True, but some cars provide a better driving experience. Additionally, you can't drive every car the same way. Driving a high-peformance supercar is hard as balls, but if you can manage it, nothing else will compare.
You're correct, but I didn't feel like making a long, complex analogy for it. But yes, some systems are harder or easier than others, or better for one purpose than another.
What is the purpose of an RPG?
To provide a basic framework for collaborative storytelling, and take a large amount of difficulty out of the experience - For example, Scott, You're playing a modern setting RPG, with guns being the predominant weapons. You've little-to-none experience or knowledge about bullets hitting flesh, the affects of armour, so on, so fourth - how is your group going to agree on the effects of your weapons? Is a .22 gonna make a guy's head explode, or can your frail little wizard take a .50 from a ma deuce to the chest and keep on trucking? So, your RPG is essentially giving you a table of numbers and figures that means you don't have to know shit about guns, or their effects, because you have an abstract set of numbers to tell you - They might as well be called zeedonks or blorts, but in this case, they're guns, and that's fair enough. It's a framework to make your collaborative storytelling easier to do, at the most base level. You can do without it, if you want, but you can use it to assist you, and it's not to your detriment.
If you want to make a hole in some leather, Burning Wheel is perfect. D&D; and GURPS completely suck. Your argument is the equivalent of saying "A hammer does a great job of putting a small hole in leather if I also bring my own awl with me and use that."
Or, I can use a small holepunch and a hammer, make neater, more consistent holes, and stitch it together with some 550 cord. Or, you can use a nail, or an industrial sewing machine. It doesn't really matter, if you do a good job in the end anyway. It's only a poor workman who blames their tools for the quality of the work.
Yup. It tell one type of story. You might as well read a book.
One type of story, not one story.
QFT! If you think books, films or other ways of telling stories you see that there is lots of different stories that share same premise ever seen anything with plot of "Village with problems, stranger(s) comes to town and help the villagers"? Now tell me what genre is that story in? Western? Samurai? Post-Apocalyptic future?
Every role playing game has a premise build in them all of the games just don't tell it to your face. Also some premises are vague and leave lots of room to players like Burning Wheels It's story about people who fight for what they believe in. Some games have more tight premise like Mountain Witch "Group of Ronin are on their way on top of mount Fuji to face the witch, each carrying dark secret with them." Still I'm sure that both games produce different story every time they are played. (I haven't personally played Mountain Witch, but I believe what I'm told.) And to add something non-indie in here Feng Shui is game where characters all kick ass and fight against different evil factions in different times.
Also if you believe that story should come from the GM, you should tell him to go and write a book.
It's only a poor workman who blames their tools for the quality of the work.
No, this not always the case. Sometimes, it's a problem with the tools. The poor workman is the one who won't take the time to figure out why their work sucks.
Sometimes, you need a different tool. That's all that's being advocated here. Sure, changing the way you play a game may fix some of your problems, but if you want something that the game is not designed to provide, it might be best to find a different game. Neither Rym nor Scott have said anything really different than that.
EDIT: Part of the problem is that geeks are stubborn and like to fiddle with things. If your D&D; game isn't working, clearly there must something that you can fix by fiddling with bits. You need to be able to recognize when it's more worthwhile to just get the thing that works rather than hack the thing that's not designed for your intent.
No, this not always the case. Sometimes, it's a problem with the tools. The poor workman is the one who won't take the time to figure out why their work sucks.
Well, I did think it didn't need to be said, but a good workman would also chose the right tool for the job, or know how to use a tool in a different fashion to achieve an optimal result. For example, rather than using a racheting spanner and doing a certain number of turns laid out in the manual, using a variable torque air wrench set to the correct torque to bolt your tappet cover back on.
Sometimes, you need a different tool. That's all that's being advocated here. Sure, changing the way you play a game may fix some of your problems, but if you want something that the game is not designed to provide, it might be best to find a different game. Neither Rym nor Scott have said anything really different than that.
And sometimes, you just need to modify a bit. If your awl isn't punching through the leather, you could sharpen your awl, or give it a few gentle taps with a hammer. It depends on the size of the problem - for example, if your electric drill is broken, you can use a hand drill. Your hammer is broken, you can use a lump of steel as a makeshift hammer. But if your screwdriver is broken, you can't use a oil filter wrench to do the job.
EDIT: Part of the problem is that geeks are stubborn and like to fiddle with things. If your D&D; game isn't working, clearly there must something that you can fix by fiddling with bits. You need to be able to recognize when it's more worthwhile to just get the thing that works rather than hack the thing that's not designed for your intent.
True that. An essential skill when fixing things is to know when to fiddle and try to fix, and when to abandon it for something else.
Your hammer is broken, you can use a lump of steel as a makeshift hammer.
This is more the thing we're driving at. You can certainly use a makeshift hammer if you haven't got a hammer and need one, but it'll only get you so far. Sometimes, jury-rigging something hurts more than it helps, and no matter what, it's not a permanent fix. Your block of metal may wind up destroying the nail. If your hammer is broken, it's better to get a new hammer.
In a way, I think that 4th edition is the best version of D&D; ever released. The game finally stopped pretending to be something that it isn't, and instead focuses on crunchy dungeon-crawling combat with wisps of roleplaying added in. It's streamlined and regulated to the point that it resembles a video game.
WotC realized that D&D; can't do everything, and they stopped making it try to. Gamers need to take a cue from that, and stop using games for things they're not supposed to do. I've talked to many people and helped them fix their games. More often than not, that game is D&D;, and they're doing too much with it and trying to extract from it things it was never supposed to deliver. You can tack something on top of that, or you can find a different game. More often than not, the best solution is to find a different game, because your jury-rigged fix is less reliable than a polished system.
I love it when an analogy becomes the new argument.
Me to, it's kinda fun. Some of the best arguments around here have occurred when someone used a weird analogy that didn't make sense upon examination.
EDIT: Part of the problem is that geeks are stubborn and like to fiddle with things. If your D&D; game isn't working, clearly there must something that you can fix by fiddling with bits. You need to be able to recognize when it's more worthwhile to just get the thing that works rather than hack the thing that's not designed for your intent.
I thought of something further a few minutes ago - Another problem is that a lot of the time, these things are far more complex than a simple, easy "Object X is better than Object Z, because of property A." You can reduce it down to a "This is better than that" argument, but then it's pointless, because you've distilled it down to the point of near-uselessness, which is somewhat of a problem for some people - They need a solid "This is better than this, because this is a 4, and this is a 6", an absolute rating system, when in reality, a system like that is nearly impossible to apply and in most cases even if you do shoehorn it in, nearly useless.
This is more the thing we're driving at. You can certainly use a makeshift hammer if you haven't got a hammer and need one, but it'll only get you so far. Sometimes, jury-rigging something hurts more than it helps, and no matter what, it's not a permanent fix. Your block of metal may wind up destroying the nail. If your hammer is broken, it's better to get a new hammer.
True, it's all situational. If you're pounding one nail, once, why get a new hammer? If you're building a large wooden construction, and you're hammering a lot of nails with your caveman jury-rig hammer, why not just buy a new hammer, and make life easier? As with many things, what you do in a situation should be governed by the situation.
In a way, I think that 4th edition is the best version of D&D; ever released. The game finally stopped pretending to be something that it isn't, and instead focuses on crunchy dungeon-crawling combat with wisps of roleplaying added in. It's streamlined and regulated to the point that it resembles a video game.
Yep. If the players want to roleplay more, it's up to them - they're adding something on that isn't particularly outlined in the game(but is quite compatable), which is essentially "Here is a bunch of numbers in tables that tell you things, get to it." There are ways of encouraging both more and good roleplay - for example, one group I know, house of the falling star, uses these really awesome metal coins, and if you roleplay particularly well, then you get a token, and you can use it for a re-roll, and players also meta-game with them when allowed, helping each other out by donating tokens to let other characters re-roll for the benefit of the party. However - those are house rules, and are not part of the system.
I think part of it was also realising that they can't tell people how to roleplay, only that they can. However, I find it strange that you seem to be with Rym and Scott in assuming that D&D; is like playing craps with fancier die and character sheets. I repeat a point from before - you can have as much roleplaying in D&D; as you want, from none to almost completely, and if you're failing at this, that's not the game's fault, it's yours. Oddly enough, you also seem to assume along with Rym and Scott that Combat and Roleplay are mutually exclusive - When in reality, being able to roleplay within combat can make or break a good roleplaying session. Yeah, you're smart and know all the rules, but the semi-braindead brawler you're playing, why is it that as soon as you go into combat, they suddenly become savants at exactly what they should do, where they should move, when, and how to strike?
Sure, you might know that the creature in front of you is a few hitpoints away from death, and you should keep hitting it, but some enemy just hit you in the back for a surprise attack. You know you should stay with the near-death creature, hammer it, and then turn around next turn, but your half-orc barbarian wouldn't know that, and would most likely spin around, roar, and go for the full-health creature that just attacked it. Tactically sub-optimal, but it's good roleplaying.
I thought of something further a few minutes ago - Another problem is that a lot of the time, these things are far more complex than a simple, easy "Object X is better than Object Z, because of property A."
Well, not really. The statement "D&D; is a bad game" is somewhat broad and useless, but that's just a summary of a much longer argument. D&D; is bad at the things to which people try to apply it, and that's why you run into problems in your games. D&D; is bad at personal character drama because it doesn't provide any support for it. Burning Wheel is awesome at personal character drama because that is the foundation of the game.
In order to figure out what someone needs to do in order to fix a given game, you have to figure out what that person wants from the game, and figure out if the game they're using is capable of delivering that. Once you frame the discussion properly, then yes, you can easily say "Game X is better at Property A than Game Y."
The question "Which RPG is better" is certainly a complex one, but it is not irreducibly complex.
The question "Which RPG is better" is certainly a complex one, but it is not irreducibly complex.
Certainly not, but it is also not simplicity embodied, either.
The statement "D&D; is a bad game" is somewhat broad and useless, but that's just a summary of a much longer argument.
That's true, and frankly, considering the arguments I've seen from those who say that, Burning Wheel is a bad game, too. Frankly, it's better to either use the longer argument, or keep one's mouth shut, because "D&D; is a bad game" is a useless statement on it's own, no matter if your argument is a finely crafted masterpiece of debate and a sharp critical examination of roleplaying games with a D&D; focus, Or if your argument is an Hour long Lecture which amounts to precisely an hour of hearing variations upon the phrase "D&D; is a bad game."
D&D; is bad at personal character drama because it doesn't provide any support for it. Burning Wheel is awesome at personal character drama because that is the foundation of the game.
Well, yeah, D&D; is bad at personal drama, and doesn't support it, IF you need to have your hand held to have a personal drama thread in your game.
For some, Burning wheel is terrible at personal drama, because what if you want to go beyond what burning wheel is offering in the way of personal drama? Example, you're playing a game where a character in your party is a magically created being, brought to life via some arcane and ancient magic, built for a purpose, and imbued with skills, but something broke halfway through and accidentally given a soul/mind of it's own, and as a newly formed being discovering the world, Has no lifepaths, no beliefs, and hardly any instincts other than natural instincts - literally a blank slate character.
That horrible noise you just heard was the sound of your Burning wheel game imploding, because you've tried to go and do something with the system that it doesn't want to do, despite that it's apparently a super roleplay focused system, and you're making a game that includes a heavy amount of "discovering one's self and building one's personality" type of roleplay.
You know what system that wouldn't happen to? D&D.; It doesn't hold your hand through the roleplaying part, it just kind points you in a vauge direction and says "yo, you want to swim, pool is over there." and with no limitations, you can have just that - a game heavy on roleplay, light on combat. But, you don't have the game holding your hand, and you need to have the chops to do it, but hey, if you need the game to hold your hand that much, why are you playing a pen and paper RPG in the first place? Go play a JRPG video game, and have it all laid out for you instead.
In order to figure out what someone needs to do in order to fix a given game, you have to figure out what that person wants from the game, and figure out if the game they're using is capable of delivering that. Once you frame the discussion properly, then yes, you can easily say "Game X is better at Property A than Game Y."
Unfortunately, you've not actually managed to figure out which RPG is better, when you've done that, only which is better for the particular players and situation. I'm speaking an objective, overall, and end-all statement of "X Is better than Y, because of property A", not "X is better than Y in situation one, because of property A, but inferior in situation two because of A being less important then than B." - the former being impossible, but many people think in terms of it, and the latter being the value judgement one should make every time one is selecting a system for a game, but not everyone does.
Example, you're playing a game where a character in your party is a magically created being, brought to life via some arcane and ancient magic, built for a purpose, and imbued with skills, but something broke halfway through and accidentally given a soul/mind of it's own, and as a newly formed being discovering the world, Has no lifepaths, no beliefs, and hardly any instincts other than natural instincts - literally a blank slate character.
Just a note, that is not an example of a character that would not work in Burning wheel.....
Just a note, that is not an example of a character that would not work in Burning wheel.....
Really? So, a character that lacks two things that are important to the game, Beliefs and instincts, are not really necessary? Then why are they there, and why does everyone say these things are important? A character with a single explanation for it's skills - programmed by it's in-game creation, and therefore no lifepaths for learning the skill - is not a problem? Then why have lifepaths? What if you have that magical character devoid of all the things that make a character in burning wheel, essentially, it's essentially a blank character sheet with a name written on it? I suppose that's not a problem either?
If you're going to say "Oh, here are all these things in the game, but you can throw them all away and that's not a problem" then you might as well not have it at all.
Really? So, a character that lacks two things that are important to the game, Beliefs and instincts, are not really necessary? Then why are they there, and why does everyone say these things are important? A character with a single explanation for it's skills - programmed by it's in-game creation, and therefore no lifepaths for learning the skill - is not a problem? Then why have lifepaths?
Ummmm.. the Belief's would be around defining yourself / finding meaning and the instincts would generally be automated or based on learning. A custom lifepath would probably be created to give you a few points to be able to place in traits and you would gain skills by learning or attemping everything untrained.
I actually think this is a great burning wheel character concept and I'm thinking about using it next time I make a character if it can be worked into the story ;-p
I actually think this is a great burning wheel character concept and I'm thinking about using it next time I make a character if it can be worked into the story ;-p
Go for it, tell me how it goes. I'm using a familiar example, I've used that character before, and it's interesting to see how it works out for you with a different system.
Ummmm.. the Belief's would be around defining yourself / finding meaning and the instincts would generally be automated or based on learning. A custom lifepath would probably be created to give you a few points to be able to place in traits and you would gain skills by learning or attemping everything untrained.
So, essentially, you're just making it up as you go along anyway, at which point they're not important, and thus, again, why are they there? If it's such a superior system that you don't need them, then they're cruft, nothing but time-wasting, or at best, hand-holding for weak roleplayers.
Also, I'll admit, I picked this example very deliberately, because it's a hard one - if done wrong, it can break the game, trivially.
That character is not at all broken. You write Beliefs and Instincts as the blank slate experiences the world, and Beliefs and Instincts can always change during play.
Your example is really really really far-fetched though, since Beliefs and Instincts are requirements for a Burning Wheel character.
You basically just said, "OK, so what if I want to make a D&D; character who doesn't have levels?" You can't do it.
Beliefs and Instincts are the player's statement of what they want in the game. If you put nothing on the sheet, then you don't want anything. A blank slate like that would have a belief like "This world is strange; I must learn all I can about it" or some such thing.
I can expound more on this later, but you are 110% incorrect about Burning Wheel in every possible way. It will take me too long to explain it right now, but I can talk about it later.
it's essentially a blank character sheet with a name written on it?
OK, this is just stupid. You're literally asking, "What if I don't play the game?" What happens if you do that in D&D;? You get the same result. This has gotten silly.
Example, you're playing a game where a character in your party is a magically created being, brought to life via some arcane and ancient magic, built for a purpose, and imbued with skills, but something broke halfway through and accidentally given a soul/mind of it's own, and as a newly formed being discovering the world, Has no lifepaths, no beliefs, and hardly any instincts other than natural instincts - literally a blank slate character.
That horrible noise you just heard was the sound of your Burning wheel game imploding, because you've tried to go and do something with the system that it doesn't want to do, despite that it's apparently a super roleplay focused system, and you're making a game that includes a heavy amount of "discovering one's self and building one's personality" type of roleplay.
So you are saying that if you break a game it breaks? Why haven't I thought that one before (green). I can promise you, that every game can be broken one way or another.
Also I hate when people start talking about "the" roleplaying. For most people it seems to be the thing you do when you are not throwing dice. I thing that everything in table that is not out of game talk or table chatter, is roleplaying. And if you (general you, not anymore addressed to just Churba) agree that roleplaying happens also in combat, my question is, why you use dice and rules to hinder your roleplaying in combat if they are not needed to roleplay anything else. Freeform is always an option if pure roleplaying is something you like, no need for D&D; or any other game.
Personally I like to use rules and I want to use them I like to leave room for chance and dice even in non-combat situations. I once played a session of D&D; 3.5 we spend some time creating the characters and in the end the whole multi paged character sheet felt useless because there was no fights or any use for the skills. I think we made few dice rolls, but I don't think that even those mattered. I wasn't exactly bad game, but I don't feel like I actually played D&D; it was freeform masked as D&D;.
OK, this is just stupid. You're literally asking, "What if I don't play the game?" What happens if you do that in D&D;? You get the same result. This has gotten silly.
Of course it's silly, but I'm simply pushing Cremlain's statement that a character without two of the things that are, according to you, requirements of a burning wheel character is still playable and doesn't break the system to it's logical conclusion.
I can expound more on this later, but you are 110% incorrect about Burning Wheel in every possible way. It will take me too long to explain it right now, but I can talk about it later.
I assume you mean except when I say that It's not a bad game, or when I say that it's not a perfect game, either. That aside, Go on, I'm interested. Tell me exactly how I'm wrong, so that I can correct my arguments for next time - learning is always worthwhile. Also, Kinda interested about how I am 110% wrong about burning wheel, since I've not made any statements proclaiming to be fact about the game(Prior to the Magic creation character example, I suppose), only opinion, conjecture, personal value judgements and vague insults that could apply to any number of games as well as Burning Wheel.
So you are saying that if you break a game it breaks? Why haven't I thought that one before (green). I can promise you, that every game can be broken one way or another.
That loud whoosh you just heard was the point zooming over your head at mach 2. The point was made that D&D; is bad for personal character drama because it doesn't support it, so I provided an example of personal character drama and development that doesn't fit well with burning wheel, but would fit with D&D; - since D&D; has differing requirements to Burning Wheel - to make the dual points of "D&D; is combat focused, but roleplay and combat are not mutually exclusive" (Since, Pete's statement that D&D; is combat with hints of roleplay is bollocks - You roleplay as much as you damn well like, it's a player decision, not something that needs to be outlined in the rules) and other point that Burning Wheel isn't the Be all and End all of Roleplaying.
(general you, not anymore addressed to just Churba)
Figured that, but I'll address your question anyway.
And if you (general you, not anymore addressed to just Churba) agree that roleplaying happens also in combat, my question is, why you use dice and rules to hinder your roleplaying in combat if they are not needed to roleplay anything else.
Because often, it provides structure to work from, limits arguments, and takes a lot of the boring grunt-work out of playing, and weirdly enough, providing some more realistic outcomes and results, because a game will rapidly get boring if you control all of the variables and results in a game. Furthermore, You're making a mistake, here, by thinking that rolling dice is mutually exclusive with roleplaying. For example, let's say your Fighter is in combat against a fighter of equal level, under the D20 system. You roll a dice. You miss the DC. He rolls a dice, and passes the DC. Roll out damage. Top of the round, rise, repeat. However, there's no roleplaying in that, is there? Actual combat in any dice system goes more like this - Explanation of action taken(Fighter takes a wide step towards badguy, swinging his low, trying to cut him in half), Roll for result(Failure), Player or GM describes the failure result(Badguy pulls back in a hurry from the powerful swing, the blow glancing off his armor, scratching it, but causing nothing more than cosmetic damage to the protective plate), Enemy action described(Reversing the momentum of his backwards lunge, badguy leaps towards Fighter, his longsword leading the charge as he tries to nestle it within the fighter's chest), Roll for result(sucess), Roll out damage(bad roll, minimum damage), Action result is described, (The sword punches through the fighter's strong plate armor, putting a deep gash into his chest, but thankfully the armor slowed the strike enough that it caused him only superficial injury.)
On top of that, you have tactics, weapon and armor selection(for example, if you're a Cleric, you may chose not to use edged weapons and instead use a club, if you're the cleric of a peaceable sort of god who doesn't allow his priests to shed blood - to borrow a guideline from the Christians of the crusades), and he might only use it in self defence, staying to the rear of the battle and focusing on healing, rather than actively attacking. A barbarian, rather than acting intelligently as the player would and using the player's knowledge, might simply attack whoever attacked him last in a battle rage, rather than being tactical or sensible.
I mean, of course D&D; isn't without it's problems - For example, you have the problem of that you only have four states in the rules - Fine, Bloodied but essentially fine, unconcious, and dead. A character who is at full health, compared to a character who is severely bloodied(except for certain situations and status effects) behaves exactly the same unless roleplayed otherwise. You're fine right up until you're unconcious, at which point you do nothing.
Personally I like to use rules and I want to use them I like to leave room for chance and dice even in non-combat situations. I once played a session of D&D; 3.5 we spend some time creating the characters and in the end the whole multi paged character sheet felt useless because there was no fights or any use for the skills. I think we made few dice rolls, but I don't think that even those mattered. I wasn't exactly bad game, but I don't feel like I actually played D&D; it was freeform masked as D&D.;
It happens, really, but for no-combat games, unless you do some playing about with the rules, as I've said previously, D&D; might not be ideal. It might apply to some games, depending on the type of no-combat you're going for - for example, it would work out alright for a sneaky, stealthy, pick-locks-and-steal-things game, since while you're not in combat, you're still using skills - but for an all talk no action game, with so few rules covering what you're doing, you are essentially going freeform, with a thin veneer of D&D; - If you want some rules to what you're doing, not the best choice of system, I would have gone - obviously - with a system where either it has a lot of wiggle room to make no-combat characters, yet still have challenges to one's skills - for example, Burning Wheel.
The type of story told is up to th GM. In other words, it's the GM telling the story, not the game. Any GM can tell any story, but we don't care about that. We care about what kind of story the game itself can tell.
Then as a GM I'm left doing what exactly? Acting as computer to the game's program? How is my function in the game any different than when someone uses D&D; as a dice-fueled Diablo clone? Where am I having fun with the players?
I approach pen-and-paper games from an artist's perspective. People tell stories using different media - literature, television, film, electronic gaming, what have you. The type of media you choose for any particular story has subtle effects on how the story is told --- interactive vs. noninteractive, serial vs. self-contained, etc. When I choose to GM a game, this means that I have chosen "pen-and-paper RPG" as the medium for my story. A system that by it's very nature already has it's own story to tell is not going to earn any brownie points with me. I'm looking for a quill and parchment, a camera and set to tell my own story with; the rules system of a pen-and-paper game acts as the equivalent set of tools for that medium. I don't care what story the camera itself wants to tell, because that's not what I bought it for.
In that context, I value systems that give me a lot to work with in setting the scene for the story without putting too many hard limits on how I can tell the story itself (other than those that are basic for the medium itself). GURPS works well for me in that regard. D&D;'s alignment systems are too constraining for my tastes, and the tool-set (rules system) is too optimized for high fantasy to be very useful outside that genre. Burning Wheel, if I'm understanding correctly, currently has some of the same genre tool-set problems as D&D;, and to read this debate, also has built-in mechanics that determine the flow of the story for me. In that case, however good it may be at it's function, it's functioning at odds with my initial goal.
Also, a nit-pick, but to be fair...
GURPs gives you a lot of tweaking room in terms of setting. Outer space? Ok. Ancient history? Ok. It doesn't give you a lot of tweaking room in terms of the kind of story you are going to tell. Suspense, intrigue, comedy, action, procedural, psychedelic, mystery, how many of these does it cover? It doesn't cover that many, since most of the rules are about fighting and such. It's basically the same as D&D.; They sell more books with more different settings, but all the books are the same game.
...that's not entirelytrue (to pick two off the top of my head).
The type of story told is up to th GM. In other words, it's the GM telling the story, not the game. Any GM can tell any story, but we don't care about that. We care about what kind of story the game itself can tell.
Then as a GM I'm left doing what exactly? Acting as computer to the game's program? How is my function in the game any different than when someone uses D&D; as a dice-fueledDiabloclone? Where amIhaving fun with the players?
I approach pen-and-paper games from an artist's perspective. People tell stories using different media - literature, television, film, electronic gaming, what have you. The type of media you choose for any particular story has subtle effects on how the story is told --- interactive vs. noninteractive, serial vs. self-contained, etc. When I choose to GM a game, this means that I have chosen "pen-and-paper RPG" as the medium for my story. A system that by it's very nature already has it's own story to tell is not going to earn any brownie points with me. I'm looking for a quill and parchment, a camera and set to tell my own story with; the rules system of a pen-and-paper game acts as the equivalent set of tools for that medium. I don't care what story the camera itself wants to tell, because that's not what I bought it for.
The problem I see here is that you talk about "Your story". It seems that as a GM you have a story that you want to tell and your players are just an audience to a interactive story. That is one valid way to play and I have been a player in games like that and some of them have been great fun. But thing is that when I run a game I don't have a story and I don't want to tell a story. I want to see the story being created around the table by players (including GM) with gamesystem as a toolset, bringing limitations, direction, suspense and chance to the story. Thing is that many indie games are build around the idea that story is created by all players around the table instead of story being GMs child.
In that context, I value systems that give me a lot to work with in setting the scene for the story without putting too many hard limits on how I can tell the story itself (other than those that are basic for the medium itself). GURPS works well for me in that regard. D&D;'s alignment systems are too constraining for my tastes, and the tool-set (rules system) is too optimized for high fantasy to be very useful outside that genre. Burning Wheel, if I'm understanding correctly, currently has some of the same genre tool-set problems as D&D;, and to read this debate, also has built-in mechanics that determine the flow of the story for me. In that case, however good it may be at it's function, it's functioning at odds with my initial goal.
D&D; and Burningwheel being setting optimized is not a bug it's a feature. Also you say that you want system to stay away from limiting you story, but what are those things you want from a game. Why to play GURPS instead of freeform, or writing a choose your own adventure book or playing some lighter ruled generic system?
Thing is that many indie games are build around the idea that story is created by all players around the table instead of story being GMs child.
Well, To fuck with your analogy a little, it's less that the story isn't the GM's child, it's that the GM has birthed the child(in the form of building the world, and giving a rough direction for the players, ie, Fetch the McGuffin) and has given it to the players for adoption, and they then take the infant, and raise it.
Edit - Also, I just looked up Jungle Speed - it's essentially Spoons, with cards. I would like to play this against you. Any of you. It will be...amusing, to say the least. I used to hustle people at spoons, for fun.
Double edit - Also, After thinking about it briefly, I would not be opposed to hand-making totems for people, when I have access to a lathe, and some tools. Super Challenge edition - I can make you a jungle speed totem out of mild steel, too. WORK THOSE FOREARMS.
Well, To fuck with your analogy a little, it's less that the story isn't the GM's child, it's that the GM has birthed the child(in the form of building the world, and giving a rough direction for the players, ie, Fetch the McGuffin) and has given it to the players for adoption, and they then take the infant, and raise it.
Some RPGs do this, and some don't. In Inspectres, it's almost exactly like this, except the players get to build the franchise. In Burning wheel, it's largely like this, except the player gets to build a little of the world themselves through their relationships and affiliations. In Shock, there is no GM, everyone comes up with the world together and each person "owns" a different part of it. Fiasco is sort of like Shock, but instead of just coming up with issues out of the blue, the players build the scenario from the playset. Mouse Guard has the world built already, the world of the Mouse Guard comics. During the GM's turn he throws conflicts at the players. During the players turn, they use their checks to enact their mousy will.
Every game is different. The goal is to have a good time telling stories with your friends. You can do this with or without a game. If you do use a game, pick one that is well suited to helping you tell the kind of story you want to tell. There is no one right way or one right game for all RP-ing. Some people do all their role playing in IRC with no rules whatsoever. Some people play HeroQuest or D+D, and believe they are doing is called role-playing when they're really dungeon crawling. Some people role play freely, then pause role playing or intermix it with non-role playing dungeon crawling. Some people role play interspersed with or integrated with strategic or tactical combat simulations such as Battletech. Some people LARP it up. Some people play actual role playing games where role playing is inherent in the game itself. Some people do some mix of all of the above.
You people arguing against the indy RPGs clearly do not have a lot of experience with them, and your lack of understanding is on full display in your postings. If you haven't noticed, Rym and myself, especially myself, have a strong "don't knock it if you haven't tried it" policy. You won't catch us discussing things we don't know enough about. We've played a ton of different games in our years. We have the experience to back up the things we say. That's why people listen to our show, and that's why we get to speak at conventions.
If you're some kid who wants to argue with me, and you've only every played D+D, just shut up. You don't have half a leg to stand on. Or maybe you tried something else maybe one time, but didn't give it an honest try. Yeah, give me a break. As the Japanese say, you're 100 years too early. When you've played so many different games you can't even remember them all, then come back and tell me I'm wrong. Until then, you don't know what you're talking about. What's worse, you don't know you don't know what you're talking about.
Point taken, but I'm hardly going to go "Yes, this is the way it is for the majority, except for this list of x number of games that don't, and this list of Y number of games that blend the two."
If you haven't noticed, Rym and myself, especially myself, have a strong "don't knock it if you haven't tried it" policy.
Bullshit. You can say "Oh, I'll not knock it till I try it" but if you only try things that you deem "Worth trying" and if you deem it otherwise for whatever arbitrary reason, you'll knock the fuck out of it. And frankly, if you're going to say "I generally don't knock things until I try them, but I only try things I like", then that's just fucking useless then, isn't it?
You won't catch us discussing things we don't know enough about.
Well, you did an entire episode on robots and other automated killing machines in warfare, and didn't even have the chops on the topic to know basic things like what the Geneva convention deals with in even a general sense, or what a landmine actually is, or that shooting civilians who are in the way just because they're in a war zone is a very serious war crime - if you just wanted the one example of factual things. You can find the rest of the corrections in that episode's thread, and I let the philosophical and psychological stuff go. The point being, so you don't miss it - Not only do we catch you discussing things you don't know enough about, you do silly things like record yourselves discussing things you don't know enough about, and then posting it online.
We've played a ton of different games in our years.
Whoop de fucking do, you think I haven't?
We have the experience to back up the things we say.
Except your experience backs up precisely dick. You observe, create, and consume complex chemical reactions every day - by cooking - and it doesn't make you a fucking chemist now, does it?
That's why people listen to our show, and that's why we get to speak at conventions.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I listen more because you have interesting discussions on topics that interest me, generally. Listener numbers doesn't make you right, nor can you speak for all your listeners, because as evidenced by this thread, some of them disagree and still listen, and that's not even discounting those who don't listen to the gaming related shows. As for why you get to speak at conventions? Because at first, you applied to do it, and then when you had experience and good reviews under your belt, you applied to bigger things, and bigger things, and so on, till you're running panels for conventions, and doing panels for conventions like PAX, where Panel space is sought after like winning lottery tickets. Unless you'd like to suggest without all the positive feedback, and previous experience, you'd have any greater chance than anyone else - Because no matter how much you'd have big-noted yourself, you didn't have anything to back it up. However, I'm getting off topic - The point is, you get to speak at conventions, because you apply to speak at conventions. If you hadn't, you wouldn't get to speak at conventions - Just like everyone else. You're not some great force, or omninipotent dual gods of panels - I'm sorry to say, the only difference between you and every other shlub with a hetalia panel is your built up experience and practiced skill, which you've gained by doing it for so long. When you started out, you were no different to every other shlub with a hetalia panel.
If you're some kid who wants to argue with me, and you've only every played D+D, just shut up.
Except I'm not just some kid, I've played plenty more RPG systems than D&D;, including your precious burning wheel, so I'd kindly suggest, until you get some chevrons on your shoulders, to keep your fucking orders to yourself.
Yeah, give me a break. As the Japanese say, you're 100 years too early.
Your ego generally arrives about eighteen months too early, due to sheer size.
What, You expected this to go without me outright insulting you? You've not been paying attention, silly boy.
When you've played so many different games you can't even remember them all, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.
I'll go one better, in fact, I'll tell you you're wrong AND YOU EVEN WIN A BONUS INSULT.
You're wrong, and you're also an arrogant, snobby, cowardly little man so convinced of his own inerrancy that he won't even consider other people's arguments, and just repeats the same shit over and over again, with different words. The moment you're challenged well enough, you immediately ignore the discussion, rather than concede a point.
Until then, you don't know what you're talking about.
Then flew by for the second time a long time ago.
What's worse, you don't know you don't know what you're talking about.
So, why don't you tell me how that feels, sometime? At least I've got the stones to admit when I don't know something outright, or to admit when I'm wrong. I don't just slink away and ignore the discussion when my position becomes too tenuous, pretend it never happened. I mean, Jesus Christ, the only time I've seen you back down and actually let people know about it is the whole running wager/experiment/what-have-you with Xbox games being baby games, and even then I had to bait you, insult you, offer to buy you a seventy USD game, and then put you in a position where by not taking the challenge, you look too cowardly to take it. Rym doesn't even have that much.
TL:DR version - Scott's post is a long-winded example of both his enormous ego, and the Argument from Authority Fallacy.
Bullshit. You can say "Oh, I'll not knock it till I try it" but if you only try things that you deem "Worth trying" and if you deem it otherwise for whatever arbitrary reason, you'll knock the fuck out of it. And frankly, if you're going to say "I generally don't knock things until I try them, but I only try things I like", then that's just fucking useless then, isn't it?
What have I knocked that I haven't tried? I've played more D&D; in my life than I've ever played any other tabletop RPG. I even played 4th ed at PAX. I've played a huge pile of MMOs. I'm playing Starcraft and Street Fighter and Dragon Quest, and all sorts of video games that aren't up my alley. I regularly purchase and read underwear pervert comics that comic nerds go crazy about. I play every board game I get a chance to try out. I go to all kinds of conventions. I try out crappy moe anime shows like Chu-Bra. What exactly is it that I knock without trying?
The point being, so you don't miss it - Not only do we catch you discussing things you don't know enough about, you do silly things like record yourselves discussing things you don't know enough about, and then posting it online.
Discussing something you don't know about is very different from trashing something. Just letting your mind ponder any given topic is something anyone can do at any time. It's often good and entertaining. The thing is, you can not pass judgement, or at least valuable judgement, without prerequisite experience. Did you see us passing judgement in that episode? No, we just brainstormed the possibilities and guessed at their ramifications.
However, I'm getting off topic - The point is, you get to speak at conventions, because you apply to speak at conventions.
This shows what you know. We originally did not apply to speak at conventions, we just stole the show. At our first two conventions. Ohayocon 2 and Otakon '02, we attended anime club summit panels. When nobody showed up to run those panels, we just took over. Then by putting those panels on our resume, yes we did apply to future conventions. However, what's important is not that our applications were accepted, but our future applications were also accepted. They let us keep coming back because we know wtf we are talking about. If we were full of shit, they never would have let us appear at PAX again, let alone a fourth consecutive time.
At least I've got the stones to admit when I don't know something outright, or to admit when I'm wrong. I don't just slink away and ignore the discussion when my position becomes too tenuous, pretend it never happened.
When have I not admitted I was wrong or not admitted that I do not know something? Got any actual examples? Perhaps you can find a time when I was mistaken and corrected on a fact, and then did not accept the correction? Good luck.
Also, the reason I ignore you is because you are a troll, and I ignore trolls. I'm trying to set an example for the rest of the forum that the best way to deal with tolls is to completely ignore them. Also because you make gigantic posts that are TL;DR, and the effort of typing a response just isn't worth my valuable time. That is except for right now, when I'm just trying to make it to the end of the day.
I mean, Jesus Christ, the only time I've seen you back down and actually let people know about it is the whole running wager/experiment/what-have-you with Xbox games being baby games, and even then I had to bait you, insult you, offer to buy you a seventy USD game, and then put you in a position where by not taking the challenge, you look too cowardly to take it. Rym doesn't even have that much.
How did I back down? Console FPS games are indeed baby games. I even made another thread when I found more evidence to back me up.
In terms of agreeing to play some Halos, I'm just following the policies of "don't knock it if you haven't tried it" and "put up or shut up." Can you name any instances when we I have not followed these policies? Rym shit-talks all the time, but my shit-talk has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated. You may not be able to see me working on all these project every day, but you'll probably see something this week. Seeing as how I won't be spending any time recording shows, I can probably launch this little project I've been working on. Sadly, it is not a machine that makes you shut up.
You know what? Fuck it. Fair enough, whatever. I had a few thousand words typed, stopped for a smoke, and realised - What the fuck am I even doing, anymore? Giving you aggro shit has become almost reflexive now. You've made some good points, failed a few, I failed a bunch, but scored a few of my own, and far as I'm concerned, that's damn near good enough. The only two things I could be bothered saying in relation to this argument (Unless you push the point - my realisation of what a time-sink and effort waste this is it is only goes so far) are thus -
Discussing something you don't know about is very different from trashing something.
Yes, Absolutely, But that's not what you said, you said that you wouldn't be caught discussing something you didn't know enough about. You've said before that you make an effort to say exactly what you mean, so I'll brook no complaints when I take your word on that, and assume that you mean what you say.
Also because you make gigantic posts that are TL;DR
Yeah? Cry me a fuckin' river. You bitch about how the "Punk kids" don't read anything, and a few hundred words is a trivial amount, compared to even the shortest book you've selected for the book club because "Kids don't read enough". Either Set a good example - or at least, keep your whinging to yourself, on one front or the other, which is the next best thing - and if you can't do that, then leave it to Reading Rainbow, Ruben. On top of that, You pride yourself on the fact that intelligent discussions occur here with greater frequency than the rest of the net, well, I'm afraid that often that sort of discussion doesn't happen in 140 characters or less, though I will be the first to admit I often wander around a bit(or a lot) before I get to the point, which could be cut down on somewhat.
Now, let's get down to the important part of the thought which occurred.
I'm not a troll, to be honest. Don't have it in me. I'm not even more than extremely occasionally unkind in all but jest to anyone else but Yourself and Rym. For some reason, we're just cunts to each other. Sometimes I'll start you, sometimes you'll start me, but it always devolves into the same shitpot attitude, and the same shitpot dick-swinging competition.
I'll make you an...offer? A Proposition? I don't know. I'm going to do it anyway, your participation is desired but optional, however, it'll make things easier for everyone. It's real, real simple.
Let's just NOT be fuckwits to each other.
Y'know, I stop being a aggressive, argumentative, nitpicking, aggrivating motherfucker to you(and rym, but you or I can't say shit on his behalf, so last reference to him, though it applies across board), and you stop being such a high toned, arrogant snobbish son of a bitch to me. You stop speakin' down to me, I stop jumping down your throat at every opportunity, you get what I'm getting at here?
I'm not saying we can't disagree, just - and excuse the fuck outta me if this is a foreign concept to the both of us - but we just disagree civilly. I mean, I won't say I won't give you shit, that'd just be weird, but only in jest, just like everyone else - unless you really, really fuck up. Just like everyone else. S'only fair - after all, you're just another person, just like me, and just like everyone else here.
Whatever. It's irrelevant. I'm just belabouring the point, here. Some habits die a little harder.
I'm slinging out the olive branch of peace here. I'm fuckin' done with the bullshit drama and aggro, macho bullshit. Take the metaphorical branch, don't, whatever. I've said my piece, and I've laid out what I'm going to do, if you're going to step up to the plate or not is entirely your issue - and as oddly as that seems to me, I won't even insult you for it.
Edit - Also, I just looked up Jungle Speed - it's essentially Spoons, with cards. I would like to play this against you. Any of you. It will be...amusing, to say the least. I used to hustle people at spoons, for fun.
Jungle Speed looks like spoons at a glance, but it's got some weird stuff going on that makes it a very different game.
Comments
It's a framework to make your collaborative storytelling easier to do, at the most base level. You can do without it, if you want, but you can use it to assist you, and it's not to your detriment. Or, I can use a small holepunch and a hammer, make neater, more consistent holes, and stitch it together with some 550 cord. Or, you can use a nail, or an industrial sewing machine. It doesn't really matter, if you do a good job in the end anyway. It's only a poor workman who blames their tools for the quality of the work.
Every role playing game has a premise build in them all of the games just don't tell it to your face. Also some premises are vague and leave lots of room to players like Burning Wheels It's story about people who fight for what they believe in. Some games have more tight premise like Mountain Witch "Group of Ronin are on their way on top of mount Fuji to face the witch, each carrying dark secret with them." Still I'm sure that both games produce different story every time they are played. (I haven't personally played Mountain Witch, but I believe what I'm told.) And to add something non-indie in here Feng Shui is game where characters all kick ass and fight against different evil factions in different times.
Also if you believe that story should come from the GM, you should tell him to go and write a book.
Sometimes, you need a different tool. That's all that's being advocated here. Sure, changing the way you play a game may fix some of your problems, but if you want something that the game is not designed to provide, it might be best to find a different game. Neither Rym nor Scott have said anything really different than that.
EDIT: Part of the problem is that geeks are stubborn and like to fiddle with things. If your D&D; game isn't working, clearly there must something that you can fix by fiddling with bits. You need to be able to recognize when it's more worthwhile to just get the thing that works rather than hack the thing that's not designed for your intent.
In a way, I think that 4th edition is the best version of D&D; ever released. The game finally stopped pretending to be something that it isn't, and instead focuses on crunchy dungeon-crawling combat with wisps of roleplaying added in. It's streamlined and regulated to the point that it resembles a video game.
WotC realized that D&D; can't do everything, and they stopped making it try to. Gamers need to take a cue from that, and stop using games for things they're not supposed to do. I've talked to many people and helped them fix their games. More often than not, that game is D&D;, and they're doing too much with it and trying to extract from it things it was never supposed to deliver. You can tack something on top of that, or you can find a different game. More often than not, the best solution is to find a different game, because your jury-rigged fix is less reliable than a polished system.
As with many things, what you do in a situation should be governed by the situation. Yep. If the players want to roleplay more, it's up to them - they're adding something on that isn't particularly outlined in the game(but is quite compatable), which is essentially "Here is a bunch of numbers in tables that tell you things, get to it."
There are ways of encouraging both more and good roleplay - for example, one group I know, house of the falling star, uses these really awesome metal coins, and if you roleplay particularly well, then you get a token, and you can use it for a re-roll, and players also meta-game with them when allowed, helping each other out by donating tokens to let other characters re-roll for the benefit of the party.
However - those are house rules, and are not part of the system.
I think part of it was also realising that they can't tell people how to roleplay, only that they can. However, I find it strange that you seem to be with Rym and Scott in assuming that D&D; is like playing craps with fancier die and character sheets. I repeat a point from before - you can have as much roleplaying in D&D; as you want, from none to almost completely, and if you're failing at this, that's not the game's fault, it's yours.
Oddly enough, you also seem to assume along with Rym and Scott that Combat and Roleplay are mutually exclusive - When in reality, being able to roleplay within combat can make or break a good roleplaying session. Yeah, you're smart and know all the rules, but the semi-braindead brawler you're playing, why is it that as soon as you go into combat, they suddenly become savants at exactly what they should do, where they should move, when, and how to strike?
Sure, you might know that the creature in front of you is a few hitpoints away from death, and you should keep hitting it, but some enemy just hit you in the back for a surprise attack. You know you should stay with the near-death creature, hammer it, and then turn around next turn, but your half-orc barbarian wouldn't know that, and would most likely spin around, roar, and go for the full-health creature that just attacked it. Tactically sub-optimal, but it's good roleplaying.
In order to figure out what someone needs to do in order to fix a given game, you have to figure out what that person wants from the game, and figure out if the game they're using is capable of delivering that. Once you frame the discussion properly, then yes, you can easily say "Game X is better at Property A than Game Y."
The question "Which RPG is better" is certainly a complex one, but it is not irreducibly complex.
For some, Burning wheel is terrible at personal drama, because what if you want to go beyond what burning wheel is offering in the way of personal drama?
Example, you're playing a game where a character in your party is a magically created being, brought to life via some arcane and ancient magic, built for a purpose, and imbued with skills, but something broke halfway through and accidentally given a soul/mind of it's own, and as a newly formed being discovering the world, Has no lifepaths, no beliefs, and hardly any instincts other than natural instincts - literally a blank slate character.
That horrible noise you just heard was the sound of your Burning wheel game imploding, because you've tried to go and do something with the system that it doesn't want to do, despite that it's apparently a super roleplay focused system, and you're making a game that includes a heavy amount of "discovering one's self and building one's personality" type of roleplay.
You know what system that wouldn't happen to? D&D.; It doesn't hold your hand through the roleplaying part, it just kind points you in a vauge direction and says "yo, you want to swim, pool is over there." and with no limitations, you can have just that - a game heavy on roleplay, light on combat. But, you don't have the game holding your hand, and you need to have the chops to do it, but hey, if you need the game to hold your hand that much, why are you playing a pen and paper RPG in the first place? Go play a JRPG video game, and have it all laid out for you instead. Unfortunately, you've not actually managed to figure out which RPG is better, when you've done that, only which is better for the particular players and situation. I'm speaking an objective, overall, and end-all statement of "X Is better than Y, because of property A", not "X is better than Y in situation one, because of property A, but inferior in situation two because of A being less important then than B." - the former being impossible, but many people think in terms of it, and the latter being the value judgement one should make every time one is selecting a system for a game, but not everyone does.
What if you have that magical character devoid of all the things that make a character in burning wheel, essentially, it's essentially a blank character sheet with a name written on it? I suppose that's not a problem either?
If you're going to say "Oh, here are all these things in the game, but you can throw them all away and that's not a problem" then you might as well not have it at all.
I actually think this is a great burning wheel character concept and I'm thinking about using it next time I make a character if it can be worked into the story ;-p
Also, I'll admit, I picked this example very deliberately, because it's a hard one - if done wrong, it can break the game, trivially.
Your example is really really really far-fetched though, since Beliefs and Instincts are requirements for a Burning Wheel character.
You basically just said, "OK, so what if I want to make a D&D; character who doesn't have levels?" You can't do it.
Beliefs and Instincts are the player's statement of what they want in the game. If you put nothing on the sheet, then you don't want anything. A blank slate like that would have a belief like "This world is strange; I must learn all I can about it" or some such thing.
I can expound more on this later, but you are 110% incorrect about Burning Wheel in every possible way. It will take me too long to explain it right now, but I can talk about it later. OK, this is just stupid. You're literally asking, "What if I don't play the game?" What happens if you do that in D&D;? You get the same result. This has gotten silly.
Also I hate when people start talking about "the" roleplaying. For most people it seems to be the thing you do when you are not throwing dice. I thing that everything in table that is not out of game talk or table chatter, is roleplaying. And if you (general you, not anymore addressed to just Churba) agree that roleplaying happens also in combat, my question is, why you use dice and rules to hinder your roleplaying in combat if they are not needed to roleplay anything else. Freeform is always an option if pure roleplaying is something you like, no need for D&D; or any other game.
Personally I like to use rules and I want to use them I like to leave room for chance and dice even in non-combat situations. I once played a session of D&D; 3.5 we spend some time creating the characters and in the end the whole multi paged character sheet felt useless because there was no fights or any use for the skills. I think we made few dice rolls, but I don't think that even those mattered. I wasn't exactly bad game, but I don't feel like I actually played D&D; it was freeform masked as D&D;.
Furthermore, You're making a mistake, here, by thinking that rolling dice is mutually exclusive with roleplaying. For example, let's say your Fighter is in combat against a fighter of equal level, under the D20 system. You roll a dice. You miss the DC. He rolls a dice, and passes the DC. Roll out damage. Top of the round, rise, repeat.
However, there's no roleplaying in that, is there?
Actual combat in any dice system goes more like this - Explanation of action taken(Fighter takes a wide step towards badguy, swinging his low, trying to cut him in half), Roll for result(Failure), Player or GM describes the failure result(Badguy pulls back in a hurry from the powerful swing, the blow glancing off his armor, scratching it, but causing nothing more than cosmetic damage to the protective plate), Enemy action described(Reversing the momentum of his backwards lunge, badguy leaps towards Fighter, his longsword leading the charge as he tries to nestle it within the fighter's chest), Roll for result(sucess), Roll out damage(bad roll, minimum damage), Action result is described, (The sword punches through the fighter's strong plate armor, putting a deep gash into his chest, but thankfully the armor slowed the strike enough that it caused him only superficial injury.)
On top of that, you have tactics, weapon and armor selection(for example, if you're a Cleric, you may chose not to use edged weapons and instead use a club, if you're the cleric of a peaceable sort of god who doesn't allow his priests to shed blood - to borrow a guideline from the Christians of the crusades), and he might only use it in self defence, staying to the rear of the battle and focusing on healing, rather than actively attacking. A barbarian, rather than acting intelligently as the player would and using the player's knowledge, might simply attack whoever attacked him last in a battle rage, rather than being tactical or sensible.
I mean, of course D&D; isn't without it's problems - For example, you have the problem of that you only have four states in the rules - Fine, Bloodied but essentially fine, unconcious, and dead. A character who is at full health, compared to a character who is severely bloodied(except for certain situations and status effects) behaves exactly the same unless roleplayed otherwise. You're fine right up until you're unconcious, at which point you do nothing. It happens, really, but for no-combat games, unless you do some playing about with the rules, as I've said previously, D&D; might not be ideal. It might apply to some games, depending on the type of no-combat you're going for - for example, it would work out alright for a sneaky, stealthy, pick-locks-and-steal-things game, since while you're not in combat, you're still using skills - but for an all talk no action game, with so few rules covering what you're doing, you are essentially going freeform, with a thin veneer of D&D; - If you want some rules to what you're doing, not the best choice of system, I would have gone - obviously - with a system where either it has a lot of wiggle room to make no-combat characters, yet still have challenges to one's skills - for example, Burning Wheel.
I approach pen-and-paper games from an artist's perspective. People tell stories using different media - literature, television, film, electronic gaming, what have you. The type of media you choose for any particular story has subtle effects on how the story is told --- interactive vs. noninteractive, serial vs. self-contained, etc. When I choose to GM a game, this means that I have chosen "pen-and-paper RPG" as the medium for my story. A system that by it's very nature already has it's own story to tell is not going to earn any brownie points with me. I'm looking for a quill and parchment, a camera and set to tell my own story with; the rules system of a pen-and-paper game acts as the equivalent set of tools for that medium. I don't care what story the camera itself wants to tell, because that's not what I bought it for.
In that context, I value systems that give me a lot to work with in setting the scene for the story without putting too many hard limits on how I can tell the story itself (other than those that are basic for the medium itself). GURPS works well for me in that regard. D&D;'s alignment systems are too constraining for my tastes, and the tool-set (rules system) is too optimized for high fantasy to be very useful outside that genre. Burning Wheel, if I'm understanding correctly, currently has some of the same genre tool-set problems as D&D;, and to read this debate, also has built-in mechanics that determine the flow of the story for me. In that case, however good it may be at it's function, it's functioning at odds with my initial goal.
Also, a nit-pick, but to be fair......that's not entirely true (to pick two off the top of my head).
Also, Scott:
Edit - Also, I just looked up Jungle Speed - it's essentially Spoons, with cards. I would like to play this against you. Any of you. It will be...amusing, to say the least. I used to hustle people at spoons, for fun.
Double edit - Also, After thinking about it briefly, I would not be opposed to hand-making totems for people, when I have access to a lathe, and some tools. Super Challenge edition - I can make you a jungle speed totem out of mild steel, too. WORK THOSE FOREARMS.
Every game is different. The goal is to have a good time telling stories with your friends. You can do this with or without a game. If you do use a game, pick one that is well suited to helping you tell the kind of story you want to tell. There is no one right way or one right game for all RP-ing. Some people do all their role playing in IRC with no rules whatsoever. Some people play HeroQuest or D+D, and believe they are doing is called role-playing when they're really dungeon crawling. Some people role play freely, then pause role playing or intermix it with non-role playing dungeon crawling. Some people role play interspersed with or integrated with strategic or tactical combat simulations such as Battletech. Some people LARP it up. Some people play actual role playing games where role playing is inherent in the game itself. Some people do some mix of all of the above.
You people arguing against the indy RPGs clearly do not have a lot of experience with them, and your lack of understanding is on full display in your postings. If you haven't noticed, Rym and myself, especially myself, have a strong "don't knock it if you haven't tried it" policy. You won't catch us discussing things we don't know enough about. We've played a ton of different games in our years. We have the experience to back up the things we say. That's why people listen to our show, and that's why we get to speak at conventions.
If you're some kid who wants to argue with me, and you've only every played D+D, just shut up. You don't have half a leg to stand on. Or maybe you tried something else maybe one time, but didn't give it an honest try. Yeah, give me a break. As the Japanese say, you're 100 years too early. When you've played so many different games you can't even remember them all, then come back and tell me I'm wrong. Until then, you don't know what you're talking about. What's worse, you don't know you don't know what you're talking about.
The point being, so you don't miss it - Not only do we catch you discussing things you don't know enough about, you do silly things like record yourselves discussing things you don't know enough about, and then posting it online. Whoop de fucking do, you think I haven't? Except your experience backs up precisely dick. You observe, create, and consume complex chemical reactions every day - by cooking - and it doesn't make you a fucking chemist now, does it? Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I listen more because you have interesting discussions on topics that interest me, generally. Listener numbers doesn't make you right, nor can you speak for all your listeners, because as evidenced by this thread, some of them disagree and still listen, and that's not even discounting those who don't listen to the gaming related shows.
As for why you get to speak at conventions? Because at first, you applied to do it, and then when you had experience and good reviews under your belt, you applied to bigger things, and bigger things, and so on, till you're running panels for conventions, and doing panels for conventions like PAX, where Panel space is sought after like winning lottery tickets. Unless you'd like to suggest without all the positive feedback, and previous experience, you'd have any greater chance than anyone else - Because no matter how much you'd have big-noted yourself, you didn't have anything to back it up.
However, I'm getting off topic - The point is, you get to speak at conventions, because you apply to speak at conventions. If you hadn't, you wouldn't get to speak at conventions - Just like everyone else. You're not some great force, or omninipotent dual gods of panels - I'm sorry to say, the only difference between you and every other shlub with a hetalia panel is your built up experience and practiced skill, which you've gained by doing it for so long. When you started out, you were no different to every other shlub with a hetalia panel. Except I'm not just some kid, I've played plenty more RPG systems than D&D;, including your precious burning wheel, so I'd kindly suggest, until you get some chevrons on your shoulders, to keep your fucking orders to yourself. Your ego generally arrives about eighteen months too early, due to sheer size.
What, You expected this to go without me outright insulting you? You've not been paying attention, silly boy. I'll go one better, in fact, I'll tell you you're wrong AND YOU EVEN WIN A BONUS INSULT.
You're wrong, and you're also an arrogant, snobby, cowardly little man so convinced of his own inerrancy that he won't even consider other people's arguments, and just repeats the same shit over and over again, with different words. The moment you're challenged well enough, you immediately ignore the discussion, rather than concede a point. Then flew by for the second time a long time ago. So, why don't you tell me how that feels, sometime?
At least I've got the stones to admit when I don't know something outright, or to admit when I'm wrong. I don't just slink away and ignore the discussion when my position becomes too tenuous, pretend it never happened.
I mean, Jesus Christ, the only time I've seen you back down and actually let people know about it is the whole running wager/experiment/what-have-you with Xbox games being baby games, and even then I had to bait you, insult you, offer to buy you a seventy USD game, and then put you in a position where by not taking the challenge, you look too cowardly to take it. Rym doesn't even have that much.
TL:DR version - Scott's post is a long-winded example of both his enormous ego, and the Argument from Authority Fallacy.
Also, the reason I ignore you is because you are a troll, and I ignore trolls. I'm trying to set an example for the rest of the forum that the best way to deal with tolls is to completely ignore them. Also because you make gigantic posts that are TL;DR, and the effort of typing a response just isn't worth my valuable time. That is except for right now, when I'm just trying to make it to the end of the day. How did I back down? Console FPS games are indeed baby games. I even made another thread when I found more evidence to back me up.
In terms of agreeing to play some Halos, I'm just following the policies of "don't knock it if you haven't tried it" and "put up or shut up." Can you name any instances when we I have not followed these policies? Rym shit-talks all the time, but my shit-talk has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated. You may not be able to see me working on all these project every day, but you'll probably see something this week. Seeing as how I won't be spending any time recording shows, I can probably launch this little project I've been working on. Sadly, it is not a machine that makes you shut up.
The only two things I could be bothered saying in relation to this argument (Unless you push the point - my realisation of what a time-sink and effort waste this is it is only goes so far) are thus - Yes, Absolutely, But that's not what you said, you said that you wouldn't be caught discussing something you didn't know enough about. You've said before that you make an effort to say exactly what you mean, so I'll brook no complaints when I take your word on that, and assume that you mean what you say. Yeah? Cry me a fuckin' river. You bitch about how the "Punk kids" don't read anything, and a few hundred words is a trivial amount, compared to even the shortest book you've selected for the book club because "Kids don't read enough". Either Set a good example - or at least, keep your whinging to yourself, on one front or the other, which is the next best thing - and if you can't do that, then leave it to Reading Rainbow, Ruben.
On top of that, You pride yourself on the fact that intelligent discussions occur here with greater frequency than the rest of the net, well, I'm afraid that often that sort of discussion doesn't happen in 140 characters or less, though I will be the first to admit I often wander around a bit(or a lot) before I get to the point, which could be cut down on somewhat.
Now, let's get down to the important part of the thought which occurred.
I'm not a troll, to be honest. Don't have it in me. I'm not even more than extremely occasionally unkind in all but jest to anyone else but Yourself and Rym. For some reason, we're just cunts to each other. Sometimes I'll start you, sometimes you'll start me, but it always devolves into the same shitpot attitude, and the same shitpot dick-swinging competition.
I'll make you an...offer? A Proposition? I don't know. I'm going to do it anyway, your participation is desired but optional, however, it'll make things easier for everyone. It's real, real simple.
Let's just NOT be fuckwits to each other.
Y'know, I stop being a aggressive, argumentative, nitpicking, aggrivating motherfucker to you(and rym, but you or I can't say shit on his behalf, so last reference to him, though it applies across board), and you stop being such a high toned, arrogant snobbish son of a bitch to me. You stop speakin' down to me, I stop jumping down your throat at every opportunity, you get what I'm getting at here?
I'm not saying we can't disagree, just - and excuse the fuck outta me if this is a foreign concept to the both of us - but we just disagree civilly. I mean, I won't say I won't give you shit, that'd just be weird, but only in jest, just like everyone else - unless you really, really fuck up. Just like everyone else. S'only fair - after all, you're just another person, just like me, and just like everyone else here.
Whatever. It's irrelevant. I'm just belabouring the point, here. Some habits die a little harder.
I'm slinging out the olive branch of peace here. I'm fuckin' done with the bullshit drama and aggro, macho bullshit. Take the metaphorical branch, don't, whatever. I've said my piece, and I've laid out what I'm going to do, if you're going to step up to the plate or not is entirely your issue - and as oddly as that seems to me, I won't even insult you for it.