Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 6114134" data-attributes="member: 99817">I don't think we, as an rpg community, yet have the language to articulate certain things. Perhaps they can't be articulated. I think player choice is one of these grey areas which we each understand in our own way and yet struggle to convey.To boil it right down: You're a fighter. I tell you you're in a room with a skeleton. It attacks. You have the choice of fighting with a mace and shield, two-handed sword or bow. You win. There's one door. In the next room is an orc. It attacks. You choose your weapon. You win. One door, next room, Stirge. Choose weapon, fight.Most people would say this is a rubbish game. But it feature choices - choice of weapon, choice of going through the next door, choice to run away. Is this 'enough' choice? From what I remember, in Tunnels and Trolls it pretty much is! So how do we communicate what choices we want? What ensures our right to these choices? How do we articulate 'scope' as it relates to 'choice'?Can the players be pro-active at the seige (micro-choice) within a module-set goal of going somewhere inside the city (macro-lack of choice)? I believe so. How do we communicate that this is satisfactory? How do we delineate these boundaries? What can be closed, what must be open? Do these things remain constant or shift, change, evolve?We have mechanics like Aspects and Beliefs and procedures like Say Yes or Roll the Dice and Extended Conflicts and these things change the boundaries of our choices, I think. From where to where, though? Right now that can't be said, only experienced and illustrated through example.I think player choice, 'player empowerment' is an 80-page thread of its own!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chaochou, post: 6114134, member: 99817"] I don't think we, as an rpg community, yet have the language to articulate certain things. Perhaps they can't be articulated. I think player choice is one of these grey areas which we each understand in our own way and yet struggle to convey. To boil it right down: You're a fighter. I tell you you're in a room with a skeleton. It attacks. You have the choice of fighting with a mace and shield, two-handed sword or bow. You win. There's one door. In the next room is an orc. It attacks. You choose your weapon. You win. One door, next room, Stirge. Choose weapon, fight. Most people would say this is a rubbish game. But it feature choices - choice of weapon, choice of going through the next door, choice to run away. Is this 'enough' choice? From what I remember, in Tunnels and Trolls it pretty much is! So how do we communicate what choices we want? What ensures our right to these choices? How do we articulate 'scope' as it relates to 'choice'? Can the players be pro-active at the seige (micro-choice) within a module-set goal of going somewhere inside the city (macro-lack of choice)? I believe so. How do we communicate that this is satisfactory? How do we delineate these boundaries? What can be closed, what must be open? Do these things remain constant or shift, change, evolve? We have mechanics like Aspects and Beliefs and procedures like Say Yes or Roll the Dice and Extended Conflicts and these things change the boundaries of our choices, I think. From where to where, though? Right now that can't be said, only experienced and illustrated through example. I think player choice, 'player empowerment' is an 80-page thread of its own! [/QUOTE]

Verification