Quote from: flyingmiceIf you want to know how everything works on a StarCluster Starship, you can pick up the "Starship Construction and Engineer's Guide," which can tell you how waste is handled by the ship's plumbing. You don't need that level of detail to play the game, though. It plays just fine without it.

See, I have a horrible time trying to do books like that. To me, they are just not important enough. I have it all worked out but I just cannot bring myself to write a book with pages on "A guide to waste reclamation and you: where not to touch". It is an interesting footnote and as a GM I have used such material (ala jumping down the waste chute to escape the inept soldiers) but it has little adventure appeal in and of itself. For me, I am always looking at it as a means to an adventure hook so I need to be able to see the part of the waste reclamation system as more than a means to sneak around the ship. Engine details can be useful as they can be a means of wealth or a plot goal. The engine crystal is damaged and they only grow on Xylos. Party is going to Xylos.

Not to sy you are doing that Clash, just that what you said there sparked that thought.

BTW- If you ever are interested in writing a book on starships or tech for Nebuleon let me know.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I have a horrible time trying to do books like that. To me, they are just not important enough. I have it all worked out but I just cannot bring myself to write a book with pages on "A guide to waste reclamation and you: where not to touch". It is an interesting footnote and as a GM I have used such material (ala jumping down the waste chute to escape the inept soldiers) but it has little adventure appeal in and of itself. For me, I am always looking at it as a means to an adventure hook so I need to be able to see the part of the waste reclamation system as more than a means to sneak around the ship. Engine details can be useful as they can be a means of wealth or a plot goal. The engine crystal is damaged and they only grow on Xylos. Party is going to Xylos.

Not to sy you are doing that Clash, just that what you said there sparked that thought.

BTW- If you ever are interested in writing a book on starships or tech for Nebuleon let me know.

Bill

When I get my ridicuously ambitious publishing plans in hand, I'd love to.

BTW, I worked for years for my father, who was an engineer, designing and drafting mechanical systems and machinery. This kind of stuff fascinates me, but I fully realize most folks like to turn on the engine and go. Albert and I designed the StarCluster tech so that it would be self-consistent and logical, even though we intended to bury it under layers of abstraction. It was fun, and satisfied our inner wonk, and gave us a firm base of tech to exploit for game purposes. Plus it's just elegant.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThanks, Pundit! I don't want to tell the GM how to run a game any more than I'd appreciate being railroaded as a GM by some game designer. I like getting my PCs into sticky social and political situations, but that's not all I want to do in the game, and someone else might not like it at all. I was a GM long before I was a designer.

-clash

While I believe you are worthy of praise, the point in all this wasn't just to suck up to you; it was also because your games have all made a significant choice that makes them much more playable than microgames.  

In Cold Space, I can run "Platoon" (in space or on earth), "James Bond" (in space or on earth), "Traveller", even "The Mission" (with the hominid race being exploited by evil colonists) if I wanted to, plus countless other games.

I don't see the point of having a game where the game designer's whims, and his desire to force people to play only the game he wants, means I can only do one thing with a game.  What is there to gain in that? The choice of the campaign is something for the gaming group to make, and not the game designer; and a GOOD RPG is one that provides a broad spectrum of possible playstyles.

This is what I dislike so very much about the Forge's microgames, and why I'm so very disappointed that Black Industries has chosen to follow this monumentally stupid model with Warhammer 40k; just so that they can have more control over what I play, and so that they can try to sell me three games instead of just one. That's a sucker's game, and I won't accept it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't see the point of having a game where the game designer's whims, and his desire to force people to play only the game he wants, means I can only do one thing with a game.  What is there to gain in that? The choice of the campaign is something for the gaming group to make, and not the game designer; and a GOOD RPG is one that provides a broad spectrum of possible playstyles.  This is what I dislike so very much about the Forge's microgames,

The idea of having a focus for your game is not some new-fangled Forge idea.  Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Paranoia, Toon, and lots of other games all including not just a setting but a model for adventure.  

Now, the game mechanics for Call of Cthulhu can and were adapted to many other uses, but CoC never sold itself on being a broad game.  The same goes for Paranoia.  

I don't think it's a bad model.  Small press in particular can't support a dozen different setting and genre lines for a rules system -- so it makes sense to pick one and support that, rather than piss-poor support on a bunch of ones.

Incidentally, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu and WFRP suffer a bit from pigeon holing.

CoC is the game where you all go mad or get eaten, Paranoia you get through six clones in ten minutes, WFRP you get beaten up in dark alleys etc.

And these pigeon holes don't entirely line up with how people actually play the games, or why people like them.

Frex, find the guy who does Paranoia these days and tell him his game is so cool, what with the computer is your friend and killing each other in the first ten minutes. He will either kill himself or patiently try to explain that there are more things you can do than that. 'Zap' paranoia is just one possibility etc. etc.

Frex, Luke Crayne of Burning Wheel played paranoia as his first game - he played it as straight future spy stuff.

Quote from: jhkimThe idea of having a focus for your game is not some new-fangled Forge idea.  Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Paranoia, Toon, and lots of other games all including not just a setting but a model for adventure.  

Focus is one thing, narrowness is another.

IHW is a very focused game, its a game of napoleonic naval adventures. There's no question that would be "focused" in most people's books.  But the number of different forms of play you can have with it are legion.

CoC is a game of Lovecraftian horror, but its nothing like what the Forge would come up with as a horror game, and you can do tons of different things with it.

Let's not be silly here; we all know what we mean: there's a world of difference between "a game about the Cold War in space" or "A game where you play anthropomorphic reptilian ninjas", and "a game that tells the same mountain folktale every time", or "a game where you are mormon gunslingers that go to a town and resolve a problem with that town that must originate from an act of sin from one of the townspeople".  Its like saying that the ranges of 1-1000000 and 1-3 are both "focused". You'll have to do better than that.

QuoteThe same goes for Paranoia.  

Paranoia is a comedy game, and thus something of a special case.  That said, even it is considerably less focused than most Forge games.

QuoteSmall press in particular can't support a dozen different setting and genre lines for a rules system -- so it makes sense to pick one and support that, rather than piss-poor support on a bunch of ones.

I don't see why.  Clash Bowley's games, at least, would seem to tell the lie to that.
Likewise, I would think that there would be far more appeal in making a game that offers (in one book) the opportunity to run 4 or 5 different styles of game (like IHW or Cold Space do), and that you can run as CAMPAIGNS, than to offer 1 single very focused narrow game, that you can only really run for a few sessions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceWhen I get my ridicuously ambitious publishing plans in hand, I'd love to.

BTW, I worked for years for my father, who was an engineer, designing and drafting mechanical systems and machinery. This kind of stuff fascinates me, but I fully realize most folks like to turn on the engine and go. Albert and I designed the StarCluster tech so that it would be self-consistent and logical, even though we intended to bury it under layers of abstraction. It was fun, and satisfied our inner wonk, and gave us a firm base of tech to exploit for game purposes. Plus it's just elegant.

-clash

Oh, don't get me wrong Clash, planning out the intricacies of a setting are vital, IMO, but translating it to a book needs to be thought out. Sometimes it works. For whatever reason folks love equipment guides. I am truly horrible at writing such books. There is a level that such minutiae just goes too far though.

Bill

The problem here is not with games that are focused, the problem is with games that are constrained. Years ago one Lisa Padol ran an epic CoC campaign she called "Cthulhupunk" (pre GURPS Cthulhupunk, which it "inspired") in which she used elements of a number of CoC adventures. The adventures occured around the world, featured recurring villains, and had unexpected turns of event. As one player noted when a particularly nasty villainess actually fell victim to our hero's latest assassination attempt, "Sometimes a plan actually works."

What made it a success, and the write ups a popular feature of 90's era Alarums and Excursions was the fact Lisa let her game go in directions others may not have allowed. She was willing to let her players have their lead and adapted to their initiative. Her Cthulhupunk had a focus, but she did not constrain what people could do to fit a vision.

By all means have a focus. But don't make people do as you wish. Let them have their lead, and adapt your vision to what they are doing.

Quote from: RPGPunditLet's not be silly here; we all know what we mean: there's a world of difference between "a game about the Cold War in space" or "A game where you play anthropomorphic reptilian ninjas", and "a game that tells the same mountain folktale every time", or "a game where you are mormon gunslingers that go to a town and resolve a problem with that town that must originate from an act of sin from one of the townspeople".  Its like saying that the ranges of 1-1000000 and 1-3 are both "focused". You'll have to do better than that.

Look, I'm tired of fucking bullshit substitution.  If you're going to argue me, you have to actually address what I say.  Did I say that Cold Space was a focused game?  No.  Did I say that TMNT was a focused game?  No.  

So, again, using my actual examples:  "a game where you play commie mutant traitorous troubleshooters who are sent on an impossible mission by an insane computer".  Yeah, I'd say that's comparable to Dogs in the Vineyard.  Similarly, James Bond 007 has a well-worn formula of being given a mission, decked out with gadgets from Q, and going to stop a villain from a nefarious plot.  A number of superhero games equally have a narrow focus on fighting supervillains in powered slugfests (like 1ed Champions, say).  

Now, can the JB007 mechanics be used for a wider variety of games?  Yes, certainly.  However, if you allow that, however, you have to allow that Dogs in the Vineyard is not limited to Mormon gunslingers resolving a town's problems.  People use DitV to play wandering vikings, investigators of Lovecraftian horror, Jedi knights, and more.  For example, last year at AmberCon NorthWest, I played in a DitV game where we played Amberites fighting off the moon riders of Ghanesh.  

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, I would think that there would be far more appeal in making a game that offers (in one book) the opportunity to run 4 or 5 different styles of game (like IHW or Cold Space do), and that you can run as CAMPAIGNS, than to offer 1 single very focused narrow game, that you can only really run for a few sessions.

I think you're applying a double standard here.  You're saying that the first GM can be inventive and come up with wildly different creative campaign and adventure ideas based on a paragraph or two -- but the second GM is hidebound and totally uncreative and won't come up with anything except exactly what is laid out for him step by step in the core book.  

It doesn't strike me as a reasonable comparison of the game systems.  By your logic, the less a game provides, the more "freedom" it gives to the GM -- who naturally would want the "freedom" of not having any fucking material to use.  

Now, admittedly, I think there are some sticklers like this -- who wouldn't dream of changing a rule or the setting or breaking from scenario creation unless it was labelled "Optional".  However, first of all, they're morons.  Second, you can just lean over with a pen and write "Optional" all over their book.

Quote from: jhkimI think you're applying a double standard here.  You're saying that the first GM can be inventive and come up with wildly different creative campaign and adventure ideas based on a paragraph or two -- but the second GM is hidebound and totally uncreative and won't come up with anything except exactly what is laid out for him step by step in the core book.  

It doesn't strike me as a reasonable comparison of the game systems.  By your logic, the less a game provides, the more "freedom" it gives to the GM -- who naturally would want the "freedom" of not having any fucking material to use.  

Now, admittedly, I think there are some sticklers like this -- who wouldn't dream of changing a rule or the setting or breaking from scenario creation unless it was labelled "Optional".  However, first of all, they're morons.  Second, you can just lean over with a pen and write "Optional" all over their book.

You certainly have a point, but that said the way a game defines itself determines not just how much room there is within the boundaries of the rules, but also how far you can stretch beyond that and not end up with an unplayable mess.

So I'm not applying the double standard you suggest at all; because what I'm saying is the "first GM" (the one GMing Cold Space) doesn't have to go beyond the boundaries of what was set out for him because the multiple options are built right into the game, whereas the second (the one doing DiTV) can only afford to make small variations and is not able to vary the overall "thematic" of the game at all, because the game is designed to be so "tight" and with system so tied to setting that any major changes would result in practically having to design a new game!

And my logic is not "the less a game provides the more freedom it gives", it is "be rich on options, instead of constraining on options".  
Cold Space is certainly chalk full of "providing" for setting, but it keeps the options open.

Why? Because its blatantly obvious that Clash doesn't care how you play his game.

Whereas Dogs in the Vinyard doesn't provide much for setting, and even less for options. Why? Because its blatantly obvious that Vince Baker wants you to play it the way HE wants it played.

Yes, you can substitute "mormon lawmen" for "Jedi Lawmen" or "Amberite Lawmen", but you can't really:
1. Explore the setting as written in any other way.
2. Diverge from the formula of "x (be they jedi or lawdogs or whatever) goes into a town (or equivalent) to resolve a problem in said place".

Likewise I know that people have played "My Life with Master" substituting "master" for someone else, but that's really not the kind of "Options" we're talking about here.

No matter what, they're still constraining you to a single style of play.  This makes the games less useful to everyone except the game designer; who gets to impose their vision and gets to sell you the NEXT microgame once you've gotten bored of this one after three of four sessions.

Its lazy, and a little sleazy, and I don't like it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo matter what, they're still constraining you to a single style of play. This makes the games less useful to everyone except the game designer; who gets to impose their vision and gets to sell you the NEXT microgame once you've gotten bored of this one after three of four sessions.

Its lazy, and a little sleazy, and I don't like it.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning at all.  Here's why:

Dogs in the Vineyard:  $14 PDF / $22 Print

WotC books at about $50(?) each:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Player's Handbook II
Dungeon Master's Guide II
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Fiend Folio
Psionics Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Arcane
Complete Adventurer
Complete Psionic
Savage Species: Playing Monstrous Characters
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Races of Destiny
Races of Eberron
Races of the Dragon
Arms and Equipment Guide
Weapons of Legacy
Epic Level Handbook
Planar Handbook
Tome of Magic
Magic of Incarnum
Spell Compendium
Manual of the Planes
Unearthed Arcana
Deities and Demigods
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow
Sandstorm: Mastering the Perils of Fire and Sand
Stormwrack: Mastering the Perils of Wind and Wave
Heroes of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead
Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations

Whether or not a game like DitV is your thing, I don't think it's fair to accuse the designer of being sleazy... that goes too far.

Hmm, from a pure economical perspective an independent publisher should either make lots of different games for different market niches (as to maximize his total market) or get a small niche and make lots of products for the same customers.

Currently the trend goes towards lots of small games with not much support. Most authors seem to make this lack of support an integral part of the game.

I don't agree that this has to be neccesarily so.

Quote from: SosthenesHmm, from a pure economical perspective an independent publisher should either make lots of different games for different market niches (as to maximize his total market) or get a small niche and make lots of products for the same customers.

Currently the trend goes towards lots of small games with not much support. Most authors seem to make this lack of support an integral part of the game.

I don't agree that this has to be neccesarily so.

Indeed. I have a large number of games with a lot of support - at least for a Small Press outfit. I used paradigm #1, but many Small Press use paradigm #2. Not surprisingly, the more traditional Small Press outfits - ourselves, Hinterwelt, PiG, etc. - all follow paradigm #2.

-clash

Quote from: StuartI don't agree with this line of reasoning at all.  Here's why:

Dogs in the Vineyard:  $14 PDF / $22 Print

WotC books at about $50(?) each:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Player's Handbook II
Dungeon Master's Guide II
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Fiend Folio
Psionics Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Arcane
Complete Adventurer
Complete Psionic
Savage Species: Playing Monstrous Characters
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Races of Destiny
Races of Eberron
Races of the Dragon
Arms and Equipment Guide
Weapons of Legacy
Epic Level Handbook
Planar Handbook
Tome of Magic
Magic of Incarnum
Spell Compendium
Manual of the Planes
Unearthed Arcana
Deities and Demigods
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow
Sandstorm: Mastering the Perils of Fire and Sand
Stormwrack: Mastering the Perils of Wind and Wave
Heroes of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead
Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations

Whether or not a game like DitV is your thing, I don't think it's fair to accuse the designer of being sleazy... that goes too far.

First, unless there's some really serious inflation going on in your neck of the woods, its $30, not $50. Second, those books are usable over and over again in different ways for years. Particularly the corebooks have a huge cost-to-use ratio.

Whereas with a Forge game, you might only be paying a bit over half as much, but your use of the game is much more restricted.  Unless you seriously believe that you'd NEVER get tired of playing Igor or variants thereof, the actual cost-for-use of something like D&D is miniscule compared to the cost-for-use of My Life With Master (even assuming that you would in theory WANT to play each one, obviously someone with NO interest in D&D will get no cost-for-use out of it, ditto with MLWM; but I'm talking here about people WITH interest, the payout for interest with D&D over time is much higher than the payout for interest with MLWM, unless you're really obsessive about the very specific "theme" of MLWM).

RPGpundit

You also don't need any of those books to run a game. In fact, any game which allowed them all willy-nilly could get silly quickly.