I came across this piece titled "A Gamer's Manifesto" today, which lists twelve assertions the writer makes:

I came across this piece titled "A Gamer's Manifesto" today, which lists twelve assertions the writer makes:

whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-gamers-manifesto.html

I'd like to know which ones you agree with, and which you do not. I'll post them in my next two posts, and then my own opinion.

Using a trip very briefly to avoid confusion and the possibility of someone making things up and pretending they're part of this "Manifesto," and will drop it as soon as I've finished posting the list of items.

>1. 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.

>2. 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

>3. 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.

>4. 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.

>5. 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.

>6. I reject rules that make decisions for the characters. Players should make decisions for their characters.

>7. 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.

>8. I reject the idea that playing by the Rules as Written is not role-playing. Rules are physics, Role-playing is decisions and expressions.

>9. I reject the idea that GM judgment is the equal or superior of objective resolution in key areas such as combat and skill resolution.

>10. 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.

>11. 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.

>12. I reject the concept of 'rules getting out of the way'. RPGs are games, and the rules should engage and interest the players.

Anyway, I agree about 1/3 of the way with point 1, in that I think definitely there are ways of gaming that are more conducive to the players' goals, and I do think it's possible to be "doing it wrong" if you're doing it in a way that doesn't line up with your goals.

Personally, I agree with points 2-3, agree with 4 for more simulation-oriented games, prefer the kind of game 5 is talking about but am not adamant about it, agree with 6-8 entirely. I'm split 50/50 on 9. I like rules where 10 is the case. I disagree with 11, and disagree with 12 even harder because players should be able to think in-character as much of the time as humanly possible while playing. OOC mechanics that distract from what's being simulated in favor of what's simulating it, miss the point.

I wouldn't play with the guy. The whole thing is written around some purist ego by a dude who apparently idolizes a style of gaming I doubt he even participates in.

Got bored at "I reject the fallacy" and stopped reading...

. I reject rules that make decisions for the characters. Players should make decisions for their characters
The rest is mostly self-consistent, if pretentious, but this one's a bit weird. He's saying that going for simulation is the "Best Way" to play, but then says that "this particular simulation is off limits."

Would he say an effect that caused a player to, say, drop their sword badly designed because "they didn't choose to drop it"? What about an effect that controls a PC's arm to strike one of their allies? And if the latter is OK, why not the same accomplished through the mechanically-identical method of mind control?

It seems like a weird place to draw the line is all.

On 2 and 3, allow me to rephrase Schneier: "The unfortunate truth is anybody can design a system that he himself cannot break."

What's wrong with the manifesto of "Let's all play our games in the way we enjoy it most, and not be dicks"

That's always worked for me

I agree with 4 and have a preference, but do not agree with, 5. Most of the rest of this stuff, especially in how it is written, makes the guy sound like a complete fucking nighmare.

Opinionated bollocks. High minded sentiments that only exist to justify the writers belief that his preferred way of gaming is in fact the best one.

>rules are physics
>rules should not make decisions for the characters

Anyone who does the 'rules are physics' thing can get fucked and die desu

Also why would you I REJECT THE ASSERTION rather than I ASSERT?

I agree with you. I actually agree with maybe a little over 50% of what he says, with respect to the kind of game I like to play (generally; I'm up for a storygame once in a while), but based on looking at his website, it seems to be 10% coming up with good ideas, 20% critiquing what he sees as bad play, and 70% lashing out at GNS bullshit with his own bullshit. That said, he wrote a good piece called "Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep" that absolutely fucking eviscerates The Forge.
That's fair.
Yeah. What he's really saying is "I don't find mind control fun, as it makes me feel like I'm watching a movie instead of playing," but he has to phrase it in I'm-Right-You're-Wrong terms because he's almost as arrogant as his arch nemesis Ron Edwards, and just kind of less of an asshole (for example he argues with people who disagree instead of banning or blocking them or deleting their comments).
I agree. I think 2-3 are true in that you can find games that do this for your group.
Yeah, I like you.
He reminds me of woodwwad in that both of them have some good ideas that they present and both of them have their fans and I'm sure have fun RPing with people who think like they do, but both of them also come across as assholes 90% of the time and say stupid shit when talking about anything but what they DO preer.
Yeah I basically agree with you.
I like "rules are physics" for a certain kind of game. I don't like his claim that his way of gaming is the ONE TRUE WAY.
Because he's more comfortable being against things than for things.

I think this dude is not exactly meaning what he is writing when you look at his other blog entries. I think taking positions would benefit his arguments more than attacking positions.

>I reject the fallacy that holding to a “One True Way” in gaming is an evil
Unless this is a follow-up to another essay or something, this is literally vague nonsense because I don't know who the fuck this guy is or what his, judging from this, borderline deified system of choice is supposed to be.
>we should strive not for the mediocrity that ‘everything is just taste’- but instead reach for and only accept the best.
Oh, and let me guess--only people who have the exact preferences that he does are allowed to decide what is 'best'?

I'm going to be frank, I don't care about the rest of it. The first assertion is enough self-important bullshit that I feel like I can never read another word he writes and still want for nothing.

nice blogpost faggot

You're probably right.
That's reasonable. I kind of wish he talked more about things he DOES like, and why he likes them, than why everybody else is having badwrongfun.
Thanks, user, I worked really hard on it!

What, do you want to have the wrong kind of fun, or something?

Given that he has to write a fucking 'Manifesto' to express his opinions on roleplaying, I'd rather not play with him, even though I might agree with him on some points.
It screams attention whoring. Like OP.

I think point 1 is easy to take the wrong way but there IS something to be said about how just saying "it comes down to taste" doesn't form a constructive narrative to game analysis.

NOW WITH THAT SAID No there is no "one true way to game" but that's because games can fufil multiple different genres and tones and settings. No game is going to be able to be both a high-octaine action/adventure game where you play as a group of cool gunslingers and demolitions experts who need to save the presidents daughter while also being a low powered horror game about being polish orphans in World War II. At least not without a system so completely bare bones and straightforward (I roll the dice to do the thing and if I hit the number it's done) that it may as well not even be there.

What we SHOULD be striving for isn't the "one true way of gaming" it's the idea of: Is this game's concept sound? And if so, does its system support or detract from the concept?

It's 100% accurate, with the clarification that the inevitable ad-hoc rulings for situations not covered by the rules immediately become the reasonable house rules mentioned in statement 7.

The whole thing is basically just a longwinded way of trying to pass off opinions as facts.

Whoever wrote these was a tool.

I agree with you. I still disagree with point 1 because it clearly, specifically asserts that there IS "one true way of gaming."

But storygames are fine, as are more simulation-oriented games.

I'm of the same mind on this. The rules, and their execution, are a means to an end.

And putting aside other questions of setting or genre, even if there was somehow a single universally lauded and preferred system every group that learns the game is going to inevitably develop their own sort of permutation of the experience.

How you frame a scene, what elements you leave to a die roll, the ways in which you might quantify sensory information when they interact with target numbers, how you introduce conflict to a party--those are all down to the GM and are never totally consistent across groups despite the same rules being used, yet also have a tremendous impact on the game in question and how we enjoy and consider it in the moment of playing. And I've never seen two GMs that handle EVERYTHING the same way, in spite of consensus on other matters in tone or how storytelling is valued.

If we were to assume that there is only one true goal in roleplaying, with only one true way to prioritize how we package and communicate that narrative experience in rules text, and that there is only one true way to decompress that information as an adventure writer or GM, and only one true way to adjudicate the unexpected at any point, then we quickly find that there is seemingly nobody but the man who wrote the manifesto who is supposedly qualified to write, run--or perhaps even play--an RPG.
And that's fucking stupid.

>1) Pure bullshit. Even if it wasn't super subjective (which it is), why doesn't he explain what the "One True Way" is? And what objective metric did he use to decide that is is in fact the "One True Way"?

>2) Depending on how you define "broken" this is entirely true, but a system being mechanically sound is only one aspect of roleplaying games. Having both players throw a d6 and having the one who rolls higher win is perfectly balanced and mechanically flawless, but that doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the game.

>3) I don't really disagree with this one, but I fail to see how this is relevant to anything.

>4) I'm not sure how to interpret this point, but a GM doesn't just set a stage for the players to run around in. There's always interplay between players and the GM, and a loss is never 100% the players' fault. A GM can easily make the party walk into bullshit traps or throw encounters at them they can't handle, in which case player skill is irrelevant. What's more, players and GM are supposed to create an interesting adventure together instead of the GM just setting up an obstacle course for the players to overcome based on their own skill. This isn't video games.

>5) I actually agree with this. Stories should be mostly emergent, and GMs that want to tell a story are the worst railroaders.

>6) I have no idea if he has any specific examples of what he means by this because I'm not really sure, but on the surface I do agree.

>7) This is technically true (assuming the game is competently designed), but that doesn't mean you always have to play RaW. On the contrary. RaW is a good fallback position, but insisting that everything should be RaW is pure cancer.

>8) Again technically true, but they way this and #7 are phrased makes me thing this guy is the worst kind of rules-lawyering autist. Fun comes before rules, and there isn't an RPG in the world fudging the rules isn't occasionally desireable or even necessary.

>9) Again, pure rules-lawyering bullshit. I would never let a guy like this into my games. Rule zero, you dumb motherfucker. I'm not saying that all use of rule 0 is good, but if your GM is halfway competent he will use it and he will use it well.

>10) No. Fuck no. This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Again, the GM isn't just some nebulous force who only sets up a playground and lets the players run wild inside it. The GM is an active part of the game.

>11) This guy has no interest in actual roleplaying games. Someone hand him a Warhammer rulebook or something, because he obviously wants to play wargames, not RPGs.

>12) Rules should definitely "engage and interest" the players, but he's acting like all an RPG is is just a rulebook. Again, this guy wants to play miniature wargames, or maybe just video games, but definitely not RPGs.

I feel like 5 is specifically against games that include narrative mechanics players have access to, things that take the plot contrivances or tropes you'd see in a non-interactive piece of media and let players make use of them. Always having the right item on hand, being in the right place at the right time, etc. Not things that exist of their own accord in universe, but things that are narratively appropriate if you consider the game as a story. Deterministic GMing doesn't really come into it.

I think 6 is mostly about disadvantages and mechanical flaws that take things in the reverse direction, like Fate's compels. Mechanics that 'force' a player character to act in a certain way, like a 'Drunk' or 'Code of Honour', which turn up in various systems, disadvantages which force a character to act or react a certain way if certain conditions are met.

I mean, apart from minmaxers looking for spare points, people take those kinds disadvantages because they WANT to be negatively affected by their character's behavior. You don't pick a Trouble aspect in Fate because you want to avoid having the bad thing it portends happen to you, and even when it's a bad thing you've specifically invited onto yourself at chargen, you can still get out of it from time to time if you're willing to pay.

>I feel like 5 is specifically against games that include narrative mechanics
Well, then he should have actually explained his points instead of just hating on vague concepts without any explanation or offering reasonable alternatives. It's just one big THESE THINGS ARE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO without even bothering with any arguments on why they're wrong or suggesting tangible alternatives.

If you're right though, I'm still inclined to agree with him, but it would be very much a matter of opinion and I could easily see how someone else might disagree. In fact, some systems encourage that kind of thing.

>I think 6 is mostly about disadvantages and mechanical flaws
Well then fuck him. If you chose to play an incorrigible drunk, you shouldn't be mad when it has actual consequences. I kind of agree that such rules shouldn't be necessary from a roleplay perspective. After all, a player who plays a drunk should actually -roleplay- a drunk so it's not just buying flaws and then ignoring them... like playing a low intelligence berserker and yet solving puzzles and outwitting everyone else and stuff like that. But on the other hand, it depends on the system, and there's literally nothing wrong with character choices having mechanic consequences. Again, I agree on a subjective level since I don't particularly like such things, but that's just my preference and it's not like a system that's designed with such things in mind is objectively worse.

This guy sounds like an awful rules lawyer in most of this, but then goes "but I don't like what the rule say, game time is over!"

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think there's something to be said for games where the GM presents a world, has an idea how things will go if the players don't intervene, and tries to have the world react as realistically as possible.

I also think that, if the GM decides carefully on house rules ahead of time, it's possible to have a game world that's almost entirely internally consistent, and never have to fudge.

I disagree with the notion in the "manifesto" that this is the "one true way of gaming," but then, I also disagree with 12 while you agree with it. I think it's absolutely possible for rules to be what you consult to determine how to do what you decided to do entirely in-character, with no metagame concerns whatsoever.

To borrow from GNS theory (which I don't believe in but am using here just because I know this guy hates it even more than I do), I think simulation is an admirable goal if it's what the GMs and players want, and (and GNS people would actually hate this), I think it's the fastest way to immersive play.

> I think there's something to be said for games where the GM presents a world
Well sure, sandbox games are definitely a thing, but even in those the GM is still very much an active participant.

If you run a sanbox game and the players get bored, it's easy to just yell at the players and tell them they suck for not finding all the amazing adventure opportunities you've hidden away, but it's just as much your failing as a GM not to step in now and then (as subtly as possible especially in a real sandox game) and keep the adventure going. Even in a sandbox game, the adventure is still a cooperative effort.

>I also think that, if the GM decides carefully on house rules ahead of time
Bull fucking shit. Even if you're a very talented and experienced GM, your players are still going to run into situations that either aren't sufficiently covered by the rules, or where the rules are actually preventing them from doing stuff that, by all rights, they should be able to do. And that's not even mentioning simple flaws and errors that can be found during play. Unless they're a bunch of meek sheep that let themselves be railroaded (which goes against the spirit of sandbox games anyway), a group full of players will be able to outthink a single GM very often, which is why improvisation is such an important GM skill.


Running a true sandbox game requires a fairly specific kind of players. It's definitely not for every group, and it's almost always a terrible idea if your group isn't up for it, so implying that it's the only correct way to play RPGs is elitist at best and completely fucking retarded at worst.

Like it or not, 90% of all groups simply REQUIRE some amount of railroading to keep the pace smooth and would sooner or later implode when dropped into a sandbox.

> It's easier to reject things then accept things.
> Realism isn't impossible, thus I should try for it.
> Rules are physics, rules as written classifies as RP.
> I can't play without map and miniatures, and all information therein.

That's all well and good, but man I would not want to play with this guy.
He sounds like an utter hardass, and not even a fun one.

1. Horseshit. He's rejecting the argument that it's subjective out of hand, without making a single argument to support his opinion

2. Largely reasonable.

3. Largely reasonable.

4. I agree with this personally, but it's not a universal absolute by any means and it's a mistake for him to pretend otherwise.

5. Semi-horseshit. I don't believe that GMs or systems "should" be anything. There are differing styles and that's it.

6. Too broad to evaluate, therefore horseshit by default.

7. Semi-horseshit, and it undermines itself anyway because what counts as a "reasonable amount" will vary from player to player.

8. Horseshit. This is conflating multiple arguments into a single snappy, ill-defined and badly formulated argument.

9. Semi-horseshit. The GM needs authority or else arguments are impossible to resolve. You need a chief so someone needs to wear the feather bonnet. It's also, again, a taste thing.

10. Semi-horseshit. This is really an elaboration on his earlier points anyway.

11. Double horseshit. It's a subjective argument, and then buttressed by name-calling ("lazy").

12. So broad and ill-defined that it's basically horseshit.
-------

Overall he comes across as an opinionated rollplayer. From the way he formulates his points, he most likely has a warped and pretentious understanding of what objectivity is.