Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 7961437" data-attributes="member: 205">That's probably where I'm drawing the distinction.&nbsp; Sitting down and strategizing isn't playing the game, but it's absolutely an engaging and enjoyable activity in its own right.&nbsp; Considering how hard it can be to find time with multiple people to actually sit down and play, why not maximize the time you can spend on your hobby even when other people aren't available?Nothing in D&amp;D requires it, no.&nbsp; But again, as I mentioned, if I was playing purely for the non-mechanical elements, I'd play a game that didn't have them, or a much simpler set.&nbsp; Fiasco.&nbsp; FATE.&nbsp; Blades in the Dark.&nbsp; Any of the many, many PbtA games.Fundamentally, there are many lightweight RPGs out there, and a large number of people still gravitate to mechanically heavy options in lieu of playing those.&nbsp; So either they're entirely ignorant as to their existence, deliberately masochistic as to playing games that don't cater to their needs, or (most likely) those mechanical elements provide an amount of psychological satisfaction that lightweight games don't cater to.&nbsp; You're right, in that any sort of mechanically complex game needs more options over time.&nbsp; That's because the desire to understand and master the set of mechanics is an important portion of the enjoyment in playing those sort of games.&nbsp; It's why Magic keeps releasing new cards, League of Legends keeps releasing new champions, and why Civilization adds new civs every expansion.&nbsp; If you haven't, there are some excellent articles online about the psychology of gamer motivations; those ideas certainly helped me to understand why some people love Pathfinder, some only prefer the OSR, and some people find any kind of D&amp;D to be overwhelmingly complex.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 7961437, member: 205"] That's probably where I'm drawing the distinction. Sitting down and strategizing isn't playing the game, but it's absolutely an engaging and enjoyable activity in its own right. Considering how hard it can be to find time with multiple people to actually sit down and play, why not maximize the time you can spend on your hobby even when other people aren't available? Nothing in D&D requires it, no. But again, as I mentioned, if I was playing purely for the non-mechanical elements, I'd play a game that didn't have them, or a much simpler set. Fiasco. FATE. Blades in the Dark. Any of the many, many PbtA games. Fundamentally, there are many lightweight RPGs out there, and a large number of people still gravitate to mechanically heavy options in lieu of playing those. So either they're entirely ignorant as to their existence, deliberately masochistic as to playing games that don't cater to their needs, or (most likely) those mechanical elements provide an amount of psychological satisfaction that lightweight games don't cater to. You're right, in that any sort of mechanically complex game needs more options over time. That's because the desire to understand and master the set of mechanics is an important portion of the enjoyment in playing those sort of games. It's why Magic keeps releasing new cards, League of Legends keeps releasing new champions, and why Civilization adds new civs every expansion. If you haven't, there are some excellent articles online about the psychology of gamer motivations; those ideas certainly helped me to understand why some people love Pathfinder, some only prefer the OSR, and some people find any kind of D&D to be overwhelmingly complex. [/QUOTE]

Verification