Quote from: jeff37923This is one of those subjects where being a GM is more art than science.

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.

Quote from: David RI dunno about this. It all comes down to what kind of game you want to play and the expectations of the group. I don't think hardwired "balancing rules" are necessarily a drawback per se.

Regards,
David R

Agreed, that is why the decision must be made based upon the nature of the group. I think we're on the same page here.

I should probably mention, the Mountain Witch game didn't exactly deprive me of a chance to enjoy my character--because the characters themselves were so hastily drawn and barely detailed. Still, there were a couple incidents that ramped up the pressure so quickly, and were so obviously off-the-cuff improv, that they left the player sputtering. In one case the guy apparently had difficulty coming up with an answer an acceptable to himself, nor could the group as a whole help him out, and it got ugly as the character was ganged up on and executed. The player left in a bad mood.

To reiterate, the problem is at least partly with presentation, and to a certain extent with reception and re-transmission. Or if you will, hype. Some people take these methods, and the "school" as a whole, as implying a radical regimentation of play, hewing closely to "the rules". And that might even be how they play, they take "the rules" as a license to ramp up the melodrama and GM "posing of questions" to a level that others would hate. But that doesn't mean other groups don't have an enjoyable zone of play which could be interpreted as already containing the techniques. Or that they wouldn't benefit from seeing the techniques as guidelines.

When my wife started her classes last year she was forced to go through an online program called "Alchohol Edu", which was written by an alcoholic. She wasted several hours of her life being lectured in a ridiculous manner about the evils of alchohol. The thing is, she barely ever has a sip herself, she doesn't go to college parties, etc. For a few students, the heavy handed message of the program is probably appropriate, for others common sense and personal tastes are more than sufficient. If they took the program seriously they'd probably be running around with axes, smashing kegs and generally making nuisances of themselves.

Oh well, you obviously had some social problems in that group, and the GM wasn't so hot. But you know, it's not like games give you brain damage.

Quote from: flyingmiceMr. Gliechman, I SAID they predated the Forge. I SAID I knew about these techniques thirty years ago when I began GMing. I never read Hero, so I don't know about that iteration, and if Mr. Edwards didn't read Hero either, and was never told about them by another GM, he could easily have thought he invented them. I was giving benefit of a reasonable doubt to Mr. Edwards, not defending him.

Hmm, that's not you you said...

Quote from: flyingmiceThe fact that they pre-existed doesn't mean that they "ripped them off." It's entirely possible that Kickers and Bangs, for example, were an independent invention. It's not like us old timers wrote this stuff down, and they are a logical outgrowth of stuff like hooks.

In that was "not like us old timers wrote this stuff down"

The old timers did write it down.

Now if you hadn't put that part in and added "maybe Edwards never read anything and come up with this on his own" to your original post, I think it would have been easier to understand your intent.

I think it would be pointless claim because it only turns Edwards from one type of idiot (a stealing abusing one) into another (pure idiot, one unwilling to step aside when it's pointed out that others have done it first and better). But I would have understood it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThere was no chance to do anything with the character before he was being "tested" left and right, and utterly arbitrarily.

There was a lot of discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy about "Develop at Start" (DAS) vs "Develop in Play" (DIP) players, with respect to how they create characters.  The quick summary for those unfamiliar with those discussions or the idea is that some players fully develop their characters before play while others sketch out their character before play and fill in the character during play.  Testing a character that's not fully developed is like administering a final exam on the third day of classes.  Not only is the player unlikely to get much out of the test but even if they do work their way through it in an acceptable manner, the character can wind up failing the test.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNote I don't think these were necessarily sadism but they were unpleasant, unwelcome, and certainly inspired by the Kicker/Bang concept. Which, again, I don't reject entirely, but the presentation seems to encourage a sort of "high octane" improvisational approach that I dislike. And I agree with KingSpoom that it can easily amount to illusionism.

My biggest problem with these theories is when they go from being optional to being mandatory.  It assumes a "one size fits all" idea of fun.  If you look over the player types detailed by Robin Laws, quite a few of them aren't going to find "one no-win situation after another" very fun.  

This also relates to the GM biases discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy that I recently excerpted and mentioned here.  One person's "good GMing" can wreck a game for another person, especially when applied at every turn.  Subtlety can be important and seems to be almost entirely absent from many of the story game concepts that I've seen.  It's like having R. Lee Ermey screaming, "STORY NOW, MAGGOT!" at you.  "NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 5 KICKERS!  NOW! NOW! NOW!"

And I'm saying this as someone who likes intense character play.  I just don't like it forced on me.

Unless I misunderstand the term, illusionism only sucks when you know its illusionism.

Quote from: AosUnless I misunderstand the term, illusionism only sucks when you know its illusionism.

It always sucks.  Unless you like it.

Quote from: gleichmanHmm, that's not you you said...

In that was "not like us old timers wrote this stuff down"

The old timers did write it down.

Now if you hadn't put that part in and added "maybe Edwards never read anything and come up with this on his own" to your original post, I think it would have been easier to understand your intent.

OK. That was what I was driving at, anyway. All well and good! I really must have mangled that one! Thank goodness I'm not a professional writer!

... Wait a minute! :O

-clash

I reminded of a Superman comic, one where Joker visisted Metropolis.

The Joker tried to set superman up with a "Bang".

He kidnapped Louis Lane and stuffed her in a Lead-Lined coffin. He then hid twelve other lead lined coffins around Metropolis. He then put a bomb on a train, and told Superman he had to make a chioce, between the people on the train and Louis.

The Joker made the mistake in lining the coffins with lead, becase all Supes had to do was use his X ray vision to find all of the coffins (it was easy to spot twelve coffins he couldn't see through). Using his superspeed he quickly found Louis, made it to the train to disable the bomb AND tracked down and arrested the Joker (who was robbing a bank at the same time).

How's that for a Bang

In all frankness, that would be too narragamulationist for my taste.

Quote from: John MorrowThere was a lot of discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy about "Develop at Start" (DAS) vs "Develop in Play" (DIP) players, with respect to how they create cahracters.

One of the dangers of Design in Play IMO is that without a firm grasp of character upfront, the player may be unable to come to a good understanding in play.

The example I'm thinking of (didn't play in it, this is from an online conversation) involved a DIP player's attempt to run a Paladin in D&D. As was typical with DIP, the player didn't seem to have a grasp on why the character was a Paladin or what the character even believed. When confronted with decisions during the course of play, the player had no chose but to decide their actions without the grounding necessary to how a paladin would view the decision.

Of course the result was decisions in conflict with a Paladin's concept, or decisions made that didn't seem rational to the player who was attempting play the concept.

After time, it blew up with the player not only rejecting the character's starting concept (lost of paladin status, maybe- the story wasn't clear on this point) but with the player rejecting the idea that paladins were reasonable or possible characters to run in D&D at all.

If that type of reaction is possible in something as easy as D&D, I can imagine that the over the top screaming "STORY NOW, MAGGOT!", "NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 5 KICKERS! NOW! NOW! NOW!" would be enough to get them to run screaming from the hobby.

Quote from: KrakaJakHow's that for a Bang

Terrible, nothing blew up.

Gleichman, re. Paladin: that's a special case, namely of a PC who comes with built-in beliefs (or divergence from those, doesn't matter) from the get-go. So, at start of game Paladins and Clerics are much less clean slates than the other classes.

RPG + Paladin + Scruples = Dogs in the Vineyard

I don't see how trying to run Dogs in the Vineyard with D&D is playing to the games strengths.  If that's what you want to be doing -- run DitV!