I think what Gleichman is saying is that the rulset has to be stable to do it's job ordering a consistent universe *before* you start abstracting the process and going "off-book" - that it's not good enough to hand-waive early on, you have to make sure the rules work as game rules first.

If this is what he's saying, I agree.

I disagree with his notion that good games are only the games he likes....and apparently that is only some editions of "Hero"....but if this is what he means by #14 then I agree.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Sacrosanct;641157What does this actually even mean?  Avoid playing the game?  That makes no sense.  When I'm playing AD&D with friends, we're playing AD&D.  RPGs are a social function you know.

You (unless I'm mistaking your for other people here- easy enough to do because I really don't care much about you and your gaming style) and others here are all into fast and simple combat that is hopefully over in five minutes or less, making up rulings along the way that override the game rules, free wheeling entire sections of the rules that would require effort such as maps and minis, avoiding actual genre style conflicts in favor of 'clever' end runs that avoid engaging the rules.

You guys hate the *game* of your RPG so much that you do everything you can to avoiding actually playing it, using instead as a othing more than excuse for doing other things.

You really should just do other things and drop the game mechanics. They only get in your way.

I mean look at what you're saying here- really look at it: "I Sacrosanct really believe that the game part of a RPG doesn't have to be fun and interesting"

What a sad and depressing statement. It has to come from someone who was basically defeated by nothing but horrible gaming experiences.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;641157What does this actually even mean?  Avoid playing the game?  That makes no sense.  When I'm playing AD&D with friends, we're playing AD&D.  RPGs are a social function you know.

Give it up. It isn't worth the effort. For his kind THE GAME= THE RULES. Its the kind of mentality that drives WOTC D&D fans. The game world and roleplaying are secondary to mechanical crunch, the kind of attitude that is more appropriate for competitive games such as MtG.

Quote from: Panjumanju;641159I disagree with his notion that good games are only the games he likes....and apparently that is only some editions of "Hero"....

Five of the six editions of HERO. And there's another game that passes all those tests too but no one is interested in that. JAGs may will count as well although I only saw an early version of it some years back.

Other games could be fixed by house rules, or played in a limited way such as to avoid their rather glaring failures.

Quote from: gleichman;641161You (unless I'm mistaking your for other people here- easy enough to do because I really don't care much about you and your gaming style) and others here are all into fast and simple combat that is hopefully over in five minutes or less, making up rulings along the way that override the game rules, free wheeling entire sections of the rules that would require effort such as maps and minis, avoiding actual genre style conflicts in favor of 'clever' end runs that avoid engaging the rules.

"avoiding genre style conflicts"

Splain Lucy.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;641162Give it up. It isn't worth the effort. For his kind THE GAME= THE RULES. Its the kind of mentality that drives WOTC D&D fans. The game world and roleplaying are secondary to mechanical crunch, the kind of attitude that is more appropriate for competitive games such as MtG.

That is not true, and speaks to the fact that you've never sat at my gaming table or really understood anything I've every said.

I value the role-playing and social aspects of the hobby greatly, it's why I do RPGs instead of just wargames or MMORPGs. The difference between me and nearly everyone else here is that I also value the game part of the Role-Playing Game, and I won't settle for a sub-par experience there or in any other component that makes up the total experience.

Quote from: gleichman;641163Five of the six editions of HERO. And there's another game that passes all those tests too but no one is interested in that. JAGs may will count as well although I only saw an early version of it some years back.

Other games could be fixed by house rules, or played in a limited way such as to avoid their rather glaring failures.

Hmm.

99% of games cannot be poorly designed - that's not how averages work. 99% of games can be "not good enough for you", that's fine. You just have specific tastes. But it has nothing to do with what constitutes poor design. You don't have the authority to determine - "I don't like it therefore it's poor design", just because you've been able to zero in on what you like, and are a crotchety old 'get off my lawn' kinda guy for everything else.

You're a glass half empty kind of person, I'm sensing.

Also, was I accurate in my defense of your earlier point? Because I do think that's a valid point about poor design and not in the least subjective.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: gleichman;641161You (unless I'm mistaking your for other people here- easy enough to do because I really don't care much about you and your gaming style) and others here are all into fast and simple combat that is hopefully over in five minutes or less, making up rulings along the way that override the game rules, free wheeling entire sections of the rules that would require effort such as maps and minis, avoiding actual genre style conflicts in favor of 'clever' end runs that avoid engaging the rules.

You guys hate the *game* of your RPG so much that you do everything you can to avoiding actually playing it, using instead as a othing more than excuse for doing other things.

You really should just do other things and drop the game mechanics. They only get in your way.

I mean look at what you're saying here- really look at it: "I Sacrosanct really believe that the game part of a RPG doesn't have to be fun and interesting"

What a sad and depressing statement. It has to come from someone who was basically defeated by nothing but horrible gaming experiences.

The mechanics and rules of AD&D allow me to use which ones I want and which ones I don't.  That's genius design, not bad design.  And one of the reasons why I still play it as my preferred edition.  I'm not locked into a mechanic I don't like because ignoring it would break the game.  The mechanics facilitate an experience I want.  So that's another success.

You're missing the forest through the trees dude.

Quote from: Panjumanju;64116899% of games cannot be poorly designed - that's not how averages work. 99% of games can be "not good enough for you", that's fine. You just have specific tastes. But it has nothing to do with what constitutes poor design. You don't have the authority to determine - "I don't like it therefore it's poor design", just because you've been able to zero in on what you like, and are a crotchety old 'get off my lawn' kinda guy for everything else.

You're a glass half empty kind of person, I'm sensing.

Gleichman is either a dedicated troll (as has been shown by the multitude of times others have caught him out in factual errors despite which he railed on) or a particularly antisocial individual; in either case putting him and that other ragecase, Blackhand, on ignore removes most of the noise to everyone else's signal I find. After a while indulgence becomes charity, that's when you know it's time to click the bye bye button.

Quote from: Panjumanju;64116899% of games cannot be poorly designed - that's not how averages work.

That something can be poorly designed is not a question of averages, it's a question of pure quality. Before 1797, 100% of the plows in use were poorly designed.

In comparsion RPGs are doing rather well, except we're stuck at the stage when the farmers thought those new plow designs 'posioned' the soil. Between that mindset (very typical with the OSR crowd) and other influences, I don't really think there's much of a market for well designed RPGs.

Quote from: Panjumanju;641168Also, was I accurate in my defense of your earlier point? Because I do think that's a valid point about poor design and not in the least subjective.

That the game design should be stable from the beginning? Yes, that is indeed part of what I'm saying.

Quote from: The Traveller;641173Gleichman is either a dedicated troll (as has been shown by the multitude of times others have caught him out in factual errors despite which he railed on)

Please do point out a factual error I've made, and I'll immediately own up to it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;641169The mechanics and rules of AD&D allow me to use which ones I want and which ones I don't.

Listen to yourself.

"I get to ignore all the rules I don't like! And I don't like a bunch! And I think that AD&D is somehow special in allowing me to do that!"

And to you, this is the height of game design and you need look no further? What a defeated small minded creature you are.

Quote from: gleichman;641175That something can be poorly designed is not a question of averages, it's a question of pure quality. Before 1797, 100% of the plows in use were poorly designed.

In comparsion RPGs are doing rather well, except we're stuck at the stage when the farmers thought those new plow designs 'posioned' the soil. Between that mindset (very typical with the OSR crowd) and other influences, I don't really think there's much of a market for well designed RPGs.

What I'm getting from this is what you feel Roleplaying Games are still in their infancy and have not yet reached a stage of design maturity. Further, that their proper development is being hampered by over-traditionalism; players clinging to what you feel is an under-developed stage of RPGs when they could be helping make progress. Is that an accurate assessment?

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Exploderwizard;641152If you are are talking about a wargame designed as a wargame then yes.

I don't consider a roleplaying game that doesn't function as a wargame to be a failure any more than I would a functional wargame that "fails" to be a roleplaying game.

He's talking about the rules in and of themselves, as you can roleplay with any rules including no rules at all. It is a good idea to examine the rules on their own merits, he's right about that part.

Quote from: gleichman;641165I value the role-playing and social aspects of the hobby greatly, it's why I do RPGs instead of just wargames or MMORPGs. The difference between me and nearly everyone else here is that I also value the game part of the Role-Playing Game, and I won't settle for a sub-par experience there or in any other component that makes up the total experience.

Why do you think that you are different in this regard?

When I play OD&D it is both the game and the social aspect I enjoy. The rules for combat are indeed brief and abstract. They are meant to be so because combat is not the focus of the game IF you use the rules.

The objective for players is to gain fame and fortune. Getting out alive with as much treasure as possible. Combat is dangerous and often fatal and thus avoided whenever possible by players who understand the rules.

Not having a detailed tactical combat system in this case isn't a flaw. Not understanding why it doesn't feature such a thing indicates a lack of understanding about the objectives of play.