Now that is funny. That's the cool aid that White Wolf of the 90's wants everyone to think. It is not to say that there are no people that play White Wolf games emphasizing the role playing aspects of the game just like there are D&D groups that do that. But there was also plenty of people that played WW games like dark superhero games. Vampires and Werewolves had the power and they would min max those characters so badly to own combat. Once the different kinds of werewolves and vampires came out I'd see all kinds of games at cons that was just combat. The writers of WW wanted it to be some big role playing and emotional experience but when the fans got a hold of the books they did what they wanted. I've heard a lot of WW writers complain about people playing their game wrong. When they used to come to Origins it was always entertaining to hear these guys talk about the fans of their games.
Even so, White Wolf games are far less combat oriented than D&D is. And just because you can find munchkins and powergamers in every game out there, it does not make games equal in respect to combat orientation.
There are killers, rapists and cat burglars in every city, be that Zurich, London, Shanghai, Quebec City, Rio de Janeiro...
this does not mean that all cities share the same crime rate.
ATTENTION: There was no intention to make a parallel between criminals and powergamers. It was mere coincidence.
Judging from personal experience and from what I estimate by reading stuff on the web, D&D and White Wolf games are kind of like... black and white... and so are the average players of each system.
Jimlock, I rather like you (at least what I've seen of you on these boards), but you are taking this way too seriously and personally. So back off and cool down first of all.
Hey, I rather like you too, but that doesn't mean we have to agree, nor does it mean I take things personally just because I support my opinion. We're cool
Second of all, if you don't think D&D is a combat-oriented game you don't have a very good grasp of the history of the game or the objectives of its designers past and present. That is all I am going to say on that since it is way off-topic for this thread.
I will repeat my self
D&D is not about combat, D&D is about
adventure.
As far as D&D history is concerned, I think that Gygax's early AD&D death-trappy mazes are a grand testimony of this "adventure" experience.
I could sit back and pretend I'm puffing a cigar, drinking gin and tonic, wearing a fancy suit and a rolex and talk like a 1920s investment broker while I play Monopoly, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules of Monopoly govern the movement of pieces around a board and fake monetary transactions between players. What the rules are designed to do and how one plays the game are completely different things. But if you and your group decides that you don't like the fact that there is a Chance card that says Advance to Boardwalk in the game, you are free to throw it out. You won't be playing Monopoly exactly according to the rules, but you'll be having a good time.
Again, sorry if it seems that I'm coming after you, but...
I don't think one can draw parallels between monopoly (or any other 100%-rules dependent board game) and D&D.
Monopoly has no flexibility, is not complicated, it's 1+1=2... its very simple, almost simplistic actually if it wasn't for the possibility of strategical choices the players can make.
D&D on the other hand is full of subjectivities, full of fluff and storytelling that can outweigh its very rules. And it's only normal... for a game that attempts to simulate real life.
Player and DM choices will sometimes require new rules, rules that were never written down because the possibilities are endless...
and at the same time, other choices, might lead to the breaking of the rules, in benefit of a better storytelling/roleplaying experience.
So when assuming a role in D&D... this roleplaying becomes the game.
It is not some decorative effect, so as to "spice things up" as you describe in your example of monopoly.
Again, I'm sorry if it seems that I'm coming after you, but I'm merely standing by what I believe for the game. That's all. No offense intended.
Don't forget that you are the one who claimed in one of your posts that "this thread is busted" and stuff... before even reading the thread, and I merely defended my views.