Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6729702" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Obviously you're wrong.That one you got right.. Unsurprising.  The umpire/referee does not design a playing field or make tactical decisions for the opponents.  Play does not stop while one team or player asks how a rule should be applied.  All of these activities are examples of how the DM is more a participant than any umpire/referee.This is the opposite of what happened with Kreigsspiel.  The original designer labelled it “not a game” and provided no improv.  The later designers added improv and it was perceived as moving towards, not away from, being a game.  The opposite of your premise that improv is not consistent with “a gane”.You just said in the previous quote, "IOW, it was viewed as the façade of a game, but not actually a game, by its own designers."The absence of a winner is a difference between RPG’s and “games” commonly cited by RPG designers and authors.  “A winner” is a requirement in some widely held definitions of “game”.  They aren’t the only valid definitions, but neither is yours.D&D is also incomplete.  And I mean “broken”.  Some people enjoy figuring out how to break the game, making a broken game more fun to them.That is the only logical conclusion which can be reached based on your definitions.Your view on the prohibition against improve has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked above, so no point reiterating that here.  I will however, note that the only way to turn those suggestions into an all encompassing design is to improvise as gaps arise.Screens were a means of hiding information, including module design and even die rolls.  Many gamers find secret rolls inappropriate if we are to “let the dice fall where they may”, and roll in the open.  Why are they published?  Because many GM’s use them as both shields and references (they all have reference tables, not just sight blockers with nice pictures), and therefore they could generate revenue.  Maps are also illustrations to provide greater description in less space, and I didn’t tend to draw on mine in 25+ years of GMing.Indeed he did.  As cited repeatedly above, he knew no rule set could cover all possibilities, nor was it even desirable, so he expected DMs to improvise.The designer’s title said it was not a game.  I credit his interpretation over yours.You are ignoring or misinterpreting their purpose.  They are there to assist the DM in generating content, often by stimulating ideas.  They are not there to replace the DM’s role as content designer. Rolling a Vorpal Sword held by a first level adversary would mean “roll again” rather than “lucky players” in most well run games.  The exceptions would soon see the appellation “Monty Haul” added.Are you now saying Gary’s intro was wrong, or simply less than universal? That is not the only possible means of effecting a realistic character.  Perfection, however, is far from realistic.Some players seek to avoid character death.  Others are quite prepared to take great risk for potentially great reward.  This is covered in detail above.  It looks like you are saying one cannot have a personality without being angsty.  My taste in RPG’s is definitely for characters with personalities, and not simple pawns on the board.  That is my preference for RPG’s.  That someone may prefer to reduce the RPG to a boardgame is fine – I also like  a lot of boardgames.  But a boardgame has different goals than an RPG, which is a common “introduction to new gamers” topic in RPG books.  If I want a boardgame, I will play a boardgame.  If the goal was to play an RPG, that is what I came to play.“infallible” typically means “cannot lose”.  The potential these characters will lose makes their stories worth reading.  They are highly competent. They are not infallible.I can accept your statement as long as I classify most of the Internet as “not rational”.  Your own experiences are generalized into discussions here and in the AP thread, for example.</blockquote>

Verification