Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3665615" data-attributes="member: 18280">I believe that the restrictions of codified rules vs. the ability to modify the rules during play is one of the defining differences between wargames and role-playing games.&nbsp; Thus, I would say that the better definition would be:1)&nbsp; Assumed role of a character or characters.2)&nbsp; Some kind of codified rules that aid in, but are not the arbiter of, success/failure or similar.3)&nbsp; Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on said rules, and at least partially dependent upon the judgement of the participants independent of the rules.&nbsp; This last includes the ability to allow participant (including DM) judgement to supercede the codified rules at any time during the game that the participants feel is appropriate.EDIT:&nbsp; Nor is the open-ended nature of play a new addendum to the definition to exclude computer games.&nbsp; In the 1e PHB, p. 8 (1978), Gary Gygax writes:&nbsp; &quot;This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried.&nbsp; In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only.&nbsp; This is part of the attraction of Advanced Dungeons &amp; Dragons, and it is integral to the game.&quot;&nbsp; Emphasis mine.The other player isn't nebulous; it is one or more persons listed in the design credits.None.&nbsp; They are playing Xenogears, and Xenogears is a simulation of a RPG.&nbsp; Similarly, in a football game, if you ask anyone who is playing John Madden, very few (if any) will say that there's this guy who is really playing the game.&nbsp; This is an exact parallel.There goes the &quot;wrongbadfun&quot; argument.&nbsp; If I say that cRPGs are not RPGs, that is a matter of definition.&nbsp; Saying that X is not the same as Y does not confer any value to either X or Y.&nbsp; It says that they are not the same thing.Saying &quot;apples are not oranges&quot; doesn't make me an apple elitist.&nbsp; When I say &quot;apples are not oranges&quot; and you say &quot;I don't buy that whole non-citrus thing about apples; what an elitist you must be&quot; it says very little about the value of my argument.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3665615, member: 18280"] I believe that the restrictions of codified rules vs. the ability to modify the rules during play is one of the defining differences between wargames and role-playing games. Thus, I would say that the better definition would be: 1) Assumed role of a character or characters. 2) Some kind of codified rules that aid in, but are not the arbiter of, success/failure or similar. 3) Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on said rules, and at least partially dependent upon the judgement of the participants independent of the rules. This last includes the ability to allow participant (including DM) judgement to supercede the codified rules at any time during the game that the participants feel is appropriate. EDIT: Nor is the open-ended nature of play a new addendum to the definition to exclude computer games. In the 1e PHB, p. 8 (1978), Gary Gygax writes: "This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, [b][i]and it is integral to the game[/i][/b][i][/i]." Emphasis mine. The other player isn't nebulous; it is one or more persons listed in the design credits. None. [i]They[/i] are playing Xenogears, and Xenogears is a simulation of a RPG. Similarly, in a football game, if you ask anyone who is playing John Madden, very few (if any) will say that there's this guy who is really playing the game. This is an exact parallel. There goes the "wrongbadfun" argument. If I say that cRPGs are not RPGs, that is a matter of definition. Saying that X is not the same as Y does not confer any value to either X or Y. It says that they are not the same thing. Saying "apples are not oranges" doesn't make me an apple elitist. When I say "apples are not oranges" and you say "I don't buy that whole non-citrus thing about apples; what an elitist you must be" it says very little about the value of my argument. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification