Again, you seem to expect that what many players want is to be lazy.
I assume the exact opposite; what they want is to play a character that they think is totally awesome. That means, for some, rules elements that let them show off their stuff regularly and reliably, in a predictable way - good rules. It also means, for others, rules that don't block them from showing things off their own way. Including one doesn't mean excluding the other.
Its not about laziness. Its about what the players want from the game.
Some players want to be "always on". They want every little Cleave and Power attack and every trip to the bathroom to be roleplayed. And systems that don't mandate that descriptiveness be included in every attack can still do that, just as well as the descriptive ones. If the player wants to roleplay, he can roleplay it. Believe me, I know; I had one player in my BlueRose/PortBlacksand campaign that enjoyed roleplaying his every swordthrust in combat and explaining how it related to his training and study in the philosophy of the Balance; and how his success or peril in combat affected his confidence in his chosen philosophy etc etc.
Meanwhile, making games REQUIRE descriptiveness for every mechanic means that the players that want to do that sort of thing (which are to me the minority) will do it happy anyways, though probably no better than the would at D&D. But the ones who don't really need to describe every little act and grok that good roleplaying isn't really about that anyways, they will probably just slip by with the minimal possible description required by the rule to allow the bonus or whatever and move on. The difference is that doing that with no real effort is a fuckload of a lot worse than just saying "i attack" and rolling the D20 without effort; because the systems that try to MANDATE descriptiveness will stink much worse if that "descriptiveness" is half-hearted.
Its not about lazyness, its about having a different idea of how roleplaying is done. I don't think that putting descriptors into every action is "roleplaying", not real roleplaying anyways.
Going the other direction, some players (very likely the majority, really) want solid archetypes and recognizable, consistent tactics that they will play to in new ways, rather than tools to create ones. They want to go the other direction, and the market leader or something similar generally suits them fine.
Ok but you still seem to be arguing that there's a difference between those "fuzzy" games and D&D and that the "fuzzy" games somehow are "more" roleplaying than D&D is. And I continue to insist that the difference in these things never lie in the game played but in the party playing; and that games which try to push "more roleplaying" usually just create "fake roleplaying".
There's some truth in what you're saying, to be sure. Characters in theory-formed games are often given much more freedom, ability, and the like. They tend to start off Being Cool.
Note that I was using "Being Cool" in a deeply sarcastic way; since I don't think that the coolness of the character depends on whether he can level cities or has the +25 sword of System-breaking.
So, my players want to play the High General and the Being of Dark Power and the Merchant Prince. Nice. I got no problem with that - actually, that sounds like a pretty fun starting cast to me. But they aren't done setting up, yet. They must have a struggle built-in to them that is meaningful to those characters, just like any other character, or we will be bored.
The struggle of "obtain power and wealth and glory" is nice, but it's not the only one around.
Certainly not, but i think you got sucked into my example and are missing my fundamental point. If a game is supposed to be ABOUT something, and the players decide that they want to start with that something already resolved or easily resolved in their favour, then the game is going to go downhill fast.
I also don't believe that the "struggle" of an adventure or campaign needs to be "built into" the characters. I think it can be provided externally from the GM. That idea of the struggle having to come from the characters is usually an excuse to create pretentious angsty games where the characters are already of great power and really do whatever the fuck they want, but the players give a bit of lip service to how depressed and angsty they are.
Characters can just as easily start with no inherent struggle and be thrust into a situation where they must struggle; "save the kingdom", "stop the world from ending", "you've ended up getting this funky Ring...", etc etc.
"Obtain redemption" is actually the kind of struggle I'd be most likely to put in front of the players that handed me those three characters you've named; and if the players thought that was great, that's what we'd go for.
Really? "Obtain Redemption"? You'd go with that?
I mean, really? The most angsty pretentious pseudo-artsy "i'm going to pretend to be upset about my great power" excuse of all?
You bet. And what's not good about having a whole variety of different styles of play competing, mingling, under constant discussion? That strikes me as far better than everyone trying to play the same way, buying the same games.
I mean, there's no question that the market has a single absolute leader; d20 is king, unmatched. And the people that write it read a lot of different opinions, even some as flaky as mine.
I'm saying that because of the nature of most gaming groups, the kind of egalitarian "everyone is equally special" "the DM is just another player" thing
written into the rules of a game would make that game unappealing, broken, and unplayable to the vast majority of gaming groups.
Whereas, if you create the game from the point of view of orthodox gaming groups and conventions, individual groups can always choose to go all touchy feeling.
I mean, shit, for SOME groups the game might run better if the entire gaming group is stark naked while they play. I am absolutely sure that my gaming group is not one of them, and would give a hearty "fuck you" to any game that tried to tell me that this is the optimal way to play.
The Nudist gamers can still play D&D, you see, they just privately and personally get naked to do it.
But make "The Naked RPG", and anyone who isn't a Nudist gamer certainly won't be able to play it well. Worse, if you have a whole movement running around claiming that the "SUPERIOR" way to play is Naked, then you'll get groups becoming totally fucked up and then wondering why they're so inferior that they can't manage playing Naked well; when in fact there was absolutely nothing wrong with their groups until some shitheads managed to convince them that they needed to be Naked to roleplay.
What is served by spending time shopping? Seriously, what's the gain?
Many games are based on scarcity of equiptment. If I take my players deep into the Wilderlands of High Fantasy I don't WANT them to be able to say "well i'm sure I shopped for a rope somewhere", or "I have a Grappling Hook because its DRAMATICALLY CONVENIENT" *insert rainbow and flowers here*.
Fuck that shit. You didn't buy it when you had the chance, now you have to make due without it.
In some other games, that might not be necessary. Its ok for me to use the wealth system in my Roman game or in Port Blacksand because those games weren't about acquiring treasure. But in my wilderlands game every last food ration is important because whether or not you bought it or got it somewhere can mean the diff between living and starving to death.
Here's a simple comparison. Take a look at your journal. Some of it is discussion about things, some of it is you giving your thoughts on this and that, and some of it is you railing against the things that piss you off. It's not professional, it's personal.
Actually, its Gonzo. Which is all about making the personal professional.
And to the eye of a casual reader, it's looks like there's a lot of groupthink going on there; you even make references to your "proxy army".
A term that comes from the Swine's claim that anyone who reads my website and later writes on RPG.net is just writing as my "proxy", not writing their own opinions.
But many people wouldn't note that there are plenty of people there that see you making some points they nod along with, and others that just make them wince. I post there, and we hardly see eye-to-eye on everything - some things, sure, but not all. Hell, Clinton R. Nixon has popped for a look now and again, and he's the guy that actually does the day-to-day running of the Forge site. It's not a big "everyone thinks the same stuff as the Pundit" session.
But there's obviously one voice that dominates. A big, cranky voice given over to making big, sweeping statements that catch the eye in a weird tone, but once assimilated, actually have something to say.
Right, and now you're suggesting that Gaming theory is the same.
I have two responses to that.
First; specifically, the Forge: the difference between MY BLOG and "the Forge" is that my blog is very clearly, obviously, focused on the writing of one man. Its a BLOG for fuck's sake.
Whereas the Forge claims to be THE forum for discussion of "Indie RPGs". That means it should be a place someone could go to without ever having read Ron Edwards or GNS, and write about gaming theory or indie RPGs from HIS point of view. But this is not the case. On the Forge, it is taken for granted that Ron Edwards is the Leader.
Second; gaming theory as a whole. Gaming Theory as a whole is based on a subculture that, at its core, is driven by nothing more than an elitist hatred for D&D as an "inferior game". All its claims about wanting to "understand how RPGs work better" is just so much bullshit, because virtually all gaming theory starts from the point of view that the SINGLE MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PLAYED RPG OF ALL TIME is "broken" or wrongly done.
They do not want to understand how Gamers play or how to play better; they want to argue that people who play and enjoy Orthodox RPGs (not just D&D, but with D&D as the number one villain) are playing out of ignorance or bad choices and want to impose a concept of gaming that defines RPGs as something different than what they are. Their real agenda is to use pseudo-intellectual claptrap to try to turn people away from playing conventional RPGs and make them feel stupid or inferior for playing them.
They are hypocrites, and thus I despise them.
And there are plenty of terms used that offend. Brain Damage. Swine. Incoherent. Lawncrappers.
Brain Damage is YOUR side's term. Not mine. And the proof that the Forge is nothing more than a cult is how the vast majority of people stepped up directly behind Ron Edwards and backed him up completely; coupled with a small minority who criticized him but fundamentally argued "well that's just Ron's way" or "its his site, who are we to argue with him?".
You want to argue that I'm an asshole? That's fine. I AM an asshole.
But then you have to argue that he's an asshole too.
But the difference is that I'm an asshole who's out to defend mainstream Roleplay.
Whereas Ron is just an asshole out to be seen as the brilliant cult-leader of the "real intellectuals" of the game.
I regularly mock those who claim that my readers are just yes-men.
Ron Edwards regularly expects his readers to be Yes-men.
I encourage people to argue against me in my own Blog.
Ron Edwards closes the gaming theory forum because his theory is now Perfect and needs no further corrections.
The difference is that I don't want a cult-leader status, and he does. I don't take mine seriously, and he does.
And all of gaming theory is the poorer for it. Ron Edwards has permanently poisoned the well. Any attempt at doing real gaming theory from a sincere perspective without the hidden agenda of forgeites that I've detailed above is now impossible because of the weight of all the utter shit that has been dumped on theory and how theory is done, thanks to Mr.Edwards.
Frankly, I'm amazed that you in particular don't want the fucker drawn and quartered for what he's done.
RPGPundit