Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NikMak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That said there is the mindset that 'game
> balance'
> > is an illusion we cling to, and that it is
> > detrimental to our gaming experience. There is
> > some strength to that argument I guess.
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree with everything as presented
> in that article.
------
me neither
------
> Primarily, the idea that a game
> is not a role playing game if you can play it
> successfully without role playing. Anything can
> be a role playing game if you and everyone playing
> chooses to role play. Some games are better
> designed for it, and some are streamlined so that
> people can just play through without really role
> playing.
---
I see his point though; you define a 'win' criteria for a game and if you can achieve it without any actual 'acting the character' then I can see how some would lean towards saying 'its not an RPG' (4thed D&D anyone?)
---
>
> I also didn't like the idea suggesting that its
> wrong for people who aren't very good at role
> playing to take a high charisma, with the writer's
> answer to it being "get better at role playing."
> If I sat down at a table with him and he indicated
> that he was going to attack a bad guy, I'd ask him
> to act it out --not show me what he wanted to do,
> but to successfully perform the attack he's
> indicating... because if he can't do it, then his
> character can't do it. Some people aren't good at
> speaking well or motivationally like a highly
> charismatic person could... but if they're not,
> then they're penalized for trying to play such a
> character. It almost seems like he's suggesting
> that players should only play themselves put into
> whatever scenario the storyteller is giving.
> That's not really roleplaying, in my opinion...
> or, at best, it's a very limited form of role
> playing.
>
-------
agreed; that is not a very inconclusive stance to take at all!
------
> I also found it rather offensive when the writer
> suggested taking a Sharpie to game rulebooks to
> "remove" rules that don't further the storytelling
> experience. Game rules serve a purpose in
> storytelling. They define a character's abilities
> so that both players and judge can agree on
> conflict resolution, whether that conflict be
> combat or situational or even conversational.
-------
disagree completely on this one. I have a 'pencil o rule-death' that has been used on every single game rule set I have ever owned (ok, except for the ones I only own as an E-version; they get comments instead)
> Is
> one gun or sword better than another gun or sword?
> Does it matter who wields it? Yes to both
> questions. The equipment should be as important
> to the equation as the character using it... just
> like in the real world.
>
as for the does it matter if they use 'x' I see it as being largely stylistic, especially if your playing a 'balanced game' in terms of PC ability: What the significant difference between PC-A doing 45 points of ballistic projectile damage Vs PC-B 45 points of fire damage really? The majority of time its just special effects; unless your fighting something immune to fire
have you ever played Pendragon? I think you would hate that combat system, as the damage is largely uniform across weapon types (again with extra special effects here and there)
>
> There's a lot to be said about the illusion of
> game balance, but I think the guy who wrote that
> article missed the mark on most of it.
fair enough