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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5576084" data-attributes="member: 21169">Isn't this kind of conflict, between two goods, very similar to what pemerton is talking about, and finds desirable in a play experience? If there is some sort of game currency, such as Honor Points or Marvel's Karma, and acquiring Karma is the goal of the game then if one choice, the 'right thing to do' nets the player lots of Karma and the other results in no points at all, then there is no real choice. Otoh if the game awards nothing for doing the right thing, and if doing the right thing is much riskier to the PC's life, as in your example of the German soldier above, *and* if it is generally regarded that a player whose PC has died has 'lost', as in the text of 1e AD&D, then, again the choice is straightforward, but in this case the second choice is clearly superior.This all assumes a 'game'-y approach where there is some kind of clear scoring mechanism - Karma, PC survival, going up levels, gold, xp, etc. In many games that isn't the case. Or there may be multiple competing scoring mechanisms. Or tension between the nominal scoring mechanism and other types of player behaviour deemed to be desirable by the participants.In most rpgs I've played I think the strongest tension has been between 'playing your character' ie doing what your character would do, which is regarded as very much a good (in fact the dwarf's player was praised for this upthread), and 'winning the game' - surviving, gaining gold, xp, magic items, etc. Choosing the former over the latter is what is most often lauded as good roleplaying.</blockquote>

Verification