>The heart of any role playing game is imagination >Game

>>49220905
Could you find any worse image for your thread?

>Nothing empowers one more than surviving and prevailing against Struggle
>Therefore all modern commodities will taken away from everyone ever.

>>49220905

Images inspire. It doesn't matter if they also limit because most games place limits anyway by being for specific kinds of settings.

Your shitpost would only make sense for a 100% generic system with no specifics.

>>49220905
>The heart of any role playing game is imagination
Aye, and limitation is the heart of creativity

>>49221067

This nigga gets it.

>>49220905
>The heart of any role playing game is imagination
Not true, the rules are. Imagination is just for the fluff around the rules.

>>49220905
>game books aren't devoid of any and all lore fluff so players can do anything with the basic set of rules and mechanics

It's like you don't want your sessions to be fun, OP.

>>49222329

PLEB
L
E
B

>>49222329
You are aware that roleplaying existed before without rules, right?
You can play "make believe" which is the same as roleplaying without rules.

>>49220905
I don't think I actually understand OP's complaint, or point or conclusion.

Can someone translate this to me? Is the complaint about the existence of images in game books? And are we talking about all books pertaining Roleplaying, or Game-Books as the genre of fantastic chose-your-own-adventure like the Livingstone series?

>>49222696
I'm pretty sure they're all, "Having images of [things] makes people make assumptions about [things], limiting creativity of [players/GMs/both]. Burn it all down!"

For an example - and likely not the one they're complaining about - "Dragonborn are depicted as such in this edition of D&D. Therefore, they should look like the illustrations in the book, not like what you want. I don't accept this in my campaign because it's not like what the pictures in the book look like." Or, "Rogues should look... I dunno... *rogue-y*. Y'know? Like these pictures in all of the books."

Which, yeah - it makes it hard to step out of the lines sometimes if you have more "traditionalist" or "stubborn" players/GMs.

On the other hand, images to reference help keep people on the same page. If one player's view of "dragonborn" is dragon-faced, beefy, animal-legged bruisers and the other player's view of "dragonborn" is cute anime characters with dragon horns/wings/tail/eyes/ears - they're each going to be reacting to things accordingly. For instance, say the anime dragon kid says something rather sinister with a cheerful voice and smiles, meaning it as the anime trope of, "Are they sinister or clueless?" - the other player is probably taking it as an overt threat, imagining shining fangs and inhuman stares. Eventually the misunderstanding will be cleared up, but not necessarily until after there's an argument over Player B attacking Player A's character "for no reason".

Plus, frankly, images give people the first sparks of what potential a game system has. See also the piss-poor sales of most low or no image games.

I, too, love playing a space entirely void of color. We've actually rented a padded cell in the nearby asylum for thos purpose, and I require all my players to wear white when we play. I'd actually live to play in the black of space to truly unleash my inner imagination, because even using my eyes taints my imagery, but alas, I cannot.

>>49222957

Good man

>>49222451
Roleplaying existed before rules yes, but those weren't roleplaying games. They were just roleplaying. Games have rules.

>>49222957
Top kek aside, it might be an interesting experiment for some games to require that everyone come dressed wearing X. Kind of like those GM stories that come in every so often where they get their players to wear gas masks to simulate the equipment their sci-fi character is wearing.

OP would probably hate it because that means the players aren't using pure imagination for their immersion.