- Category: BGThoughts
- Published: Thursday, 28 August 2014 16:27
- Written by Babis Giannios
There are those games that basically assign to each player the control of a hero with whom they are invited to play as well as possible in order to be the winner of the game!
Such games, like Descent, which years later came to be considered as a timeless dungeon-delving title, put the player to think and act according to the strengths and weaknesses of the hero that he embodies. And he doesn't do that once or twice but as long as the campaign lasts.
But how tempting it is to get the position of a hero and almost match the way you play to the way the hero would be played better?
As is it shown by Risk: Legacy, it is very tempting. There, the player will take the part of one of the participating sides, which although he can select it, he also defines it dramatically, paving those "lines" from which no one can escape. If you decide "a", it will remain so.
Of course there are games that depend from it, like Shadows over the Empire where the whole way of thinking of the players and the way they use their cards changes, and then there are games like Adventurers who just give you a small property which will rarely change the way you play in the whole game.
But is it something fun? what? The fact of being contained in the substance of the game in order to find the way to victory. Many see it as a challenge as a puzzle of the game itself, as in Krosmaster Arena. On the other hand, ort term strategy, as in Small World.
One thing is for sure .... if one does not sink to the depths of either Arabian Nights or the Agents of Smersh, will never, ever understand this specific distinction. To embody a character without playing rpg!