Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5696000" data-attributes="member: 66434">When the issue of player participation comes up, the word meaningful gets tossed around quite a bit. In the context of what is being talked about, meaningful equates to having as equal an effect on something as anyone else. &nbsp;Therefore to participate in the whole of the game in a meaningful way means there can be no fundamental differences in the functional abilities of character classes. &nbsp;Often it seems like what is being fussed over with regard to meaningful inclusion isn't a denial of participation via mechanics but instead a denial of having as good a bonus at something as someone else in a particular situation. &nbsp;In other words if player A has a +5 bonus to do something in this challenge then player B has to also have a +5 bonus to do something as well in order to meaningfully participate. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />&nbsp;Catering to this attitude has contributed to what I like to call the Ricky Bobby school of game design: If you're not first, you're last!!. &nbsp;Being an optimal performer has become such an obsession that anything less gets equated with denial of participation via mechanics. &nbsp;Back in my day, grumbling about having nothing to do just because you didn't have a big enough bonus to be worth attempting to you meant you were a freakin whiner.&nbsp;OK so your thief isn't in the same league of combat performance as the fighter, does this mean you don't do your best to help out your companions in a fight? Should the fighter bitch and moan because he can't find traps or pick locks as well as the thief?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 5696000, member: 66434"] When the issue of player participation comes up, the word [I]meaningful [/I]gets tossed around quite a bit. In the context of what is being talked about, meaningful equates to having as equal an effect on something as anyone else. Therefore to participate in the whole of the game in a meaningful way means there can be no fundamental differences in the functional abilities of character classes. Often it seems like what is being fussed over with regard to meaningful inclusion isn't a denial of participation via mechanics but instead a denial of having as good a bonus at something as someone else in a particular situation. In other words if player A has a +5 bonus to do something in this challenge then player B has to also have a +5 bonus to do something as well in order to [I]meaningfully[/I] participate. :erm: Catering to this attitude has contributed to what I like to call the [B]Ricky Bobby school of game design:[/B] [I]If you're not first, you're last!!. [/I] Being an optimal performer has become such an obsession that anything less gets equated with denial of participation via mechanics. Back in my day, grumbling about having nothing to do just because you didn't have a big enough bonus to be worth attempting to you meant you were a freakin whiner. OK so your thief isn't in the same league of combat performance as the fighter, does this mean you don't do your best to help out your companions in a fight? Should the fighter bitch and moan because he can't find traps or pick locks as well as the thief? [/QUOTE]

Verification