Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9216155" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As compactly as possible: I expect to game via roleplay, and to roleplay via game.Unpacking that: I want, by design, a good roleplaying experience AND a good gaming experience, inseparably. If I wanted RP only, I could just do that, systemless, and did for years (though these days, I usually write instead.) If I want just gaming...I have hundreds of PC games I could play, skipping all the complexity of finidng, joining, and playing in a group.Since neither GMs nor other players are indispensible for TTRPGs, the key benefit they provide, IMO, is that they're both things simultaneously: both roleplaying and game. Thus, they should reinforce each other. Neither one should ever be seen as an annoying hurdle to get to the other. We should play wanting roleplay AND gameplay--because there are much, much better tools if you only want one side of that.That's why I have high standards for game design. It's why I gush about 13A's clever design, and why I run Dungeon World instead of something else. IMO, anyone can (with time/effort) write a good, even great setting. (Many, many DMs already do.) But designing a good RPG system? That's incredibly hard. Just a good asymmetrically-balanced system is quite hard, let alone one that truly integrates roleplay.And when you truly get it right? It is beautiful. Because in that limit--when genuinely good asymmetrical balance is achieved--then there is no difference between "optimization" and "roleplay." Because the sincere optimizer can no longer rely on calculation to guide their choices; the conclusions are inconclusive if all you do is compare quantitative things. You must instead make qualitative choices. You must choose what you value more, not merely what you calculate as highest. When you do that, then to roleplay IS to game, and to game IS to roleplay--the two truly become, not simply inseparable distinct things, but one singular act. No longer a crude weld, nor even a smooth join, they have become truly alloyed together as one single substance.This is why I am so opposed to unbalanced games. Unbalanced games can generally be solved. They have clear, degenerate solutions which should always be preferred so long as they're available, and one should always put one's full effort into making them available if they aren't. Unbalanced games provide perverse incentives which either push players away from actually roleplaying, or punish them for choosing to roleplay, and they usually even punish engaging with the parts of the game that are meant to be entertaining or interesting to play through.It's also why I'm opposed to trivial games. Trivial games are also solvable, and rarely interesting. It doesn't take long for even a relatively young child, say 6-8, to realize that Tic-Tac-Toe/Noughts-and-Crosses is a pretty boring game, because it is fairly trivial. Perfect play is easily achieved, and results in a draw every single time. Games that are enjoyable for gameplay offer depth, which is incompatible with being trivial, but also incompatible with being unbalanced.Everything else--story, drama, satisfying progression, etc.--is a downstream concern. That doesn't mean they aren't concerns. They are. But unless and until you have ensured that your game is neither unbalanced nor trivial, those concerns cannot be properly addressed. I do have many other things I care about as part of what I consider engaging gameplay or engaging roleplay. But it is critical that the game be well-made as both a roleplay experience AND a gameplay experience.</blockquote>

Verification