What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?
- Thread starter LucaCherstich
- Start date
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
flatscan said:
I've already acknowledged that, while you have no objective proof, your subjective opinion is that your ability to roleplay was not impacted.
Now you're just trolling.
I try not to feed trolls.
So go on with your merry self, just leave me out of it.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Many of the above discussions remind me that perhaps I have not roleplayed with Classic D&D either for the last 25 years.
Since many of the points above apply mutatis mutandis to Classic D&D, too: no skills, same amount of money for all classes, same abilities for all classes, reduced variability except ability scores.
I wonder who here is confused about roleplaying, equating it to mechanical diversity :?
Since many of the points above apply mutatis mutandis to Classic D&D, too: no skills, same amount of money for all classes, same abilities for all classes, reduced variability except ability scores.
I wonder who here is confused about roleplaying, equating it to mechanical diversity :?
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Asking for a "proof" of something like the amount of roleplaying put in a game is silly at best.LilithsThrall said:
Besides, what "proof" is needed more than a gaming report? Or perhaps they are deluded, thinking that they were roleplaying whereas they were not?
Next thing we will have someone who says HOW one is supposed to roleplay. Surely Gygax is jumping inside his tomb now :shock:
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
rabindranath72 said:
So, for you, if someone says they are engaged in roleplaying, then they are, in fact, engaged in roleplaying?
So, if I'm balancing my checkbook and I call it roleplaying, then it is roleplaying? If I'm taking an afternoon nap, and call it roleplaying, then it is roleplaying? "Roleplaying", as a word, has no shared meaning? It only means whatever the speaker wants it to mean?
Quite. Not everyone arguing against 4th ed has taken this slant though to be fair.
In fact, to be clear, I was asking for some kind of evidence that 4th ed was more complex/mathematical/tactical/whatever you want to say than 3.5. It wasn't a roleplaying point.
Edit: ah I see, you were referring to LT's point, sorry.
Well, to be fair I think he's saying that if someone is playing a roleplaying game and is acting the part of a character then they are roleplaying. And who could argue with that? He's did not say what you imply in the quote above and I don't think you really mean that.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
\
With respect, you are begging the question. The concern is over how much the person actually is "acting the part of a character" rather than being influenced (knowingly or unknowingly) by the mechanics of the game.
Is this the nub of it then? If so then it really depends on how well one grasps the rules as applied to a given situation. With a thorough understanding of the rules of a given game, a player will only have to step outside his character briefly to resolve actions by dice throwing. He'll not be calculating and thus not be using the logical part of his brain to the detriment of his creative side (to be slightly crude about it). This is like how chess grandmasters operate most of the time - they're playing the game in a different way to folk like me who think things though all the time when playing chess.
In any role playing game though players will step outside character at times, it's the difference between a game and a play, in a game, one cannot be immersed in character all the time because some metagaming stuff will always intrude - like dice rolling. A tactical game like 3.5 or 4th ed. can be used to ease metagaming intrusion - by using the figures as a visual aid to clarity, or it can turn the game into something more akin to a skirmish wargame as folk pore over their 'moves'.
But a non-tactical game is still prone to metagaming or powergaming should a participant wish. The player can still optimise his character's actions for the most efficient result.
And just sometimes, metagaming knowledge can add to the roleplay experience. Example:
A friend of mine was playing an aristocrat who was attacked by a beggar. the beggar had just killed an npc with the first shot from a conceled derringer and one shot left. The pc won the ensuing initiative. The GM fully expected him to close. Instead my friend applied his knowledge of the rules. Were he to close, he'd get shot at point blank, not good. So instead he had his gentleman coolly stand his ground (the character had a 'Cool Under Fire' trait so this was entirely appropriate), watching for the man's finger to twitch, so he could preempt the shot and get a dodge in, leaving the enemy with an empty gun. This worked a treat, both from a mtagaming point of view and also because it gave a lovely roleplaying moment as Sir Arthur calmly stood his ground, ready to drop his shoulder and twist his body away from the shot the instant he saw the beggar's trembling fingers twitch. He then drew his sword cane and opened the man's groin after the shot was dodged and the wretch closed with a knife.
He was thinking tactically and in character, and using a system that is generally regarded as 'cinematic' without miniatures but it would have worked just as well if there had been miniatures and a tactical grid.
treeplanter
Mongoose
Ok i was understanding well Sutek
and it that case I think we indeed agree 100% on this
and it that case I think we indeed agree 100% on this
LilithsThrall said:
I did more than just "say I'm roleplaying," I provided an adventure log that detailed the events of a particular session. You on the other hand have given no "proof" of anything other than appeal to authority fallacies with your nonsense about anthropology, sociology, and maths skills. And I'm a troll because that didn't sway me (or anyone else who didn't already side with you by the responses) to believing you can't roleplay with 4e??? :evil:
Ah well, at least I have regeneration now. :lol:
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
flatscan said:
You are right. You did more than say "I'm roleplaying". You actually wrote about your subjective opinion. I'll conceed that point.
And I acknowledged that you'd probably say that your subjective opinion is as valuable as scholarship.
And on that point, I said we could agree to disagree.
But you not only want to argue that your subjective opinion is worth more than scholarship, you want to insist that we all ignore scholarship in favor of your subjective opinion.
I'm not going to do that. You need to learn to deal with that.
LilithsThrall said:
1. Sure, the 2nd link was to a character journal I wrote. The adventure log was written by the GM of that game (and there's pages more of other sessions on that campaign wiki), so it's his subjective opinion as well.
2. What scholarship? Honestly what the blik are you talking about? Other than saying "I have anthropology, sociology, and maths on my side" you've provided nothing that any academic on this earth would call scholarship. No data, no graphs, no studies. Nothing.
3. I don't care what you do. There's only 2 reasons to debate. The first is to get the person you're debating to agree with you. I gave up on this with you pages ago. The second is to show those following the debate that the person you're debating is wrong. Thank you for your help in this matter.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
If you'd like for me to post references to peer-reviewed articles on structuralism explaining what it is and so forth, I can do so. This doesn't seem like the right forum for that level of academic discourse and you have access to Google.
Is there any particular reason you feel you need validation in the eyes of others?
LilithsThrall said:
I made the claim that roleplaying is possible with D&D 4e. The evidence I submitted to back up the claim was the links to pages of adventure logs in a D&D 4e game I was involved in. You call this "opinion," yet if this were a scientific study this would be data showing what exactly goes on in a D&D 4e session (through the eyes of the "roles" the players take). There are 1,291 other campaign wikis for D&D 4e on Obsidian Portal you could look at as sources of data, unless of course you believe we're all just making up these adventure logs to skew data and fool you. The only other thing that could be done is having observers sit in on sessions, but I wouldn't invite you to my home state let alone one of my games. You're attempting to refute the claim that roleplaying is possible with D&D 4e. You've provided fallacious arguments and ad hominem attacks as your proof. <shrug>
If that were the case I'd seek it from you as well. At this point I'm just having fun.
One could look at game mechanics as akin to any practical skill.
For instance when one learns to ride a bike, one is forever having to concentrate and cannot spare the mental capacity to imagine one is a knight in shining armour on one's way to rescue a prince in distress.
Later one can ride 'without thinking' and one's twisted imagination can be given free reign whilst pedalling without risk of suddenly toppling sideways and painfully impacting with the tarmac, torn cruelly from one's dreams of royal rescues.
Similarly when learnig to write, imagination can play little part - one focuses on the mechanics of letter formation. Soon though one can write stories without having to fuss about what shape an 'a' should be.
If you have mastered the rules of any rpg then they'll not interfere with the free exercise of imagination. Some games are a lot harder to master than others. But the compexity or mathematical nature of the rules, the presence or absence of a tactical grid - all such things will not inhibit the free flowing imagination of someone who knows the rules well.
The caveat is that there will always, in any roleplaying game, no matter how simple or complex, be times when players step outside their personas to consider the 'game environment'. Usually to seek clarification from their co-players that everyone's imaginings are 'in tune' but sometimes to seek metagaming advantage by cold calculation of odds or additions. Those less au fait with a given system will necessarily calculate more than those who have played with it for many a long year. Simple systems will require less learning time and thus offer a quick path to roleplaying ninarva. Easier, more seductive...
For instance when one learns to ride a bike, one is forever having to concentrate and cannot spare the mental capacity to imagine one is a knight in shining armour on one's way to rescue a prince in distress.
Later one can ride 'without thinking' and one's twisted imagination can be given free reign whilst pedalling without risk of suddenly toppling sideways and painfully impacting with the tarmac, torn cruelly from one's dreams of royal rescues.
Similarly when learnig to write, imagination can play little part - one focuses on the mechanics of letter formation. Soon though one can write stories without having to fuss about what shape an 'a' should be.
If you have mastered the rules of any rpg then they'll not interfere with the free exercise of imagination. Some games are a lot harder to master than others. But the compexity or mathematical nature of the rules, the presence or absence of a tactical grid - all such things will not inhibit the free flowing imagination of someone who knows the rules well.
The caveat is that there will always, in any roleplaying game, no matter how simple or complex, be times when players step outside their personas to consider the 'game environment'. Usually to seek clarification from their co-players that everyone's imaginings are 'in tune' but sometimes to seek metagaming advantage by cold calculation of odds or additions. Those less au fait with a given system will necessarily calculate more than those who have played with it for many a long year. Simple systems will require less learning time and thus offer a quick path to roleplaying ninarva. Easier, more seductive...
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Demetrio said:
To be candid, I have little to no respect for psychology as an academic study. I base this on my own experience in several high level psychology courses where psychology students were struggling with things that I learned as a first year anthropology student.
On a personal level, I resort to what I know and I know culture theory very well. Add to this the fact that gaming is a shared experience and it makes sense that anthropology would be more appropriate.
