Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7769236" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Also let me say this, it's not my view that the level of memorable or fun or meaningful&nbsp; is a function of the height/amplitude at all. Often it's the reverse - sort of - the depth of the valleys pull down the fun, even sink it.Consider that in the context we are talking the valley can be a tpk. The valley can be a shut down campaign. The valley can be a dead PC and a choice to not do that again - be it tossing away a character concept, class or even just deciding &quot;not running that dungeon again.&quot; I can buy that for some if everything is easy with no valleys it's less enjoyable but to try and let depth of amplitude factor into the measure of fun sets up a false result where the worst utter failure the more fun you have in the few successes... not true... Imo the changes made have weeded out the majority of the catastrophic to campaign failures and the more lasting downers while still very much leaving in the chance of failure that dont risk so much the breaks the campaign results.That to me is it trading off enjoyment for safety&nbsp; but more creating more fertile ground for enjoyment to flourish.Simplest case in point, having seen players of various ilks play with me since 1980, as my/our gamestyle evolved and the valley floor really moved away from those &quot;what is at risk often is PC death&quot; more and more character types became acceptable as it stopped being the case that optimizing for survival consumed so many choices. Next simplest - with PC survival not the mega-risk as much, interacting meaningfully with characters and setting grew - as the &quot;risk&quot; was not seen as life threatening.Perhaps to disagree with a premise of SAW, the threat level dialed to 11 does not directly lead to greater appreciation of success.Setting the winning mega-millions ticket is not &quot;more fun&quot; because some lunatic threatens to burn down your house if you lose.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7769236, member: 6919838"] Also let me say this, it's not my view that the level of memorable or fun or meaningful is a function of the height/amplitude at all. Often it's the reverse - sort of - the depth of the valleys pull down the fun, even sink it. Consider that in the context we are talking the valley can be a tpk. The valley can be a shut down campaign. The valley can be a dead PC and a choice to not do that again - be it tossing away a character concept, class or even just deciding "not running that dungeon again." I can buy that for some if everything is easy with no valleys it's less enjoyable but to try and let depth of amplitude factor into the measure of fun sets up a false result where the worst utter failure the more fun you have in the few successes... not true... Imo the changes made have weeded out the majority of the catastrophic to campaign failures and the more lasting downers while still very much leaving in the chance of failure that dont risk so much the breaks the campaign results. That to me is it trading off enjoyment for safety but more creating more fertile ground for enjoyment to flourish. Simplest case in point, having seen players of various ilks play with me since 1980, as my/our gamestyle evolved and the valley floor really moved away from those "what is at risk often is PC death" more and more character types became acceptable as it stopped being the case that optimizing for survival consumed so many choices. Next simplest - with PC survival not the mega-risk as much, interacting meaningfully with characters and setting grew - as the "risk" was not seen as life threatening. Perhaps to disagree with a premise of SAW, the threat level dialed to 11 does not directly lead to greater appreciation of success. Setting the winning mega-millions ticket is not "more fun" because some lunatic threatens to burn down your house if you lose. [/QUOTE]

Verification