Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mac Callum" data-source="post: 1422424" data-attributes="member: 17035">Let's see...Simon says....I can't really say I agree with you.&nbsp; Would you say that opening with Knight's pawn is a rule of chess, or your oponent's whim according to the rules of chess?Would you say that a grounder to right (right through your second baseman's legs) is a rule of baseball, or a lucky hit by the other side?Some people think it's fun to agree to arbitrary rules, and then compete with others according to those rules.&nbsp; The Gamist approach as put forward by S'mon seems to be competetive in nature, but there's nothing that says games can't be competetive.&nbsp; In fact, games can be very competetive - within the boundaries of the agreed upon rules.The explicit rules of D&amp;D are in the books (and on the home rule's sheet your DM hands out).One of the implicit rules (of any game) is that no one will cheat.&nbsp; Once you agree to the rules, you stick to them.&nbsp; In this sense, one of the unspoken rules you and your DM have agreed to is that they will not confront you with a challenge that is way beyond your CR level; or that if he does he will give you a way out; and that if he doesn't give you a way out he's got a damn good reason not to (one that you will agree is a good reason).&nbsp; Any other challenges the DM might throw at you are a competition to &quot;win&quot; within the agreed upon rules - just like baseball or chess, as I see it.And as for the difference between RPG's and baseball/chess because there's no winning or losing - pardon me, but I call bull.&nbsp; Last time I checked, the Yankees have never beaten the Red Sox; not definatively anyway.&nbsp; Even with that amazing series last fall those Sox still came back to play again at spring training.&nbsp; As I see it, the PCs 'win' some, and the DM 'wins' some.&nbsp; That's how it goes.&nbsp; The next gaming session you play again.If you're a Gamist anyway.&nbsp; If you're a 'Simulationist' or 'Narrative' player, you win by other means.&nbsp; But let's get something straight - if you're talking about winning &amp; losing, and lives or profits aren't on the line, you're talking about a game.&nbsp; There's nothing else to call it.Mac Callum</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mac Callum, post: 1422424, member: 17035"] Let's see... Simon says.... I can't really say I agree with you. Would you say that opening with Knight's pawn is a rule of chess, or your oponent's whim according to the rules of chess? Would you say that a grounder to right (right through your second baseman's legs) is a rule of baseball, or a lucky hit by the other side? Some people think it's fun to agree to arbitrary rules, and then compete with others according to those rules. The Gamist approach as put forward by S'mon seems to be competetive in nature, but there's nothing that says games can't be competetive. In fact, games can be very competetive - within the boundaries of the agreed upon rules. The explicit rules of D&D are in the books (and on the home rule's sheet your DM hands out). One of the implicit rules (of any game) is that no one will cheat. Once you agree to the rules, you stick to them. In this sense, one of the unspoken rules you and your DM have agreed to is that they will not confront you with a challenge that is way beyond your CR level; or that if he does he will give you a way out; and that if he doesn't give you a way out he's got a damn good reason not to (one that you will agree is a good reason). Any other challenges the DM might throw at you are a competition to "win" within the agreed upon rules - just like baseball or chess, as I see it. And as for the difference between RPG's and baseball/chess because there's no winning or losing - pardon me, but I call bull. Last time I checked, the Yankees have never beaten the Red Sox; not definatively anyway. Even with that amazing series last fall those Sox still came back to play again at spring training. As I see it, the PCs 'win' some, and the DM 'wins' some. That's how it goes. The next gaming session you play again. If you're a Gamist anyway. If you're a 'Simulationist' or 'Narrative' player, you win by other means. But let's get something straight - if you're talking about winning & losing, and lives or profits aren't on the line, you're talking about a game. There's nothing else to call it. Mac Callum [/QUOTE]

Verification