Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6400452" data-attributes="member: 58197">So what? He's the author of the article under discussion, therefore it is appropriate to refer to him as "the author" in this discussion. Anyone who's read the article knows he's a game designer, since he is at pains to point it out in the very first paragraph. I simply don't see why this is relevant to what I think of his article. And what I think of his article is... as soon as you start saying Dungeons and Dragons (pre-5E) was not a role-playing game, you need to stop and rethink your definition, because something is seriously off here.It's a bit hard to respond to an article which is, to put it charitably, rambling. But Poire's reply hit the nail on the head: Wick's argument follows the Forge conceit that an RPG should focus intently on a single mode of play. This misses the point of games like D&D. Such games are toolkits that support multiple modes of play, not just between different campaigns but within the same campaign. They allow the casual gamer, the hardcore tactician, the thespian roleplayer, and the storyteller to sit at the same table and play together. Considering how hard it can be to find any players at all, this is absolutely essential for an RPG. A game that is "good enough" for everyone in my gaming group is one that I can play. A game which is "perfect" for me but "boring as heck" for the rest of the gang is one that will sit on my shelf. (Furthermore, what I myself want out of D&D varies from day to day and even hour to hour! Sometimes I want in-depth roleplaying. Other times I just want to whack some monsters.)To the specific concern of numerical balance and details like rate of fire: It is of course easy to overdo this stuff, and many RPGs do. 5E's decision to streamline the rules and avoid getting too caught up in minutiae was wise. But remember that what the rules punish, players will avoid; what the rules reward, players will do. If the rules make no distinction between sword damage and teacup damage, one effect is that you may see teacup-wielders adventuring alongside sword-wielders. More importantly, the sword-wielder's behavior also changes. If confronted with a guard who demands she set aside her weapons before having tea with the king and queen, she will do so without a qualm, reasoning that she can simply use her teacup if a fight breaks out.Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it depends. Do you want PCs to act like they're in a cinematic world where people kick butt with teacups? Or do you want them to act like they're in a grittier world, where a hero with a teacup dies to a guard with a sword? The rules determine which they will do.The pursuit of balance is simply a recognition of the truth that players do what is rewarded and avoid what is punished. Wick says it should be about time in the spotlight rather than mechanical balance--but mechanical balance is the system's contribution to helping the GM allocate spotlight time! Take 3E's CoDzilla as an example. If you were a naive player in 3E, you might create a fighter, thinking that melee combat would be your time in the spotlight. Then you discover that the cleric can fight better than you and do other stuff too. Your "natural" spotlight time has just been hogged. The GM must go out of her way to compensate. If the fighter and cleric were better balanced, the GM would not have to work as hard to make sure everyone gets spotlight time--it would arise naturally from gameplay. The fighter would shine in combat, the cleric would shine elsewhere.</blockquote>

Verification