Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8202142" data-attributes="member: 29398">Both of i and ii there position the game you played quite a bit closer to a regular wargame than what Braunstein was.&nbsp; The version I played had no movement rules as such (if a character wanted to go from the town hall to the university, say, the player just had to walk from one room location to the other to symbolise making the trip), and&nbsp; - much like a LARP might be - we-as-players were the figures on the imaginary map. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The one rule that did have to be enforced a few times by the GM was that players/characters in one location couldn't directly talk to players/characters in another location (i.e. no calling across the room) as none of us had radios or telephones or other such long-range comm gear: the setting was something like early-mid 1700s.&nbsp; We also weren't supposed to listen in on conversations in other locations, but there was enough general buzz of conversation anyway that this wasn't really a problem unless someone started shouting (which happened once or twice).The true definition of a one-hit wonder! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Most if not all wargames use a map of some kind, Diplomacy is no exception there; and the map really is kinda necessary if only to show who holds what at any given time.&nbsp; The innovation in Diplomacy is that if playing in-person the player can actually speak for and as his or her nation, i.e. rudimentary role-playing.&nbsp; From here Braunstein moved both closer to TTRPGing (in that the player represents an individual rather than a nation) and farther away (in that the map was made imaginary and in-play combat/tactics/warfare were largely eschewed) at the same time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8202142, member: 29398"] Both of i and ii there position the game you played quite a bit closer to a regular wargame than what Braunstein was. The version I played had no movement rules as such (if a character wanted to go from the town hall to the university, say, the player just had to walk from one room location to the other to symbolise making the trip), and - much like a LARP might be - we-as-players [I]were[/I] the figures on the imaginary map. :) The one rule that did have to be enforced a few times by the GM was that players/characters in one location couldn't directly talk to players/characters in another location (i.e. no calling across the room) as none of us had radios or telephones or other such long-range comm gear: the setting was something like early-mid 1700s. We also weren't supposed to listen in on conversations in other locations, but there was enough general buzz of conversation anyway that this wasn't really a problem unless someone started shouting (which happened once or twice). The true definition of a one-hit wonder! :) Most if not all wargames use a map of some kind, Diplomacy is no exception there; and the map really is kinda necessary if only to show who holds what at any given time. The innovation in Diplomacy is that if playing in-person the player can actually speak for and as his or her nation, i.e. rudimentary role-playing. From here Braunstein moved both closer to TTRPGing (in that the player represents an individual rather than a nation) and farther away (in that the map was made imaginary and in-play combat/tactics/warfare were largely eschewed) at the same time. [/QUOTE]

Verification