Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4748215" data-attributes="member: 3192">Call my opinion whatever you wish, it wasn't meant as an edition war.&nbsp; I don't know how you play, but I play without knowledge of the game rules needed by the Players before play begins.&nbsp; Some elements become immediately obvious, like using stochastic timing, in combat or not.&nbsp; But this isn't a lob against 4E-lovers, if that's where you are coming from.D&amp;D was not a game about individual combat, that's for sure.&nbsp; Team combat? Certainly.&nbsp; Tons of &quot;outside the box&quot; thinking in relation to combat? Definitely. But that's to be expected with one of the primary roles being Fighting-Man.&nbsp; To answer your questions in order, this definition is accurate and followed as far back as '74 when the hobby was created.&nbsp; It doesn't exclude 99% of games, so it should fly just fine.&nbsp; And it is not meaningless as it is accords to the definition of roleplaying.&nbsp; To understand me correctly, please note an RPG requires the players to actually act out what is roleplayed.&nbsp; That isn't possible in a dissimilar design except outside of game-based decisions.&nbsp; That's hardly a necessity to the system as designed.&nbsp; Which pretty much means it is as much an RPG as any game with an avatar.&nbsp; If the latter fulfills your definition of an RPG rather than the former, than I we couldn't we agree to disagree?&nbsp; I'm not here to ruin your day or start fights.&nbsp; I'm simply here disagreeing with Alex319's opinion on roleplaying game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4748215, member: 3192"] Call my opinion whatever you wish, it wasn't meant as an edition war. I don't know how you play, but I play without knowledge of the game rules needed by the Players before play begins. Some elements become immediately obvious, like using stochastic timing, in combat or not. But this isn't a lob against 4E-lovers, if that's where you are coming from. D&D was not a game about individual combat, that's for sure. Team combat? Certainly. Tons of "outside the box" thinking in relation to combat? Definitely. But that's to be expected with one of the primary roles being Fighting-Man. To answer your questions in order, this definition is accurate and followed as far back as '74 when the hobby was created. It doesn't exclude 99% of games, so it should fly just fine. And it is not meaningless as it is accords to the definition of roleplaying. To understand me correctly, please note an RPG requires the players to actually [I]act out[/I] what is roleplayed. That isn't possible in a dissimilar design except outside of game-based decisions. That's hardly a necessity to the system as designed. Which pretty much means it is as much an RPG as any game with an avatar. If the latter fulfills your definition of an RPG rather than the former, than I we couldn't we agree to disagree? I'm not here to ruin your day or start fights. I'm simply here disagreeing with Alex319's opinion on roleplaying game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification