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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6354395" data-attributes="member: 177">If a player has to use unlimited respawn to get through to reach the big battle, that implies that the thing that keeps killing them before the big battle is, for them, a big battle!  So, case (2) actually reduces to case (1), and there is no dumbing-down.Computer RPGs are extremely limited in scope and abilities, as compared to tabletop RPGs.  They are not at all flexible - the number of ways to reach the designated goals must be determined before play begins - all cRPGs are, effectively, railroads.  Early cRPGs did not mark where the rails were, and forced the player to search for them. However, I reject that idea that this led to "smart" play.  It led to *dogged* play.  It led to exhaustive play.  Let us consider a classic - Zork - as an extreme example.  I submit that no person, no matter how smart, was ever able to *think* through Zork, and make it through without being eaten by a grue by right of main intelligence.  Zork and its ilk operated on the headache principle - the good thing about the headache is that it feels good when it finally goes away.  In a game like Zork, the positive reinforcement and pleasure comes not from how clever you were, but in the sheer relief of frustration when you finally found your way through the opaque challenge in the singular way the writer intended.If invisible rails did not lead to smart play, marking the rails does nor count as "dumbing down".  It counts as getting the player to the parts of the cRPG experience where the player *can* be smart - tactical engagements.The TRPG doesn't need a "save game".  If the GM does not want to accept the TPK, he or she can implement a solution that doesn't require discontinuity in the narrative.  The CRPG doesn't have that flexibility, as it cannot create new, unplanned narrative.</blockquote>

Verification