Academic Plague in gaming

Nisarg said:
Because I can describe D&D as: "a fantasy game where you take on the role of wizards, warriors, elves, thieves, or other archetypes, and go on adventures in a made-up world".

This is a generic description that easily fits 20 games that I can think of. It does not tell anyone on an RPG forum (your examples were taken from a discussion on rpg.net) what it is that distinguishes this game from countless others.

I'm really curious whether you are able to describe Amber, besides the fact it doesn't use dice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Turjan said:
I'm really curious whether you are able to describe Amber, besides the fact it doesn't use dice.

Ok.. here it is, with the presuppositions that things like "RPG" and "statistics" are known jargon (ie. that people reading this are already roleplayers):

Amber is a game based on the Amber novels by Roger Zelazny. The novels describe a family of powerful immortals who can travel between infinite dimensions. They are the rulers of Amber, the one true dimension of order. Despite this, they are anything but orderly as they fight among themselves over ancient vendettas and for political position to take the throne.
In the game, you play one of the children of the Amberites, a new generation of immortals who, despite having immortality and incredible physical and magical abilities, have to deal with the plots of their far more powerful parents and uncles/aunts, not to mention their own brothers and cousins.
You also have to concern yourself with the demonic beings that exist at the other end of reality, in the courts of absolute chaos; and the infinite possible adventures to be found in the infinite dimensions that exist between chaos and Amber.
The game is different from other RPGs in that the players are not together as a "team", instead they are usually encouraged to compete and struggle with each other, to plot against each other for position, and to betray each other for the sake of personal advancement.
The system is diceless, it uses no random elements, instead you determine your abilities by an auction where you bid points to get top, middle, bottom, or non-existent ranks in each ability. If you are higher-ranked than the other player, you will beat them in a fair contest of that ability, every time.
Smart players have to therefore find ways to make sure they use their best abilities, and "cheat" by using advantages of terrain or situation to get the best of a superior opponent.

There's a pretty fair description of the Amber RPG, without resorting to a single new piece of jargon other than the word "Amber" itself.

Nisarg
 

Well, I see Nisarg's post-count is able to increase at least...

Why are we paying so much attention to someone who will only listen to his own explanations?
 

Nisarg said:
Amber is a game based ... SNIP

Nisarg

Plugged into a word counter, your explanation of Amber is 282 words long.

For comparison:

The PCs are humans... SNIP

His description of Nobilis is... 282 words long.

The difference being, the Nobilis post lists new mechanics and setting terms, and then defines them - so really, the explanation is shorter.

This, meanwhile, is what you contended was the "true" explanation of Nobilis:

You play a god. There are these evil gods who want to destroy the world. Some of the gods on your side are pretty sketchy, too, for some of the same and some different reasons. Fight!

36 words.


So, really, you're explanation of Amber is unnecessarily long, and filled with things designed to make it seem like there's more going on in the game than there is. What Amber really is:

"You play an immortal wandering the universe. There are demons you have to fight, and you also compete with your immortal family, some of whom are really powerful. It's based on novels by Roger Zelazny. Fight!"

36 words.


Patrick Y.
 
Last edited:

Nisarg said:
Ok.. here it is, with the presuppositions that things like "RPG" and "statistics" are known jargon (ie. that people reading this are already roleplayers): [snip]

There's a pretty fair description of the Amber RPG, without resorting to a single new piece of jargon other than the word "Amber" itself.

Okay, this description is pretty good. That said, it's about exactly as wordy as the one of Nobilis that you criticized so heavily (a mere difference of 4 words ;)), so your accusation in this point is moot :D. Additionally, the description of Nobilis explained every piece of jargon that was used. This has the advantage that the reader knows what to expect, i.e., that the game (Nobilis) uses lots of invented words.

Btw, the short description of Amber and Nobilis would look exactly the same; just exchange "gods" for "powerful immortals" ;). If you really want to convince the reader that Amber and Nobilis are not the same game in different clothes, you have to use even more words :D.

Wombat said:
Why are we paying so much attention to someone who will only listen to his own explanations?

I don't know exactly. Maybe, it's my engrained aversion against anti-intellectual trolling ;)?
 

Nisarg said:
Well, it would make it "good"; if the Exalted fans would just acknowledge that, and not try to push it as a deeply philosophical game vastly superior to the "mere hack n' slash" of D20...

I'm doing thtat right now.
 

Teflon Billy said:
I'm doing that right now.

iykwimaityd


:lol:

I think people are trying to pingeon hole too many games here. Sure, they might be explained down to 36 words (good job on that Younts!!) but then you start treating all the people that play the game the same. Even when they may all be playing very different versions of the same game.
 

Crothian said:
I think people are trying to pingeon hole too many games here. Sure, they might be explained down to 36 words (good job on that Younts!!) but then you start treating all the people that play the game the same. Even when they may all be playing very different versions of the same game.

Maybe, Patrick should have used a disclaimer: Caution, irony :eek:;)!
 

Joshua Dyal said:
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that its people who actually have identified tastes -- rather than just buying and consuming exactly what everyone else is, or what WotC tells us to -- that are the problem behind the decline of the industry? Or am I misunderstanding?

It's not about identified tastes, it's about attitude and factionalization and their considerably more sinister implications than merely having a particular taste in RPG products. Nisarg seems to have a hate for WoD and their other pretentious ilk that knows no limits considering his various rants against them on these messageboards. He could just go off and buy the products he likes and not buy the ones he doesn't and leave it at that. But his attitude, and the attitudes of other people who don't respect other people's rights to play what they wish, how they wish, leads to turning off people who might otherwise be willing to try new games or, perhaps even worse, polarizes people into opposing camps where there is no middle ground and little cross pollination of ideas or room for game companies to bridge the gaps between groups with their products.
 


Remove ads

Top