Quote from: TonyLBYou've got to pick out particular editions?  I thought any game that crossed the line was objectively bad, and only a fool would think otherwise.  Are you saying that some editions of paranoia cross the line in terms of railroading the players, and some don't?

Actually yeah - Luke Crane says he played Paranoia as straight future spy stuff. Then there was the edition with the cartoony art and constant zanyness, and everyone says it sucks.

So, yknow. They took away room for interpretation and people didn't like it as much.

What do you mean by "tell?"

A little friendly advice is good. D&D rulebooks have always recommended that the players work together, use some caution when exploring, etc.

Do you mean anything other than that?

Quote from: Erik BoielleI strongly suspect that any game that really captured peoples imagination would have some people going - 'This is so cool! Its just like Equilibrium or Total Recall! I'm totally gonna bring down The Man!' and others going 'This is so cool! Its just like Brazil! I'm totally gonna get chewed up and spat out by the machine!

Either of those things could happen to individual characters in MLwM.

But here's my anecdotal evidence, take it for what it's worth: I had a shitload of fun playing MLwM and I'd play it again in a minute. I felt it had creative constraints that helped my fun (I enjoy working off constraints).

Quote from: Erik BoielleActually yeah - Luke Crane says he played Paranoia as straight future spy stuff. Then there was the edition with the cartoony art and constant zanyness, and everyone says it sucks.

So, yknow. They took away room for interpretation and people didn't like it as much.

So, a game that says you must be silly (some editions of Paranoia, all editions of Toon, TFOS and Tales of the Floating Vagabond) will obviously and objectively suck?

Quote from: TonyLBSo, a game that says you must be silly (some editions of Paranoia, all editions of Toon, TFOS and Tales of the Floating Vagabond) will obviously and objectively suck?

It's certainly never going to hit the big time.

Some gamers just don't have a sense of humor. (I almost like my humour played so straight you can hardly tell its there - the Russians call it Thin English Humour, although they don't mean it as a complement.)

QuoteI felt it had creative constraints that helped my fun (I enjoy working off constraints).

I think thats going to be true for everyone - but I Think the constraints that work best are going to be around Situation rather than Theme or Style.

So you want situations like 'Go Repair That Photocopier!' or 'Entertain Those Children' rather than 'you must fail at what you do' or 'your character must be a twonker'.

Quote from: Erik BoielleIt's certainly never going to hit the big time.

Well, are you arguing that the games are bad or are you arguing that they're unpopular?  Or that it's the same thing?

If you're arguing that they're bad games (as you seem to have been doing in the past) then let's skip the pointless tangents about popularity, and stick to the main point.

This discussion has drifted into " games I hate and the people who play/design them" waters. Maybe that's what most rpg discussions are really about anyway.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBWell, are you arguing that the games are bad or are you arguing that they're unpopular?  Or that it's the same thing?

If you're arguing that they're bad games (as you seem to have been doing in the past) then let's skip the pointless tangents about popularity, and stick to the main point.

Well, if you want to chase off in to ghettos...

Good games everyone can love are the way forwards.

I have my preferred style, others have different ones. I ever get the beast before the public I will provide advice on how best to use it, but I aint gonna bitch if they use it for something completely different.

If you want to worship the Magic Deer, that's your biz. Me? I think it's a waste of good venison.

Quote from: TonyLBI, personally, prefer games that strongly encourage the type of behavior that makes the game fun.

The thing is, for different folks, different things make the game fun. What the designer thinks is fun may noy be what the consumer thinks is fun. Cleaving too closely to one's own personal vision of fun when designing a game for other people can cripple a game commerciailly.

QuoteSo if the game system rewards me for one particular thing, I'll have fun doing that thing, and reap the rewards.

Rewards don't necessarily equal fun. If they did, more children would be itching to do homework

QuoteOther folks had other opinions.

I have no problem with a game encouraging a particular play style by default, though if it does so at the exclusion of all other play styles or by making it very difficult to engage in other play styles, I think that the designer is a clod who is mistaking a commercial product for a personal soapbox.

Genrally speaking, deliberately isolating a product from all but one demographic within the RPG community by virtue of design will keep said product small and obscure (unelss the demographic that you target is D&D players). It also makes the designer sound like a pretensious boob.

Those games that are successful tend to encourage a particular play style, but stop short of actively discouraging others in the process. That is, they give you the tools to do X, but don't construct deliberate roadblocks that make doing Y difficult. Indeed, they may provide optional rules for Y.

Quote from: jdrakehThe thing is, for different folks, different things make the game fun. What the designer thinks is fun may noy be what the consumer thinks is fun. Cleaving too closely to one's own personal vision of fun when designing a game for other people can cripple a game commerciailly.

This simply isn't true when you look at non-RPG games.  I don't understand why the activity of tabletop roleplaying would change this so completely in an RPG.

Quote from: StuartThis simply isn't true when you look at non-RPG games.

Well, thats their problem. I suspect that many games are worse off for being games - I know I've played a LOT of pool and poker when the group would have been better off doing something cooperative like clearing an allotment or hiking or whatever. We just play pool because thats what you do.

Also, I race sailing boats, and I know that of any given sunday peoples main reason for turning out runs from get some exercise to spend some time with the kids to get away from the family for a few hours to hang out with your mates to impress your new girlfriend to boost you ego by showing how good you are to do better than last week to just enjoying the sailing on a nice day with lots of boats on the water.

The mutability of RPGs isn't a failing - its one of their biggest advantages.

Quote from: StuartThis simply isn't true when you look at non-RPG games.  I don't understand why the activity of tabletop roleplaying would change this so completely in an RPG.

Because non-RPG games are - by definition - not RPGs. They are very, very different animals, and treating them as if they were board games or card games will be problematic.

-clash

Why?  Why is it possible to compare Card Games to Board Games to Sports to Lottery to Children's Games to Game Shows -- but not RPGs.  How is it that the act of roleplaying makes these games so very different?  Or is it in fact something related but seperate from the actual roleplaying, such as the traditional role of the GM, or the way RPGs to date have been written that makes these games appear to be so different? :confused:

Quote from: StuartWhy?  Why is it possible to compare Card Games to Board Games to Sports to Lottery to Children's Games to Game Shows -- but not RPGs.  How is it that the act of roleplaying makes these games so very different?  Or is it in fact something related but seperate from the actual roleplaying, such as the traditional role of the GM, or the way RPGs to date have been written that makes these games appear to be so different? :confused:

I don't know. I don't sit around analyzing games. I'll bet someone knows and can tell you the true facts, though.

-clash