Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8937092" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there is a degree of onus, on people who spend their leisure time playing games, to own their preferences.I've often posted that I prefer backgammon to chess. (I compare them because they are two classic/traditional boardgames.) Chess obviously is the more sophisticated and intricate game. This is the very reason why I prefer backgammon - it's quick, it's lighthearted, it doesn't demand intense concentration, and in fact can be played while chatting to someone. And to do it well all you need is a bit of luck and high school-level probability calculations.For similar reasons I prefer 500 to bridge - the longer trump suit, together with the kitty, means you don't normally have to count every card to play well. And for those same reasons the bidding with a partner can be more straightforward.When it comes to RPGing, on the other hand, I'm not looking for a backgammon-like, or 500-like, experience. I'm looking for something pretty serious, in terms of intellectual commitment, participant effort, etc. I've sometimes read that a game like (say) Burning Wheel may not be a good fit for &quot;casual&quot; players. I think that's probably true! But I'm not very interested in RPGing with &quot;casual&quot; players! That's not to say I'm obsessed with intricate systems: BW and Torchbearer are intricate, but Prince Valiant isn't. But I want to play with players who will invest in the fiction, who will play their PCs relatively hard, who will use the system when it does have intricacies.No doubt there are players whose interest in RPGing is better served by the sort of 2nd ed AD&amp;D game I have no interest in, than the sort of game I want to participate in (whether as player or GM). That's fine, and that's entirely their prerogative. But I'm not one of them. And I'm not really interested in, let alone committed, to modes of &quot;analysis&quot; whose main purpose is to show that their preferences are just as &quot;valid&quot; as mine. (Just as no serious analysis of boardgames would render backgammon as indistinguishable from chess.)I'm interested in technical understanding, not validating people's preferences for how to spend their leisure time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8937092, member: 42582"] I think there is a degree of onus, on people who spend their leisure time playing games, to own their preferences. I've often posted that I prefer backgammon to chess. (I compare them because they are two classic/traditional boardgames.) Chess obviously is the more sophisticated and intricate game. This is the very reason why I prefer backgammon - it's quick, it's lighthearted, it doesn't demand intense concentration, and in fact can be played while chatting to someone. And to do it well all you need is a bit of luck and high school-level probability calculations. For similar reasons I prefer 500 to bridge - the longer trump suit, together with the kitty, means you don't normally have to count every card to play well. And for those same reasons the bidding with a partner can be more straightforward. When it comes to RPGing, on the other hand, I'm not looking for a backgammon-like, or 500-like, experience. I'm looking for something pretty serious, in terms of intellectual commitment, participant effort, etc. I've sometimes read that a game like (say) Burning Wheel may not be a good fit for "casual" players. I think that's probably true! But I'm not very interested in RPGing with "casual" players! That's not to say I'm obsessed with intricate systems: BW and Torchbearer are intricate, but Prince Valiant isn't. But I want to play with players who will invest in the fiction, who will play their PCs relatively hard, who will use the system when it does have intricacies. No doubt there are players whose interest in RPGing is better served by the sort of 2nd ed AD&D game I have no interest in, than the sort of game I want to participate in (whether as player or GM). That's fine, and that's entirely their prerogative. But I'm not one of them. And I'm not really interested in, let alone committed, to modes of "analysis" whose main purpose is to show that their preferences are just as "valid" as mine. (Just as no serious analysis of boardgames would render backgammon as indistinguishable from chess.) I'm interested in technical understanding, not validating people's preferences for how to spend their leisure time. [/QUOTE]

Verification