Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 4743131" data-attributes="member: 45678">I'm a little confused. What do you mean by &quot;abstract simulation game&quot;? Do you mean a game where players do not control individual characters? What's the difference between an &quot;abstract simulation game&quot; where players control individual characters, and a roleplaying game?I don't understand what you mean when you say 4e combat has &quot;no roles.&quot; There are lots of different &quot;roles&quot; people can play in combat - the damage-dealer, the tank, the healer, etc. - and 4e even gives those roles names (striker, defender, leader, controller). It's true that the 4e ruleset has little if anything to do with real-life, historical combat tactics - but that's irrelevant - it does have to do with the way combat works in the game.What do you mean by &quot;role-based design,&quot; and why is it essential to RPGs?What &quot;error&quot; are you talking about? And why does the imperfect model interpretation &quot;not count as a game at all&quot;?We might be working from different definitions of &quot;roleplaying&quot; here. I would consider &quot;roleplaying&quot; to mean acting the way that your character would act in the game, based on your character's personality, motivations, and knowledge, which may be different from the player's own. Under this interpretation, you could still &quot;roleplay&quot; in an &quot;abstract simulation-like game&quot;, if you had your character do things that he would logically do in the game world.It still doesn't seem like we're on the same wavelength here. Here's something that might clear it up:Do you consider 4e an &quot;abstract simulation game,&quot; and if so, why? Can you give an example of an RPG that is not an &quot;abstract simulation game,&quot; and explain what the relevant differences are?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alex319, post: 4743131, member: 45678"] I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "abstract simulation game"? Do you mean a game where players do not control individual characters? What's the difference between an "abstract simulation game" where players control individual characters, and a roleplaying game? I don't understand what you mean when you say 4e combat has "no roles." There are lots of different "roles" people can play in combat - the damage-dealer, the tank, the healer, etc. - and 4e even gives those roles names (striker, defender, leader, controller). It's true that the 4e ruleset has little if anything to do with real-life, historical combat tactics - but that's irrelevant - it does have to do with the way combat works in the game. What do you mean by "role-based design," and why is it essential to RPGs? What "error" are you talking about? And why does the imperfect model interpretation "not count as a game at all"? We might be working from different definitions of "roleplaying" here. I would consider "roleplaying" to mean acting the way that your character would act in the game, based on your character's personality, motivations, and knowledge, which may be different from the player's own. Under this interpretation, you could still "roleplay" in an "abstract simulation-like game", if you had your character do things that he would logically do in the game world. It still doesn't seem like we're on the same wavelength here. Here's something that might clear it up: Do you consider 4e an "abstract simulation game," and if so, why? Can you give an example of an RPG that is not an "abstract simulation game," and explain what the relevant differences are? [/QUOTE]

Verification