Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gimby" data-source="post: 5042033" data-attributes="member: 49875">I'm not sure there does beyond &quot;Is this meant to be played as an RPG?&quot;&nbsp; Consider the original Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader - its clearly a tabletop wargame, right?&nbsp; The default described mode of play is one.&nbsp; But there are a suprising number of typical roleplaying game trappings attached to it, which were expanded on in later books.&nbsp;&nbsp; Its trivial to play it as a full-blown RPG (albeit a very lethal one).&nbsp;&nbsp; Within the Warhammer line in general there is definately an attempt to promote &quot;flavourful&quot; or &quot;characterful&quot; armies and lots of background given on the setting and characters within it - certainly of the order found in a lot of RPG setting books.&nbsp; But with all that, its still a wargame *because it describes itself as one*.&nbsp; That, I feel is the only really useful distinction that can be made.&nbsp; Take the gamut of RPGs - there are some with no out of combat rules at all - and no combat rules either.&nbsp;&nbsp; Just general rules for conflict resolution of some kind.&nbsp; Or look at many LARPs - there are often only rules for combat as its assumed the players will &quot;hard skill&quot; or gloss over any out of combat tasks.&nbsp; So I think the only line that can be drawn is &quot;is this self-described as an RPG?&quot;&nbsp; If it is, its an RPG.&nbsp; If its not, it isn't.&nbsp; What does line-drawing actually gain?Note here - self-described used deliberately.&nbsp;&nbsp; This has no bearing on non-authorial claims of RPG-ness or not.&nbsp; Also just because something is described as an RPG doesn't mean it can't be critised for being a really bad one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gimby, post: 5042033, member: 49875"] I'm not sure there does beyond "Is this meant to be played as an RPG?" Consider the original Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader - its clearly a tabletop wargame, right? The default described mode of play is one. But there are a suprising number of typical roleplaying game trappings attached to it, which were expanded on in later books. Its trivial to play it as a full-blown RPG (albeit a very lethal one). Within the Warhammer line in general there is definately an attempt to promote "flavourful" or "characterful" armies and lots of background given on the setting and characters within it - certainly of the order found in a lot of RPG setting books. But with all that, its still a wargame *because it describes itself as one*. That, I feel is the only really useful distinction that can be made. Take the gamut of RPGs - there are some with no out of combat rules at all - and no combat rules either. Just general rules for conflict resolution of some kind. Or look at many LARPs - there are often only rules for combat as its assumed the players will "hard skill" or gloss over any out of combat tasks. So I think the only line that can be drawn is "is this self-described as an RPG?" If it is, its an RPG. If its not, it isn't. What does line-drawing actually gain? Note here - self-described used deliberately. This has no bearing on non-authorial claims of RPG-ness or not. Also just because something is described as an RPG doesn't mean it can't be critised for being a really bad one. [/QUOTE]

Verification