Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7082263" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that there are severe limitations to this sort of player categorisation.But the group I play with would - by ENworld standards, judging from threads - be classified as Power Gamers, Optimisers and Tacticians. They like building PCs for effectiveness, and playing for the same.(Btw, the quoted description of "power gamers" doesn't seem generally applicable, because it seems to be relevant only to games with "breakpoints" - I prefer to avoid such games.)There is no general tension (that I've encountered, at least) between playing for effectivness and a game in which the action and focus of the game are led by the players rather than the GM.As far as "beating a problem" being "at odds with allowing [a player] to control or create things through the narrative", I don't see why. Beating a problem by goading an advisor into outing him-/herself doesn't seem different, in this respect, from beating a problem by (say) blowing it up. Likewise for beating a problem by succeeding at a Circles check and thereby meeting a friendly NPC.I'm not sure who you are intending to denote by "we".In the OP I place value on a game not being a railroad, which is to say I placed value on the game - that is to say, the focus of play, and the outcomes in the shared fiction - being driven by the players rather than the GM. My reason for doing that is because I prefer it.</blockquote>