Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3663603" data-attributes="member: 18280">May I say that I did not see those responses in the same light as you did?The way I saw it was that Mr. Gygax said that rpgs require apples, and you demonstrated that your experiences included pears.&nbsp; The response was, therefore, that while pears may be similar to apples, they are not the same thing.This is, IMHO, a valid refutation.&nbsp;It requires that the direction in which the story can go, and the means by which choices can be resolved, is limited only by the imaginations, desires, and goals of the participants, rather than by what the programmer(s) was able to imagine.A role-playing game is driven by the choices of the players, which are resolved by the DM (or group of players in some DM-surrogate games), whereas a computer &quot;RPG&quot; is driven by the potential choices programmed into it long before play began.I agree with this quite a bit.&nbsp; I think that making the game so mini-centric was one of the real drawbacks of 3.5 over 3.0.That's the difference, if you accept Gary's definition, right there.&nbsp; While the DM might have some limits (and we all do), at least you have the potential to do something about that, even if it means running your own game.&nbsp; If the DM is as limited as the computer simulator, refusing to allow any leeway off the pre-programmed path, then I'd agree that that DM is not running a role-playing game.&nbsp; I'd bet Gary would agree, too.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3663603, member: 18280"] May I say that I did not see those responses in the same light as you did? The way I saw it was that Mr. Gygax said that rpgs require apples, and you demonstrated that your experiences included pears. The response was, therefore, that while pears may be similar to apples, they are not the same thing. This is, IMHO, a valid refutation. It requires that the direction in which the story can go, and the means by which choices can be resolved, is limited only by the imaginations, desires, and goals of the participants, rather than by what the programmer(s) was able to imagine. A role-playing game is driven by the choices of the players, which are resolved by the DM (or group of players in some DM-surrogate games), whereas a computer "RPG" is driven by the potential choices programmed into it long before play began. I agree with this quite a bit. I think that making the game so mini-centric was one of the real drawbacks of 3.5 over 3.0. That's the difference, if you accept Gary's definition, right there. While the DM might have some limits (and we all do), at least you have the potential to do something about that, even if it means running your own game. If the DM is as limited as the computer simulator, refusing to allow any leeway off the pre-programmed path, then I'd agree that that DM is not running a role-playing game. I'd bet Gary would agree, too. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification