Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4284172" data-attributes="member: 5143">A persistently believable world isn't required to play a character.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with role playing.&nbsp; I can play a character who exists in a world where the laws of physics change every second and still be roleplaying.Yeah, one encourages situations like that are no fun at all for the sake of being &quot;just the way the world works&quot;, the other can create fun situations that would never happen randomly.However, both are still roleplaying.&nbsp; One is just called &quot;simulation&quot;.&nbsp; The idea being that you want to world to work as it does it real life:&nbsp; No bias towards any one person or situation happening.&nbsp; People are just as likely to wake up and then get hit by a bus while crossing the street as they are to go on a fantastic adventure to save the princess.The other one steers the game towards more interesting outcomes while still allowing choice and acting opportunities.They don't require you to stop roleplaying to play the combat rules.&nbsp; They require you to stop simulating.&nbsp; There's a difference.Roleplaying is: &quot;My character hates Orcs so he will attack the Orc this round.&nbsp; I like axes so I will use one of those.&nbsp; My character has the ability to hit two creatures at once with a power, so I'll use that one because my character would want to take as many of them down as possible.&quot;&nbsp; It is decision making based on the character you are playing.Simulation is: &quot;My arm is capable of moving in a bunch of different directions.&nbsp; I should be able to do a backhanded slash, an overhand slash, a parry and so on.&nbsp; The rules should model this process exactly so that if I do something physically possible, the rules should give me a good answer as to what happens in a 'realistic' fashion.&quot;Frankly, I've ran mods where the goals were decided upon by the players.&nbsp; Nothing happened at all:DM: &quot;Alright, you are traveling through a town called Hommlet.&nbsp; It is a small town, not too many people.&nbsp; Maybe 300.&quot;Players: &quot;Ok, we find an inn to sleep for the night and drink.&quot;DM: &quot;You go to an inn, there are few people in there.&nbsp; You guys order drink and spend the night chatting.&nbsp; It becomes late, you all go to sleep?&quot;Players: &quot;Yep, we go to sleep.&nbsp; Nothing happens overnight?&quot;DM: &quot;Nope.&nbsp; You wake up in the morning refreshed.&nbsp; What do you do?&quot;Players: &quot;We eat breakfast, then if nothing interesting happens, we'll leave town.&nbsp; It's a pretty boring place.&quot;DM: &quot;Well, you haven't really talked to anyone in town and you've only been here less than a day.&quot;Players: &quot;Yep, but there doesn't appear to be any princesses for us to rescue, demons to fight and so on.&nbsp; We're adventurers.&nbsp; We look for adventure to find us.&quot;DM: &quot;Alright...you leave town and....I'll have to find another adventure to run.&quot;I'll take &quot;railroady&quot; adventures over that any day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 4284172, member: 5143"] A persistently believable world isn't required to play a character. It has nothing to do with role playing. I can play a character who exists in a world where the laws of physics change every second and still be roleplaying. Yeah, one encourages situations like that are no fun at all for the sake of being "just the way the world works", the other can create fun situations that would never happen randomly. However, both are still roleplaying. One is just called "simulation". The idea being that you want to world to work as it does it real life: No bias towards any one person or situation happening. People are just as likely to wake up and then get hit by a bus while crossing the street as they are to go on a fantastic adventure to save the princess. The other one steers the game towards more interesting outcomes while still allowing choice and acting opportunities. They don't require you to stop roleplaying to play the combat rules. They require you to stop simulating. There's a difference. Roleplaying is: "My character hates Orcs so he will attack the Orc this round. I like axes so I will use one of those. My character has the ability to hit two creatures at once with a power, so I'll use that one because my character would want to take as many of them down as possible." It is decision making based on the character you are playing. Simulation is: "My arm is capable of moving in a bunch of different directions. I should be able to do a backhanded slash, an overhand slash, a parry and so on. The rules should model this process exactly so that if I do something physically possible, the rules should give me a good answer as to what happens in a 'realistic' fashion." Frankly, I've ran mods where the goals were decided upon by the players. Nothing happened at all: DM: "Alright, you are traveling through a town called Hommlet. It is a small town, not too many people. Maybe 300." Players: "Ok, we find an inn to sleep for the night and drink." DM: "You go to an inn, there are few people in there. You guys order drink and spend the night chatting. It becomes late, you all go to sleep?" Players: "Yep, we go to sleep. Nothing happens overnight?" DM: "Nope. You wake up in the morning refreshed. What do you do?" Players: "We eat breakfast, then if nothing interesting happens, we'll leave town. It's a pretty boring place." DM: "Well, you haven't really talked to anyone in town and you've only been here less than a day." Players: "Yep, but there doesn't appear to be any princesses for us to rescue, demons to fight and so on. We're adventurers. We look for adventure to find us." DM: "Alright...you leave town and....I'll have to find another adventure to run." I'll take "railroady" adventures over that any day. [/QUOTE]

Verification