Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4896853" data-attributes="member: 22779">Actually, I believe that I DID say that the only thing you could do was react, so, we're in complete agreement.  However, that was my point and why I was disagreeing with Ariosto.In traditional RPG's, you cannot even go to the privy without the DM's say so.  After all, is the door locked?  Is the privy clean?  Is there someone inside?  You don't know.  Heck, you cannot even claim that there is a privy nearby since any time a player makes any sort of editorial claim on the setting, he's no longer role playing according to Ariosto and EW.That's my point.  Now, I'm not saying that that's not roleplaying.  It certainly is.  My point is, why is it roleplaying when the DM declares there is a privy in the courtyard, but not roleplaying when the player does it?Ariosto - that's getting very, very tired.  Just because you fail to be able to come up with a legitimate argument to back up your point, don't point at me for misunderstanding or strawmen.  What role is the DM playing?  Well, let's see, there would be the people in the bar who are now looking for the dog, there would still be the people the players stole the diamond from in the first place and there would be, of course, the dog itself.  I'd say the DM has a rather large selection of roles to choose from.Yet, in your claim, if the DM sets up the situation, then everyone is playing a roleplaying game.  If, on the other hand, the player sets up the situation, suddenly no one is playing a roleplaying game, but rather they are playing a story game.Never mind that the situation, the characters, the events are all exactly the same.  The only difference between the two setups is who decided the dog ate the diamond.  That is the single, solitary difference, but apparently, that difference is what divides a role playing game from a story game.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />What I really don't understand is what is being gained here by defining the terms in such very limited scope.  The entire point of defining terms is to aid understanding.  But, splitting off a significant portion of RPG's from the term roleplaying simply because they include mechanics that allow the players to have editorial control seems very strange to me.  It doesn't help anything.  It certainly doesn't aid in understanding.Thinking about it, how many games do have some sort of Action Point, Fate point, whatever mechanic?  D&D 3.5 can if you use Unearthed Arcana.  Going back in time a ways to the mid 80's, I know the 007 RPG also allowed you to burn action points to change the scene.  It's been around for a very, very long time.  Why divorce a significant portion of the hobby from what the hobby is about?  What do you gain?</blockquote>

Verification