Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6129090" data-attributes="member: 27160">I agree with your view that &quot;games&quot; require some sort of strategic thinking, but I think that DM-arbitrated games can involve this. Instead of playing the opposition via the rules, you just play the DM, by which I mean you use your social perception and persuasion skills to lead the DM to agree that what you want your character to do is &quot;reasonable&quot;, while what others (including the DM) want their characters to do is &quot;unrealistic&quot;. In other words, you try to divine how the DM thinks or wants the game/real world to work, and then you either parse your in-game intentions to fit that model or use persuasion and influence to modify the DM's model into something you can use more easily.I have seen this done many times, and I recognise it pretty readily these days. I don't like it at all, personally, but I can see that some do, and they would logically be attracted to &quot;DM arbitration&quot; games as a result. Of course, not all folks who like DM arbitration play this sort of &quot;game&quot; - some don't really play RPGs to &quot;game&quot; at all. I can see the attraction of that, but I find that the drivers to competition need to be way down or one or two folks can't resist a bit of &quot;play the DM&quot; - which I notice and get annoyed about. Hence, for me to enjoy pure sim/immersive stuff things like xp, levels, &quot;character development&quot; (in the specific sense of expected character improvement) and treasure hunting need to be marginalised or removed as elements of in-game power determination.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6129090, member: 27160"] I agree with your view that "games" require some sort of strategic thinking, but I think that DM-arbitrated games [B][I]can[/I][/B] involve this. Instead of playing the opposition via the rules, you just play the DM, by which I mean you use your social perception and persuasion skills to lead the DM to agree that what you want [I]your[/I] character to do is "reasonable", while what others (including the DM) want [I]their[/I] characters to do is "unrealistic". In other words, you try to divine how the DM thinks or wants the game/real world to work, and then you either parse your in-game intentions to fit that model or use persuasion and influence to modify the DM's model into something you can use more easily. I have seen this done many times, and I recognise it pretty readily these days. I don't like it at all, personally, but I can see that some do, and they would logically be attracted to "DM arbitration" games as a result. Of course, not [I]all[/I] folks who like DM arbitration play this sort of "game" - some don't really play RPGs to "game" at all. I can see the attraction of that, but I find that the drivers to competition need to be way down or one or two folks can't resist a bit of "play the DM" - which I notice and get annoyed about. Hence, for me to enjoy pure sim/immersive stuff things like xp, levels, "character development" (in the specific sense of expected character improvement) and treasure hunting need to be marginalised or removed as elements of in-game power determination. [/QUOTE]

Verification