Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6162587" data-attributes="member: 5143">Oh, I agree.&nbsp; Though that doesn't stop it from happening.&nbsp; It's been years, but I remember that something very close to this argument actually happened in our group back in 2e.Thus, we jointly agreed to no longer attempt &quot;out of the box&quot; actions because of the problems they caused.&nbsp; We agreed to limit our options because people's opinions on what what consider &quot;part of the abstraction&quot; or even just &quot;part of genre emulation&quot;(trips aren't offered as an action because people in this genre don't generally use that as a tactic) differed greatly.D&amp;D is semi-competitive.&nbsp; Your characters are still attempting to defeat the monsters and avoid dying.&nbsp; Those threats are being controlled by the DM.&nbsp; The DM often wants to defeat you so having the rules be the arbiter between the players and the DM helps.But even if we assume that's not an issue, there are MANY cooperative board games with rules that are restricted in choice.&nbsp; It's simply a matter of fact that in order to play a game you need to know your options.&nbsp; Those options also need to be balanced and fun.&nbsp; &quot;You can do anything&quot; doesn't really work because it sometimes causes Analysis Paralysis and also makes some options clearly superior to all others.I know this wasn't directed towards me, however, I think it is a form of roleplaying.Or more accurately, I believe mechanics like this encourage roleplaying but AREN'T roleplaying themselves.&nbsp; If roleplaying is playing your character &quot;correctly&quot; for the world/society/genre he/she is in, then mechanics that encourage the player to make genre choices end up having the effect of creating better roleplaying.It lowers &quot;immersiveness&quot;, but doesn't reduce &quot;roleplaying&quot;.&nbsp; I don't think &quot;thinking like your character&quot; is necessary for roleplaying.&nbsp; Only making decisions like he would have made if he was a real person.&nbsp; How you come up with those decisions is rather inconsequential.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 6162587, member: 5143"] Oh, I agree. Though that doesn't stop it from happening. It's been years, but I remember that something very close to this argument actually happened in our group back in 2e. Thus, we jointly agreed to no longer attempt "out of the box" actions because of the problems they caused. We agreed to limit our options because people's opinions on what what consider "part of the abstraction" or even just "part of genre emulation"(trips aren't offered as an action because people in this genre don't generally use that as a tactic) differed greatly. D&D is semi-competitive. Your characters are still attempting to defeat the monsters and avoid dying. Those threats are being controlled by the DM. The DM often wants to defeat you so having the rules be the arbiter between the players and the DM helps. But even if we assume that's not an issue, there are MANY cooperative board games with rules that are restricted in choice. It's simply a matter of fact that in order to play a game you need to know your options. Those options also need to be balanced and fun. "You can do anything" doesn't really work because it sometimes causes Analysis Paralysis and also makes some options clearly superior to all others. I know this wasn't directed towards me, however, I think it is a form of roleplaying. Or more accurately, I believe mechanics like this encourage roleplaying but AREN'T roleplaying themselves. If roleplaying is playing your character "correctly" for the world/society/genre he/she is in, then mechanics that encourage the player to make genre choices end up having the effect of creating better roleplaying. It lowers "immersiveness", but doesn't reduce "roleplaying". I don't think "thinking like your character" is necessary for roleplaying. Only making decisions like he would have made if he was a real person. How you come up with those decisions is rather inconsequential. [/QUOTE]

Verification