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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4548535" data-attributes="member: 3192">It's a problem because it requires the players to define game mechanics instead of playing the definition and being blind to those same game mechanics.  Game model operation and real world operation equivalency is the ideal for a role-playing game.  Operational equivalency / simulation is the definition of quality for role-playing.  Computer RPGs are doing this nicely, but are limited in numerous other ways.Defining a game mechanic during play is not role-playing and consistently requiring a player to define those elements just says the game cannot mimic reality without constant redefinition into something other than what it is.  Lack of operational symmetry is a fault for any kind of role-play. Requiring constant redefinition of such makes the game a "playing of the system" instead of a playing of the role.  It removes the exploration / education a player has within that role and leaves absent that portion of the system the game element was designed to simulate in the first place.  In other words, the role becomes something other than it is in actuality.  Like defining every hit in a Chess game as a hit in a boxing match player definition of mechanics during play can be a part of any game system, but that ability doesn't make every game system a role-playing game because such is possible.  I think what is confusing some may be that requiring storytelling when playing a role-playing game does not make it an RPG (telling a story is not == to role-playing).  It is the operational similarity to the sociologically-defined role.  For a role-playing game specifically, it is the confinement of the player to actions real people are capable of when actually in the roles.  If a particular operation in a game isn't mimicking the actual role's operation, whether the role is real or unreal (i.e. spellcasting), than it's a bad rule for a role-playing game.I think many will agree 4E has rules that make it a more enjoyable game than 3E from a competitive balance point of view, but also has rules that make it less of a role-playing game under the strict definition of role-playing as it was originally defined some 60 years ago.  As these are two competing desires, it is a rational point of disagreement for those who prefer not to play an unrelated game, but rather prefer to play the role.  ...or at least more of it as 4E does include plenty of other aspects that make it an RPG in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification