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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3561576" data-attributes="member: 198">True, but I think there are myriad ways to make the game a test of the player in area that suit the particular combination of player and group, while minimizing the testing of the player in areas that don't suit the particular combination of player and group. For example, I've been in groups where the players enjoyed spending a lot of time and effort on character creation and optimization, in which case the character's mechanical effectiveness in combat was significantly a test of the player's ability to create and tweak the character. And I've been in groups where character creation/optimization was much less interesting to the players, so I'd do a lot of the work in character creation and (in some cases) create people's characters for them. So the character's mechanical effectiveness in the latter case had much less to do with testing the player's ability to create PCs. Both campaigns worked just fine, but they tested different things.Similarly, when it comes to the issue of players playing characters that they don't have a natural flair for, I think it's generally easy to set up the tests so that they focus on the character rather than the player. In the second campaign listed above, one of the party's two "face" characters was run by a player who was seriously inarticulate, but we made it work without causing any real diminishing in that individual's or the group's enjoyment. Playing the PC didn't win him any acting awards or applause for his brilliant oratory as a player, but he got to run a character he enjoyed, and did so without taking away from his friends' enjoyment, simply because I made sure to account for the player + character combo. I'd call that a win-win situation, and it's not that difficult to achieve.</blockquote>

Verification