- I reject the fallacy that holding to a “One True Way” in gaming is an evil. Not all methods are equal, and we should strive not for the mediocrity that ‘everything is just taste’- but instead reach for and only accept the best.
- I reject that assertion that all game designs are broken. They may not be a perfect one, but it's not difficult to get close enough for practical purposes
- I reject the assertion that realism and simulation is impossible in game design. Again, it’s not difficult to get close enough to meet one’s needs.
- I reject the assertion that the GM owes the players anything other than an impartial campaign that offers mysteries and excitement. Success and Failure is dependent entirely upon their skill in play, or its lack.
- I reject the idea that GMs or RPG Design should seek to tell stories, they are games and should in themselves be fun and exciting enough that stories naturally result from play.
- I reject rules that make decisions for the characters. Players should make decisions for their characters.
- I reject the idea that RPGs cannot be played completely by the rules (or at worse the rules plus a reasonable amount of house rules) as written.
- I reject the idea that playing by the Rules as Written is not role-playing. Rules are physics, Role-playing is decisions and expressions.
- I reject the idea that GM judgment is the equal or superior of objective resolution in key areas such as combat and skill resolution.
- The GM powers are restricted to creating the world, and ends both at the mind of the player character and the boundary of the physics engines presented by rules.
- I reject the concept of play without the equal of a map and miniatures together with solid rules covering the elements of range, line of sight, and terrain. Any other style of play is lazy and nothing more than dependence upon GM handouts.
- I reject the concept of 'rules getting out of the way'. RPGs are games, and the rules should engage and interest the players.
Friday, November 30, 2012
A Gamer's Manifesto
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Overall I like. Two thoughts:
On #5, Agreed. I've been playing SWTOR for the first, since its free now and I came down with the flu, and the stories are fantastic. But I'm being told them, and it gets very samey-samey very quickly. I would rather the stories emerged naturally through gameplay. Being told a story doesn't make it my own.
On #6, semi-disagree. Man vs Self is one of the great conflicts, and it would be a shame to write it off forever just because nobody seems to have come up with interesting mechanics for managing that conflict yet. I'd love to see a simple, rich mechanic for managing internal conflict. (I'd also love to have several million in cash, while we're wishing.)
What is your attitude towards rules tweaks to close holes that become apparent in play?
Roeguard: Pendragon is considered by many to be best system for representing internal conflicts.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendragon_(role-playing_game)#Passions
It's rather simple as I recall, but I wouldn't know about it being rich or not as such things aren't to my taste.
Warren Drew: Sort of Depends if the holes we're talking about are problems with rules that are there, or if the problem is that there are no rules.
For problems with the existing rules-
House Rules are basically a given as few people can accept a game straight out of the book for reasons small and large.
If at all possible House Rules should be done between games and not during IMO so that the players know they rules they are playing under at all times.
If the rules don't exist at all, for example there are no morale rules in the game system- either don't worry about morale or leave it up to the GM's judgement (for NPCs) or the Player's (for their PC). Generally the lack of rules covering some indicates that the designed wanted it treated in such a fashion.
Post a Comment