Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9788766" data-attributes="member: 90374">I mean, that just sounds like using good sense and tactics in a combat. I really dont like framing role playing as a competition. Different folks have different preferences and I want to encourage them as opposed to direct them to the "right" way. I assume you are trying to do two things here? The first is compare role play instances for contrast. The second is to demonstrate meta-gaming impact on role playing. I may have a better example. I once ran an encounter in a 4 level tower. The main party was fighting a werewolf on the roof. One of the PCs was approaching the tower entrance on the ground. The PC on the ground was attacked at the same time and in desperate need of rescue. One of the players determined that it would take too long to descend 4 levels of stairs and since simply swan diving off the roof would cause 4D6 damage the PC could take it. While mechanically true, and the most expedient way down, it felt very meta-gamey to me. I tend not to like this kind of thing, but I stop short of saying it isnt role playing. Just because I have my own preferences, doesn't mean I think they determine what is and isnt RP.  This is an interesting observation. I think in D&D there is often a wall between mechanics and RP. How comfortable a person/group is crossing over will vary. The games you mention intentionally marry the two so its not really up to interpretation. My observation is that D&D (outside combat) is intentionally vague on many game subjects. I think it offers flexibility at the cost of direct focus. Soem folks like other games because of their design specificity and play them instead. Even folks who stick with D&D often complain that it doesnt pick a lane on many subjects, though I think its wise not to. YMMV</blockquote>

Verification