Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3505362" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't deny it.  However, the issues and the enacting of a power fantasy were in many ways related.  I've met alot of gamers with issues, but generally its only the ones running power fantasies that are disruptive of play.Or even if you struggled through the filth while dying of tetnus you contracted from a rusty nail?  You are moving the goal posts.  If all that is required is tremendous success as an ultimate reward, then the character can still 'suck' and doesn't need a big sword or big spells.  You earlier implied that all D&D players played the game as a particular sort of power fantasy, namely that they would play empowered characters that don't 'suck'.  But you can haul the ring to Mt. Doom as a 1st level commoner, and still thereby be the most important person in the world.  If you retroactively change your definition of the 'red beating heart of D&D' to merely the oppurtunity to achieve success, then sure if I remove the oppurtunity to succeed from the game few players will come back.  But if I remove the big swords and big spells from the game, that's an entirely different thing because the oppurtunity to achieve success is still there, but not the opputunity to 'swing big swords and cast big spells' which you earlier defined as essential to the game.I did not assume that compentancy would be limited only to being competant in one particular thing.  Of course people can ego trip over different sorts of competancy.  But you seem unable to catch that some people, even some seeking an ego trip, see character competancy as a hinderance to what they want in the game. Again, you are making assumptions that are unwarranted.  A player that wants to play a character with 22 INT and who is skillful in everything, falls into the category of 'power gamer' that I've been talking about.  But a player that wants to play a character with only ordinary abilities because if the character had extraordinary abilities it would make the game 'too easy' or would interfere with his ability to demonstrate his wit as a player may be an 'ego gamer', but he's a very different sort than the one that wants to vicariously swing a big sword or be a very beautiful or desirable person.One that has absolutely nothing to do with character competancy.  Except, explicitly, this is one type that does.  I've met problem solvers that get bigger kicks out playing powerless characters than powerful ones.Those that respond to what someone else actually writes, and those that can't and instead respond to what they themselves write.I believe if you'll look I was responding to a question that refered specifically to those people who do not seem to be intelligently disagreeing, but instead seem to have some emotional stake in disproving that D&D can be played any other way than power gaming.It's not at all clear why someone with one preferred gaming style should want to not only advocate thier own style of play, but also denounce any other.  I think Hobo is quite right.  A discussion of grim and gritty or low magic games invariably draws alot of people who are quite angry about something and who will say that not only are grim and gritty games not thier preferred style, but that they are badwrongfun and/or impossible.</blockquote>

Verification