It is a hoot to read.OK, several people now have mentioned this "Play Dirty" thing....whats its deal?
Seriously.
It is fascinating to read. The amount of ego John Wick has for himself is morbidly fascinating. He makes pundy look like an amateur.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is a hoot to read.OK, several people now have mentioned this "Play Dirty" thing....whats its deal?
It started out as a series of articles in Pyramid. These later got collected, with a few extra bits, as the book now known as Play Dirty. The articles were controversial at the time, but now the whole thing just looks like a time capsule of late 90s GM excess.OK, several people now have mentioned this "Play Dirty" thing....whats its deal?
What I don't understand about your complaints on the system is that nearly all of them are addressed by Wujcik in the text of the game itself. While it's true that, say, Warfare does far too much heavy lifting in the system as written, players will do one of two things: realize this, and put very few points in Strength (which is a form of self-balancing) or not realize this, and put a lot of points in Strength instead of Warfare. In the latter case, Wujcik says explicitly to look at where the players spent their points and highlight those areas in your game, as spending points in the Auction is a strong proxy for what the players want to see emphasized in the campaign. Or, at least, you want to avoid players feeling like they invested much of their character creation budget in something that then never comes up in play.
Except the bit about anchovies. They're pure evil.What this balance issue boils down to for me is this:
--> Mechanical game balance is an obsolete gaming paradigm and is unnecessary because of reasons X, Y, and Z.
--> Mechanical game balance is necessary in certain situations with certain games for reasons X, Y, and Z.
--> Anchovies are freaking awesome.
--> noman can't eat anchovies anymore.
--> All of these things can be true simultaneously.
Except the bit about anchovies. They're pure evil.
I'll leave it off the pizza. But I will tolerate it in my Caesar dressing.Embrace the evil, Steve. Put in on your pizza.
It started out as a series of articles in Pyramid. These later got collected, with a few extra bits, as the book now known as Play Dirty. The articles were controversial at the time, but now the whole thing just looks like a time capsule of late 90s GM excess.
That's the one. The thing with John Wick is,he's ultimately a gun for hire. That's what he was on L5R, that's what he was on the original 7th Sea and that's what he was when he was writing for SJG.Pyramid, Steve Jackson Games's house magazine? Thats kind of surprising, as in his "Chess" essay, he comes up with that arbitrary definition of RPGs, and then declares that D&D is not an RPG (my eyes rolled so hard I got a good view of my eyebrows), but I can't see a situation where GURPs is an RPG but D&D isn't based on his own terms.
Wick's a Lawsian, which means he thinks RPG's are an art form, a literary genre. Because of that, there's really no point to what he says about roleplaying because he doesn't do it...at least not by itself, without the added OOC narrative focus.
The most annoying thing about Lawsians is that they think everyone is doing what they are doing, whether they realize it or not. It's like having a discussion about color with a color-blind person.
I'll leave it off the pizza. But I will tolerate it in my Caesar dressing.
The first step towards Darkness is always the hardest. Well done. ;)
This reminds me of my favourite supervillain... Manchovie!
Speaking only from my experience.
Amber Diceless does this badly. It's my favorite example. I go into the particulars in my Reflections on Amber Diceless thread.* Sorcery is the major issue, but so too are a few other powers in the game. Warfare is stronger than strength, etc. etc. Inbalances in the system.
A group of inexperienced players will pick a variety of character designs that fit their tastes. But as the game goes on, it'll eventually become apparent that players with certain attributes or powers will outshine the other players who didn't pick the same attributes or powers.
A group of experienced players know which character designs will provide the most ROI per point spent. The most powerful combos are taken. Any players who don't do this will find themselves overshadowed, and their roleplaying niche dominated by the other characters.
There are a few other games that do this as well, but not to the extreme Amber does. I won't go into them in the interest of time.
As for a system that does balance well, Cypher System is my favorite example. While there are some foci that are stronger than others, this difference is mitigated by the way the types (classes) are set up. Simply put, while some character types can do the same thing as other types, depending on how they're designed (fighters casting spells or mages being good explorers), none of the types overshadow or dominate the niche of any other type. No mage will ever combat as well as a fighter, no fighter will ever cast magic as well as a mage, and neither of them will be as good at exploring as the, well explorer type.
What I'm trying to get to is I'm a lazy GM. I want to reduce the work I have to expend at the gaming table before I ever sit down. This means that I've got to identify the mechanical exploits within a system and close those exploits beforehand. This saves me a lot of trouble later.
This reminds me of reading something way back when regarding D&D 3rd edition where one of the authors (I want to szay Mike Mearls? But not certain on that) said they deliberately put "trap options" into the game in regards to Feats, where a player was deliberately punished by the system by making bad choices during character creation. I think his point was to reward system mastery, but I was horrified by this concept. It seemed like a subtle form of hazing by the system for new players. My preference is the complete opposite, new players shouldnt need to know any rules to start playing.
Lazy GM you say?lol, well I'm lazy GM too, just in a different way, I'd rather not learn a complex system and instead just wing a dice roll and get on with the game.
Amen!And my only, and I mean my only, concern is to make sure my players are having a good time.
Wick's a Lawsian, which means he thinks RPG's are an art form, a literary genre. Because of that, there's really no point to what he says about roleplaying because he doesn't do it...at least not by itself, without the added OOC narrative focus.
The most annoying thing about Lawsians is that they think everyone is doing what they are doing, whether they realize it or not. It's like having a discussion about color with a color-blind person.
That was Monte Cook. And count me in for new players being able to just jump in and do stuff. Bonus points if all you need as a player is right there on your character sheet.
Mark Rosewater said:3) Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery
The next reason “bad” cards exist goes to the heart of what makes a trading card game tick. Trading card games, and Magic in particular, are very much about discovery. When you play Uno, for example, you don’t have to know that “Draw Four” is better than a blue 6. All the cards are shuffled together and you play what you get. But in Magic, you pick and choose which cards you use. That makes the ability to differentiate between cards very important. As you grow as a player, you get better at determining a card’s potential. This ongoing challenge is an important part of what keeps Magic fresh.
The best way to examine this quality is to think back to your own Magic history. Can you remember key times where you finally “got” some concept? When all of a sudden things just clicked and you realized why a card or a series of cards were better or worse than you originally thought? That is part of the thrill of playing Magic and R&D purposefully slopes the cards to allow a constant sense of discovery.
Here’s the problem: Imagine cards' relative "difficulty" as a slope. Any card below your comprehension level on the slope is either obviously playable or obviously “bad,” and the rest require some thought or game play to categorize. But we have to design Magic for all players. That means the more advanced a player you are, the more cards you label as “bad cards.” But the lower-level cards are crucial to allowing the beginning player the same sense of discovery and exploration. You may think that the “lucky charms” (Crystal Rod, Iron Star, Ivory Cup, Throne of Bone, and Wooden Sphere) are bad, but our testing shows that most beginners are drawn to them and only learn over time that they are not as good as they seem (usually because a more advanced player tells them). That is why we keep including them in the basic set.
These cards fall on an important part of the learning "slope," and consequently keep getting printed
There are two responses I expect to my reasoning, so let me preemptively answer them. First, "Magic is an advanced game. R&D’s first level is too low. Magic players are a smart crowd. They can figure it out." My answer to that is that we’ve spent a great deal of time and money to understand our player base. We make cards for the first level of difficulty because many players exist at that level. Remember that the averageMagic player is 13 years old. The future health of the game rests on there being a good entry point for beginners. If new players stop joining, there will be no Magic for the advanced players to play.
Second, "Your ideas are outdated. The Internet has changed everything. Information flows freely and card powers are deduced much quicker than they used to." My answer to that is yes, the Internet has changed things. But that doesn’t alter the need for discovery. First, a lot of Magic players (in fact, a majority) don’t read about Magic on the Internet. Still others enjoy the discovery process and go out of their way not to read articles on card analysis. The discovery is a fun part of the game. Because some choose to take short-cuts does not mean that R&D should deprive others of the journey.
Hey, Johnny Blade , antoher Spaniard here. Where you from?There's a curious formatting error on your post by my side: before quoting it I saw it end abrubtly at "Though I". Curious. Good tastes in wines btw: I appreciate the Riesling's versatility and living in Spain atm I had the occasion to appreciate their "sherry". Whisky is the Wise man's Key but wouldn't it be a little to harsh paired with anchovy sandwiches?
Nice way of saving face, BaulderstoneI was the one that started the anchovy derailment and discussion of food in general. Rather than apologize I will make the argument that discussion of seafood is entirely on topic for a game called 7th Sea. Now in the spirit of anchovy appreciation, I will prepare my Saturday morning eggs and douse them with with Worcestershire sauce.
I think this is a very good analysis. And I have spent many happy hours thanks to John Wick, playing 7th Sea 1st. Not a hater, to say the least.I don't want this to turn back into full bore John Wick bashing. His work has given me hours of joy and I will always be grateful. That said....
My humble read on him, his online posting and how 7th Sea 2e turned out was that he was absolutely sure he was about to revolutionize tabletop RPGs with his brilliant ideas*. Ideas that would finally bury all that antiquated D&D stuff. These ideas just needed a popular vehicle to make everyone take notice. Getting the rights to 7th Sea back under his total control must have looked like a sign from on high, and the giant success of the kickstarter must have only confirmed that feeling (never mind that most of that money rolled in before the radical nature of the rules became apparent). Flush with so much perceived confirmation of his righteous path, it must have been easy to overlook the fact that most fans wanted a continuation of 7th Sea as it was generally understood, not a revolutionary Trojan horse.
Exactly! Personalty mechanics don't restrict your character, they help you play whatever you want and incentivize all kind of behaviours.He uses Pendragon as an example in this essay, and I think it sets up what Stafford does right and Wick does wrong. Pendragon is a game where you can play a noble, chivalrous knight, but if I want to play a lustful, greedy, vengeful knight, the game supports that well. And it should because that is an entirely valid, dramatic choice for a character in an Arthurian saga. With Legend of the Five Rings the book is so insistent on playing the right way. It doesn't matter that Asian drama is full of characters that don't adhere to correct behavior. When you play this game, you are to behave like a proper gentleman, or you are doing it wrong!
I have to agree on this.I know you like to view narrative game mechanics a some kind of monolithic evil, but lumping Laws and Wick together seems ridiculous to me. On top of that, your attack on Laws is that he thinks everyone games the same way? Are we talking about that same guy that is possibly most famous for the advice that there are entirely different player types that want different things from games?
Laws has written some games with a narrative bent. He also has done work for steadfastly traditional games like GURPS, RuneQuest and D&D 3E. How can a designer work on both traditional and narrative games? It's because the Swine War isn't real, Krueger. Get over it.
Hi Imperator pleased to meet you! I'm actually an Italian living, working etc in Madrid for the time being.Hey, Johnny Blade , antoher Spaniard here. Where you from?
Amen!
I have zero issues with using railroading, sandboxing, illusionism, fudging, rolling out in front, cheating, bennies, narrative mechanics, OOC meta focus, index card character sheets, stealing Cheetos, or anything other techniques to make sure my players are having a good time. If people on the web have issues with that, well pucker up Buttercup while I drop my drawers so you can kiss my ass.
You're obviously not paying attention. I don't care about storygames at all, who cares? People arguing that games with core fundamental OOC mechanics are "just roleplaying games" are incorrect, and I'll point that out whenever I feel like it, thanks, no matter how much you don't like it.It's funny for you to accuse others of colorblindness while you keep carrying out your tiresome Manichean war on story games. It is pretty much all you post about nowadays.
The person you're arguing with in your head is on another site I think.I know you like to view narrative game mechanics a some kind of monolithic evil
Wick's ideas about the nature of roleplaying are obviously influenced by the writings and opinions of Laws. Is that "lumping them together"? Whatever. By their own words, they believe similar things about the nature of roleplaying.but lumping Laws and Wick together seems ridiculous to me.
When you define roleplaying itself as an art-form, you're defining what everyone does. When you define roleplaying as telling stories, you're defining what everyone does. When I roleplay, I am not creating art, no matter how hard you try to tell me I am. When I am roleplaying, I am not telling a story, no matter how hard you try to tell me I am (unless the character, of course is actually telling someone a story, then and only then, am I creating one).On top of that, your attack on Laws is that he thinks everyone games the same way? Are we talking about that same guy that is possibly most famous for the advice that there are entirely different player types that want different things from games?
Because he wants a paycheck? You're serious?How can a designer work on both traditional and narrative games?
Heh, now I know the person you're arguing with in your head is on the other site.It's because the Swine War isn't real, Krueger. Get over it.
Based on your posting history, you're one of the people who seamlessly blend the roleplaying and storytelling activities when you roleplay. Games with mechanics that engage the storytelling aspect don't bother you, and you're not alone.I have to agree on this.
I can see your point in regards to Amber's Sorcery based on your description from the other thread. And yeah, I guess ultimately I try to gauge elements in a game based on a rough level of their ability to affect the game environment, though I've never really thought of this as balance, I guess it does fall into that same conceptual framework.
This reminds me of reading something way back when regarding D&D 3rd edition where one of the authors (I want to szay Mike Mearls? But not certain on that) said they deliberately put "trap options" into the game in regards to Feats, where a player was deliberately punished by the system by making bad choices during character creation. I think his point was to reward system mastery, but I was horrified by this concept. It seemed like a subtle form of hazing by the system for new players. My preference is the complete opposite, new players shouldnt need to know any rules to start playing.
I think people spend too much time worrying about the difference. It's the one aspect of game discussion I don't get. If you don't like certain aspects of games why read or discuss them*.
*CAVEAT: Genuine scholarly discussion aside.
Genuinely who cares if there's a mechanic for players to exercise narrative control or that only allows GM's to act when earth is in the house of Aquarius.
If your having fun your having fun and what's quasi-game scholars have to say about it means jack.
When you define roleplaying itself as an art-form, you're defining what everyone does. When you define roleplaying as telling stories, you're defining what everyone does. When I roleplay, I am not creating art, no matter how hard you try to tell me I am. When I am roleplaying, I am not telling a story, no matter how hard you try to tell me I am (unless the character, of course is actually telling someone a story, then and only then, am I creating one).
The people who don't create stories when they roleplay have no problem seeing that others roleplay differently. It's the narrative side that keeps telling us IC folks that we're fooling ourselves, or are delusional, or brain damaged, or whatever.
You're obviously not paying attention. I don't care about storygames at all, who cares? People arguing that games with core fundamental OOC mechanics are "just roleplaying games" are incorrect, and I'll point that out whenever I feel like it, thanks, no matter how much you don't like it.
Wick's ideas about the nature of roleplaying are obviously influenced by the writings and opinions of Laws. Is that "lumping them together"? Whatever. By their own words, they believe similar things about the nature of roleplaying.
When you define roleplaying itself as an art-form, you're defining what everyone does. When you define roleplaying as telling stories, you're defining what everyone does. When I roleplay, I am not creating art, no matter how hard you try to tell me I am. When I am roleplaying, I am not telling a story, no matter how hard you try to tell me I am (unless the character, of course is actually telling someone a story, then and only then, am I creating one).
The people who don't create stories when they roleplay have no problem seeing that others roleplay differently.
Oh, and trap options are what happens when you let CCG design and RPG design sleep together. Which seemed to happen at some point around the time that WotC published their version of D&D. Suddenly, character building and deck building started to seem a lot more similar than they were different. And then the idea of tiers came along, right as the 'Monks are so OP' wars were in full flame. Words like Pun-Pun, Jumplomancer and Horizon Tripper entered the vocabulary.
I went down that path, did I? Care to share?If you are going to go down the path of arguing with people about what is and isn't an RPG
As I am here? What game am I saying isn't an RPG? I was responding to a link to an essay on roleplaying, not any game in particular.I don't think arguing "x is not a roleplaying game" as you are here
Cool story bro. When I actually make a post deciding "X person should no longer be part of the roleplaying scene", let me know. Until then, want to respond to something I actually wrote, at some point in this thread?We don't have to like every game that comes from those ideas, but it just leads to tedious forum warring when we decide people are no longer part of the roleplaying scene.
1. Link or quote for the "only fleetingly part".The issue is that your complaint doesn't apply to Laws at all. Laws feels roleplaying can be art at times, but only fleetingly.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the central idea they both share, that RPGs are a tool for creating stories, which they inherently are not, unless you choose to do so, and not all do.Wick and Laws have very different approaches. Wick seems to wear a big viking hat and push his players along a punishing narrative that he is telling. Laws believes it is crucial for players to have meaningful choices in RPGs.
Jesus, Pundit hasn't moved a game in years. Start talking about Grey Ranks in the main forum if you want, I doubt it will get moved.There is a whole gaming site that bumps games out of the roleplaying forum for not meeting their narrow definition of a roleplaying game, and I know you are familiar with it.
and right here is the absolute proof that you are not reading the words I actually typed, and simply filling in what you want to argue against. Look again.You began this post arguing that people saying games that us OOC mechanics are RPGs are "incorrect".
Well, you are certainly right, I try to blend them and, to a point, it doesn't bother me. That said, though, I have to clarify that certain systems (like FATE) are too meta for me.Based on your posting history, you're one of the people who seamlessly blend the roleplaying and storytelling activities when you roleplay. Games with mechanics that engage the storytelling aspect don't bother you, and you're not alone.
However, my friend, the difference not bothering you, doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
out of character I believeI'm almost afraid to ask, but can someone educate the rookie on what "OCC" means? I'm not familiar, and my web searches are weak.
out of character I believe
I went down that path, did I? Care to share?
As I am here? What game am I saying isn't an RPG? I was responding to a link to an essay on roleplaying, not any game in particular.
People arguing that games with core fundamental OOC mechanics are "just roleplaying games" are incorrect, and I'll point that out whenever I feel like it, thanks, no matter how much you don't like it.
1. Link or quote for the "only fleetingly part".
2. I suppose he also says roleplaying games create stories "only sometimes"?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the central idea they both share, that RPGs are a tool for creating stories, which they inherently are not, unless you choose to do so, and not all do.
Are you sure that you're not bent because you like Laws, and don't like Wick, so me saying "Wick is a Lawsian" threw you out of joint, so you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, without addressing any actual point I made or reading the actual words I typed?
Jesus, Pundit hasn't moved a game in years. Start talking about Grey Ranks in the main forum if you want, I doubt it will get moved.
and right here is the absolute proof that you are not reading the words I actually typed, and simply filling in what you want to argue against. Look again.
I did not say "People arguing that games with core fundamental OOC mechanics are roleplaying games are incorrect"
I did say "People arguing that games with core fundamental OOC mechanics are "just roleplaying games" are incorrect".
If you'd actually stopped to read any of my posts on this or the other site as you claim to have, you'd know I don't say Fate, 2d20, etc aren't RPGs, I say they are Narrative RPGs, a specific sub-type of RPG that is different enough to merit their own classification, but still RPGs, not storygames.
Wick's a Lawsian, which means he thinks RPG's are an art form, a literary genre. Because of that, there's really no point to what he says about roleplaying because he doesn't do it...at least not by itself, without the added OOC narrative focus.
No, you need a fainting couch?