Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mythusmage" data-source="post: 1569222" data-attributes="member: 571">Dramatic conflict, not game conflict. Different critters altogether.It is true that those in conflict are in competition with each other, but in an RPG that need not be the players.You do have a point there. But, the rules in an RPG don't order play exclusively. That is to say, they do have another function. BTW, conflict resolution is also task resolution in my scheme of things, since task resolution really comes down to answering the question of whether an action succeeds or fails. Conflict in the basic sense.But now at a remove. It's no longer Joe versus Bob, but Throng vs. Garas the Black. Though it does help if people keep in mind the necessary distinction.How about a friendly activity? The players assume roles in an imaginary world, the GM presents that world to them. Sometimes the GM assumes roles that oppose the players' characters, or competes with them. Sometimes he may take on a role that assists the characters. But competition is not the reason for playing.The reason for playing is the adventure. For dramatic purposes there may be conflict, though not necessarily the type of conflict most think of when they hear the word. Competition in a form may even arise (as in two rogues competing to see who can garner tho most 'cool stuff' in a night's work). But competition as occurs in games need not arise.That I'll agree with. Honesty on the part of all participants can make the experience a lot better for all concerned. Not having to worry about the 'other side's' honesty would certainly help there. Removing the need to see roleplaying as competitive would make it a lot easier on all concerned.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mythusmage, post: 1569222, member: 571"] Dramatic conflict, not game conflict. Different critters altogether. It is true that those in conflict are in competition with each other, but in an RPG that need not be the players. You do have a point there. But, the rules in an RPG don't order play exclusively. That is to say, they do have another function. BTW, conflict resolution is also task resolution in my scheme of things, since task resolution really comes down to answering the question of whether an action succeeds or fails. Conflict in the basic sense. But now at a remove. It's no longer Joe versus Bob, but Throng vs. Garas the Black. Though it does help if people keep in mind the necessary distinction. How about a friendly activity? The players assume roles in an imaginary world, the GM presents that world to them. Sometimes the GM assumes roles that oppose the players' characters, or competes with them. Sometimes he may take on a role that assists the characters. But competition is not the reason for playing. The reason for playing is the adventure. For dramatic purposes there may be conflict, though not necessarily the type of conflict most think of when they hear the word. Competition in a form may even arise (as in two rogues competing to see who can garner tho most 'cool stuff' in a night's work). But competition as occurs in games need not arise. That I'll agree with. Honesty on the part of all participants can make the experience a lot better for all concerned. Not having to worry about the 'other side's' honesty would certainly help there. Removing the need to see roleplaying as competitive would make it a lot easier on all concerned. [/QUOTE]

Verification