@ThatGuyThere said:
@Coin
I admit true complete objectivity is not likely possible but I do feel it should be the goal.
Assuming a functionality based on a goal rather than the present capabilities of the people who are actually doing it is a great way to run smack into a brick wall. If you expect objecitivity because it's your "goal" (which I, by the way, disagree with) then you're going to find "ethical issues" where there aren't actually any. Knowing that these things cannot be objective but wanting a functional level of objectivity means allowing for subjectivity to be mediated by other viewpoints. If you can avoid a circle jerk, you'll be fine.
@Sunny said:
@Coin said:
@Sunny said:
since historically alternatives to XP haven't yielded very good results
I can't say I agree with this; games without stats still get PRPs pretty frequently.
There is a key difference in that there not being stats or XP at all creates a different atmosphere regarding plots and running plots than when there is. We can like it or not, but the attitude the players take is different. When no one is getting XP because it's not a thing, then it doesn't become a 'these people get it and these people don't' issue. So it's not really a good comparison.
(Boy, I am with the nitpicking of comparison lately. I apologize only a little.)
Geez, man. Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. I forgive you, but only because you're right. It is an entirely different ball of wax. But so is TR, and we're making lots of those comparisons.
Well, I haven't. Because I'm better than you. NEENER.
No, I get it. I just honestly have tried to avoid comparisons with other games and instead focused on game design styles precisely so I can avoid this sort of thing. I think I've compared more to my own game, because it works on the principle I'm in favor of. The Reach was a clusterfuck for many reasons, and most of them were way more important than "staff got XP for plots".