Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 4669226" data-attributes="member: 58105">A game, traditionally, is an endeavor of unknown conclusion but of known possible outcomes. This means that any game has a clear goal. In their most simple implementation you can either achieve the goal or fail. Win or lose. This definition about games is even valid for team based games where each member has to achieve on what goals its team role dictates. And it seems that a game and a race in theory are the same thing. Where they differ is the fact that in a race it is more clear the progress of the endeavor and its most probable outcome while been undertaken. But what about tabletop rpgs? Can we say that they have clear game goals? Their nature is one of a team and each member assumes a role but does this role have the clear goals as in a team based game? If so why the need of adventure? Because no reflection of the need of exploration and discovery in one's team role may very well create incompatibility problematics here. So the question since it seems rather more appropriate if clear game goals are established to be done with adventuring. In case you are not convinced about potential incompatibility problems think of how team adventuring works in principle. It is clear that one needs a way to play with an ever evolving dynamic ground that offers the needed dimension for such an endeavor of exploration to be played. Such a way is the simulationism that many tabletop roleplaying games offer. And it becomes clear that any gaming goals one's team role has, they will influence or weight on the dimension of exploration because even in this dimension the gameplay is team based. So follow one's clear team role or try to reflect on ways to explore and make new discoveries? I tend to choose the second answer of the last question. I believe traditional rpgs are more interactive experiences than traditional games. So the question in the title. What do you think?</blockquote>

Verification