Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 5535308" data-attributes="member: 205">Well, I do know who Bill Laimbeer, so I'm not texting this during recess either. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Having a problem with the system isn't a binary proposition, though.&nbsp; For example, I don't play Vampire because I have no interest in role-playing a Vampire.&nbsp; That's obviously not a problem with the system.&nbsp; Maybe there's a group of Vampires in the game, though, that are a lot stronger, objectively, than all the other groups.&nbsp; Like Superman to Aquaman levels of difference in capability.&nbsp; Perhaps this is due to a design decision that made them stronger, even though the game's fluff says that this group of Vampires isn't very strong.&nbsp; I would view that as a big problem with the system, because design intent doesn't match the design result.But, maybe this Vampire game says explicitly that this group of Vampires is supposed to be stronger.&nbsp; Maybe they have other rules or narrative situations that give other Vampires a chance to shine(sparkle?).&nbsp; That's not a problem with the system, then.&nbsp; Maybe they don't have rules to control this powerful group, but still have stated their expectation upfront.&nbsp; I feel better about the game because intent matches results.Now that's for a game I don't like.&nbsp; For a game I do like (say, D&amp;D), I'll argue about whether intent matches results (which I don't think it does for 3e), and I'll argue about whether I believe the intent was a correct decision to make (some assumptions of 3e I disagree with, like spotlight balance and low-level suck/high-level rule is OK).&nbsp; And I keep arguing because we're all a part of a community, and I want to make my voice heard just like everyone else.&nbsp; I don't need anyone to change, but I want as many pro-balance voices expressing themselves as possible.&quot;Good enough&quot; != &quot;good&quot;.&nbsp; That's why people started houseruling in the first place.&nbsp; Hell, if wargames had been &quot;good enough&quot;, would RPGs even have started?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 5535308, member: 205"] Well, I do know who Bill Laimbeer, so I'm not texting this during recess either. :) Having a problem with the system isn't a binary proposition, though. For example, I don't play Vampire because I have no interest in role-playing a Vampire. That's obviously not a problem with the system. Maybe there's a group of Vampires in the game, though, that are a lot stronger, objectively, than all the other groups. Like Superman to Aquaman levels of difference in capability. Perhaps this is due to a design decision that made them stronger, even though the game's fluff says that this group of Vampires isn't very strong. I would view that as a big problem with the system, because design [I]intent[/I] doesn't match the design [I]result[/I]. But, maybe this Vampire game says explicitly that this group of Vampires is supposed to be stronger. Maybe they have other rules or narrative situations that give other Vampires a chance to shine(sparkle?). That's not a problem with the system, then. Maybe they don't have rules to control this powerful group, but still have stated their expectation upfront. I feel better about the game because intent matches results. Now that's for a game I don't like. For a game I do like (say, D&D), I'll argue about whether intent matches results (which I don't think it does for 3e), and I'll argue about whether I believe the intent was a correct decision to make (some assumptions of 3e I disagree with, like spotlight balance and low-level suck/high-level rule is OK). And I keep arguing because we're all a part of a community, and I want to make my voice heard just like everyone else. I don't need anyone to change, but I want as many pro-balance voices expressing themselves as possible. "Good enough" != "good". That's why people started houseruling in the first place. Hell, if wargames had been "good enough", would RPGs even have started? [/QUOTE]

Verification