Quote from: Settembrini;318659Righty right!

I was just remembering the glory days when I was predicting that minions would lead to widespread adoption of utterly retarded metagaming.
I think it´s now scientifically proven that this is now the case.

And for the forum quitting, your partial [sic] photographic memory seems to have not kept the reason for the quits. They were protests for freedom of speech, an aim I can now further much more efficiently and sensibly the way I do now.

Got a link to the relevant posts? I wasn't around for them, and I'm curious.

Sorry, the search function really does not work for me.

I tried, but I only found a thread from 2007 were I already claim I called it first...the irony!

Quote from: Sigmund;318606Yet for me 4e sucks ass, especially when the minions show up on the mat. So, the system can obviously have an effect.

You have to read me literally, not through the filter of Net-Tard that reduces everything to absurd extremes.

"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?"

When I said that "people matter more than rules or setting" I did not say "so rules and setting don't matter at all and have no effect." Just that the people matter more than the rules or the setting. The body of your foot matters more than the toes in helping you walk; but that does not mean that if I take a little hammer and smash all your toes you'll be able to sprint down the track faster than Usain Bolt.

Saying that some things are more important than others is not saying that the others don't matter at all.

I'd say that if your definition of "roleplaying game" is sufficiently narrow that it doesn't allow OD&D to be a roleplaying game, you're probably using a crappy definition.

I mean, shouldn't that be one of the tests?  "Is the first roleplaying game a roleplaying game?"  I'd say if you have to answer "No," then you've gone off track somewhere.

-O

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318806You have to read me literally, not through the filter of Net-Tard that reduces everything to absurd extremes.

"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?"

When I said that "people matter more than rules or setting" I did not say "so rules and setting don't matter at all and have no effect." Just that the people matter more than the rules or the setting. The body of your foot matters more than the toes in helping you walk; but that does not mean that if I take a little hammer and smash all your toes you'll be able to sprint down the track faster than Usain Bolt.

Saying that some things are more important than others is not saying that the others don't matter at all.

I don't care.

If you don't care, then don't post.

Quote from: obryn;318810I'd say that if your definition of "roleplaying game" is sufficiently narrow that it doesn't allow OD&D to be a roleplaying game, you're probably using a crappy definition.

That is possible, yes.

QuoteI mean, shouldn't that be one of the tests?  "Is the first roleplaying game a roleplaying game?"  I'd say if you have to answer "No," then you've gone off track somewhere.

I think that's making an awful big assumption. Yes, OD&D is called an RPG; but I could call a duck a giraffe, yet that does not make it so.

Is OD&D an RPG, or is it a game that - for whatever reason - lends itself well to having roleplaying overlaid onto it?

I think that I would argue that the presence of roleplaying is a necessary component to something that would be called an RPG. If a game can be stripped of all roleplaying - and OD&D can, can it not? - then I am not certain that it could or even should be called an RPG.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318852If a game can be stripped of all roleplaying - and OD&D can, can it not? - then I am not certain that it could or even should be called an RPG.

Every game can be stripped of roleplaying, provided its players and GM are all boring and stupid. It can be reduced to interactions of sets of game mechanics, with no personality of player or character involved. This applies whether it's OD&D, D&D4e, Changeling, FATE, Sorcerer, A Man and His Pet Flea Spot, HeroQuest, whatever.

Therefore by your definition there are no rpgs.

In which case, bye-bye, I don't expect to see you posting here again. Since rpgs don't exist, you can have nothing to say about them.

Or you could just admit that what you said was a load of old bollocks.

Quote from: Kyle AaronTherefore by your definition there are no rpgs.

If you roleplay during a game of Monopoly, does that make it an RPG? I don't think that anyone would say yes to that question. Monopoly is not an RPG, no matter how much roleplaying is present while it is being played.

Let me try a different approach. You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG. You admit that it is possible to remove all roleplaying from an RPG, thus reducing it to its mechanical elements, a state that puts it roughly on par with Monopoly. If you RP in Monopoly, that does not make Monopoly an RPG. So why does roleplaying in OD&D make it an RPG?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG.

Nuh-uh.  original D&D has almost 36 years of history and millions of people who call it the first role playing game.  You seem to think that some mechanics - which came later, not before - the creation of role playing games (in the context we're referring to, vis dice, pencil, paper etc.) means original D&D isn't an RPG.

What's your thesis?  You disprove, not the other way around.  You're sitting there kinda like the moon conspiracy theorists going "We never went, prove we did"...no, the evidence is that we did, prove we didn't.

The evidence is that original D&D is an RPG.  You mentioning that it doesn't have the rules you like doesn't not make it an RPG.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG. You admit that it is possible to remove all roleplaying from an RPG, thus reducing it to its mechanical elements, a state that puts it roughly on par with Monopoly. If you RP in Monopoly, that does not make Monopoly an RPG. So why does roleplaying in OD&D make it an RPG?

The pieces and the players in Monopoly are not expected to interact with one another or the game environment in the same way that the characters and players are in OD&D.

Interaction between players in Monopoly is limited to auctions and paying or receiving money from the Banker, and interaction with the environment is limited to following the spaces and purchasing property cards and structure pieces.

In OD&D, interaction between the players and the referee through their characters is expected and required in order for both players and characters to interact with the game environment, an environment which is effectively unbounded.

On a tangent, so-called 'roleplaying mechanics' don't necessarily result in actual roleplaying. In some cases they function more like tactical miniatures rules: "If your roll to Intimidate succeeds, the figure will not attack." Is that really what you consider roleplaying?

Quote from: The Shaman;318929In OD&D, interaction between the players and the referee through their characters is expected and required in order for both players and characters to interact with the game environment, an environment which is effectively unbounded.

I don't think that this is necessarily roleplaying.

You could easily play OD&D in an entirely meta sense. Yes, players have to have the back-and-forth with the DM to gain an understanding of the environment, but that does not have to be done in-character.

QuoteOn a tangent, so-called 'roleplaying mechanics' don't necessarily result in actual roleplaying. In some cases they function more like tactical miniatures rules: "If your roll to Intimidate succeeds, the figure will not attack." Is that really what you consider roleplaying?

Hmm. I don't think so.

Some folk are missing a very simple truth.

A lot of players don't find that metagaming breaks their fun. A not insignificant number find that a small dash actually adds to it.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;318925Nuh-uh.  original D&D has almost 36 years of history and millions of people who call it the first role playing game.  You seem to think that some mechanics - which came later, not before - the creation of role playing games (in the context we're referring to, vis dice, pencil, paper etc.) means original D&D isn't an RPG.

What's your thesis?  You disprove, not the other way around.  You're sitting there kinda like the moon conspiracy theorists going "We never went, prove we did"...no, the evidence is that we did, prove we didn't.

The evidence is that original D&D is an RPG.  You mentioning that it doesn't have the rules you like doesn't not make it an RPG.

Well, I think I can see where GnomeWorks is coming from.  What puts the 'role playing' into a role playing game?  Talking in a funny voice?  Writing a backstory for your avatar?  Whatever that thing is, if it isn't defined or supported by the rules themselves, what prevents one from applying that to any kind of game and calling that a 'role playing game'?

It's a tricky question, but I think insuring a definition that definitely applies to OD&D is circular reasoning.  Such and such defines role-playing, so it has to apply to OD&D, because OD&D was a role-playing game.

I am not certain, for myself, what exactly would define the 'role-playing' part precisely, and there may not be a way to precisely define it anyway.  Either way, I don't think the question itself is invalid, especially if the only reason to avoid it is because the eventual discovery might exclude one of the original games, OD&D in this case.

Quote from: StormBringer;318936It's a tricky question, but I think insuring a definition that definitely applies to OD&D is circular reasoning.  Such and such defines role-playing, so it has to apply to OD&D, because OD&D was a role-playing game.

It would be the same thing as a definition of cola that excluded Coca-Cola: potentially entertaining but practically worthless.