NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9244690">The existence of house rules in board games doesn't disprove that board games have rules and people tend to follow them. It certainly doesn't disprove that if you sat down to play D&D for the first time, one of the first things you notice is this ability to go beyond the rules and inhabit a world. And in Monopoly you were still expected to play monopoly, being limited to the board and goals of play. In D&D and in RPGs you have a freedom you simply didn't in board games and book shelf games with clearly copied rules of play Yes it does. There is a culture of play around any edition. 3E is a perfect example of that. I wasn't able to achieve the kind of play I wanted for my Ravenloft campaigns until I switched back to 2E, and it was like turning on a light. That is how much the presence of absence of these mechanics mattered. And I am not knocking social mechanics here. A lot of people want them and like them in RPGs. I am just pointing out if you are very focused on in character RP and interaction with NPCs, those kind of mechanics can get in the wayIt is useful because some of the arguments here share a core premise with his. Which is that even though D&D literally created roleplaying, it somehow falls short in the roleplaying department. I think that is because there is a flaw in the reasoning: it assumed you need active mechanical buttressing to encourage role-play, whereas I think D&D works as a roleplaying game becuase it leaves the space for it that I have been talking about. I think if you have a game that literally defined what RPGs are, that invented the hobby, there is something wrong in any reasoning that points to it failing at the thing it introduced to the world</blockquote>

Verification