Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 6399465" data-attributes="member: 5868">It's a mix of good points and bad points, I think.&quot;RPGs are about story&quot; -- yes, good point; I agree with that definition.&quot;RPGs being games where players are rewarded for making character-consistent choices;&quot; yes, ideally -- but just because someone can take a RPG like D&amp;D and play it with reduced roleplaying does not make D&amp;D any less of a roleplaying game; catering to different play styles is a strength of good RPGs IMO.&nbsp; RPGs should be tailorable to a group's playstyle by the group -- the author is essentially suggesting that playing an RPG in a way other than he interprets it is badwrongfun.&quot;In a roleplaying game balance does not matter&quot; -- disagree strongly.&nbsp; &quot;RPG&quot; includes &quot;game;&quot; games have rules and balance matters in games.&nbsp; That doesn't mean the game has to be precisely and equally balanced ... but if balance does not matter, you may be roleplaying but you're not playing a roleplaying game.In the end I think the author loses the forest of gaming fun in the trees of gaming rules.&nbsp; Rules do not an RPG make, nor do they defeat the ability to roleplay -- it's the group's ability to come together to tell a story that makes the game.&nbsp; Groups that have that dynamic can do it regardless of what set of rules you give them, and groups without it can't regardless of what game they play.(I acknowledge that depending on the game, rules may be more in the forefront or disappear more, and one should strive to make the rules disappear in play ... but that's a somewhat different discussion.)However, after all that I'm intrigued by the idea of Chess as a roleplaying game.&nbsp; What can we do with that? Someone call Lewis Carroll ...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olgar Shiverstone, post: 6399465, member: 5868"] It's a mix of good points and bad points, I think. "RPGs are about story" -- yes, good point; I agree with that definition. "RPGs being games where players are rewarded for making character-consistent choices;" yes, ideally -- but just because someone can take a RPG like D&D and play it with reduced roleplaying does not make D&D any less of a roleplaying game; catering to different play styles is a strength of good RPGs IMO. RPGs should be tailorable to a group's playstyle by the group -- the author is essentially suggesting that playing an RPG in a way other than he interprets it is badwrongfun. "In a roleplaying game balance does not matter" -- disagree strongly. "RPG" includes "game;" games have rules and balance matters in games. That doesn't mean the game has to be precisely and equally balanced ... but if balance does not matter, you may be roleplaying but you're not playing a roleplaying [i]game[/i]. In the end I think the author loses the forest of gaming fun in the trees of gaming rules. Rules do not an RPG make, nor do they defeat the ability to roleplay -- it's the group's ability to come together to tell a story that makes the game. Groups that have that dynamic can do it regardless of what set of rules you give them, and groups without it can't regardless of what game they play. (I acknowledge that depending on the game, rules may be more in the forefront or disappear more, and one should strive to make the rules disappear in play ... but that's a somewhat different discussion.) However, after all that I'm intrigued by the idea of Chess as a roleplaying game. What can we do with that? Someone call Lewis Carroll ... [/QUOTE]

Verification