Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6418385" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, again, we're back to duelling anecdotes.&nbsp; &quot;Many player&quot;, &quot;many tables&quot;, &quot;lots of people&quot;, who knows how many these actually are?&nbsp; Is the Charops board at the WOTC site indicative of how the mainstream player plays D&amp;D?&nbsp; I don't know and neither do you.&nbsp; Voices of what fans?&nbsp; Fans who post on websites like En World?&nbsp; Good grief, we've seen poll after poll where the average age of respondents on EN World is about a decade or two older than the average D&amp;D player.&nbsp; I mean, the average age of a Paizo Dragon reader was about 22 - at least according to their own magazine poll done a few years back.&nbsp; The average age here is darn near 40.&nbsp; &nbsp;So, what's the truth here?&nbsp; Are gnomes a beloved element of D&amp;D, or a minor element that got blown out of proportion?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; And, again, neither do you.As far as what the point of categorisation is, well, it provides tools in order to assess issues with a game.&nbsp; @Profislaes talks about Vampire, and I'm assuming OWoD here.&nbsp; Now, was original Vampire a story game or a traditional RPG?&nbsp; It billed itself as more of a story game, but, mechanically, it was pretty much stock standard trad RPG.&nbsp; And, IMO, therein lie the problems with the system.&nbsp; As a trad game, it lacked the rigourous math that trad RPG's need.&nbsp; It was ludicrously easy to break VtM during chargen.&nbsp; You almost had to actively try to not break the system, it was so easy to break.&nbsp; But, as a story game, it lacked all the elements that story games need - the devolution of power and authority over the game from the DM (or Storyteller in this case) to the players.&nbsp; It was too much of a traditional game to really work very well as a story game.So, you wound up with a game that looked like an R rated Supers game.&nbsp; It was Watchmen with fangs.&nbsp; Not that that is a bad thing, but, it wasn't the goal that was being set out.Having the categorisation and analytical tools that categorisation brings to the table means that you can look at a game and judge it's flaws and good bits much better than if you treat each game as a unique item with no relationship to other games.&nbsp; Further blurring the lines by adding in &quot;well, this is how someone plays&quot; just makes it that much harder to have a discussion about the game.&nbsp; &quot;Well, in my game, PC's only gain levels every fifteen sessions, so, this game levels up really slowly&quot;, is not a useful bit of data to anyone other than a player at your table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6418385, member: 22779"] But, again, we're back to duelling anecdotes. "Many player", "many tables", "lots of people", who knows how many these actually are? Is the Charops board at the WOTC site indicative of how the mainstream player plays D&D? I don't know and neither do you. Voices of what fans? Fans who post on websites like En World? Good grief, we've seen poll after poll where the average age of respondents on EN World is about a decade or two older than the average D&D player. I mean, the average age of a Paizo Dragon reader was about 22 - at least according to their own magazine poll done a few years back. The average age here is darn near 40. So, what's the truth here? Are gnomes a beloved element of D&D, or a minor element that got blown out of proportion? I don't know. And, again, neither do you. As far as what the point of categorisation is, well, it provides tools in order to assess issues with a game. @Profislaes talks about Vampire, and I'm assuming OWoD here. Now, was original Vampire a story game or a traditional RPG? It billed itself as more of a story game, but, mechanically, it was pretty much stock standard trad RPG. And, IMO, therein lie the problems with the system. As a trad game, it lacked the rigourous math that trad RPG's need. It was ludicrously easy to break VtM during chargen. You almost had to actively try to not break the system, it was so easy to break. But, as a story game, it lacked all the elements that story games need - the devolution of power and authority over the game from the DM (or Storyteller in this case) to the players. It was too much of a traditional game to really work very well as a story game. So, you wound up with a game that looked like an R rated Supers game. It was Watchmen with fangs. Not that that is a bad thing, but, it wasn't the goal that was being set out. Having the categorisation and analytical tools that categorisation brings to the table means that you can look at a game and judge it's flaws and good bits much better than if you treat each game as a unique item with no relationship to other games. Further blurring the lines by adding in "well, this is how someone plays" just makes it that much harder to have a discussion about the game. "Well, in my game, PC's only gain levels every fifteen sessions, so, this game levels up really slowly", is not a useful bit of data to anyone other than a player at your table. [/QUOTE]

Verification