Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1546966" data-attributes="member: 6398">No, I figured you were calling Milotha an Elitist to bug Milotha.&nbsp; But it is a name that's been tossed at me at the WotC Boards (and thus why I consider it &quot;name calling&quot;) and so I tend to jump on it when it comes up.&nbsp; If we're going to go with labels, though, rather than name calling, I'll take &quot;In-Depth Rules Lawyer&quot;.(Granted, it's usually my rules rather than the Core Rules, but I'm a stickler for them either way...&nbsp; )Fun I agree with.&nbsp; However, I don't agree that role-playing is as loose in definition as to include moving miniatures on a square-spaced map and declaring social Skill check.&nbsp; Like I've said, there's nothing wrong with playing D&amp;D without role-playing (nor is there a problem with people having fun doing that).&nbsp; At the same time, I feel that, sans the role-playing, D&amp;D becomes changed entirely to a game of declared actions with a random resolution.&nbsp; That very much brings it out of &quot;role-playing&quot; into being nearly identical to a board game.&nbsp; Consider the game Life: At the beginning, you have the choice between diving into Blue Color Work or putting yourself through college, with the spinner determining how well you do at either.&nbsp; Applying the concept that declared action/random resolution equals a role-playing game, Life is an RPG (as are Monopoly, Mouse Trap, and a host of other board games), which is why reducing role-play to that level seems silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1546966, member: 6398"] No, I figured you were calling Milotha an Elitist to bug Milotha. But it is a name that's been tossed at me at the WotC Boards (and thus why I consider it "name calling") and so I tend to jump on it when it comes up. If we're going to go with labels, though, rather than name calling, I'll take "In-Depth Rules Lawyer". (Granted, it's usually my rules rather than the Core Rules, but I'm a stickler for them either way... ) Fun I agree with. However, I don't agree that role-playing is as loose in definition as to include moving miniatures on a square-spaced map and declaring social Skill check. Like I've said, there's nothing wrong with playing D&D without role-playing (nor is there a problem with people having fun doing that). At the same time, I feel that, sans the role-playing, D&D becomes changed entirely to a game of declared actions with a random resolution. That very much brings it out of "role-playing" into being nearly identical to a board game. Consider the game Life: At the beginning, you have the choice between diving into Blue Color Work or putting yourself through college, with the spinner determining how well you do at either. Applying the concept that declared action/random resolution equals a role-playing game, Life is an RPG (as are Monopoly, Mouse Trap, and a host of other board games), which is why reducing role-play to that level seems silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification