Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5471258" data-attributes="member: 42582">This thread has been prompted by a few discussions going on at the moment on these boards - about adversarial GMing, about skill challenges and consequences, etc.A lot of posts seem to assume that the main pleasure for the players in playing an RPG - what is ultimately at stake, if you like - is overcoming the challenges that the GM sets before them (whether in a sandbox or an AP), using their PCs as vehicles.Consider these posts, for example (and I pick on them only because they are especially clear examples):Raven Crowking's post presupposes that an important part of the game, for the players, is managing their resources (including, in a game with wandering monsters, time) so as to avoid danger.And Janx's description of the negative side effects of a soft game only makes sense if we assume that the players, in playing the game (i) are seeking victories, (ii) are looking for the solutions that will let them garner those victories, and (iii) should sometimes adopt caution as part of their solutions.But what if the players aren't seeking victories. Aren't looking for solutions. And don't want to be cautious?A similar contrast between possible motivations for (or pleasures in) RPGing came up in this exchange of posts:I don't want this thread to be about whether challenge oriented play (a la Raven Crowking and Janx) is superior to values oriented play (a la Victim). I think that's a matter of taste.I'm just interested in seeing whether anyone else besides me (and Victim) is sensitive to the distinction, and has ideas about how to set up and run a game that works for non-challenge oriented play.</blockquote>

Verification