Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5459442" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't say I don't want organised worship in the gameworld. I said that playing out organised worship is not a big part of my game.What is the liturgy of the gnoll demon workers? I don't know, and I don't especially care. The gnolls are important in the game not because of their liturgy, but because of their metaphysical, mythical and moral standing.I'd make a comparison to LotR: what is the liturgy for worship of Sauron? We're not told, and are never given an example of worship of Sauron, or the Witch King. It doesn't mean that LotR has no mythic depth - just that it's not a story about organised religion.Why would there be no continuity because at the game able we don't play out worship? At your game table do you play out urination? If not, does it follow that your PCs don't have bladders? Or is this just something that is assumed to happen "offscreen"?My game isn't about urination. Nor is it about organised worship. It's about the players actually engaging with gods, and demons, and gnolls, and spirits. Not pews and missals and the details of liturgical practice.If you mean that not all the details of the PCs' lives are actually played out at the game table, then yes. If you mean that the players ignore the existence of organised religion, then no. The player of the paladin of the Raven Queen frequently mentions the performance by his PC of various prayers and rites. But most of the time there is no need to play these out - so religious practices that one might imagine are taking half-an-hour or more in the gameworld take maybe a minute or so to resolve at the table.What makes you think that I don't accept this? Like I've posted multiple times upthread, I think that WotC made a mistake in taking a punt that Ron Edwards was right about what would make for a popular RPG. In particular, they seem to have underestimated how many players actually do want to play a world-exploration game.I don't care what it's called. I've got no stake in the "D&D to me" issue, and have no special emotional attachment to the D&D brand. The only RPG that evokes that sort of response in me is Rolemaster, but that game is now in such a torpor that I've more-or-less let it go.Are you really meaning to assert that the Hobbit and the LotR lack richness of detail? Or that the best - or only - path to richness is via detailed gameworld economics?Insulted would probably be too strong, but I'm irritated by being told that my game that I play fortnightly is a tactical skirmish game, with nothing but a random series of encounters, and no depth or consistency, just because it uses non-simulationist mechanics and doesn't pay a great deal of attention to ammunition expended by the archers.If that's all you see when you look at 4e, well, that's your problem, not mine. It's when you project your apparently limited vision of what an RPG can be onto me that I get annoyed.In particular, how could you thing that what I want is a skirmish game when I've been contesting that very proposition for the whole thread? What I want is a game of epic, mythic proportions like <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/300882-climactic-sacrifice-pcs.html#post5454447" target="_blank">the one I described in the PC sacrifice thread</a>.As for dramatic pacing in combat - why would you suppose that someone who like dramatic pacing in combat is primarily interested in a tactical skirmish game? It's wierd for two reasons - first, are you saying that you prefer boring and non-dramatic pacing in the combats in your game? and second, most tactical skirmish games aren't espeically aimed at dramatic pacing at all, because they're not games trying to evoke an emotional experience. The concern with pacing is a distinctive marker of RPGing, I think.</blockquote>

Verification