Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6403146" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I thought the article started out making some perfectly fine points. If Wick is interested in playing or designing a game where genre physics matter the most and telling a good story is the result he is after, then sure, worrying less about balance and more about stuff like making sure Riddick smashes skulls with cups, is feasible way to go. He knows what he likes and how he wants to achieve it. That is all good. Where it goes off the rails for me is he then leaps to basically saying that is how all RPGs should be designed and takes it even further by claiming any that don't are not actual RPGs. This takes him to the outrageous conclusions that D&amp;D itself isn't an RPG. I think part of the problem is how he defines roleplaying (where is he is too focused on what is unique to roleplaying games rather than just attempting to describe what RPG means to most people in the hobby itself). Any definition of RPG that excludes D&amp;D is kind of strange because I suppose it means that RPGs were not invented until well after the hobby began. I feel like he starts with a statement that people intuitively will agree with &quot;chess is not an RPG&quot; to get to a conclusion people will intuitively disagree with. Part of the problem may be his line of reasoning where he talks about how no matter what you add to chess, it still remains a board game. I think at a certain point though, if enough people were using chess to RP and it developed in the same way D&amp;D did, then, in an alternative historical timeline, you could see chess BECOMING an RPG in the same way that D&amp;D BECAME an RPG out of its wargaming roots. By the time D&amp;D comes along, it and its enthusiasts are clearly doing something much different than war games.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6403146, member: 85555"] I thought the article started out making some perfectly fine points. If Wick is interested in playing or designing a game where genre physics matter the most and telling a good story is the result he is after, then sure, worrying less about balance and more about stuff like making sure Riddick smashes skulls with cups, is feasible way to go. He knows what he likes and how he wants to achieve it. That is all good. Where it goes off the rails for me is he then leaps to basically saying that is how all RPGs should be designed and takes it even further by claiming any that don't are not actual RPGs. This takes him to the outrageous conclusions that D&D itself isn't an RPG. I think part of the problem is how he defines roleplaying (where is he is too focused on what is unique to roleplaying games rather than just attempting to describe what RPG means to most people in the hobby itself). Any definition of RPG that excludes D&D is kind of strange because I suppose it means that RPGs were not invented until well after the hobby began. I feel like he starts with a statement that people intuitively will agree with "chess is not an RPG" to get to a conclusion people will intuitively disagree with. Part of the problem may be his line of reasoning where he talks about how no matter what you add to chess, it still remains a board game. I think at a certain point though, if enough people were using chess to RP and it developed in the same way D&D did, then, in an alternative historical timeline, you could see chess BECOMING an RPG in the same way that D&D BECAME an RPG out of its wargaming roots. By the time D&D comes along, it and its enthusiasts are clearly doing something much different than war games. [/QUOTE]

Verification