Schwarzkopf wrote:I have bad news for you: the Den dominant party has a very specific definition of what constitutes good rules based on a strong taste for D&D3e-like gamism, which is used as parameters for measuring up everything. In other words, its like Action-flick fanatics who find Citizen Kane crap cause there isnt enough car chases and boss fights. What this means is that any FAQ or article will tend to fall on the camp of "YOURE PLAYING WRONG AND ARE A STUPID HUMAN BEING !!! TONS OF GRATUITOUS SWEARING !!111!!!!.
Silva: In Forge speak, I would say the following.
I do not believe that rules-heavy systems are inherently gamist or simulationist. Rules-lite games may or may not be inherently narrativist, I don't know, what I do know is that they don't feel like "real RPGs" to me personally, and I'm not interested in them. They're not my cup of tea, as it were. That said, I primarily GM Hero System (5E), D&D (3.5E), and Shadowrun. Much of my audience, and a good portion of myself, are primarily interested in telling and experiencing shared interactive stories (i.e. narrativism). I would describe myself, personally, as 30% Gamist, 50% Simulationist, and 20% Narrativist. Collectively, I'd describe the players I GM for as 80% Narrativist (with one individual exception who also has a strong gamist streak).
For these people that I play with, these "rules-heavy" systems scratch the "narrativist" itch in a very satisfying way. No one is trying to "win", we are playing at telling stories, and we personally find the rules and their application actually helps us to do so.
Keep in mind that what you have pejoratively labeled "action movies" can still have incredibly engaging and emotionally and thematically deep stories. Ask, and I will happily list several cinematic examples, as I am also something of a film buff.
That said, my ability to analyze rules is not limited to rules-heavy systems. I do not at all think all rules-heavy or (and I hate the pejorative connotation of this term) "trad" games have good rules. I do not think that all rules-lite games have bad rules. I think that inelegant and elegant rules and systems can exist regardless of rules weight, and I pride myself on my ability to identify and critique elegant and inelegant rules systems in any milieu, along with many others here on the den.
So in the past, if I have spoken ill of AW, I was simply expressing a personal preference. Not trying to suggest you were having wrongbadfun.
Also, um...tons of gratuitous swearing. One.
Aaaaand another hint of coherence in this place.
Yes my friend, it all boils down to personal preference, as you say. And not only that, but perception too. See, none of the games you cited (Hero, D&D, Shadowrun) seem good vehicles for enticing narrativist agenda for me (and if I was to design a game with such agenda in mind they would be stark examples of what not to do) but if they work for making your narrative juices pumping, who am I to contradict you ? And thats the beauty of the hobby: the same game can mean different things for different people. All this theory talk has its value, sure, specially for putting people on "the same page" about what to play and how, but in the end what determines the value of a game is the perception and tastes of the players. And this, my friend, is totally
relative. No matter how many years you spent trying to "fix" Shadowrun, in the end, I still love 2nd edition and its quirkness of variable target numbers and priority-generation and confusing sub-systems of rigging and decking, etc.
And I think some people around here, very intelligent and capable that they are ( like Frank, for eg ) still forget about that. Saying "Amber is broken" or "Pathfinder is broken" by itself dont mean anything. The question should be "Which playstyles or preferences is Amber good for, and which its not good for ?"
And thats what I meant in my previous post that you quoted. Who cares if Shadowrun 2e math is broken, what matters is its other qualities make it worthy it for me. But no, people around here will say that its a broken shitty game in absolute, a piece of trash that has no value whatsoever and its authors must be the kind of shitty-heads who eat shit in the breakfast and drink piss in the lunch ( the Shadzar threads attacking Mearls and Wyatt are at least funny, in a surreal kind of way ), and thats because they analize it according to their own gamist-mechanicist-math-intensive tastes. They dont want to give a sidestep to try and see how other people like their gaming. They dont want to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, all that math is irrelevant to a certain kind of gamer who values more the flavour that arises from the rules, or to the kind of gamer who just wants fast and simple rules to go with their beer and pretzels and friends. Or something like that.
)
