![]() Because that is the most exciting? Really? If the only meaning of losing is "dying" in a game, as in the complete eradication of your interactive vehicle aka "character", forcing you to replace it with another one, then actually "losing" has a painfully narrow as well as extremely forseeable nature to it. Because giving players too much agency about their characters means they aren't really "playing", because they can't "lose". Especially if it is part of narrative consequence or even part of an active player choice. This completely ignores that character death can 100% be part of narrative gaming. part of the "adventuring" style of "old-school" gaming. When people talk about that sentiment in the title, they almost always mean character death by chance, bad luck, bad rolls or consequences of tactical or strategic actions or choices - i. There isn't even just one form of "character death as a consequence" like it's mostly implied. And it only ever makes sense if it is part of a design philosophy that works with that mechanic in mind. ![]() Because character death, in any game, is a most of the time a finite consequence. First and foremost, because it is part of "the one true way of gaming"-philosophy and it automatically diminishes every other style or approach to being wrong, light, easy, soft and most of the time accuses people on the other side of the spectrum as being either self-deceiving, weak or childish.īut there is so much more to this. I'm sorry, but I've had this chip on my shoulder for the better part of my life in tabletop roleplaying games now and I simply need to get it out of my system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |