Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rob Kuntz" data-source="post: 8230467" data-attributes="member: 7015759"><p>The combo of imagining an imaginary character performing imaginary acts in an imaginary setting with imaginary results is called Fantasy,&nbsp; When we add outside rules and in some cases their attendant mechanics we are inferring that this Fantasy, unlike childhood play, has a criteria for guidance based upon possibility and probability.&nbsp; This combination is, IMO, errantly referred to as a RPG. How WotC describes it is based upon what it has become to be known as, but if we break down each and every word associated with its typification and in isolation study these as to how they relate to the type, such as a FRPG, such a study, as I have done, would result in a disparate comparison.&nbsp; This is not new, in fact.&nbsp; Arneson never typed it as an RPG; neither did Gygax and the LGTSA, including myself.&nbsp; We referred to it as FRP as early as 1973.&nbsp; It was around 1975 that some removed source started referring to it as an RPG.&nbsp; Why is this important?&nbsp; Because it proves many things least of which is the fact we are still arguing over its typification as a applied&nbsp; design years later.&nbsp; This &quot;game,&quot; IMO, apparently rises to the level of what those engaging it see, want, extoll and promote, and therein lies&nbsp; all the sameness and all the differences.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Rob Kuntz, post: 8230467, member: 7015759"] The combo of imagining an imaginary character performing imaginary acts in an imaginary setting with imaginary results is called Fantasy, When we add outside rules and in some cases their attendant mechanics we are inferring that this Fantasy, unlike childhood play, has a criteria for guidance based upon possibility and probability. This combination is, IMO, errantly referred to as a RPG. How WotC describes it is based upon what it has become to be known as, but if we break down each and every word associated with its typification and in isolation study these as to how they relate to the type, such as a FRPG, such a study, as I have done, would result in a disparate comparison. This is not new, in fact. Arneson never typed it as an RPG; neither did Gygax and the LGTSA, including myself. We referred to it as FRP as early as 1973. It was around 1975 that some removed source started referring to it as an RPG. Why is this important? Because it proves many things least of which is the fact we are still arguing over its typification as a applied design years later. This "game," IMO, apparently rises to the level of what those engaging it see, want, extoll and promote, and therein lies all the sameness and all the differences. [/QUOTE]

Verification