tmi, CK.

Quote from: droog;289057tmi, CK.

It was interesting though Droog. The problem is it raises more questions and concerns then it addresses.

First, this seems to be a lot of work for the GM...or none. The GM would seem to need to address all options but then, really, none since he has little control over the elements. In fact, I could see a GMless game come out of this...However, I assume I do not understand something.

Second, it would seem, at the root of it, again, to be nothing new. I know CK said that does not matter but it does in a way. See, I have a theory that the big difference between Trad and Indie games is that the former assumes very little about play style while the latter codifies a great deal. Trad games assume that you will sit down and discuss your characters...or not...or you will discuss the campaign and walk away and make characters with that knowledge...Indie games seem to say "You will do it this way" or within a band of play style. Note, I am not saying this is bad, just not my gig.

Then, it would seem that the kickers could create a great deal of work for a GM but then maybe not. The problem seems to be that I am unsure about the role of the GM. I thought I had a handle on it but it seems to have slipped away. It would seem a difficult thing to do, dare I say, boring with my current understanding. It sounds like it would be much more fun to be a player.

Meh, I will have to think on this more.

Thanks for the info though CK.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289025As I said, you're welcome to discuss forge games on this thread till you're blue in the face. Legal concerns excepted, no discussion is banned on this site as long as its done on the right forum.

RPGPundit

You lie.  Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard meet the standards (however loosely defined or redefined by you or Ron) of what it takes to be a roleplaying game.  So this discussion belonged in the roleplaying forum.  Until you through your tantrum and began threadcrapping.

Quote from: HinterWelt;289064First, this seems to be a lot of work for the GM...or none. The GM would seem to need to address all options but then, really, none since he has little control over the elements. In fact, I could see a GMless game come out of this...However, I assume I do not understand something.

It tends to be lots of work at the beginning, decreasing as players become more proactive.

QuoteSecond, it would seem, at the root of it, again, to be nothing new....Indie games seem to say "You will do it this way" or within a band of play style. Note, I am not saying this is bad, just not my gig.

It's a fair comment. The basic doctrine is that a rules text ought to codify procedures. That grew out of discussions years ago on how much is assumed in RPG texts.

So the Forge philosophy is "This is the game and how it's designed to be played. If you don't think it looks like your bag, please try a different game. If you want to hack this game, go ahead but the designer is not responsible for results."

QuoteThe problem seems to be that I am unsure about the role of the GM. I thought I had a handle on it but it seems to have slipped away. It would seem a difficult thing to do, dare I say, boring with my current understanding. It sounds like it would be much more fun to be a player.

Depends on what you like, really. If you like playing NPCs, the demons are like NPCs turned to 11. If you like throwing things at your players and seeing which way they jump, Sorcerer tells you explicitly to do that.

Droog,

I'll let Bill decide.  But thanks for the input.  I myself find that concrete examples are really helpful.


Bill,

This is one of those moments where I'm forced to step back and say, "You might have to try it."

As far as the GM prep goes, as Droog says, there's a lot of work up front. But it's all fun. You're laying out the back story and who's agendas are what and so on.  You're working off the details on the character sheet and your own details, that are all true up to the point where play would begin... and then you pull the lever and see where it all goes.

And, as droog also stated, there's less work to do out of session as Play continues.  The Players get a better and better idea of what they want and what their PCs are driven to do.

The fun of the GM is simply framing new complications and resistances for the PCs actions.  On the fly.  You're not just making stuff up willy nilly.  It's all based on the fiction created up to that point.  But the Player says, "My guy is doing this..." and then you go, out of the blue, "Luke, I am your father," which you knew was true, but the Player didn't and now he has to figure out what to do with that fact.

The GM's job is to facilitate opportunity and opposition for the Players agendas for their characters, reward cool roleplaying with bonus dice, and run off between sessions and think about new things that might have shifted behind the scenes because of actions that occurred during play.  

The goal isn't to try to anticipate everything the Players might do, right?  Because that is never going to happen. But remember that the character sheets are scribbled with lots details about what the Players have forthrightly said they want play to be about.  So they're not going to be flying off to China on a whim.  They'll be orbiting the key elements they wrote down on their sheet.  The game isn't built off "the plot" -- it's built of relationships between characters and how they interact.  The plot gets built through play.

So, it's never boring. Because the GM has to really be on his toes, facilitating opportunity and opposition.  I find it incredibly fun and incredibly draining -- in a good way.  The stories never stop moving forward.  Most session only last three hours tops because that's when everyone's brain taps out.

The best way to think about it is like a small band riffing jazz, or a game of soccer where the ball keeps moving.  Even the GM is playing kind like the Players -- he just has a lot more characters to track.  So, if you can imagine that the Player would be having fun, imagine the GM kind of doing the same.

The difference is simply this: The GM is supposed to his the Players with Bangs -- moments in game where the Players are confronted with moments that demand decisions.  Bangs are not abstract ethics class dilemmas.  They're based off the fictional details the Players have written on their character sheets, and worked in through the definitions of Humanity, Demons and so on.  Providing Bangs is rule.... It's how the GM plays the game.

It's really fun finding those moments where the Players think their characters are all running off in one direction and you dump a reversal or revelation that really shifts the ground under the PC's feet and the Player gets this look like, "I have no idea what I'm going to do now," and you switch over to another Player's scene to give the first a moment to think it through.

But that's what it is.  You'd either dig it or you wouldn't.  But I'd say it's a blast.  


As for your comments about "trad" and "indie"... I'd say you're right.  That's one of the reasons I like Sorcerer (among many games like BW and others); it's clear about what it is and how to play it and works like a charm.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288903Uh huh. You just conveniently happen to follow me to every thread I post to in order to "facts check". :rolleyes:

Sorry pal, but reality disagrees with you. In my first post in this thread (#16) I'm answering Bill's questions. My only reference to you is "Pundit doesn't know jack about these games" which is been repeatedly proven true. The rest of my post is an answer to the OP's question. Try again.

QuoteDude, unlike say, Droog, who has been here from day one without any purpose other than to try to cause trouble, you have in many occasions been a constructive poster on this forum.

And I intend to keep on that. But frankly, if I read something false, I answer. If I am wrong, I'm glad to be corrected. I thought that Amber was only GM fiat, and driven by your enthusiasm and arguments, I checked and changed my mind. Just after considering facts.

Re: Bill's question. In Sorcerer the PCs are created together, and the GM has veto power over anything that doesn't fit in the concept of game he has. Like any other RPG. You won't find any rule that obliges the GM to accept PCs unfit for his game.

Quote from: David R;289036"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Regards,
David R

Yes, right, I'm a tyrant because I let people talk about anything they want on this site, even things I hate, and don't close the thread or ban them for it.
Shit, I'm like Darth Vader and Doctor Doom combined.

You sorry gang of fuckers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: peteramthor;289065You lie.  Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard meet the standards (however loosely defined or redefined by you or Ron) of what it takes to be a roleplaying game.  So this discussion belonged in the roleplaying forum.  Until you through your tantrum and began threadcrapping.

Any game that includes players being able to impose "stakes" on the GM, or where the GM must "say yes or roll the dice" is not a regular RPG.

Shit, for that matter, any game where the central purpose is "Creating story", and that takes precedent over "emulating characters in a world through a game", is NOT an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;289089Shit, I'm like Darth Vader and Doctor Doom combined.
You sorry gang of fuckers.

Nah, you're not that cool. You just attempt to derail discussions, gettoize games based on your fucked up definition  and threaten bannation just like any good Swine. The only sad fucker here is you.

QuoteHinterwelt wrote:
See, I have a theory that the big difference between Trad and Indie games is that the former assumes very little about play style while the latter codifies a great deal. Trad games assume that you will sit down and discuss your characters...or not...or you will discuss the campaign and walk away and make characters with that knowledge...Indie games seem to say "You will do it this way" or within a band of play style.

Exactly. BW I don't think falls into this category. I can understand why such games don't appeal to everyone. It's kinda of like doing one thing well and that's it. Of course sometimes it does not even do that one thing well.

Edit: Hey, Darth Doom or Doctor Vader...oh, nevermind...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289072Droog,

I'll let Bill decide.  But thanks for the input.  I myself find that concrete examples are really helpful.

With respect, dude, you're kind of spoiling my fun. See, I actually hang out here and engage other posters on a regular basis. I don't get to talk about many of the games I like very often, and I was quite enjoying it. Also, I was taking it easy because I'm a teacher.

Now, you talk a lot on the Forge and Story Games, where I don't. Here the situation is that people know me and they see you as a Forge shill. When you swoop into a thread like this here, you feed some of the more paranoid fantasies. Somebody will probably accuse you of stealth marketing soon.

I know what you're working on and I know that your head's probably full of it. But please have a little consideration in my local pub.

Hi droog,

But over the last couple of years I've "swooped in" to answer questions about Traveller and Pendragon.  (I have a new account because I lost my old password around the time I cancelled my earthlink account and switched to gmail.)

If anyone gets paranoid about this stuff, that's their problem.  Seriously.

If it matters -- and it doesn't -- it doesn't feel like swooping in to me.  I check here regularly and read threads here regularly.  When I see someone ask a question about a game I might know an answer to (Traveller, Pendragon, Sorcerer, for example) I type and answer.  So, to me it's like I've been hanging out here, just not saying much.  And then, when I think I've got something to offer, I pipe up.

But worrying about feeding paranoia or being accused of stealth marketing?  Or, for that matter, worrying about if I'll be spoiling your fun?  What's that got to do with anything?   Bill asked questions.  I answered.  He's the judge of whether or not my answers are helpful.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289089Yes, right, I'm a tyrant because I let people talk about anything they want on this site, even things I hate, and don't close the thread or ban them for it.
Shit, I'm like Darth Vader and Doctor Doom combined.

Dark Helmet... maybe.

Quote from: Imperator;289076Re: Bill's question. In Sorcerer the PCs are created together, and the GM has veto power over anything that doesn't fit in the concept of game he has. Like any other RPG. You won't find any rule that obliges the GM to accept PCs unfit for his game.

See, that is why I end up thinking many of the methods used are similar to what I have seen at cons, in games shops and with groups before and after Sorcerer. I mean, essentially, it sounds like the way a lot of folks make groups for trad games. The difference is, it is advice in my books but codified rules in indie games. Probably a well duh to others but I find it interesting.

Thanks Imperator.

Quote from: David R;289096Exactly. BW I don't think falls into this category. I can understand why such games don't appeal to everyone. It's kinda of like doing one thing well and that's it. Of course sometimes it does not even do that one thing well.

Regards,
David R

I must say, I wonder if that is so. Again, this is not casting aspersions on BW but looking for a common thread. In BW, the codification takes another form, that of Artha. Again, I am not well versed but it looks a lot like a means to allow players codified access to setting (maybe?) via the rules set. Again, my understanding of Artha is weak at best and if anyone wants to give a quick "This is Artha" post it would be appreciated.

Thanks David.

Quote from: droog;289097With respect, dude, you're kind of spoiling my fun. See, I actually hang out here and engage other posters on a regular basis. I don't get to talk about many of the games I like very often, and I was quite enjoying it. Also, I was taking it easy because I'm a teacher.

Now, you talk a lot on the Forge and Story Games, where I don't. Here the situation is that people know me and they see you as a Forge shill. When you swoop into a thread like this here, you feed some of the more paranoid fantasies. Somebody will probably accuse you of stealth marketing soon.

I know what you're working on and I know that your head's probably full of it. But please have a little consideration in my local pub.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289128Hi droog,

But over the last couple of years I've "swooped in" to answer questions about Traveller and Pendragon.  (I have a new account because I lost my old password around the time I cancelled my earthlink account and switched to gmail.)

If anyone gets paranoid about this stuff, that's their problem.  Seriously.

If it matters -- and it doesn't -- it doesn't feel like swooping in to me.  I check here regularly and read threads here regularly.  When I see someone ask a question about a game I might know an answer to (Traveller, Pendragon, Sorcerer, for example) I type and answer.  So, to me it's like I've been hanging out here, just not saying much.  And then, when I think I've got something to offer, I pipe up.

But worrying about feeding paranoia or being accused of stealth marketing?  Or, for that matter, worrying about if I'll be spoiling your fun?  What's that got to do with anything?   Bill asked questions.  I answered.  He's the judge of whether or not my answers are helpful.

This is the thing guys, I find Droog's explanations easier to follow but I found CK's response a useful reference. Now, CK might be stepping on Droogs feet but I will let you two figure that out. I just am hoping for less derailment as I find the thread very interesting.

Another point someone else in the interwebs mentioned was Bangs. Are these part of Sorcerer? If not, never mind. If so, then how are they codified and what are they?

Thanks guys.

This is Artha

Quote from: HinterWelt;289146Another point someone else in the interwebs mentioned was Bangs. Are these part of Sorcerer? If not, never mind. If so, then how are they codified and what are they?

Here's a definition from John Kim's site :

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/glossary/alphabetical/B.html

As for BW, the person who should be posting is blakkie. He's really into the game.

Regards,
David R