Yes. Surprised by the turn of events, but certainly aware of the attacker.This ("programmed plot") is not an example I care about, but out of curiosity: Does NPC B be aware of the attacker ?An infamous example where 3.5 mechanics failed the story telling is with one of the Crimson Throne issues. *slight spoiling coming* Off stage, NPC A moves up to NPC B and points a crossbow at NPC B's head and fires. In the description, this is described as a killing blow (which amazed everyone when NPC B not only survives but doesn't seem to be very injuried).
Now in the mechanics, there are no "called shots", so no shot to the head. A crossbow shot isn't very lethal to most characters with a couple of levels. NPC B wasn't helpless so the shot was a coup-de-grace. etc....
The PCs' interaction with the game world made such a storytelling inconsistent with what the characters knew. This is an example where the game mechanics failed to aid a storytelling aspect.
Also the attacker was not an assassin, and I don't think they were a rogue either (but I'd have to recheck that to be certain, I know if the attacker had rogue levels they were not the primary class for the character).
Because to me, the game is a simulation; and it is through this simulation that I escape...So then it does, indeed, come down to one group wanting a simulation and the other wanting a game. It's always been my contention that the goal of D&D's design was to provide a good game first and an "accurate" simulation second, but if you can't find what you're looking for elsewhere D&D will do in a pinch for either.
I agree with this. I can see a sort of slider bar of "suspension of belief"(kinda like a volume control) every gamer is willing to accept, and it just so happens we all fit somewhere different on the scale. We're not all going to be on the same mark on the slider bar, and I think that's where a lot of the disagreement is coming from.
Going from the slider bar example, different games just assume a different level of suspension of belief. As much as I don't prefer 4e, I have a friend whom the system fits like a glove. He and I can sit and discuss what's going on in our games without getting petty and accusatory; we just accept that we play different games, but at the heart of it we're still involved in the same hobby.
It's not even about which is better, who's right or wrong, at this point we're just arguing preference. And really, where do we think this line of thinking is going to go?
|
A roleplaying game, however, is a game (as though that needed to be said). And Dungeons & Dragons is a roleplaying game. So if you mean to say that you don't see Dungeons & Dragons (or any RPG similar to it) as a game, your perceptions are, I'm afraid, quite mistaken.
No, I'm not it just so happens that I don't care about the "game" part (or to be more concrete, the rules) too much. What I'm basically saying is that I don't play D&D (or Pathfinder, or whatever else) but I'm crafting stories with the help of D&D or any other system. The rules are important in so far as they help me doing this but it's not like with board games that the game experience necessarily depends on them.
You're right, if I just did this for and by myself, I wouldn't need any rules at all. But it's not just about story-telling, it's about collaborative storytelling and that's were rules can easily become necessary so that all participants have a common ground they can build the story on.
It's not that I don't recognize the gamey aspects in roleplaying games. I don't even mind them as they add another dimension to my games but (to me) it's not the reason I'm playing roleplaying games.
You're right. The most popular roleplaying game out there, and some other games that no one you know plays. Only those things.
Yet you ignore gams that I listed where the rules are the same or only slightly different. I don't ignore 'indy' games...but to say 4th ed (whose popularity is wanning) and those idny games are the sole things in the RPG industry is terribly short sighted of you. Which is what I am getting from your post...the field is alot more varied. People will play what they want.
And all RPGs are written on paper. That doesn't mean that the design is the same. When you play Gears of War in co-op multiplayer, your character follows different rules from the enemies you fight. Most significantly, the fact that you can recharge your health by staying out of the line of fire. In World of Warcraft, NPCs can be created as elite monsters, or even boss monsters, gaining abilities and strength that no player could ever hope to possess, because giving them these abilities makes for stronger gameplay.
Video games are dicated by the medium they are done in...RPGs are dicated in the medium they done with. video games are limited by the AI tech of the computer. RPGs are not. There are as different as night and day.
You see D&D as a fantasy world simulator first and foremost, and I see it as a game.
That is true...but why can't a stimulator be a game? There serveral games that are stimulators.
And, no, it's not like including Monopoly. Monopoly is an entirely competitive game. There are no non-player controlled decision-makers. We're talking about cooperative games, because cooperative games are where we start to see players following different rules than non-players do.
Sure but again video games are different than RPGs. I could bring up sports as a cooperative games...or Knights of Camelot....but when I want to play a RPG I don't play those games. Likewise I don't play WoW due to the reasons I play RPGs.
Gee here I was thinking of games that people actualy play...Yeah, no one plays World of Warcraft. What was I thinking.
Well you seem to think no ones plays Hero system...L5R...or most of the other games that are not 4th ed or those idy games.
To turn it around...why is not such a level of realism not important in your gaming experience?To put it very simply, D&D is a game. When I play a game, realism is only worthwhile up to the point where it contributes to the facilitation of gameplay. When realism starts to detract from the game, I lose interest in adding further realism to the game.
Why don't like movies where the characters never reload their guns after firing it fifty times...If the movie experience is enjoyable, the fact that the characters fire fifty bullets without us seeing them reload is something I have no problem glossing over. The term "suspension of disbelief" exists for a reason.
Why don't I like Mary Sues in my novels....No one likes Mary Sues in their games, but not because they aren't realistic. Mary Sues are frowned upon in tabletop games because they are typically used as an excuse to hog the gaming spotlight.
Why don't I like books that are not consistent within themselves...Internal consistency is not the same as realism.
I think you'll find it is a matter of taste.Undoubtedly.
Ignoring reality does not make it better story....just as taking reality into account makes it a bad story. Heck personaly one of the reasons why I like reality in my game is because reality is far more interesting and stranger than fiction in my opinion.And yet we don't find ourselves sitting down around a kitchen table and playing Real World the RPG.
You asked what I thought a honest question...I answeared it all about taste. What I typed entirely had to do with taste...not anything regarding this at all. Yet you seem to twist to a intent that was not there So I'll be clearer.
I am not wrong in not liking a movie where the guys shoots 50 times with a six shooter without reloading. The fact you can accept it is great...I find insulting my intelligence and tend to find the story involved just as insulting. But than again we are different people.
So why are you argueing about peoples tastes?
Does it matter to you that people do things differently than you do?
I mean do you truely believe that your way is the only 'right' way?
Why did you even post on this thread?
Yet you ignore gams that I listed where the rules are the same or only slightly different.
No, I didn't. I said that the vast majority of cooperative games created nowadays do not follow that pattern. That remains true.
I don't ignore 'indy' games
Sure you did. In fact, you went so far as to say that no one plays those games.
...but to say 4th ed (whose popularity is wanning) and those idny games are the sole things in the RPG industry is terribly short sighted of you.
I didn't say that. I said that 4e and indy games are examples of games where the rules for players and NPCs are very different. I then also went on to cite a bunch of video games and a board game. I could list more, of course, but I'd be here all day.
Which is what I am getting from your post...the field is alot more varied. People will play what they want.
The field is varied because we're seeing a transition to game systems where NPCs and PCs do not follow the same rules. This has long been the case in single player games, but cooperative games and roleplaying games are seeing this emerge now as well.
Video games are dicated by the medium they are done in...RPGs are dicated in the medium they done with. video games are limited by the AI tech of the computer. RPGs are not. There are as different as night and day.
They have differences. Those differences are not germane to a discussion of how the rules for NPCs and PCs are different. It is clear that this is a similarity shared across all mediums of cooperative gameplay - pen & paper RPGs, board games and video games. To hand-wave your opponents argument away because "RPGs are not video games" is a little silly. You understand that what we're discussing here is very basic game design, right? Heck, the basics of game design are so similar between RPGs/board games and video games that many tabletop gaming industry veterans have had very successful transitions into the video game industry as game design professionals.
That is true...but why can't a stimulator be a game? There serveral games that are stimulators.
Yes, there are. Simulators do exist that are marketed under the heading of a game. However, those examples that are simulators first and games second are not popular. Accuracy of simulation in games stopped being a heavily marketable selling point for much of the game industry many years ago. This is why we don't see accurate flight sims selling like hotcakes anymore, and why games like Civilization have focused on expanding gameplay as they've released new iterations of the game, rather than expanding the fidelity of their simulation.
For a good example of what a modern day simulator looks like (and how niche they have become), you needn't look any further than RailWorks 2.
Sure but again video games are different than RPGs. I could bring up sports as a cooperative games...
Sports are not cooperative games. They are competitive games played in teams. There are no NPCs, except in video game incarnations of sports, and PC-NPC interchangeability is preserved in such games so that a human opponent can take the place of the computer.
The fact that you mention that you could have brought up sports - when, in fact, competitive games aren't even in our realm of discussion - makes me wonder if you're really grasping what we're talking about, here.
or Knights of Camelot....
This is a great example. The players follow very different rules from the NPCs.
but when I want to play a RPG I don't play those games.
Right, of course not. But those games exist, and their gameplay is influencing the entire field of game design. "Is there a compelling reason for NPCs to follow the same rules as PCs?" is a question that is seeing a lot of examination in RPGs nowadays.
You asked what I thought a honest question...I answeared it all about taste. What I typed entirely had to do with taste...not anything regarding this at all. Yet you seem to twist to a intent that was not there So I'll be clearer.
All of my responses had to do with taste, and observations on what people play.
I am not wrong in not liking a movie where the guys shoots 50 times with a six shooter without reloading. The fact you can accept it is great...I find insulting my intelligence and tend to find the story involved just as insulting. But than again we are different people.
Yes, we are.
So why are you argueing about peoples tastes?
I'm not.
Does it matter to you that people do things differently than you do?
Well, yes, but if you're being honest with yourself you'd answer yes as well (for instance, I clearly argue differently than you do, and it matters to you that this is the case). We can put that aside for the purposes of this discussion, however.
I mean do you truely believe that your way is the only 'right' way?
No. In many cases I believe that my way is the "best" way, but, again, pretty much everyone thinks this. If they didn't think their way was best, they'd probably change to a way that was best.
Why did you even post on this thread?
Because I felt like it.
That's really irrelevant, though. You seem to have a tendency to gradually move away from the topic of discussion and towards unsubstantiated personal attack on motivation. This is far from the first time you've questioned my motives just because I've taken a position that disagrees with your own. If you don't like my observations, you are more than welcome to counter them without engaging in personal attack. If you insist on stepping outside the argument to attack me personally, however, you will find that I am far less interested in discussion.
The field is varied because we're seeing a transition to game systems where NPCs and PCs do not follow the same rules. This has long been the case in single player games, but cooperative games and roleplaying games are seeing this emerge now as well.
This saddens me. When 3e came out, I thought its greatest feature was that PCs and NPCs and even monsters all played by more or less the same rules (in 1e, you'll recall, monsters didn't even get ability scores). It was a breath of fresh air to me. Rules for adding class levels to monsters -- guess what! It works the same as adding class levels to PCs! Pure genius, I thought.
So I'd emphasize that if we're seeing an NPC/PC rules division "emerge" now, it's really a reverting to an older model in tabletop games, not really a step forward in that sense.
The field is varied because we're seeing a transition to game systems where NPCs and PCs do not follow the same rules. This has long been the case in single player games, but cooperative games and roleplaying games are seeing this emerge now as well.This saddens me. When 3e came out, I thought its greatest feature was that PCs and NPCs and even monsters all played by more or less the same rules (in 1e, you'll recall, monsters didn't even get ability scores). It was a breath of fresh air to me. Rules for adding class levels to monsters -- guess what! It works the same as adding class levels to PCs! Pure genius, I thought.
So I'd emphasize that if we're seeing an NPC/PC rules division "emerge" now, it's really a reverting to an older model in tabletop games, not really a step forward in that sense.
That may well be the case. I'm not sure what caused 3e to become a "fluke" in that sense. PCs and NPCs sharing the same rules only serves a purpose if you think that NPCs might need rules for everything that PCs do. The industry thinking on this topic appears to be "No, they don't need rules for the same things; PCs are 'on-screen' almost the entire time, while the vast majority of NPCs are 'on-screen' for a few rounds."
This makes sense to me, from a player and a DM perspective.
|
I'm not sure what caused 3e to become a "fluke" in that sense.
I wouldn't say it was a fluke. There were a few games released in the late 70's through the 90's that had NPCs and PCs using the same mechanic, with perhaps only "monsters" having different mechanics (if the game had such things), while "Joe Blow NPC" was created the same way as a PC...
|
|
When 3e came out, I thought its greatest feature was that PCs and NPCs and even monsters all played by more or less the same rules (in 1e, you'll recall, monsters didn't even get ability scores). It was a breath of fresh air to me. Rules for adding class levels to monsters -- guess what! It works the same as adding class levels to PCs! Pure genius, I thought.
Same here. That may be one of the major reasons I stick to 3.5/PF as my system of choice
I'm not sure what caused 3e to become a "fluke" in that sense.I wouldn't say it was a fluke. There were a few games released in the late 70's through the 90's that had NPCs and PCs using the same mechanic, with perhaps only "monsters" having different mechanics (if the game had such things), while "Joe Blow NPC" was created the same way as a PC...
I don't think it's much of a fluke either. There are more than a few that use the same mechanics.
I'm not sure what caused 3e to become a "fluke" in that sense.I wouldn't say it was a fluke. There were a few games released in the late 70's through the 90's that had NPCs and PCs using the same mechanic, with perhaps only "monsters" having different mechanics (if the game had such things), while "Joe Blow NPC" was created the same way as a PC...
There are still alot of popular games with the same mechanics...heck one could really argue 4th ed uses the same mechanics for PCs or NPCs/Monsters. What exactly is the difference there...heck there is really nothing stopping you for letting PC's take a Monster's powers...because they work exactly the same for the most part. It is just a little silly rule that keeps them apart.
Really we only see computer games....which it make sense for as you would add tons of lines of programming which would increase the cost of production. While a Table top game you need very little do it it with...heck the Hero System you need one book and everything works the same in that game. Actualy I would say for a RPG you need another whole set of rules for it.
A couple of indy games...which as I have said are not any indicators of the mainstream gaming industry as...well by defination they are fringe and niche. Heck there are more people out there who probably play PB games than all the indy games combined. And not all indy games have a difference.
All systems probably have a mix of what is allowed to PCs and what is allowed to NPCs/monsters. Some even have different scales like 7th Sea...you had goons(think minions in 4th ed but 100% better done)...you have henchmen which used some of the rules but had limitions place on them PCs don't...and you have Master Villians...which pretty much created as full characters.
I have played probably over 30 different RPGs...and this has always been the case...there is no fluke or industry changing...it just as human beings we all have different likes and desires and companies will try to fulfill those.
|
When 3e came out, I thought its greatest feature was that PCs and NPCs and even monsters all played by more or less the same rules (in 1e, you'll recall, monsters didn't even get ability scores). It was a breath of fresh air to me. Rules for adding class levels to monsters -- guess what! It works the same as adding class levels to PCs! Pure genius, I thought.
Same here. That may be one of the major reasons I stick to 3.5/PF as my system of choice
+1
Me in 2000: "Yey! D&D has finally been dragged forwards, into the late 1970s!"
There are still alot of popular games with the same mechanics...heck one could really argue 4th ed uses the same mechanics for PCs or NPCs/Monsters.
Uhh...no. They're built using an entirely different set of rules, and the outcome is totally different even if a few of the building blocks are the same. It's like taking a chicken and making a chicken sandwich out of some of it and coq au vin with the rest. Sure, they're both made of chicken. They are not, however, interchangeable. (Or, perhaps an even better analogy, taking a cow and making it into both hamburger and a tallow-based lubricant.)
What exactly is the difference there...heck there is really nothing stopping you for letting PC's take a Monster's powers...because they work exactly the same for the most part. It is just a little silly rule that keeps them apart.
The rule isn't silly. Monsters do damage on a different scale than PCs, and they take damage on a different scale than PCs. Porting monster powers directly over to PCs would be very disruptive to game balance. You would need to closely monitor such powers to ensure that they didn't over- or undershoot the intended level of power for the PCs.
Really we only see computer games....which it make sense for as you would add tons of lines of programming which would increase the cost of production. While a Table top game you need very little do it it with...heck the Hero System you need one book and everything works the same in that game. Actualy I would say for a RPG you need another whole set of rules for it.
I'm not even sure what you're saying here.
A couple of indy games...which as I have said are not any indicators of the mainstream gaming industry as...well by defination they are fringe and niche. Heck there are more people out there who probably play PB games than all the indy games combined. And not all indy games have a difference.
Look, John, I gave you two examples of the phenomenon I'm discussing: the largest roleplaying game in the entire industry, and a bunch of smaller indy games. You can say that indy games aren't mainstream, but 4e clearly is. You can say that 4e by itself doesn't make a standard, but then the indy games demonstrate that the 4e way of thinking is hardly isolated. So you can come at it from either direction, but the reality is that there is a lot of support - even within just the tabletop gaming industry! - for treating PCs and NPCs differently. Add in board games and video games and it becomes clear that the way some tabletop gaming companies are treating NPCs and PCs as though they are interchangeable is fairly non-standard when it comes to the field of game design.
Uhh...no. They're built using an entirely different set of rules, and the outcome is totally different even if a few of the building blocks are the same. It's like taking a chicken and making a chicken sandwich out of some of it and coq au vin with the rest. Sure, they're both made of chicken. They are not, however, interchangeable. (Or, perhaps an even better analogy, taking a cow and making it into both hamburger and a tallow-based lubricant.)
The rule isn't silly. Monsters do damage on a different scale than PCs, and they take damage on a different scale than PCs. Porting monster powers directly over to PCs would be very disruptive to game balance. You would need to closely monitor such powers to ensure that they didn't over- or undershoot the intended level of power for the PCs.
Yet I see GMs do that and stat up NPCs using the same method as PCs and it works for them. Though you know with soo many people telling me that you can't do x in 4th ed or you'll break it....the systems seems really fragile and inflexable.
Really we only see computer games....which it make sense for as you would add tons of lines of programming which would increase the cost of production. While a Table top game you need very little do it it with...heck the Hero System you need one book and everything works the same in that game. Actualy I would say for a RPG you need another whole set of rules for it.
I'm not even sure what you're saying here.
You can't compare RPGs with video games at all. 1st video games don't have rules...they have programs. Second as the player you never see the 'rules' as such. Third the NPCs are much more limited in that they are controled by a computer not a human being(one day this may change as AI tech gets better...but right now it is a factor) Fourth you act like treating the player's icon different from the NPCs is anything new in video games...they have to do it that way...they really don't have a choice.
Also as a side note since you mentioned WoW...most people find playing against other players to be the challenge...that is why all those games have head to head mode even in non PvP servers they are ways to fight other PCs.
Video games and board games are to a large extent limited on the medium they choose to use...RPGs don't have thos limits.
Look, John, I gave you two examples of the phenomenon I'm discussing: the largest roleplaying game in the entire industry, and a bunch of smaller indy games. You can say that indy games aren't mainstream, but 4e clearly is. You can say that 4e by itself doesn't make a standard, but then the indy games demonstrate that the 4e way of thinking is hardly isolated. So you can come at it from either direction, but the reality is that there is a lot of support - even within just the tabletop gaming industry! - for treating PCs and NPCs differently. Add in board games and video games and it becomes clear that the way some tabletop gaming companies are treating NPCs and PCs as though they are interchangeable is fairly non-standard when it comes to the field of game design.
It is not a phenomenon...it is not even something new...off the top of my head I think games like WoD got there waay before 4th ed or those indy games even came acroos it. In that a V:tM werewolf is completely different than say a PC werewolf in W:tA.
Sure that thought is around...really never argued it...what I am disagreeing with you is that it is something new and taking the industry by storm...as I have pointed there are alot more established games that use the other system and still use it. I have never said it was a cornor case...just saying that the other school is alive and well.
Maybe I was not as clear before and I apologize I was having a bad day.
My point is the so called 'old school' is not dying out...it is alive and well. Not saying the other styles don't have their place...but really they are just as 'old school' as anything else and are alive and well also. Neither is the best...or the worst. They a more factors than this the determine this.
Yet I see GMs do that and stat up NPCs using the same method as PCs and it works for them.
NPCs can be given PC powers by following the instructions for making them elite using an NPC class template. PCs should not receive monster powers, however, because monster powers follow different rules from PC powers (they are typically more powerful). As a DM, it is easier to deal with an NPC that might be slightly underpowered than a PC who is significantly overpowered.
Though you know with soo many people telling me that you can't do x in 4th ed or you'll break it....the systems seems really fragile and inflexable.
Sure, if you break the rules foundation that 4e is built upon, it will not work as well. That is true of all games. The difference is that 4e provides a framework that is so flexible that you can do pretty much anything you might ever need to without having to resort to breaking its rules foundation. And the kicker is that it's really easy.
You can't compare RPGs with video games at all.
Yes, you can.
1st video games don't have rules...they have programs.
Programs are their own sort of rules. That aside, however, video games very much do have rules in the same sense that a board game might have rules.
Second as the player you never see the 'rules' as such.
Yes, they do. For instance, many multiplayer first-person shooters have rules set up by the server host dictating the terms of the match. Very commonly, one of these rules is a time limit on the round. Not only can every player see this rule, but it's actually definable by the end user (the server host).
You're just making up blanket statements, here, and you should probably stop.
Third the NPCs are much more limited in that they are controled by a computer not a human being(one day this may change as AI tech gets better...but right now it is a factor)
So?
The game Left 4 Dead features a single-player mode, a multiplayer cooperative mode, and a multiplayer cooperative-competitive mode. In the multiplayer cooperative-competitive mode, one player is the Director, and more or less controls the enemy zombie "team" at a macro level (very similar to how a DM builds and executes encounters). While a human Director can certainly appear different in play from a computer Director, they can also appear the same. You could have a totally interchangeable gameplay experience whether you're playing with a computer Director or simply a run-of-the-mill human Director.
Fourth you act like treating the player's icon different from the NPCs is anything new in video games...they have to do it that way...they really don't have a choice.
Of course they have a choice. There are examples of video games where NPCs are built by and play by the same rules as PCs, and it's up to the player(s) to simply navigate the game more proficiently than the AI does. For instance, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of Chess clones available for computers. The "NPC" (your opponent) follows a set of rules identical to your own, and is interchangeable with a human player. Also see: most first-person shooters, practically every major sports title, etc.
There is no rule in video game design that states that NPCs must follow different rules from PCs. It's a design choice.
Also as a side note since you mentioned WoW...most people find playing against other players to be the challenge...that is why all those games have head to head mode even in non PvP servers they are ways to fight other PCs.
If you played WoW, you'd know quite well that most people don't participate heavily in PvP activity. Dungeon running and casual questing are both far more popular.
If you ask your average WoW player what the top challenge of WoW is, they'll probably point to tier sets and raid bosses, not to arena titles.
Video games and board games are to a large extent limited on the medium they choose to use...RPGs don't have thos limits.
RPGs have limits just like everything has limits. You're drawing arbitrary lines between mediums, and when challenged on their arbitrary nature, defend them with things that simply are not true. You need to rethink your position, here.
It is not a phenomenon...it is not even something new...
A phenomenon doesn't have to be novel. It just has to be different.
off the top of my head I think games like WoD got there waay before 4th ed or those indy games even came acroos it. In that a V:tM werewolf is completely different than say a PC werewolf in W:tA.
Ahhh, good. Another example of PC-NPC differences in a major tabletop RPG. I haven't really played any WoD stuff, so that's helpful.
Sure that thought is around...really never argued it...what I am disagreeing with you is that it is something new and taking the industry by storm...as I have pointed there are alot more established games that use the other system and still use it. I have never said it was a cornor case...just saying that the other school is alive and well.
I think it's on the decline. I think game designers are seeing more benefits in doing things the 4e-ish way than doing things the 3e-ish way - increased flexibility, ease of running monsters, decreased prep time, and, importantly, maintained play fidelity (meaning that, most of the time, the PCs won't even realize that the monsters is following a totally different set of rules from them unless they stop and metagame examine them).
Maybe I was not as clear before and I apologize I was having a bad day.
It's alright, we all have them. Goodness knows I've been heated in internet arguments before. Ross Byers' advice to avoid posting angry is good advice. If you let internet arguments get to you, take a break and come back later. Levity will get you much further than vitriol.
My point is the so called 'old school' is not dying out...it is alive and well.
There's a difference between "dying out" and "on the decline". I think that style of game design is no longer as popular as it once was. I'm sure that it will always be around in some form, but whether it ever reaches the point we saw it at in the 3e days again is doubtful, in my mind.
Not saying the other styles don't have their place...but really they are just as 'old school' as anything else and are alive and well also. Neither is the best...or the worst. They a more factors than this the determine this.
Objectively? You're right. But from the subjective standpoint of those designing games, there's definitely going to be a style that's more popular and a style that's less popular, and the designers will always choose the option that they believe is best for the game they are designing.
In regards to video games and board game I am just going to agree to disagree. I think it is more of we are looking at it differently...I don't think you are incorrect...and the fields of RPG/Video games/board games often steal from each other...I mean WoW would not exist if it was not for TT-RPGs.
It's alright, we all have them. Goodness knows I've been heated in internet arguments before. Ross Byers' advice to avoid posting angry is good advice. If you let internet arguments get to you, take a break and come back later. Levity will get you much further than vitriol.
Which is why I take a step back(or aviod it I am having a bad day)...and while I do at time find your posts...anger inducing...I don't think you do it entirely on purpose...as I said on another thread before it was closed. What you say about levity is true...but it is hard to pull off using the type word.
As to are those games are in declined...maybe...I think the evidence is a little shakey...but it might be. But they were on declined before and came back...as I said it runs in cycles...both never disappear...personaly though right now I like it better.
I think there is more parity between the two kinds of systems...which I think is alot more healthier for the industry than one system and a bunch of clones.