Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5636545" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm not Danniger, but, for me, I'm not entirely convinced of what you are saying.&nbsp; Or, to put it another way, I'm not convinced that you can really divide the two.&nbsp; I'll agree, most of D&amp;D is the resolution of conflict.&nbsp; That's pretty obvious and it's a pretty decent definition of what any narrative activity is about.But, then again, &quot;resolving a conflict&quot; applies equally to Monopoly as well.&nbsp; In Monopoly, we all want to get rich while bankrupting our opponents.&nbsp; That's the central conflict.&nbsp; But, saying Monopoly isn't about buying and selling properties is a bit off IMO.&nbsp; How do we bankrupt our opponents?&nbsp; Well, we do so by buying properties.&nbsp; Thus, the game is at its heart, about buying properties.How do we resolve conflict in D&amp;D?&nbsp; Well, most of the time (and the term most will vary from table to table, but I don't think it's a terribly unfair generalization) we resolve conflicts by the application of violence.&nbsp; Orcs are threatening the town.&nbsp; We go and kill the orcs.Yes, we could go and try to negotiate with the orcs and create a lasting peace treaty, thus ushering in a golden age of orc/human prosperity, but, I'm thinking that most of the time, the players gird their loins and kill lots of orcs.And I think the game presumes that to a large extent.&nbsp; If you have fifteen ways to kill an orc and only two ways to talk to it, I'm thinking the focus is on killing the orc.I get where you're coming from Pem.&nbsp; I just think that the division here is a bit off.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5636545, member: 22779"] I'm not Danniger, but, for me, I'm not entirely convinced of what you are saying. Or, to put it another way, I'm not convinced that you can really divide the two. I'll agree, most of D&D is the resolution of conflict. That's pretty obvious and it's a pretty decent definition of what any narrative activity is about. But, then again, "resolving a conflict" applies equally to Monopoly as well. In Monopoly, we all want to get rich while bankrupting our opponents. That's the central conflict. But, saying Monopoly isn't about buying and selling properties is a bit off IMO. How do we bankrupt our opponents? Well, we do so by buying properties. Thus, the game is at its heart, about buying properties. How do we resolve conflict in D&D? Well, most of the time (and the term most will vary from table to table, but I don't think it's a terribly unfair generalization) we resolve conflicts by the application of violence. Orcs are threatening the town. We go and kill the orcs. Yes, we could go and try to negotiate with the orcs and create a lasting peace treaty, thus ushering in a golden age of orc/human prosperity, but, I'm thinking that most of the time, the players gird their loins and kill lots of orcs. And I think the game presumes that to a large extent. If you have fifteen ways to kill an orc and only two ways to talk to it, I'm thinking the focus is on killing the orc. I get where you're coming from Pem. I just think that the division here is a bit off. [/QUOTE]

Verification