Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 9319588" data-attributes="member: 16586">This thread be like...[MEDIA=youtube]j8rlwatCZP0[/MEDIA]Basically, instead of liking the things you like, and playing games well suited to the things you like, you should instead like the things I like and play exclusively in the way like.At the end of the day not every game needs to be for everyone and even for a particular person all the time. Roleplaying games are as varied and rich as any category. We should not feel sad for other people if they are into other stuff or for ourselves if game designers make games that don't interest us.Apocalypse World is a frenetic game that places pressure on player characters to manage a variety of threats and tests their commitment to one another. It snowballs. It doesn't do more meandering sorts of play well. The same can be said for more traditional games not doing frenetic well at all. That's fine. When I want what Monsterhearts has to offer I reach for it. When something that is slower developing and/or less focused on character's social relationships and emotions I reach for them. When my group wanted something more in between for our Vampire game we made a hack that brought in some more conflict-resolution oriented mechanics to more traditional long form play.I know when I spoke about protagonism in the context of roleplaying I do mean in the context of a character whose concerns are the driving force behind what happens. My primary interest in roleplaying games, both indie and traditional, has always been about play that revolves around the concerns of the player characters. I have no interest in being a world keeper or playing in a sandbox. I want the sort of play where my character is deeply embedded in the fabric of the game's setting, and I don't want to play for years to get to what I consider the good stuff. Same on the side of the screen - I want to hit the ground running.</blockquote>

Verification