Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9055348" data-attributes="member: 42582">No, that's not what I posted. What I posted is:This is not about taking on roles. It's about engaging in a particular sort of roleplaying - pretending to be ignorant of the answers to puzzles one actually knows the answers to - so as to emulate the play of people from 40 to 50 years ago who played through the same puzzles, but actually were ignorant of the answers.Again, I was describing a particular sort of thing - going through a process of creating the same fiction as other RPGers already created (thus &quot;karaoke/emulation&quot;), but unlike them already knowing the answers to the puzzles one is pretending, in character, to be ignorant of.Not all roleplaying involves this. The first RPGers to declare the use of 10' poles to prod for pit traps were not emulating anyone else's play - they were actually inventing their own solutions to a brand-new set of puzzles. The first RPGer to work out how to kill trolls because they tried fire, or because they recognised the allusion to Three Hearts and Three Lions (I'm pretty sure that's the right book), was not pretending to be ignorant of stuff they actually knew - that RPGer was actually solving a puzzle.Well some of that is strange, because I don't see how the &quot;lore of my people&quot; would include knowledge about hit points, which are purely a metagame construction for resolving D&amp;D combat.But the real weirdness, from my point of view, is presenting a challenge that, as a challenge, depends upon certain &quot;hidden gameboard&quot; features (like the anti-magic ray of a beholder), knowing that those facing the challenge (the players of the game) are aware of the solution, yet expecting them to declare actions for their PCs from a point of view of pretended ignorance. I don't get it at all.My preference is either to set an actual challenge/puzzle, or else to not have puzzles be at the centre of play at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9055348, member: 42582"] No, that's not what I posted. What I posted is: This is not about taking on roles. It's about engaging in a particular sort of roleplaying - pretending to be ignorant of the answers to puzzles one actually knows the answers to - so as to emulate the play of people from 40 to 50 years ago who played through the same puzzles, but actually [I]were[/I] ignorant of the answers. Again, I was describing a particular sort of thing - going through a process of creating the same fiction as other RPGers already created (thus "karaoke/emulation"), but unlike them already knowing the answers to the puzzles one is pretending, in character, to be ignorant of. Not all roleplaying involves this. The first RPGers to declare the use of 10' poles to prod for pit traps were not emulating anyone else's play - they were actually inventing their own solutions to a brand-new set of puzzles. The first RPGer to work out how to kill trolls because they tried fire, [I]or[/I] because they recognised the allusion to Three Hearts and Three Lions (I'm pretty sure that's the right book), was not pretending to be ignorant of stuff they actually knew - that RPGer was actually solving a puzzle. Well some of that is strange, because I don't see how the "lore of my people" would include knowledge about hit points, which are purely a metagame construction for resolving D&D combat. But the real weirdness, from my point of view, is presenting a challenge that, as a challenge, [I]depends upon[/I] certain "hidden gameboard" features (like the anti-magic ray of a beholder), knowing that those facing the challenge (the players of the game) are aware of the solution, yet expecting them to declare actions for their PCs from a point of view of pretended ignorance. I don't get it at all. My preference is either to set an actual challenge/puzzle, or else to not have [I]puzzles[/I] be at the centre of play at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification