Final Battle: Why I Play The Way I Do

This entire essay was inspired by my experiences on Furcadia. I have a fairly unique roleplaying history, so it surprises me when people have radically different opinions about the way things should be played. However, I also have faith in the way I play, so I have thought up numerous defenses. In the heat of an argument, these aren't played out completely. This essay defends some of the essential cornerstones of my style. I'll then go into the history of the official development of Final Battle to shed some more light onto the way I play. But first, a little about me.

The first RPG I ever played was GMed by me. It was a Rifts RPG, and I did it in 4th grade. Now, of course, in the 4th grade I could not understand some of the concepts inside Rifts. But, my mind played upon it. I was used to a system in which everything was allowed: magic, psionics, guns, swords... And a system which, despite a few minor issues, was balanced, unified and organic. A system in which everything existed and everything was equally deadly. Quite simply, I wanted it ALL. I wanted every magic spell, every psionic power, every obscure O.C.C. power. Of course, as I developed as a roleplayer, I realized that such an endeavor would be impossible without hard work.

It then surprises me when I meet people who want to limit the system: only guns, only swords and sorcery. Some of my friends have begun to shift this way in their RPGs, so I had to create a shining example of what could be. My way. I created Final Battle. Some of these friends weren't deterred. I then gave arguments as to why my way was better. I have had this same debate over and over again in Furcadia, but this time with people I've actually felt rather hostile to, and defended their opinion with little reasoning and pure dogma. Thus, I have developed this essay as a way to avoid screaming the same point over and over again. The number of points is large, and indeed it should be. This level of debate over the way roleplaying should and can be is precisely what is needed to ensure good systems. Thus, my justifications for a universal system:

1. It's just more like the real world. In roleplaying, we aren't trying to distance ourselves entirely from the real world. No matter what, we have difficulties imagining the world in a radically different way. We always expect a sword to cut a person, at least somehow. We don't expect it to break. We also expect a realistic development system. Most of roleplaying has a lot to do with combat and fighting, so I'll talk about the real world of fighting.

In the real world, there are a number of examples of the need to be prepared for everything. I've read a very interesting article called And His Name is Legion by M.C. Summers (a psuedonym.) In it, he described that part of the reason we won the Cold War was because it was fought on our terms. We wanted to buy superweapons: planes that are seen on radar as the size of a golf ball, cruise missiles, etc. Billion dollar bombers. All other countries got the same superweapons. Russia built their Migs, Iraq and Iran bought the Migs, we sold dictators our F-17s, etc. But, countries like Iraq just don't have the experience we do. Oh sure, they have the F-16s, but they don't have the infrastructure to launch it. No trained pilots, no communications, no floating gas tankers... nothing. Thus, they lose every time. But, what if they were to use cheap weapons? Waves of Warthogs and Exocet missiles would cost as much as one ship loaded with the latest next-generation fighters, and they would win. What does this have to do with roleplaying, you ask?

Well, M.C. Summers points out that in the real world, PEOPLE USE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES THAN US. Simple enough. In the real world, we have to be prepared for something new. So, limiting someone to just magic is stupid. In the real world, having such a small system would be an ideal fantasy.

So, what's the alternative? In the end, everything should be equal. Enchanted swords are just as deadly as a machinegun. Ultima is just as deadly as a nuke. In fact, magic is in some ways better than technology. Why? At an airport, a mage could walk through undetected and cast three spells in the plane: Breathe Without Air, Fireball to blow out the wall, and Fly or even a mystic Parachute. No one could ever catch him. But a cyborg would be stopped at the gates. Simple example. So, if you think that guns make your opponent less strategic, prove it. Get around their abilities. In the real world, martial arts tournaments are held. The same chest-thumping occurs: "Oh, KUNG FU will beat all of you!" "No, only KENPO KARATE is the true art!" And so on. "Only snipers are winners!" "Only mages are winners!" Regrettably, what all this stuff comes down to is beating your opponent. That's it. So, martial artists have tournaments. Fair tournaments. Why can't we? It's a simple ideal to attain.

2. The distinction between technology and magic is nil. What's the difference between me launching ice shards like a machinegun or shooting bullets like a machinegun? Really, none. Okay, maybe the ice shards are weaker. But that's it. That's the only difference. If you were to get non-brittle ice shards, it'd be the same thing. What's the difference between a sniper rifle and an enchanted bow? Absolutely nothing. But I've never seen a medieval player argue that a bow should be disallowed. It's a part of medieval play.

What's the difference, then? Simple. The same strategic impetuses guide mankind. It's always been an advantage to strike first. A distance weapon has always been the best way to do that. Whether it's a bow or a sniper rifle doesn't matter; it's all the same thing. The only difference is that guns are more powerful. Fine. But, in the real world, we prepare Marines to still fight in the crude medieval style: punch, kick, slash, use a sling. And, in the roleplaying world, we can imagine swords that are better. A lightsaber can deflect or destroy bullets. A longbow can be enchanted to fly at the speed of a meteor and have the durability of hardened titanium. In fact, a bow might actually be better than a gun. Why? Because if you had infinite strength, you could just get a bow to fire at infinite velocities. But a sniper rifle could not do the same thing. Hence the immense power described in Ulysses' bow in the Odyssey.

When sword users are whining about guns taking away strategy, they're really whining about good distance weapons taking away strategy. You always will have to worry about that. People will always figure out a way to strike from a distance with force. Worrying about the particular agent that accomplishes this is pointless.

3a. Abuses can occur in every system. People complain that guns allow trigger-happy fools to just keep on firing. And this is true. But I've met equally poor ancient RPers who just keep on casting Fireball. It's the same thing.

Against someone who fires a gun repeatedly, if you cast a barrier that can stop objects travelling at bullet speed, they can never win. They'll have to change their strategy. Any good gun master recognizes this. Granted, it's slightly easier to describe what happens with a gun, but that keeps combat going faster.

b. The universal system is a unique way to check those abuses. Imagine a mage who has only three powers: the ability to instantaneously strike down any fighter he can see in the distance, immunity to magic, and who always has a wall behind him.. A fighter can never get close to him and a mage cannot ever harm him. Now, add one man with a sniper rifle. He is hidden among foliage. He wins. The mage, who could never be defeated in the limited system, can now be defeated with extreme ease. This mage is now in a stress point. He must stop oppressing the townfolk long enough to get the ability to detect someone from a distance. Further, the sniper rifle can blow through any medieval wall! He must then get 360 degree detection and walls impervious to bullets. Add in a DBZ fighter who can use an energy blast from a distance and this poor guy is in bad shape. Next, add a T-1000 who can mix in with the ground, or a mutant who can kill from below, and this poor mage is no longer that much of a threat.

Now, of course, all these objections are great and such, but they all come down to one thing: what's my alternative? This is a two-pronged answer, one directed at FinalBattle, one directed at Furcadia.

Final Battle is my RPG. It's tempting to say, "If you don't like it, don't play it!" But, there are characters I've never liked that other people desired. Now, if I was like half the people on Furcadia, I'd curl up in a ball and not allow that character. Instead, I made the game a showcase for every approach. My parties combined masterful gunplay with shrewd magic and mind-debiliating psionics... and a little DBZ extremities thrown in. Others got a different approach. We would duel, and see who was better with their style, and who was more strategic. In the end, every style can win (under my rules), it just depends on the strategy involved.

Furcadia, on the other hand, is not my RPG. Because there are no rules for the freeform Calvinball-ish RPing I do, people come on who are just unstoppable. They claim to be God. Actually, that's receded recently; the "powergamers" on Furcadia have become actually rather weak. Of course, many accuse me of Power Gaming myself. I might just write an article to prove you shmucksors wrong, but that's in the future. However, one complaint raised by people about the way I'd open the floodgates is that twinks would rule. They claim that limiting the system can solve this. Well, like I said in 3B, not really. But they are right that my lack of limitations would open the doors. However, I've never found a powergamer strategy that isn't easy to defeat, given some time. Someone who claims to be infinitely fast? Cast Time Stop, Maelstrom them, and then behead them. Simple enough. Again, the same impetuses exist. Powergamers will always do the same stupid thing, and you can always make the same response. In addition, the risks posed by power gamers doing some damage are far outweighed by the benefits. Which are?

The benefits of the universal system are many. The most important is appeal. Under this system, people of all sorts of different systems can interact and have fun. Now, of course, some common groundrules are needed. I personally use Rifts as my guideline, as it works very well for such fusions. I love all systems of fighting (pretty much), so I understand and enjoy everything. I am, in the end, pragmatic: If what I see works, I love it. If what I see fails, I avoid it. Simple enough. If guns work, I use them. If swords work, I use them. I don't want to be dogmatic about it; the dogmatism of both East and West about technology vs. magic is actually what causes all the problems both sides claim is the exclusive fault of the other! In the end, the ability for people of different backgrounds and playing styles to interact is far more important than anything else. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone can win; of course not. Fights must have winners and losers. But, if you don't win with the strategy you've chosen, it's your own dang fault. It's mainly a strategy problem, every time. Other benefits include checks on abuse, a system that constantly develops and never decays, and characters that have a wide range of potentialities.

I hope that this essay has awakened some minds. I have never heard a good reason why any system is bad for playing: I've assumed every reason I've stated in this article. And they're all bunk, anyways. If you like your fighting style and think it's better, prove it. But don't force it upon others. Hopefully, your system should indeed be so good that even if you run into someone else with a different strategy, you should win with ease! Otherwise, how is it a good system? To think otherwise is to be the proverbial ostrich. And I personally will kick any ostritch with their head in the sand in the arse. Good night, everyone.