Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2894019" data-attributes="member: 6777">Right. I'm saying that if you are playing a roleplaying game, you are by definition roleplaying. What you're using the term for is what I called earlier &quot;immersion&quot; and &quot;story&quot;. I prefer not to use the term that way, because there's an inherrent value judgement in doing so (which I realize you don't mean to do maliciously).Being into immersion and story is great, but it's not the only way to play an RPG, and it is not a superior way to play. It's just a way.Right. But, no matter what, you have rules. Even if the only rule is, &quot;The GM gets to decide what happens,&quot; you're playing with rules. You've set up conditions on which the group has (ideally) agreed that define what happens inside the game (&quot;Lumpley Principle&quot;). There is no such thing as an RPG, much less a game in general, that has no rules.What the OP was wrasslin' with —and what Rasyr sagely pointed out above— is finding out what kind and how complex a ruleset he could use and still have fun.I can agree that chargen, in itself, is not roleplaying, i.e., roleplaying is what happens at the table when it's &quot;game time&quot;. Chargen is &quot;roleplaying-related.&quot;But there is absolutely nothing that's &quot;not roleplaying&quot; about playing a PC for whom you made optimal choices during chargen or advancement. D&amp;D is all about optimal choices.I think the sticking point is just that &quot;min-max&quot; as a term has been so closely associated with &quot;munchkin&quot; that the discussion becomes co-mingled with the whole topic of disruptive and abusive players. And I'd hope that, by now, enough gamers are aware that no one play style has a monopoly on disruptive players. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 2894019, member: 6777"] Right. I'm saying that if you are playing a roleplaying game, you are [i]by definition[/i] roleplaying. What you're using the term for is what I called earlier "immersion" and "story". I prefer not to use the term that way, because there's an inherrent value judgement in doing so (which I realize you don't mean to do maliciously). Being into immersion and story is great, but it's not the only way to play an RPG, and it is not a superior way to play. It's just a way. Right. But, no matter what, you have rules. Even if the only rule is, "The GM gets to decide what happens," you're playing with rules. You've set up conditions on which the group has (ideally) agreed that define what happens inside the game ("Lumpley Principle"). There is no such thing as an RPG, much less a game in general, that has no rules. What the OP was wrasslin' with —and what Rasyr sagely pointed out above— is finding out what kind and how complex a ruleset he could use and still have fun. I can agree that chargen, in itself, is not roleplaying, i.e., roleplaying is what happens at the table when it's "game time". Chargen is "roleplaying-related." But there is absolutely nothing that's "not roleplaying" about playing a PC for whom you made optimal choices during chargen or advancement. D&D is all about optimal choices. I think the sticking point is just that "min-max" as a term has been so closely associated with "munchkin" that the discussion becomes co-mingled with the whole topic of disruptive and abusive players. And I'd hope that, by now, enough gamers are aware that no one play style has a monopoly on disruptive players. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification