Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4503866" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think we've had this conversation before. I tend to believe that if it calls itself a roleplaying game, if it is played by people who call it a roleplaying game and themselves roleplayers, if it is sold in shops and on websites that specialise in selling roleplaying games, then it is a roleplaying game. So HeroWars, The Dying Earth and 4e D&amp;D all count as roleplaying games. (Just as rugby and American football count as football even though the contact between foot and ball is pretty infrequent.)This is also true in 4e D&amp;D or HeroWars. What is different in those games from (for example) Runequest is the action resolution mechanic.Again, this is true of 4e etc (although I'm not quite sure what you mean by the roleplayers being tested by a real world - the door is not real, it is a fiction, while the roleplayers are real and they are not confronting a door, they are playing a game). But I agree in 4e and similar games the mechanical resolution of the conflict is influenced by metagame notions of &quot;thematic interest&quot;.I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just refuting his assertion that the bare minimum for playing a skill challenge in 4e is to roll some dice and add up successes and failures - as if the flavour text doesn't matter. The flavour text (i) is a crucial input into the action resolution mechanics, and (ii) is a very significant part of the point of playing the game.I didn't say this either. I said that a person who doesn't like non-combat encounters shouldn't use skill challenges in his/her game.It is also true that someone who does like non-combat encounters, but doesn't like narrativist play, shouldn't use skill challenges either. But this doesn't entail that playing a skill challenge requires nothing but rolling dice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4503866, member: 42582"] I think we've had this conversation before. I tend to believe that if it calls itself a roleplaying game, if it is played by people who call it a roleplaying game and themselves roleplayers, if it is sold in shops and on websites that specialise in selling roleplaying games, then it is a roleplaying game. So HeroWars, The Dying Earth and 4e D&D all count as roleplaying games. (Just as rugby and American football count as football even though the contact between foot and ball is pretty infrequent.) This is also true in 4e D&D or HeroWars. What is different in those games from (for example) Runequest is the action resolution mechanic. Again, this is true of 4e etc (although I'm not quite sure what you mean by the roleplayers being tested by a real world - the door is not real, it is a fiction, while the roleplayers are real and they are not confronting a door, they are playing a game). But I agree in 4e and similar games the mechanical resolution of the conflict is influenced by metagame notions of "thematic interest". I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just refuting his assertion that the bare minimum for playing a skill challenge in 4e is to roll some dice and add up successes and failures - as if the flavour text doesn't matter. The flavour text (i) is a crucial input into the action resolution mechanics, and (ii) is a very significant part of the point of playing the game. I didn't say this either. I said that a person who doesn't like non-combat encounters shouldn't use skill challenges in his/her game. It is also true that someone who does like non-combat encounters, but doesn't like narrativist play, shouldn't use skill challenges either. But this doesn't entail that playing a skill challenge requires nothing but rolling dice. [/QUOTE]

Verification