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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8622612" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As alluded to in my previous post to Kenada, part of my issue is that I don't really see my personal style of play reflected in the examples. Neo-trad, since it's allegedly linked with 3e and PF, is much too linked with "process simulation" and so-called "game as physics engine" (even if it usually doesn't actually do that literally) elements. Trad is WAY too railroad-prone for my taste, and its open distaste for gamist stuff ("rollplaying not roleplaying") is very much opposed to my preferences. "Nordic LARP" is pretty well irrelevant, "Classic" is almost alien to me other than its gamist elements (and I really dislike the obscurantism in it, whether intentional or accidental). And "Storygame," while definitely a component of my personal style, feels incomplete and, like much of the other stuff, seems to have an open distaste for gamism that is at odds with my style.I want games that are good as games, and that are good as engines of story-making, both on the small scale ("Story Now") and on the large scale (the group collectively crafting a campaign tale worth remembering decades hence). The gamism is vital...but the story is just as vital.I value rigorous balance in part because it lets me relax. I can just...play. I don't have to worry about the system letting me down. I can make adventurous decisions with some confidence. I avoid worrying that I'm letting my fellow players down by being a dead weight. I also avoid the contrasting worry that I might make others jealous due to being favored by the system. And, as a DM, I can focus on going for the stuff that will most fully enrich the experience: genuine challenges of moral questions and values, whether the character's, the player's, or both; special powers or rewards that are balanced in this context because I know how the player will use them; feeding on the genuinely delightful and creative input of my players, empowering them to boldly contribute and take pleasure in seeing their contributions grow within the world. I can also cut loose with my challenges, knowing that I will have a pretty good idea of whether the things I'm throwing at the party are truly dangerous.Although I do value balance and well-crafted mechanical challenges for their own qualities, ultimately, I value them most because, when they're present, I can focus on the stories I and may players want to tell. And...it just doesn't seem like any of the presented cultures does that. "Neo-trad shorn of its deep love of 'process simulation' wedded to Storygame, while really valuing balance" just seems like a really over-elaborate phrase for something that could haveThat's more or less what I meant by "indirectly." That is, it's more useful as a way to review a game you've designed, rather than motivating new design. Absolutely valid as a feedback track. I guess my issue is, "it needs to encourage Fantasy" or "it should offer Abnegation" sounds much too abstract to me. It would be like trying to design landscapes paintings by starting from "it should evoke a feeling of placidity and home" rather than starting from the location you wish to paint and then deciding what the best time of day and perspective would be. That is, you'll still think about evoking those feelings, but you'd do so in more of a "review" way ("hmm, now that I know I want to paint Mt. Hood, what perspective and time of day should I use to convey humble feelings before the sublimity of nature?")</blockquote>

Verification