Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 4632746" data-attributes="member: 99">A thought just came to me that much of the difference in experience with any RPG can be summed up in one word:&nbsp; Cooperation.Think about it for a second.&nbsp; You don't hear people talk about vastly different experiences (on the scale we're talking about) with Monopoly or Scrabble or Chess.&nbsp; Now obviously part of that equation is the simplicity of the rules.&nbsp; Tic Tac Toe is only every going to have so much variety in terms of play experience.But why are the rules so complex?&nbsp; Because of what you are attempting to model.&nbsp; And part of that model is the assumption that the GM is trying to provide a fun and exciting experience for the players.&nbsp; This point was driven home to me recently when my friends and I were playing the Descent boardgame.I was playing the Overlord, who controls the dungeon and tries to thwart the adventurers.&nbsp; They were playing the Heroes trying to complete the scenario.&nbsp; I ruthlessly crushed them in two consecutive games.&nbsp; I did some creative, nasty tactics that, combined with a few sub-optimal choices and a bit of bad luck, resulted in them having virtually no hope of success.&nbsp; Afterwards, one of them seemed frustrated and commented that it would have &quot;been more fun if I'd given them a chance&quot;.&nbsp; He was expecting that I'd play the game like I GM where I make sure that the PC's have a (relatively good) chance for victory.But that's not the point of competitive games.&nbsp; The point is to win.&nbsp; And that fact tends to &quot;center&quot; them.&nbsp; I try and beat you and you try and beat me.&nbsp; And thus we find the valleys in playstyle and rules interpretation where our expectation and competition meet.&nbsp; It cuts away that which is extraneous and inefficient in the pursuit of victory.As Dave Barry says, &quot;That's a generalization and, as is always the case when I generalize, I don't care.&quot;&nbsp; But I think you get my point.When we play a game cooperatively we open things up to go in all sorts of directions.&nbsp; And that is wonderful.&nbsp; It's why I love RPGs because the opportunity to linger over the witty banter with some NPC is there that you won't find in any boardgame.&nbsp; And yet some groups would be bored to tears by that.&nbsp; The opportunity is there to portray a gritty struggle against starvation and the elements.&nbsp; And yet some groups say, &quot;I don't want to be tracking RATIONS!&nbsp; I want to battle DRAGONS!&quot;&nbsp; And there are as many permutations between those extremes as there are groups that play the game.&nbsp; There always will be and that's just the nature of the awesome beast.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rel, post: 4632746, member: 99"] A thought just came to me that much of the difference in experience with any RPG can be summed up in one word: Cooperation. Think about it for a second. You don't hear people talk about vastly different experiences (on the scale we're talking about) with Monopoly or Scrabble or Chess. Now obviously part of that equation is the simplicity of the rules. Tic Tac Toe is only every going to have so much variety in terms of play experience. But why are the rules so complex? Because of what you are attempting to model. And part of that model is the assumption that the GM is trying to provide a fun and exciting experience for the players. This point was driven home to me recently when my friends and I were playing the Descent boardgame. I was playing the Overlord, who controls the dungeon and tries to thwart the adventurers. They were playing the Heroes trying to complete the scenario. I ruthlessly crushed them in two consecutive games. I did some creative, nasty tactics that, combined with a few sub-optimal choices and a bit of bad luck, resulted in them having virtually no hope of success. Afterwards, one of them seemed frustrated and commented that it would have "been more fun if I'd given them a chance". He was expecting that I'd play the game like I GM where I make sure that the PC's have a (relatively good) chance for victory. But that's not the point of competitive games. The point is to win. And that fact tends to "center" them. I try and beat you and you try and beat me. And thus we find the valleys in playstyle and rules interpretation where our expectation and competition meet. It cuts away that which is extraneous and inefficient in the pursuit of victory. As Dave Barry says, "That's a generalization and, as is always the case when I generalize, I don't care." But I think you get my point. When we play a game cooperatively we open things up to go in all sorts of directions. And that is wonderful. It's why I love RPGs because the opportunity to linger over the witty banter with some NPC is there that you won't find in any boardgame. And yet some groups would be bored to tears by that. The opportunity is there to portray a gritty struggle against starvation and the elements. And yet some groups say, "I don't want to be tracking RATIONS! I want to battle DRAGONS!" And there are as many permutations between those extremes as there are groups that play the game. There always will be and that's just the nature of the awesome beast. [/QUOTE]

Verification