Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NoWayJose" data-source="post: 5261489" data-attributes="member: 84810">I think that most people get the difference between realism and versimilitude these days. After years of Internet debate, I think people have gotten more conscious of this issue and, after years of semantic nitpicking, also more careful about using the correct terminology.&nbsp;I also agree that exactly what is believable is still contentious (witness a recent thread that was closed when the debate got too hot for some).&nbsp;The issue gets more complicated with RPGs where the system informs the believability or unbelievability of the in-game setting. I can play Monopoly and have no desire for believability -- clearly, it's an abstract game. I can play one of those tactical miniature games that have a short background story and character cards with background blurbs&nbsp; and yet still have no desire for immersion and believability -- the fluff is just for flavor, it's still a boardgame. I think that D&amp;D (4E more than 3E) can't quite make up its mind over its priorities -- is it simulationist or is it more of a metagame -- not in the sense that the developers were indecisive, but that their efforts to reconciliate rules and fluff is too sporadic to be consistent. I think Chaosim's Call of Cthulhu has overall great believability sandwiched between the rules and the fluff -- probably my favorite game for &quot;real&quot; role-playing, the fluff is almost always immersive and the game rules feel relatively inconspicuous during play.&nbsp;Different players have different expectations. Personally, I need a certain amount of believability to enjoy an RPG. If I wanted just tactics and strategizing, I'd prefer to play a boardgame which has no pretentions about being anything other than a tactical/strategy game and I can enjoy it for what it is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NoWayJose, post: 5261489, member: 84810"] I think that most people get the difference between realism and versimilitude these days. After years of Internet debate, I think people have gotten more conscious of this issue and, after years of semantic nitpicking, also more careful about using the correct terminology. I also agree that exactly what is believable is still contentious (witness a recent thread that was closed when the debate got too hot for some). The issue gets more complicated with RPGs where the system informs the believability or unbelievability of the in-game setting. I can play Monopoly and have no desire for believability -- clearly, it's an abstract game. I can play one of those tactical miniature games that have a short background story and character cards with background blurbs and yet still have no desire for immersion and believability -- the fluff is just for flavor, it's still a boardgame. I think that D&D (4E more than 3E) can't quite make up its mind over its priorities -- is it simulationist or is it more of a metagame -- not in the sense that the developers were indecisive, but that their efforts to reconciliate rules and fluff is too sporadic to be consistent. I think Chaosim's Call of Cthulhu has overall great believability sandwiched between the rules and the fluff -- probably my favorite game for "real" role-playing, the fluff is almost always immersive and the game rules feel relatively inconspicuous during play. Different players have different expectations. Personally, I need a certain amount of believability to enjoy an RPG. If I wanted just tactics and strategizing, I'd prefer to play a boardgame which has no pretentions about being anything other than a tactical/strategy game and I can enjoy it for what it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification