Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5410813" data-attributes="member: 80487">It's certainly a long one, but maybe no longer so remarkable even for that. For sheer horribleness, I nominate Vecna Lives!.No escape! You can't even commit suicide, because it's not your time to die. &quot;Woo-hoo! Cheat mode is on, baby!&quot; No, actually trying to use the rule to play a game must get quashed.When failure is not an option in some (any) sense, there is not even an object of a game. With no object, there is no basis for the rest of a game.But is that not the railroaders' objection to a wide open game? With no specific object imposed by a boss, there's &quot;nothing to do&quot;? Why, yes it is -- and it is obviously mistaken. Old D&amp;D has a default object of scoring points, for which treasures are tokens. This is not as simple as Pac-Man, because the treasures are not laid out in a line immediately before you, but even without making inquiries you are likely to hear of the loot to be found someplace. If you have just joined a campaign with skilled adventurers, then joining (or talking with, or just observing) them will almost certainly pay dividends.Moreover, you can choose whatever other appropriate objective you like and be free to succeed or fail at it. What is &quot;inappropriate&quot; depends on the focus of the game, but as a general rule RPGs are designed to cater to interests aligned with one genre or another of action-adventure fiction. The practical concern is that too much time and energy devoted to one eccentric player shortchanges all the others. If a group of RuneQuest players wants to field a Troll Ball team, then actually playing out full games may be appropriate. If just one player is interested, then we may be looking at a solitaire game or a very perfunctory treatment of the season.At any rate, the idea is that if we are going to get into it then it is going to be a decent game -- because playing a game is what was billed in the first place!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5410813, member: 80487"] It's certainly a long one, but maybe no longer so remarkable even for that. For sheer horribleness, I nominate [i]Vecna Lives![/i]. No escape! You can't even commit suicide, because it's not your time to die. "Woo-hoo! Cheat mode is [i]on[/i], baby!" No, actually trying to [i]use the rule to play a game[/i] must get quashed. When failure is not an option in [i]some[/i] (any) sense, there is not even an [b]object of a game[/b]. With no object, there is no basis for the rest of a game. But is that not the railroaders' objection to a wide open game? With no specific object imposed by a boss, there's "nothing to do"? Why, yes it is -- and it is obviously mistaken. Old D&D has a default object of scoring points, for which treasures are tokens. This is not as simple as Pac-Man, because the treasures are not laid out in a line immediately before you, but even without making inquiries you are likely to hear of the loot to be found someplace. If you have just joined a campaign with skilled adventurers, then joining (or talking with, or just observing) them will almost certainly pay dividends. Moreover, you can choose whatever other appropriate objective you like and be free to succeed or fail at it. What is "inappropriate" depends on the focus of the game, but as a general rule RPGs are designed to cater to interests aligned with one genre or another of action-adventure fiction. The practical concern is that too much time and energy devoted to one eccentric player shortchanges all the others. If a group of RuneQuest players wants to field a Troll Ball team, then actually playing out full games may be appropriate. If just one player is interested, then we may be looking at a [i]solitaire[/i] game or a very perfunctory treatment of the season. At any rate, the idea is that if we are going to get into it then it is going to be a decent game -- because playing a game is what was billed in the first place! [/QUOTE]

Verification