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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 3032107" data-attributes="member: 41593">Ok, so what I try to do here isn't say "you guys are wrong.." - just want to make that clear, and reiterate that indeed it is largely a matter of interpretation. So all I hope to do here is break down why there are those who see distinctions and what those of us who do see a separation think. Please feel free to disagree, and know that this isn't an "attack" on others' gaming philosophies, merely an explanation of my own to answer the queries:Hussar wrote:Hussar, those of us who draw a distinction do so because ultimately we feel that what makes the game "roleplaying" instead of just "Tactical Fantasy gaming" (which is exactly what Chainmail, D&D's precursor, was) is the primary focus on "playing a role." Lots of games employ simple character names along with dice and strategy, yet they aren't referred to as "RPGs." If there wasn't a distinction, in views like ours, "Dreamblade" and "Axis & Allies" would be RPG's as well.If it's an artificial distinction, why would WOTC and gaming companies make it in marketing different lines of products, many with similar dice and strategy elements which are not called "roleplaying" games? Thus, the distinction isn't artificial per se when someone asks "I've heard about fantasy roleplaying... how is it different from just playing my table-top LOTR boardgame?" If the answer is merely "the rules are more complex and comprehensive," that doesn't really say to someone on the outside who'll still ask "yeah, but what's roleplaying?" Which leads to answer the following:Gold Roger wrote:That's the crux... the argument of the article at hand originally and by many here is that as long as any one element of the rules employed in a book for an RPG are being focused on, then the game is "roleplaying." Essentially, if the expression of a feat or tactic represents a character in play during combat, that is as much roleplaying as focusing on "character style" or traits, either through "play acting" by the player at the table or more theatrical descriptions of a character's action.Those that disagree say it is the presence of a separate and unique focus on "roleplaying," whether it be by immersion in a character or simply asking "what would this character do considering his/her background, temperment, intelligence, alignment, etc." that distinguishes the roleplaying game from other games. At conventions, there are separate areas/rooms for RPGA, D&D from wargaming or tactical minis. Why if there's not a distinction? One thing I've noted is that inevitably there are those who complain that the winners of convention RPG tournaments are always the "character immersion" roleplayers, and that this is a sign of elitism. Granted to some it is... but it also merely reflects that the organizers, RPGA etc., see a distinction and focus awards and points to that element over the tactical play. I'll give one final example to illustrate:A character encounters a swordsman in a market. The swordsman pulls a large scimitar blade, and employs ambidexterity to rapidly switch it back and forth between hands, making elaborate motions as he prepares to attack.The character switches from the whip in hand and pulls a gun. He shoots the swordsman, scoring a critical hit and killing his opponent.I think this is a fair mechanical description of the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. But it in no way creates what was unique about Indiana Jones - the rolling of the eyes, the shrug, the "ah the hell with this" attitude as he simply shot the laughing swordsman who obviously (through laughter, glee) thought he was a badass.Do we remember the details from the sword fights in "The Princess Bride?" No, we remember "Hallo... my name is Inigo Montoya... you killed my father... Prepare to die!" In the end it is the characterizations that separate these moments from mere representation of skills or feats.... and so those who claim the distinction always come back to the idea that WHO a character is is more important than WHAT the character does, in combat, in negotiation, etc. So all this is just an explanation to clarify one point of view on the matter. Again, it's not meant to be an attack or a claim of superiority - there are plenty who do take an elitist attitude towards their philosophy - "mine is the TRUE D&D, etc." - I am not one of them. I don't think my philosophy is "right" or "true," just my point of view. I have as much fun with a spirited game of Axis & Allies as I do with my RPGs. And I love to play Simpsons monopoly.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> So take this as merely an attempt to define why there are those who make these distinctions, not to change minds here, but merely so when we sit at a table with (inevitably) someone from the different school we have an understanding of where they are coming from.John  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification