Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6343253" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Does not follow.&nbsp; Cf. Player who can beat Contra w/o Konami code vs. Contra's inherent difficulty and Japan's low maternal mortality vs. childbirth's inherent lethality.Why there is a low chance is, in Emerikol's game, the whole point.&nbsp; We can flip this around by using a different failure state other than death.&nbsp; For example, in games where people prefer playing more of a heroic fantasy, or where character goals have more primacy than mitigating player death, their goals are often achieved, I daresay at a rate greater than 50/50.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that characters will achieve their goals automatically without doing anything, but rather that through their actions they mitigate the chances of failure.&nbsp; It is about following Emerikol's lead.&nbsp; But that's neither here nor there.&nbsp; The same effect can be found in games that rely on rules as mediation instead of GM mediation.&nbsp; In 3e or 4e, for example, encounter difficulty can be mitigated by optimized character builds and/or tactical combinations.I don't quite see it that way.&nbsp; &quot;Linear vs open world&quot; is actually mentioned as a separate way to look at design.&nbsp;&nbsp; He refers to &quot;wish fulfillment&quot; as &quot;having an experience&quot;.&nbsp; The experience doesn't have to be linear, it merely has to be foregrounded to a greater degree than choices.&nbsp; In his paradigm, card games fall under &quot;interesting choices&quot; (and provide poor &quot;experience&quot;), yet game play is quite linear.&nbsp; Specifically, he calls out D&amp;D and RPGs as &quot;bridging the gap&quot;.&nbsp; That's because you can have interesting choices and &quot;an experience&quot;, regardless of whether you're playing a railroad or a sandbox.I don't quite see how you come to that conclusion.&nbsp; Emerikol says (my emphasis),It sounds to me that the player was seeking a different experience (Big Damn Heroes) from the rest of the group (Fantasy F'ing Vietnam) and/or sought different interesting decisions than the one Emerikol's game offered. That's entirely unrelated to sandbox vs. linear.&nbsp; I will say at the same time, though, that I don't necessarily agree with Emerikol that the problem was that his game offered interesting decisions and his player wanted wish fulfillment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6343253, member: 6680772"] Does not follow. Cf. Player who can beat Contra w/o Konami code vs. Contra's inherent difficulty and Japan's low maternal mortality vs. childbirth's inherent lethality. Why there is a low chance is, in Emerikol's game, the [i]whole point[/i]. We can flip this around by using a different failure state other than death. For example, in games where people prefer playing more of a heroic fantasy, or where character goals have more primacy than mitigating player death, their goals are often achieved, I daresay at a rate greater than 50/50. That doesn't mean that characters will achieve their goals automatically without doing anything, but rather that through their actions they mitigate the chances of failure. It is about following Emerikol's lead. But that's neither here nor there. The same effect can be found in games that rely on rules as mediation instead of GM mediation. In 3e or 4e, for example, encounter difficulty can be mitigated by optimized character builds and/or tactical combinations. I don't quite see it that way. "Linear vs open world" is actually mentioned as a separate way to look at design. He refers to "wish fulfillment" as "having an experience". The experience doesn't have to be linear, it merely has to be foregrounded to a greater degree than choices. In his paradigm, card games fall under "interesting choices" (and provide poor "experience"), yet game play is quite linear. Specifically, he calls out D&D and RPGs as "bridging the gap". That's because you can have interesting choices [i]and[/i] "an experience", regardless of whether you're playing a railroad or a sandbox. I don't quite see how you come to that conclusion. Emerikol says (my emphasis), It sounds to me that the player was seeking a different experience (Big Damn Heroes) from the rest of the group (Fantasy F'ing Vietnam) and/or sought different interesting decisions than the one Emerikol's game offered. That's entirely unrelated to sandbox vs. linear. I will say at the same time, though, that I don't necessarily agree with Emerikol that the problem was that his game offered interesting decisions and his player wanted wish fulfillment. [/QUOTE]

Verification