Chess Is Not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

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.

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?

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