

Chess Is Not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance - omnibrain
http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/

======
Vaskivo
While I agree with the author's notian that "some games need balance others
don't"[1] I disagree with the premise.

The author says that roleplaying games don't need balance because they are
about telling stories, and that "other games" need balance because they are
about the challenge, gameplay and competition. I kind of agree with this.

Then he goes on to caracterize games by their capabiblity of being played
withour roleplaying. By this logic, he then says that not only World of
Warcraft is not a roleplaying game, but Dungeons and Dragons isn't one either.

This is followed by "You can play board games such as Rex and Battlestar
Galactica and even Settlers of Catan without roleplaying… but roleplaying
seems to make them more enjoyable. [...] but if you go too far in that
direction, you’ll lose. And the goal of those games is to win. Roleplaying, in
the end, sabotages the goal of the game."

"...try playing games such as Vampire or Pendragon or Our Last Best Hope or
World of Dew or Deadlands without roleplaying, you’re missing the entire point
of the game."

This, in internet lingo, is what is called "BadWrongFun", i.e. you can't have
fun playing a game in a way different than the intended by the authors.

I don't think there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun". I have this ruleset, I
should be allowed to do with it whatever I want. I can roleplay in chess. I
can call my knight Tim and have him be the queen's brother. And when he is
captured, the grieving queen only moves half the distance. And I can also have
a highly tactical dungeon crawl in (let's pick a narrative focused roleplaying
game) FATE, completely ignoring setting, theme and story, throwing challenge
after challenge at the players. Both of these are OK, and many more.

IMO, the problem with the authors logic is the idea of the objective or point
of the game. That when you play Chess you want to win, when you play WoW you
want to level up, and when you play a roleplaying game you want to craft and
experience a story. I'll refute this with an example:

The "point" of the car is to help people move around and carry goods. But
there are people who like to race cars. There are people who like to tune them
and modify them. And some like to collect them. Because what people do with
something doesn't always match its purpose.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with roleplaying chess, or being a min-
maxer[2] in a roleplaying game. People can do whatever they want with their
games. Losing in chess is not bad if the player didn't care for winning or
losing in the first place.

To finish my rant, here's my last thought: All games need balance, some more
than others. But the balance required for a game depends on the context of the
gaming session and the players goals for that gaming session.

[1] And I'd reiterate it as "some games need more balance than others" [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-
maxing)

------
colanderman
_You don’t get to say, “I have a high charisma because I’m not very good at
roleplaying.”

My response to that is, “Then, you should get better at it. And you won’t get
any better by just rolling dice. You’ll only get better by roleplaying.”_

No. Some people are both _not good at speaking under pressure_ , but _want to
be part of a story where their character is a good diplomat_. I have a player
like that. Telling her, "sorry, you don't get to roll, suck it up and get
better at talking" is a surefire way to lose a player and a friend.

Must she select the topic of discourse? Of course; players are expected to
make decisions for their own characters.

Must she come up with an eloquent convincing ex temporaneous speech? Hell no.
That's as stupid as forcing your players to solve a real-life puzzle or riddle
to progress in the story.

\-----

On another note, combat statistics serve a very important purpose in a
roleplaying game: they serve as a neutral referee, a "higher authority". Call
it a crutch if you will, but allowing the combat to progress as the dice
dictate precludes me (the GM) from unconsciously projecting unfair biases onto
the outcome of combat actions.

A player will often have one idea what their weapons can do, while the GM has
another. (Other players may even have a third opinion!) Mismatch in these
expectations is a sure way to kill player morale. Fixed statistics eliminate
this potential source of GM-player friction by codifying agreement of weapon
capabilities.

Note that impromptu skill checks follow a similar code: if the player proposes
their character do something "creative", the GM can fall back to the system of
skill checks and situational bonuses to derive a reasonable DC for the die
roll(s). Often this may be negotiated with the player. Like weapon statistics,
this method eliminates (perceived or real) favoritism and helps the game
progress more smoothly.

------
omgtehblackbloc
It's a good point, but this isn't new info.

Every RPG rulebook I've ever read has a preface or afterword where they say
something to the effect of "These rules aren't set in stone, this is your
game! If a roll will take the story in an unsatisfying direction, or a rule is
getting in the way of your players' enjoyment, throw it out!"

In fact, that might be a better litmus test for what distinguishes a role
playing game from other kinds of games: do the rules direct you to break the
rules whenever it would be more fun?

