<<The fact that two humans, a troll, a duck and a dwarf could wander round the
countryside killing baddies and collecting treasure, with little care about
delicate issues such as ecology, economics or society, is often cited as a
weakness. I believe it is a strength.
The issue hinges on whether you believe that human beings like you and I really can fully role play exotic creatures in an exotic world.>>
IMO, the issue hinges more on whether or not its enjoyable to try, rather than whether or not perfection can actually be attained. If somebody enjoys the killing-baddies-and-nicking-their-treasure type of game, more power to 'em, I say - but personally I get much more fun out of the roleplaying side of things.
<<I don't believe you can, which is why I think it's important to have a
number of
"filters" to take away world detail, until what's left is something you can
role play within.>>
We have to filter out tedious stuff like how often our character goes to the toilet, sure. And, of course, our characters have to be heroes in some sense; it wouldn't be terribly fun playing a typical Gloranthan peasant (the vast majority of the populace) who never leaves his village. A certain degree of 'unrealism' is necessary for purposes of dramatic effect and MGF. However, throwing out the cultural details, as they would plausibly pertain to our characters, removes a lot of the gaming fun and does not to me seem a useful filter, assuming you're gaming in a culture that lends itself to enjoyable adventure in the first place. Doing so in a one-off game can be great fun, but I would find it to tire very quickly in a long running campaign.
<<try to imagine role playing somebody in love on board the sinking Titanic,
and you know you're likely to get it wrong - by which I mean the things you do
in the role playing environment will probably not be what you would have done
were the situation real.>>
But its fun to try, IMO. I'm afraid I don't find this a very convincing argument - its really a case of each to their own :-)
<<Gambling is a strong narcotic. Embedded, somewhat hidden, within our games it played an important part in giving us that adrenalin rush which we felt when our fate hung in the balance and only lady luck was playing a hand. I feel this single factor has been most responsible for RPGs popularity, and I think any system which tries to do without the Gambler's fix is going to lose a powerful ally.>>
Again, I can only give my personal opinion here. The best gaming sessions I have been in have generally been the ones with the least dice rolling. There are exceptions, yes, but the dice are not IMO a crucial factor in making a game enjoyable. I remember a highly enjoyable game session I was GMing once, where after 2-3 hours of game play I suddenly realised I'd forgotten to bring my dice with me!
Probably the most enjoyable game session I have played in the last couple of years* was Home of the Bold at Convulsion 3. No dice involved there at all, and while there is a random element in combat, my character didn't get in a fight so I didn't experience that - or miss it in the slightest.
This is not to say that freeform games like Home of the Bold are superior to dice-and-paper games. They have a lot of limitations, and work best when you can get 50 or so players together for an afternoon in a suitably large venue, something which is a tad out of reach of the typical gaming group, especially on a regular basis. Of course, smaller freeforms (like Tarsh War) can also be great fun, but they too have some limitations with respect to dice-and-paper games. But they do prove that the dice are not essential, or even particularly important - at least to me.
<<Any achievement in RPGs is suspect - try explaining your latest conquest to
someone not into fantasy gaming and you'll know what I mean.>>
So? I don't someone else to validate my acheivements to take enjoyment from them.
<<If you succeeded as a result of rolling dice, *after* you had a long
conversation with your fellow man, then you additionally coped with the
uncertainty of the situation and
the prospect of failure. Argueably you achived more, and because the situation
was uncertain you might have felt something close to the real-life thrill of
waiting to hear whether "she would say yes".>>
All I can say is 'not in my case'. However, the example above seems a bad one to me. Where dice are useful IMO is in quantifying more material obstacles, such as picking that lock or climbing that cliff-face. Although I didn't get involved with combat in Home of the Bold, and have no real interest in doing so in Life of Moonson (assuming I get a place) I would imagine its less fun than dice-based combat, and pretty much for the reasons you quote.
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
Powered by hypermail