Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1544148" data-attributes="member: 6398">The system?  Nah, I don't think so, since I'm definately in the "problem's with the player" camp.  On the other hand, I believe that the "cure" is best put into the rules somewhere, and with enough detail to make a difference (although, like someone posted earlier, an in-depth look at role-playing would be a book unto itself (indeed, isn't that what this Robin Law person wrote?).  I just think it should get enough mention throughout the books so that it's not forgotten, overlooked, or determined to be irrelevant within the sea of Feats, Prestige Classes, and varioius other Power Ups that are also part of the game. I think if that were the case, a lot of the discussion of what 3E inspires or doesn't inspire would be moot because then we would know that people's choices are based primarily on their own preferences rather than what's given the most attention by the designers.  (Yes, in my proposed "mentioned throughout" model, the Rules would still be the bulk of the material, but those rules would be re-inforced as a tool for role-play rather than the reason for it.  Of course, that's half-pushing into the topic of the "Rules should serve the Game" thread...) Yes, that board was started by my recommendation (heh...), but I stopped hanging there as other problems with the community got too irritating for me to deal with any longer. It was just renamed (about a year ago) as Character Development.  The Min/Max Board was also renamed to Character Optimization.  Reason being that the boards ended up lending themselves out to the two distinct styles (i.e., you couldn't ask for a simple mechanics boost on the Min/Max board without either (A) getting ripped on for not being super-maxed or (B) got entire character maps when you only wanted help with a single facet, while the In-Depth Board was generally slow, misunderstood, and constantly plagued by a troll that also happened to be a Wizo's husband and thus seemingly free to, well, be a troll--and thus adding to my perception of how "role-players" get treated, I will admit <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> ) and ignoring anything in-between the two.  I don't know how they've evolved since that time, but here's the <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=340" target="_blank">link</a> (looking at them now there does seem to be a bit more traffic then it had a year ago). Oh, I definately agree that it's irrelevant when it comes to having fun. However, I don't think it's irrelevant when discussing the game and how it's played.  The reason being that, in comparing the various ways we play, some people come up with this idea that a game devoid of role-playing is a role-playing game.  I don't care if you are role-playing 3rd Person or 1st Person (Long or Short), it's all role-playing.  However, when the game has no role-play (i.e., "I'll let my Diplomacy and the d20 talk for me..."), whether someone is having fun or not is irrelevant; It's not a role-playing game. Now, like I said, the game is very much written so it can be played to either extreme (even freeform is legit, although the rules-lawyer in me doesn't gel with it personally).  I just think it's rather simple logic that No Role-Play = No Role-Playing Game.  On the spin side, I also only think this is a problem when a Tactical Miniatures Battle Game is presented as a Role-Playing Game simply because the rules that support both don't clearly demark the difference between them, particularly if the presentation seems to be more in support of one for lack of discussing the other.</blockquote>

Verification