Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 23:45:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9 times
|
| |
|
|
Matt Hein wrote:
< snip >
Tonight when I'm on my own time as opposed to my employers, I'm going to
give all of the responses so far some additional thought. I did want to
throw out one quick thing though...
Matt (and I think at least one other person) is talking in terms which
sound to me like a board game of war game. I wanted to clarify what I
mean by an RPG. I don't think there are any brick RPGs out there yet
(BrickWars for example is a brick _war game_ or _miniatures game_ not an
RPG). RPG's look similar to war games, but there are some key
differences:
The players are kind of sort of a team against the GM. This does not
mean the players can't be in opposition, or have different and even
conflicting goals, but there is a general assumption that the players
have some reason to cooperate.
The game is more or less open ended. A "scenario" does not bound play,
it provides a framework for play (contrast this to a war game where for
example, if you leave the board, you're out of play, in an RPG, if you
leave the bounds of the scenario, the GM must deal with that [note that
the GM may make it very hard to leave the bounds of the scenario, but
the fewer those bounds, and the more logical within the whole framework
of the campaign the ones which do exist are, generally the better the
scenario - for example, a valid bound is that the scenario takes place
in a cave and you can't walk through walls, on the other hand, should
you go out the back entrance, it leads to the great outdoors and you
should be free to wander about them, though there might be an army
camped there, but should you come up with a suitable way to sneak
through the army...]). This is probably the biggest distinction. Note
that even if a canned game environment is being used, it still leaves so
much up to the GM that in reality there are very few bounds.
As far as comparisons to computer games go, I don't think there's any
computer "RPG" which really deserves to be categorized as an "RPG". This
really comes down to the issue of limits. Every computer game I've ever
played has had incredible limits because it just isn't driven by a human
intelligence.
In most RPGs, a player will play a single character, or at the most two
or three (there are some RPGs where you might play a clan or a whole
society, I'm not sure that such games really constitute the same type of
game as a traditional RPG though). In most RPGs, character development
is possible.
I'm not really setting out to build another BrickWars (while I'm not
sure it's totally to my taste, I'm not yet ready to try and promote a
2nd brick war game).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) Hey, I do know what an RPG is okay. I do remember what a scenerio is. Earlier this month, I enegged in some discussion on IOM, and I do say, when it comes to discussing the merits and open-endness of these, some people get really defensive on (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.gaming)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| (...) Hmmm...a brick RPG? This sounds sweet, I would go about borrowing several aspects from other brick RPGs on the net, and adapting them to your respective tastes. (...) Definitely, I prefer Science Fiction, but Fantasy also works well, but try (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.gaming)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
