Quote from: RobNJSecond, Forge games are not "obsessed with GM tyranny" as a rule.  I cannot think of one that is, in fact.  Can you name one, and provide specific evidence of its obsession with GM tyranny?

When Nisarg says "Tyranny of the players" or "obsessed with GM tyranny", he's indicating the games where you have a decentralized GM role, and a stronger player role. Like PTA, or Shab al-Hiri Roach, or... hmmm... My Life With Master? (unsure here). Games like this make the Pundit rage with unbridled nerdfury.

Or the games where there are specific rules, guidelines, suggestions, etc that give the players some sort of power over the GM: Like those wacky rules in Sorensen's Inspectres game (where the players state facts and stuff), or the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" (which gives the GM advice of when and when not to say Yes/No to the players), or (frex, tho Pundit hasn't stated it) how only Players, not the GM, can declare Bringing Down the Pain in The Shadow of Yesterday.

But to attribute this to ALL Forge games? Hmmmm. No. For every PTA there's an AGON or Cold City or another GM-has-traditional-GM-power game, with no rules or constraints or suggestions on use or abuse of GM power. But facts like that sorta get in the way of the PunditTruth, so are promptly properly discarded in the better rants.

Quote from: Andy Knerdfury.*

Remember, Andy, anger is always fear in drag.

Quote from: RPGPunditI freely admit that I'm imitating the Theory Swines' tactics for this board, putting up the Landmarks and making them the defining "fundamental" that THIS board takes as a "given", to make sure that the Forgites can't come in here and subvert this thread with that tactic the way they have everywhere else on the fucking internet.

Couldn't you just have said "No GNS or related terminology may be used in this forum"?

It seems simpler and more efficient, though I grant it would lack the bearbaiting element that I think may be part of your overall strategy.

Quote from: Andy KWhen Nisarg says "Tyranny of the players" or "obsessed with GM tyranny", he's indicating the games where you have a decentralized GM role, and a stronger player role. Like PTA, or Shab al-Hiri Roach, or... hmmm... My Life With Master? (unsure here).

In that case, I'd like to know about a specific incidence of a specific problem that arose from a specific rule in PTA.  That's currently my favorite game, and the worst experience I've had with that game so far is better than my best experience with D&D.

Quote from: BalbinusCouldn't you just have said "No GNS or related terminology may be used in this forum"?

It seems simpler and more efficient, though I grant it would lack the bearbaiting element that I think may be part of your overall strategy.

Is such discussion actually banned here?  Wouldn't our current discussion belie that?  What weight do these Landmarks have?  Are they just a statement of opinion by the guy who moderates the site?

Quote from: RobNJIs such discussion actually banned here?  Wouldn't our current discussion belie that?  What weight do these Landmarks have?  Are they just a statement of opinion by the guy who moderates the site?

No idea, but it seems the point of the landmarks.

That said, landmark 6 precludes theory based on the idea that GM restraining mechanics are necessary or necessarily desirable.  Landmark 6 on my reading does not say that you cannot like a game which has such mechanics.  

So, as I read it, I am not free to say that I think GM power needs to be constrained and a good game will necessarily do this, which is fine as I think that would be a ludicrous statement.  I am free to say although I don't think constraining GMs is at all necessary some games that happen to do that such as PTA rock on toast.

Which is actually my view, I don't think rules to constrain GM power are at all necessary.  That said, PTA does have rules like that IIRC and that's a choice that particular game made.  I think PTA rocks, I still prefer Runequest and Call of Cthulhu but I don't see Landmark 6 precluding me from liking PTA.  It just precludes me from holding it up as a necessary model for game design.

Quote from: RobNJJust a note at the outset here.  I'm attempting to give the most charitable possible reading of what you're saying as I can.  I hope you will reciprocate.

I'm not sure I understand you, because to me there are no underlying assumptions of SYORTD (I'm not trying to coin a cutsie acronym here, I just don't want to type it out again and again).  Taken in context (which is the only way these paragraphs or any rules text make sense), it says that you should only roll for stuff that matters to you.  This is a point of view that everyone here seems to share.  Quoting it out of context and demanding people argue against your interpretation of it isn't a helpful way to discuss it.  Vincent didn't mean GMs should never be able to say "no" when he wrote that.  The handful of paragraphs SYORTD comes from never say the GM shouldn't be allowed to say "no," they say the GM should only roll when he feels it's important.

Then "Vincent" wrote it very poorly. Note that there are other games where the same basic type of statement appears, written even more forcefully (ie. Nobilis).

But let's look at the DiTV version.
You are claiming, as are the other Forgites here, that Baker intended that the "rule" was only meant to say "just roll stuff that you feel is important". But analyzing how he actually put it, its clear that the situation allows for the following conditions.

"Say Yes or roll the dice":
The GM has the option to:
1. Say yes to stuff that isn't important.
2. Say yes to stuff that is important, presumably.
3. Roll the dice over stuff that is important.

If something isn't important, he should not roll the dice. If stuff IS important, he must roll the dice, or say yes. He can't just dictate.  
No matter which way you want to look at the fucking thing, there's one part clearly (and I must assume INTENTIONALLY) missing from that statement, and its the option for the GM to say "No".
If there's something unimportant, why can't the gm say no to that?
If there's something important, all the more reason why sometimes he should say no? The implication is clear that instead the GM should somehow "give the player a chance" even if he feels its against the interests of emulation, or the GM's intentions for the game, or party harmony.

So if Vince Baker really wasn't trying to make the statement be about DM disempowerment, then he really should have been more fucking careful about how he phrased it. Because it certainly HAS been used in that context by people on message boards.

QuoteFirst, the person who called it a "playertariat" appeared to me to be joking, and did not seem to believe in or advocate such a thing.  

In jokes unintentional truths often slip out.

QuoteThe way your statement reads to me suggests that someone who defends Forge or indie games is espousing a playertariat.  

Some of them are, brought about as an excessive reaction to the White-Wolf Swine's "abuse" of the GM/"storyteller" role.  Ron and various other forgies were burnt by pushy railroading GMs dominating the "story" in White Wolf games, and now they think the solution is to castrate GMs at every turn, all in the name of giving precious "Narrative control" to the players.

QuoteSecond, Forge games are not "obsessed with GM tyranny" as a rule.  I cannot think of one that is, in fact.  Can you name one, and provide specific evidence of its obsession with GM tyranny?  

Any Forge game which allows the players to roll the dice against the GM to take control of the "story".
Not to mention many of the things Ron has wrote in the Forge essays.
Shit, the whole trend toward the "micro-game"; a narrow very specifically defined game, is meant to strip GMs of their control over setting or theme. Its as though the Forgeites would like to change the hierarchy into one of Designer/Player, and turn the GM into little more than a ref, or the banker in monopoly, if he's allowed to exist at all.
So in that sense: My Life With Master, DiTV, The Mountain Witch, and even stuff like OctaNe as its written are GM-disempowering.

QuoteIncidentally, I consder d20 to be remarkably constraining on the GM.  I say this as someone who knows d20 rules pretty well (3.0 anyway) and GMed several ongoing campaigns of the game.  The level of exactitude in the rules means that one has to be extremely careful to get all the bonuses and stuff lined up juuuust right, and that if one's players are on their game, they can be constantly emasculating you by pointing out little errors or getting into arguments over how the rules work.  Now one may say that a "real GM" would tell the player that she will deal with his impudence later, but I do not believe the rules as written support this.  

Yes, they do. The GM is in absolute control of what rules are applied or not applied in D20. Its the fundamental rule.
Maybe you're thinking of Hackmaster? You know, that parody of what Swine like to imagine/pretend D&D is still like (which, indeed, it was never really like that in the first place)?

QuoteAny rule can be abused by manipulative players.  The D&D boards have a 5th level character who is legal by 3.5 rules who can kill gods.  While rule by consensus could be used to neuter the GM at every turn, it can also be used by the GM and other players to cut off stupidity of another player.

So instead of having one guy who has the final word, you have five or six guys who can all veto each other whenever they feel like they ought to. Congratulations, you've reduced Roleplaying all the way back to the level of Cops And Robbers ("I shot you timmy!" "No you didn't it missed!").

QuoteMost indie RPGs aren't very interested in the politics of player vs. GM power.  They are far more interested in trying to ensure that every player at the table--GM or not--is having fun.  

By presuming that gamers as they are right now are not having fun.
That's not true. The VAST MAJORITY of gamers have fun using the traditional division of GM/Player powers.
Its in the Landmarks, therefore its true.

QuoteThe games and the community surrounding them encourage each participant to engage in dialogue with one another so--in the best games--you always know if your friend is enjoying herself.

Right, and "lack of fun" cannot be solved  by creating microgames, its solved by communication between players in the group. You CANNOT make a mechanical solution to a social problem.
Its in the Landmarks, therefore its true.

QuoteBut all this is a distraction from my point, and it doesn't seem you have addressed the core of it.  If you're concerned about greater player power leading to stupid, off-theme crap, most indie RPGs have rules that prevent it.  If that's the case, how can there be any concern that players will intoduce stupid off-theme crap when the GM or any other player can always say "no?"

If every participant in the group can say "no" then things will bog down in a mire of nay-saying until someone gets tired and someone else gets his way. Again, that's not an RPG, that's playing cops and robbers with annoying spoilt nine-year olds.

Of course, most Forge games are made to principally appeal to Primmadonna spoilt players, who want to be the center of all attention all the time, so its no surprise you'd hold that up to be the paragon of gaming.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusSo, as I read it, I am not free to say that I think GM power needs to be constrained and a good game will necessarily do this,

So if you're precluded from saying that, does that mean that if I were to say that, I would be banned or my post would be deleted?  This seems contrary to the things that I've heard RPGPundit say about how he wants to moderate the site.

It would appear the Landmarks are a statement of principals held by the site moderator, and which he expects to be prevalent.  It would appear that they lack teeth, per se.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's not a criticism, just noting that these Forge games vary widely.  Then again, I'm never terribly sure what is a Forge game and what isn't.

Yes, Forge games do vary. There's even one I ALMOST like (OctaNe, though its one of those "marginally" Forge games).

But I'm talking about the fundamental ideology of the Forge here. What you're saying is like saying "Republican Senators do vary, they have a wide variety of ideas". Yes, great, sure. Now let's look at what the overall thrust of the Republican party is.  You can't turn around and say that because the Republican governor of New Jersey is pro-choice it means that the Republican Party is also Pro-choice.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMaybe you're thinking of Hackmaster? You know, that parody of what Swine like to imagine/pretend D&D is still like (which, indeed, it was never really like that in the first place)?

Most of the Hackmaster fans are also or were once fans of ADnD.  I don't quite get the point of it myself given you can still buy old versions of DnD if that's your preference on ebay, but it's not the Forge guys playing that - it's the old school crowd.

Anyway, I thought you were being a bit unfair to Hackmaster there, as for DnD it's a broad church and for some it was like HM and for some it wasn't.  One of DnD's strengths is the many ways in which it can be played, and I really shouldn't need to tell you of all people that.

Quote from: RobNJSo if you're precluded from saying that, does that mean that if I were to say that, I would be banned or my post would be deleted?  This seems contrary to the things that I've heard RPGPundit say about how he wants to moderate the site.

It would appear the Landmarks are a statement of principals held by the site moderator, and which he expects to be prevalent.  It would appear that they lack teeth, per se.

I haven't the faintest idea.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPundit:

Your and others reaction to much of this stuff only backs up the idea that it is a successful movement in RPGs.

It's the Kool-aid point.

And the reaction many people have to you proves the same thing.

Nope, only that its a successful movement in Online RPG Communities.

The Forge has had ENORMOUS success in taking over and subverting online RPG forums, and overall discussion of RPGs online. They are a very loud and very powerful lobby group in what is the wierd world of RPG-discussion Forums.

In RPGs as a whole, the Forge is a fucking blip.  I get more hits on my blog per day than the average Forge RPG gets sales per year.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, Forge games do vary. There's even one I ALMOST like (OctaNe, though its one of those "marginally" Forge games).

you like octaNe?  It's all about the shared narrative control thingy, in fact that's precisely what I don't enjoy about it since I don't enjoy shared narrative control stuff.

Isn't it the poster child and flagbearer for the stuff you're arguing against?

Quote from: Andy KBut to attribute this to ALL Forge games? Hmmmm. No. For every PTA there's an AGON or Cold City or another GM-has-traditional-GM-power game, with no rules or constraints or suggestions on use or abuse of GM power. But facts like that sorta get in the way of the PunditTruth, so are promptly properly discarded in the better rants.

And how many people outside of the Forge have ever fucking HEARD of Cold City or AGON?

All the Forge games that matter, the ones that are hyped, the ones that Ron approves of in public, the ones that become RPG.net darlings, the ones that people claim are the "Most Innovative Game EVAR!!!1!!" for three weeks until the next one comes along, those are all the ones you mentioned in the first category, and not the second.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusCouldn't you just have said "No GNS or related terminology may be used in this forum"?

It seems simpler and more efficient, though I grant it would lack the bearbaiting element that I think may be part of your overall strategy.

No, because that's just what the Swine would like, so that they could argue that this place is a nest of censorship.  You guys can talk all you like about Forge stuff, or GNS, or what-have-you, but you just won't be able to beat people over the heads with it the way you do in every other Forum with the tacit approval (or occasional  participation) of the Moderation.

In this forum, if someone goes on the "Roleplaying games" board and enters a thread about, say, Warhammer, and starts saying that "Narrativism blah blah blah", the poster being manipulated in that way will be able to say "Narrativism is a violation of the Landmarks, it makes no sense, and isn't considered a rational or useful term around these here parts, pilgrim..".

End of story.

RPGPundit