Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4773320" data-attributes="member: 3820">I agree that abstraction is a good term, but not on the idea that its opposite is roleplay. Abstraction is an enabler for certain kinds of roleplay, in particular the ability to roleplay characters whose skill sets include things you don't know about. For example, picking locks is almost always handled by an abstract skill check, regardless of game. I don't really agree with the idea that thieves are being &quot;less roleplayed&quot; than fighters because the GM and player aren't playing through an elaborate minigame that involves a description of the lock's inner workings, puzzling out how to handle which tumbler to remove, and the like. You could probably do a really good lockpicking or trap disarming minigame, come to think of it, by following Dread's lead and breaking out the Jenga, but I'm just not comfortable that saying &quot;this is more roleplay.&quot;&nbsp; You're definitely spot on about good gaming being about where you choose to use abstractions and where you choose to use more elaborate subsystems or decision-making processes. When I said &quot;elegance,&quot; I was pretty much thinking of how 4e handles that: it uses abstractions freely in pursuit of a really strong &quot;keep the action moving&quot; design goal. I just don't agree that roleplay as measured by a &quot;more or less&quot; standpoint can be determined by anything but the group at hand. A game with a lot of abstracted systems can pack a hell of a lot of roleplaying into four hours: it's just got the equivalent of a tight editor who doesn't like overly long descriptive passages of, say, picking locks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 4773320, member: 3820"] I agree that abstraction is a good term, but not on the idea that its opposite is roleplay. Abstraction is an enabler for certain kinds of roleplay, in particular the ability to roleplay characters whose skill sets include things you don't know about. For example, picking locks is almost always handled by an abstract skill check, regardless of game. I don't really agree with the idea that thieves are being "less roleplayed" than fighters because the GM and player aren't playing through an elaborate minigame that involves a description of the lock's inner workings, puzzling out how to handle which tumbler to remove, and the like. You could probably do a really good lockpicking or trap disarming minigame, come to think of it, by following Dread's lead and breaking out the Jenga, but I'm just not comfortable that saying "this is more roleplay." You're definitely spot on about good gaming being about where you choose to use abstractions and where you choose to use more elaborate subsystems or decision-making processes. When I said "elegance," I was pretty much thinking of how 4e handles that: it uses abstractions freely in pursuit of a really strong "keep the action moving" design goal. I just don't agree that roleplay as measured by a "more or less" standpoint can be determined by anything but the group at hand. A game with a lot of abstracted systems can pack a hell of a lot of roleplaying into four hours: it's just got the equivalent of a tight editor who doesn't like overly long descriptive passages of, say, picking locks. [/QUOTE]

Verification