Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5696306" data-attributes="member: 957">Can you give me an actual example of that?&nbsp; Actually saying &quot;You should not bother trying to contribute here, this portion of the game is not for you.&quot; sounds like an extreme straw man scenario that has nothing to do with any game I've ever seen.&nbsp; so if that is what you really mean then the question becomes: What does that have to do with anything?I played last night.&nbsp; At one part the party rogue went off to recon a location and got into a lot of trouble.&nbsp; And was able to get himself out of it.&nbsp; During that 10 minutes or so of play that one player was the only one active.&nbsp; So, if [D][/D]you want to spin it in the worst possible way, the other characters physically were not there, it was impossible for their characters to contribute.&nbsp; And yet the concept that this was &quot;not for you&quot; would seem completely bizarre to anyone at the table.&nbsp; Everyone was highly engaged and commenting and kibitzing and cheering and groaning as things went up and down.&nbsp; At that moment there was no opportunity for any of the others to contribute, so I have broken your rule.&nbsp; And yet the game was 100% FOR EVERYONE.&nbsp; And it was great.I'd also quibble with your phrase &quot;NEEDS everyone constantly contributing&quot;.&nbsp; If you read what I said in context, I didn't say that exactly the way you are casting it.&nbsp;4E has been frequently praised because it tries to impose that there should always be an opportunity for a player to contribute.&quot; attitude.&nbsp; I've had other people tell me that this is great because before 4E people would wander off and start playing video games when it wasn't their turn.&nbsp; If you ALWAYS have an opportunity then it seems reasonable that you will almost always take that opportunity.&nbsp; I never said they must TAKE the chance, I simply stated that, as you endorsed, they must HAVE the chance.&nbsp; I did then go on to presume they would take it.&nbsp; And you are correct that they could elect to not take that chance.&nbsp; But that really doesn't change anything in my point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5696306, member: 957"] Can you give me an actual example of that? Actually saying "You should not bother trying to contribute here, this portion of the game is not [I]for[/I] you." sounds like an extreme straw man scenario that has nothing to do with any game I've ever seen. so if that is what you really mean then the question becomes: What does that have to do with anything? I played last night. At one part the party rogue went off to recon a location and got into a lot of trouble. And was able to get himself out of it. During that 10 minutes or so of play that one player was the only one active. So, if [D][/D]you want to spin it in the worst possible way, the other characters physically were not there, it was impossible for their characters to contribute. And yet the concept that this was "not [I]for[/I] you" would seem completely bizarre to anyone at the table. Everyone was highly engaged and commenting and kibitzing and cheering and groaning as things went up and down. At that moment there was no opportunity for any of the others to contribute, so I have broken your rule. And yet the game was 100% FOR EVERYONE. And it was great. I'd also quibble with your phrase "NEEDS everyone constantly contributing". If you read what I said in context, I didn't say that exactly the way you are casting it. 4E has been frequently praised because it tries to impose that [B]there should always be an opportunity for a player to contribute."[/B] attitude. I've had other people tell me that this is great because before 4E people would wander off and start playing video games when it wasn't their turn. If you ALWAYS have an opportunity then it seems reasonable that you will almost always take that opportunity. I never said they must TAKE the chance, I simply stated that, as you endorsed, they must HAVE the chance. I did then go on to presume they would take it. And you are correct that they could elect to not take that chance. But that really doesn't change anything in my point. [/QUOTE]

Verification