Quote from: YamoWhat sort of nonsense jargon is this? I'd almost think the designer was paying you to shill.

Right – what I mean is this: the characters are set up from the start with overwhelming moral authority and big guns (but the players always bring their own morality to the table – they must because of the lack of moral canon). Then the GM is instructed to set up situations that require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The dice mechanic continually pushes players to escalate and bring more into the conflict. See how that produces explosive play?

Quote from: droogRight – what I mean is this: the characters are set up from the start with overwhelming moral authority and big guns (but the players always bring their own morality to the table – they must because of the lack of moral canon). Then the GM is instructed to set up situations that require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The dice mechanic continually pushes players to escalate and bring more into the conflict. See how that produces explosive play?

No, I don't. First, you still haven't defined "explosive play." It's about as meaningful a term as "X-TREEM ACTION."

Secondly, D&D gives a party of dungeon crawlers overwhelming treasure-lust, big swords and fireball spells. The GM is instructed to set-up situations that require require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The player's own desire to succeed pushes them to escalate and bring more to the conflict.

See how D&D can produce explosive play?

Quote from: droogRight – what I mean is this: the characters are set up from the start with overwhelming moral authority and big guns (but the players always bring their own morality to the table – they must because of the lack of moral canon). Then the GM is instructed to set up situations that require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The dice mechanic continually pushes players to escalate and bring more into the conflict. See how that produces explosive play?

But isn't it the GM's job in any game, to provide opportunities for explosive play (however one defines it) based on character motivations ? Or is your point that some games do it better than others - something which I subscribe to.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: YamoSee how D&D can produce explosive play?

I'm glad you brought that up. Because it's quite true. Different kind of explosion, though. Less about judgement, more about tactics.

Quote from: David ROr is your point that some games do it better than others[/I] - something which I subscribe to.

Naturally.

Quote from: droogI'm glad you brought that up. Because it's quite true. Different kind of explosion, though. Less about judgement, more about tactics.

See, now if you'd said "more likely about tactics" or "YMMV" I would be cool with your assessment.

But this is one of those things about Forge theory that drives me to distraction. It's the assumption that before Forge theory, the only explosion was tactical - that it was somehow impossible to pursue and resolve moral conflicts in traditional rules or styles. The only way to do this was to change the GM/Player relationship, change the focus/granularity of the resolution mechanic, pursue story above all else, etc.

Or you could just find a group with a good GM that used GURPS as a base with which to pursue and resolve moral conflicts.

Quote from: droogI'm glad you brought that up. Because it's quite true. Different kind of explosion, though. Less about judgement, more about tactics.

You have to remember that Yamo's species just evolved a forebrain, and so rational thought is still a new thing with them. They still tend to react violently to any requirement to engage in figuring something out. We're hoping for some improvement in a few generations, when frontal lobes start to appear. If this type of accelerated uplift proves successful we're hoping to apply it to attorneys.

Quote from: mythusmageYou have to remember that Yamo's species just evolved a forebrain, and so rational thought is still a new thing with them. They still tend to react violently to any requirement to engage in figuring something out. We're hoping for some improvement in a few generations, when frontal lobes start to appear. If this type of accelerated uplift proves successful we're hoping to apply it to attorneys.

On the other hand, I have nothing but priase for you. It's nice to have some more typical Forgies around here. There's a certain temptation to look at generally-constructive posters like droog and Tony LB and conclude that the ego-wankers are some sort of abberant minority.

You keep it real.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's the assumption that before Forge theory, the only explosion was tactical - that it was somehow impossible to pursue and resolve moral conflicts in traditional rules or styles. The only way to do this was to change the GM/Player relationship, change the focus/granularity of the resolution mechanic, pursue story above all else, etc.

Or you could just find a group with a good GM that used GURPS as a base with which to pursue and resolve moral conflicts.

Yes, you could. I've seen such stuff done in Aftermath. I know perfectly well you can do it. The point is that Dogs is highly focused on moral conflict from start to finish. When I say that the characters are explosive, that's the way in which I mean it. How's that?

It's like this. IMO (thanks blakkie ) all rpgs are tools. Some rpgs are tools created for a very specific purpose or at the very least makes the job easier to do.

So, lets say you dig moral conflict and all that stuff, you could use any rpg to do that, or you could use Dogs for instance, which is a very specific instrument.

Either way, it's all good.

Regards,
David R

QuoteSome rpgs are tools created for a very specific purpose or at the very least makes the job easier to do.

But who, ultimately, is to say how well these games succeed at their goals?

Just because they attempt to be an ideal vehicle for a particular type of play is no guarantee that they will succeed to in being so.

Mere intentions are not enough. Which comes back again to my point that DotV is no way superior to D&D or Traveller in producing "explosive" play. It may aspire to be so, but aspiration is not enough.

Quote from: YamoMere intentions are not enough.

That's always the case, right? Not every game will achieve what it sets out to do. Some might even be confused about what they want to do. And tastes will always differ.

My point about DitV is that it's good value, and I'll really have to stick by that.

Quote from: YamoBut who, ultimately, is to say how well these games succeed at their goals?

If it works for the people who use them, great.

QuoteJust because they attempt to be an ideal vehicle for a particular type of play is no guarantee that they will succeed to in being so.

This goes for every type of game.

QuoteMere intentions are not enough. Which comes back again to my point that DotV is no way superior to D&D or Traveller in producing "explosive" play. It may aspire to be so, but aspiration is not enough.

I don't think it's a question of superior. It is different, though, well at least IME. And when it comes to certain kinds of themes, IMO some games work better than others depending on what I want to do.

For a slasher horror campaign I use a stripped down version of Hunter. For more subtle horror, I use Unknown Armies. Sure I could use either one of them  for both types of campaigns , but each system has advantages that makes it ideal for the specific type of campaign (slasher/subtle) I want to run.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that for some folks, certain systems are a lot more condusive to the kind of games they want to run/play. Does this apply to everyone? No. I think the mistake is claiming it does. Not that anyone here is doing that.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RFor a slasher horror campaign I use a stripped down version of Hunter. For more subtle horror, I use Unknown Armies. Sure I could use either one of them  for both types of campaigns , but each system has advantages that makes it ideal for the specific type of campaign (slasher/subtle) I want to run.

And who are you, exactly? One single dude, that's what.

Honestly, I'd use neither set of rules under any circumstances, including the ones you mentioned.

Thus, my point still stands.

Quote from: YamoAnd who are you, exactly? One single dude, that's what.


Thus, my point still stands.

That one can use any system to produce explosive play? Sure. But that's not true for all folks.

Regards,
David R