From: Eric Rowe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 15 Mar 2000 - 22:17:59 EET
>Well, yes and no IMHO. The point of roleplaying games is to have fun (it's
>a game after all) *roleplaying*. Otherwise there is no reason to call them
Actually, no. They are called role playing games because the 'playing
piece' in this game is a character with a detailed persona. Therefore playing
the game is akin to taking on a role. There is no aim inherent in
this that says you must 'act like your character' or some such. That
is a style of play issue and is advocated in some systems, especially
live-action versions. The first RPGs certainly were never intended
to be played as such since they were all wargamers writing them.
> Anyway, I don't think to be an elitist bastard: I'm not saying that
>roleplaying is better than wargaming, or more enjoyable. And in every
>session (especially of RQ) there was IME a lot of both. But it's something
>different. So, yes, better roleplaying groups should IMHO aim at level 3
>reality. Better wargaming group probably will aim at level 1, better writers
>at level 2 and better scientists at level 4. But I really don't see any
>elitism in this.
Since we don't share the same definition of a roleplaying game, your
version is right for what you consider a roleplaying game to be. I
have a different definition, where 3 is certainly not a goal, but a style.
Of course, not being insane, I believe my version to be the correct one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:10:07 EEST