I have some thoughts about the Landmarks.

#1: The vast majority of gamers are having fun gaming.

Ultimately, this depends on how you define "gamers."  Now, I'm not here to say everyone is having a miserable time.  However, the hobby does consist of a very large contingent of "hangers on."

These "hangers on" aren't like groupies.  They simply play because no other better activity is available to them during game time.  I think we've all met these people, and their existence also neatly explains why this hobby is most popular with teens under the legal driving/dating age.  They play not because of any particular desire, but because they're just hanging out with their peers.


#2: The vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played.

I'd say due to the sheer evidence of the multitude of game systems that exist, and the tendency of gamers to constantly be making house rules, this Landmark is grossly in error.  Or, as I've said for years, "No two Palladium gamers play anything resembling the same system."  Whereas, I'm interpreting this landmark as "the majority of gamers are satisfied with their game exactly as written."

I would say that gamers in general are satisfied with the general TEMPLATE of RPG, and that template is a heavily D&D influenced one.

So, if it wasn't before, I suggest the operative word in the Landmark be THEIR.  Saying that the majority of gamers are satisfied with their favorite houseruled game doesn't seem to me to be that important of an observation, but then again...


#6: 6. Given point #3, above, any gaming theory that suggest that the GM should get disproportionately more or less power than they do in D&D in order for a game to be "good" is inherently in violation of the Landmarks. The vast majority of players enjoy a game where the GM has power over the world and the players over their characters; and while a theory can suggest ways that GMs and Players can experiment with interactively creating the setting, it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do (except for the "power" to walk away from a game).

This really makes me wonder what you think about player invoked plot mechanics like those found in the subplot cards of Torg, or, for that matter, any number of "enemy" disadvantages in any number of advantage/disadvantage systems.  Both of these are exactly "telling the GM what to do."

For example, Amber DRPG fails this landmark.  For instance, while players use a point based system in Amber to create characters, their ratings are ultimately meaningless because the basic resolution system is "Highest Rank wins, except when the GM arbitrarily decides it doesn't" and all ratings are subjective rather than having any objective basis to top it all off.  The GM holds all the cards in Amber, and can make the player characters meaningless, because they ultimately don't have any mechanical legs to stand on.  

While D&D and other similar RPGs certainly have a rule which says "The GM is God." there is much more mechanical groundwork for a player to argue his case.

I bring this up because, from your blog, this point really seems to be your ultimate point of definition for a mainstream RPG.


#10:Given points #9 and #1, the suggestion that so-called "immersion" is not a real or viable goal in an RPG, or that "genre emulation" is not a viable priority in a game, is in violation of the Landmarks.

This is where I've always been confused about your point of view about gaming.  For instance, D&D is not terribly emulative of any genre but D&D.  By your landmark #2, the vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the way their game is played.  So, it would follow from that line of thought that genre emulation  isn't important in the slightest.

So, mark me as surprised that you actually think "genre emulation" is important.

I'm concerned about #6 as well.  It's not only Torg and Amber that it rules out from being a mainstream, but also Toon, Unisystem Lite, "Tales from the Floating Vagabond"...

Heck any Supers game that has a "Luck" or "Probability Manipulation" power (which I'd imagine is just about all of them) might fail this test

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm concerned about #6 as well.  It's not only Torg and Amber that it rules out from being a mainstream, but also Toon, Unisystem Lite, "Tales from the Floating Vagabond"...

Heck any Supers game that has a "Luck" or "Probability Manipulation" power (which I'd imagine is just about all of them) might fail this test

I don't think he is saying that a game is excluded for having ways that players can introduce plot mechanics. IMO, he is saying that if the GM doesn't have the option of "veto" it is excluded. Atleast that is how I read it.

Quote from: McrowI don't think he is saying that a game is excluded for having ways that players can introduce plot mechanics. IMO, he is saying that if the GM doesn't have the option of "veto" it is excluded. Atleast that is how I read it.

Exactly. Number 6 is specifically a response to the Forge-mentality that GMs are the root of all evil and that players must be able to walk all over a GM or else the game won't be "fair" or "satisfying" to them.

Stuff like Torg, or the "enemies" disadvantage, don't even enter into it, because there you're talking about something that is simply restructuring some of the player's options in a way that doesn't take away from the traditional player-gm relationship. These games are just doing with mechanics what in other games will happen normally anyways.

Incidentally, your interpretation of Amber is based on a brutal misunderstanding of its rules.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditExactly. Number 6 is specifically a response to the Forge-mentality that GMs are the root of all evil and that players must be able to walk all over a GM or else the game won't be "fair" or "satisfying" to them.

:eek:

Which games do that?

Quote from: RPGPunditExactly. Number 6 is specifically a response to the Forge-mentality that GMs are the root of all evil and that players must be able to walk all over a GM or else the game won't be "fair" or "satisfying" to them.

Stuff like Torg, or the "enemies" disadvantage, don't even enter into it, because there you're talking about something that is simply restructuring some of the player's options in a way that doesn't take away from the traditional player-gm relationship. These games are just doing with mechanics what in other games will happen normally anyways.

Incidentally, your interpretation of Amber is based on a brutal misunderstanding of its rules.

Turning it around... just what is so criminal about giving players a 'hardcoded' means to invest in and influence play? It still has to be interpreted through the GM and all it really does is feed them hooks and information on what the players want to see in the game.

How is that bad?

To me it's no different to having specific rules for combat, climbing or whatever else you want to pick out of the air.  It's just support structure, I fail to see 'teh 3vil'.

Quote from: GRIMTurning it around... just what is so criminal about giving players a 'hardcoded' means to invest in and influence play? It still has to be interpreted through the GM and all it really does is feed them hooks and information on what the players want to see in the game.

How is that bad?

To me it's no different to having specific rules for combat, climbing or whatever else you want to pick out of the air.  It's just support structure, I fail to see 'teh 3vil'.

I think hardcoded, as in "the GM has no say at all" is a bad thing.

In a warm fuzzy world where people don't try to take advantage of holes in the rules, these games work. So if you have the right mix of people @ the table it should work fine.

What if the plot mechanic introduced by the player makes the game less fun for the other players? What if according to the rules the GM has no right to tell the player to try something else that would make the game more fun for everyone?

That is my thought, but I'm not sure what Pundit thinks about it.

Quote from: McrowI think hardcoded, as in "the GM has no say at all" is a bad thing.

In a warm fuzzy world where people don't try to take advantage of holes in the rules, these games work. So if you have the right mix of people @ the table it should work fine.

What if the plot mechanic introduced by the player makes the game less fun for the other players? What if according to the rules the GM has no right to tell the player to try something else that would make the game more fun for everyone?

That is my thought, but I'm not sure what Pundit thinks about it.

My position is very close to yours, Mcrow.

Gaming groups are essentially social units, they're a pack.
If the GM is the alpha male, and assuming he isn't an asshole, then the game works.

If the GM is not in a position where he can be in charge of the game, it will inevitably lead to one of the players becoming the Alpha, and this warps the entire game into one where the most insistent players end up controlling the group, and making the experience less pleasant for the rest of the group.

There's a reason, in other words, why the GM doesn't have his own PC (or at least, shouldn't treat his NPCs as "Just another PC" in competition with the other players). If the guy dominating the group is also trying to be a player, he will inevitably skewer the game towards being about him, and not about the group as a whole.

The other factor is that typically, human nature being what it is, players will have one idea about what they think they would like for their PCs, and a very different truth as to what they REALLY want.
The problem with a lot of the Forge-type games, or that whole mentality, is that idea of "Fun now!" interpreted as meaning that the players should all get to be Uber-cool guys what have things always go their way. This is no different, when you come down to it, to the gaming group of 12- or 13 year olds playing D&D and turning the whole thing into a Monty Haul.
And it will fail for the same reason: when you give the players exactly what they claim they want, they will quickly get bored; worse still if the whole thing becomes about giving the loudest or pushiest player exactly what he wants.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIncidentally, your interpretation of Amber is based on a brutal misunderstanding of its rules.

Uhm.  No.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I had accidentally quoted an actual line from the book.  It all really boils down to "high rank always wins, except when the GM decides it doesn't."  The GM is also the only player who knows comparative ranks with any certainty.  There is absolutely no impartial task resolution, because everything is decided by the GM.

Not to mention that it can (in quite a few fumbling hands) become the ultimate metaplot/GM-PC driven game there is.  In fact, it's probably one of the easiest things labeled as a RPG to gravitate toward that direction.

It's a great social exercise, and can generate entertaining role-play.  But if the GM has any bias against you whatsoever, then you might as well just get up and leave the table.

Actually, I'd be very interested in wider discussion (clearly our minds are made up) of whether Amber passes or fails your Landmark #6.  While I find it a very entertaining read, and an excellent primer on how to GM (probably one of the only good ones), I definitely wouldn't call it a RPG.  It's more like free-form role playing.  It's very similar in nature to a free form moderated military simulation (cadets placed in different rooms, told what resources they have at their disposal, and then a officer presents them with a scenario and decides on their success solely based on his own experiences.)

Grand Poobah, if this forum is going to function as anything more than an extension of your blog, I suggest that you need to educate yourself on some of the games you like to rail against. You're coming up with verifiable errors. For a start, among the Forge games there is a variety of specific powers given to the GM. Dogs in the Vineyard does not work the same way as Primetime Adventures.

Your Hobbesian analysis of roleplaying groups simply doesn't accord with the entirety of my experience. So, as administrator, are you going to continue to take this belligerent line, or are you going to allow for the possibility of differences of opinion?

Quote from: GabrielUhm.  No.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I had accidentally quoted an actual line from the book.  It all really boils down to "high rank always wins, except when the GM decides it doesn't."  The GM is also the only player who knows comparative ranks with any certainty.  There is absolutely no impartial task resolution, because everything is decided by the GM.

Not to mention that it can (in quite a few fumbling hands) become the ultimate metaplot/GM-PC driven game there is.  In fact, it's probably one of the easiest things labeled as a RPG to gravitate toward that direction.

It's a great social exercise, and can generate entertaining role-play.  But if the GM has any bias against you whatsoever, then you might as well just get up and leave the table.

Actually, I'd be very interested in wider discussion (clearly our minds are made up) of whether Amber passes or fails your Landmark #6.  While I find it a very entertaining read, and an excellent primer on how to GM (probably one of the only good ones), I definitely wouldn't call it a RPG.  It's more like free-form role playing.  It's very similar in nature to a free form moderated military simulation (cadets placed in different rooms, told what resources they have at their disposal, and then a officer presents them with a scenario and decides on their success solely based on his own experiences.)

You and I must have read very different Amber manuals, then. Because to me it is a roleplaying game, with some pretty strict (if basic) rules.
Yes, it depends on a GM that isn't biased for or against particular players, but EVERY RPG depends on that.

Yes, the "GM decides the resolution"; but again, you can do that in just about any game. Amber only does it more blatantly. And saying that is NOT the same as saying "the game has no rules, the GM just chooses willy-nilly". The idea is that the ranks and the DM's ideas of how the circumstances of play modify the ranks are very concrete things.

Most Amber games I've been involved with did have very strong NPCs, generally not GMPCs, and were usually quite player-driven in the sense of the player's actions influencing the actions and choices of the NPCs and the focus of the whole game.  Because the "world" of Amber is so open, it is in fact one of the games where, unless the GM is extremely heavy-handed, the actual play is more PC driven then in almost any other game.

I would certainly call it innovative (perhaps the most innovative and original RPG ever designed, the one that most truely goes outside the D&D mold, while still being an RPG).  But its definitely an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogYour Hobbesian analysis of roleplaying groups simply doesn't accord with the entirety of my experience. So, as administrator, are you going to continue to take this belligerent line, or are you going to allow for the possibility of differences of opinion?

Hey, anyone can post anything they want to on here. I'd say that's "allowing for difference of opinion".

All that the landmarks are saying here is that if you come onto here and start talking about the "Narrativist interpretations of x" or about "the impossible thing before breakfast" etc etc. as if they were widely-accepted truths; or if you're going to start making up theories that are based more on your own interests and prejudices rather than accurate assessments of the reality of what most gamers enjoy, you will not be supported in these assertions by the Admins here. This is a place to talk about PRACTICAL theory, based on the REALITY of gaming as the hobby its played and enjoyed by most gamers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, anyone can post anything they want to on here. I'd say that's "allowing for difference of opinion".

Fine. We shall see.

Now, you are debating with Gabriel about the rules of Amber. Notice that I do not take part in this conversation. This is because I know nothing of Amber. Someone I play with speaks highly of it (though with caution), but I myself have never read nor played it. From many online references I have formed a vague idea of its workings.

I think this is where you stand with the Forge games. For instance:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem with a lot of the Forge-type games, or that whole mentality, is that idea of "Fun now!" interpreted as meaning that the players should all get to be Uber-cool guys that have things always go their way.

Anybody who's actually played some of the better-known Forge games would be scratching their heads at this description. I've played and run a few of these games (eg Sorcerer, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Nicotine Girls, Donjon), and I can assure you that 'having things always go the players' way' is not at all the philosophy behind them.

It's no skin off my nose what you like and what you don't. I've been at this since 1981, and I can decide for myself what I like to play. But if the administrator of a board makes a point of making hostile (and error-filled) statements about the very types of games I presently enjoy, it's not going to be a useful environment for me. You dig?

QuoteBut if the administrator of a board makes a point of making hostile (and error-filled) statements about the very types of games I presently enjoy, it's not going to be a useful environment for me.

Why? He's admin and not moderator. He, as anybody else can talk as much bullshit as he likes, as long asyou can refute it.

pwn his arguments, go ahead. That's got nothing to do with if he's an admin or not.

I'll show you:

@Pundit: Forge Games =! power Now! [Insert play example here] what you say is wrong!

Follow this example, and all is well.
And Free Speech is served.

I'm not sure I can be bothered. I'm just having a feel around. Maybe later.