Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6299664" data-attributes="member: 6688937">That's simply not true for all players of rpgs, or even all rpgs. I've played/run several games where you (might) know it will work out, but you're playing to find out how it works out. In fact, I know of at least one game in which the players are actively competing via the rules to control exactly what and how happens in the narrative, even when you know that a certain event will happen in that scene. Other players can play to enjoy the nuances of characterization that they bring to the table (sometimes not caring at all whether they &quot;win&quot; or not.) Still others play may play because they feel the gameplay helps them experience another life or world in a visceral way that novels do not. There are likely more distinct reasons, and people argue over how many and how to categorize them, but it will suffice to say that you are describing one of many possible motivations for playing an rpg.That's a particular playstyle/agenda that some folks would call Gamist. That is, you're seeking the thrill of the challenge. There's nothing wrong with that, but its not the only way to approach a role-playing game either from the design or play point of view. Many other players are fine with relative certainty that they will ultimately succeed, and derive great satisfaction from the share of story-authorship they can enjoy along the way.On the other hand, despite my enjoying story-focused games that you likely wouldn't, I currently do not hold that D&amp;D is a very good platform for such gaming experiences. D&amp;D, from its earliest incarnations, has held on to a great many contrivances that were instituted primarily for Gamist (or often simply practical) concerns. Dungeons, for example, are a rather blatant one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6299664, member: 6688937"] That's simply not true for all players of rpgs, or even all rpgs. I've played/run several games where you (might) know it will work out, but you're playing to find out [I]how[/I] it works out. In fact, I know of at least one game in which the players are actively competing via the rules to [I]control[/I] exactly what and how happens in the narrative, even when you know that a certain event [I]will happen[/I] in that scene. Other players can play to enjoy the nuances of characterization that they bring to the table (sometimes not caring at all whether they "win" or not.) Still others play may play because they feel the gameplay helps them experience another life or world in a visceral way that novels do not. There are likely more distinct reasons, and people argue over how many and how to categorize them, but it will suffice to say that you are describing [I]one[/I] of many possible motivations for playing an rpg. That's a particular playstyle/agenda that some folks would call Gamist. That is, you're seeking the thrill of the challenge. There's nothing wrong with that, but its not the only way to approach a role-playing game either from the design [I]or[/I] play point of view. Many other players are fine with relative certainty that they will ultimately succeed, and derive great satisfaction from the share of story-authorship they can enjoy along the way. On the other hand, despite my enjoying story-focused games that you likely wouldn't, I currently do not hold that D&D is a very good platform for such gaming experiences. D&D, from its earliest incarnations, has held on to a great many contrivances that were instituted primarily for Gamist (or often simply practical) concerns. Dungeons, for example, are a rather blatant one. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification