Player "Engagement" and Self-Selecting What We Play

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm all about experiencing & interacting with the game world as the PC, so I consciously try to reduce my "meta" thinking about the game.

I wasn't always that way. I consider myself a reformed munchkin.

Now, all of that doesn't mean I'm not aware of system mastery. Its just that I bend the knee of my system mastery to the rule of making the PC the best version of him/her/itself as possible. And "best" doesn't mean combat optimized. It means that the mechanical version of the PC is as close as possible to the concept of the PC floating in my mind, which may or may not be sub-optimal or super tweaked.

 

[howandwhy99]

I would add those who like the game to be strategic as in chess. People who prefer strategically meaningful decisions, not only emotional or other types of meaningful decisions. "Will this action increase or decrease my chances for reaching the game's objective?"

EDIT:
I would also argue against the game being competitive, player versus player, so much as cooperative. Though collaborative D&D games are fun too.

 

[pawsplay]

I would add those who like the game to be strategic as in chess. People who prefer strategically meaningful decisions, not only emotional or other types of meaningful decisions. "Will this action increase or decrease my chances for reaching the game's objective?"

EDIT:
I would also argue against the game being competitive, player versus player, so much as cooperative. Though collaborative D&D games are fun too.

I'm not sure. Chess has only one emotionally significant outcome: victory or defeat. Being stratgic in this way presupposes some goal. So why was that goal chosen? What do they think the game is about?

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm not sure. Chess has only one emotionally significant outcome: victory or defeat. Being stratgic in this way presupposes some goal. So why was that goal chosen? What do they think the game is about?

I would argue games with win/loss conditions are pretty emotional both for participants and viewers. Stadiums sell out with hefty ticket prices for many sports. Chess is far more abstracted than other games, but I wouldn't claim it has only one emotional payoff, the last move. Think of M:tG players, many are heavily emotionally invested in their game in all kinds of ways.

Why was the player's goal chosen? I don't know. The players choose their ends and they don't need to tell me, if I'm the one DMing. Personally, I think the game is about attaining system mastery. A lot of games are like that. But, like in basketball, a player doesn't have to choose to play in such a way as to get better at it. But, if the other players are trying to do so, they may not want him or her to remain a team member.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Chess has only one emotionally significant outcome: victory or defeat.

I can't quite agree with that- the endgame is the big payoff, but a good match contains many emotional fluctuations.

Surprising an opponent with an unusual tactic feels great. Announcing "Checkmate in _____ moves" is a huge rush. And turning the tables on an opponent who has made such an announcement is an even bigger one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wasn't always that way. I consider myself a reformed munchkin.

I guess you "grew".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can't quite agree with that- the endgame is the big payoff, but a good match contains many emotional fluctuations.

Surprising an opponent with an unusual tactic feels great. Announcing "Checkmate in _____ moves" is a huge rush. And turning the tables on an opponent who has made such an announcement is an even bigger one.

+1.

I play as much chess as I can (which, sadly, isn't a lot ). I don't mind losing if I've lost to some clever strategy....being part of a great game is a pretty big reward, regardless of who wins the game.

Of course, I still prefer to win a great game than to lose one!