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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2394199" data-attributes="member: 23012">Sorry if my previous post was a bit snippy, John.  My irritation was based on the fact that, for me at least, playing a RPG is fundamentally a *cooperative* enterprise among *equals*.  I have not viewed the activity through the prism of 'relative power' since high school.  So the claim that 'rules light' systems appeal to a desire for 'power' struck me as completely false -- at least in my own case.  (I didn't take too much offense to Dancey's claim, though, since it included the qualifier "some".)Well, I don't disagree with most of those criteria.  But, of course, different players will weigh those different criteria ... differently.  And some of them can be realized in different ways -- e.g. 'strategic thinking' can be implemented both in terms of rules (in which case there remain many further differences -- e.g. strategy in 'combat' versus rules for modeling politics and intrigue), or in terms of the kinds of plots that a game is likely to support.In my own case, though, I actually don't understand the "competitive" criterion (granted, I haven't read the study in question).  If this means "competition among players and/or between the players and DM", I know that I do *not* want that as part of my RPGs.  Wargames, sure, but not RPGs...  But I am sure that some younger players might want such a feature in their games.Also, even *players* might not want 'increasing complexity' if they have limited time and resources to devote to the hobby.  Occasional gamers might prefer simpler systems that are easy to "pick up and play", and do not reward players who invest in splatbooks, etc.Okay, I'm rambling now ...</blockquote>

Verification