Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4742907" data-attributes="member: 3192">In my opinion the OP is defining the difference between a roleplaying game and an abstract simulation game.&nbsp; In a simulation game a person does not need to roleplay in order to play the game.&nbsp; There is no need by the players to interpret the descriptions given by the GM as anything other than game mechanics because the mechanics do not represent the world anyways.&nbsp; In fact, in an abstract game a GM does not really ever need to refer to the game mechanics with any &quot;fluff&quot; or description at all.&nbsp; Abstract simulation games are like 4E combat: the players must know the rules in order to play and the rules need not have anything to do with anything resembling combat whatsoever.&nbsp; There are no roles contained within the rules just a nifty game for players to utilize between roleplaying periods, if the players even choose to do so.&nbsp; I can't agree with what you are calling game-based design as being attributable to RPGs.&nbsp; Specifically as it is not a role-based design.&nbsp; &quot;Game based convenience&quot; is this same error repeated and the &quot;imperfect model&quot; hypothesis suffers from not really counting as a game at all (while it does count as requiring roleplaying).I think it's important to distinguish that roleplaying cannot be done with a puppet in an abstract simulation-like game.&nbsp; Neither in a computer simulation or a tabletop manual simulation.&nbsp; It is when the player actually acts within the role because of the position they are within. &quot;Natural law&quot; is the only design methodology which allows this as the description is the rule.&nbsp; There is no difference between situation, role, and design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4742907, member: 3192"] In my opinion the OP is defining the difference between a roleplaying game and an abstract simulation game. In a simulation game a person does not need to roleplay in order to play the game. There is no need by the players to interpret the descriptions given by the GM as anything other than game mechanics because the mechanics do not represent the world anyways. In fact, in an abstract game a GM does not really ever need to refer to the game mechanics with any "fluff" or description at all. Abstract simulation games are like 4E combat: the players must know the rules in order to play and the rules need not have anything to do with anything resembling combat whatsoever. There are no roles contained within the rules just a nifty game for players to utilize between roleplaying periods, if the players even choose to do so. I can't agree with what you are calling game-based design as being attributable to RPGs. Specifically as it is not a role-based design. "Game based convenience" is this same error repeated and the "imperfect model" hypothesis suffers from not really counting as a game at all (while it does count as requiring roleplaying). I think it's important to distinguish that roleplaying cannot be done with a puppet in an abstract simulation-like game. Neither in a computer simulation or a tabletop manual simulation. It is when the player actually acts within the role because of the position they are within. "Natural law" is the only design methodology which allows this as the description is the rule. There is no difference between situation, role, and design. [/QUOTE]

Verification