Quote:
|
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -- Romeo & Juliet |
A classic editions argument of that Venerable Old Game in another thread has sparked me to ponder it. I'd be interested to hear the (productive) input of others.
I will try to put my definition as simply as possible:
Quote:
|
A RPG is a game of choice and chance within a chosen narrative. Players make characters that inhabit the chosen narrative and utilize rules that aid in the resolution of the narrative's possible choices and risks. |
In boardgames all actions just are. I would say that when playing a RPG the player is always being asked "What are you doing and why?"
Now to be controversial. To be a game it must have risk. Without risk there is no game. It would just be a telling. To be a roleplaying it must have choice. Without choice there is nothing to play out. It would just be a listening.
So yes, I stand in defiance against what some call collaborative story telling. They are all well and good, but none shall pass here! Well at least for me any way...
So by all means, pick this apart, add to it, and or take stuff out. I'm interested to hear it...
Spoiler:
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire