thread: 2005-04-25 : Technical Agenda
On 2005-04-28, Matt Snyder wrote:
I'll take a shot in the dark at the "socially destructive" issue. My take, not Vincent's, so there it is.
I *think* what's socially destructive about that is character effectiveness doesn't account in any way for player input into the game. One player creates a character (five years breaking horses) and another makes a character (ten years breaking horses).
Neither player has any specific guidline of and what he, the human being playing the game, can butt in. That's left to the people, and the text is utterly silent about contributing to the game. BUT, it is very specific about which character is more effective.
Clearly, one character is, by the rules, more effective. Thus, it has a chilling effect on the less effective character. They play, and they encounter a situation in which they really need to break a horse. Guess who gets to do it first? Sigh. There just isn't any crafted means for the "junior" horsebreaker to contribute.
Will it happen that way every time? Probably not. But, isn't there a reasonable chance that this, and similar comparisons, cause the junior player to resent his character, his choices, and perhaps even get jealous of the other player's "air time"? I think that is a reasonable conclusion, especially over time.
