I never asked you to change anything, I just wondered whether -- in the course of designing BW -- you ever tried other options -- or know of players who've done that. Ranged combat is basically a simplified version of melee, so I thought that it's rather likely that someone mixed up things a bit. No fan of house rules?

And please don't get started with the accuracy discussion. That's been bad enough with GURPS and martial arts in the past

Sorry.

I have playtested many, many variants of the system. The current incarnations are the ones I find more satisfying.

-L

Sosthenes, you may want to check out the BW houserule forum.

Thanks, Brantai. No wikis?

EDIT: Found it.

QuoteJ Arcane,
You're right. You are smarter than me and better than me because your opinion is more right than mine. Clearly.

:rolleyes:

18) So inspired by -E. elsewhere, do you think (even a little bit), that there si a "cult" of the traditional GM, that is corrosive to the hobby?

19) Do you think, that there are some "incoherent" games out there, that lead to power struggle and if so, can you offer some examples?

20) And finally do you think, you were brain damaged by gaming? And if so, is it permanent brain damage or just temporary trauma?

1. Since 2005, how many story games have there been that have broken new ground in the manner of their forebears? Isn't there a dramatic disproportion between that originary inventiveness and the current scene of variation, refinement, and ticking off the genre boxes; and why is that not proof that the story games paradigm has exhausted itself already?

2. Nicotine Girls don't sell. Photos of DexCon, Camp Nerdly and so on prove that story gamers are gamers as we know them. Given this, why has the project of breaking out of the ghetto thematically and rules-wise, of reaching an entirely new audience of nongamers, not been a resounding failure?

And if it has been one: what solid, supra-anecdotal evidence--beyond "my g/f wouldn't touch D&D but she's all over 1001 Nights"--inclines one to say: "so far"?

As an amusing aside, I should mention that I was going to buy a copy of Nicotine Girls when I stopped.

"Weren't you going to get that?" asked my girlfriend.
"Yeah, but I play it every day when I get up, so I think I'll pass this time." I said.

It's too much like my actual life for me to really want a copy. x_x

Alnag,

18) There is a subset of roleplaying gamers who believe that the GM player has special rights and privileges -- that he is more powerful, more influential and more important than the other players.* These gamers believe the GM's job is to simultaneously take no shit from uppity players while also guiding them through his story with a fatherly hand. In this style of play it is the players' twofold job to give the GM shit and get out from under his screw, while docilely accepting "his story." This group often intimates that the GM is "god" in the game and replete with special powers and not to be angered. For evidence of this type of thinking, I direct you to RPG.net.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=337030&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=328634&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=336887&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=328812&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=336864
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=342059&highlight=GM
etc. and so on.

None of these assumptions are universally true. The GM is simply another player with his own particular duties. The rules indicate what those duties are. His role is no more important than anyone elses. He is not god, though some rules sets grant him supernumerary power over rules and players.

It has been my experience that new players entering into the hobby are put off by the cult-like hazing ritual involved in some groups which entails repeatedly having your input shot down by the GM. Ideas rejected and assumptions flaunted until the player accepts the power of the GM. Many new players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaborative storytelling. I have witnessed the disappointment of these players when they find the game is instead a weird patriarchal social group focused on one person's interpretation of the mechanics. I believe that, as the hobby continues to shrink, this is bad for all parties involves. To point to the old original ways and snarl, "But this is how it started and how it will end!" is to miss the point. People are leaving the hobby in droves. Stores are closing, sales are dropping. There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." It is possible for hobbies to die.

I define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

19) Alnag, I honestly don't understand the question.

20) Of course I've been brain damaged by gaming. Look at me. I even publish my own games -- the worst sign of brain damage there is.

*I think it's also worth noting that when asked directly, nearly every rational human being will answer questions about what the GM does using some form of "he's the facilitator of fun" at the table. This is not useful. It doesn't describe what is actually happening in play. Hell, railroad sessions can be fun, but that doesn't obviate what I'm talking about.


Pierce,
1) I'm not familiar with all of the small press stuff released since 2005 and I agree that there are peaks and valleys in development. I do not agree that one valley is an indicator of exhaustion. Just because I can't predict something, doesn't mean something unpredictable will not happen. Also, from my standpoint, I'm never interested in the cutting edge. I'm always more interested in games that refine the cutting edge and serve it back to the early majority. Personally, I think 2005 was a good year for these types of games, even if they were refinements and not innovations -- Polaris, Mountain Witch, Breaking the Ice, Bacchanal, Truth and Justice and my favorite, With Great Power, make an impressive list of functional, different, playable games.

2) Why hasn't the effort to reach nongamers been a failure? I don't know. My particular games sell to gamers and hardcore gamers at that. I don't know who plays my friends' games. Beyond hearing anecdotal evidence of small press games being used to introduce nongamer spouses, girlfriends, friends and parents I've got nothing on this one. However, I suspect that in a few years, IPR may have some sales trend data to support or debunk our gut instincts.

Thanatos,
Nicotine Girls is available for free on the web: http://halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html

Quote from: lukeThere is a subset of roleplaying gamers who believe that the GM player has special rights and privileges -- that he is more powerful, more influential and more important than the other players.* These gamers believe the GM's job is to simultaneously take no shit from uppity players while also guiding them through his story with a fatherly hand. In this style of play it is the players' twofold job to give the GM shit and get out from under his screw, while docilely accepting "his story." This group often intimates that the GM is "god" in the game and replete with special powers and not to be angered. For evidence of this type of thinking, I direct you to RPG.net.
.
.
.
None of these assumptions are universally true. The GM is simply another player with his own particular duties. The rules indicate what those duties are. His role is no more important than anyone elses. He is not god, though some rules sets grant him supernumerary power over rules and players.

It has been my experience that new players entering into the hobby are put off by the cult-like hazing ritual involved in some groups which entails repeatedly having your input shot down by the GM. Ideas rejected and assumptions flaunted until the player accepts the power of the GM. Many new players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaborative storytelling. I have witnessed the disappointment of these players when they find the game is instead a weird patriarchal social group focused on one person's interpretation of the mechanics. I believe that, as the hobby continues to shrink, this is bad for all parties involves. To point to the old original ways and snarl, "But this is how it started and how it will end!" is to miss the point. People are leaving the hobby in droves. Stores are closing, sales are dropping. There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." It is possible for hobbies to die.

I define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

So, I'm curious.

If this is "how it started," but it "is not particularly good for the hobby," then how did the hobby grow for many years, including a constant influx of players from various age groups (don't have a sense about gender)?

It seemes to be a bit of a conundrum to acknowledge that this is the power structure that was in place for many years - essentially from the beginning of the hobby, and certainly during it's explosion of growth in the late 70's early 80's - and then say that it's the same power structure that's now destroying the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are people who like to tinker with the power structure and I'm cool with that - play on.  I'm just lost when it comes to trying to explain this as some response to the decline in the hobby.

Quote from: lukeThanatos,
Nicotine Girls is available for free on the web: http://halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html

I should note that my memories are not always true, eh? >.>
I should change 'bought' to 'save on harddrive for further use'... :downs:

James,
It's only my opinion. I simply submit that the "old ways" have seemed to have ossified and, given the amount of shrinkage, certainly aren't helping.

-L

Quote from: lukeJames,
It's only my opinion. I simply submit that the "old ways" have seemed to have ossified and, given the amount of shrinkage, certainly aren't helping.

-L

You figure it hurts to have multiple ways of DMing/running/playing games? For example, would you say that the old method of DMing is universally bad, or simply that it becomes bad when abused? (Or some other answer, naturally.)

I'm speaking as a DM, myself. But I'm pretty sure I'm not slapping my players with my dick when I'm running it. (Er, metaphorical dick-slapping. I'm *very* sure I'm not slapping in any kind of literal sense.)

Quote from: James J SkachSo, I'm curious.

If this is "how it started," but it "is not particularly good for the hobby," then how did the hobby grow for many years, including a constant influx of players from various age groups (don't have a sense about gender)?

It seemes to be a bit of a conundrum to acknowledge that this is the power structure that was in place for many years - essentially from the beginning of the hobby, and certainly during it's explosion of growth in the late 70's early 80's - and then say that it's the same power structure that's now destroying the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are people who like to tinker with the power structure and I'm cool with that - play on.  I'm just lost when it comes to trying to explain this as some response to the decline in the hobby.

Well, the traditional power structure hasn't changed and remains the most overwhelmingly popular mode of play -- and (because of its ubiquitous popularity), the most successful mode for bringing people into the hobby.

Given the absence of evidence that power structure has anything to do with the growth or shrinkage of the hobby, wouldn't it be just as logical to assume that some other factor (like the proliferation of games with less effective power structures and therefore less effective mechanics) is responsible for any measurable shrinkage?

Could the indie revolution be responsible for driving people away?

I certainly wouldn't make that claim without evidence -- but if I chose to, I'd expect folks who like indie games to take some degree of umbrage...

But then, I'm weird that way, huh?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: lukeNone of these assumptions are universally true. The GM is simply another player with his own particular duties. The rules indicate what those duties are. His role is no more important than anyone elses. He is not god, though some rules sets grant him supernumerary power over rules and players.

Is this part your opinion, or is this a fact?

Quote from: lukeIt has been my experience that new players entering into the hobby are put off by the cult-like hazing ritual involved in some groups which entails repeatedly having your input shot down by the GM.

OK, so this is your experience and, I assume, you have found a group of like-minded (experienced) folks.  Is that a fair picture?

Quote from: lukeMany new players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaborative storytelling.

Is it safe to assume that this is your opinion and not fact; that you have no specific statistical information showing that "many players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaboration storytelling?" If you had to guess, given this is an assumption, what percentage of new players would you think enter the hobby with this thinking? To even extend the direction of thought, what percentage of people do you think were existing players that were not getting the kind of collaborative storytelling they always wanted?

Quote from: lukeI have witnessed the disappointment of these players when they find the game is instead a weird patriarchal social group focused on one person's interpretation of the mechanics.

• Is weird an objective assessment?  I mean, I don't necessarily disagree given your description, but isn't weird and bit...subjective?
• Is the game a weird patriarchal social group, or is the social group a weird patriarchal social group?  If it's the latter, might I suggest Kyle's Cheetoism?
  

Quote from: lukeI believe that, as the hobby continues to shrink, this is bad for all parties involves. To point to the old original ways and snarl, "But this is how it started and how it will end!" is to miss the point.

I've seen a lot of people yell the first part of the conjunction; I've not seen to many people who snarl the second. Do you think if people truly thought the GM power structure was a threat to the hobby, they would continue?

Quote from: lukePeople are leaving the hobby in droves. Stores are closing, sales are dropping. There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." It is possible for hobbies to die.

Is it opinion or fact that all of these assertions, while true, are driven from the "traditional" GM power structure?

Quote from: lukeI define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

I'm not so picky.  I define it as a constant influx of players. But at least we agree on that!