Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cruentus" data-source="post: 9130163" data-attributes="member: 7034645">Playing.&nbsp; I wouldn't call it a &quot;game&quot; like, say kickball, or baseball, or wiffle ball, or the other things we did as kids.&nbsp; Games have rules, and usually a winner and loser.&nbsp;&nbsp; There really aren't rules when kids play make believe other than &quot;I got you!&quot;, &quot;No you didn't!&quot;As far as DnD, and RPG's, they walk a line between Play and Game.&nbsp; 'Role Playing Activity' and 'Role Play Playing' doesn't roll off the tongue like 'Role Playing Game', and it did derive from Wargames, so likely retained some of that nomenclature.&nbsp; It also has rules, and the win condition I think changes and has changed as the game has changed and players have changed.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some of the earliest win conditions were 1) survival, and/or 2) winning at Conventions where the early modules were designed for parties to compete with one another.&nbsp; Regarding Rules Lawyers - I am a reformed Rules Lawyer - and it was only really a &quot;thing&quot; for our group when we started playing 1e all those many decades ago, and I read all the books and could quote page and paragraph where rules were in the PHB and DMG for the table.&nbsp; It was used to 1) curtail the group's &quot;min-maxxer' who never found a rule he couldn't misconstrue always to his advantage, and 2) to deflect capricious rulings by the DM in our decidedly &quot;Us vs the DM&quot; style of game.&nbsp; He tried to kill our characters, and we tried to survive it.&nbsp; Sometimes that came down to how the rule was written, clarified in Sage Advice, and table debate, etc.&nbsp; It definitely didn't slow things down at the table, the DM always had final say.I will also add that I now find (for me) that that level of rules arguing, or antagonistic DM'ing just isn't that much fun.&nbsp; Though it must have been fun for us when we were 12, because we kept playing, and the same group still plays 40 years later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cruentus, post: 9130163, member: 7034645"] Playing. I wouldn't call it a "game" like, say kickball, or baseball, or wiffle ball, or the other things we did as kids. Games have rules, and usually a winner and loser. There really aren't rules when kids play make believe other than "I got you!", "No you didn't!" As far as DnD, and RPG's, they walk a line between Play and Game. 'Role Playing Activity' and 'Role Play Playing' doesn't roll off the tongue like 'Role Playing Game', and it did derive from Wargames, so likely retained some of that nomenclature. It also has rules, and the win condition I think changes and has changed as the game has changed and players have changed. Some of the earliest win conditions were 1) survival, and/or 2) winning at Conventions where the early modules were designed for parties to compete with one another. Regarding Rules Lawyers - I am a reformed Rules Lawyer - and it was only really a "thing" for our group when we started playing 1e all those many decades ago, and I read all the books and could quote page and paragraph where rules were in the PHB and DMG for the table. It was used to 1) curtail the group's "min-maxxer' who never found a rule he couldn't misconstrue always to his advantage, and 2) to deflect capricious rulings by the DM in our decidedly "Us vs the DM" style of game. He tried to kill our characters, and we tried to survive it. Sometimes that came down to how the rule was written, clarified in Sage Advice, and table debate, etc. It definitely didn't slow things down at the table, the DM always had final say. I will also add that I now find (for me) that that level of rules arguing, or antagonistic DM'ing just isn't that much fun. Though it must have been fun for us when we were 12, because we kept playing, and the same group still plays 40 years later. [/QUOTE]

Verification