Subject:
|
Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 May 2002 22:40:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.fun.gaming, Frank Filz writes:
> 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.
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 the topic.
I am only trying to prove a few points in hand, and yes, I know about this.
My idea of an RPG is as follows.
Sure, you can control a character, or a army, or whatever...and you can go
in any path you choose, selecting whatever scenerio comes your way, and
accepting or declining ths mission, pending whatever consequences your
army would suffer, should you decline your mission.
Another interesting function would be to control where to situate your army,
on the world map, enter dungeons, villages, etc, and take up specific tasks,
someetimes selling your skills to mercenary corps to survive, or gain a few
contacts as that.
I think an RPG should be besically boundless, with you controlling
whatever comes your way, some of your ideas are quite feasible for an RPG,
but understand that a war game could be perfectly integrated into an RPG,
kind of like risk, only better, where you contemplate strategy, and attempt
to win the
battle, or retreat if necessary) Who says war games don't work with RPG's?
SOme battle scenes need not be a repetition of a war game, and could be played
at your discretion to define "what you think an RPG truly is".
Yes, I understand that at times, you may be compelled to serve throughout a
scenerio, lest you experience massive loss, or a hinderance to persuade
you to take part in the mission, and at some times, a scenerio being mandatory
for your army to advance. This is in reality, an RPG (in my thoughts).
There isn't any need to get too technical on this, because the more
complicated you get with rules and statutes of play, the less people would
in essence, play your rpg.
Think of it as this...RPG (A) has a lot of attractive options, but a long
list of rules, counter statutes, and such.
RPG (B) has somewhat interesting options, and a simple, yet copmpreheisive,
easy to memorize rules code, without the counter exemptions and what not.
Which would you pick?
If you picked B, then, you don't want to mess around with all of the rules
and at least have fun playing it, without having constant thoughts nagging you
like (hmm...oh no! I broke statute 4-09A section B, book number seven on
how to avoid cross scenerio mandates! Now, I'm going to be exempted from the
game pending the opinion of the game master.)
If you picked A, than you are probably a law student, or someone who
likes to delve into technical aspects, in hopes of finding the "perfect RPG"
which in essence, could never really exist, citing the opinions of other
self proclaimed "critics" out there. A futile quest? Searching for that
perfect RPG may be a Role Playing Game in itself, right? Just as I thought.
Keep it simple...that's my philosohpy :)
> 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.
Well, it would take a lot of time and effort, not to mention countless hours
and immense boundries, so a "real rpg" may not come any time soon.
Even though some keep asking for more realism, and more intelligence, I can
tell you this, with aspirations of the "perfect rpg", you'll never fine one.
> 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.
Well, I've been playing RPGs for years, so this is quite obvious.
If you are directing this quote to me, rest assured that I already
know this. I'm not as undereducated of RPGs as you think. Please take
more consideration before writing that (if you were directing this
to me, that is:)
> 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).
Hey, this *isn't* another brickwars. You did say it was an RPG, didn't you?
> Frank
Just my two brickz...
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet No. 1112
Further discussion?
Email at Pyrokid17@hotmail.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Elements of a brick oriented RPG
|
| 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
