Quote from: Exploderwizard;641951So what does:

" I don't even think of it as much of an RPG for the game isn't played for the characters- it's played for the players."

mean exactly?

For me, it's the key difference in the mindset between playing a traditional RPG and a Story Game.

In the traditional RPG, the player's goal is to further the interests of his character according to the personality he created for him within the world created by the GM. He does this by interacting with a consistent physical reality (i.e. the rules) and of course with those other PCs and NPCs that exist in that same reality. Running the Character is the most important action, and it's assume that this is the primary source of fun for the players.

In the Story Game, the player's goal is the further the meta-game interests of the players (himself and/or the other players in the game), i.e. thinks like make them laugh, tell a good story, etc. In doing this the character is a tool and little more than prop in a improv performance in which the latter and not the former is the primary source of fun for the players.

Quote from: gleichman;641950He knows D&D, or rather he knows the version played at his table. I leave it to other D&D fans to say if it matches any actual version of the rules although I will say that I agree that D&D is heavily offense biased by default.

Nah, I know me some 3.x, and 4 picked up most of the same movement and targeting rules whatever changes it made to characters. What he's saying still makes no sense in a D20 context.

QuoteAll that said, I think he's rather harmless once you know where he's coming from.

It's an internet discussion. Everybody's harmless.

Quote from: beejazz;641954Nah, I know me some 3.x, and 4 picked up most of the same movement and targeting rules whatever changes it made to characters. What he's saying still makes no sense in a D20 context.

Is he wrong in the details he gives, or is he wrong in claiming an Offense Bias?

Quote from: beejazz;641954It's an internet discussion. Everybody's harmless.

To us as individuals? Baring the very rare insane stalker here and there, that's true.

To the hobby? There are degrees. I feel that The Forge was a harmful influence as is the OSR. Charlie Seen on the other hand is harmless in comparison (much as I am).

Quote from: gleichman;641953For me, it's the key difference in the mindset between playing a traditional RPG and a Story Game.

In the traditional RPG, the player's goal is to further the interests of his character according to the personality he created for him within the world created by the GM. He does this by interacting with a consistent physical reality (i.e. the rules) and of course with those other PCs and NPCs that exist in that same reality. Running the Character is the most important action, and it's assume that this is the primary source of fun for the players.

In the Story Game, the player's goal is the further the meta-game interests of the players (himself and/or the other players in the game), i.e. thinks like make them laugh, tell a good story, etc. In doing this the character is a tool and little more than prop in a improv performance in which the latter and not the former is the primary source of fun for the players.

It doesn't matter if you are roleplaying or storywanking. "The game" part of the rpg experience is strictly about entertaining and engaging the player.

What you are talking about are the specifics that a player finds most fun depending on tastes.

Quote from: gleichman;641955Is he wrong in the details he gives, or is he wrong in claiming an Offense Bias?

Details, mostly. Melee with 20ft range? Normal? Not in any D20 game I've seen. On the offense bias he seems to be conflating self defense with point defense with 4e defenders. There may be a general offense bias, but he still hasn't established why that should be a problem and he's talking more nonsense than I can untangle around that point.

QuoteTo us as individuals? Baring the very rare insane stalker here and there, that's true.

To the hobby? There are degrees. I feel that The Forge was a harmful influence as is the OSR. Charlie Seen on the other hand is harmless in comparison (much as I am).

I think people make the hobby out to be more fragile than it is. If I squint at it just right I can see the argument that the discussion changes what rules are popular among designers, but I don't see these trends as harmful. If I squint even harder I can see an argument that the trends might be better for the people discussing for the general public (and that they might do damage to the hobby's numbers) but I still think the potential impact is pretty tiny.

I think changes in format do more than changes in discussion, for an example of something I think has a larger impact. So more people are looking for mapless play given the rise of play on AIM, G+, forums, etc.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;641956It doesn't matter if you are roleplaying or storywanking. "The game" part of the rpg experience is strictly about entertaining and engaging the player.

What you are talking about are the specifics that a player finds most fun depending on tastes.

The first is just stating the obvious, although in this very thread we've had people claim that "The Game" part shouldn't entertain nor engage the players... interest thing.

The second is more interesting as it at least means one can talk about different tastes.

But really what I'm speaking of is neither of the above, but rather defined approaches and how games can be labeled thereby.

Quote from: beejazz;641958Details, mostly.

Works for me. I have no desire to get into the details of D&D, the general concepts are off-putting enough even if I respect the impact of the original work and its resource management approach (which sort of disappear to a degree in 4th).

Quote from: beejazz;641958There may be a general offense bias, but he still hasn't established why that should be a problem and he's talking more nonsense than I can untangle around that point.

He doesn't see it as a problem, worst than that- he sees it as reality and thinks it applies to all games.

Quote from: beejazz;641958I think people make the hobby out to be more fragile than it is.

I wish that was the case, but the hobby I loved died at the beginning of the 90s and shows no sign of return.

Quote from: beejazz;641941You really don't know anything about anything. It has become apparent that this conversation was a waste of time.

Weren't you just talking about emergent gameplay? Or was that gliechman?

Regardless, in the world of melee reach is king. Whoever has more of it gets to hit first and likely last, so everyone uses reach weapons and if possible further increases their attack range. It doesn't matter if we're discussing D&D, where Enlarge + Spiked Chain = 20 feet and one of those = 10 feet or some other system... as long as it models that long weapons are long, you end up with a 10-20 foot attack range. If the system doesn't model long weapons being long, it sucks. That simple.

Quote from: gleichman;641950He knows D&D, or rather he knows the version played at his table. I leave it to other D&D fans to say if it matches any actual version of the rules although I will say that I agree that D&D is heavily offense biased by default.

That he would extend that limited field of knowledge to include things such as other completely different games he's never read and even real life events like Thermopylae makes him an interesting example of a type of obsession.

In this, he's very similar to a mirror version of the OSR crowd who claim that playing RAW means you're roll-playing and not role-playing. But he's one upped them by saying that if you're not playing his version of D&D, you're not doing anything right- be it playing an RPG or fighting a real life war.

All that said, I think he's rather harmless once you know where he's coming from.

As long as you're playing armchair shrink look up displacement (psychological).

D&D is more heavily offense biased than most systems (mostly because of magical buffs) but even without that numerical superiority over any defending force the fact the attacking side can choose who they do and do not attack and the defending side cannot choose which of their members is and is not subjected to attack means that choice has an attacker bias. Which, ya know, is what I said.

The fact of the matter is that YOU are the one assuming this is all about D&D. I've barely mentioned it, and have made very few assumptions at all such as the whole long weapons being long thing... which really should be a system agnostic detail.

You really want to discuss D&D? Here's how it goes in D&D:

Dumbass hides in a room.
Enemies see this and start attacking at a distance, with AoE effects if they have them and normal range if not.

Either the defender comes out or he dies, and so does whoever he's supposedly protecting.

Guy is trying to protect location.
Scrying.
Mass buffs.
Teleport.
Surprise round stomping.

Scry and fry is actually a noob tactic (that is to say, relatively easy to stop) but trying to defend a location is even more noobish so it works.

I'm not interested in discussing D&D in this context as it's already common knowledge you can't do any sort of defend/protect x there. What's lesser known is that the same principles carry over into other game systems.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641962as long as it models that long weapons are long, you end up with a 10-20 foot attack range.

You're not doing a very good job convincing me that you know anything at all.

So Charlie Sheen, do you have anything else to talk about that might be related to the subject of this thread?

Quote from: gleichman;641974So Charlie Sheen, do you have anything else to talk about that might be related to the subject of this thread?

Good question. I'm certainly quite bored of the whole magical doors and their doorstoppers BS, as well as the six inch pikes.

I can't think of any particular aspect of game design I feel like discussing right now, either general or specific to a particular game system.

If you want to pick a less mind numbingly stupid subject we can talk about that. Or if someone else does.

Quote from: gleichman;641799CoC's insanity rules currently.

Yeah, your inability to actually contend with any of the arguments I've put forth in that regard pretty much invalidate that statement. As does the fact that I put forth valid arguments, so the phrase "will excuse anything" doesn't actually apply in any meaningful sense.

But then you're use of the word "good game design" is really a misuse of the word "good" in any meaningful sense. You misewell say its "good game design" to only use blue dice.

Quote from: gleichman;641794I think the point would be that 'good process' does not always correct for the inability to do good design in the first place.

Ideally it would prevent it from going far (i.e. to release), but as your reaction and others in this thread shows- people will excuse just about anything. Consider how much stronger that desire would be for the actual designer of a game.

I contend there's no such thing as "good process". Its only the end result that matters, and since there is no process that inexorably leads to a good game, then the process used is pretty meaningless. And you've shown your own hand in the willingness to excuse things based on your preference. To take a cue from your arguments regarding Call of Cthulhu's sanity system, the Hero system fails as well, as does any game that includes rules for spells or psionics. "the wizard is casting a control spell on me? No way, that affects my choices in roleplaying my character!"

Quote from: gleichman;641797Breaking *either* expection is a Story Game concept.

Um, no, Storygames have nothing to do with "player expectation". Don't know where you came up with that one.

A game is a storygame if a player is making choices for his characters from a 3rd person authoritarial PoV, or the rules enforce decisions or resolutions based on narrative conceits rather than an attempt to model reality.

Player expectation doesn't enter into it.

Nor do sanity rules, since they are attempts to model reality vs a narrative.

Quote from: gleichman;641804These are my goals

1. Wave the Flag for the best of traditional RPG design (now a lost art)

Can you define traditional game design?

Quote2. Measure the waters of the current online mindset and its trends

You picked an odd forum for that.

Quote3. See if I encounter people worth encountering be they in agreement or disagreement

OKCupid might be better for that one.