Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gimby" data-source="post: 5046210" data-attributes="member: 49875">Some players appreciate their characters being challenged, but not themselves being challenged.&nbsp; Its the old wanting to play character substantially different from self idea.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In that the challenge in a tactical wargame is always the player being challenged, rather than the units.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed, I'll certainly agree.&nbsp; The only advantage that they have over fiat is that they are written down and accessible to all participants in the game.&nbsp; Disadvantage being inflexibility, of course.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it.&nbsp; Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario.&nbsp;&nbsp;If I took the Kawasaki out and passively sat back, I'd crash at the first corner.&nbsp; Its not the difference between actively and passively experiencing to the game, its between enjoying the game for the game's sake and enjoying what results from the game.&nbsp; The Norton is interesting as a machine, but focuses attention on the machine.&nbsp; The Kawasaki is boring as a machine, so allows focus on other things.&nbsp; Personally, I've found that a game balanced/siloed so that a player may always make a meaningful contribution at any point promotes participation more than individual spotlights, but I'm aware this isn't universal.I do expect we've got different goals/expectations though, yes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gimby, post: 5046210, member: 49875"] Some players appreciate their characters being challenged, but not themselves being challenged. Its the old wanting to play character substantially different from self idea. In that the challenge in a tactical wargame is always the player being challenged, rather than the units. Indeed, I'll certainly agree. The only advantage that they have over fiat is that they are written down and accessible to all participants in the game. Disadvantage being inflexibility, of course. Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it. Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario. If I took the Kawasaki out and passively sat back, I'd crash at the first corner. Its not the difference between actively and passively experiencing to the game, its between enjoying the game for the game's sake and enjoying what results from the game. The Norton is interesting as a machine, but focuses attention on the machine. The Kawasaki is boring as a machine, so allows focus on other things. Personally, I've found that a game balanced/siloed so that a player may always make a meaningful contribution at any point promotes participation more than individual spotlights, but I'm aware this isn't universal. I do expect we've got different goals/expectations though, yes. [/QUOTE]

Verification