Quote from: Nicephorus'Simple childish fun"  really is too broad and vague to be of any use.  

What's the simple childish fun of CoC or AFMBE?  Horror?

Twilight 2000 and similar ilk?  Some people want complexity - otherwise Hero would have disappeared a decade ago.  Some people want grim challenges.

I really doubt that childish fun could be defined in such a way that it can be found in all games yet also be a useful concept.

You over define childish, read too much into simple and try to define fun. For shame.

The simple childish fun for those games is the same as it is for any other game, playing pretend, being a 'cool character' that you aren't.  If you want to be a dapper man of means in the early 1900's who hangs out in gentlemen's clubs and dabbles in 'things man was not meant to know'... guess what, you can't do it in real life. And all that dabbling in real life is likely just a game of pretend as well.

Play Call of Cthulu and you can, for a few hours a week, BE that dapper bachelor, and HE"S not actually pretending when he dabbles...that shit is for real, and might just eat him if he's not careful.  RPG's are a game of pretend, wrapped up in adult terms.  And they are fun.

But isn't calling it 'childish' putting a value judgement on it? Why is using your imagination childish? Because other people say so?

Quote from: droogBut isn't calling it 'childish' putting a value judgement on it? Why is using your imagination childish? Because other people say so?

No. Only because older people forget to. Blame Nader.

It does come down to some sort of cultural criticism.

I mean, when I play RPGs, I think I'm doing something as valuable as reading and more valuable than watching TV. I don't think I'm childish.

Well, it beats the hell out of "immature", "infantile", and "sophomoric." Still, it's a symantic argument. Got a better term that captures it? "Nostalgic?" "The Good Old Days?" Doesn't fit so well with the younger players, though.

Quote from: beejazzWell, it beats the hell out of "immature", "infantile", and "sophomoric." Still, it's a symantic argument. Got a better term that captures it? "Nostalgic?" "The Good Old Days?" Doesn't fit so well with the younger players, though.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but none of those things capture what I'm after. It's not just semantics. I'm not nostalgic; I don't want to recapture my childhood. I want to continue to do roleplaying in a way that's relevant to my life as it exists.

Well, I know full well nostalgia's ruled out. 'Specially if I play it. Point is, I think we both know the point it's trying to get across, however it's worded.

Quote from: beejazzWell, I know full well nostalgia's ruled out. 'Specially if I play it. Point is, I think we both know the point it's trying to get across, however it's worded.

I think I know, but I don't agree.

The pleasures I get from RPGs are not always simple nor childish. If they were, I would not be pursuing them. To me, that says that the heart of the game is something different, for me.

Then what are you after? Not the "Kewl Powerz"? Not the "Little guy in the big, wild world"? Not the unquestionable heroics or uber-cool shady amorality? Or are you one of those folks into "introspection" (Goddamnit! How did this century turn individualism from doing shit, making due with less, and over-all self-sufficiency into laziness, entitlement, and perversity?!)

Quote from: beejazz(Goddamnit! How did this century turn individualism from doing shit, making due with less, and over-all self-sufficiency into laziness, entitlement, and perversity?!)

Ah, my friend, if only I could answer that....

But I can answer your other question, at least to some extent.

When I started playing, it was all about the swords, the armour and the magic as kewl powerz. That was when I was 17.

I gravitated towards wanting more and more verisimilitude. Instead of fantasy I ran historical stuff, still with some mystical goings-on in the background ('genre' or 'background'). That was when I was in my late 20s and 30s.

Now I just want to help create group fiction, and any magic is there mainly as a symbolic device. I'm 42.


Oh, and shady amorality has always been fine with me, from the earliest times to now.

Quote from: droogBut I can answer your other question, at least to some extent.

When I started playing, it was all about the swords, the armour and the magic as kewl powerz. That was when I was 17.

I gravitated towards wanting more and more verisimilitude. Instead of fantasy I ran historical stuff, still with some mystical goings-on in the background ('genre' or 'background'). That was when I was in my late 20s and 30s.

Now I just want to help create group fiction, and any magic is there mainly as a symbolic device. I'm 42.


Oh, and shady amorality has always been fine with me, from the earliest times to now.

But do you enjoy more, as a player, the kewl powerz, or your character(s)?  I don't specifically have to have 'kewl powerz' as part of the 'heart' of the game, but rather a character you can specifically define and enjoy playing, enjoy doing whatever you enjoy doing through the mechanism of the character.

I don't claim that capturing a specific level of detail is better or worse, only that more than a few games and design pundits seem to suggest that there are 'better' ways of capturing the 'genre' that have little to do with the character.

I mean, in a zombie game, if that were to capture my fancy, I'd like not to have my 'immersion' of the character wrecked by the knowledge that shooting a zombie is a waste of time because the game designer listened to some genre pundit and made teh zombies a terrain feature.  I want my character to have meaning, and my characters actions to be impactful. If I were playing a zombie survival horror game, I'd like to use it to explore the concept of building up a safe community, eventually eradicating the zombie menace, and the fun of blasting zombies left and right. I'm not there to explore the 'man's inhumanity to man' a la a George Romero pastiche. the Zombie game should be able to encompass both.

If I were playing a supers' game, i'd want concrete ideas of what my powers were, and a fair amount of control over what those powers WERE... and the ability to use them to resolve challenges presented by the game. If instead my character was a collection of soap opera cliches dressed up in spandex and blinkenlights, then the game isn't going to engage me.  To me a good supers game should be able to encompass BOTH styles of play. Super-soaps does not mean you don't need kewl Powerz.  

This is the heart, the point. You can do your Romero style zombie game, or your Super Soaps and still have good detailed characters and 'kewl powerz', but a game focusing too intently on capturing on 'vision' of a genre is going to fail miserably to engage those who don't just want to play out that one take on the genre in question.

Characters and what they can, or can't do is more important than environmental stuff.  AFMBE is successful and popular as a zombie game because despite cries from a few Romero fanatics, you don't need to make special rules and 'enviromental hazard' zombies to play a romero influenced zombie games, but such rules would interfer with an 'army of darkness' style blast'em up romp... it encompasses both just fine.

Popular Supers games (pick one, I like champions or Heroes Unlimited) give you well defined characters and powers. Yet they don't do anything to get in the way of 'super soaps' if that's your bag.  Reducing your super to a 'theme' and 'protagonism points', and focusing entirely on super-soap dramatics, as some loudly cry for, would support only that narrow style of play and be boring to people who want to fly, goddamnit!

Magic as a stylistic flourish is a meaningless statement on the topic. A more accurate, for this discussion, comment would talk about how central your characterizations are, or how detailed or undetailed they are. Or something like that. Group narrative is likewise meaningless if each character in the group is realized enough to be 'kewl' in his or her own way.

I think I made my case clearest about three paragraphs up... damn my verbal diarhea

Quote from: SpikeThis is the heart, the point. You can do your Romero style zombie game, or your Super Soaps and still have good detailed characters and 'kewl powerz', but a game focusing too intently on capturing on 'vision' of a genre is going to fail miserably to engage those who don't just want to play out that one take on the genre in question.

But that's an assertion that works for you. Let's take My Life with Master: it certainly engages me. Do I want to play it all the time? No, but there isn't anything I want to play all the time.

Quote from: SpikeCharacters and what they can, or can't do is more important than environmental stuff. AFMBE is successful and popular as a zombie game because despite cries from a few Romero fanatics, you don't need to make special rules and 'enviromental hazard' zombies to play a romero influenced zombie games, but such rules would interfer with an 'army of darkness' style blast'em up romp... it encompasses both just fine.

Well, they might. That's about all I can say. But I don't think it's really about 'genre' or whatever else; it's about whether you like the specific texture of those rules.

It seems to me your approach is very idealistic – you have a Platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game is and you compare any deviance to that ideal.

Quote from: droogAhhh...so stalking online? That's all right, I don't mind having a friend.

Is this going to take up a lot of your time?

No, that's what subordinates are for.  I need to train the interns somehow, and putting them on you will do as a beginner's course.

Quote from: droogBut that's an assertion that works for you. Let's take My Life with Master: it certainly engages me. Do I want to play it all the time? No, but there isn't anything I want to play all the time.


Well, they might. That's about all I can say. But I don't think it's really about 'genre' or whatever else; it's about whether you like the specific texture of those rules.

It seems to me your approach is very idealistic – you have a Platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game is and you compare any deviance to that ideal.

You missed the point, Droog. Yes, MLwM might appeal to you. Indeed, you say it does and I'm inclined to take your word for it.  But, by putting it's focus on something other than my Platonic Ideal, it specifically excludes a wide audience.  This would suggest to me that that game represents something of a Platonic ideal itself. If you like the entire package, then it is the game for you. If you don't like it, fuck off.  This is limiting, perhaps arbitrarily.

It IS limiting, should be stressed, as a number of people who are aware of the game (the otherwise non-inclusive internet gamers catagory) are divided on wether or not it even should be called an RPG!

Now, as to wether or not my 'heart of the game' is or is not a platonic ideal, I don't really care to debate.  I submit to you this: as a marketing decision alone, making a game more inclusive of it's own 'genre', rather than restictively narrowing it to one interpretation, is a good idea. Obviously over inclusive design is not practical or necessarily smart. GURPS gets away with a lot, but fails miserably in certain genres unless radically rewritten. Rifts is wildly inclusive and most people agree it's incredibly fun, but horribly broken... for that very reason in both cases.

My suggestion of making the game more inclusive by focusing on letting players have solid, enjoyable characters who can impact the game meaningfully (even if it is just blowing away a ghoul that wants to eat you with a webley revolver) is going to make a game more fun and enjoyable for  a wider audience.  Period.  

I'll even submit to you that exploring themes of mormon cowboy killers for God is going to be largely the same for people if adapted to another system... so long as the GM and players are all 'getting' the 'genre' of DitV.  Add what rules you need to on top of, rather than instead of, a solid set of core mechanics.  

Doesn't sound platonic to me. It sounds practical.  Like I've always said before, what rules are stopping you from having soap opera crises in Champions?