Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6727697" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I, and several others, are using the word "game" as it is defined in the English language.  It seems you wish to redefine the words, which makes communication quite difficult.  Like, in a D&D game, deciding that whether an attack hits or misses will be resolved by opposed percentile rolls, rather than a d20 versus a target number.  This can certainly work, but if only the DM is using that definition, the game will fall apart rapidly as the players continue rolling d20s.I could just as easily say that "A game has predefined victory conditions which, once achieved, results in the end of the game."  That's not D&D - there are no predefined victory conditions, like "kill the hobgoblin chieftan" (the players might just as easily define a "win" as chasing off the hobgoblins, teaching them and the nearby Elves to live co-operatively for the best interests of both, allying with the hobgoblins to wipe out the elves, or enslaving the hobgoblins (whether for the elves, or enslaving the elves as well) or "whoever reaches 12th level first wins".  In fact, some would say the absence of a clearly defined victory condition and/or game ending means RPG's are not games, but pastimes, hobbies or simply play, much like the bakery example.The problem with your theory is that the continuous introduction of new elements by players and GM's alike makes it impossible to have all interrelationships predefined.  Hence, judgment is used to improvise (or we get the wonderful "you can't attempt that because it is not in the rules/module").It is only you that views "complete" as an essential prerequisite.  By the definition, I am not sure any RPG can ever be considered "a game".Emphasis added.  Why did they continue playing for months if it was "not fun"?  From my quick read, many had figured it out.  A deliberate choice was made to bowl in that manner as it prevented the other team getting the points needed to tie or win.  Not that far off running out the clock in many timed sports.  It seems a lot like an RPG rather than a traditional competitive game/sport, actually, in that it was rules-legal, but simply not done as it was viewed as unsportsmanlike.  In fact, one tournament noted on Wiki had banned the practice - akin to a house rule.First, the fact that "you said" anything does not deem it to be correct.  You seem to limit the term "fictional positioning" to spatial relationships.  Even there, the map does not indicate whether the Hobgoblin has his sword high in the air to bring it crashing down, or low to the ground to slash at his foe's leg.  It certainly does not indicate the "fictional positioning" which may influence negotiations with the Hobgoblins.  What do the rules say the modifiers are if these Hobgoblins know the PC's previously wiped out a neighbouring tribe?  Nothing.  They certainly do not rule whether that neighbouring tribe were allies (logically making these Hobs less friendly) or enemies (so perhaps we have ingratiated ourselves), much less whether the Hobgoblins should be better disposed to us because we removed a competitor tribe, or worse disposed because they may well be next.  Now, add in the manner in which the PC's approach the hobgoblins (perhaps threatening, or maybe negotiating with what a great thing we did to help them).If the game must be fully designed to be "a game", show us these rules.  Even if you are sufficiently psychic to predict and document predefined rules for all possible actions and interactions, that demonstrates only that this is how you play the game - not that anyone who plays differently is no longer playing D&D (much less no longer playing a game), or that your way is the One True Way and all others are having badwrongfun if they play differently.Show me any edition that says: - Players cannot move a "playing piece" (many groups use miniatures and players move their own miniatures); - there must be a screen; - there must be a maze; - the maze must be mapped (I recall a great RPG that noted you don't really need a map if nothing interesting happens between key locations - the wandering players simply locate a key location at random, and having located it know how to return to it *).You have said all of these things are "clearly not allowed by the rules", so please cite the rule book and page number where these clear prohibitions are stated.  Any edition of D&D will do.* That would also be a perfectly valid "game rule" and would effectively preclude activity in the corridors/useless spaces in between.  We would have to improvise if we decided we want them to become important (eg. "as we head from the throne room to the sleeping quarters, I will attack the Wizard  because I think he is a Doppelganger").  In a traditional game, we would say "you can't attack in the corridors" or even "you can't attack a player's character" because this would be written in the rules.  In an open ended RPG, we can and do think outside the box and improvise the results.Being as it is simple, please provide an example of such a stat block.  In a traditional wargame, all hobgoblin units will indeed behave the same way.  But under the rules of a traditional wargame, either detailed rules for parlay will exist, or you cannot parlay.  And in such a game, you cannot suggest marriage as a negotiating element unless the game provides rules for same.  RPG`s are not traditional wargames.  The first rule of an RPG is that improvisation is not only possible, but essential.  If we were successful in reducing everything to a random roll by charting everything, we no longer even need a GM.  We can just decide what we do, look up the appropriate chart, roll the dice and move on.  The lack of ability, or even desire, to reduce everything to a probability table creates the need for improvisation, which creates the need for a GM.And we return to  "playing pawns, not playing characters".  We have a game, but not a role playing game, as we have removed the roles to play.You're joking. Stocking a dungeon according to a game design pattern is a time honored tradition of D&D. What are you talking about?And the wheel comes full circle...  What you describe is a game, not a role playing game.  I`ve long since lost count of the number of RPG rules I have read that include the statement , for the new RPGer, that you don`t win or lose an RPG, yet your definition requires we win or lose.  The fact that storyteller games exists demonstrates that your definition of a "game" is just that - your definition only.  Not that of many of us posting, and not that of the English language.  Enjoy your game (whatever it may be).  With the limitations you have placed on it, it is not an RPG, such as D&D.  But I like playing a board game (hidden board or otherwise) every now and then too.</blockquote>

Verification