Aryxbez wrote:It is if you want to support the "Iron Tower Design", of deliberately terribad options, set up so players might choose something that seems "cool", only to your accordance, suffer near indefinitely for a decision they could not have known prior. Those above trap options are just going to be a waste of space that nobody's going to use, and probably not gonna help make the Character creation process easy either. After all, for all that desire of system mastery requirement, you have 3rd edition D&D, have that can just deal with, instead of talk for a new RPG.
I believe you mean Ivory Tower Design. It's a reference to the ivory tower of academia. But in any case, there's no necessary reason to include options that are always terribad. Of course, there's no necessary reason that having options that are always terribad has to be, ya know, terribad. For instance, Magic always includes some cards that are just shite. Part of the reason that's okay in Magic is that the game is an example of continual modification, so players eventually notice that certain cards are underperforming and excise them from their decks. There's honestly, though, no reason that same sort of thing can't happen in RPGs. As you play, you notice that certain options don't help you, and in doing so you become better at the game. Ideally this is accompanied by a certain amount of dopamine as you recognize that you're getting better at the game.
Nope, I said after each game, not after each game you win. And if they keep building decks (when allowed to do a full rebuild) that consistently lose, then one would be led to believe that they are not learning, not improving.
Actually...
Maybe after each game you win you get to swap out a card
My bad, but go to the next sentence: "Maybe after each match you get to open a new booster pack and make any changes you want using those cards."
If that disparity is Experts getting to enjoy the game, and even play, while Novice's do not, I'd imagine would fail on some obvious principles. If Novices are barred from playing immediately, then you just lost customers, don't think I need to explain why that's bad.
I suppose you're right, that people wouldn't really care to "learn", though unlike a sport, people aren't going to be that deeply invested in playing an RPG, as if playing any sport. Idea of having to "get good" before playing the RPG, is a great way to deter your market through such elitism.
You sure do make quite a bit of assumptions in regards to my post, perhaps reading it again would help this conversation. Quite obvious, ones decisions should matter in an RPG, but the character creation process should not be some secret test to kill off your character (at that point, may as well have them roll on tables, where they can die at the end of the process, so they have to make a new character before they even get to play).
(shrugs) If that's something that actually practical enough to happen, or how it works, then I guess. If it's moreso something that doesn't really happen, then like the League of Legends example, it's just waiting out the inevitable, and pretty much wasting time. Another example would be solo play of FF1, till get the ribbon or item to target multiple enemies,when ye face bunch of enemies with paralysis/sleep effects, pretty much have to soft reset the game, less you endure through minutes of watching your character get wailed on, deterministic knowing you're going to lose this fight (save for those very rare chances can make a comeback, albeit very very unlikely).
It's a good thing no one's advocating for anything you describe, then, isn't it?
I mean, seriously. I'm not saying you have to "get good" before playing an RPG. I'm saying that the character creation and leveling process is
part of playing an RPG, that part of getting good at an RPG is getting good at that process. If people aren't going to be interested in getting good at
the game, then that's that.
Now, it's certainly possible that one could make an RPG that did not actually have a character creation or leveling process that involved meaningful choices on the part of the player (e.g., any JRPG ever) but that isn't
a priori a superior game design.
Again, I am not saying that the creation process should be some secret test to kill off your character. Rather, I am merely saying that there should be significance to those choices made during that process, because they are as much a part of the game as the choices one makes while the battle music is playing. The quality of those character creation choices will depend to some extent upon the player's expertise. Some set of choices will allow for an easier time during combat than others.
That shouldn't be controversial in any respect.
It seems that you're dead set on taking the assertion "it is okay for character creation decisions to impact efficacy" and taking it waaaaaaaaay out to the extreme of "it is okay for character creation decisions to make your character die on turn one." This latter is not and has never been my position.
To reiterate one more time. I
do not think that it should be possible to make characters that are unplayable. I
do think that it should be possible to make a "bad" character, where "bad" is some section of the spectrum of characters that are "playable", and "playable" means having a sufficient number of choices to make during combat/social/etc that actually impacts shit. I
do think that it should be possible to make a "fucking awesome" character, where "fucking awesome" is some section of the spectrum of characters that are playable. I
do think that there should be significant distance between those two categories.
Also, look up game 6 of the 2011 World Series. I was there. It was awesome. One of the best games I've been to in my life, and from what I can gather, you would prefer that the Cards had just forfeited. I infer that this is because you don't think there is value in playing a game that you know for sure you will lose, or even have a high chance of losing. This is where we must fundamentally part ways, because I see that particular position as indefensible.
BTW, I don't think you are using deterministic correctly. It looks like you're using it interchangeably with "highly probable", which is a totally different thing.
Lastly, on a somewhat related note, if you understand the example, then why does it matter if it was a bad or not? As I see it, the understanding one derives from the example, is more important than the example itself.
Which example? Baseball?
