Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[Tony Vargas]

Seriously? You couldn't think of a way to phrase that without trying to start a heated argument?

I didn't choose to phrase it as "interesting choices" vs "wish fulfillment." The OP did that.

And I don't think it sounds like a re-hash of CaW vs CaS at all.

The crux of CaW/CaS was that CaW players wanted to use sophisticated strategy & tactics to overcome great threats, while CaS players just wanted a 'fair' fight where they could display their character's coolness, secure in the knowledge they aren't at any real risk. Looks pretty similar, to me, both in content - and, more importantly, in elitist attitude.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I feel that you are reading emotional context into both the OP argument and the CaW/CaS that is subjective. In neither case is the poster trying to laud one and condemn the other, even if he does have a personal preference.

These threads work much better when emotional, condemnatory or accusatory language is avoided.

 

[Iosue]

The crux of CaW/CaS was that CaW players wanted to use sophisticated strategy & tactics to overcome great threats, while CaS players just wanted a 'fair' fight where they could display their character's coolness, secure in the knowledge they aren't at any real risk. Looks pretty similar, to me, both in content - and, more importantly, in elitist attitude.

Oh wow. I don't find that an accurate representation of CaW/CaS, and I think it is massively unfair to Daztur.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't make any representations as to the attitudes of any individual. But, the ideas outlined in the original post of this thread, and in CaW/CaS, do reek of elitism (whether that was the authors' intents or not) and do each present an us/them dichotomy that is neither constructive, nor fair to anyone shoved onto the non-elite side of the arbitrary lines they draw.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't make any representations as to the attitudes of any individual. But, the ideas outlined in the original post of this thread, and in CaW/CaS, do evince a hearty dose of elitism and an us/them attitude that is neither constructive, nor fair to anyone shoved onto the non-elite side of the arbitrary lines they draw.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think in both cases the writer was intending to be fair to both sides, even though a preference for one side can be intuited - and that it is words like "elitism", "us/them", "shoved" and "arbitrary" that are neither constructive nor fair.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think in both cases the writer was intending to be fair to both sides

So am I: The most charitable thing I can do is accept that your supposition is correct - and conclude that, in both cases, the attempt failed completely.

I would urge both authors to re-visit their ideas with an eye towards the connotations of the terms they choose, the impression they give of their attitudes towards those they label with those terms - and also with some consideration given to the possibility that there are, in fact, more than two kinds of gamers out there.

 

[Iosue]

So am I: The most charitable thing I can do is accept that your supposition is correct - and conclude that, in both cases, the attempt failed completely.

Here is the original CaS/CaW post by Daztur. It is entirely respectful and fair to both sides. His examples of play are entirely edition agnostic. His media examples both show positive, well-loved scenes. The initial response is very positive, with many 4e players approving of the post. Your own initial post in the thread has zero issues with the concept, concerned merely with whether a game can provide both experiences.

In discussion since then, some people may have used it as a stick to beat a dog, but none of that is in Daztur's initial post, and can hardly be called "the crux" of the concept.

I would urge both authors to re-visit their ideas with an eye towards the connotations of the terms they choose, the impression they give of their attitudes towards those they label with those terms - and also with some consideration given to the possibility that there are, in fact, more than two kinds of gamers out there.

And that is incredibly condescending. Both Emerikol and Daztur are entirely aware there are more than two kinds of gamers. The comparisons are meant as a starting point for discussion, not an end.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I would urge both authors to re-visit their ideas with an eye towards the connotations of the terms they choose (snip)

I would have a lot more respect for this viewpoint if you provided us with your alternative preferred terms.

 

[Campbell]

As far as I'm concerned having relatively balanced encounters isn't about if you want meaningful decisions - it's a question of where you want the meaningful decisions. It's about tightening the feedback loop, providing more visceral and immediate consequences for decisions.

 

[innerdude]

Interesting Decisions
1. Campaign choices including interactions with significant NPCs. The idea of seeking goals outside the dungeon.
2. Tactical choices while inside combat. The proper use of various abilities and powers.
3. Strategic choices. Picking when and where you want to fight your battles. Setting up an enemy prior to battle. Laying traps.
4. Puzzles & Traps. Players actively trying to solve mysteries and puzzles. Keeping notes about history and legends found in the dungeon.
5. Resource management. Thinking about the usage of scarce resources. The proper planning and packing for an adventure.

Wish Fulfillment
1. The pleasure of seeing your enemies destroyed in spectacular fashion.
2. Being viewed by the inhabitants of the setting as a great hero. Given respect.
3. Choices driven more by flavor and effect rather than tactical or strategic importance.
4. Handwaving stuff that is often kept off camera in a high cinematic movie.

...snip...

Thoughts and discussion?

It's not a complete dichotomy for many players. There can definitely exist a spectrum between these, or even a three- or four-pronged spectrum.

That said . . . I know for a fact a massive schism exists in one of my groups right now where this is very distinct separation. I'm all about interesting decisions, interacting with the world, making interesting strategic and tactical choices, etc.

And then there's one guy who's . . . not. He's absolutely a "Wish Fullment-ist," to the Nth degree. To the point that he largely has no interest in playing ANY campaign where he can't bend the rules to reach the appropriate level of fulfillment. He powergames like mad, and actively LOOKS for situations where his powergaming can manipulate the setting. If he can't [Eesma from Emperor's New Groove] "feeeeeeel the power" [/Eesma] oozing from his character at virtually every turn, he basically tunes out and starts screwing with the GM / campaign. The other players in the group swear that he's actually a very good GM, it's just when he's a player that this happens. Personally I've never cared for his play style, to the point that I don't really have any interest in playing a game he runs.