Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6246293" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I think it is possible to deal this this divide in style less contentiously. It is starting to seem like one of the major dividing lines of style, and those kinds off divisions have always existed in the hobby, just in different forms. I first became aware of the this idea of the player having an impact on the setting external to his character, probably during the first few years of 3E, when i saw stuff like wish lists. Then I started seeing games that had mechanics (beyond say things like luck points) that g ave the players more control of the scene. Now personally, this has always conflicted a bit with my own style of pkay. I am fine with it in small doses i think, but i do remember when I first encountered wishlists, they they just were not how i wanted to play the game. But that said, it doesn't hurt me if others use wishlists. I think what is important is for companies like wotc to be aware of the distinction in style around such mechanics and advice, and then frame it in a way that people can easily incorporate it or ignore it. The 2E approach to skills is a good example of this. Playstyles often fractured around how to apporach skills, so they gave three distinct options, and two were pretty well fleshed out. A lot of people forget that NWPs were entirely optional in the second edition player's handbook because it recieved so much space. Pehaps they could do something similar here. An optional section on player empowerment mechanics or narrative mechanics and things in that vein. It isnt going to trouble me if this stuff is in the book but it is easy for me ignore.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6246293, member: 85555"] I think it is possible to deal this this divide in style less contentiously. It is starting to seem like one of the major dividing lines of style, and those kinds off divisions have always existed in the hobby, just in different forms. I first became aware of the this idea of the player having an impact on the setting external to his character, probably during the first few years of 3E, when i saw stuff like wish lists. Then I started seeing games that had mechanics (beyond say things like luck points) that g ave the players more control of the scene. Now personally, this has always conflicted a bit with my own style of pkay. I am fine with it in small doses i think, but i do remember when I first encountered wishlists, they they just were not how i wanted to play the game. But that said, it doesn't hurt me if others use wishlists. I think what is important is for companies like wotc to be aware of the distinction in style around such mechanics and advice, and then frame it in a way that people can easily incorporate it or ignore it. The 2E approach to skills is a good example of this. Playstyles often fractured around how to apporach skills, so they gave three distinct options, and two were pretty well fleshed out. A lot of people forget that NWPs were entirely optional in the second edition player's handbook because it recieved so much space. Pehaps they could do something similar here. An optional section on player empowerment mechanics or narrative mechanics and things in that vein. It isnt going to trouble me if this stuff is in the book but it is easy for me ignore. [/QUOTE]

Verification