Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4748150" data-attributes="member: 3192">I realize I could have been more clear with my terms.  Essentially an abstract simulation game isn't a simulation game at all as nothing occurring in the game actually mimics what occurs when the actual activity is undertaken out of game.  It is instead a game where the gameplay is too different from the real world activity to qualify as what it is supposed to be simulating.  For example, could Magic: the Gathering be considered a simulation game because the cards are used to describe actions?  I mean, they are not really lands or monsters and "tapping" lands and monsters is not similar at all to how the action represented operates.  But because the playing pieces have names, then games like it may be taken as simulation games.  In truth, actual simulation games require operational similarity to what is being simulated.Abstract "simulation" games cannot be roleplaying games because the elements of these games are too abstracted to define the acted out activity.  By any definition of roleplaying, the portions of play that are not "acted out" are not roleplayed.  That's as simple a truth about roleplaying as one can get.  That which is not acted out is not roleplayed.Can abstract (non-simulating) "simulation" games allow a person to roleplay regardless?  That's a yes/no answer which includes or excludes many RPGs in the hobby from being RPGs.  Personally, I find it next to impossible to think within a role when I am having to think in game terms instead.  Ideally, to roleplay a person isn't thinking in terms of game rules at all.  They are playing the role based upon what they have learned through playing it. Those are roles in all games in the same way a "Banker" is needed in Monopoly, not the kinds of roles RPGs are designed for place a person within.  Otherwise every game could be rightfully termed a roleplaying game (and probably should be to be completely honest about what roleplaying is).RPGs (not just any kind of game with its' roles) are designed to place players into certain roles in order so they may act them out successfully.  If the rules do not include any situations for the acting out of these roles, but rather follow an abstract rule-following game, then roleplaying can only occur when the game rules are not being used.I should have said "gameplay convenience" falls into the same error as game-based design.  It's not bad, but it is the element of design that, while nice, causes game to be un-roleplayable in the manner I point out above.Imperfect model games are based on building DM fiat into the rules.  Rule Zero and all that. Whether these are considered games or not is up to you, but without rules in place of "because I say so" an activity doesn't really stand up to the definition of a game.Roleplaying is the actual performance of a role.  I'm referring to roleplay simulation which informs the design of almost every hobby RPG ever created.  As you probably already know, in these games the paramount activity is strategy and tactics according to the role played.  However, inabstract simulation games these actions do not exist in roleplaying terms.  Rather the players simply play a the game and not the world, not the role.  There is no acting out of a role.  There is no thinking outside the box.  In these games if a player wants something to happen, they think in rule terms.  It is full of rule-think and rule-speak, the non-role played elements of a game.  4E combat almost never refers to anything except by game terms and relies on players to know these terms so they game can be played.  Pre-d20 D&D almost never referred to game terms except by indirect reference.  Players did not need to know the rules, but rather learned of their effects by taking actions in play.  This may lead to learning the rules themselves, but more accurately they deciphered the operation of the world because of these exact operations were the rules in effect.  It's just like discerning the rules of the real world, it is done by observation rather than rule-play.I should mention that no rules are ever needed to roleplay.  The point of game rules are to define specifically what elements of a role are being measured in their performance.  This successful performance is the objective of the game.  In other words, solving mysteries requires the players to actually solve them.  Climbing a mountain requires the know how of actually climbing a mountain.  Using magic requires the learning and performing of magic as it is defined by the game's designer.  While all these things level elements out of roleplay, any could be put back in if the action can be performed successfully in the real world.  For instance, players could climb a climbing wall under different conditions to simulate the climbing of Mt Everest.  Or, if it were no longer a game, they would still be roleplaying mountain climbers if they actually went to Mt. Everest and climbed it.</blockquote>

Verification