Moderator: Content Admins
TRB wrote:I did lose a bunch of pawns though, because I took too long to save them while I gained the loyalty of the important named pieces.
Marius wrote:TRB wrote:I did lose a bunch of pawns though, because I took too long to save them while I gained the loyalty of the important named pieces.
Pawns can turn into queens.
TRB wrote:fun aside, I don't see it saying chess is an RPG.
I did see it being compared to an RTS though.
Even in games like StarCraft where there’s no “you” on the screen, you have a “role”: you’re the commander of an army, or the mayor of a city, or the leader of a civilisation. There’s a bunch of people who’ve done a lot of thinking about how all of this works in tabletop RPGs, and I think some of the ideas they’ve had can be useful in talking about video games.
But how I think about my marines in StarCraft is obviously completely different to how I think about Shepard in Mass Effect. This is where another tabletop RPG idea comes in, and that’s the idea of what position you, the player, take in relation to the character you’re controlling: your stance. This is (again, simplifying) the idea that you relate to characters you control in one of four ways: Pawn, Actor, Author or Director. In StarCraft my little marines are like the pawns in chess, and that’s pretty much what Pawn stance is about.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests