Quote:
Originally Posted by soltakss
I've got a real problem with the attitude that such-and-such a scenario-type is bad and so-and-so is good. I've played excellent scenarios of many different kinds and bad scenarios of many different kinds. Personally, I don't particularly like playing in detective scenarios, but I have done some that were really good.
The best scenarios are a combination of several scenario-types.
Also, combat-light scenarios are not always about roleplaying. They can turn into problem-solving or detective or gadget-making scenarios instead.
It's hard to generalise over what is a good roleplaying scenario, except to say that a good scenario is one that the GM and players enjoy.
|
That was really part of my point above; groups that don't do much roleplaying amidst their combat aren't going to do so just because there's less combat; they'll just focus on the mechanical/game parts of whatever's being done instead. Conflating combat/non-roleplaying and noncombat/roleplaying not only doesn't match reality, I think it misses the point.
And the point is that people get different things out of roleplaying games. For some, they _are_ primarily games with a patima of roleplaying on them and some characterization to give the game context. For some they're essentially just a dollop of resolution mechanics on top of a largely roleplaying and interactive experience. And spaces in between. But to refer to one or the other as "more mature" or "more sophisticated" is to confuse one's own taste with a universal value, and I really think the hobby would be better if people got over that.