Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5695771" data-attributes="member: 957">I've been called arrogant for saying this but...I've never experienced this.&nbsp; Or, at least, not in a very long time.It is the DM's job to cater to everyone's fun.&nbsp; Creating an engaging activity that also makes the player feel like their character is invested is a big part of that.&nbsp; But &quot;invested&quot; is not the same as &quot;contributing&quot;.&nbsp; I've had combats dominated by the fighter and the wizard player was on the edge of his seat cheering the fighter on.I've had combats dominated by the wizard and the fighter player was on the edge of his seat cheering the wizard on.Good RPGs are about great conflict scenarios (typically combat, but not at all limited to such).But good RPGs are also about feeling like the scenarios are part of a larger goal that you/your character cares about achieving.&nbsp; Good RPGs are about feeling like you are inside a novel.There are a lot of elements of good rpgs that don't have anything to do with &quot;shining RIGHT NOW&quot;.If fun is tied to contributing now then, to me, you are trying to draw a rainbow but you are tied to a box with one crayon in it.When I read a great novel I have zero control.&nbsp; And yet I love the experience.&nbsp; But when I read that novel I also don't get that feeling of being inside the story and contributing to the overall plot.&nbsp; In an RPG the moments when one player is not in the spotlight, when done correctly, should still be BETTER than reading a great novel because not only are they still getting the great novel experience, they feel like the activity directly affects them, and their own past actions directly affect being at this point and the success or failure of others at this point will directly affect their own future actions.Taken to an extreme &quot;everyone contributes&quot; just becomes the Incredibles line: &quot;Everyone is special means no one is special&quot;.&nbsp; I don't think anybody's game goes to that extreme.&nbsp; But I don't see any value in moving any distance toward that.&nbsp; If a DM's game NEEDS everyone constantly contributing in order to have fun, then that DM has OTHER elements of DMing that could be improved.&nbsp; And if they use constant contribution as a means of covering the other issues, then (a) that just moves problems around and (b) that cover takes away from making progress in the weaker areas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5695771, member: 957"] I've been called arrogant for saying this but... I've never experienced this. Or, at least, not in a very long time. It is the DM's job to cater to everyone's fun. Creating an engaging activity that also makes the player feel like their character is invested is a big part of that. But "invested" is not the same as "contributing". I've had combats dominated by the fighter and the wizard player was on the edge of his seat cheering the fighter on. I've had combats dominated by the wizard and the fighter player was on the edge of his seat cheering the wizard on. Good RPGs are about great conflict scenarios (typically combat, but not at all limited to such). But good RPGs are also about feeling like the scenarios are part of a larger goal that you/your character cares about achieving. Good RPGs are about feeling like you are inside a novel. There are a lot of elements of good rpgs that don't have anything to do with "shining RIGHT NOW". If fun is tied to contributing now then, to me, you are trying to draw a rainbow but you are tied to a box with one crayon in it. When I read a great novel I have zero control. And yet I love the experience. But when I read that novel I also don't get that feeling of being inside the story and contributing to the overall plot. In an RPG the moments when one player is not in the spotlight, when done correctly, should still be BETTER than reading a great novel because not only are they still getting the great novel experience, they feel like the activity directly affects them, and their own past actions directly affect being at this point and the success or failure of others at this point will directly affect their own future actions. Taken to an extreme "everyone contributes" just becomes the Incredibles line: "Everyone is special means no one is special". I don't think anybody's game goes to that extreme. But I don't see any value in moving any distance toward that. If a DM's game NEEDS everyone constantly contributing in order to have fun, then that DM has OTHER elements of DMing that could be improved. And if they use constant contribution as a means of covering the other issues, then (a) that just moves problems around and (b) that cover takes away from making progress in the weaker areas. [/QUOTE]

Verification