Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6200073" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes.&nbsp; Of course, YMMV.&nbsp; There will be groups and times that differ in just about any aspect of gameplay.&nbsp; For every time you can raise for your group not playing by the supported rules, I can raise an anecdote about how I saw a player staring at their sheet or flipping through a rulebook to find out what relevant action they could take in the situation.&nbsp; The anecdote-game takes us nowhere, mighty fast.Except, of course, when it does.&nbsp; My FATE example comes up here - in the Spirit of the Century game I played in Tuesday, I was performing miserably in a combat, specifically because I was playing against type - I had a character whose personality and concept were about taking support actions.&nbsp; That's who he was.&nbsp; I was busy trying to directly harm the foe, and did poorly.&nbsp; As soon as I stopped, and started setting up other PCs for big strikes, I did swimmingly.&nbsp; In game terms, I started playing to my aspects, which help define the role you are playing.It is only in games where the role and the combat options are separated can you say that combat and role-playing don't intersect.&nbsp; But even in D&amp;D - if you build a sneaky rogue type, he's going to do poorly if you just walk up and go toe-to-toe with a big brute.&nbsp; The system enforces the role.RPing is not limited to dialog.&nbsp; It is about the sum total of activity - it is about how the character approaches the world.&nbsp; The impatient barbarian who gets tired of all the talky-talk and starts the fight when he feels insulted is still role-playing.&nbsp; The steampunk mechanic who solves all problems with a gizmo, and doesn't talk for fight, is still role-playing.If we want to talk about dialog alone, that's fine.&nbsp; But then the title of the thread should be &quot;RPGs that focus on verbal interaction or social interaction between characters instead of combat&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6200073, member: 177"] Yes. Of course, YMMV. There will be groups and times that differ in just about any aspect of gameplay. For every time you can raise for your group not playing by the supported rules, I can raise an anecdote about how I saw a player staring at their sheet or flipping through a rulebook to find out what relevant action they could take in the situation. The anecdote-game takes us nowhere, mighty fast. Except, of course, when it does. My FATE example comes up here - in the Spirit of the Century game I played in Tuesday, I was performing miserably in a combat, specifically because I was playing against type - I had a character whose personality and concept were about taking support actions. That's who he was. I was busy trying to directly harm the foe, and did poorly. As soon as I stopped, and started setting up other PCs for big strikes, I did swimmingly. In game terms, I started playing to my aspects, which help define the role you are playing. It is only in games where the role and the combat options are separated can you say that combat and role-playing don't intersect. But even in D&D - if you build a sneaky rogue type, he's going to do poorly if you just walk up and go toe-to-toe with a big brute. The system enforces the role. RPing is not limited to dialog. It is about the sum total of activity - it is about how the character approaches the world. The impatient barbarian who gets tired of all the talky-talk and starts the fight when he feels insulted is still role-playing. The steampunk mechanic who solves all problems with a gizmo, and doesn't talk for fight, is still role-playing. If we want to talk about dialog alone, that's fine. But then the title of the thread should be "RPGs that focus on verbal interaction or social interaction between characters instead of combat". [/QUOTE]

Verification