Re: (TFT) Developed logical settings, deadly risks, and motivation

["Jay Carlisle" <selfinflicted_wounds@boardermail.com>]

> There was an interesting post on that point over on usenet a while back.
> [[[googling]]] Here it is:
> ==============================
> # Nov 20 2006, 5:48 pm
> #Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
> #From: mkkuh...@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
> #Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:48:13 +0000 (UTC)
> #Local: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:48 pm
> #Subject: Re: Capture of Player Characters
> 
> [snip to the meat of the post]
> 
> #RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that
> #there doesn't have to be a loser.  I think it's reasonable that they
> #attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot
> #of RPG groups successfully cater to this.

Okay fine, but I wanna know that when I sit down to play then certian "TOOLS" are gonna be constant. 

Why can't we all agree on a common expansion or at least a common scale? 

I don't mind modeling Oz as it's quite a good story BUT Oz is almost like quantum indenterminancy.  Nobody cares what's happining on the "flip side" of Oz. We wanna follow the story.



> #
> #If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never
> #lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed.

But you TRY!

ya gotta try huh?
am I wrong with this?

Is it THAT bad to be disappointed?

I know "I'D" only roll the dice if I was SURE of the result if that was the way things work, but at least for me things don't flow that way....



  Not even
> #the World Champion gets that.

The "World Champion" of a DEATH SPORT most def. gets that. Not trying to be a jerk....

  But if I enter into _Heroes of Might
> #and Magic IV_ (which is what I'm currently playing) with the
> #expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not
> #unreasonable that I may get what I want. 

A GOOD story does just this. Gives you an expectation, makes you struggle to achieve your goal (against all odds is Hero Questing) but failur is in the eyes of the beholder.



 (Especially if I turn the
> #difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really
> #more annoying than challenging.)


Quick Combat huh?

> #Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another question,
> #but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes."
> #I don't think I would still be playing _Heroes_ if I lost even 1/3
> #of the time.  In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent
> #a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing
> #against winning all the time is that it may detract from the challenge,
> #and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong
> #challenge.

So does that mean you'd rather cheat than loose?



> #If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
> #it's better just regarded as a preference.

YEPPERS! "I'D" rather cheat than loose. And the good Lord knows I aint worth a BLEEP!


> #
> #A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
> #the players but not for the GM.

Let's get rid of GM's then!

>  I get tired of having my NPCs
> #wiped out time and again;

Me TOO! David Grouchy was the first to make me think about careing for NPCs as a resource.

 I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering
> #a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly
> #I overshot,

made my players misrable....

> but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.
> #

WHAT contract is THAT?!?

I suspose I get the 'gist' of this but "DAMN"!
A GM is NOT susposed to be so 'beholden' to the players experiance that they get no joy from the process...



> #Mary Kuhner mkkuh...@eskimo.com
> #
> =============================

neat stuff and well spoken so to speak...

-- 
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.boardermail.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"