Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5566715" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, what if I don't move my white knight into the situation where he would checkmate the black king because I'm RPing him as a traitor? Is that not RP affecting the course of the game? Sure it is! Notice that it also inherently implies that I have a wider range of goals in playing that particular game of chess than simply winning the game. I did make a distinction though between 'open ended' games and 'closed' games. I don't think closed games are automatically impossible to RP in. You simply have a limited menu of options. Admittedly that means the amount of RP you can encompass in closed games is much less, but I don't draw the line on RP at the same point as the open/closed distinction. And I wouldn't want to take this whole argument to the completely absurd level. Chess is a terrible RPG.Winding it back more to the original discussion though clearly more rules or more restrictive rules don't make some game 'not an RPG', they just make it a more or less useful one. Really I think OD&D or 1e AD&D and the thief is a bit of a bad example, Mearl's could have used a better but equally simple system as a better example (except it would have missed his nostalgia angle). AD&D was pretty restrictive in a lot of odd ways. Something like Savage Worlds would probably be a better example of a system with simple generalized rules and few complex 'baked in' options for a given PC, vs the implicit comparison to 4e where you have a lot of that. OTOH SW and 4e both have quite generalized rules, older D&D just had a mass of very specific rules and little else. I think both SW and 4e are better RPGs than AD&D/OD&D were, even if they are quite different in some ways.</blockquote>

Verification