Quote from: RPGPunditYou 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.

Um, just to be clear, I think GNS is nonsense and have said so often and in many places.  The fact I like some Forge derived games does not make me someone who thinks GNS is remotely useful.  I just get on ok with most of the guys who do think it's useful.

I am currently playing Pendragon, I just bought the DnD Rules Cyclopedia, my next purchase will be either something for Pendragon or the new Runequest.  That's what I play by and large, I occasionally play the Forgeite stuff but almost overwhelmingly my play is trad games every one of which I would bet money you will have heard of.

Nope, I like a lot of the guys who are into the theory, I like several of the games, I just happen to think the theory itself is wrong and I don't mind that they probably think I think that because they think I don't really understand it (if that makes sense).  After all, if I think they're wrong I can hardly complain that they think I am.

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?

The Landmarks are the Statement of Fundamentals that are supposed to be used in designing theory or games on this, the Theory and Game Design Forum.

No one is going to punish you for talking about the Forge, or for not using the Landmarks. I'm not trying to have a cult here, the way other people have tried to turn their theory-foundations into a Cult.

However, the idea is that in this forum, you design games using those presumptions. If you come in with other presumptions, and get a rhetorical smackdown because of it, you don't go crying to the moderation. If you want to make Narrativist Games about Man's Eternal Struggle With Teatime, you can do that kind of bullshit on pretty much every other Gaming forum out there.
Here, we work with the assumptions that most gamers are having fun already, that D&D is not the antichrist, that its actually the most popular game because its what people like to play, that player problems can't be solved with narrow game mechanics, that most gamers enjoy having a GM who isn't a eunuch, that most gamers likewise enjoy having Players that can do more than cheerlead, and that emulation of genre and immersion are two HUGE positive and attainable goals for most gamers, rather than two Stupid Things we Hate (as they are on the forge).

So now, instead of arguing with me about the Forge, are any of you Theory gimps man enough to actually try MAKING a game based on those assumptions? Try it, you might even find that you like it. Its certainly  more productive than sitting around talking about "narrative space" or drawing diagrams about the Kabbalistic Tree of Player Story Influence.
Hell, you might even end up inventing a game that normal people would have fun playing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusNo 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.

Yes, exactly, you got it.  The point was that you can't make a theory saying that RPGs that give the GM traditional power are wrong, bad, etc.
That's it. Its not saying you can't like a game where players have more influence. You just can't say that this is the "right" way of gaming, and that the way of gaming that 99% of the world's gamers actually seem to use and enjoy is the "wrong" way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo now, instead of arguing with me about the Forge, are any of you Theory gimps man enough to actually try MAKING a game based on those assumptions? Try it, you might even find that you like it. Its certainly  more productive than sitting around talking about "narrative space" or drawing diagrams about the Kabbalistic Tree of Player Story Influence.
Hell, you might even end up inventing a game that normal people would have fun playing.

RPGPundit

The guys who like GNS won't, as it wouldn't make sense for them not to use a theory they think works.

I won't, because I have no particular desire to design a game and if I did I still wouldn't as I think theory is irrelevant to that goal anyway, I think games are a matter of craft and as such I don't think theory is especially relevant.

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.

No, you wouldn't be banned or deleted. You'd just be told that your statement is in violation of the Landmarks, or in other words lacks any and all common sense from the point of view of PRACTICAL game design (ie. designing games that normal gamers would actually want to play).  
In other words, you would not be able to impose your point of view on others here, you could say it, but everyone else would be busy working to make playable games and talking about games from the point of view of the landmarks.

QuoteIt 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.

The only "teeth" they're meant to have is Rhetorical teeth. You see, when you have the Truth on your side, you don't actually need to ban people to win arguments.

For some, that's a really novel concept. For me, its Saturday.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusMost 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.

I would figure that most people who play Hackmaster don't actually play it "By the book", Ie. where players can force the GM to follow the rules to the letter and can quote mechanics against him.

But hey, I might be wrong with that... maybe that's where all the rules lawyers went... I haven't actually seen many of them lately.. hmm... :hmm:

Quote from: Balbinusyou 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?

I loved the setting, and most aspects of the system were very good too. The one problem it had was exactly that one: the die mechanic where the results of the die determine whether the gm or the player gets to choose what happens.

When I ran it, I just changed that so that the die results were all GM-interpreted, as unfavourable, slightly unfavourable, slightly favourable, or favourable to the player, but the GM was in charge.

So I guess what was great about OctaNe, besides the setting and the rest of the mechanic, was that you could very easily port it into being an actual RPG, instead of a shared-storytelling monstrosity.

RPGPundit

I'm calling "Say Yes or Roll Dice" as a defeated idea at this point.  It seems pretty obvious, you can't say really just say yes to everything, even narratively. It also seems obvious that even the Swine have abused the concept to their own detriment on occaision. (See Ron's post which contains the exchange about "If I win, your dick shrivels off..!". Funny stuff. )

The obvious concept of keeping the game moving forward and not requiring a roll for trivial tasks is noted as good advice though. D&D (and other games) had that idea first, and even codified it into rules in a more reliable way.

Quote from: BalbinusUm, just to be clear, I think GNS is nonsense and have said so often and in many places.  The fact I like some Forge derived games does not make me someone who thinks GNS is remotely useful.  I just get on ok with most of the guys who do think it's useful.

By "you guys" I meant Forge Swine, not you in particular. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

QuoteNope, I like a lot of the guys who are into the theory, I like several of the games, I just happen to think the theory itself is wrong and I don't mind that they probably think I think that because they think I don't really understand it (if that makes sense).  After all, if I think they're wrong I can hardly complain that they think I am.

The only difference being that they're actually wrong.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd how many people outside of the Forge have ever fucking HEARD of Cold City or AGON?

Exactly!  So what's the big deal?

I keep seeing you make this argument:

1) Forge/Small Press games are miniscule irrelevant blips. They are totally and utterly inconsequential.
2) ...
3) Forge/Small Press games and their play styles are taking over the world! Holy shit we have to haul sandbags to keep the swine away from messing with our precious games! Stay awake and alert!

If you believe in one of the above, the other is impossible.  Either indie games and their fans are weak and have no clout, or they are powerful and have clout. Personally, I believe in #1 over #3.

If these games are unheard of, inconsequential, and absolutely nothing compared to mainstream games (Hey, I'll buy that argument), what the fuck is the big deal with them? They're not affecting your gameplay, or the guy down the street's gameplay, or the thousands of dudes on EnWorld, or the millions of dudes who play D&D and don't surf RPGNet or The Forge. Why must their dirty machinations be belittled and stopped at every opportunity? Why not just ignore these inconsequential blips and move on!

You guys are being unnecessarily argumentative (by you guys, I mean all of youse).

There is a travesty of reason happening, though - in order to meet some standard by which you think el Pundito will agree with you, the original statement is being watered down.

So, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

Now, the slippery slope argument that will happen and has happened is basically this: "what happens when my player says, 'I want so-and-so to give me an atom bomb?'" The answer to this is simple:

- Is it within the game's realm of possibility to have an atom bomb? Ok, then, roll some dice and shut up.

- It isn't? Well, then, the group as a whole has the right to tell anyone crapping on the game to shut up.

Or put simpler - all "Forge-theory," or whatever you want to call it, requires one assumption: that all the players at the table are there to actively participate in having fun. If someone is actively trying to subvert the fun (by doing something totally out of genre, or just being stupid), then anyone and everyone has the right to tell them to shut up or go home, as you would in any social activity.

And to the forum's point about theory actually playing into real games and real play: yeah, this works. I play RPGs all the time - a minimum of my weekly game, with usually a pick-up game somewhere else in the week - and it works. My players can say "I want *this right here*" and I can ask, "How bad do you want it?" and pull out some dice and man, then it gets exciting.

Note for all: I'm in no way saying this will work for you. I'm not that kind of dude. I spend my time on the Internet saying what works for me, and if it works for you, awesome! If not, I'm totally interested in what works for you.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm calling "Say Yes or Roll Dice" as a defeated idea at this point.  It seems pretty obvious, you can't say really just say yes to everything, even narratively. It also seems obvious that even the Swine have abused the concept to their own detriment on occaision. (See Ron's post which contains the exchange about "If I win, your dick shrivels off..!". Funny stuff. )

Well well well... so its finally happened, and the "revolution" has gotten out of Ron's hands.. and now he's upset that the People's Commune is going to guillotine him too, as if he was one of the big mean Aristos because the whole thing has been taken over by people even more extreme than him...

I'd been waiting for this moment for some time...  :killingme:

RPGPundit

Quote from: Andy KExactly!  So what's the big deal?

I keep seeing you make this argument:

1) Forge/Small Press games are miniscule irrelevant blips. They are totally and utterly inconsequential.
2) ...
3) Forge/Small Press games and their play styles are taking over the world! Holy shit we have to haul sandbags to keep the swine away from messing with our precious games! Stay awake and alert!

If you believe in one of the above, the other is impossible.  Either indie games and their fans are weak and have no clout, or they are powerful and have clout. Personally, I believe in #1 over #3.

If these games are unheard of, inconsequential, and absolutely nothing compared to mainstream games (Hey, I'll buy that argument), what the fuck is the big deal with them? They're not affecting your gameplay, or the guy down the street's gameplay, or the thousands of dudes on EnWorld, or the millions of dudes who play D&D and don't surf RPGNet or The Forge. Why must their dirty machinations be belittled and stopped at every opportunity? Why not just ignore these inconsequential blips and move on!

Forge games are inconsequetial in the RPG Industry.

The Forge is hugely influential online.

Forge games do not affect my enjoyment of RPGs at all.

The Forge and its cultlike prosletyzers do strongly affect my enjoyment of RPG discussion forums.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonYou guys are being unnecessarily argumentative (by you guys, I mean all of youse).

There is a travesty of reason happening, though - in order to meet some standard by which you think el Pundito will agree with you, the original statement is being watered down.

So, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

Now, the slippery slope argument that will happen and has happened is basically this: "what happens when my player says, 'I want so-and-so to give me an atom bomb?'" The answer to this is simple:

- Is it within the game's realm of possibility to have an atom bomb? Ok, then, roll some dice and shut up.

- It isn't? Well, then, the group as a whole has the right to tell anyone crapping on the game to shut up.

Or put simpler - all "Forge-theory," or whatever you want to call it, requires one assumption: that all the players at the table are there to actively participate in having fun. If someone is actively trying to subvert the fun (by doing something totally out of genre, or just being stupid), then anyone and everyone has the right to tell them to shut up or go home, as you would in any social activity.

So you're betting on Mankind's essential goodness, huh?

Yea.. that worked out really great for Marx and Lenin...

But I admire, Clinton, that you at least had the courage to stand up and admit this. I would have expected no less from you.  Its what I admire about Ron too; his honesty: he admits that he thinks mainstream gamers are brain-damaged, he doesn't, like most of his cultmembers, pretend to be nice to them while secretly despising them. He openly despises them.

You, here, have shown that you are willing to step up, be a man, and admit that you think that the GM should be neutered to allow for good game play (pity that your "being a man" involves taking a stance essentially arguing that the GM shouldn't be allowed to be likewise). Your reasoning for this is that RPG players are a noble and ideal sort of being that will always care more about the common good than about their character ending up with the +10 Holy Avenger, or their character getting to be the center of attention as much as possible. You really honestly believe that players will willingly sacrifice their own "time to shine" as protagonists of the party in favour of giving others equal time, each according to his needs. And you believe that all players will behave this way. On the other hand, you must apparently believe that GMs, if given the same kind of authority, would not be trustworthy with it and would end up abusing the game and ruining everyone's fun, because for some bizzare reason a group of self-interested players who's purpose is for THEIR character to shine will somehow be less prone to abuse this kind of power than a single GM who's purpose is for his players to enjoy his game. I can only suppose that you assume that GMs are lesser human beings, perhaps because you met a couple of Vampire "Storytellers" who were, and it soured you on the whole deal.

Great. You're utterly and totally wrong, but at least you are honest.

Thank you, sincerely, for that honesty. It was sorely missing from the rest of the Forgeites here. You are a lesson to them in principles, even if not in reason.

RPGPundit

Below, parenthetical statements inside of quote tags are me providing context so that the quote makes sense and are not an attempt by me to alter RPGPundit's meaning.

Quote from: RPGPunditThen "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).

Can you provide an example?

QuoteIf 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.  

That's not true, though, and that's not what he wrote there.  What he writes is relating to making rolls when things matter or not.  Elsewhere in the book, and this has been quoted on this thread, he says it's the GM's responsibility to say no to stupid stakes.

This is exactly the point I've been making about context.  The paragraphs quoted earlier in the thread from Dogs in the Vineyard are presented in the book in the context of talking about when to roll, and do not relate to the GM's ability to say no to stupid things.

QuoteNo 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".

It's missing because it's not what this part of the rules are talking about.  This is equivalent to complaining that the space combat rules aren't addressed in the section on how to make a monster.  What Vincent is talking about there, in context, is when to roll the dice.  Here are the choices you have, let's say with information that someone is hiding:

1. The person gives whatever information he has. (Say yes when it doesn't matter).
2. The person is an obvious liar (saying yes when it's important).
3. The person is a liar but isn't obvious, and you have to try to see if you can discover what he's lying about (rolling).

Saying "no" makes no sense there.  I suppose you could say, "This guy is withholding information, but I don't want the players to have any idea about it."  That would be just saying "no."  It's not the kind of game I'd want to play in, and in a Schrodinger's Cat sort of way, the person might as well not know the information since the players will never be able to find out.

QuoteIf 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.

Give me a specific example, please, because I can't imagine the kind of situation you're talking about.  I'd like to be given an example of a time when you're trying to decide whether or not to roll the dice, and it's unimportant whether the PCs find out or not, but you say no.  Genre emulation is irrelevant here, because Vincent's not talking about introducing nonsensical elements to the world in the section we're arguing about.  Elsewhere, he says it's the GM's responsibility not to allow people to introduce stupid shit.

QuoteSo 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.

First of all, he's very clear in the rules quoted elsewhere on this thread.  In context, there is no doubt that he's not at all talking about GM disempowerment, he's talking about advice, telling you when to roll and when not to roll.  If someone takes that and decides it's about never presenting the players with any opposition, then they are stupid.  Blaming Vincent for people misreading and/or misusing something that's very clear in the text is unfair.  If someone who read your blog went around saying stupid things, would you be responsible for them?

QuoteIn jokes unintentional truths often slip out.

That's unfair and a dishonest way of engaging in a discussion.  You know he doesn't mean it.  You know he's making a joke.  Why be rude and intentionally misinterpret and twist his words?  You seem to be a pretty big Hunter S. Thompson fan.  I find it interesting you'd engage in intentional twisting of the truth (or, the Truth, if you'd have it that way).

QuoteSome of (the fans of indie RPGs) are (advocating a "playertariat"), 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.

I don't believe that that's very prevalent.  What is your evidence that Ron was burnt by White Wolf and GM-gods?  What other designers who are part of the Forge community do you have evidence have had a similar experience, and what is the evidence?  

Even if you could prove those things, which I don't believe you can, why would you tar everyone who plays certain games with that brush?

QuoteAny Forge game which allows the players to roll the dice against the GM to take control of the "story".

Isn't a to-hit roll in D&D a roll of dice to take control over the story from the GM?  Isn't a diplomacy roll the same thing?  Isn't "forcing" a monster or NPC to make a save against a charm spell the same thing?

The story elements that D&D's rules are most concerned with are those relating to combat.  There are plenty of rules in D&D that take control away from the GM for combat-related things.

Many indie games aren't as concerned about combat as they are about, say, character motivation.  Winning narration rights in PTA is the equivalent of rolling a crit on the GM's pet monster in D&D, given the areas that the rules focus on.

QuoteNot to mention many of the things Ron has wrote in the Forge essays.

I will grant you that Ron Edwards is a major force in indie RPGs, but he's not the only force.  What he says or thinks does not speak for everyone who enjoys indie RPGs.  As with most people, I happen to agree with some things he's said and disagree with others.  The most important thing that Ron did, in my opinion, is to tell people that the system you're playing with matters.  I don't know whether he was the first person to advocate that you should pay close attention to the rules of your game, and that these rules would help you predict the kind of play you'd have at the table.  I suspect he was not (this is me dryly understating the obvious).  However, he and other people in the Forge community did break me out of the "rules don't matter" mindset.

QuoteShit, 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.

I'm confused by this statement.  If, as a GM, I choose to play a game about Mormon paladins in the Old West, how can I complain that I'm being stripped of control over setting or theme?  I've chosen to play in that game.  Obviously I want to play in that world if I chose that book to play in.  It's like complaining that Wizards is trying to constrain your creativity by producing a Star Wars game.

Furthermore, it is a perfectly valid and highly encouraged tactic in the indie RPG community to take a ruleset designed for a very specific setting and totally warp the setting (and make the necessary rules adjustments).  Dogs in the Vineyard has been used to create a Young Adult fantasy about princes enforcing the King's law, to create workplace comedy about management efficiency consultants, to do Jedi bringing the peace and rationality of The Republic to the Outer Rim, and many other incarnations.

Finally, many people don't see creative constraints as oppressive.  People write sonnets, people undertake Iron Game Chef competitions, and so on.  Creative constraints can lead to a lot of fun.

The only way these can be seen as oppressive is if somehow people were forced to play these games.  I know you don't mean that, so where do you see the oppression?  I am genuinely confused by this, and not trying to be snarky or sarcastic.

Have you played any of these games?  When you played them, did you begin with a charitable eye toward them or did you start expecting them to aggravate and disappoint you?  Can you talk about a specific game indie game you played, and give us a specific example of how it broke for you?

QuoteThe 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)?

I have never played Hackmaster, and nothing I've ever heard about it sounds like it would be fun for me.

Would you say that the GM in D&D is free to ignore any rule he wants, and impose that on the other players at the table, even if they really hate the rule?  If everyone at the table dislikes how something is being done, and one person has the power to ignore all of that, how can that be fun?

I suspect that most games of D&D as actually played have a great deal of player consent and consensus, they just don't have rules to encourage consent and consensus.  My experience and logic tell me that it it would be very rare for a GM to make a ruling, have everyone (or even most) at the table go, "Wow, that sucks!" and have her ignore that entirely.  As a D&D GM I was constantly trying to tap in to what my friends enjoyed or didn't enjoy about the games I ran, and trying to facilitate that.  One of the things I love about indie RPGs is that that fun-check is an integral part of most rules, and most of these games give the players ways to signal very clearly to the GM what kinds of things they'd like to see highlighted about their characters.

And that's all these player-input rules do.  They encourage the players to let the GM know what they want, by showing them directly and providing rules support for it.  The GM then also has the ability to say, "No, that's lame.  Why are you doing that?"  This is present in the hippiest of hippie games.

QuoteSo 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!").

Well, no.  That's not true.  Let's say I'm playing Primetime Adventures and I'm the Producer.  I win my stakes and my narration.  I have Timmy get shot.  One guy says, "No, that sucks."  That one guy has to defend his point.  He won't win the day if most people are convinced it doesn't suck.  And if most people at the table think it sucks, why should it happen?  How is it a fun game if most of the time, stuff most people think sucks is happening?

Quote(I said: Indie RPGs are interested in making sure everyone has fun.)  By presuming that gamers as they are right now are not having fun.

That's not true.  You may think it's true from the essays you've read or what have you, but if you actually look at the rulebooks, none of them either says, "You think you're having fun now but you're not," nor do they imply that the way you've been playing before sucks.  This fun-check is a thermometer.  There are rules to encourage communication between players and to try to prevent people from quietly waiting for the game to end.

Again I ask that you provide textual evidence from an indie RPG that they explicitly or implicitly assume you weren't having fun roleplaying until just now.

And please don't quote the essays.  The essays don't matter.  The games do.

QuoteRight, 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.

I disagree, both with the way you've characterized the situation, and your conclusion.  No rules can solve social problems entirely, but they can hedge against them, and give people rules-support for trying to ensure everyone's having fun.  One asshole can still ruin the game if they want to badly enough, but things like consensus rules make it obvious to everyone who the asshole is and encourage them to discourage assholery.

QuoteIf 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.

If that is necessarily the case, why has this never happened in any of the indie RPGs I've played?  People don't come to a gaming table waiting to negate each other and make each other miserable.  They come to have fun, and a healthy table will seek for ways to say yes.

QuoteOf 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.

Do you intend to be attacking me personally here?  Do you intend to be calling me a spoiled primadonna?  If so, why?  I haven't insulted you once here, not even implicitly.  So why would you insult me?

Now to address your actual point, rather than the tone of it:  Most Forge games are made to appeal to players who are interested more in character development and theme than simulation of real-world physics or win/lose gamieness that can be the focus of D&D if played directly as written.

I have some sympathy with your viewpoint.  I have had plenty of fun sessions of, say, Vampire or Werewolf.  One time I was talking to Thor, one of the Burning Wheel crew guys, and said, "How can you say that I didn't have fun and play a great political game of Vampire when I know I have?"

He said (I paraphrase freely and will continue to do so), "I can't.  You did have a fun political game.  All I'm saying is, was the political fun you had tied in any way to the rules of the game?  Or was it fun you could've had with any game system or without rules entirely?"

And he was right.  The political fun I had in my vampire games had to do with the setting material provided, and with the friends I was playing with, and not with the rules.  The Forge and the games that its community produce don't nullify the fun you've had with traditional RPGs.  They don't say you didn't have fun before.  What they say is, "I want to make a game with rules that encourge the kind of play you want.  If you want a game about political vampires, I will give you rules that encourage and allow you to play a political vampire."

And I really am baffled to see what the offense is in that.