Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6346087" data-attributes="member: 177">The example was extreme to be more demonstrative, to avoid the inevitable, &quot;Well, *really* shortswords *are* as dangerous as longswords,&quot; branch of discussion.The point is very simple.&nbsp; In the real world, weapons are not all of the same effectiveness, and the differences are not always minor, and some folks like that reflected in their games.&nbsp; This implies that there will exist strategies that aren't as effective.&nbsp; F'rex, something not absurd:&nbsp; Swords are categorically more damaging than knives.&nbsp; But, if you have knives in your game, someone may like the idea of a knife fighter.&nbsp;&nbsp; This does not put an onus on the game to make knife-fighter as effective in combat as sword-fighter.You would have us wipe out such differences.&nbsp; I'm arguing that while having some games built that way is fine, there isn't call for it broadly, in *every* game.No, you're the one saying what others should or should not have in their games.&nbsp; That's the thing I don't accept.Upthread you were being prescriptive (and I quote), &quot;The core rulebook of whatever your game is should intentionally be designed such that no strategy seems inherently superior to any other...&quot;If you prefer to play by flexible rules, by all means, do so!&nbsp; But stop telling us what *all* games, should be, please, because not everyone is you.&nbsp; Ah, but you see, you no very little about my &quot;way&quot;.&nbsp; Please stopy trying to infer that just because I argue that somethign should be allowed to exist that it is &quot;my way&quot;.In practice, I am not of a single way - I am a broad-spectrum gamer.&nbsp; I find things to like in most games - D&amp;D and Shadowrun (which generally allow players to shoot themselves in the foot) and FATE-based games (which are far more forgiving of less-than-optimal choices), are both frequently seen at my table.I am making an argument for inclusion (games should be made in various forms for various tastes), while you are making arguments for exclusion (only your sort of game should exist).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6346087, member: 177"] The example was extreme to be more demonstrative, to avoid the inevitable, "Well, *really* shortswords *are* as dangerous as longswords," branch of discussion. The point is very simple. In the real world, weapons are not all of the same effectiveness, and the differences are not always minor, and some folks like that reflected in their games. This implies that there will exist strategies that aren't as effective. F'rex, something not absurd: Swords are categorically more damaging than knives. But, if you have knives in your game, someone may like the idea of a knife fighter. This does not put an onus on the game to make knife-fighter as effective in combat as sword-fighter. You would have us wipe out such differences. I'm arguing that while having some games built that way is fine, there isn't call for it broadly, in *every* game. No, you're the one saying what others should or should not have in their games. That's the thing I don't accept. Upthread you were being prescriptive (and I quote), "[I]The core rulebook of whatever your game is should intentionally be designed such that no strategy seems inherently superior to any other...[/I]" If you prefer to play by flexible rules, by all means, do so! But stop telling us what *all* games, should be, please, because not everyone is you. Ah, but you see, you no very little about my "way". Please stopy trying to infer that just because I argue that somethign should be allowed to exist that it is "my way". In practice, I am not of a single way - I am a broad-spectrum gamer. I find things to like in most games - D&D and Shadowrun (which generally allow players to shoot themselves in the foot) and FATE-based games (which are far more forgiving of less-than-optimal choices), are both frequently seen at my table. I am making an argument for inclusion (games should be made in various forms for various tastes), while you are making arguments for exclusion (only your sort of game should exist). [/QUOTE]

Verification