Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7598334" data-attributes="member: 4937">Create a character or play a character?&nbsp; I can give many examples of a player having a character to play, which they had no say in the creation of.a) Character is pregenerated for a published scenario either for quick start to play, or to ensure characters have the tools to solve the scenario, or because it is assumed the players are novices.b) Character is pregenerated by the GM to match a desired setting or story.c) Character is generated by another player, and you take over that character.d) Character is generated by a random character burner or similar random methodology.We are in total agreement.&nbsp; Among other things, I've used the argument you develop here before as part of a refutation of The Forge GNS, to show that any pure implementation of one of the three aesthetics of play that The Forge calls out in GNS results in something that is not an RPG.&nbsp; Your example of what a pure simulation would be like shows that if anyone did only have simulation as an aesthetic of play the result would cease to be a game at all, as the player would cease to have agency and be unable to make choices.&nbsp; Pure simulation results in a toy, which can amuse through observation of the results, but where you cannot make choices, since the character's decision making process must also be simulated.Similar problems result with any other purist approach to the three aesthetics of play in GNS.&nbsp; Thus, GNS fails because aesthetics of play are not mutually exclusive, it fails because an RPG does not try to meet a single aesthetic of play alone, and finally because there are more than three aesthetics of play.I don't know about that, but you'll note that earlier I said that I tried to minimize and remove all challenges that were pure challenge to character from my encounter design, and my reason is precisely the objection you are making now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7598334, member: 4937"] Create a character or play a character? I can give many examples of a player having a character to play, which they had no say in the creation of. a) Character is pregenerated for a published scenario either for quick start to play, or to ensure characters have the tools to solve the scenario, or because it is assumed the players are novices. b) Character is pregenerated by the GM to match a desired setting or story. c) Character is generated by another player, and you take over that character. d) Character is generated by a random character burner or similar random methodology. We are in total agreement. Among other things, I've used the argument you develop here before as part of a refutation of The Forge GNS, to show that any pure implementation of one of the three aesthetics of play that The Forge calls out in GNS results in something that is not an RPG. Your example of what a pure simulation would be like shows that if anyone did only have simulation as an aesthetic of play the result would cease to be a game at all, as the player would cease to have agency and be unable to make choices. Pure simulation results in a toy, which can amuse through observation of the results, but where you cannot make choices, since the character's decision making process must also be simulated. Similar problems result with any other purist approach to the three aesthetics of play in GNS. Thus, GNS fails because aesthetics of play are not mutually exclusive, it fails because an RPG does not try to meet a single aesthetic of play alone, and finally because there are more than three aesthetics of play. I don't know about that, but you'll note that earlier I said that I tried to minimize and remove all challenges that were pure challenge to character from my encounter design, and my reason is precisely the objection you are making now. [/QUOTE]

Verification