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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8287718" data-attributes="member: 58416">*I would counter that video games have trended toward more human interaction, not less. That is why things like Xbox Live and Playstation Network thrive. Likewise, the Nintendo Switch is becoming increasingly popular.**What is this based upon?*I do not believe this requires the rules to be "absolute." It simply requires keeping GM-knowledge separated from NPC-knowledge. The GM knowing a piece of information doesn't mean that the BBEG knows something; the role of rules arbiter and the role of world builder are related but not equivalent. Houserules can and do exist. As long as they are communicated to the players, the game works fine. Additionally, having some flexibility as a GM allows for a tabletop game to handle things which programming tends to handle poorly: an example would be that there are some games in which jumping even small objects are not possible. Similarly, there is a reason why a courtroom involves a judge instead of a computer program which simply scans legal code.**What stops someone from buying modules now? I'm not seeing how that is some sort of change. Further, I'm not seeing how buying modules means someone does not create their own adventures. Anecdotally, I know far more people who play rpgs at home or at a friend's home than people who play Adventurer League (or some thing similar). Many of those people create their own adventures but still purchase modules. Most often (again, anecdotally,) what I see is that people want some sort of "starter" module or series of beginner adventures to get a campaign moving but then take things in their own direction. I also know plenty of people who buy modules and mine them for ideas. Personally, I don't particularly like the Strahd campaign, but there are a lot of bits and pieces of it (like the elevator trap) which I thought were cool.*I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How is emergent play at odds with telling a story? As a story would change according to a player's actions, I believe that a storytelling game allows for emergent play. I am not sure that I understand what you are saying with your statement or why/how you draw the line between rpgs being (for you) a game instead of a story. How would you categorize something like a choose-your-own-adventure book? For me, tabletop rpgs are sorta like an in-person MMO version of a choose-your-own-adventure book. I am interested in hearing the position you've taken elaborated upon because (as I read it) it seems very alien to my way of thinking.I answered the poll, but I am overall confused by what your article is saying. I feel as though there are two conflicting messages being presented.I play and GM roughly equally. Currently, I am a player in two different groups (one playing D&D and one playing a different system). I am also currently prepping to run a new campaign for a group.</blockquote>

Verification