Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8435185" data-attributes="member: 7030755">This is really helpful in establishing the stakes for why using or not using certain terminology matters in how games are presented--thank you.&nbsp; I disagree, in that I think employing a language of winning causes more confused play expectations than it resolves, but I can see your point.&nbsp; I prefer games to include language that qualifies &quot;winning&quot; and includes more neutral language (goal, objective, etc), as in the CoC example that I quoted.&nbsp; It's not that games ought to excise all language related to winning, but clarifying the non zero-sum expectation is helpful.Helpful, in my experience, for a few reasons.&nbsp; One, it helps avoid adversarial play.&nbsp; Now, certainly characters might be working at cross purposes with each other.&nbsp; But, this should be done with some intentionality and OOC boundaries or it results in dysfunction (as the group is incapable of acting together) or, worse, bad feelings at the table.&nbsp; Two, I've experienced players trying to win leading to overly cautious play.&nbsp; It's hard to convince a player to &quot;fall in love with danger&quot; or to &quot;play their character like a stolen car&quot; if, in game terms, they are taking a risk-adverse strategy.&nbsp; &nbsp; Finally, as a GM, one might be tempted to drive play towards resolving a predetermined &quot;win condition&quot; rather than being more open to the evolving goals of the group as a whole or each player individually.&nbsp; The starting goal might be, &quot;defeat the vampire Strahd,&quot; but that might not be where the party ends up, as I tried to demonstrate above.As a side note, I've never been at a table with optimizers, but I have read stories of people being shamed for having less-than-optimal characters, and it's a constant topic of discussion on 5e forums.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8435185, member: 7030755"] This is really helpful in establishing the stakes for why using or not using certain terminology matters in how games are presented--thank you. I disagree, in that I think employing a language of winning causes more confused play expectations than it resolves, but I can see your point. I prefer games to include language that qualifies "winning" and includes more neutral language (goal, objective, etc), as in the CoC example that I quoted. It's not that games ought to excise all language related to winning, but clarifying the non zero-sum expectation is helpful. Helpful, in my experience, for a few reasons. One, it helps avoid adversarial play. Now, certainly characters might be working at cross purposes with each other. But, this should be done with some intentionality and OOC boundaries or it results in dysfunction (as the group is incapable of acting together) or, worse, bad feelings at the table. Two, I've experienced players trying to win leading to overly cautious play. It's hard to convince a player to "fall in love with danger" or to "play their character like a stolen car" if, in game terms, they are taking a risk-adverse strategy. Finally, as a GM, one might be tempted to drive play towards resolving a predetermined "win condition" rather than being more open to the evolving goals of the group as a whole or each player individually. The [I]starting[/I] goal might be, "defeat the vampire Strahd," but that might not be where the party ends up, as I tried to demonstrate above. As a side note, I've never been at a table with optimizers, but I have read stories of people being shamed for having less-than-optimal characters, and it's a constant topic of discussion on 5e forums. [/QUOTE]

Verification