Quote from: CavScout;265933Could be.

Yes, most certainly.

Because it is.

Note: I noticed you didn't refute the meaning of the quote.

Mostly, because it would be utterly lost on you.

But, just so everyone else knows...

Pretending that pre-planned patrol routes and such is anything like 'random' is foolish.  Mearls' blog entry clearly states (not comedic hyperbole) that these are a method to 'manage the challenge'.  In other words, another mechanic to tailor the adventure to the players' expectations.  Wandering monsters means they may not always have the means to engage or to loiter.  They have to make a decision, and it's a decision they don't often have much time to make.  It puts pressure on them to act, not to dither for three hours of game time whether or not to open the door.

Wandering monsters are part of this challenge.  It's not there to be managed, or controlled, or as an interim reward mechanisms for the players.  It's there, like many things in games or in life, to be dealt with.

I know you aren't going to answer this, because I really don't think you have any clue what the rest of us are talking about, but one more time:  Why do you think chess is a game?

I'm beginning to think Kyle is right, and you don't actually play RPGs.

Quote from: StormBringer;265935Mostly, because it would be utterly lost on you.

But, just so everyone else knows...

Pretending that pre-planned patrol routes and such is anything like 'random' is foolish.

As another exercise in your abysmal reading comprehension skills, I assume you are going to point out where that was said?

QuoteMearls' blog entry clearly states (not comedic hyperbole) that these are a method to 'manage the challenge'.  In other words, another mechanic to tailor the adventure to the players' expectations.  Wandering monsters means they may not always have the means to engage or to loiter.  They have to make a decision, and it's a decision they don't often have much time to make.  It puts pressure on them to act, not to dither for three hours of game time whether or not to open the door.

Wandering monsters are part of this challenge.  It's not there to be managed, or controlled, or as an interim reward mechanisms for the players.  It's there, like many things in games or in life, to be dealt with.

I know you aren't going to answer this, because I really don't think you have any clue what the rest of us are talking about, but one more time:  Why do you think chess is a game?

I'm beginning to think Kyle is right, and you don't actually play RPGs.

You're engaged in goal post shifting now. Your claim was without randomness, in this case referring to encounters, that it really would be a game. You were challenged on this. You then claimed you never said it. You were shown to have said it and now you are trying to spin move your way out of the corner you find yourself in.

Whether a GM uses pre-planned encounters or relies on random encounter charts/tables does not determine if what they are doing is a game or not.

You may prefer one way over the other but neither is the one true way to gaming while the other is simply "mechanics directed short story writing".

So flail about, make some ad hominems if you like but you are still wrong. You lied when you said you didn't say what you did and now can not back it up and want to change the subject.

PS: Chess is a game.

Get a room already.

Quote from: Aos;265946Get a room already.

We tried that once, he has performance anxiety.  :teehee:

Quote from: CavScout;265941As another exercise in your abysmal reading comprehension skills, I assume you are going to point out where that was said?

Mimicking is all you have left?

QuoteYou're engaged in goal post shifting now. Your claim was without randomness, in this case referring to encounters, that it really would be a game. You were challenged on this. You then claimed you never said it. You were shown to have said it and now you are trying to spin move your way out of the corner you find yourself in.

My claim was nothing of the sort.  I was comparing two specific examples, not games in general.

As often as you claim people use all these logical fallacies, it would behove you to actually read up on what they mean.

QuoteWhether a GM uses pre-planned encounters or relies on random encounter charts/tables does not determine if what they are doing is a game or not.

And why is that?

QuoteYou may prefer one way over the other but neither is the one true way to gaming while the other is simply "mechanics directed short story writing".

Positive assertions are not refutations.

QuoteSo flail about, make some ad hominems if you like but you are still wrong. You lied when you said you didn't say what you did and now can not back it up and want to change the subject.

You brought up the idea of defining games.  You didn't understand what I was talking about, which isn't my fault, and now you want to blame your lack of comprehension on someone else.  You have no idea if I am right or wrong, because you have no concept of what is under discussion.

QuotePS: Chess is a game.

Again, a positive assertion isn't a refutation.  As you are unable to provide any kind of discussion as to why it's a game, we'll mark you down in the 'fail' column for that one.

Quote from: CavScout;265950We tried that once, he has performance anxiety.  :teehee:

Sorry, chief, I'm straight.  Good luck with that, though.

Quote from: StormBringer;266010Mimicking is all you have left?

Note, no actual response. So you can't show where I said what you claimed.

QuoteMy claim was nothing of the sort.  I was comparing two specific examples, not games in general.

As often as you claim people use all these logical fallacies, it would behove you to actually read up on what they mean.

So you didn't claim that without randomness it's really not like a game and more like storytelling? Really, is that you position now?

QuoteAnd why is that?

Simply because randomness of encounters doesn't determine if it is a game or not.

But why don't you explain why or why not use of random encounters makes it a game.

QuotePositive assertions are not refutations.

So, lack of randomness is not a game and is more like ""mechanics directed short story writing"?

I mean, fuck man, make up your mind. You say you didn't say something. Then you say I didn't refute what you didn't say.

If you didn't say it, why would I "refute it"?

QuoteYou brought up the idea of defining games.  You didn't understand what I was talking about, which isn't my fault, and now you want to blame your lack of comprehension on someone else.  You have no idea if I am right or wrong, because you have no concept of what is under discussion.

You brought it up with you claim that lack of randomoness is "mechanics directed short story writing".  I suppose you have no concept of timing or that when you say it before others respond to it that you actually brought it up.

QuoteAgain, a positive assertion isn't a refutation.  As you are unable to provide any kind of discussion as to why it's a game, we'll mark you down in the 'fail' column for that one.

Why don't you refute that it isn't a game? That's right, because your postings here are the game, eh?

By definition chess is most certainly a game.  A game is any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement as well as a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.  It would however make a pretty poor roleplaying game IMO.  It's too limited in scope.  So it's kind of a silly argument.  *shrug*

Quote from: Idinsinuation;266022By definition chess is most certainly a game.  A game is any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement as well as a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.  It would however make a pretty poor roleplaying game IMO.  It's too limited in scope.  So it's kind of a silly argument.  *shrug*

The argument has never been it being a role-playing game not any more than the example of monopoly being a game or not based on randomness was.

• Chess
• Monolpoly
• D&D using random tables for encoutners
• D&D using pre-planned encounters

All are games. The latter are RPGs even though random encounters are used in one and the other the are pre-planned.

Quote from: CavScout;266020You brought it up with you claim that lack of randomoness is "mechanics directed short story writing".

This is still complete fabrication.  There is no point in responding to things that weren't actually claimed, just because you think they were.

Quote from: StormBringer;266028This is still complete fabrication.  There is no point in responding to things that weren't actually claimed, just because you think they were.

I'd suggest going back and editing "You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing" out of your postings then. Really, quick before others read it.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;266022By definition chess is most certainly a game.  A game is any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement as well as a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.  It would however make a pretty poor roleplaying game IMO.  It's too limited in scope.  So it's kind of a silly argument.  *shrug*

Ah, yes, as I mentioned before, chess certainly has some strong game elements.  However:

Puzzle
a toy, problem, or other contrivance designed to amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient effort.

I would say that the starting positions of the pieces is a 'contrivance'.  It's arbitrary where they are on the board, to a degree.  Early versions of chess (from ancient India) even had dice to determine which piece would be moved.

Of course, there have been numerous attempts to 'solve' chess, in the same way that tic-tac-toe is solved.  This alone doesn't really make it a puzzle, however, as a solved game doesn't mean quite the same thing, but it has similar connotations.  Importantly to this discussion, the games that are solved don't have random elements.  They are wholly mathematical in nature, which is what allows them to be solved, to one degree or another.

On a more colloquial level, you don't find chess in a casino.    More seriously, there is a distinct difference in the strategies involved in a mathematical game like chess or checkers and something like poker or roulette.  People can be quite successful at either one, but the strategies are clearly very different.

So, chess has opponents squaring off against each other, but I think there is more to playing a game than just the plurality of participants.  It's not entirely in the random element either, of course.  But something like Monopoly or craps is closer to a pure 'game' than chess.  Another definition, which I think you will see more often than not:

Quote from: dictionary.coma competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Chance is not the only defining factor, as much as skill is not either.  I think if you ask most people, though, they will likely answer what a game is with examples that contain some type of randomiser.

Quote from: CavScout;266032I'd suggest going back and editing "You can plan to buy Marvin Gardens, but the dice determine when or if you hit it. That is what makes a game different than an exercise in vaguely mechanics directed short story writing" out of your postings then. Really, quick before others read it.

But, then you can't keep foolishly quoting it, as though it means what you think it does.  At some point, I am hoping you will actually read what you are quoting, and gain some level of comprehension.

Quote from: StormBringer;266039Chance is not the only defining factor, as much as skill is not either.  I think if you ask most people, though, they will likely answer what a game is with examples that contain some type of randomiser.

That's quite likely because I think it's safe to say that most common games contain some sort of random element, dice, a deck of cards, etc.  That doesn't mean we remove the "game" status from classic games like Go, Chess, Shogi, and even Pac-Man.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;265816droog: of course, if you assume that the GM has the power to fudge and will fudge or rule with a bias toward certain outcomes, you'll get those results. Given the power of the GM all this is guided by an ethos or sense of responsibility. Being against preplanned encounters wouldn't make much sense if the DM didn't at least exert restraint and try to be neutral.

In principle, the same applies to pre-planned encounters. Ideally the GM makes principled decisions (exercising restraint and neutrality) in planning those encounters.