Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 20:33:38 GMT -8
saelorn, do you have anything USEFUL to add to the discussion? I guess that depends on what you think the discussion is actually about, and what you already know about that topic. Concerning the merit of critiquing systems, I've said my piece. I obviously think that there's great value to be had by arguing the strengths and weaknesses of various systems. Concerning d20 in particular, I think that has been fairly well covered by this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 23:08:09 GMT -8
saelorn, do you have anything USEFUL to add to the discussion? I guess that depends on what you think the discussion is actually about, and what you already know about that topic. Concerning the merit of critiquing systems, I've said my piece. I obviously think that there's great value to be had by arguing the strengths and weaknesses of various systems. Concerning d20 in particular, I think that has been fairly well covered by this point. But what about the probability of the D20 as a die vs systems with bell curves!? I HAVE CHARTS! *Goes running off for promotional materials.*
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 30, 2015 6:11:03 GMT -8
It's only in trying to compare games with vastly different objectives or playstyles where criticism breaks down and becomes meaningless. I know, right? I do think that there is a difference between critique and trashing. One can lead to some constructive discussion and the other one gets everyone's hackles up and you're just going to have a tussle. It is often difficult to have a critique discussion, even with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the more similar the objective or playstyle, the more susceptible the discussion is to drift (or jump) to trashing. Take D&D 3.5 => D&D 4th ed as an example. I also believe that games that some may call 'objectively bad' can be played and enjoyed. Like Candyland, it's not a good game. Pure luck, no skill, but it is presented well, and I liked the people I was playing with, so it was fun. Would a different game have been better? No, at the time those I was playing with were not ready for a different kind of game. So we played Candyland. On a totally unrelated note, I eagerly await the Savage Worlds version of RIFTS! (currently undergoing playtesting! Not by me, unfortunately.)
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Oct 30, 2015 6:16:08 GMT -8
shadrack Candy Land isn't really a game. There is no gameplay and the winner is determined via order of the deck of cards at the start of the game.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 30, 2015 6:19:15 GMT -8
eh, don't tell my kids that. Or rather, don't tell them that 6 years ago. We've moved on to better games.
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 30, 2015 6:21:06 GMT -8
But really, it was an extreme example. As a game example, some people really dislike Palladium, I have frequently heard it described as broken, but you can still have fun. It might be play it as a goof fun, but fun can be had.
MEGA DAMAGE!
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Oct 30, 2015 6:40:50 GMT -8
Games are art, and there's no accounting for taste, but art critics still manage to hold meaningful discussions and come to consensus about which pieces are superior to others and for which reasons... which, in turn, leads to the development of greater and greater refinement within a style. And certainly, and game developer is familiar with the process by which a game starts out very rough and is refined over the years into a "better" game. When it comes to criticism I'm not quite sure I agree that a role-playing ruleset is a work of art, by any standard definition. Is a pile of Legos art? Is a sandbox? Paintbrush and canvas? Is the framework you use the art or is it the final product? But putting that aside that for now, how does the criticism of a painting or a movie work? A painting can be discussed in terms of technical skill, adherence to a style, intent, emotional response. A movie, conversely is usually broken down into it's component parts: directing, acting, writing, effects, and so on. Both none of these elements being discussed have any inherent value. Value can be derived though comparison to similar works. There is nothing wrong with shot reverse shot but it's prevalence in the Star Wars prequels is an element that contributes to it's mediocrity. But we only know that because we can compare it to a movie like Children of Men, John Wick, or Chinatown. This raises the first complication. There isn't a very large sampling of RPGs out there to make meaningful comparisons to establish hierarchy. A lot of games are very similar to each other. Many share the same mechanics. Let's just look at dice mechanics. You have dice pool and roll vs target number. That's mostly it. For tracking health you have hit points and wounds. And these concepts are wildly different that result in wildly different play. Is Shadowrun's dicepool and wound system superior to Roll + Modifier vs target number and HP of Pathfinder? Is it worthwhile to compare GURPS Roll + Modifier vs Target Number to L5R's Roll vs Target Number? But more importantly is the difference in evaluating media that you actively consume vs what you passively consume. When you review a movie, you are reviewing the movie. It is concrete and it is complete. This isn't quite true when you review games. A review of a game is less about the game itself and more a review of the experience of playing the game. What the mechanics are is a less pertinent question than how the mechanics work. How they feel when you're using them. Surely we're not talking about roleplaying when we're critiquing system, right? I can accomplish the same story in Swords & Scrolls, D&D5e, Dungeon World, and those OSR games. Truth be told we don't even need a system to roleplay. So when were talking about quality of system we're specifically talking about how the mechanical rules of the system affect the gameplay. Whether the resolution mechanic is satisfying is so completely subjective, how can you possibly rank two games in comparison to each other objectively? Other than a game who's mechanics actively hinder play, what makes a game 'bad'? Mechanics color the way games are played. The strength and draw of PBTA for me is why so many people avoid playing it. It's arbitrary. But DW succeeds in being a narrative game just as well as D&D/Pathfinder succeeds at being a Dungeon Crawl Simulator. Which gets us back to the critique vs trashing point. What does "GURPS is a terrible system" accomplish other than alienating GURPS players, promoting the idea that there is a wrong and right way to have fun, and make oneself look like a elitist douchenozzle? Where as you could say "PBTA's mechanics lend themselves to promoting a more narrative cohesive and story driven game than D&D does" Other than White Wolf, which we have established is terrible and for nerds
|
|
|
Post by yojimbohawkins on Oct 30, 2015 7:40:30 GMT -8
Other than White Wolf, which we have established is terrible and for nerds I take exception on your assertion that White Wolf is for nerds. I'm a nerd and I have never even read a White Wolf book, let alone played in a White Wolf game, nor would I want to. Really, there is enough prejudice in the world without putting White Wolf onto nerds. I blame Anne Rice and her 'books' for White Wolf, Stephanie Meyer and fucking Twilight. Oh, and some of my best friends are nerds too.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 30, 2015 9:04:00 GMT -8
Other than White Wolf, which we have established is terrible and for nerds I take exception on your assertion that White Wolf is for nerds. I'm a nerd and I have never even read a White Wolf book, let alone played in a White Wolf game, nor would I want to. Really, there is enough prejudice in the world without putting White Wolf onto nerds. I blame Anne Rice and her 'books' for White Wolf, Stephanie Meyer and fucking Twilight. Oh, and some of my best friends are nerds too. Yeah it's more for emo's and wanna be goths dressed in black writing 6th form level poetry about their existential angst . . . 'Woe betide me, I am awash in sea of pointlessness. All I see before me is the great nothing that is my life. Meaningless. Empty. A void . . . Now pass me those d10's I wanna suck out his soul . . . " Aaron
|
|
|
Post by weaselcreature on Oct 30, 2015 9:17:52 GMT -8
I take exception on your assertion that White Wolf is for nerds. I'm a nerd and I have never even read a White Wolf book, let alone played in a White Wolf game, nor would I want to. Really, there is enough prejudice in the world without putting White Wolf onto nerds. I blame Anne Rice and her 'books' for White Wolf, Stephanie Meyer and fucking Twilight. Oh, and some of my best friends are nerds too. Yeah it's more for emo's and wanna be goths dressed in black writing 6th form level poetry about their existential angst . . . 'Woe betide me, I am awash in sea of pointlessness. All I see before me is the great nothing that is my life. Meaningless. Empty. A void . . . Now pass me those d10's I wanna suck out his soul . . . " Aaron I thought that was vampire LARPers.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 30, 2015 9:56:47 GMT -8
Yeah it's more for emo's and wanna be goths dressed in black writing 6th form level poetry about their existential angst . . . 'Woe betide me, I am awash in sea of pointlessness. All I see before me is the great nothing that is my life. Meaningless. Empty. A void . . . Now pass me those d10's I wanna suck out his soul . . . " Aaron I thought that was vampire LARPers. Only a very slim line between Whitewolf RPG and Whitewolf LARP Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Oct 30, 2015 10:11:43 GMT -8
Only a very slim line between Whitewolf RPG and Whitewolf LARP You go too far, sir.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Oct 30, 2015 10:37:30 GMT -8
Now is it because of the flavor you people have this whole Hyvemynd level hatred of White Wolf?
I really like the mechanics of nWoD, especially for a Lovecraft game...
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
HJRP 15-17
Oct 30, 2015 10:51:44 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by fredrix on Oct 30, 2015 10:51:44 GMT -8
Only a very slim line between Whitewolf RPG and Whitewolf LARP You go too far, sir. He speaks nothing other than the truth, sir. If you wish to make it a point of honour, I'll stand as his second.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 11:01:13 GMT -8
Surely we're not talking about roleplaying when we're critiquing system, right? I can accomplish the same story in Swords & Scrolls, D&D5e, Dungeon World, and those OSR games. Truth be told we don't even need a system to roleplay. So when were talking about quality of system we're specifically talking about how the mechanical rules of the system affect the gameplay. Whether the resolution mechanic is satisfying is so completely subjective, how can you possibly rank two games in comparison to each other objectively? Other than a game who's mechanics actively hinder play, what makes a game 'bad'? As they've said on the System Mastery podcast, the measure of an RPG system is in how well the rules allow you to tell the story that you could tell without the rules. You don't need rules to roleplay, but we want rules for their structure and balance, and to lend weight to the characters and their story. I would disagree with your statement, and posit that you cannot accomplish the same story in both D&D5 and an OSR clone, because the rules shape how the events of the story unfold. You can't tell a story that involves a peasant hero trading blows with a skeleton if one or the other collapses after the first hit. You wouldn't even get that far, if you were playing a horror game and the mere sight of an undead creature causes the peasant to flee or go insane. It's a very different story, and a very different tone of the story. As many have noted, it can be difficult to pursue a character-centric story in early editions of D&D, because characters tend to die suddenly in dramatically-unsatisfying ways. It's a valid criticism, from that perspective, so we might suggest a later edition of the game or a different game in order to better serve the desired playstyle. Other people might prefer a style where anyone can die suddenly, and would prefer an earlier edition over a later one; but maybe they also have strong feelings about what sorts of magic "makes sense" to them, so we could suggest a different game based on those preferences. If you want to objectively measure the quality of a game, then the fair metric is in how well it accomplishes its intended goal. Even setting aside games that are completely unplayable due to rule complexity or contradiction, some games just don't work well for the style they're supposed to support. Sticking with D&D for now, old editions didn't really support their concept of the mighty warrior who slays all the monsters and saves the princess (due to the aforementioned dying-at-any-time rules), but the game still worked pretty well as a resource-management dungeon-crawling murder-hobo simulator. Going for something a little more obscure, Don't Look Back: Terror Is Never Far Behind is supposed to be for telling horror movie stories, but the rules just don't support anything like that; it's bad, because it's bad at doing what it's trying to do (even though some people still might enjoy it).
|
|