Quote from: StuartI think the Forge/GNS theory stuff is junk, but I think the influence of modern boardgames on RPG design is a positive thing.

I disagree. If I wanted to play a boardgame, I'd play a boardgame. And it'd probably be a wargame, not these pansy-assed german freaky "resource-management" bullshit games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: holyshitI discovered RPG.net a few weeks ago, and I just saw some links to this forum within from there the last couple days. Check the current Nobilis thread over there, for example. That was the first breadcrumb.

Hmm. I wondered about possible connections to the discussion over there, but couldn't tell for certain since there were no direct links to this thread.

Quote from: RPGPunditI disagree. If I wanted to play a boardgame, I'd play a boardgame. And it'd probably be a wargame, not these pansy-assed german freaky "resource-management" bullshit games.

I said the influence of them.  

Things like:

• Easier to learn rules
• Faster gameplay
• Minimized downtime between turns
• Shorter minimum duration
• Less looking up charts in books

These are good things for all games.

Edit:  And games like Heroscape, Battlelore, or Command and Colors really blur the lines between boardgames and wargames.

Quote from: holyshitI understand your skepticism, but you've got me pegged wrong. I read the book for DitV yesterday. I found this thread because it was referenced on a thread that was referenced on a thread that was referenced by a thread and so forth (I had about half a dozen browser windows open before I found it). Initially I found this site on a link on RPG.net. I spent half the night reading some very good discussions on this forum, actually. At first I thought you were a complete asshole/idiot, Pundit, but actually after reading about a hundred of your posts, I think you're doing some good things and I actually respect you for that. I think your fatal flaw is just not always understanding what you're criticizing and attacking some straw men. But you may be the funniest mother fucker I have ever met in my entire life. Props.

I am much more tolerant than most people view me, you might find that out by how I run this site; in any case, if I misjudged you, and I hope that I did, bally good.  Let's see you post on here about stuff other than DiTV (not saying you should stop posting about DiTV, just that I'd love to see what else you have to say about all kinds of other stuff).

And for the record, I agree with Clash, and I think that you misrepresented the standard playstyle of the conventional GM, as well as having a slightly naive perception of DiTV's "Freedom".

The "Freedom" that DiTV offers gaming groups is the freedom to "buy a car of any colour they want, providing that colour is black". The game designer has already firmly set in an authoritarian tone exactly what the game is supposed to be about, and made mechanics that pretty well make that concept inescapable. So its not that the GM is "supposed to be more open"; its that the GM is totally subverted, by the players on the one hand but mostly by Mr. Baker himself, who is already doing 9/10ths of what the GM's job is supposed to be and forcing it on the group.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartEdit:  And games like Heroscape, Battlelore, or Command and Colors really blur the lines between boardgames and wargames.

To me all three of those are definitely wargames. They're "board wargames", as opposed to "miniature wargames", and they're more simplistic than, say Advanced Squad Leader, but that's a good thing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThey're "board wargames", as opposed to "miniature wargames", and they're more simplistic than, say Advanced Squad Leader, but that's a good thing.

Yes, I'd agree with that.  A lot of these games are actually influenced by the German Style games, and some of the "resource management" stuff is definitely making it's way into modern wargames.  They're picking the best bits from other types of games to make better overall games.  I don't see that as a bad thing for RPGs to do as well.

Quote from: StuartSo if you were making a boardgame, or a card game, you would take the route of "traditional RPG design" -- you provide a setting, some dice mechanics, and let the group figure out how to make a finished game?

Huh? When did I say that? I said the group trumps the designer. If the group wants to do something totally different with the board game - or whatever - I designed, I'm not going to stand in their way and interfere.

Quote from: StuartThe approach that DitV take is more like what you'd see in most non-RPG game design.  Most games tell you *exactly* how to play, and define how you win/lose the game.

I think the Forge/GNS theory stuff is junk, but I think the influence of modern boardgames on RPG design is a positive thing.

Innovation in general is a positive thing. So is cross-fertilization. In particular, that is as it applies in a specific instance, it may or may not be positive. Each one of us is free to judge that for ourselves. I'm very happy for you that you judge it to be positive. Positive influences make the day a little sunnier, the workload a little lighter, and the birds sing a bit sweeter.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHuh? When did I say that? I said the group trumps the designer. If the group wants to do something totally different with the board game - or whatever - I designed, I'm not going to stand in their way and interfere.

Well sure, I guess anyone could decide to take their new boardgame out tobogganing instead of playing it. Once they've got it at home, there's not much you can do to stop them.  Unless you see them on the drive home...  "You Damn Kids!?!  Don't do that with my game!!!"  

The point I was hoping to make is that a game designer providing a clearly defined game, where there's a set method of play, and conditions of winning -- that's not inherently a bad thing.  It's just a different thing.

Quote from: StuartWell sure, I guess anyone could decide to take their new boardgame out tobogganing instead of playing it. Once they've got it at home, there's not much you can do to stop them.  Unless you see them on the drive home...  "You Damn Kids!?!  Don't do that with my game!!!"  

The point I was hoping to make is that a game designer providing a clearly defined game, where there's a set method of play, and conditions of winning -- that's not inherently a bad thing.  It's just a different thing.

I used to mod board games all the time. Come up with new rules, change rules, make new pieces, everything. At a certain point, however - and don't ask me where because I can't tell you - you stop modding an old game and start designing a new one. Anyway, board games and RPGs are very different things. I like board games and I like rpgs. As to mixing them, some folks might say "You got peanut butter in my chocolate!" but I say "You got herring in my ice cream."

Quote from:  flyingmiceI like board games and I like rpgs. As to mixing them, some folks might say "You got peanut butter in my chocolate!" but I say "You got herring in my ice cream."

It all depends on your point of view, I guess.

Quote from: flyingmiceYep - at least in regard to the group trumps designer/designer trumps group dichotomy. I don't believe in forcing my style of play down anyone's throat. If some group wants to play In Harm's Way with no GM and the players rotating authority, that's their business, not mine. It doesn't bother me a lick. The group trumps me, the designer, every time. My job is to give them a good setting and a solid system, the best I can come up with. They take it from there.

-clash

I should have been more clear. I was surprised you would use this as the definition of traditional games. For me, there is a long list of factors that define traditional RPGs versus non-traditional play. Designer over GM has little to do with it except in the sense of the role of players and GMs.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI should have been more clear. I was surprised you would use this as the definition of traditional games. For me, there is a long list of factors that define traditional RPGs versus non-traditional play. Designer over GM has little to do with it except in the sense of the role of players and GMs.

Bill

Oh, I agree they're there, I just think of them as 'typical features' or 'significant markers.' When push comes to shove, I think the breakpoint is designer impact on playstyle. Also, I was talking specifically about Forge-related games, not all non-traditional games. There are non-traditional games that are not at all influenced by the Forge.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI used to mod board games all the time. Come up with new rules, change rules, make new pieces, everything.

Scotland Yard happens to be very good for that. Once you've started modding it heavily, it might begin to resemble Fury of Dracula.

Quote from: GrimGentScotland Yard happens to be very good for that. Once you've started modding it heavily, it might begin to resemble Fury of Dracula.

Hehe! Yeah! Some games were a joy to mod!

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd for the record, I agree with Clash, and I think that you misrepresented the standard playstyle of the conventional GM, as well as having a slightly naive perception of DiTV's "Freedom".

The "Freedom" that DiTV offers gaming groups is the freedom to "buy a car of any colour they want, providing that colour is black". The game designer has already firmly set in an authoritarian tone exactly what the game is supposed to be about, and made mechanics that pretty well make that concept inescapable. So its not that the GM is "supposed to be more open"; its that the GM is totally subverted, by the players on the one hand but mostly by Mr. Baker himself, who is already doing 9/10ths of what the GM's job is supposed to be and forcing it on the group.

RPGPundit

I'm certainly no expert on that game, but from what I can tell I think there's some validity to what you're saying. However, it looks like a little of both to me.

On the one hand, the players would steer the moment-to-moment course of action relatively moreso when compared to traditional RPGs, and likely hear "yes" from the GM more often, as the GM interferes somewhat less with the direction of events than in normal RPGs, and generally has less nudging input. This applies within that particular setting being played, however. But in this sense, the players do seem to have more freedom and power than normally is the case (although in the end, they do have to buy some sort of black car), although it's not that there aren't some traditional GMs that also give the players a ton of freedom; there are exceptions to every rule, but we're engaging in a comparison. The players are more in the drivers seat than with traditional RPGs, in any given (restrictive) setting, because they will not ever be railroaded in any way other than ultimately confronting the main dilemma of the evening, because of their own actions; yes, that is a very ironic statement. Yes, it's more freedom on one level and less freedom on another. But apparently that's how this game works.

So conversely, the players have been given a specific scenario in a specific town, and they are expected to stay in that town and deal with that. That gives them much less freedom in the bigger picture, and it seems the GM is much more constraining in that regard, unless we're compairing him to a really railroady traditional DM, although in playing this game the players would naturally accept those limitations.

I do think the GM is supposed to be a lot more open in the way he manages the game, in that he is supposed to come into the game with a lot less plannning, prejudices, opinions, scenarios, scenes, agenda, and so forth.

However, I think it's very true what you're saying about the GM being subverted in a way by Baker, although of course that's by design. And that is because DitV does seem to resemble a board game more in the sense that it involves a set scene and episode. It is different.

I'd agree that altogether the players have less freedom. But this is sort of the "German boardgame" of RPGs in that you have something like Settlers of Catan, where the game is always pretty much the same, it's just the that map changes a little bit every night so the experience is a little different. But each episode seems mainly like a one-shot deal from what I've read.

It does tremendously limit the possibilities on a macro level while opening up the possibilities somewhat on a micro level. In the end, the more broadly limiting nature of it is probably what would keep me from playing it on a regular basis. I'd still like to try it sometime to take it for a spin, though. You never know.

All in all, it's just a fairly different approach to roleplaying. It's not going to be for everyone. I doubt it's for me. I like traditional RPGs.

It is paradoxical, though. The GM is more authoritarian at first. Then less authoritarian once the game starts. The GM defines the setting and dilemma more clearly, then lets the players determine more of the action and outcome. A lot of more traditional games (not necessarily good ones, mind you) do have some sort of binary outcome. Either you save the village or you don't. Here the outcomes are probably much harder to predict, because the players have to make a moral judgment about what should happen, and the GM wants nothing whatsoever to do with that decision and what spirals off from it. That's another major angle to the game. The players solely become the judge, jury, and executioner, and that's supposed to be one of the most interesting things about the game, i.e. the players are forced to make very heavy moral decisions all the time.

I really didn't come here to defend the game, although I understand if it seems like I did. I don't know what else to say about that. But I do think it's an interesting concept worth talking about, whether it's best thing since the blowjob or a steaming pile of excrement. But before we can decide that, we should try to understand it on its own terms. I mainly wanted to put the "roll dice or say yes" bit in more context. Because when you do that, that slogan doesn't really mean all that much. The issues become something else. Like what we're talking about in terms of the fundamental difference in a game made up of set episodes like this one, or traditional RPGs, which must lend themselves much better to sweeping campaigns. Which tend to kick ass imo.