Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bastoche" data-source="post: 4029067" data-attributes="member: 306">I also want to add another grain of salt here.Most mainstream RPG states somewhere in the rules. Or at least it's one of the dumbed down definition of &quot;Role Playing Games&quot; given to a neophyte.A Role Playing Game is a game in which the DM sets the stages and the players states their character's action.Gamist game won't allow the player to do whatever he wants because he must gamble to succeed or fail trying. Example:DM: So you guys are in front of the trolls and the princess is bound behindSteve: I skewer the trolls save the princess and mary her!DM: okay everyone, roll initiative(an hour later)DM: Ok so the last troll is dead, you saved the princess but Steve is dead. Will you raise him?Steve could not actually have his character do whatever he wanted.Simulationist play allow the characters to do what is internally coherent. And &quot;good roleplaying&quot; is having the player correctly make judgements about what could/should do his character in a given circumstance. A caricatural ideal would be that a supercomputer could run a simulation of the game world and the character, run a few hours and give a printout of what actually happened. Well in practice, the player tries to be that supercomputer and fun emerges when he makes successful calculations. The succes of the characters themselves should be irrelevant.IMO, nar play is the approch that says &quot;what if the player could actually have his character do *whatever* he wants?&quot; At that point, people figure out what works in this context and what doesn't and that, IMO, is where narativist play is born. What makes it &quot;somewhat&quot; more complicated than that is the fact that there is more than one player around the table and then the rules come into play to suggest to player where their narative power starts and where it ends!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bastoche, post: 4029067, member: 306"] I also want to add another grain of salt here. Most mainstream RPG states somewhere in the rules. Or at least it's one of the dumbed down definition of "Role Playing Games" given to a neophyte. A Role Playing Game is a game in which the DM sets the stages and the players states their character's action. Gamist game won't allow the player to do whatever he wants because he must gamble to succeed or fail trying. Example: DM: So you guys are in front of the trolls and the princess is bound behind Steve: I skewer the trolls save the princess and mary her! DM: okay everyone, roll initiative (an hour later) DM: Ok so the last troll is dead, you saved the princess but Steve is dead. Will you raise him? Steve could not [i]actually[/i] have his character do whatever he wanted. Simulationist play allow the characters to do what is internally coherent. And "good roleplaying" is having the player correctly make judgements about what could/should do his character in a given circumstance. A caricatural ideal would be that a supercomputer could run a simulation of the game world and the character, run a few hours and give a printout of what actually happened. Well in practice, the player tries to be that supercomputer and fun emerges when he makes successful calculations. The succes of the characters themselves should be irrelevant. IMO, nar play is the approch that says "what if the player could [i]actually[/i] have his character do *whatever* he wants?" At that point, people figure out what works in this context and what doesn't and that, IMO, is where narativist play is born. What makes it "somewhat" more complicated than that is the fact that there is more than one player around the table and then the rules come into play to suggest to player where their [i]narative[/i] power starts and where it ends! [/QUOTE]

Verification