50/50 for me. I think both have some good points, but I think both miss points severely.

Quote from: everloss;789817I agree with Benoist that there is no right way to play an RPG and that the rules should fit the setting. At the same time, I agree with Wick in that I don't believe that balance matters in an RPG.

Based on what I remember of his posts here I don't think Benoist prays at the shrine of Balance either... at least not mechanical balance.

Rather than the game ratings of tea cup and thumb, my concern would be whether Riddick himself could be killed by a teacup blow to the chest... because otherwise he's just a Mary-Sue and I don't wanna play in that game.

After reading that John Wick post, I honestly have to ask if he's ever played an actual roleplaying game before. Emphasis on game. I mean, sure, he wrote Legend of the Five Rings and 7th Sea, but did he ever play them? As a game?

Wick's telling me that having pages of gun stats is not OK.

Funny, I've experienced synaptic events I interpret as "fun" poring over them and using them in play. Must be something wrong with me.

Or with Wick.

Wick is one of those people who think drow are "problematic" and Benoist once told me he felt ok about not fact-checking what he says when he attacks people because the truth always comes out on the internet.

This means neither of them can ever say anything meaningful ever.

Drow are problematic?

What idiocy.

Wick is a commie storygamer. Who cares what he thinks?

I have met many storygamers. They never bring snacks.

Quote from: Brad;789834I mean, sure, he wrote Legend of the Five Rings and 7th Sea, but did he ever play them? As a game?

I did a lot of research in my naive attempt to fix 7th Sea's various piss poor subsystems. I got the distinct impression Wick himself felt the system had been fatally diluted by too many compromises on behalf of market realities. The magic system, for instance, was not to his taste, even though it's one of the coolest things about 7th Sea; left to his own devices he would have only included the Sorte sorcery.

To his credit, he was also upset with some of the ways the infamous metaplot went on to develop. For instance, he wasn't a fan of the inclusion of Sophia's Daughters in the first place (they often came off as redundant with many of the setting's baseline feminist assumptions), so when their splatbook came out and turned them into an army of Mary Sues...

Wick's article reads as a big false dichotomy to me. Basically "rules exist to generate game balance, game balance is wargaming, down with rules". Except...rules don't exist just to generate game balance. I don't think he gets what a lot of them are for.

Like, Riddick killing someone with a teacup is interesting precisely because a teacup does shitty base damage; this is actually something that a rogue in 3E could do maybe with a d2 improvised weapon + a large enough bucket of sneak attack damage. Someone opting to do that would be roleplaying, and it'd be an example of a "procedurally generated" story - events being generated by the rules.

I don't quite know what alternative he's proposing is, but, say, just having a player spend 15 Spotlight Points to evaporate a Minor Dramatic NPC and describe it however they want is all well and good if it floats your boat, but its not really cool in the same way.


Also, I'd agree "spotlight balance" is more important that "number" balance, but, I'm pretty loathe to reconstruct my gameworld or adventure specifically to provide the former, or really want this provided for me. I think vaguely comparable numbers gives the players a fair chance at spotlight time, and after that its up to them.

Wick's article and argument basically boil down to him telling me I'm having badwrong fun. I'm not playing properly, not following the one true way. Roleplaying, apparently, is solely about telling a story.

If you find it fun to have a character with a long list of various weapons with slightly different stats and uses, you're doing it wrong.

If you find killing orcs in spectacular fashion to be fun, even if it doesn't advance a plot, you're doing it wrong.

I just shake my head. Is he just mad that only a handful of people are playing Houses of the Blooded compared to legions playing D&D 5e? So tell them they're doing it wrong?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;789850Drow are problematic?

What idiocy.

Well, they ARE a little goofy. Think about it: the only well known established Matriarchy in D&D lore are a bunch of evil sexy S&M slavers who worship a demon queen goddess of darkness and evil.

Oh and they're "black".

Yes I hated Drizzt and those stories.

EDIT: i had never heard of John Wick before. He made some interesting points, but I rather disagree with him. Who the hell is HE to tell me that I'm playing my games wrong? Is this some kind of rebuttal to an opposing force of the RPG industry?

As Old Geezer keeps on saying: just roll the fucking dice. There are gaming styles for everyone out there: the trick is to find groups who match yours. By communicating (I mean in person, not in opinion pieces on social media).

Wankery. All pure wankery. If two members of my gaming group got into a drivel filled argument of this sort I'ld post guards at the door to keep them away from our next session.

I like Benoist, but I didn't read his post entirely. Too long and not really going anywhere. Basicly play it like you like it, but the very long winded version.

John Wick I actually agree with. It's a bit absolutist, but a lot of people play D&D like Munchkin. Kick in door, kill monsters, loot the room, repeat. If you play it like Heroquest, then you are playing a boardgame. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Most pc RPG's are like that. But the story takes the backseat.

D&D and Warhammer both originated from Wargames, right? So a lot of people are only thinking about meta stuff like the best gear and min-maxing your character. It is a combat simulator. I like it better when there are a lot of NPC's, different factions and choices and consequences. To me that's more rewarding but harder to pull off.

I can't believe I'm getting drawn into having an opinion about this... but, in addition to being pointless, this is a false dichotomy. There is something else that is different from a board game and has nothing to do with advancing a 'story' and that is obviously roleplaying. You know it when you see/do it. It involves a group of knuckleheads riffing off each other and having fun pretending to be heroes or villains or whatever while getting in scraps and poisoning the Viscount of Burbleham and stealing the salt shakers from the best restaurant in Burbleham, and so forth. It is ridiculous to call it a story because no one knows where it is going and can't remember afterwards what the point of it all was. But it is also obviously not a board game. So, as far as I can tell these guys are arguing about two things that (mostly) don't exist and ignoring the thing that does exist.

QuoteJohn Wick I actually agree with. It's a bit absolutist, but a lot of people play D&D like Munchkin. Kick in door, kill monsters, loot the room, repeat. If you play it like Heroquest, then you are playing a boardgame. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Most pc RPG's are like that. But the story takes the backseat.
]f.

I just can't get behind this sentiment. It certainly isn't how I play. I really just don't have much fun with kick in the door style games, but people have been doing kick in the door since the early days of the hobby and they've been large in number. To suddenly define them out of the hobby because some of us prefer talking more in character, to me, is sophistry.