Quote from: droogLook, dude, millions of electrons have died in the arguing of social-mechanics vs none. It's a preference in system. Try and remember that.

Sure.  And some players enjoy being railroaded.  Does that invalidate my original comment about why it didn't work for me?

Quote from: droogWhat's actually happening here? The players want their characters to convince the NPC of something. He's going to end up convinced or not convinced, and somehow you must resolve that.

Correct.  

Quote from: droogIn the specific case of DitV, you can:
(a) Say, "Okay, the steward loves you."
(b) Roll for it.

Can you just play out the debate?

Quote from: droogOnce you begin rolling, either side can Give at any time. Nothing ever says, "This is what you must do."

And if you don't want to Give because you think it's out of character?

Quote from: droogIn another game, you might act it out. Same thing happens: he's convinced or not convinced and that must be resolved. In this case it's resolved by the GM using his judgement.

What purpose do the actual words spoken by the characters serve in both cases and how do they contribute to the outcome?

Let me put an example to this, using a more conventional personality mechanic for comparison.  In Hero, if I decide to do a presence attack on some NPCs, I tell the GM what I'm saying or doing and add d6 based on my character's Presence and add a number of bonus d6 based on how the GM thinks what my character is saying or doing will be interpreted by the NPCs, and I roll to see how much I exceed their Ego by.  

In that example, what I my character says or does contributes to the outcome, even though how much is interpreted by the GM and Hero allows for a fairly weak contribution, in my opinion.  In Dogs, does what my character says or does have any similar impact on the outcome?  And if the player or GM can simply Give because they are persuaded by the argument, isn't that simply abandoning the personality mechanic and playing it out?

I'm not simply trying to be difficult here.  I've had people tell me to read Actual Play threads to understand the "magic" that they experience playing Dogs and I own a copy.  I'm trying to understand where that feeling comes from.  If you've got a Forge thread or an Actual Play thread that actually describes why the players are enjoying this process, I'll happily look at it.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, droog won't game with me, not because he's a "Narrativist" and I'm a "Gamist" or any shit like that, but because he thinks I'm a cock, or whatever his favourite insult is today.

That was particularly funny to read while looking at your icon of Samuel L. Jackson.

Quote from: John MorrowThat was particularly funny to read while looking at your icon of Samuel L. Jackson.

I might have to change it, even I'm finding it hard to take myself seriously with that guy looking on. I think it's good to have a reminder not to take yourself too seriously, but you probably only need one of a silly screen nick or avatar, not both.

Ron Edwards would find himself making much more sense if only he'd use an avatar of a man with a teapot on his head, or something like that.

Quote from: John MorrowIn that example, what I my character says or does contributes to the outcome, even though how much is interpreted by the GM and Hero allows for a fairly weak contribution, in my opinion.  In Dogs, does what my character says or does have any similar impact on the outcome?  And if the player or GM can simply Give because they are persuaded by the argument, isn't that simply abandoning the personality mechanic and playing it out?

What you say has an effect on the traits, relationships etc you bring into the conflict, or whether you escalate or not. That in turn affects your chance of winning the conflict.

What you say is also part of the fiction of the game now. If you pistol-whipped an old woman, it happened and now we know where your character will go. That's part of the point of playing DitV.

(Of course, when you say "I pistol-whip the old woman!", it's always possible another PC Dog will challenge you on it – "Damn if you're goin' to do that, Brother Jedediah, in my presence!")

Giving isn't abandoning the mechanic, it's one possible resolution of the mechanic. To start a conflict and then back down has a different narrative significance from not starting a conflict in the first place.

If you don't enjoy that process of seeing and raising, of bouncing your roleplaying off the dice, you won't enjoy the game. But it's not because the game takes choice from you.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, droog won't game with me, not because he's a "Narrativist" and I'm a "Gamist" or any shit like that, but because he thinks I'm a cock, or whatever his favourite insult is today. Our game play style preferences, however you wish to label them, are irrelevant, because he doesn't feel we'd get along at a person-to-person level. Whether he's right or not I've no idea, but that's the way game groups work, or don't work - because of how the people get along.

My presumptive opinion of you aside, how do you account for Glenn? He was a good friend of all the people in our group, yet his game style didn't go with that game. And it was definitely that game in particular, because he's played other games with me and we've both had a good time.

I don't want to play in a game with you GMing, because I don't like the techniques you use (as I read them). Also, I find your take on DitV very puzzling, and I think there must be some huge disconnect in our perceptions or goals. That's entirely apart from my opinion of you as a person.

Quote from: droogMy presumptive opinion of you aside, how do you account for Glenn? He was a good friend of all the people in our group, yet his game style didn't go with that game. And it was definitely that game in particular, because he's played other games with me and we've both had a good time.

I didn't say that game play style preferences never had any effect whatsoever, I said that the most basic and important thing is how everyone gets along.

And it's quite possible for Anna, Bob, Charlie and Dave to get along fine, but Anna, Bob, Charlie and Erika explode in argument, or Charlie feels slightly uncomfortable, or whatever.

The exact make-up of the group is important. I mean, two gamer buddies of mine, I see them as basically similar guys - outspoken, talkative, both think that people are the most important part of gaming, etc. I get along very well with both of them. But one I can't game with at all, and the other I can, and the two can't stand each-other. Why? Human relations are often mysterious things, someone more knowledgeable about psychology and so on could probably answer better than me why two people who both get along with me, neither likes the other.

Quote from: droogI don't want to play in a game with you GMing, because I don't like the techniques you use (as I read them).

I'd be curious, in some other thread about GMing, to hear of your own techniques, we could then discuss my own and those of others, too.

Quote from: droogThat's entirely apart from my opinion of you as a person.

Thing is, that's the most important part. If you get along with someone, you can very often, though not always, work out any differences in game play style, or work style, or whatever. If you don't, you can't even begin to sort anything else out.

I don't say that other things don't matter, only that people getting along well is the most important thing, and if that's sorted, everything else is easy by comparison.

May I cite myself:

QuoteAnd that´s why I can´t buy the Big Model. RPGs and instances are texts which are received and formed in an interactive process, which need textual analysis, criticial literary discourse and the like. In short: methods from the humanities. The forge has nothing in that regard.
This is their main failure, and Ron´s main failure.

That´s all that is wrong about it.
They are using the wrong tools.

Why should there be special categories for play-motivation? Bullshit, you game  because of the same reasons you do anything else in the world.
The jargon from the forge is phony stuff made upt because people didn´t know shit about stuff like Action theory, or anything else friom the humanitites.

That´s why it´s all fucked up. There is socialisiation into bad behaviour, but there is no brain damage. There are preferences, but there is no CA.
CA is a bad placeholder for the underlying preference spectra and an artifact of the lacking tools the Forgers had to use.

Talk about causes and reasons for behaviour like you do in real sociology (or any newspaper): Socio-psychological motivations and longings, not some made up categories.

Actually Settembrini, John Kim recently put up a link to a computer game comany' study of why people enjoy computer games. It's not from the humanities or any area - just asking people why they enjoy it, and trying to sort it out.

I think the full pdf is worth downloading, but here is the summary page.

Amazingly, "why we play games" has nothing to do with GNS Some may argue that rpgs and computer games are completely different, but what's said there... it all seems pretty familiar to me.

This IS action theory. And the humanities at work. That´s exactly the stuff I´m talking about.

Quote from: droogSee, you just don't know the full gamut of the discussion on this. Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction. That's not the same thing as you said. Moreover, Mike Holmes cheerfully admits to incoherency in his game and claims you can have a bit more flexibility.

The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

Actually, GNS predicts on-going powerstruggle as the *most likely* result of incoherent play.

When faced with the self-evident observation that incoherent games are hugely popular and more successful in the market-place than "coherent" ones, the theory punts.

"Incoherence" is really "flexibility"

In actual play traditional games are highly adaptable to player desires and preferences making it more likely that a diverse group (or a group with diverse tastes) will enjoy them than highly-focused / limited games.

Consider the huge differences in numbers of people who have played and enjoyed Vampire (the poster child for Incoherence) and the numbers of people who have ever heard of DiTV or Sorcerer.

Whatever Incohernence is, it's what real gamers are asking for.

Don't forget that.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniThis IS action theory. And the humanities at work. That´s exactly the stuff I´m talking about.

That is any more to do with the humanities research than Big Model? Hardly. They surveyed thirty game players (computer game players) and fifteen friends. There are three references listed.

It's a pretty slick-looking document and webpage, but there isn't much substance considering people are actually paying for this to be produced. Looks like marketing.

Quote from: -E.When faced with the self-evident observation that incoherent games are hugely popular and more successful in the market-place than "coherent" ones, the theory punts.

We'll see how it's all going in a few more years, I guess.

And you know, there is always the point that D&D 3.x is a more coherent game than its predecessor, and seems to have pulled a lot of people back to roleplaying.

QuoteIt's a pretty slick-looking document and webpage, but there isn't much substance considering people are actually paying for this to be produced. Looks like marketing.

Well, it´s shallow.
But it´s the sort of thing. And as you might know from reading a newspaper, discussions about popular culture are the sum of individual opninions. THis is one.

The underlying notion, that it´s regular stuff that drives peoples actions, and not some constructed and limited phony categories is the important thing here.

GNS is just a stand-in, because the people using it don´t know better. So it´s  inherently flawed and twisted. But people learned to use those flawed and twisted tools to make a certain type of game. And they work. But it doesn´t tell us anything worthwhile about RPGs.

But it amazes me, that so few people see this fallacy. Makes me wonder.

You´d need to seperate:
1) GNS as a toolbox
2) GNS as a model for reality

Number two is a slap in the face for western liberal arts, humanities and (pop)-cultural discourse itself.

Do Forum posters don´t read any newspapers?

QuoteThe underlying notion, that it´s regular stuff that drives peoples actions, and not some constructed and limited phony categories is the important thing here.

Hard Fun
Easy Fun
Serious Fun
People Fun

?

Quote from: JimBobOzI'd be curious, in some other thread about GMing, to hear of your own techniques, we could then discuss my own and those of others, too.

My basic problem with you is your insistence on the Viking Hat GM model and your use of fudging. I prefer a more easygoing approach myself, and I don't see anything so radical in a bit of (formalised) shared narrative control. And if dice roll, I want them to decide something. Also, your choice of systems really doesn't turn me on (though I see you're looking at HQ).

I've declined to play in games run by good friends for similar reasons, so don't feel bad.