Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sinecure" data-source="post: 4566986" data-attributes="member: 37668">RPGs are one kind of strategy game and one kind of simulation game.&nbsp; It's more obvious on the computer RPGs.&nbsp; They are like wargames as both are strategy simulations, but players don't play roles in wargames.&nbsp; They play entire armies or navies.&nbsp; Roleplaying is about what strategy you take in a life role.&nbsp; A human (or human-like) role in society.&nbsp; In D&amp;D that role is adventurer or maybe hero.&nbsp;It is true, but you don't have to care that it is.&nbsp; I'm not trying to anger you, if that is what is happening.&nbsp; It's hard to read emotions on screen.&nbsp; No game police are going to come to your door no matter how you play any game.&nbsp; But I wouldn't get angry because people are talking about enjoying a game in a way manner it was designed for - even if it is not a way you enjoy playing that particular game.&nbsp; Who cares how anyone else plays a game?&nbsp; I think I see the problem.&nbsp; Roleplaying does not require you to pretend to be another person.&nbsp; It is putting yourself in another role, not putting on a stage play.&nbsp; People on TV and movies aren't roleplaying.&nbsp; Tim #1 could be run by an awesome roleplayer because he kicks butt at adventuring.&nbsp; Or he could kick butt at investigating a Call of Cthulhu mystery.&nbsp; Or doing both as a superhero in a superhero game.&nbsp; &nbsp;I would judge both examples #1 and #2 as roleplaying.&nbsp; #1 cannot be called evil either except by you or I outside the game.&nbsp; Evil is not something you can put into game rules just like &quot;fun&quot; can't be put into game rules.&nbsp; D&amp;D rewards killing things that could kill you.&nbsp; In example #1 I suspect the XP for the kobold kill would be relatively small because it was unarmed.&nbsp; Not to mention the level of the PC determines how valuable that XP amount is too.&nbsp; But giving XP for killing the kobold is a measure of the danger the PC is in for such a combat. It is not an evil game mechanic or an evil action by the DM to give it.If you were reading some of my other responses, you probably know I think your Example #2 is exactly what D&amp;D promotes by way of the Prisoner's Dilemma.&nbsp; If the PC is alone, he is better off to join up with the kobold than to kill it.&nbsp; Raven Crowking disputed this saying that information gained by keeping others alive is the real reason not to kill others in D&amp;D, but I don't think that is the only reason.&nbsp; But I disagree with you that it is &quot;mature&quot; play, but I think #2 is &quot;smart play&quot; because you can gain greater XP and gold and, more importantly, stay alive longer to continue gaining more.&nbsp; Befriending allies rather than killing every one you encounter helps you more in most all accounts.I think Raven Crowking may call both #1 and #2 &quot;smart play&quot; depending upon the situation and the goals of the PC, but I can't really speak for him.&nbsp; If I were playing, I would say so as it depends upon the situation.&nbsp; When I DM I don't care what the players do.&nbsp; I prefer the OP's advice about being an impartial &quot;referee&quot;.&nbsp; Otherwise you end up kicking people out of your game who might be good roleplayers, but prefer to roleplay differently than you or I.&nbsp; And in my experience there are as many preferences for RPGs as there are people who play them.&nbsp; So I try and accommodate by not judging them at the table.Might I suggest without knowing what you mean by &quot;plot&quot; (given Xechao's definition of &quot;any action taken&quot; in a game) that you may be railroading your players?&nbsp; Which I fully understand some people like.&nbsp; Don't let my opinions stop you from enjoying whatever play you prefer in a game.If you mean &quot;plot&quot; like Xechao does, than how is anything you design for the campaign world not &quot;plot&quot;?&nbsp; I don't think it is a very useful term.&nbsp; In my experience, DMs who talk about plot are the ones who are railroading.&nbsp; But I prefer 2eD&amp;D and have had to ween many players off of the &quot;guess what the DM wants us to do&quot; style of gaming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sinecure, post: 4566986, member: 37668"] RPGs are one kind of strategy game and one kind of simulation game. It's more obvious on the computer RPGs. They are like wargames as both are strategy simulations, but players don't play roles in wargames. They play entire armies or navies. Roleplaying is about what strategy you take in a life role. A human (or human-like) role in society. In D&D that role is adventurer or maybe hero. It is true, but you don't have to care that it is. I'm not trying to anger you, if that is what is happening. It's hard to read emotions on screen. No game police are going to come to your door no matter how you play any game. But I wouldn't get angry because people are talking about enjoying a game in a way manner it was designed for - even if it is not a way you enjoy playing that particular game. Who cares how anyone else plays a game? I think I see the problem. Roleplaying does not require you to pretend to be another person. It is putting yourself in another role, not putting on a stage play. People on TV and movies aren't roleplaying. Tim #1 could be run by an awesome roleplayer because he kicks butt at adventuring. Or he could kick butt at investigating a Call of Cthulhu mystery. Or doing both as a superhero in a superhero game. I would judge both examples #1 and #2 as roleplaying. #1 cannot be called evil either except by you or I outside the game. Evil is not something you can put into game rules just like "fun" can't be put into game rules. D&D rewards killing things that could kill you. In example #1 I suspect the XP for the kobold kill would be relatively small because it was unarmed. Not to mention the level of the PC determines how valuable that XP amount is too. But giving XP for killing the kobold is a measure of the danger the PC is in for such a combat. It is not an evil game mechanic or an evil action by the DM to give it. If you were reading some of my other responses, you probably know I think your Example #2 is exactly what D&D promotes by way of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If the PC is alone, he is better off to join up with the kobold than to kill it. Raven Crowking disputed this saying that information gained by keeping others alive is the real reason not to kill others in D&D, but I don't think that is the only reason. But I disagree with you that it is "mature" play, but I think #2 is "smart play" because you can gain greater XP and gold and, more importantly, stay alive longer to continue gaining more. Befriending allies rather than killing every one you encounter helps you more in most all accounts. I think Raven Crowking may call both #1 and #2 "smart play" depending upon the situation and the goals of the PC, but I can't really speak for him. If I were playing, I would say so as it depends upon the situation. When I DM I don't care what the players do. I prefer the OP's advice about being an impartial "referee". Otherwise you end up kicking people out of your game who might be good roleplayers, but prefer to roleplay differently than you or I. And in my experience there are as many preferences for RPGs as there are people who play them. So I try and accommodate by not judging them at the table. Might I suggest without knowing what you mean by "plot" (given Xechao's definition of "any action taken" in a game) that you may be railroading your players? Which I fully understand some people like. Don't let my opinions stop you from enjoying whatever play you prefer in a game. If you mean "plot" like Xechao does, than how is anything you design for the campaign world not "plot"? I don't think it is a very useful term. In my experience, DMs who talk about plot are the ones who are railroading. But I prefer 2eD&D and have had to ween many players off of the "guess what the DM wants us to do" style of gaming. [/QUOTE]

Verification