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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9365437" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I am going to push back on this for two reasons.1. It was common back then for players to have multiple characters. So having one character killed, or otherwise removed from play for a significant period of time, did not necessarily remove the player from the game.2. Further, fun can't be measured on a single axis. To give a real life example, when I was much younger, I was spending time with my relatives. My uncle was sitting out on the porch. I asked him what he was doing, and he said, "Watching the grass grow." At that age, I didn't understand it. I couldn't imagine someone finding "fun" in just doing nothing. And yet, he found that to be the best use of his time.In the same way, some people find "fun" in overcoming challenges- to them, the overall experience is what matters- that is what is fun. That parts of it are setbacks or even ... boring ... just makes any eventual success more fun. ETA- I saw your additional post while I was writing this. I am not saying that modern play isn't different, or that design changes have occurred!* I would actually posit that because more people find "fun" in constant engagement, the actual play of a lot of OD&D and AD&D table was less lethal than the RAW (and grognards) would have you believe. I would only note that there are those who find their fun in different approaches, and that's perfectly fine! *I would further argue that the videogame industry has followed this trend, with games becoming easier (and more forgiving) over time, because that appeals to more people.</blockquote>

Verification