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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 3701265" data-attributes="member: 16574">I'm not changing my argument at all, I just maybe didn't state it clearly enough the first time around so you misunderstood what it was. My point wasn't that no other game offers the same sort of long-term replay value as tabletop rpgs, because many other types of games clearly do -- a deck of cards or a chess set or a basketball is both a cheaper investment and has as much or more long-term replay value than even the cheapest and broadest rpg. I wasn't considering those in my comparison, though, because people don't normally see cards or chess or basketball as being in direct competition with tabletop rpgs because they offer significantly different experiences and rewards. I would place arcade-style console games into that same category -- playing "Frogger" isn't any more analogous to playing D&D than playing golf is. However, "rpg-style" console games (later-generation ones from the 90s-00s at least) are frequently cited as direct competition for tabletop rpgs (and even as rendering tabletop rpgs "obsolete"), because they do have a lot of the same appeal -- explore a fantastic/imaginary world, participate in a story, take on a fictional role, kill things and take their stuff, etc. -- and because they have several distinct advantages over tabletop rpgs -- cool graphics, you don't have to read a rulebook in order to start playing, you can play at your own pace and don't need to gather together a bunch of like-minded friends in order to play, etc. But these advantages are balanced out by (among other things) the fact that they're finite and generally have minimal replay value -- it's assumed that once you've finished/beaten the game that you'll move on and buy another one. That, nothing more or less, is what I meant to say originally.</blockquote>

Verification