Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by TonyLB, April 05, 2005, 10:02:25 AM
Quote from: Doug RuffBut that doesn't mean that a "roleplaying" game is just a game with roleplaying chucked in (or the other way around.)
Quote from: TonyLBRoleplaying games are not about roleplaying. Roleplaying games are not about games.
Quote from: VaxalonIn order for it to be a roleplaying GAME, rather than just roleplaying, there have to be FORMAL rules that the players are adhering to. If there aren't any, then it's freeform roleplaying, and not a game.
Quote from: VaxalonWriting something down doesn't make something formal
QuoteThe Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame: Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the mechanics become metagame mechanics.
QuoteWhen they are connected, you can't actually say either one is THE game, just like you couldn't say chess or monopoly was THE game in my other example.
Quote from: YouThere is a misconception that's become a pet peeve of mine, and that I want to debunk: The idea that "playing a role" and "playing a game" are ever separate parts of playing a roleplaying game.
Quote from: VaxalonI suppose that fits in with the "Games People Play" school of interpersonal relationships. Sometimes, interactions ARE described in terms of "games"... but I don't think those are games in the same sense of the word. There are games one is conscious of playing, and ones you are not conscious of. "Game" in that sense is used as a metaphor.
Quote from: VaxalonYou see, I'm of the opinion that a true game requires formal rules, to which all of the players consciously assent. The "game" theory of human interaction doesn't have formal rules. To me, it's an "as if" construct.