PDA

View Full Version : Brand-New RPG gamer



rs2excelsior
2013-12-22, 07:36 PM
So, I have never played a tabletop RPG in my life, and I find myself about to try and start a roleplaying group with novices like myself. Given that no one else has any experience in any RPGs either (so far as I know) and that I'm the only one thus far who has actually read--or even looked at--the rules, I may (probably will) end up as GM. Any general advice?

To clarify, this isn't D&D. It's the HERO system rules. But any advice for RPGs in general--playing or running one--would be appreciated.

Airk
2013-12-22, 09:17 PM
Yes! :)

Talk! Talk to everyone in your group. Figure out what you want out of this game. Communicate expectations. The #1 thing that kills games is some people wanting the game to be one thing and other people wanting the game to be something else.

Take a look at the Same Page Tool (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/); Agree on some answers to those sorts of questions - they will help you make decisions on what the game should be like.

At that point, you should have an idea what people want the game to BE and how they want to play it, and that should help you consider how to set things up. It helps you know whether your game is Dark Knight Returns or The Incredibles. ;)

Edit: Generally, don't keep secrets from your players. It's okay to keep secrets if the players 'know' it's a secret - if the villain has an evil plot, and the characters know he's planning SOMETHING, the details are probably something that's okay to keep secret, but generally, you should ask your players to be mature enough to tell the difference between what their characters know and what they know, so it should be possible to discuss "secrets" in a fashion that makes for a better story.

Zavoniki
2013-12-22, 11:36 PM
Edit: Generally, don't keep secrets from your players. It's okay to keep secrets if the players 'know' it's a secret - if the villain has an evil plot, and the characters know he's planning SOMETHING, the details are probably something that's okay to keep secret, but generally, you should ask your players to be mature enough to tell the difference between what their characters know and what they know, so it should be possible to discuss "secrets" in a fashion that makes for a better story.

I strongly disagree with this. You should keep things secret from your players in general because it produces stronger roleplaying. People will metagame and when they do you want it to be good metagaming not bad metagaming. Good metagaming is when they play too or with narrative tropes when they are presented(not splitting the party/splitting the party being a good example) while bad metagaming is when players use their outside of character knowledge to gain an unfair advantage. It can also be hard to keep track of what you know and what your character knows and what differs between those two lists. For new roleplayers I would keep secrets.

But I would also(as the DM) make a note on everything the players learn/meet/explore so that if they ask about something later or are trying to solve some mystery they have all the information available. When people ask you questions about what has happened in the game, you should know. This is especially important in more investigative/espionage/mystery games, but even in action games people want to know why they are doing such and such a quest and who they are doing it for.

Airk
2013-12-22, 11:49 PM
I disagree that secrets produce stronger roleplaying. Most of the time you get one of two things:

#1) Out of character reaction to the 'reveal' overrides IC reaction
OR
#2) No IC reaction is produced because the players never REALLY figure out what's going on.

I think that you shouldn't game with people who do bad metagaming, and that we should all be capable of avoiding it if we want to, and I think that collaboration results in cooler stuff than one person making up a "great secret" that the other players never pick up the hints of until the "big reveal" where they all go "Wait, what?"

And that's also not the only type of secret I'm talking about.

But to speak to your second point, yes, take copious notes.

inexorabletruth
2013-12-23, 12:19 AM
The fact that none of your friends have bothered to read the rules makes me a bit nervous, because it may imply that they lack the commitment necessary to make the game last. But that's at least a problem you can work around.

Here's what I'd do (Bare in mind, I'm not familiar with HERO, so some of this might not translate well):

Open with a simple one-up.
Have everyone create basic, level one characters, then just have a trial combat-run with 1 or two mooks… no plot. This will help them get a feel for the battle system. RP is mostly "play pretend" and if your friends have an active imagination, they'll pick up on that easily enough. But for noobs, battles tend to grind to a slow crawl. A sample battle will give them a feel for their characters and give them a sense of each other's combat style.

Keep it "rules-light".
For experienced players, rules help balance the game-world and enable them to use the more advanced assets of the game, but for a beginner, stick with the rule-of-cool, and limit restrictions to only the most basic and essential rules in the game. If someone seems to be catching on to a rules-light exploit too quickly, then simply announce that you're introducing another official rule in the next session, and explain the rule to them.

Go easy on them.
Use a light hand with BBEGs, traps, and hidden monsters and high challenge ratings. New players are rarely paying attention to the subtle hints, and are mostly "along for the ride." You kind of have to hold their hand for 5 or 10 sessions (depending on how quickly they pick up on the rules and strategies). You may have to throw the game a little so that they win combats that their own inexperience keeps causing them to lose. Once it becomes apparent that they can handle more challenging combat, you can announce that the gloves are coming off, and bad combat strategy can result in character death.

Play frequently and reschedule a session for the nearest available time if you have to cancel.
Try never to cancel a session. But more importantly, try to play often. At least at first. After a while, your group will naturally settle in to a once or twice a week pattern. But at first, it's harder for new players to settle in, get organized, get their snacks ready, get into character, and figure out what to do next. So sessions can be pretty unproductive at first. Playing several sessions a week will keep the campaigns from dragging out while they're still getting into the swing of things.

rs2excelsior
2013-12-23, 01:59 AM
The fact that none of your friends have bothered to read the rules makes me a bit nervous, because it may imply that they lack the commitment necessary to make the game last. But that's at least a problem you can work around.

It's not so much "haven't bothered to read the rulebook" as "it's my book, and this is mainly an idea I've thrown around with a few people, so nothing has been nailed down enough yet that any of them would borrow it to read it." Plus classes getting in the way.

The other advice (from all of you) seems good, and I'll definitely bear it in mind. I think keeping regular sessions going might be tough (as I said before, classes), but when I get back I'll see if we can set up something. A small zombie outbreak or something :)

Airk
2013-12-23, 10:28 AM
Frequent play isn't a NECESSITY, but you'll find the game works a lot better when it has 'momentum' behind it, because people remember the rules, people remember what happened last time, and what they were planning to do and what they were excited about. Too long between sessions and the excitement fades and you have to build it up again.

Not impossible, just more work.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-23, 11:41 AM
Here's what I'd do (Bare in mind, I'm not familiar with HERO, so some of this might not translate well):

Keep it "rules-light".
For experienced players, rules help balance the game-world and enable them to use the more advanced assets of the game, but for a beginner, stick with the rule-of-cool, and limit restrictions to only the most basic and essential rules in the game. If someone seems to be catching on to a rules-light exploit too quickly, then simply announce that you're introducing another official rule in the next session, and explain the rule to them.

*coughs discreetly*

Um, yeah. HERO System (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14601.phtml).

Black Jester
2013-12-23, 01:08 PM
As a first game, HERO is quite a challenge, but it is definetely manageable. There is a certain prejudice among many more experienced players that a new player doesn't understand rules as good as a new one because they are, by definition less experienced. In truth, this is almost never the case; facing a new system without preexisting expectations and idiosyncracies is not any more difficult than with them. Besides, HERO is a decent game, at least as long as you are ready to spend your time to familiarize yourself with the rules.

The most important thing is, that as GM you are supposed to keep in mind: An RPG game is not a story. It is not a passive endeavour of consumption, like a movie or a book, it is all about making decisions and their consequences. As such, you need to provide opportunities for these decisions, and ways that these decisions matter. Providing opportunities is usually not svery difficult- just remember that the key question is not 'What happens next?' but 'What do you do?'; te second part, about the consequences, is a bit more complex, because you need to evaluate the ideas of your players and give your honest feedback. If you let the players fail or succeed no matter what, you fail to give their decisions any meaning, and, consequently, you fail as a gamemaster. As such, any meaningful decision needs to option of failure, or it ceases to be meaningful.
This also means, that the players require information to give them hints what kind of actions are appropriate; remember, your players cannot read your minds, and may not necessarily share your impressions of descriptions and the llike, so for starters, make sue that you stress important facts and make sure that the players can get access to relevant information to influence their decision.


This might sound a bit esoteric, but in practice it is very simple: Make sure that your players have plenty opportunities to do something. If they do something, make sure it has an impact on the ongoing events. If they are smart, reward them with success; if they act stupid, you aren't mean if you let them fail. And keep in mind that they should have information at hand to base their decisions on. There, the golden triangle of gamestering.

Airk
2013-12-23, 01:42 PM
As such, any meaningful decision needs to option of failure, or it ceases to be meaningful.

While I agree with a lot of your post, this line, I vehemently disagree with.

Failure NEVER needs to be an option for a decision to be interesting or meaningful. Complications or just -difference- are enough to make decisions meaningful. "Do you climb the wall, or try to talk your way past the guards?" has no fail state, but I challenge you to assert that it's not a meaningful decision. "Do you risk the noise of smashing the door down in your haste to get into the archmage's chambers, or do you take the time to thoroughly check the door for traps, knowing full well the guards could return at any moment?" also has no hard fail states, but again, this is a meaningful decision.

The only things that are necessary to make a decision meaningful are:

A) Some understanding (it need not be complete) of the situation. If you don't understand why a decision matters, it's not meaningful. "There are two identical doors, which one do you choose?" is not meaningful because the players have no information to try to inform their decision.
B) That there be a difference in consequences between the choices. "Over the left door is written, in ancient dwarvish 'Enter here ye who be our friends' and over the right door 'Eternal damnation awaits'." is still not meaningful if both doors lead to the same place.

Though it can be argued that even B isn't necessarily true if the players don't know that the decision makes no difference. In a dungeon crawl left door/right door scenario, they'll probably eventually discover this and be annoyed, but if neither door gets them to the archmage's chamber in time to save him from the demon he just summoned, they may never know and the decision will still -feel- meaningful.



This might sound a bit esoteric, but in practice it is very simple: Make sure that your players have plenty opportunities to do something. If they do something, make sure it has an impact on the ongoing events. If they are smart, reward them with success; if they act stupid, you aren't mean if you let them fail. And keep in mind that they should have information at hand to base their decisions on. There, the golden triangle of gamestering.

Actually, they don't HAVE to succeed every time they are smart, or fail every time they are 'stupid', because other factors can be at work, but this is a decent rule of thumb to follow.

Black Jester
2013-12-23, 03:30 PM
The relevance of any decision is inherently linked to the possibility of making a bad decision. If all decisions lead to a similarly positive outcome, the actual weight of the choice is diminished as it doesn't affect the overall outcome any more. Failure doesn't need to be absolute, but relative failure (or 'complications' if you prefer as a result are still relevant.

Besides, the option of failure is pretty much mandatory for a good roleplaying experience anyway. Success in the broadest sense has only a chance to become more than instant gratification if it is something earned, something valued because it is the result of hard work, blood, sweat and tears. If you cannot truly fail, you cannot truly succeed, either.
The alternative eventually just leads to easy gratification and a strong sense of self-entitlement.

veti
2013-12-23, 04:06 PM
Remember that running a game is not a storytelling medium. There will be a plot of some sort going on, which may form the basis of the story you end up playing through, but how the players interact with it - is entirely up to them. If they choose to run away from the Big Bad instead of facing up to it, or if they try to join it or replace it or just plain ignore it - these are all valid roleplaying options. I'm not saying you should allow or support them, mind - just don't get upset, or even surprised, because the players aren't doing what you expected them to.

There are a lot of ways of railroading your players onto the plot. The important thing is to keep them in-character and consistent with your setting's internal mechanics. Having the whole team arrested and tasked with something that amounts to 'getting on with the main plot'? - that's fine, if it's consistent for the authorities in your game to work that way. (And once they get released, they still get to choose whether to do what the Boss told them or not.) Attaching a GMPC to the team to rant at them every time they go off the rails? Not OK.

Whatever they do, there will be consequences. For instance, if they ignore the Big Bad then it'll continue with its plot, and next time they encounter it, it'll be that much further along. And other people and plots will be hatching in response. Make sure the players know that the world keeps moving on, whatever they do or don't do - it's not just a bunch of static plot hooks, waiting frozen in time for them to stumble along.

Airk
2013-12-23, 04:36 PM
The relevance of any decision is inherently linked to the possibility of making a bad decision. If all decisions lead to a similarly positive outcome, the actual weight of the choice is diminished as it doesn't affect the overall outcome any more. Failure doesn't need to be absolute, but relative failure (or 'complications' if you prefer as a result are still relevant.

I really disagree; Take this all the way to the sandbox level. The PCs decide to go visit the Kingdom of Svalfbard, instead of the Emirate of Adashi. Neither of these has any failure or, really, even, immediate, direct complications, but I don't see how you could consider that decision to not be meaningful.



Besides, the option of failure is pretty much mandatory for a good roleplaying experience anyway. Success in the broadest sense has only a chance to become more than instant gratification if it is something earned, something valued because it is the result of hard work, blood, sweat and tears. If you cannot truly fail, you cannot truly succeed, either.
The alternative eventually just leads to easy gratification and a strong sense of self-entitlement.

I think that quantifying things in terms of success/failure is too limited and binary to describe something as varied as an RPG. Your definition of the game here seems adversarial and oldschool.

The world is ending and the PCs cannot stop it. Are decisions made about how to spend their last days meaningless or meaningful? You might be able to argue either way, but I would say they can still have meaning. Certainly, they can lead to EXCELLENT roleplaying, even though success/failure is more or less completely off the table at that point except on some sort of personal level.

Black Jester
2013-12-23, 05:29 PM
I really disagree; Take this all the way to the sandbox level. The PCs decide to go visit the Kingdom of Svalfbard, instead of the Emirate of Adashi. Neither of these has any failure or, really, even, immediate, direct complications, but I don't see how you could consider that decision to not be meaningful.

Sorry, but this example only works in an extremely contrived or massively superficial game: For your example to actually be of complete equal footing when it comes to the quality considering the quality of the decision (remember, success and failure are only a shorthand for saying that not all ideas are equally good and that all your decisions are supposed to have consequences), the two places require to pretyy much be exchangeable, the trip equally simple or complicated, the people you meet in your way equally (un-)important and so on.
Besides, this is a very abstract and high level of the action, petty far removed from concrete event resolution. "I'm going on a trip to Svalfbard" works as an overall decision, but on a more concrete level, its implementation still obtains such a vast number of more concrete decisions which still can lead to a vast number of different outcomes (positive or negative).


I think that quantifying things in terms of success/failure is too limited and binary to describe something as varied as an RPG. Your definition of the game here seems adversarial and oldschool.

No, not at all. This is an abstraction for the sake of a simple advice, on a limited scope, for someone who isn't too experienced with games. I thought there is no need to get this example unnecessarily complicated for the sake of a simple advice.
And in this context, a more general statement about relatively accessible terms like 'success' or 'failure' are significantly more helpful than



The world is ending and the PCs cannot stop it. Are decisions made about how to spend their last days meaningless or meaningful?

So, you have a contrived scenario where failure is the only option, the players are freed (or robbed) of any meaninful influence on the outcome and are left to their personal pick of navel gazing...
By that point, not the decision, but the whole game has been completely stripped off all meaning besides melodrama and may very well have ceased to be a roleplaying game at all.

Airk
2013-12-23, 06:29 PM
Sorry, but this example only works in an extremely contrived or massively superficial game: For your example to actually be of complete equal footing when it comes to the quality considering the quality of the decision (remember, success and failure are only a shorthand for saying that not all ideas are equally good and that all your decisions are supposed to have consequences), the two places require to pretyy much be exchangeable, the trip equally simple or complicated, the people you meet in your way equally (un-)important and so on.
Besides, this is a very abstract and high level of the action, petty far removed from concrete event resolution. "I'm going on a trip to Svalfbard" works as an overall decision, but on a more concrete level, its implementation still obtains such a vast number of more concrete decisions which still can lead to a vast number of different outcomes (positive or negative).

I disagree; Why do you believe that the initial decision is not meaningful? Yes, one may be harder or easier. They may take longer or shorter amounts of time. One may require more preparation. But NONE of that is binary success/fail, nor does any of that directly equate to a higher failure chance. What if there's no actual chance that they will actually somehow "fail" on the journey? What if it's as simple as booking a plane ticket? What if everything that happens is the result of decisions made after they arrive? But those decisions and their outcomes are all contingent on their having decided to go to X instead of Y. There is no fail state here. There isn't even necessarily any difference in "difficulty". It could be as simple as "In Svalfbard, insurrection is brewing, while in Adashi, foreign treasure hunters are pillaging the nation's cultural heritage." They are different plots. Both of which might be interesting to the PCs. They may or may not have some (but probably not all) information necessary to choose between them. But neither choice has a greater "fail chance" or something.


No, not at all. This is an abstraction for the sake of a simple advice, on a limited scope, for someone who isn't too experienced with games. I thought there is no need to get this example unnecessarily complicated for the sake of a simple advice.
And in this context, a more general statement about relatively accessible terms like 'success' or 'failure' are significantly more helpful than

Honestly, I think you've made things much more confusing by apparently using the words "success" and "Failure" to mean things that they don't actually mean. Now that I'm grasping what you are ACTUALLY saying, our views aren't really that different on the main point, but it took me until now to realize it because you seem to be using "success" and "failure" to mean "advantages" and "complications" or something, because you are clearly not referring to actual success or failure.



So, you have a contrived scenario where failure is the only option, the players are freed (or robbed) of any meaninful influence on the outcome and are left to their personal pick of navel gazing...
By that point, not the decision, but the whole game has been completely stripped off all meaning besides melodrama and may very well have ceased to be a roleplaying game at all.

Wow. You mean to think you believe a game that is nothing but melodrama is not a roleplaying game? Really? Are you serious? You think roleplaying does NOT include any variation of "what would my character do in these circumstances?"

"Personal pick of navel gazing?" A character's personal ideas of "What I want to do before I die." is 'navel gazing'? Frankly, I think there's room for a lot of interesting roleplay here, and if you don't, I think you are being shortsighted. Maybe you don't want to play that sort of game, but accusing it of "not being roleplaying" is being exclusionist to the point of insult.

Black Jester
2013-12-24, 04:22 AM
Wow. You mean to think you believe a game that is nothing but melodrama is not a roleplaying game? Really? Are you serious? You think roleplaying does NOT include any variation of "what would my character do in these circumstances?"



A game where the players are robbed of any influence of the outcome of the scenario is about as bad as it comes. Combining it with focussing on the player's navel-gazing (and yes, this is all about the players, the characters are dead meat anyway in this scenario) about feeling oh so sentimental and artsy. The characters may very well still serve as a vehicle, but claiming that this is still primarily character-driven play is basically misleading.
Bereft of any meaningful course of action which might affect the outcome, the characters have become superfluous in any sense besides of masks for the oh so tragic performance of the players, reducing the game to a mere Melodrama production site (contrary to actual drama deriving from the game, created through open-ended decisions and events which have been organically developed from the actual gameplay instead of artificial 'but thou must' plot bricks force-fed to the players).

Or basically: this scenario is railroading at its most blatant and offensive, combined with the claim that 'thou shalt enjoy it (or else)'. Stuff like this makes the faces of the responsible gamemmaster look extra-punchable.
So, yes, it is quite possible that game has long degenerated into a mere storygame, and labelling it as an RPG is some kind of mixture between wishful thinking and blatant exaggeration.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-12-24, 10:14 AM
Actually, I find that choosing between two potentially good outcomes is just as compelling as a situation where you might potentially make the "wrong choice". Chocolate or vanilla? Coke or Pepsi? 3.5 or 4E? These are all meaningful choices where there isn't a wrong answer, and the choice usually helps you figure something out about your own preferences.

To put it another way: sometimes, it's not the destination (success vs failure) that matters, but the road you took to get there.

Airk
2013-12-24, 03:28 PM
A game where the players are robbed of any influence of the outcome of the scenario is about as bad as it comes. Combining it with focussing on the player's navel-gazing (and yes, this is all about the players, the characters are dead meat anyway in this scenario) about feeling oh so sentimental and artsy. The characters may very well still serve as a vehicle, but claiming that this is still primarily character-driven play is basically misleading.

Nonsense; The characters should have enough of their own identity that you can easily tell when something is driven by the character, as established, vs just the player 'doing stuff'. Also, it's worth noting that at the end of they day, EVERYTHING, even your so-called "meaningful decisions" are all about the player, because the character doesn't actually exist. That doesn't mean you can't focus the action through the character in a meaningful way regardless.



Bereft of any meaningful course of action which might affect the outcome, the characters have become superfluous in any sense besides of masks for the oh so tragic performance of the players, reducing the game to a mere Melodrama production site (contrary to actual drama deriving from the game, created through open-ended decisions and events which have been organically developed from the actual gameplay instead of artificial 'but thou must' plot bricks force-fed to the players).

I'm sad to say that the definition of the word 'drama' does not confine itself to your narrow usage.



Or basically: this scenario is railroading at its most blatant and offensive, combined with the claim that 'thou shalt enjoy it (or else)'. Stuff like this makes the faces of the responsible gamemmaster look extra-punchable.

ALL scenario setups except MAYBE complete sandboxes are a railroad by this absurd definition. There's nothing unsavory about establishing the parameters of the world before the game starts. All elves died from a horrible magic event 2000 years ago, so now there are no elves? RAILROADING! RAILROADING I SAY!

Ugh.



So, yes, it is quite possible that game has long degenerated into a mere storygame, and labelling it as an RPG is some kind of mixture between wishful thinking and blatant exaggeration.

Oh, I see. You believe that games in which the players tell stories are not RPGs, even if there are rules, resolution mechanics, and all the other trappings. I believe you have successfully demonstrated your exclusionism to the point where people who don't want to be in your club know they are not welcome.

When did the definition of "role playing game" come to mean "dice driven sandbox where all agency belongs to the primary characters, who are each played by one player each and whose agency shall not be infringed upon"?

It seems that since we have fundamentally different ideas of what this hobby includes, and mine is much broader than yours, there's no real point in continuing this chat, as you seem to be determined to make sure that everyone who doesn't play by your definition of the right way is wasting everyone's time. I don't think there is any purpose served to either individuals or the hobby by telling people "No, no, you're not playing an RPG! You're doing it wrong! How dare you have fun doing that?" Which is pretty much what I'm reading in your dismissive tone here.

Airk
2013-12-24, 07:56 PM
I guess I should add a couple of last pieces of advice for the OP:

#1: If you're having fun, never let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.
#2: Always be open to listening to people's ideas of what makes a game fun. They might surprise and enlighten you. Don't suppose that because what you are doing works for you, that it's the only way to play and have fun.

Black Jester
2013-12-25, 11:02 AM
I'm sad to say that the definition of the word 'drama' does not confine itself to your narrow usage.

Na, contrived and force-fed prefabricated scripted plots are not real drama; it might be manipulatively enough to pull a heartstring here or there, but it is a shallow copy of an actual devlopment of events.
But even under a much broader definition, it is not particularly good drama anyway.




ALL scenario setups except MAYBE complete sandboxes are a railroad by this absurd definition.

Yeah, it is totally absurd to claim that "The world ends and you cannot do anything about it "s not in any way restrictive or contrived and shoehorns the players into the contrived scenario of the GM, i.e. railroading. Only because you don't like doesn't change that. So spare me the platitudes and shifting of the goal posts.
There is a massive difference between contrived bovine excrement like "everybody dies anyway tomorow no matter what you do" and a non-railroaded scenario. One for instance, is - and this might come as a total surprise to you - not define the outcome of an event before it happens.



Oh, I see. You believe that games in which the players tell stories are not RPGs, even if there are rules, resolution mechanics, and all the other trappings. I believe you have successfully demonstrated your exclusionism to the point where people who don't want to be in your club know they are not welcome.

Does it have a gamemaster which acts as the referee for the events within the game? Can a character die or suffer a a significant setback against the player's will? Is the gamemaster in any way or form forbiden to do one thing or the other by the book? Can the players veto a decision of the gamemaster? Does it include a randomizer of any form? If no, no it doesn't qualify fo a real RPG anymore. That does, however, not mean it is worthless, but it is not a full RRPG because it lacks certain elements.



It seems that since we have fundamentally different ideas of what this hobby includes, and mine is much broader than yours, there's no real point in continuing this chat, as you seem to be determined to make sure that everyone who doesn't play by your definition of the right way is wasting everyone's time.

It is called 'having quality standards'. You should try it some time, you might like it. But gratulate yourself to your broad sense of inclusion. If there is one thing I have learned through actual gameplay, that the presumptious idea that all game styles are equally valuable and beyond criticism is a one way road to mediocrity. I reject the fallacy that holding to a “One True Way” in gaming is in any way 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.

Airk
2013-12-25, 07:50 PM
It is called 'having quality standards'. You should try it some time, you might like it. But gratulate yourself to your broad sense of inclusion. If there is one thing I have learned through actual gameplay, that the presumptious idea that all game styles are equally valuable and beyond criticism is a one way road to mediocrity. I reject the fallacy that holding to a “One True Way” in gaming is in any way 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.

Because blue is quantifiably better than red under all circumstances.

Are there differences in quality between systems? Sure. Just ask the AD&D edition wars gladiators. Doesn't mean that one STYLE is better than another. But some things are not objective, no matter how much you wish they were. There is no one true way, only people who can't understand any but their own. Merry Christmas.