp; What is important is for the game to be very clear and upfront that those options are indeed challenges and not paths to player power.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6021579, member: 40233"] Responding to the original poster: while I agree with the basic point made, specifically how, if something is presented as a viable and fun to play option, it should actually be viable and fun to play...I think the comparison to Vow of Poverty is misaimed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the point Reynolds was trying to make was that, taking Vow of Poverty was akin to playing a game on "hard mode". If someone chooses to, in real life, take a vow of poverty, they are choosing, for whatever reason, to place a burden on themselves that others aren't party to. If Vows of Poverty actually got you lots of sweet benefits, then it wouldn't really be any kind of sacrifice, would it? So Vow of Poverty, to simulate that, needs to provide at least enough benefit to make a character minimally playable, (since the game assumes a certain amount of player wealth in the basic math) while still increasing the challenge level of the game enough to make the playing of it a genuine burden. In other words...hard mode. Where Reynolds went wrong is trying to justify mechanical failures like "Death or Glory" with the same broad brush. There's nothing wrong with the concept behind "Death or Glory" but a player who takes it is not trying to play "hard mode", he instead is looking for something like high stakes poker; big risk for big reward, and "Death or Glory" doesn't provide any kind of big reward, merely the risk. I think it's okay for some options to not be as powerful as others. All else being equal, daggers shouldn't be the equal of a sword, and an equally trained swordsman should beat someone of equal skill who is unarmed (I know this one is going to get arguments, but let's agree to disagree). A person who chooses to make use of an inefficient choice should be rewarded for it with a more challenging game. What is important is for the game to be very clear and upfront that those options are indeed challenges and not paths to player power. [/QUOTE]

Verification