John Wick hates D&D. I'm sure no one's heard that before. Here's the article.

Benoist's posted a huge epic rebuttal on Facebook, right here.

This has got everything this site loves: online drama, theorywank, D&D... I'll be mighty disappointed with y'all if this clocks in at less than 1000 posts.

I felt John Wick made a well-reasoned argument, with an excellent rebuttal by Benoist. I also appreciate that Benoist didn't degrade his response back to the often-parroted "story gamers are not real gamers" tripe. In fact, I strongly suspect that Benoist has toned down his rhetoric due to his business relationship with Ernie Gygax.

Bravo, I say.

edit - I would like to point out that I am particularly fond of this quote from Jon's article. It's simple, poignant and promotes positive discourse on the nature of role-playing games:

Quote from: John Wickroleplaying game: a game in which the players are rewarded for making choices
that are consistent with the character’s motivations or further the plot of the story.

Drivel from John Wick; a thoughtful response by BP.

I miss BP's presence on these boards. His posts were always an interesting read.

Wick goes wrong with "or further the plot  of the story." That's not role-playing, unless you've got one of those unusual roles who knows she's a character in a story and what plot she wants to further.

"Consistent with character motivations" is bullshit if that requires acting delusional when the character  is not delusional. If a teacup is as good as a gun, then why does anyone carry a gun? If you live in a world in which a kung fu master is deaflier with a thumb than an ordinary soldier with a gun, does that mean the ordinary soldier is on the same footing? In most such fiction I've seen, the answer is no. The kung fu master  is an excception to the rule.

Indeed, there is a major problem when you try to run a previously set story since only game that does that well is a first person shooter console game.

I wonder if either of those two have any game design education?

I agree with Mr. Wick on a number of points... but not his fervor or absolutism about them. I don't take his 'further the plot' to mean there's an actual plot to follow... just that the thing brings something to the actual play... rather than merely satisfying the Player's lust for math and minutia.

And yeah... I miss having Benoist around here.

John Wick did ask an important question, and the answer is...Yes, Sean Connery's thumb does indeed do megadamage.

I can't really disagree with Wick - good gameplay should have meaningful choices, but for the rest of his screed I'm not gonna support either Wick or Benoist because I'm bored with all flavors of onewayism.  Some gamers, but not all gamers, certainly do enjoy playing RPGs as either of these guys describe.

Wick used to GM at LA conventions, so I've had the pleasure of gaming with him several times. He's a good, fun GM and he's had a hard-on against D&D forever, but when I gamed with him (over 6 years ago), he was a more of traditional GM that what I consider a Forge/Indie GM. Now? Who knows? I haven't read his recent RPGs to really find out how his vision plays out on the table.

As for Blogger War 2014, Wick proves he's overall the better writer, so too bad he's not writing a new edition of L5R or 7th Sea. Benoist may make some RPGsite friendly points, but I got too bored to finish it.

Hopefully, RPGPundit will also erupt forth a truly entertaining tirade. With the USA going into Iraq War III, its high time for the War on Swine to be revived yet again!

Why is Benoist no longer posting here?

I posted my own response.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/10/chess-is-game-dungeons-dragons-is.html

The issue I have with Wick's article is where he takes it. I would agree if I am playing a genre heavy game, then yeah that cup it makes sense for it to obliterate skulls. But I am not always doing that. For some games, for some groups, what he suggests works. It is taking that to the level he does, where he defines RPGs as having to basically follow a particular set of genre conventions, where I think the problem is. His way is fine, but then so too is having a realistic setting with weapon charts.

Quote from: Spinachcat;789781I can't really disagree with Wick - good gameplay should have meaningful choices, but for the rest of his screed I'm not gonna support either Wick or Benoist because I'm bored with all flavors of onewayism.  Some gamers, but not all gamers, certainly do enjoy playing RPGs as either of these guys describe.

I think Benoist's post was much less onetruewayism than Wick's in this case though. Benoist basically said at the start, if RPGs are about story for your, then fine, but they are not for everyone, the hobby is big enough for lots of approaches. There were some jabs at the forge in there but otherwise he just seemed to be saying do whatever works for you and your group but don't tell me I am doing it wrong just because I do it different than you.

I actually kinda agree with both of them. I don't give a fuck about gear porn, it's just tedious bullshit getting in the way of playing a character. If your guy is a specialist on a particular type of kit, fine, roleplay it, lecture my character if they say something dumb, but the game mechanical differences aren't likely to be enough to matter. It's easy to get caught up in stuff like this, rather than actually play the game; too much of this bullshit is usually a sign that the designers don't know what is meant to happen at the table, in my experience.

If I'm playing a game where there genuinely are differences that matter, I probably still won't care - I'll play a character who isn't concerned about it, and ask the GM what gun gets used in the movies. That'll do.

The 40k games probably have the right balance for me; lots of guns, yes, but each type is clearly defined, with the encouragement to ornament the name as necessary.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;789784Why is Benoist no longer posting here?

Amongst other things, he was fucked off with the venom directed at anyone who didn't like D&D5 enough or dared question any of Holy Mearls' decisions, including being called out by Our Host on his blog.

You should follow him on facebook, if you're not already. He's pretty cool (Benoist, that is).

I don't get Lawsians.  They're always on about "Roleplaying", but all they ever really talk about is collaborative story-telling as an art form.  

The concept of roleplaying as experiencing a setting through playing a role is just totally alien to their way of thinking.  Which is fine, except when they attempt to exclude it as a playstyle, or go down the Uncle Ronnie route of brain damage bingo.

You're being unfair to Ben there, Spinach, he was remarkably restrained and very "unwayist".


Wick did say one thing that was correct - In a roleplaying game, game balance does not matter.  Unfortunately, that's pretty much all he said that was correct.

I agree with Wick about is that balance doesn't matter and that you only get better by doing. Also agree that 4th edition was a tactical game and not a role playing game. Doesn't change the fact that I enjoyed playing it, but I had no illusions about it.



Haven't gotten to Benoist's rebuttal yet.

Just finished Benoist's rebuttal.

Was he always that long winded? I seem to remember him being more concise and to the point in the past.

I find myself agreeing with both of them on different points.

I agree with Benoist that there is no right way to play an RPG and that the rules should fit the setting. At the same time, I agree with Wick in that I don't believe that balance matters in an RPG.

I absolutely believe that Chess can be turned into an RPG, however, I think once it is, it is no longer Chess.