Quote from: David R;289194I think you're right. In fact if you read some of my posts here about Forge games, I've more or less said the same thing. I'm not really too enthusiastic about CKubasik's contention that codifying concepts etc creates something new. I mean it's kinda of like what Tarantino does, recyles old stuff but it looks new, esp to those who aren't aware of his specific references.

The interesting thing about CKubasik's examples of play is that it reads like any other roleplaying game.....which has always been my point....a sore one it would seem.

Edit: I think this wanders into Pseudoephedrine's Culture of Play. I think.

Regards,
David R

I agree with you David, in that the codification does not make something new as much as fix a form. So, I can think of a several character creation methods off the top of my head but say I wanted to go with Setting Driven where I present a setting, known to the player, and they make characters based on that. Now, I think I might be able to get Sorcerer to do that but it is obviously not what the system was designed to support. Another method I use is Genre Driven which might work fine. However, Character Driven, where each player brings their own individual ideas to the table just would not be supported. To me, this is one of the big reasons I am against such codification in the meta game.

Of course, that is just a preference.

Quote from: HinterWelt;289146Now, CK might be stepping on Droogs feet but I will let you two figure that out.

Yes, he is, but I'll step out now and let him blather.

Riddle of Steel was adopted by the Forge, and claimed as a Forge game, but really it has nothing to do with the place.

It's most obvious comparator is Runequest, though the mechanics are pretty different.  It was an attempt to do D&D right, it had a "realistic" combat system and a fairly crappy IMO skills system tagged on to it as an afterthought.  You rolled low for one, high for the other, the magic system was kind of broken and rather oddly mixed in scientific and mystical concepts in a way that I don't think actually made a lot of sense for either.

It also had spiritual attributes, dice related to destiny, luck, or more interstingly emotions or character goals that you could use to add to your dice pool.  It was a purely sim mechanic, if your character was more motivated in a fight, he fought harder, I don't think there was anything narrativist about it in the slightest.

Ron Edwards saw how you could houserule SAs so that they could be used for narrativist purposes, but his interpretation was not remotely supported by the game text (I owned it at the time of the relevant threads, and remember going back to my copy because his APs sounded very odd to me in terms of the game rules as written).  Ton's take was, however, widely accepted (and probably was an improvement on the game as written, Ron Edwards has many faults but he has designed some good stuff in his time) and adopted and with that TRoS became a Forge game by adoption.

I regard it personally as about as Forgey as Gurps (arguably less so), the adoption of TRoS was actually part of what made me give up on the Forge, it made it obvious that narrativist there (and I mean there, not generally) just meant games Ron liked, regardless of how traditional they might be in design.  So, TRoS got in, but that's because the Forge suffers from a distinct cult of personality problem.

Which is why, I wouldn't recommend looking at Forgie games, I think the Forge intellectually is long since a busted flush.  I'd look to Storygames, which is a great forum, to the blogosphere and possibly to fora I don't attend and amn't invited to (is I would knife fight a man still going?  Intensely culturally American, to the point that as a European I actually felt uncomfortable with the idea of registering there) and since these games are only a side interest of mine if there are such other fora that's fine by me and I hope folk enjoy them.

Imperator may still own a copy, if so he can probably answer questions about TRoS.

Oh, and while I'm here, anyone who thinks Sorceror isn't an rpg is a fucking idiot.  You create a character, each player plays one character, the GM runs the world and plays the NPCs, characters have stats, you roll dice to resolve conflicts, it's actually very traditional in its mechanics (unsurprisingly, it is one of the ur-nar games).  Some folk have had really good results with it, my impression is that it's actually quite a good game, but (Jesse's thread on storygames presently notwithstanding) very badly written.

Pundy's insistence on putting these games in off topic is weak ass shit, they're rpgs, if anything he's supporting the case that the indie games are some special snowflake school of game design.  They're not, they're rpgs, some good and some not so good.  The sooner we all assess them on the same basis as any other rpg, the sooner we assess a new game from some forum poster as we would the new White Wolf, the better off we'll be as a hobby.

Quote from: Balbinus;289290Pundy's insistence on putting these games in off topic is weak ass shit, they're rpgs, if anything he's supporting the case that the indie games are some special snowflake school of game design.  They're not, they're rpgs, some good and some not so good.  The sooner we all assess them on the same basis as any other rpg, the sooner we assess a new game from some forum poster as we would the new White Wolf, the better off we'll be as a hobby.

A) that is what I am trying to do here.

B) I actually met the designer at a GenCon (I think I underwhelmed him) and gave him some printing advice that save him some coin over at RPG.Net.

C) Thank you for taking the time to explain TRoS. I will have questions soon.

Quote from: Balbinus;289290It's most obvious comparator is Runequest, though the mechanics are pretty different.  It was an attempt to do D&D right, it had a "realistic" combat system and a fairly crappy IMO skills system tagged on to it as an afterthought.  You rolled low for one, high for the other, the magic system was kind of broken and rather oddly mixed in scientific and mystical concepts in a way that I don't think actually made a lot of sense for either.

No, not much sense. You can get a decent game from it, and the combat system is cool if you want something tough and detailed. We ran a game set in Dark Ages Transylvania with it, and it was cool. Only needed a bit of houseruling for skills.

QuoteImperator may still own a copy, if so he can probably answer questions about TRoS.

Actually it was yours , but your description is accurate, generally speaking.

QuotePundy's insistence on putting these games in off topic is weak ass shit, they're rpgs, if anything he's supporting the case that the indie games are some special snowflake school of game design.

Yep. Actually I feel that Pundit's going against his best interest here.

HinterWelt: I'm not terribly familiar with Sorcerer but I think you're a bit off on the GM role there. The kickers is just what gets the game started, its more or less the GM asking the player "what cool shit do you want your character to be involved in at the start of the game" after that things are a good bit more Trad.

And you're perfectly right about how a lot of what Indie games do is codify and make rules for things that happen a lot in more Trad games but which rules don't exist for. Basically Indie games try to hard code "how to play this game in a way that works well" into the mechanics of the game. Basically if you have a really really freaking awesome GM there is often no need to play an Indie game since he can do all of the cool stuff Indie games try to do by just making shit up. But if you have a more mediocre GM (and the vast majority of GMs are mediocre or worse, at least when they start out), Indie game rules codify how to bring the awesome and really make things work well.

For example for me, the best D&D GM I've ever had was my little brother. I don't think he ever read the DMG but he could make up all kinds of bizarre gonzo weirdness on the fly so that as a player it was always exciting and you never had any idea what would happen next. For years after that I played D&D and I never really had that feeling again, most of the time when I played D&D I felt like I was playing a CRPG with bad graphics in slow motion. Then when I played SotC instead of D&D with the same players and the same GM, the bizarre gonzo awesomeness that I hadn't seen in D&D in YEARS came welling up again. It was great

Basically, GOOD indie games codify good GMing (and cool playing) into the rules more than Trad games. This makes them less flexible but its a good trade off (especially if your GM needs help bringing the awesome).

One things that makes a lot of people on the story games forum like 4ed D&D (and that makes the RPGPundit get all frothy at the mouth about it) is that it does a lot of the same things. It says "when there's downtime the players pretty much always find a way to heal up one way or another, so why bother with having them track cure light wound wand charges and roll a bunch of d8s every morning, just having them heal up all the way every morning would save everyone a whole lot of time and provide the same result."

Quote from: Daztur;289335HinterWelt: I'm not terribly familiar with Sorcerer but I think you're a bit off on the GM role there. The kickers is just what gets the game started, its more or less the GM asking the player "what cool shit do you want your character to be involved in at the start of the game" after that things are a good bit more Trad.

And you're perfectly right about how a lot of what Indie games do is codify and make rules for things that happen a lot in more Trad games but which rules don't exist for. Basically Indie games try to hard code "how to play this game in a way that works well" into the mechanics of the game. Basically if you have a really really freaking awesome GM there is often no need to play an Indie game since he can do all of the cool stuff Indie games try to do by just making shit up.

Sorry, I feel I have to call youon that one. You do not need an awesome GM. You need a really quite average GM. I have seen literally hundreds of GMs run games and play style set aside (some are playing a wargame style that does not address the style I am currently talking about) they interact with thier group pretty well. I have always doubted the claims of inadequate GMs as a justification here. Now, do not get me wrong, there are GMs that suck. I have bad news for you though, they will suck with these games as well.

Quote from: Daztur;289335But if you have a more mediocre GM (and the vast majority of GMs are mediocre or worse, at least when they start out), Indie game rules codify how to bring the awesome and really make things work well.

I strongly disagree. See above.

Quote from: Daztur;289335For example for me, the best D&D GM I've ever had was my little brother. I don't think he ever read the DMG but he could make up all kinds of bizarre gonzo weirdness on the fly so that as a player it was always exciting and you never had any idea what would happen next. For years after that I played D&D and I never really had that feeling again, most of the time when I played D&D I felt like I was playing a CRPG with bad graphics in slow motion. Then when I played SotC instead of D&D with the same players and the same GM, the bizarre gonzo awesomeness that I hadn't seen in D&D in YEARS came welling up again. It was great

Basically, GOOD indie games codify good GMing (and cool playing) into the rules more than Trad games. This makes them less flexible but its a good trade off (especially if your GM needs help bringing the awesome).

This is a discussion I do not wish to have. You wish to discuss forge theory go ahead but I will  not dance. To say the least, I disagree on so many points starting with your very perceptions of your initial "good GM" and why he was so good.

Quote from: Daztur;289335One things that makes a lot of people on the story games forum like 4ed D&D (and that makes the RPGPundit get all frothy at the mouth about it) is that it does a lot of the same things. It says "when there's downtime the players pretty much always find a way to heal up one way or another, so why bother with having them track cure light wound wand charges and roll a bunch of d8s every morning, just having them heal up all the way every morning would save everyone a whole lot of time and provide the same result."

See, and this supports one and only one play style. I just do not agree with that approach. I am far too much a universalist and apparently too trad in my views.

Its great you posted, but it does not address the mechanics and I just really have no use for theory.

I do mean this though, thanks for posting.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288969I've always felt that derailing threads was something worth being warned for.

But that would lead to me getting banned, and who wants that? Wait-

Quote from: HinterWelt;288497Specifically:
Burning Wheel
Mouse Guard
Dogs In The Vineyard
Riddle of Steel

Quote from: RPGPundit;288635even though none of those you mentioned are technically RPGs.

Sorry Pundy, but you're wrong. All of the games mentioned above are RPGs. I admit there are forgie games which are not RPGs, for example Universalis, but the games HinterWelt mentioned are RPGs, all of them.

Dogs in the Vineyard is a very forgie game, but an RPG nonetheless. You play a character, there is a gamemaster, etc etc. I don't like it much, it feels like a gameboard (a vice very common to forgie games), I'd call it a forgierama, as you would say, but it's has more RPG than gameboard.

The Burning Wheel was written as a pretty traditional game, when the revised edition was published some forgism were added, but it is very traditional. Do you remember that review of Conspiracy of Shadows you did? By the way, I pretty much agreed and liked your review, Conspiracy of Shadows pretty much feels like a normal RPG forgisms were added to just to make it "cooler", I do have the original version and it's way more traditional, no mention of "conflict resolution" :rolleyes: whatsoever. Well, I would say Burning Wheel Revised is less forgie than Conspiracy of Shadows Revised. Burning Wheel original and Conspiracy of Shadows original have nothing forgie, if I recall correctly.

And considering The Riddle of Steel a forgie game is a joke (something a lot of forgiewankers are guilty of). As Balbinus said once, "The Riddle of Steel is as indie (you know, forgie) as Rolemaster". It is a very traditional RPG, it even includes GM advice of cheating "you (the GM) must learn to cheat like a weasel behind your book or screen". The only part of it that might be considered forgie are the Spiritual Attributes, and that's because Uncle Ronny says so. For the love of shit, Ars Magica 3rd had almost the same mechanics in the form of Passions. Other than that, The Riddle of Steel feels like Rolemaster or Hârnmaster, it should be no surprise that a lot of Hârn fans like TROS. TROS, Rolemaster and Hârnmaster are the holy trinity of chartmasters, RPGs with complex damage charts.

And before you accuse me of being a Forge advocate, let me tell you that I despise forgiewankers almost as much as you do (I think it's fine that forgie games exist and that some people enjoy them, but I'm sick of the forgiewankers and their contempt for traditional games), but not considering those games as RPGs is a mistake, and moving a thread where they are discussed to Off Topic is petty. Please reconsider it.

Quote from: Balbinus;289290It was an attempt to do D&D right,

Nope. It was an attempt to express the author's obvious and mad love for swords and medieval fencing in an RPG. I don't know where you get that it was an attempt to do D&D right. Just because the author implied he didn't like D&D? As I said hundreds and hundreds of times, D&D was not an influence on TROS (other than D&D being the first RPG ever, you know, D&D, by virtue of being the first RPG ever, has been an influence on all RPGs), the RPGs that inspired Jake to make TROS were Dzikie Pola (a Polish RPG) and Warhammer. Jake even told me once that his first intention was translating Dzikie Pola into English, but he ended up writing TROS instead.

QuoteYou rolled low for one, high for the other,

No. You always roll high. In which cases you roll low?

Quotethe magic system was kind of broken

With this I agree, I don't know if it's broken but I never managed to understand how it works.

As other people have pointed out Pundy calling TRoS "not an RPG" is mind-bogglingly stupid. I wonder what sort of definition of an RPG could exclude TRoS while including most traditional games. For the other ones at least a case can be made, but TRoS isn't even really Forgy at all.

QuoteSorry, I feel I have to call youon that one. You do not need an awesome GM. You need a really quite average GM. I have seen literally hundreds of GMs run games and play style set aside (some are playing a wargame style that does not address the style I am currently talking about) they interact with thier group pretty well. I have always doubted the claims of inadequate GMs as a justification here. Now, do not get me wrong, there are GMs that suck. I have bad news for you though, they will suck with these games as well.

Just referring to my own personal experience. I've had a GM who ran rather boring D&D games but when he ran a SotC campaign it was like flipping a switch, the difference in the quality of the GMing was just incredible. All that I was saying was that a lot of Indie games codify a lot of things that are common sense GMing. If you have a GM who is doing a lot of things that run counter to common sense GMing then often the quality of the game will increase when they run a game in which those things that they've been missing or not doing well are codified.

I think also a disconnect here is that most people who are really into Old School RPGs are people who had a lot of good experiences with Old School RPGs so they have a bit of a hard time understanding why a lot of people complain so much about them. They can see it as insulting that other people seem to be trying to hard to "fix" things that obviously aren't broken and that are providing them with buckets of fun.

On the other hand a lot of people who are really into Indie RPGs are people who had a lot of bad experiences with more Old School games when they first started playing. As a reaction to those bad experiences they became attracted to games that they see as having features that "fix" what they see as things that produce those bad experiences. You can see a LOT of this in how Burning Wheel was written for example.

I think to the extent that there's two "sides" here, I think both talk past each other a lot since they had very different personal experiences with Old School games.

QuoteYou wish to discuss forge theory go ahead but I will not dance.

Huh? What are you talking about? I was just describing my personal experiences. What does that have to do with Forge theory?

QuoteSee, and this supports one and only one play style. I just do not agree with that approach. I am far too much a universalist and apparently too trad in my views.

A perfectly valid criticism. Most Indie games make crap universal games. With Indie games its easier to just run a different game if you want to have a different style of play.

QuoteI do mean this though, thanks for posting.

No need to be condescending.

Quote from: Daztur;289643Just referring to my own personal experience. I've had a GM who ran rather boring D&D games but when he ran a SotC campaign it was like flipping a switch, the difference in the quality of the GMing was just incredible. All that I was saying was that a lot of Indie games codify a lot of things that are common sense GMing. If you have a GM who is doing a lot of things that run counter to common sense GMing then often the quality of the game will increase when they run a game in which those things that they've been missing or not doing well are codified.

The "good" part is what I would disagree with.

Quote from: Daztur;289643I think also a disconnect here is that most people who are really into Old School RPGs are people who had a lot of good experiences with Old School RPGs so they have a bit of a hard time understanding why a lot of people complain so much about them. They can see it as insulting that other people seem to be trying to hard to "fix" things that obviously aren't broken and that are providing them with buckets of fun.

I don't see it this way. I will agree there are people who do.

Quote from: Daztur;289643Huh? What are you talking about? I was just describing my personal experiences. What does that have to do with Forge theory?

Perhaps I used to broad a definition. You are talking about abstract qualifiers and personal experience not base mechanics.

Quote from: Daztur;289643A perfectly valid criticism. Most Indie games make crap universal games. With Indie games its easier to just run a different game if you want to have a different style of play.

And to me, that is a terrible weakness. As close as I would come to saying a game is broken (although I would not say that). To me, a game should never tell the group how to play but merely give them the mechanisms to play.

Again, I feel we have wandered far outside even a derailed interpretation of the original point of this thread. We are discussing personal preferences.

Quote from: Daztur;289643No need to be condescending.

I did not mean it to be condescending in the least. Look at my other posts in this thread. If you believe my honest thanks for taking the time to try and explain base mechanics of a game is somehow condescending to you, well, I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise.

I am sorry you were offended.

Quote from: Claudius;289377Sorry Pundy, but you're wrong. All of the games mentioned above are RPGs.

As I've written elsewhere, I say we call "it's not a real rpg" the Gamer's Godwin - if a discussion goes on long enough, someone's bound to say it, and it's usually a sign they no longer have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

I mean, in response to my saying,

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe GM is there to master the game, to ensure the fun of the group as a whole.

I got,

Quote from: howandwhy99Seriously, I am so far in total opposition to what you say, I'm not seeing how you can honestly claim you are playing a roleplaying game.

and then followed it up with,

Quote from: howandwhy99Roleplaying has nothing to do with playing characters.

So plainly there are very different ideas out there about what roleplaying is or isn't. To avoid the nonsense of the Gamer's Godwin, I propose an inclusive rather than exclusive definition. We can still say that other people's roleplaying style suxxorz without saying that "it's not roleplaying", or coming up with our own bizarro loopy definitions, like saying that roleplaying has nothing to do with playing characters. (Yeah, and wargaming has nothing to do with fighting battles.)

Quote from: HinterWelt;289646To me, a game should never tell the group how to play but merely give them the mechanisms to play.

Still, if the mechanics end up, say, making melee lethal 99% of the time since the setting is supposed to be just that deadly, obviously it's not a game for exchanging cheerful quips while hacking hordes of enemies to pieces and the players shouldn't anticipate anything like that either. And at the other end of the scale, if the mechanics render every single character who really matters practically invulnerable to physical damage, the game's probably not going to be the ideal choice for kung-fu tournaments in the style of Mortal Kombat. It'd be rather unreasonable to expect all systems to be generic and equally suitable for any playstyle.

Quote from: Imperator;289316No, not much sense. You can get a decent game from it, and the combat system is cool if you want something tough and detailed. We ran a game set in Dark Ages Transylvania with it, and it was cool. Only needed a bit of houseruling for skills.
QUOTE]

Fair enough, certainly the system's USP is the combat system.

Quote from: Imperator;289316Actually it was yours , but your description is accurate, generally speaking.

I remember, that's how I knew you had a copy.  I'm glad you had fun with it actually, the best outcome when you get a game you don't take to is to give it to someone else who will play and enjoy it.