>My main peeve is that _all_ the examples describe very off hand gaming
>with very little immersion and speaking/thinking in character. Shouldn't
>that be something that get's demonstrated in at least the later stage
>examples?
>
It's possible that it was decided that people who already played
immersively and/or intensely wouldn't need the examples, since they
already know what they're doing, and that the ones who don't would
either naturally gravitate to that without the need of examples, or
wouldn't be interested in it and might get put off. I don't know whether
that *was* the thought process behind it, but it does make a certain
sort of sense. I don't game at all like the people in the examples, but
it didn't put me off because I didn't feel the need to read them in the
first place (though I can certainly understand the objection from an
aesthetic viewpoint; de gustibus and all that).
>Grown men and women arrange time for RPG, precisely because it can be
>very intense and rewarding.
>
I'm not sure this is necessarily true of all grown men and women, still
less that grown men and women are the only market Issaries has any
interest in attracting.
>I don't think so...
>
YGWV :)
Greg:
>As for the surfer dude: don't you guys ever get players who want to play? I mean PLAY. I have always had someone who wants to stretch thing, to fool around a little bit and so on. I COULD tell him, "Hey, this is a serious game! Play Right!!"
>Or I could PLAY the game.
>
Interesting question. I can say with all honesty that I haven't
encountered a player like for a very long time... but, yeah, they
certainly exist and IMO it makes sense to cater to them, at least in part.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ --__--__--
Powered by hypermail