Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3665692" data-attributes="member: 18280">If you are really interested in keeping this open as a discussion, try answering the following:How is this different from a wargame?&nbsp; I assume that, in a wargame, I assume the role of an army or the commanding general of that army.&nbsp; There are codified rules that determine success/failure or similar.&nbsp; There are a series of encounters (engagements) in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats (ex. infantry vs. armor).How is this different from Monopoly?&nbsp; In Monopoly, I take the role of a real estate tycoon.&nbsp; There are codified rules.&nbsp; My &quot;stats&quot; are monetary and properties owned, which certainly have an effect on success in a series of encounters (turns, where you &quot;encounter&quot; various properties and parts of the board, and may encounter houses and hotels to boot).How is this different from Chess?&nbsp; In Chess, I take the role of two knights, two bishops, two rooks, a king, a queen, and eight pawns.&nbsp; Each of these characters has different &quot;stats&quot; (moves allowed, plus special abilities such as castling, and limitation such as not being able to move into check) that materially affect success.&nbsp; Each new configuration of the board is a new &quot;encounter&quot;.How is this different from eating ham sandwiches?&nbsp; When eating a ham sandwich, I take the role of a hungry person and of various ham sandwiches.&nbsp; Each sandwich has flavour stats depending upon how I make it that materially affect whether or not I can succeed in choking it down.&nbsp; Each sandwich is a new encounter.&nbsp; Indeed, depending upon how the sandwich is made, each bite can be a new encounter.Now, I admit that I am joking about the ham sandwich (which has no codified rules), but I have seen the Monopoly and Chess arguments pushed forward seriously here on EN World.&nbsp; So, I have to ask....do you think they are RPGs, and if not, why not?RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3665692, member: 18280"] If you are really interested in keeping this open as a discussion, try answering the following: How is this different from a wargame? I assume that, in a wargame, I assume the role of an army or the commanding general of that army. There are codified rules that determine success/failure or similar. There are a series of encounters (engagements) in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats (ex. infantry vs. armor). How is this different from Monopoly? In Monopoly, I take the role of a real estate tycoon. There are codified rules. My "stats" are monetary and properties owned, which certainly have an effect on success in a series of encounters (turns, where you "encounter" various properties and parts of the board, and may encounter houses and hotels to boot). How is this different from Chess? In Chess, I take the role of two knights, two bishops, two rooks, a king, a queen, and eight pawns. Each of these characters has different "stats" (moves allowed, plus special abilities such as castling, and limitation such as not being able to move into check) that materially affect success. Each new configuration of the board is a new "encounter". How is this different from eating ham sandwiches? When eating a ham sandwich, I take the role of a hungry person and of various ham sandwiches. Each sandwich has flavour stats depending upon how I make it that materially affect whether or not I can succeed in choking it down. Each sandwich is a new encounter. Indeed, depending upon how the sandwich is made, each [i]bite[/i] can be a new encounter. Now, I admit that I am joking about the ham sandwich (which has no codified rules), but I [i]have[/i] seen the Monopoly and Chess arguments pushed forward seriously here on EN World. So, I have to ask....do you think they are RPGs, and if not, why not? RC [/QUOTE]

Verification