I can get behind most of this.  Even if I don't always agree with Ben I can usually put myself in his shoes for awhile.  I don't think I could sign up to be a card carrying Cheetoist based solely on what is written here.  So I guess what I'm saying here is: Either I don't belong in this category or I might recommend some footnotes.  Assuming you're trying to write some grand unified Cheetoist Theory here.  Here's what I'd need to see in the Cheeto Constitution before I could sign up:

Amendment A: People - While still respecting that People come first in the Cheetoist paradigm, it should be clear to the players and designers that these Very Important People are not, by necessity, friends in the casual/social sense.  I don't want your Cheetoism confused with groups with that other category of gamer (an appropriate label eludes me) that games exclusively as an extension of their social life.

Amendment B: On System & Setting - While I agree with your OP in broad strokes, I have to note that in many cases system and setting play off each other.  I realize you had to set your priorities and I think they're fine as they are, but frankly I think you're full of shit.

Amendment C: I'm glad to see you're doing well.  I think I saw some snaps from your vacation with some oysters and I'm jealous.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403867I can get behind most of this.  Even if I don't always agree with Ben I can usually put myself in his shoes for awhile.  I don't think I could sign up to be a card carrying Cheetoist based solely on what is written here.  So I guess what I'm saying here is: Either I don't belong in this category or I might recommend some footnotes.  Assuming you're trying to write some grand unified Cheetoist Theory here.  Here's what I'd need to see in the Cheeto Constitution before I could sign up:

No. I'm not trying to write some grand Cheetoist Theory™. I'm just picking up on what Kyle said about cheetoism and thinking "hey, why not design games based on this?" That's it.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403867Amendment A: People - While still respecting that People come first in the Cheetoist paradigm, it should be clear to the players and designers that these Very Important People are not, by necessity, friends in the casual/social sense.  I don't want your Cheetoism confused with groups with that other category of gamer (an appropriate label eludes me) that games exclusively as an extension of their social life.

I get where you're coming from here. I guess I'm just showing my own bias here: I much prefer to game with people I know and can call friends, at least casually, rather than complete strangers.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403867Amendment B: On System & Setting - While I agree with your OP in broad strokes, I have to note that in many cases system and setting play off each other.  I realize you had to set your priorities and I think they're fine as they are, but frankly I think you're full of shit.

I don't think I'm full of it. I think that you're right that there is a relationship between system and setting. Just like there's a relationship between system and people, and people and setting. I mean yeah, all these things, including the nature of the social going-ons at the game table, the Snacks here, all these things are related to each other.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403867Amendment C: I'm glad to see you're doing well.  I think I saw some snaps from your vacation with some oysters and I'm jealous.

I'm good. The oysters were good, too.

Quote from: Benoist;403868I don't think I'm full of it. I think that you're right that there is a relationship between system and setting. Just like there's a relationship between system and people, and people and setting. I mean yeah, all these things, include the nature of the social going-ons at the game table, the Snacks here, all these things are related to each other.

I was teasing about the full of shit part.

As for this part of the theory, though, I guess I don't know if I can get behind Setting coming before System.  Like I said in my earlier post, maybe I should just be excluded from the club

I really dig on systems though.  I'm the kind of guy that could (has) run the same setting for years but used different systems depending on the need at the time.  

Yet I understand that when you say "Setting" in your description you mean more than literal setting; you're talking about the experience of characters and role playing in general.

Maybe I'm simply not a Cheetoist.  

Quote from: winkingbishop;403871I was teasing about the full of shit part.

As for this part of the theory, though, I guess I don't know if I can get behind Setting coming before System.  Like I said in my earlier post, maybe I should just be excluded from the club

LOL What the fuck, dude? There's no "membership card" bullshit. There's no club, no KoK-ring () or anything like that!
Here. Take a cigar, and relax.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403871I really dig on systems though.  I'm the kind of guy that could (has) run the same setting for years but used different systems depending on the need at the time.

That's exactly what I'd do now with Eurth. I'd run the Black Abbey with any system between OD&D, AD&D, RuneQuest, 3rd edition/Pathfinder, Lejendary Adventure, Mythus, 4E (warming up to it, lately), etc.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403871Yet I understand that when you say "Setting" in your description you mean more than literal setting; you're talking about the experience of characters and role playing in general.

Yes.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403871Maybe I'm simply not a Cheetoist.  

You don't have to agree, you know? It's not a "us" against "them" kinda thing. Just a bunch of ideas I threw on a forum.

Quote from: pspahn;403835cheetoists are less likely to cry foul if the GM makes it clear he's spent a lot of time prepping the rescue the princess scenario and he wants them to go on it.

I would say that's right.

"Come on, guys, work with me on this one."

Quote from: BenoistFirst and foremost, what matters to the success of an RPG session is the people you game with. This means the game makes player types, play styles, personalities, front and center of the games design. This also means that the game provides advice and tools for the DM to understand his players and their expectations.

When I wrote d4-d4, a good chunk of it was that sort of game advice stuff, like where to game, and different ways other players can be annoying bastards. With that said...

Quote from: PeregrinWait a minute, number one makes KoK-ism sound a lot like Forge-talk.

Note what I said in the bit Benoist linked to,

Quote from: Kyle Aaronwe're dealing with people, and people don't fit into simple categories, whether Gamist or Scorpio or Intuitive or Conservative or whatever. Those sorts of categories can be a spark to the fire of a discussion about people as individuals, but they cannot be the entire fire. When we focus on the theory as a real thing, then we start trying to adjust reality to fit into the theory, and get a crap game session.

Adjusting the scenario to fit the personalities and desires of the people in the group and their characters is nothing new for GMs. If the party rescuing the princess is mostly thieves, they'll have a different way of rescuing her than if they were mostly fighters, or mostly wizards. Likewise, some players will be patient and planning, some impatient and charging in, and so on. And a good GM will accommodate this. This has been so since David Wesely said, "Fuck, I have a lot of wargamers tonight, I guess I'll have to give them individual figurines to play with individual victory goals." As GM, he adapted to the group's needs and desires. Before roleplaying games even existed, GMs were making up rules on the spot - putting players first, rules second. (It is not recorded what Wesely's guys snacked on, but you can bet it wasn't rice crackers and hummus.)

Still, sometimes we can offer little categories as a way to understand players. None of this means that players really do fit into these neat categories, or that we need an elaborate theory to figure them out. It's basic social skills. Like when you're the host of the party, you introduce people to each-other, if there's someone quiet in the corner you try to bring them into a conversation, if there's anyone drunk and offensive you lead them outside and dunk them in the water-barrel to sober them up, that sort of thing.

Quote from: winkingbishopAs for this part of the theory, though, I guess I don't know if I can get behind Setting coming before System. Like I said in my earlier post, maybe I should just be excluded from the club

I really dig on systems though.

There is no "club", we're all gamers. Even, god help us, those who play games like Sorcerer.

The list of priorities is the list of order of importance to the success of a game session. A successful game session is one which everyone found fun or fulfilling in whatever way. Time and again we find that system is the least important part of this. I have run the same campaign world (Tiwesdaeg) with four different systems: GURPS, Fate, HarnMaster, and RuneQuest. The setting was the same each time, the system was different, but made little or no difference. I noticed a more profound effect when in another campaign we had only "healthy" snacks - the game group imploded. Healthy food made us take ourselves too seriously and things got nasty. We needed more cheetos. Snacks > system.

Quote from: Benoist;403872LOL What the fuck, dude? There's no "membership card" bullshit. There's no club, no KoK-ring () or anything like that!
Here. Take a cigar, and relax.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;403900There is no "club", we're all gamers. Even, god help us, those who play games like Sorcerer.

Oh no? Then would you care to explain THIS!!??

I'm sorry, I had to.  I felt like you guys were taking me too seriously in an otherwise very lighthearted thread.  

That's a fake. Benoist is at least adjudant.

That's awesome. I want one in print! We could carry cards.

Quote from: boulet;403929That's a fake. Benoist is at least adjudant.

At least. I haven't received my last official newsletter, so I don't know if I made the promotion yet.

Quote from: winkingbishop;403928Oh no? Then would you care to explain THIS!!??

I'm sorry, I had to.  I felt like you guys were taking me too seriously in an otherwise very lighthearted thread.  

this is SO COOL! (the image in the original post that is)

Quote from: boulet;403929That's a fake. Benoist is at least adjudant.

A genuine is "water"marked by oily cheese flavoring.

my vanity is my curse.  I hope you at least get some kind of discount when you flash this at the FLGS.  You know, since I don't get to be in the club

Quote from: Cole;404107A genuine is "water"marked by oily cheese flavoring.

is that drool?

That card is awesome.

LOL It is awesome. Kudos.