Can we now admit the new 7th Sea is floundering?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
OK, several people now have mentioned this "Play Dirty" thing....whats its deal?
It is a hoot to read.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

With respect, I'm not going to allow our Amber discussion to splash over into another thread. You stated earlier that you didn't want to engage me further on this subject. If you've changed your mind, that's great. We can pick up where we left off on the Amber thread. But not here.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.

He just doesn't like to admit that he's one of the ronin he so despises.
 
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 didn't know this was actually a thing. Mind blown.

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!

Well, there's my next Big Boss Mastermind for my next game. :grin:

He'll be some sort of human / deep one genetic hybrid who goes on long monologues about being a real man.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
Lazy GM you say?

I like to file a flight plan, then run on a wing and a prayer, myself. If my notes take up more than 2 pages, plus 2 pages of stat blocks, it's an epic and probably overly detailed.
 
And my only, and I mean my only, concern is to make sure my players are having a good time.
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.
 
OK, I read the Play Dirty thing online, and its...well, it did what it was designed to do, from what I can tell: generate reactions. I regard it much like the infamous essay a few years back from that fellow talking about how rape is a great thing to use in games as a way to create drama and motivation. Its just kind of "well, if your players don't mind that, but I dont think any of that stuff will improve my games or my player's enjoyment. And reading Play Dirty I had to wonder how much of it was about player enjoyment or just the enjoyment of the GM.

But Wick's example regarding his Champions game is a specific situation. It was an ongoing thing run at a school with a rotating group of players, and it was run as a sort of "gauntlet". I gather there was bragging rights for players that stuck it through. It reminds me of the Tomb of Horrors. TOH was not meant to represent an atypical game, it was a tournament scenario that players would try to survive. Like a videogame. But TOH is upfront about this, I dont think Wick was distinguishing between what he was proposing and actual standard GM advice, which gives the impression he saw it as "good GMing."

I see Gming being on a scale from Monty Haul, on one end, that completely kowtows (damn that word is stuck in my head now) to player power fantasies, and Wick's "Dirty Dick" style on the other side, where the GM is trying their best to "defeat" the players. My personal preference is much closer to the middle, as "neutral arbitrator."
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.

Monte Cook copying the philosophy of Mark Rosewater of Magic: The Gathering:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

Here's the key quote:

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.
 
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?
Hey, Johnny Blade Johnny Blade , antoher Spaniard here. Where you from?

I 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.
Nice way of saving face, Baulderstone Baulderstone :grin:

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.
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.

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!
Exactly! Personalty mechanics don't restrict your character, they help you play whatever you want and incentivize all kind of behaviours.
 
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.
I have to agree on this.
 
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.

I like the cut of your jib, sir!

But stealing Cheetos? I'm sorry, but there are lines even I won't cross. :smile:
 
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.
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.

I know you like to view narrative game mechanics a some kind of monolithic evil
The person you're arguing with in your head is on another site I think.

but lumping Laws and Wick together seems ridiculous to me.
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.

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?
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.

How can a designer work on both traditional and narrative games?
Because he wants a paycheck? You're serious?

It's because the Swine War isn't real, Krueger. Get over it.
Heh, now I know the person you're arguing with in your head is on the other site.
 
I have to agree on this.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Let me try to explain my POV like this:

Your game system is a car, and your campaign is a road trip you're about to take.

If I'm about to take a road trip, I'm going to spend some time working on my car before I set off. No matter how good or reliable my car is, be it a high-quality machine or a piece of junk, I'm going to check the oil, tires, radiator fluid, etc. I'm going to pack the trunk with whatever supplies I may need: extra food, extra water, medical kit, gas can, emergency radio, signal flares, etc etc. I'm going to prepare for the trip. I'm going to prepare for possible problems and emergencies.

But once I'm on the road, my attitude changes. You can plan your route, but you really can't prepare for or micomanage your actual trip. The road's gonna take you wherever it takes you, and unexpected diversions, problems, and issues are going to come up. My attitude is to flow with it, let the road take me whereever it leads, and deal with the unexpected as it comes.

It just pays to be prepared.

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 agree. I find the idea of trap options and forcing systems mastery to be a hindrance, not an aid, to gaming. Systems mastery should be optional for those people who want to play the optimization minigame within a system.
 
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.

This.

I've genuinely never understood the need for argument over some of the meta elements of roleplaying style or system design. It's like watching two people argue over something I don't understand in a foreign language. At the end of the day, isn't it about personal preference and choice?

I mean, there are so many games! And so many ways to play them. It's like an endless buffet of greasy, delicious, nerdy goodness! We truly are living in a great era for gaming.
 
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.

79af6b3bc5b23131ace1d835c402fa444ebd7cfc574c6b040665280337e74d7e.jpg


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.
 
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.

If you are going to go down the path of arguing with people about what is and isn't an RPG, then perhaps you are more like Wick than Laws is. I don't think arguing "x is not a roleplaying game" as you are here, has ever added anything useful to the hobby when anyone does it, whatever kind of games they are trying to exclude. The roleplaying hobby is strongest when people are bending and hacking them in all kinds of ways. 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.

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 issue is that your complaint doesn't apply to Laws at all. Laws feels roleplaying can be art at times, but only fleetingly.

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.

The people who don't create stories when they roleplay have no problem seeing that others roleplay differently.

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. You began this post arguing that people saying games that us OOC mechanics are RPGs are "incorrect". And there people like Wick on the other side who say that D&D isn't an RPG. I'll call out Wick for it, and I will call out you.
 
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 agree with you on this. A fundamental difference is that you can build and rebuild decks every time you play a CCG. The building a rebuilding is part of the game. With an RPG, when you build a character, you are committing to playing that same character for months if not years. If you made a noob error, you are going to be stuck with that error for months if not years. There is nothing fun about that.

It was the same thing with new feats and prestige classes every month. In a CCG, you get new cards and you immediately sit down and build new decks. In my D&D campaign, my players would look at each new supplement and be kept in a perpetual state of buyer's remorse. There was always a better build they would have taken if it was available.
 
If you are going to go down the path of arguing with people about what is and isn't an RPG
I went down that path, did I? Care to share?

I don't think arguing "x is not a roleplaying game" as you are here
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.

You do realize that you're not even reading the words I type and are just filling in your own arguments to fight against, right?

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.
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?

The issue is that your complaint doesn't apply to Laws at all. Laws feels roleplaying can be art at times, but only fleetingly.
1. Link or quote for the "only fleetingly part".
2. I suppose he also says roleplaying games create stories "only sometimes"?

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.
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?

It sure seems that way.

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.
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.

You began this post arguing that people saying games that us OOC mechanics are RPGs are "incorrect".
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.

You want to fight the Pundit, go fight the Pundit, don't use me as a surrogate making up my arguments as you go and mischaracterizing what I am saying.
 
I'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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Right here.

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".

He talks about it on the podcast he has with Kenneth Hite.

In any case, I was bringing it up in response to your comment that Laws believes everyone is creating art when they play RPGs, You haven't backed up one thing you have defined as "Lawsian" with an actual quote from Laws. I am not going to dig for quotes to counter points you weren't able back up in the first place.

2. I suppose he also says roleplaying games create stories "only sometimes"?

Exactly. Sometimes an RPG session is just stuff that happened.

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.

Okay. You really need to share a quote for Laws giving that as the definition of an RPG. The last game he completed was Feng Shui 2nd Ed. which is all about having big fight scenes.

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?

I like some of Laws ideas and others I don't. I tend to agree more with Hite when I listen to their podcast. I simply don't like seeing people's ideas misrepresented. You make is it sound like not liking seeing people's ideas misrepresented on the Internet is a bad thing.

I think I have addressed a lot of actual points you have made.

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.

Three months actually.

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.

Ah, I see. It's similar to the tactic in your first post that I responded to.

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.

You say Laws and Wick don't really roleplay... and then you follow it up with a qualifier so you can say you weren't touching anyone.

You say that narrative games aren't "just" roleplaying games, so you can invoke the "just" when someone argues that they are roleplaying games. "I never said they weren't roleplaying games. I said they weren't just roleplaying games."
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top