Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Daniel D. Fox" data-source="post: 4500384" data-attributes="member: 55033"><a href="http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20081008" target="_blank">Save My Game: Let Players Manage Themselves, Part 3</a>&nbsp;For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point -&nbsp;You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere). &nbsp;I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as directors of their own characters, the production of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else.&nbsp;I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game &quot;unfun&quot;.&nbsp;The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the &quot;slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable&quot;. And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create &quot;mini-instances of fun&quot;. Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun.&nbsp;&nbsp;Cheers~</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Daniel D. Fox, post: 4500384, member: 55033"] [URL="http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20081008"]Save My Game: Let Players Manage Themselves, Part 3[/URL] For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point - [I]You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere).[/I] I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as [I]directors[/I] of their own characters, the [I]production[/I] of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game "unfun". The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create "mini-instances of fun". Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun. Cheers~ [/QUOTE]

Verification