This mentality needs to die

[nedjer]

How can it be the "fuller range of rpg gameplay" if it doesn't include the combat part of it? How do you define "fuller"? Is their a measurement method for determining that?
Where does your value judgment come from?

What do you mean with "procedural" subset? How would you describe it from "non-procedural" in context of roleplaying games?

Does it even matter what's "fuller" and what's not? Doesn't it matter more which one you find more enjoyable? Does this have anything to do with "fuller"? Isn't this more a matter of preference and mood?

I don't recall saying you can't roleplay combat? I even gave examples earlier. I'm not 'anti-combat', I simply enjoy many other parts of roleplaying games.

I've 'defined' measurment in terms of the cognitive functions used during different types of play. These can and in some cases have been mapped.

'Procedural' could be taken as a cognitive process which is serial rather than parallel. E.g. we use parallel processing to pull together talking but we have specialised language 'stores' for serial processing of the vocabulary.

Possibly. If play doesn't attract new, younger players because play mimics first person shooters and 'hack and slay' videogames; if the range of skills are a major part of the 'fun' for many; if the game is handed on and new players are funnelled away from the features that make tabletop roleplaying games different from videogames?

 

[nedjer]

So, this is not what you do in tactical combat and only "between" them?

Tactical combat is usually procedural and trained. Same subset of skills used over and over like learning tables. Following a flow chart is maybe not the same as understanding or designing a flow chart.

 

[WizarDru]

Err, the Internet definitely existed when 2nd edition came out... it predates D&D. In fact IIRC 2nd edition and the opening of the Internet to commercial entities happened round about the same time. Something that was banned for quite a while.

I think it's safe to say he didn't mean the Internet as a whole entity/concept. He was specifically referring to general access to it and to the web, FTP and e-mail....and possibly really only the web. And the first time I saw the web was in 1992 at a lab. Yahoo had 896 pages indexed (including three RPG pages, one of which was dedicated to Empire of the Petal Throne) and was run by two college kids.

In 1989, USENET was still using UUCP and the Internet wasn't on anybody's mind. It was generally unavailable to the public and virtually unknown. Only hardcore geeks, some college students and people at high-tech firms knew what it was. Gamers certainly weren't using it to compare notes. We had to wait for the next 'forum' section of Dragon for that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Tactical combat is usually procedural and trained. Same subset of skills used over and over like learning tables. Following a flow chart is maybe not the same as understanding or designing a flow chart.

I am not sure if it was joethelawyer or howandwhy99 that likes to describe RPGs as "pattern-matching" or something like that. Which seems to be very "procedural", in that you try to find a pattern that matches to find your solution.

That's the kind of stuff you do all the time when you solve problems - be it finding a way to kill those 5 goblins and survive, or a way to solve a murder mystery, a riddle, avoid the deadly traps or a way to convince the Prince to lend you his troops.

I am not sure if this is parallelized or serialized "thinking" or something orthogonal to it.

 

[Primal]

Primal - from what I understand, you've touched on the sticking point. No one is really saying that Chris made a wrong ruling, just that he used a very mechanical, meta-game explanation. Some people find that jarring and there is some question as to whether or not it's a good way to introduce the game to beginners.

Yeah, I definitely agree that he could have handled the situation a bit better by explaining what the keywords mean. While I understand it's important to encourage thinking outside the box -- especially to new players -- it's equally important to teach them the rules. In this case if I were a new player and the DM would always let me circumvent the rules with "creative" use of powers, I'd feel a bit confused if another DM would state that Darkfire "is not actually fire, so you cannot use it that way". Having said that, I would be totally fine if the player had suggested using Fireball as a variant version, such as a burning ray instead of a fiery explosion.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I feel this is a bit unfair towards Chris, as it was taken out of context; I think people should watch the whole clip before making judgements on whether he is a good or a bad DM.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I feel this is a bit unfair towards Chris, as it was taken out of context; I think people should watch the whole clip before making judgements on whether he is a good or a bad DM.

I don't think anyone still posting in this thread thinks Chris is a bad DM.

The worst anyone is saying is that it was a bad call.

Which, as you point out, is pretty subjective anyway.

I think his rep is safe, though.

 

[Lanefan]

So during the adventures you're using the procedural subset of rpg game cognitive skills associated with frequent combat most of the time. Between adventures you're using the more sophisticated executive cognitive skills associated with a fuller range of rpg gameplay.

Consequently, you're using the full 'skill set' during play as a whole but rarely, or less frequently, bringing the entire skill set to the game at the one time. That seems a major improvement on battle, battle, battle but while you're using all the parts, it seems it remains unusual for you to be in a position to realise the sum of the parts, because they're not in play at the same time.

So?

In real life I don't use all my skills at once either.

When I'm at work I use my work-related skills.

When I'm in my car I use my driving skills.

When I'm doing this I'm using my typing skills* and-or diplomacy skills*.

And so on.

Yet I suspect I still add up to roughly the sum of my parts. The same goes for the game...its various parts add up to the sum total game. It says much about the game, in fact, that it even has such disparate parts to it; most games don't present nearly this much diversity within themselves.

* - there are persistent and probably accurate reports that suggest I am in fact possessed of neither of these skills; but for the sake of argument let's this time say I am, and carry on.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

The players are entrusting part of the creative and imaginative side of the game to whoever makes the setting. That doesn't mean they won't roleplay but it makes it likely that they won't get as involved in the design and personalisation of the game as a GMs who build their own campaigns based on their own and their players' imaginative input.

If the game's played at the end of everyone's working day, after a drive and in the middel of winter it's much easier to reach for the pre-packaged. Nothing wrong with that, especially if you wouldn't have a game otherwise.

At the same time though, part of what roleplaying games offer has been lost in asking others to help out.

Wow. Just wow. So, people who don't spend hours out of game creating their own settings are now lesser roleplayers.

Nice. It couldn't possibly be that setting creation just holds no interest to some people and they don't want to engage in it. No, it's we're having less fun than those who create their own ships in a bottle.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

or... a rephrase?

People who spend hours upon hours working on roleplaying...are incredible roleplayers?

 

[Hussar]

Setting building =/= roleplaying IMO. One is a solitary endevour, creative as all get out, yes, but not roleplaying which requires at least two people.