Quote from: Tyberious Funk...via your arse :rolleyes:

Ain't that the point?  Where does my argument falter, though?  I'd love to see someone disagree with more than, "You're wrong, stupid and FAT!  FUCKHEAD!"

Seriously, shit or get off the pot folks.

Quote from: droogI don't like German boys, anyway.

Well, who does?

To my knowledge, I have no Germans in my ancestry. Which is good, because otherwise it wouldn't be as much fun to laugh at Settembrini.

Quote from: joewolzAin't that the point? Where does my argument falter, though? I'd love to see someone disagree with more than, "You're wrong, stupid and FAT! FUCKHEAD!"

I don't know. What's your argument?

Quote from: joewolzAin't that the point? Where does my argument falter, though? I'd love to see someone disagree with more than, "You're wrong, stupid and FAT! FUCKHEAD!"

I agree with Kyle.  I'm not really sure what your argument actually is.  Particularly...
 

QuoteSeriously, shit or get off the pot folks.

... that part.

Quote from: joewolzI believe I said they effected current designs.  No, the denial of them effecting your design is an effect.  It's a conscious decision to deny their influence, which is de facto influence.

You know, I've heard this before.

Did you once post this, specifically in regards to D&D 3e (it was -relatively- new at the time), and suggest that anyone who denied their favorite game, if designed after a given year I can't recall, was Forge-influenced was either "wrong, or your favorite game sucks"? Or was it someone from the Irrelevant Papacy, as I suspect? A tiny part of me thinks it was Vincent's blog, but I'm not willing to get libelous just yet.

I'm not trying to take a shot at you. That's Grade-A read it on the Forge first material, and I'm wondering how either a) you wind up parroting it or b) you were the guy who actually spewed it out first.

And I'd suggest this bold an assertion brings with it the burden of proof. Show me the explicit Forge influence - not something already extant they put a capitalized word on, but one of their genuinely new ideas - used in the design of Wild Talents.

Quote from: Christmas ApeYou know, I've heard this before.

Did you once post this, specifically in regards to D&D 3e (it was -relatively- new at the time), and suggest that anyone who denied their favorite game, if designed after a given year I can't recall, was Forge-influenced was either "wrong, or your favorite game sucks"? Or was it someone from the Irrelevant Papacy, as I suspect? A tiny part of me thinks it was Vincent's blog, but I'm not willing to get libelous just yet.

I'm not trying to take a shot at you. That's Grade-A read it on the Forge first material, and I'm wondering how either a) you wind up parroting it or b) you were the guy who actually spewed it out first.

And I'd suggest this bold an assertion brings with it the burden of proof. Show me the explicit Forge influence - not something already extant they put a capitalized word on, but one of their genuinely new ideas - used in the design of Wild Talents.

What hes saying is that you would have to be completely ignorant of the Forge and its ideas to make a game that is 100% not influenced by the Forge.

A decition not to follow the design tenets of the Forge is a design decition. Thus, the Forge has influenced the design of a game where such a decition has been made.

I think arguing that the Forge is influencing design across the entire landscape based on this logical oddity is highly pedantic, but technically its true from a purely logical perspective.
By the same logic, D&D 3.x, the World of Darkness and GURPS are all heavily influencing every single roleplaying game being made.

"Nothing is Over - till we say it is!"

 "Was it over when the Zhodani bombed Betazed ? "



 "Huh?   Was it??"

NO!


"NOw Lets get Going !!!"



 (pulls out a sword and yells ...running out of the room...)

So is it wrong to like GNS?  Cause from what I've gleaned of it it's a pretty accurate means of describing players if not games.

Two of mine I'd definitely label as Gamist - they want to maximise the use of the rules in order to "win".  Which can be a problem because I veer more towards Narrativist style play.  I'd rather things happen - good and bad - as long as it made for a cool game/story(whatever).  None of us are Simulationist and I couldn't handle that style of play because trying to model reality on an rpg's ruleset...shudder.

Arguing against or for a game based on its perceived Forgeyness or lack of is like complaning that your ice cream was neopolitan, not strawberry, chocolate and vanilla.

Quote from: StumpydaveSo is it wrong to like GNS?  Cause from what I've gleaned of it it's a pretty accurate means of describing players if not games.

Two of mine I'd definitely label as Gamist - they want to maximise the use of the rules in order to "win".  Which can be a problem because I veer more towards Narrativist style play.  I'd rather things happen - good and bad - as long as it made for a cool game/story(whatever).  None of us are Simulationist and I couldn't handle that style of play because trying to model reality on an rpg's ruleset...shudder.

I'd say the problem with your definition/use of GNS is the labels.  Did you need the terms Gamist, Narrativist,and Simulationist to understand how you group plays? I have to say, your description of Narrativist differs from my understanding of it, so are you sure you're Narrativist?

It's sill things like this, and the explicit/implicit claims of the superiority of certain goals and styles that make GNS dodgy, IHMO.  Is that to say that people have gleaned useful information and understanding from GNS?  I would never tell someone they can't use whatever tool they want to improve their own situation.  It's taking that idea and trying to extend it to some universal truth or objective assertion about gaming that tends, I think, to cause problems.

Quote from: StumpydaveArguing against or for a game based on its perceived Forgeyness or lack of is like complaning that your ice cream was neopolitan, not strawberry, chocolate and vanilla.

No, it's a little more like someone saying "There are three kinds of ice cream, Brown, White, and Pink. The three ice creams all have different tastes.  It is an objective truth that consumption of all three ice creams together leads to Incoherent Consumption.  Therefore, the best ice cream are those that can only be consumed individually, or Coherent Consumption; that is, Brown, White, or Pink. And, btw, Pink is really the purpose of ice cream, so it's really the only important kind of ice cream.

Oh yeah, one more thing.  There were some ice creams that came out and told everyone they were Pink.  In fact, they were White. Now everyone who consumed White after being told it was Pink, have Brain Damage and can no longer consume Pink properly."

Henceforth, this will be known as the Neopolitan Theory.

Quote from: James J SkachNo, it's a little more like someone saying "There are three kinds of ice cream, Brown, White, and Pink. The three ice creams all have different tastes.  It is an objective truth that consumption of all three ice creams together leads to Incoherent Consumption.  Therefore, the best ice cream are those that can only be consumed individually, or Coherent Consumption; that is, Brown, White, or Pink. And, btw, Pink is really the purpose of ice cream, so it's really the only important kind of ice cream.

Oh yeah, one more thing.  There were some ice creams that came out and told everyone they were Pink.  In fact, they were White. Now everyone who consumed White after being told it was Pink, have Brain Damage and can no longer consume Pink properly."

Epic win. Thread over.

Quote from: Christmas ApeDid you once post this, specifically in regards to D&D 3e (it was -relatively- new at the time), and suggest that anyone who denied their favorite game, if designed after a given year I can't recall, was Forge-influenced was either "wrong, or your favorite game sucks"?

That was Clinton R. Nixon. I remember it well. It's even the exact statement I was alluding to when I posted about things I've heard from Ron & Clinton.

Quote from: James J SkachNo, it's a little more like someone saying "There are three kinds of ice cream, Brown, White, and Pink. The three ice creams all have different tastes.  It is an objective truth that consumption of all three ice creams together leads to Incoherent Consumption.  Therefore, the best ice cream are those that can only be consumed individually, or Coherent Consumption; that is, Brown, White, or Pink. And, btw, Pink is really the purpose of ice cream, so it's really the only important kind of ice cream.

Indeed.

To me, John Kim's threefold came along and spelled out the different flavors of ice cream, and pointed out that different people like different ice cream, and if you share a half gallon of ice cream with your friends, you should pick out one everyone likes.

But the above is where the more extreme brands of forge rhetoric go off the track.

I declare that the war over threads about the war(TM) is over. It is apparent that those who care so little that they can't even summon the effort to not care at all about the war(TM) are in the majority. We, who care very little because we can't effort to not care at all about the war(TM), must now move from the phony war stage to the head scratching in disbelief portion of the conflict.

It is of the utmost importance that we be baffled and surprised by this maladroit roshambo, lest more get infected by the devastatingly inane rhetoric and begin to contribute our own admittedly brilliant, but useless musings.

Never Forget this Thread,
Let Our Foes meet the Thunders of Our Collective Nontyping!

Quote from: StumpydaveNone of us are Simulationist and I couldn't handle that style of play because trying to model reality on an rpg's ruleset...shudder.

As usual, the laity don't really understand the doctrine of their religion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs usual, the laity don't really understand the doctrine of their religion.

Then THEY didn't explain themselves very well, or worse, changed the meanings of words in order to depict something else entirely which is their own damned fault.

To my understanding - Gamist - those who approach rpgs as a game.  With a competitive focus and a desire to not lose.  Typical d&d stuff, boost your stats, kill the monster.
Narrativist - those whose approach is to tell a story either about their character, or to make sure they drive the story that forms out of the game through their actions.  Typical Vampire/Larp type.
Simulationist - those people who wish to experience their game in the most realistic manner possible.  Hence lots of rules, for everything.  I'd suggest any early, non fantasy, game as their cup of tea.


If thats wrong then its wrong.  But if so I announce my own GMS theory.
TADAA!