Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2778124" data-attributes="member: 26473">I want to agree with this, I really do...*sigh*While I respect that many gamers want to avoid making value-judgements regarding play-styles, I believe that some gaming experiences are qualitatively better than others.I think that this may be more than a function of taste, that there are intrinsic attributes that make an adventure more elegant, a setting more engrossing, a character more sophisticated, than another.When I first started playing RPGs, I ran my share of orc-and-pie adventures, and a good time was had by all. I created a dungeon that was a series of linked rooms of different sizes on a sheet of graph paper, filled with traps, monsters, and treasure (based mostly on whatever minis happened to be lying around) - the adventure began with the player characters descending the steps into the first room.When I purchased the Blackmoor supplement a couple of months later, I was fascinated by the Temple of the Frog - this was the first dungeon I encountered that considered where and how the inhabitants lived, that reflected the utility of the different rooms, that placed treasures and monsters traps with respect to the purpose and function of the environment. After that my dungeons stopped being collections of rooms and corridors and instead began to reflect an intelligent design, a raison d'etre. I also began to experiment with different settings, like wilderness adventures - the Wilderlands of High Fantasy provided an excellent tool for my efforts.A couple of years later I bought the Giants series of modules, and I was introduced to the idea of a metaplot connecting different adventures. Instead of a series of set pieces, my intelligent design extended not only to the environment and the inhabitants of the adventure setting, but to a larger campaign spanning time and space. The level of sophistication grew again.So isn't this still just a matter of taste changing over time? How is this qualitatively 'better'?Today "dungeons" that reflect the purpose and use of past and/or present inhabitants and  metaplots that link adventures into campaigns are part of the standard vernacular of gaming. In my opinion, by identifying the elements of the standard vernacular we can also identify the attributes by which reflect generally accepted standards of quality.With that in mind, what are the standard vernacular elements of roleplaying? One of them might be fitting personality and backstory to character mechanics - another could be making decisions based on the character's motivations and grasp of events, rather than acting on player knowledge or metagaming. Again, these are qualitative attributes that are reinforced by both formal and informal systems through which we consciously or subconsciously make value-judgements about roleplaying.So what's my point? Fun is good - I had madbadfun with my "Ten foot by ten foot room, one orc, one pie" dungeons when I was twelve years old - but I don't think that same encounter and that same dungeon are qualitatively the equal of the adventures and settings that I write today, and I believe most gamers would feel the same way.I can accept fun as a bottom line, but I believe that the qualitative attributes of good roleplaying go beyond mere taste. I think it's a mistake to dismiss Dremmen's argument on that basis.</blockquote>

Verification