Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6296023" data-attributes="member: 17106">I think the problem with that line of thinking is that while D&amp;D does have outcomes up to and including character death, none of those outcomes are given value judgments or treated as winning or losing. A character may defeat an enemy, but that does not indicate that the player &quot;won&quot; that round. Likewise, a character may die, but that does not indicate that the player &quot;lost&quot;. Because of the open-ended nature of the game, circumstances completely to the contrary may arise (where winning a battle is a failure or getting killed is a success). Moreover, the player's participation in the game and standing within it don't change regardless of those outcomes occurring.The fundamental aspect of the game is that the player is sharing the experiences of the character; if that is satisfied, you're doing it right, regardless of what qualities those experiences have.I think the problem is that there are different definitions of &quot;game&quot;. Any recreational activity could be considered a game, but there's also a narrower definition.I would consider D&amp;D a &quot;game&quot; in the sense of activities you do in improvisational theater classes or of children running around pretending to be superheroes. It is a shared activity for the purposes of recreation that involves an exertion of effort and skill.It is not a game in the sense of chess or baseball, wherein there is a defined scope to the game, goals, and a competitive element. The purpose of rules in roleplaying is not to create boundaries for a competition, but to describe outcomes that occur in a fantasy world in a simplified way that allows the participants to communicate, and perhaps to introduce an element of objectivity or externality into those outcomes.The oddity with D&amp;D specifically is that it arose from wargames that do meet the narrower definition of &quot;game&quot; and are competitive and aren't open-ended. To me, D&amp;D will finally have achieved its purpose when it moves completely beyond those hybrid roleplaying/wargame origins and becomes purely a roleplaying game (which, to answer the question, would mean that the rules would be 100% simulation engine). Of course, some will disagree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6296023, member: 17106"] I think the problem with that line of thinking is that while D&D does have outcomes up to and including character death, none of those outcomes are given value judgments or treated as winning or losing. A character may defeat an enemy, but that does not indicate that the player "won" that round. Likewise, a character may die, but that does not indicate that the player "lost". Because of the open-ended nature of the game, circumstances completely to the contrary may arise (where winning a battle is a failure or getting killed is a success). Moreover, the player's participation in the game and standing within it don't change regardless of those outcomes occurring. The fundamental aspect of the game is that the player is sharing the experiences of the character; if that is satisfied, you're doing it right, regardless of what qualities those experiences have. I think the problem is that there are different definitions of "game". Any recreational activity could be considered a game, but there's also a narrower definition. I would consider D&D a "game" in the sense of activities you do in improvisational theater classes or of children running around pretending to be superheroes. It is a shared activity for the purposes of recreation that involves an exertion of effort and skill. It is not a game in the sense of chess or baseball, wherein there is a defined scope to the game, goals, and a competitive element. The purpose of rules in roleplaying is not to create boundaries for a competition, but to describe outcomes that occur in a fantasy world in a simplified way that allows the participants to communicate, and perhaps to introduce an element of objectivity or externality into those outcomes. The oddity with D&D specifically is that it arose from wargames that do meet the narrower definition of "game" and are competitive and aren't open-ended. To me, D&D will finally have achieved its purpose when it moves completely beyond those hybrid roleplaying/wargame origins and becomes purely a roleplaying game (which, to answer the question, would mean that the rules would be 100% simulation engine). Of course, some will disagree. [/QUOTE]

Verification