Do RPGs' Wargaming Aspects Overshadow RPing?

[Piratecat]

I don't like you anymore.

I'll have a combat next game, just for you!

 

[hong]

I'll have a combat next game, just for you!

If in that combat anyone yells "blood and souls for my lord Hong!" after making a kill, I will buy them a beer. Swear to god.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I also think this is too broad, as rpg could mean anything from cops and robbers to D&D to Vampire, etc. As far as 3e is concerned, yes, I think the role playing aspect takes a back seat to mechanics.

 

[diaglo]

All Hail King Torg...

i mean... i answered no.

 

[Mark]

As some have made plain in their posts (in other threads where broad questions have been asked in the past), it's probably best if people approach the question/poll from their own perspective, ignoring whether or not others have played every game under the sun, not worrying if they have a definitive answer, speaking from only their own experience, and feeling free to adjust the meaning of the words (like "Wargaming") if they feel that is the only way to approach the question fairly.

Go from the gut where your truthiness lives.

 

[the Jester]

Depends on the game. Not in my campaign, nor in most of the best games I do or have played in.

 

[buzz]

As some have made plain in their posts (in other threads where broad questions have been asked in the past), it's probably best if people approach the question/poll from their own perspective...

Okay, then I voted "No".

Assuming "wargaming" here means "tactical", I don't think it inherrently overshadows "roleplaying", if by "roleplaying" we mean "in-character dialogue, narrative concerns, social situations, etc."

What matters to me is whether the mechanics jibe with the game's purpose. E.g., Iron Heroes damn well better have insanely detailed, tactical combat, because the whole point of the game is high-action fights and powerful warriors. If an RPG is about diplomacy and political intrigue, we can ditch the tactical combat and instead devote rules-effort to making the process of diplomacy and discussion interesting, rules-wise.

OTOH, as I wrote above, there are plenty of RPGs I've seen that say they are about intrigue and "storytelling", but abashedly so. They emphasize the game is about this, but then only provide rules for tactical combat, and usually really tactically boring combat.

 

[mearls]

What are "wargaming aspects"?

Do you mean miniatures gaming aspects? RPGs evolved out of miniatures games, not wargames. Avalon Hill and SPI style wargames are a wholly different beast than the games that D&D grew out of.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really never understood what people meant by "wargaming roots", aside from a generic rubric applied to things they don't like about particular RPGs.

 

[hong]

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really never understood what people meant by "wargaming roots", aside from a generic rubric applied to things they don't like about particular RPGs.

I hated that thing. I never managed to solve the rubric's cube.


Hong "maybe I should start a thread about it" Ooi

 

[buzz]

What are "wargaming aspects"?

"Tactical combat stuff," I think. The "roll" in the tired, old "role vs. roll" dichotomy.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really never understood what people meant by "wargaming roots", aside from a generic rubric applied to things they don't like about particular RPGs.

I think equating "wargame" and "miniatures game" can be forgiven, as Chainmail was considered (and even refered to itself, iirc) as a "wargame". That's its overall category, right? When I Google it, it comes up on many wargaming sites.