Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6291253" data-attributes="member: 27160">Well, if you could explain why and how this perspective is "alien" I might be able to explain/understand further, but I don't really see how it's alien to you. I'll explain why this is further, below.It's a view I didn't used to have simply because I hadn't really thought about it before. As soon as it was pointed out to me, I could see that it's obviously true - RPG characters aren't real. It is surely kind of a no-brainer, once it's pointed out? The ramifications take a wee bit longer to think through - but not that long.Because they aren't really thinking it through but are seeing the deeper reasons why they use/like specific things as being related to the imaginary character instead of to the players. It doesn't make their reasons any less real - it just means that, since they view them as being related to an imaginary entity instead of to their real (in the sense of "not imaginary") target, they don't get a clear picture of what the real (i.e. non-imaginary) value and relevance of their preference is.Now, it's possible that someone might take a good look at the real (again, as in "not imaginary") target of their preference is and decide that their preference still stands; that they value the "reward" element of magic items because of the effect that it has on the player and the value that the player ascribes to those items. That would be the obvious counter-argument to my earlier opinion that, seen in its true (i.e. non-imaginary) light I don't think the preference has much substance. That is the "opinion" part of what I have been saying and, as an opinion, anyone is free to disagree with it if they feel like it (and hopefully explain further what value they find in it from that perspective). To argue, as some seem to, that rewards in the game should be aimed at the (imaginary) character, however, is just bizarre.No. But you appear to be insisting that RPG systems should be designed to entertain/please/satisfy the characters in the game, who are not actually real. This seems strange in the extreme, and I suspect that it's not actually what you mean to argue (or, at least, it wouldn't be if you paused to think about it).What I'm suggesting is that you should take your "playing the game and (thus) mentally inhabiting the game world" head off, for a few moments, and think through what is happening when you game purely in terms of the actual, physical people (players) who are playing the game. I promise that you will be able to return to immersing yourself in the game world again afterwards, when next you play or when next you wish to do so (or, at least, I promise that I am quite able to do so, even after taking time out to think about the game from a purely "real" perspective).What I'm trying to explain is that the game world and all in it have no existence independent of the real people who play the game. They are all parts of an imaginary construction that we create in order to entertain and engage the players of the game. As such, the elements of the imaginary construct should be given purpose in the game design with their effects on the (real) people who are playing the game in mind, not their effects upon the (imaginary) people in the game world.I'm saying that any design element in an RPG should be assessed for its impact upon the (real-people) players, not for its effect on the characters in the game, since its effect upon the characters in the game world is, by definition, nil (because they don't exist except as an imaginary construct to engage and entertain the players).Consider for a moment an argument like this:"Characters are imaginary constructs in the game that are designed to engage and entertain the players. Player-characters do so as proxies or avatars through which the players engage the rest of the game world. As such, these characters are more entertaining and engaging if they are given in-game-world 'toys' to play with."That sounds like a decent opening for arguing that magic items as "rewards" could have value to the (real) players of the game. It begs a few questions (why do these "toys" need to be magic items? do they really need to give the character more "power" in the game world? and so on), but at least it doesn't try to "prove" that increased capability of the player character is a "reward" because the character would be expected to feel good about getting it.</blockquote>

Verification