Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4271188" data-attributes="member: 15538">Then let me clarify. I believe the so-called incoherence of the D&amp;D game system reflects its robust value as a tool of engagement and immersion and contributes postively to the game experience.The same approach can be taken with D&amp;D. You know when you sit down to play D&amp;D you know what to expect. The fact that it does not fit neatly into Forge categories is a weakness of the Forge theories, not of D&amp;D. While D&amp;D plays a little different at every table, you are still looking at a very consistent game. Short of pathological DMing, little is going to change the game from one table to the next.Let me rephrase that for you: &quot;Differences in play style can result in the need to modify the game experience. Some GMs are reluctant to accomodate the reasonabel goals of their players, while others are more flexible.&quot;Say what? First of all, you seem to be describing a 3e game with AD&amp;D alignments. Second in the old AD&amp;D game, you still decided your alignment and dealt with the consequences. The &quot;hard&quot; restrictions on alignment behavior should be interpreted as system limits on your character, not surrendering authorship. Alignment is very much part of the game world &quot;physics&quot; and there is little vague about it. In cases where alignment questions are hard to settle, I think the DM and players can agree they are hard to settle.To me &quot;play experience&quot; is immersion in the game. Gamist, narrativist, simulationist is not... those are meta-game priorities. The relationship between the rules and play experience in D&amp;D is very coherent, to me; not in Forge terms, but it's just one of those appalling things about Forge theory that it does not account for D&amp;D's success. And D&amp;D is, indisputable, a successful game. The very definition of a successful rpg is &quot;be D&amp;D.&quot; It is the most sold, the most played, the most enjoyed, the most beloved, and the most likely to continue to be all those things.The OP complains about directives to be &quot;in character&quot;... well, guess what? That is what D&amp;D is. That's not incoherence, that's fidelity to the basic concept of role-playing games as formulated by Gygax, Arneson, and the early D&amp;D community. If you are not both &quot;in character&quot; and trying to win battles, you are not playing D&amp;D to its full potential.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 4271188, member: 15538"] Then let me clarify. I believe the so-called incoherence of the D&D game system reflects its robust value as a tool of engagement and immersion and contributes postively to the game experience. The same approach can be taken with D&D. You know when you sit down to play D&D you know what to expect. The fact that it does not fit neatly into Forge categories is a weakness of the Forge theories, not of D&D. While D&D plays a little different at every table, you are still looking at a very consistent game. Short of pathological DMing, little is going to change the game from one table to the next. Let me rephrase that for you: "Differences in play style can result in the need to modify the game experience. Some GMs are reluctant to accomodate the reasonabel goals of their players, while others are more flexible." Say what? First of all, you seem to be describing a 3e game with AD&D alignments. Second in the old AD&D game, you still decided your alignment and dealt with the consequences. The "hard" restrictions on alignment behavior should be interpreted as system limits on your character, not surrendering authorship. Alignment is very much part of the game world "physics" and there is little vague about it. In cases where alignment questions are hard to settle, I think the DM and players can agree they are hard to settle. To me "play experience" is immersion in the game. Gamist, narrativist, simulationist is not... those are meta-game priorities. The relationship between the rules and play experience in D&D is very coherent, to me; not in Forge terms, but it's just one of those appalling things about Forge theory that it does not account for D&D's success. And D&D is, indisputable, a successful game. The very definition of a successful rpg is "be D&D." It is the most sold, the most played, the most enjoyed, the most beloved, and the most likely to continue to be all those things. The OP complains about directives to be "in character"... well, guess what? That is what D&D is. That's not incoherence, that's fidelity to the basic concept of role-playing games as formulated by Gygax, Arneson, and the early D&D community. If you are not both "in character" and trying to win battles, you are not playing D&D to its full potential. [/QUOTE]

Verification