Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 6405715" data-attributes="member: 9053">This is a pretty interesting article, and John Wick continues to be pretty controversial. I think that's actually what he does best. I completely disagree with just about everything he writes.John starts off with a pretty workmanlike definition for role-playing games:And he then proceeds to ignore the game aspect of the definition for the rest of the article. A lot of newer &quot;story-games&quot; try to do this as much as possible, and I enjoy them, but they aren't the only games that represent what an RPG is.He also says that D&amp;D isn't a role-playing game. I have read John's commentary for a long time, and so I know he does not like D&amp;D, so this isn't really surprising. I'll say that If your definition of a thing is such that the most widely accepted example of that thing does not qualify, the problem is with your definition, not the thing or the example.He writes a lot about how balancing rules are simply not necessary and good parts to tell a story, and to that I'd simply say that it depends on the kinds of stories you want to tell.I am a big fan of Larry Correia and Jim Butcher. Both make excellent &quot;Urban Fantasy&quot; novels, and both have RPGs about them. The two different games are very different in terms of what the consider important and how balance factors into them. Both are RPGs! I think the hobby works best when it's a big tent that has lots of different games in it.So yeah, disagree with John pretty strongly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 6405715, member: 9053"] This is a pretty interesting article, and John Wick continues to be pretty controversial. I think that's actually what he does best. I completely disagree with just about everything he writes. John starts off with a pretty workmanlike definition for role-playing games: And he then proceeds to ignore the game aspect of the definition for the rest of the article. A lot of newer "story-games" try to do this as much as possible, and I enjoy them, but they aren't the only games that represent what an RPG is. He also says that D&D isn't a role-playing game. I have read John's commentary for a long time, and so I know he does not like D&D, so this isn't really surprising. I'll say that If your definition of a thing is such that the most widely accepted example of that thing does not qualify, the problem is with your definition, not the thing or the example. He writes a lot about how balancing rules are simply not necessary and good parts to tell a story, and to that I'd simply say that it depends on the kinds of stories you want to tell. I am a big fan of Larry Correia and Jim Butcher. Both make excellent "Urban Fantasy" novels, and both have RPGs about them. The two different games are very different in terms of what the consider important and how balance factors into them. Both are RPGs! I think the hobby works best when it's a big tent that has lots of different games in it. So yeah, disagree with John pretty strongly. [/QUOTE]

Verification