Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2893922" data-attributes="member: 18280">Actually, one of the article's base assumptions is not true IME:Thirdly, in terms of most RPGs, player enjoyment of the game, in terms of effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers, is directly related to character power. This is a faulty premise, IMHO, and leads to faulty conclusions.In the article, Tyler Durden claims that when he uses the term &quot;player&quot; he means the players and the GM.&nbsp; If the above statement was true, then by necessity the GM could either ensure the greatest &quot;effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers&quot; by using the Tarrasque against low-level characters, or would have no effectiveness because none of the NPCs is truly &quot;his&quot;.Imagine a game where seven 1st level PCs travel with 1 20th level PC.&nbsp; By the above statement, not only should this be a great dynamic for the 20th level PC's player, but the seven other players should admire that player more as a result of his relative uber-character.&nbsp; Yet this is not what would occur within my experience.Imagine a game like Call of Cthulhu, where a great deal of the fun is based upon playing characters who are much less effective than what they are going up against.&nbsp; Having foes that you cannot face directly provides, IME and IMHO, some of the most satisfying and involving gaming.&nbsp; When your foe is too rich or connected to assault directly, or just too powerful, you have to think more, plan more, and sweat more.&nbsp; Victory, should you succeed, is all the more sweet.I would argue that the above statement should instead beThirdly, in terms of most RPGs, player enjoyment of the game, in terms of effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers, is directly related to character involvement. Which leads, perhaps, to different conclusions.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2893922, member: 18280"] Actually, one of the article's base assumptions is not true IME: [INDENT]Thirdly, in terms of most RPGs, player enjoyment of the game, in terms of effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers, is directly related to character power. [/INDENT] This is a faulty premise, IMHO, and leads to faulty conclusions. In the article, Tyler Durden claims that when he uses the term "player" he means the players and the GM. If the above statement was true, then by necessity the GM could either ensure the greatest "effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers" by using the Tarrasque against low-level characters, or would have no effectiveness because none of the NPCs is truly "his". Imagine a game where seven 1st level PCs travel with 1 20th level PC. By the above statement, not only should this be a great dynamic for the 20th level PC's player, but the seven other players should admire that player more as a result of his relative uber-character. Yet this is not what would occur within my experience. Imagine a game like Call of Cthulhu, where a great deal of the fun is based upon playing characters who are much less effective than what they are going up against. Having foes that you cannot face directly provides, IME and IMHO, some of the most satisfying and involving gaming. When your foe is too rich or connected to assault directly, or just too powerful, you have to think more, plan more, and sweat more. Victory, should you succeed, is all the more sweet. I would argue that the above statement should instead be [INDENT]Thirdly, in terms of most RPGs, player enjoyment of the game, in terms of effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers, is directly related to character [I][B]involvement[/B][/I]. [/INDENT] Which leads, perhaps, to different conclusions. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification