Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4510163" data-attributes="member: 3192">So a physical simulation matters because it is closer to reality?&nbsp; And a D&amp;D game with greater detailed simulation is closer to reality as well?&nbsp; This would seem to imply higher simulated games are not storytelling games.&nbsp; Which would make sense when it comes to why DDM rules are not storytelling when used as DDM rules and obviously not storytelling when used in D&amp;D4E.&nbsp; It's obviously false because otherwise all simulated games become storytelling games.&nbsp; You can't pick and choose what you want to count as stories. So all &quot;NAR&quot; rules are simulations?&nbsp; Or just Skill Challenges?&nbsp; Which again begs the question of whether all simulation rules are storytelling rules.&nbsp; Stories don't just get to be about worlds and people you know.&nbsp; I'm betting it's because people have to narrate a sim, like in blind Monopoly.&nbsp; How can that not be a story?Also, the &quot;parameters of the situation&quot; are never entirely in the hands of the GM unlike your assertion above.&nbsp; The point of dice and rules and maps are to make these judgment calls as few as possible.&nbsp; Or does every game requiring Referees making judgment calls count as storytelling?I'm sorry if your Referees are &quot;just saying&quot; things are so in your games.&nbsp; That they are doing this &quot;all the time&quot;.&nbsp; That sucks.&nbsp; Tell them to follow the rules.&nbsp; Adding a badger hole isn't a big deal, but if the badger hole is important to winning the game? Yes, you better roll.I've been backing up this assertion with real examples for several posts now.&nbsp; &quot;Just saying&quot; I'm wrong isn't going to get you anywhere in real life.&nbsp; Obviously you aren't playing the role of your PC if you are playing God with the world.&nbsp; How can anything else not be considered laughable?&nbsp; (see my Burning Empires &amp; Rand McNally examples) I don't know about you, but we generate PCs with dice rolls.&nbsp; Deciding on a setting, PCs, equipment, and whatnot before you begin playing is the same as any game prep.&nbsp; No matter if the simulation is defined as role-playing or not.&nbsp; I've already pointed out that &quot;NAR&quot; rule-based actions are essentially staccato setting creating that taking one out of the role of playing their character.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not good if you like to immerse yourself in the character or the world.&nbsp; (which is most role-players' intentions IMO)However, &quot;We Kicked Your Butt!!&quot; can only happen in a game.&nbsp; &quot;Just saying&quot; our PCs win while telling a story isn't winning at anything.&nbsp; At best, it's winning at telling a good story, not doing the things in the story.&nbsp; Ditto for acting.&nbsp; &nbsp; Using &quot;NAR&quot; rules, the best you can do is &quot;win&quot; narrational authority.&nbsp; You're fighting the other Gods for fate control.&nbsp; This is why actors and storytellers aren't thrilled when they &quot;say&quot; or &quot;portray&quot; a character beating up a room full of cowboys.&nbsp; It's certainly nothing they did.But not success like winning at a wargame, right?&nbsp; Your warriors didn't beat his, right?This is why NAR games lose, IMHO Entirely up to the DM?&nbsp; Are you serious?&nbsp; Do you really believe the DM is GOD argument that the BIG MODEL uses to denigrate all real non-hybrid RPGs?&nbsp; Or that Referees are &quot;tyrants&quot;?&nbsp; There is winning in role-playing.&nbsp; You winning as your character.&nbsp;&nbsp; Role-playing is not storytelling where the only win you can have is in telling a good story.&nbsp; Where you, the player, are never in the characters place.&nbsp; Where the player is just one of multiple narrators.&nbsp; And never the character.&nbsp; How on earth can this theory even claim it's a role-playing theory?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4510163, member: 3192"] So a physical simulation matters because it is closer to reality? And a D&D game with greater detailed simulation is closer to reality as well? This would seem to imply higher simulated games are not storytelling games. Which would make sense when it comes to why DDM rules are not storytelling when used as DDM rules and obviously not storytelling when used in D&D4E. It's obviously false because otherwise all simulated games become storytelling games. You can't pick and choose what you want to count as stories. So all "NAR" rules are simulations? Or just Skill Challenges? Which again begs the question of whether all simulation rules are storytelling rules. Stories don't just get to be about worlds and people you know. I'm betting it's because people have to narrate a sim, like in blind Monopoly. How can that not be a story? Also, the "parameters of the situation" are never entirely in the hands of the GM unlike your assertion above. The point of dice and rules and maps are to make these judgment calls as few as possible. Or does every game requiring Referees making judgment calls count as storytelling? I'm sorry if your Referees are "just saying" things are so in your games. That they are doing this "all the time". That sucks. Tell them to follow the rules. Adding a badger hole isn't a big deal, but if the badger hole is important to winning the game? Yes, you better roll. I've been backing up this assertion with real examples for several posts now. "Just saying" I'm wrong isn't going to get you anywhere in real life. Obviously you aren't playing the role of your PC if you are playing God with the world. How can anything else not be considered laughable? (see my Burning Empires & Rand McNally examples) I don't know about you, but we generate PCs with dice rolls. Deciding on a setting, PCs, equipment, and whatnot before you begin [I]playing[/I] is the same as any game prep. No matter if the simulation is defined as role-playing or not. I've already pointed out that "NAR" rule-based actions are essentially staccato setting creating that taking one out of the role of playing their character. Not good if you like to immerse yourself in the character or the world. (which is most role-players' intentions IMO) However, "We Kicked Your Butt!!" can only happen in a game. "Just saying" our PCs win while telling a story isn't winning at anything. At best, it's winning at telling a good story, not [I]doing[/I] the things in the story. Ditto for acting. Using "NAR" rules, the best you can do is "win" narrational authority. You're fighting the other Gods for fate control. This is why actors and storytellers aren't thrilled when they "say" or "portray" a character beating up a room full of cowboys. It's certainly nothing they did. But not success like winning at a wargame, right? Your warriors didn't beat his, right? This is why NAR games lose, IMHO Entirely up to the DM? Are you serious? Do you really believe the DM is GOD argument that the BIG MODEL uses to denigrate all real non-hybrid RPGs? Or that Referees are "tyrants"? There is winning in role-playing. You winning as your character. Role-playing is not storytelling where the only win you can have is in telling a good story. Where you, the player, are never in the characters place. Where the player is just one of multiple narrators. And never the character. How on earth can this theory even claim it's a role-playing theory? [/QUOTE]

Verification