Seen via Perverse Active Memory, Scott asks for an opinion on his theory about game designers and the completeness of games.
I agree with Ginger that it would take something like a CRPG along the lines of Morrowind or Might and Magic and such to get the complete, top to bottom experience.
But I don't generally look for that sort of thing. And while, say, Might and Magic is fun, it has less appeal, in the end, than writing turns for players in SB, writing turns for my PCs, and even reading along in House of Cards.
So while I don't deny his theory that the games that they have produced are really "kits" in one fashion or another, it is the creativity of the players and the GM that bring those kits to life.
In point of fact, I would be willing to argue that its better, from my point of view and opinion, because the GM's creativity, ideas and passions can come through far better than a RPG experience where everything is already set in stone.
The additional work and effort by a GM is what makes it special. Even with published modules, back in the first edition D&D days, I never strictly followed a module, I always had more, or different areas and activities.
Posted by Jvstin at December 17, 2004 2:35 PM