Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 6399452" data-attributes="member: 1">RPG designer John Wick has written a lengthy article in which he tackles the subject of game balance and the definition of a roleplaying game.&nbsp; One thing's for sure - he's no fan of games with equipment lists!&nbsp; <a href="http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/" target="_blank">http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/</a>&nbsp; I've always said that balance (or symmetry) for its own sake robs a game of flavour. Some stuff can be better than other stuff; I'm fine with that. Some choices can be better, as long as it doesn't lead to an environment in which some layers dominate a game to the exclusion of other players.&nbsp; That said, I find a lot to disagree with in this article, too.&nbsp; In particular, he seems to be of the opinion that the only thing important in a roleplaying game is the roleplaying; I disagree.&nbsp; Yes, it has the word &quot;roleplaying&quot; in its name, and I see how that can be confusing, but that's just a label.&nbsp; Roleplaying is part of the fun of an RPG, and different RPGs offer different flavours of fun.&nbsp; In common, yes, they all contain roleplaying to a greater or lesser extent.&nbsp; Having an intricate combat system does not make a game &quot;not an RPG&quot; it makes it &quot;an RPG with an intricate combat system&quot;.&nbsp; That's just my take, though. I know there are gamers of wildly varying styles and opinions on this board!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 6399452, member: 1"] RPG designer John Wick has written a lengthy article in which he tackles the subject of game balance and the definition of a roleplaying game. One thing's for sure - he's no fan of games with equipment lists! [url]http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/[/url] I've always said that balance (or symmetry) for its own sake robs a game of flavour. Some stuff can be better than other stuff; I'm fine with that. Some choices can be better, as long as it doesn't lead to an environment in which some layers dominate a game to the exclusion of other players. That said, I find a lot to disagree with in this article, too. In particular, he seems to be of the opinion that the only thing important in a roleplaying game is the roleplaying; I disagree. Yes, it has the word "roleplaying" in its name, and I see how that can be confusing, but that's just a label. Roleplaying is [i]part[/i] of the fun of an RPG, and different RPGs offer different flavours of fun. In common, yes, they all contain roleplaying to a greater or lesser extent. Having an intricate combat system does not make a game "not an RPG" it makes it "an RPG with an intricate combat system". That's just my take, though. I know there are gamers of wildly varying styles and opinions on this board! [/QUOTE]

Verification