> Mikko Rintasaari
> >There... just call me an elitist bastard too.
>
> You're an elitist bastard too. There's only one truth about playing
> RPGs: if you have fun doing it, you are doing it right.
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 RPGs, no?
If you play a RPG as you'd play a boardgame, or a wargame, you're not roleplaying, but you are... Boardgaming? Wargaming? If you and your friends meet each Friday evening to tell jokes you are not doing "true" roleplay, you are telling funny jokes.
And to roleplay properly a character you have to understand how he perceives his world. Which is something I think the HW rules encourage you to do. And probably in many ways the RQ rules did not (how does a character asks his temple for a Bladesharp 3?) although they were at least partially explainable from the character's POV, as opposed to the other game of the time. Indeed, the RQ rules were born out of desire to simulate, while the other game's rules were born out of "game balance".
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.
Cheers, A unseeing Alex. ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail