Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6416035" data-attributes="member: 85555">But Hussar we are not talking about a few specific tables we are talking about common styles of play, things you see people do all the time and things that are not breaches of the rules of the game. Even in early D&amp;D in the rules it isn't terribly explicit in terms of what playing the individual character means. It wasn't like there was the clear bright dividing line between player and character that emerged later (at least reading Chain Mail and the White Box, that was my impression, I could be misremembering). I think that is a common aspect of RPGs that developed pretty quickly, i don't think it is essential for the definition of what an RPG is. Like I said I can play an investigative RPG where I am directly challenging the players the whole time. This doesn't mean I am not playing an RPG or doing it wrong. This is still within the framework of what most people understand an RPG to be. What your definition does is it eliminates this approach from the hobby. When I run investigations, that is how I prefer to play them. I don't want to challenge players through their Diplomacy skill or through their Detect skill, I want the investigation to be a puzzle the player solves, so the gap between player and character narrows when we turn to mystery adventures. I think this is still well within the scope of RPG. I am fine saying RPGs are about playing a character. But to me what you are saying seems to go beyond that, it seems to be saying it is also about how you play that character and it excludes very common ways of approaching characters in RPGs. If people want to refer to their character in the third person, treating it as a pawn with a list of skills on the sheet, that is fine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6416035, member: 85555"] But Hussar we are not talking about a few specific tables we are talking about common styles of play, things you see people do all the time and things that are not breaches of the rules of the game. Even in early D&D in the rules it isn't terribly explicit in terms of what playing the individual character means. It wasn't like there was the clear bright dividing line between player and character that emerged later (at least reading Chain Mail and the White Box, that was my impression, I could be misremembering). I think that is a common aspect of RPGs that developed pretty quickly, i don't think it is essential for the definition of what an RPG is. Like I said I can play an investigative RPG where I am directly challenging the players the whole time. This doesn't mean I am not playing an RPG or doing it wrong. This is still within the framework of what most people understand an RPG to be. What your definition does is it eliminates this approach from the hobby. When I run investigations, that is how I prefer to play them. I don't want to challenge players through their Diplomacy skill or through their Detect skill, I want the investigation to be a puzzle the player solves, so the gap between player and character narrows when we turn to mystery adventures. I think this is still well within the scope of RPG. I am fine saying RPGs are about playing a character. But to me what you are saying seems to go beyond that, it seems to be saying it is also about how you play that character and it excludes very common ways of approaching characters in RPGs. If people want to refer to their character in the third person, treating it as a pawn with a list of skills on the sheet, that is fine. [/QUOTE]

Verification