Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2893947" data-attributes="member: 18280">Strictly?&nbsp; Perhaps, but only due to the nebulous nature of language itself.If you want to be the best fighter in the world, so you seek to train with Sir Hacksalot because he knows a thing or two about which end of the sword is pointy, then that is role-playing.&nbsp; When you then determine what that means in game terms (skills, feats, prestige classes, or whatever), that is rules.&nbsp; Which is why I said &quot;min-maxing and rules-focusing is not roleplaying. It may well be part of character creation that leads to roleplaying, it might be a necessary adjunct to resolving roleplaying decisions, and it is certainly not the antithesis of roleplaying.&quot;Or, another way of looking at it is this:In the game, there are two manticores.&nbsp; One is a big, scary lion-bodied thing with a human head, sharp teeth, and a nasty disposition.&nbsp; The other has Armor Class, hit points, and a damage roll.&nbsp; The &quot;manticoreness&quot; manticore informs the &quot;rules&quot; manticore and gives it meaning.&nbsp; The &quot;rules&quot; manticore informs the &quot;manticoreness&quot; manticore and gives it meaning within the context of the game.Similarly, Lady Bobbette the Mighty (a knight) exists both in a imaginary version (who she is, why she is that way, what she looks like and is liable to do) and in a game version (stats).&nbsp; The first version is the only one you need to write a story, the second is the only one you need for a game like chess (knight, remember?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).&nbsp; In a role-playing game, both versions are necessary.&nbsp; How you weight the two versions, though, in terms of importance is more of an &quot;IMHO&quot; sort of thing than a concrete observable fact.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2893947, member: 18280"] Strictly? Perhaps, but only due to the nebulous nature of language itself. If you want to be the best fighter in the world, so you seek to train with Sir Hacksalot because he knows a thing or two about which end of the sword is pointy, then that is role-playing. When you then determine what that means in game terms (skills, feats, prestige classes, or whatever), that is rules. Which is why I said "min-maxing and rules-focusing is [I]not[/I] roleplaying. It may well be part of character creation that [I]leads[/I] to roleplaying, it might be a necessary adjunct to resolving roleplaying [I]decisions[/I], and it is certainly [I][B]not[/B][/I] the antithesis of roleplaying." Or, another way of looking at it is this: In the game, there are two manticores. One is a big, scary lion-bodied thing with a human head, sharp teeth, and a nasty disposition. The other has Armor Class, hit points, and a damage roll. The "manticoreness" manticore informs the "rules" manticore and gives it meaning. The "rules" manticore informs the "manticoreness" manticore and gives it meaning [I][B]within the context of the game[/B][/I]. Similarly, Lady Bobbette the Mighty (a knight) exists both in a imaginary version (who she is, why she is that way, what she looks like and is liable to do) and in a game version (stats). The first version is the only one you need to write a story, the second is the only one you need for a game like chess (knight, remember? ;) ). In a role-playing game, both versions are necessary. How you weight the two versions, though, in terms of importance is more of an "IMHO" sort of thing than a concrete observable fact. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification