Quote from: droogJust a note: the essay is copyrighted 2002. My Life with Master had yet to be released, let alone Primetime Adventures or even Dogs in the Vineyard. HeroQuest (is that a 'micro-game'?) was still Hero Wars.

[I'm saying something without saying it. Can you dig it?]

Yes, but there was no question that Forge-games were already well on the way to the micro-game.  Sorcerer is a microgame. It allows you to deal with only ONE theme.

GNS is a theory that, if it were true, would lead to one and only one inevitable conclusion, which is that the incredibly specific micro-game is the very best possible design for RPGs that can exist.
Thank god that GNS is full of shit, and that those games all suck.

RPGPundit

To be fair to Ron "Braindamage" Edwards, he does strongly encourage people to design their own Fantasy Heartbreakers as a creative exercise. Sure, part of this is saying "You've got to learn the rules before you break them", but you can't accuse him of dissuading people from designing independently-published traditional RPGs - at least, not in those essays.

Sometimes you get good things out of it, like The Shadow of Yesterday, which:

a) Began as an exercise in designing a Heartbreaker.
b) Really, really isn't a microgame, no matter how much Ron and the rest of the Forgeites would like it to be.
c) Has a number of neat mechanics which can slip nicely into other, non-Forge games, even if you don't like TSoY itself.

You could say the same about The Riddle of Steel, actually. (Ron Edwards loves to claim TRoS is Narrativist, when TRoS itself almost screams "Realism! Realism! I'm all about the REALISM!!!")

Edited to add: droog, although it was independently published by Greg Stafford (and therefore qualifies as an "indie" game by the Forge's definition), as far as I'm aware Heroquest was designed independently of anything the Forge were doing.

Quote from: WarthurEdited to add: droog, although it was independently published by Greg Stafford (and therefore qualifies as an "indie" game by the Forge's definition), as far as I'm aware Heroquest was designed independently of anything the Forge were doing.

Oh yeah, I know. I was just mentioning it as  an influence and for historical context.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but there was no question that Forge-games were already well on the way to the micro-game. Sorcerer is a microgame. It allows you to deal with only ONE theme.

GNS is a theory that, if it were true, would lead to one and only one inevitable conclusion, which is that the incredibly specific micro-game is the very best possible design for RPGs that can exist.
Thank god that GNS is full of shit, and that those games all suck.

1. We'll have to agree to disagree on Sorcerer. In my opinion (based on having run it) it's no more a 'micro-game' than is Traveller, or D&D for that matter.

2. I don't think Big Model theory leads to such a conclusion at all. Certainly it's currently in vogue to make punchy, focused games, but there's no reason to think people will stop there. Who knows what the future holds in RPG design?

Some people like novels, some people like short stories. Some people like both, and poetry as well.

QuoteI don't think Big Model theory leads to such a conclusion at all. Certainly it's currently in vogue to make punchy, focused games, but there's no reason to think people will stop there. Who knows what the future holds in RPG design?

I think the current Forge Theories (including the Big Model) are more useful in designing (and encourage) Storytelling Games rather than what people unfamiliar with the Forge would typically describe as a Roleplaying Game.

Personally, I think there's plenty of room for those games and more.

Quote from: droog1. We'll have to agree to disagree on Sorcerer. In my opinion (based on having run it) it's no more a 'micro-game' than is Traveller, or D&D for that matter.

In my view, Sorcerer is the best World of Darkness game that White Wolf never published.

I say it partially because it amuses me, considering that Ron Edwards has a real bee in his bonnet about the World of Darkness, but also because it's how the game is evidently designed to be played. Just brew up a setting, come up with cool splats for the sorcerers to be part of, and off you go.

If Sorcerer is a micro-game, then so is Vampire, Ars Magica, Pendragon, and any other game which says "OK, all of the (major) PCs are X..."

Quote from: WarthurIn my view, Sorcerer is the best World of Darkness game that White Wolf never published.

I say it partially because it amuses me, considering that Ron Edwards has a real bee in his bonnet about the World of Darkness, but also because it's how the game is evidently designed to be played. Just brew up a setting, come up with cool splats for the sorcerers to be part of, and off you go.

If Sorcerer is a micro-game, then so is Vampire, Ars Magica, Pendragon, and any other game which says "OK, all of the (major) PCs are X..."

Its not just the "all PCs are X" thing, which Sorcerer does but as you rightly pointed out many other games do too, but the "there's only one really important thing you can do", thing (which is to interact with your demon).

I mean, its the same with DiTV. "you're all lawmen in the wild west" is not necessarily the makings of a micro-game; "all you can meaningfully do is go from town to town adjudicating issues of the faith" is.

That's why something like In Harm's Way is NOT a micro-game.  "you're all seamen on board a 19th century sailing ship" certainly sounds very focused, but then the author gives you about a thousand things you can do with it.

I think, gentlemen, we've just stumbled upon a good analysis of the two components that make up a microgame.

RPGPundit

PS. I should add that Sorcerer is not as focused a micro-game as DiTV is, but that's just because the Forge Swine were still working out the bugs of just how inanely autistically focused they could get.

Quote from: RPGPunditPS. I should add that Sorcerer is not as focused a micro-game as DiTV is, but that's just because the Forge Swine were still working out the bugs of just how inanely autistically focused they could get.

You see, I simply don't think it's quite that focused. Part of the point of Sorcerer is that all the player characters start off with "kickers" - ongoing problems - which give them a reason to be active from game start. NONE of the examples of Kickers I can find in the rulebook focus exclusively on "interacting with your demons".

Now, using your demon to achieve stuff in the game is a good and effective way to get things done, just as using your superpowers in Vampire is a good way to get the job done, but it really isn't the only way to get things done. Of course, the big focus in the main rulebook is on interacting with your demons, because, erm, that's what makes your character special and different from all the other mooks.

I say again: it is entirely possible to do anything that you see people doing in an average World of Darkness game in Sorcerer. Sure, you might be ignoring a lot of Ron Edwards' advice on how he thinks the game should be run, but since when did anyone pay attention to Mark Rein*Hagen's ideas about Vampire?

Quote from: WarthurYou see, I simply don't think it's quite that focused. Part of the point of Sorcerer is that all the player characters start off with "kickers" - ongoing problems - which give them a reason to be active from game start. NONE of the examples of Kickers I can find in the rulebook focus exclusively on "interacting with your demons".

Now, using your demon to achieve stuff in the game is a good and effective way to get things done, just as using your superpowers in Vampire is a good way to get the job done, but it really isn't the only way to get things done. Of course, the big focus in the main rulebook is on interacting with your demons, because, erm, that's what makes your character special and different from all the other mooks.

I say again: it is entirely possible to do anything that you see people doing in an average World of Darkness game in Sorcerer. Sure, you might be ignoring a lot of Ron Edwards' advice on how he thinks the game should be run, but since when did anyone pay attention to Mark Rein*Hagen's ideas about Vampire?

But doesn't this go against one of the main arguments I see people make: that is, if the majority of the rules are about something, to claim the game is something else is hypocritical.

For example, many argue that while D&D is heavy on the combat rules, you can play consecutive sessions without, or with very rare, combat sequences. You can do strictly "role" play for long periods.  The response I've seen to that is that while true, it means you have to ignore the thrust of D&D to do that.

If your arguing that you have to ignore what most of Sorcerer is about, most of the rules being about interacting with your demon, so you can do things outside of dealing with your demons, aren't you making the same argument for seeing D&D as about far more than combat?

NOTE: Never read Sorcerer, much less played it. And I'm certainly not saying you've made both sides of the argument.  Just noting the arguments I've seen (and perhaps misunderstood).

Quote from: James J SkachIf your arguing that you have to ignore what most of Sorcerer is about, most of the rules being about interacting with your demon, so you can do things outside of dealing with your demons, aren't you making the same argument for seeing D&D as about far more than combat?

That... is not what I am arguing at all. There are perfectly adequate rules in Sorcerer for dealing with non-demonic situations already. The Sorcerer system, as written, is entirely capable of running any World of Darkness-style campaign you like.

You have to ignore some of the game designer's "here's how I ran Sorcerer" fluff, but who doesn't?

Quote from: WarthurThat... is not what I am arguing at all. There are perfectly adequate rules in Sorcerer for dealing with non-demonic situations already. The Sorcerer system, as written, is entirely capable of running any World of Darkness-style campaign you like.

You have to ignore some of the game designer's "here's how I ran Sorcerer" fluff, but who doesn't?

Sorry...I guess I'm not making myself clear.

I understand that there are rules in Sorcerer for handling things outside of interacting with your demon. Similarly, there are rule in D&D for handling things outside of Combat (Tactics). However, in both cases, large portions of the game cover a specific thing (at least, I think that's what you said about Sorcerer and I know it to be true about D&D). In Sorcerer, that's interacting with your demon.  In D&D it's combat/tactics.

Both allow you to do other things, but both focus on an aspect. Now most argue that D&D is about combat/tactics because of this focus.  Is it not, therefore, fair to say that Sorcerer is about interacting with your demon? If not, how so?

I guess, in a way, I'm arguing against Pundit here.  And I'm doing it because I always hated the argument that D&D is only good for combat/tactics because that's the focus of the rules.

Quote from: James J SkachBoth allow you to do other things, but both focus on an aspect. Now most argue that D&D is about combat/tactics because of this focus.  Is it not, therefore, fair to say that Sorcerer is about interacting with your demon? If not, how so?

I guess, in a way, I'm arguing against Pundit here.  And I'm doing it because I always hated the argument that D&D is only good for combat/tactics because that's the focus of the rules.

I think part of it is that early editions of D&D didn't really have a nice resolution system for things outside of combat (with some exceptions). Sorcerer - like Vampire, 3.X D&D, and most other games these days - has a unified resolution mechanic (as well as a reasonably detailed combat chapter, if memory serves).

Quote from: James J SkachBut doesn't this go against one of the main arguments I see people make: that is, if the majority of the rules are about something, to claim the game is something else is hypocritical.

For example, many argue that while D&D is heavy on the combat rules, you can play consecutive sessions without, or with very rare, combat sequences. You can do strictly "role" play for long periods.  The response I've seen to that is that while true, it means you have to ignore the thrust of D&D to do that.

If your arguing that you have to ignore what most of Sorcerer is about, most of the rules being about interacting with your demon, so you can do things outside of dealing with your demons, aren't you making the same argument for seeing D&D as about far more than combat?

If you'll allow me to summarize and re-phrase slightly: the Forge dudes can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't say that D&D can only possibly be good for dungeon crawls because that's all the book's rules focus on (and ignore the possibly millions of people who have played D&D games that were very fulfilling and not just about dungeon crawls), and then turn around and say that a Forge game can do more than just what is written in it.


RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachI guess, in a way, I'm arguing against Pundit here.  And I'm doing it because I always hated the argument that D&D is only good for combat/tactics because that's the focus of the rules.

Congratulations. You're doing so, and making an interesting point. You're also half-way convincing me.

The only difference between me judging a forge game as limited to playing exactly based on its written-content and Forgeites judging D&D that way is that the Forge believes strongly in games being made to be played for a specific purpose, so that's their own standard; whereas the D&D game has never been about that, its always been implied that you could and should play a variety of things with the D&D rules-set.

So could you take Sorcerer, or DiTV for that matter, and use it for a type of play totally different than the bulk of its rules? Sure, just like you can with D&D. The difference is that D&D implicitly encourages that, whereas Forge-theory explicitly discourages that.

So in part, the specific intentions of the designers and the community of players have something to do with whether a game is designated a micro-game or not, I guess.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo could you take Sorcerer, or DiTV for that matter, and use it for a type of play totally different than the bulk of its rules? Sure, just like you can with D&D. The difference is that D&D implicitly encourages that, whereas Forge-theory explicitly discourages that.

I would say that you could take Sorcerer and use it for a type of play entirely supported by the rules, but not by Forge theory or the gamemastering advice.

There's the irony - early D&D encouraged people to think beyond dungeon crawling, but didn't provide strong systems to support alternate kinds of play (that's been more than adequately fixed by 3.X). Sorcerer encourages you to utilise a particular style of play, but presents a system strong enough for a variety of themes.

Quote from: RPGPunditCongratulations. You're doing so, and making an interesting point. You're also half-way convincing me.

Now that I will take as a badge of honor.