Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8286346" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm not sure I totally agree with that. I don't think that it is possible to really describe people by such simple categories, but I think there is some merit in the way it extracts agendas out of play. I mean, something like the GNS model was intended to classify the agendas of GAME DESIGNS, but it doesn't tell you much about how someone is playing and what their play/character agenda is. As [USER=82504]@Garthanos[/USER] is saying, if your preference is 'storytelling' and you play an SP game where the PCs get ganked in the dark by kobolds while stuck in a maze, that probably doesn't cut it for that player. It might be perfectly OK to the Power Gamer, he's just going to incorporate that mistake into 'winning' next time. It might not matter too much to the Explorer, one character can explore as well as another. It might bum out the Hack-n-Slash guy that he has to level up again, but its all killing things. I think there ARE types that SP works better, in general, for than others. It is pretty classically understood that story tellers and anyone interested in dramatic elements and plot in a game are not going to be pleased by most SP play, because it simply isn't geared to that agenda. You MIGHT end up with an interesting story, if you're lucky, but it is going to be very hit and miss. Classic D&amp;D specifically also doesn't do much for min/maxer types. I would not say that is a hard limitation imposed by SP though, Gary simply preferred his players to find EVERYTHING in the 'dungeon' and didn't give them option they could own on their side (aside from which spell to memorize).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8286346, member: 82106"] I'm not sure I totally agree with that. I don't think that it is possible to really describe people by such simple categories, but I think there is some merit in the way it extracts agendas out of play. I mean, something like the GNS model was intended to classify the agendas of GAME DESIGNS, but it doesn't tell you much about how someone is playing and what their play/character agenda is. As [USER=82504]@Garthanos[/USER] is saying, if your preference is 'storytelling' and you play an SP game where the PCs get ganked in the dark by kobolds while stuck in a maze, that probably doesn't cut it for that player. It might be perfectly OK to the Power Gamer, he's just going to incorporate that mistake into 'winning' next time. It might not matter too much to the Explorer, one character can explore as well as another. It might bum out the Hack-n-Slash guy that he has to level up again, but its all killing things. I think there ARE types that SP works better, in general, for than others. It is pretty classically understood that story tellers and anyone interested in dramatic elements and plot in a game are not going to be pleased by most SP play, because it simply isn't geared to that agenda. You MIGHT end up with an interesting story, if you're lucky, but it is going to be very hit and miss. Classic D&D specifically also doesn't do much for min/maxer types. I would not say that is a hard limitation imposed by SP though, Gary simply preferred his players to find EVERYTHING in the 'dungeon' and didn't give them option they could own on their side (aside from which spell to memorize). [/QUOTE]

Verification