Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2747827" data-attributes="member: 18280">Right.&nbsp; However, while I don't think either of the &quot;X = Y&quot; positions is particularly valid, I do think that one makes a clearer point than the other.Neither RP nor G sits alone.&nbsp; They are not things that you are forced to choose between.&nbsp; Without Role-playing there is no Game.&nbsp; After all, every choice you make in an RPG is based upon role-playing considerations, no matter how loose the connection may initially seem.&nbsp; Even tactical choices are RP choices, because they show how this character reacts to this problem.&nbsp; I don't think any of us disagree up to this point.You suggest that &quot;overcoming challenges&quot; is the focus of the Gaming element of RPG.&nbsp; In a generic sense, you are correct.&nbsp; The rules exist specifically for determining whether or not you can overcome a specific challenge, and, in some cases, by what degree you can overcome it.However, in a less generalized sense, overcoming challenges is RP rather than G.&nbsp; Using DOnTadow's example from earlier, the Forged wants to leap across a chasm to save his brother.&nbsp; The challenge involved seems to be leaping a chasm, but is also equally apparently saving his brother.&nbsp; Neither of these challenges is based upon the G side of RPG.&nbsp; Rather, the G side determines what happens in relation to the RP.Let's say that the DonTadow had let the dice fall where they would (PC survives, brother falls to his doom).&nbsp; Would RP have been hurt?&nbsp; I say, no.&nbsp; When the purpose of the player playing the game is to play that character, then I would have to assume this means playing that character in a variety of circumstances.&nbsp; Some are glorious.&nbsp; Others are tragic.&nbsp; I would, however, agree that the DM's storyline would have been hurt.&nbsp; I seriously disagree with the assertation that the DM's storyline is worth altering the outcome for, though, exactly as I would disagree with the assertation that the DM ought to determine the PCs' reactions to events.&nbsp; Both serve as forms of railroading.Now imagine, instead, that it was the Forged who failed his roll and would have fallen to his doom had the DM not intervened.&nbsp; Would RP have been hurt?&nbsp; I say again, no.&nbsp; The purpose of the player, if that player's purpose was solely to play that particular character, would certainly have been hurt.&nbsp; That is not the same thing as RP, though.&nbsp; Nor would such a player's purpose be more important (imho) than the DM's storyline in the previous example.&nbsp; After all, we would be talking about a rather extreme and inflexible player, right?Finally, imagine that it was the player's purpose to play the Forged, and the player, knowing the odds of making the jump, leaped and failed.&nbsp; Then the DM simply ruled that the PC had made the jump anyway.&nbsp; Was the game aspect of RPG hurt?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; The player now knows that the rules are in abeyance whenever the DM likes; he can no longer trust them as a basis of decision-making.&nbsp; If the player trusts the DM implicitly, this may be a minor damage (akin to the DM trusting the players implicitly, and allowing them to fudge die rolls whenever they -- not he -- feels appropriate).&nbsp; I would say that, to whatever degree meaning has been taken from the decision, RP has also been hurt.&nbsp; No one on the &quot;pro-fudging&quot; side suggests that not fudging damages the game.&nbsp; They suggest, rather, that fudging is an aid to role-playing.&nbsp; Those on the &quot;anti-fudging&quot; side suggest that fudging damages all aspects of RPG:&nbsp; both role-playing and game.&nbsp; The idea that fudging disempowers player decision making has nothing to do with &quot;G&quot; and everything to do with &quot;RP&quot;.&nbsp; It is also why your attempt to draw a parallel falls flat.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2747827, member: 18280"] Right. However, while I don't think either of the "X = Y" positions is particularly valid, I do think that one makes a clearer point than the other. Neither RP nor G sits alone. They are not things that you are forced to choose between. Without Role-playing there is no Game. After all, every choice you make in an RPG is based upon role-playing considerations, no matter how loose the connection may initially seem. Even tactical choices are RP choices, because they show how [I]this[/I] character reacts to [I]this[/I] problem. I don't think any of us disagree up to this point. You suggest that "overcoming challenges" is the focus of the Gaming element of RPG. In a generic sense, you are correct. The rules exist specifically for determining whether or not you can overcome a specific challenge, and, in some cases, by what degree you can overcome it. However, in a less generalized sense, overcoming challenges is RP rather than G. Using DOnTadow's example from earlier, the Forged wants to leap across a chasm to save his brother. The challenge involved seems to be leaping a chasm, but is also equally apparently saving his brother. Neither of these challenges is based upon the G side of RPG. Rather, the G side determines what happens in relation to the RP. Let's say that the DonTadow had let the dice fall where they would (PC survives, brother falls to his doom). Would RP have been hurt? I say, no. When the purpose of the player playing the game is to play that character, then I would have to assume this means playing that character in a variety of circumstances. Some are glorious. Others are tragic. I would, however, agree that the DM's [I]storyline[/I] would have been hurt. I seriously disagree with the assertation that the DM's storyline is worth altering the outcome for, though, exactly as I would disagree with the assertation that the DM ought to determine the PCs' reactions to events. Both serve as forms of railroading. Now imagine, instead, that it was the Forged who failed his roll and would have fallen to his doom had the DM not intervened. Would RP have been hurt? I say again, no. The [I]purpose of the player[/I], if that player's purpose was solely to play that particular character, would certainly have been hurt. That is not the same thing as RP, though. Nor would such a player's purpose be more important (imho) than the DM's storyline in the previous example. After all, we would be talking about a rather extreme and inflexible player, right? Finally, imagine that it was the player's purpose to play the Forged, and the player, knowing the odds of making the jump, leaped and failed. Then the DM simply ruled that the PC had made the jump anyway. Was the game aspect of RPG hurt? Sure. The player now knows that the rules are in abeyance whenever the DM likes; he can no longer trust them as a basis of decision-making. If the player trusts the DM implicitly, this may be a minor damage (akin to the DM trusting the players implicitly, and allowing them to fudge die rolls whenever they -- not he -- feels appropriate). I would say that, to whatever degree meaning has been taken from the decision, RP has also been hurt. No one on the "pro-fudging" side suggests that not fudging damages the game. They suggest, rather, that fudging is an aid to role-playing. Those on the "anti-fudging" side suggest that fudging damages [I]all[/I] aspects of RPG: both role-playing and game. The idea that fudging disempowers player decision making has nothing to do with "G" and everything to do with "RP". It is also why your attempt to draw a parallel falls flat. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification