Quote from: Pierce InverarityYes, if it means interacting with the gameworld through the PC's perspective, very much including nonknowledge of upcoming events.

Got it and thanks for answering.

That's' what I thought you meant from you posts here and on rpg.net.

We're one the same page.  Please note my sig.

Quote from: Ian NobleSo you embrace immersion then, right?  Please note, I'm just trying to get where you're coming from, not trying to oppress or label you.

Not that I'm trying to label you...

See?  If you're not into "player empowerment, " you must be one of them there immersion geeks - or worse, one of those simulation weirdos.

Not that I'm trying to label you or anything...

Quote from: Ian NobleYour argument is nonsense.  Something like D&D presents just as coherent (rigid is better description here).

In D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

You're kidding, right?

Your optimized build in combat is only as important as your group decides, and even then it can vary widely.  I've played D&D in plenty of groups that mixed optimized builds with people less focused on cheese...

Comments like this always lead me to wonder what the fuck kind of D&D experience people are having.  With whom are you playing that both min-maxers and role-players can't play in a game together?

Quote from: James J SkachYou're kidding, right?

Your optimized build in combat is only as important as your group decides, and even then it can vary widely.  I've played D&D in plenty of groups that mixed optimized builds with people less focused on cheese...

Comments like this always lead me to wonder what the fuck kind of D&D experience people are having.  With whom are you playing that both min-maxers and role-players can't play in a game together?

Whatever, James.  My experiences with D&D have always been like that.  With multiple groups.  I've never heard anything different from my friends' experiences either.

D&D is just as rigid as most story-games only with a big difference in goals.

Quote from: James J SkachNot that I'm trying to label you or anything...

Thanks!

Alas, I can't say the same for you: you're already labeled in my book.

Player empowerment to me is about letting the players make meaningful decisions about where the game goes.  That could be done entirely in character, or could be done by meta tools, but how you do it isn't the point.

If Kyle is GMing UA and he allows the game to be driven by my action as a player and the other players' actions then we are empowered players.  If on the other hand every time I try to wander from some plot he's cooked up in advance he hits me with a viking hat and shouts "stick to the plot lardboy!" then I at least am not an empowered player, and may well cry as well.

Player empowerment has fuck all to do with whether players have narrative control, and any argument that it does is just someone trying to coopt the language.

Quote from: Ian NobleAnd furthermore, traditional-model games aim for the problem-solver players -- those who had nothing to the mix creatively or socially.

Wow.

Quote from: Ian NobleNo.  Problem-solving is a valid form of play.  I'm not mediocritizing it.  I think those players would have more fun (and do) in World of Warcraft, but that's for another discussion.

Then why is it that so many "traditional" players don't find WoW satisfying? Why would that be?  Could it be because your idea about not adding anything creatively or socially is about as fucked as it can be?

You simply must be a troll.

Quote from: Ian NobleStory-games aim for creatively-inclined and social players.

Yes.  They are so much more creatively inclined and social. :rolleyes:  

Quote from: Ian NobleIt seems as though trad-model players like those that frequent these forums are pissed and angry that their hobby now has let the "cool kids" in.

No, it's that a bunch of people come in with attitudes like somegamer has - and now you have, expressed. Somehow "traditional" gamers are less than the "cool kids" sitting around trying to write a capital-S Story.

I've got no problem with people who want to have alternate levels of "empowerment" when playing; tinkering with the GM structure; focusing on meta-mechanics or aiming for some kind of Deep Question.

But when they do it in such a way that screams "And we're better for it; your way is broken; we are the future!" it requires a response.

Quote from: Ian NobleLet me tell you, from someone who runs a convention now dominated by story-gamers (Strategicon in Los Angeles), these aren't cool kids.  They're just as dorky and foolish and fun and moody as everyone else.  They're just looking for another player style.

Are story-gamers often insufferable?  Oh, god yes.  Just as insufferable as grognards who rules-lawyer.

But denying their play-style and demonizing them says more about trad-model gamers' maturity than story-gamers' attitudes.

Really?  So when my kids are bad, and I take them in hand and explain why they are wrong, it says...what, I'm immature? I think you'll find more people in the forum that don't deny them their play style, and don't demonize them.

Quote from: Ian NobleLive and let live.  

I'm fine with that; just don't tell me "Play and let play; and, by the way, know that if you play your way you are not bringing creativity to the table."

Quote from: Ian NobleFor me, you can take my trad-model, GM-centric games out of my cold, dead hands.  I'll never give them up for GM-less improv acting games.  However, I'm ripping things out of story-games and using them as spice to my trad-model meal; to be sure, it's making my games better!

Good for you.  I hope you have a good time with that.

Quote from: Ian NobleIt's just a matter of finding others of like-mind.

But see, when I asked somegamer why she was here, I get shit from one of the "Story Building Game" proponents.  I'm not trying to be acrimonious, but if it was simple as looking for folks of like mind, and that person was into story gaming, why the fuck would that individual come here, of all places?

And forgiven me if I don't quite get how you can say something like traditional players don't bring creativity to the table, but then claim you're all for traditional games.  I think, perhaps, you're a bit conflicted.  Come back when you understand yourself.

Quote from: MelinglorSorry for the posting blitzkrieg,everyone; I'm catching up on the thread a bit.


So. . .you're fine with constraints that you like, and down on constraints you don't like. Which is, kinda, everyone's feeling on this kind of thing. It's a huge leap from there to "WAR!" But whatever.

I agree that it's a fascinating and underexplored corner of gaming. You tried it, and it worked, and everyone went "cool! this is fun!" Strangely enough, nobody cried out "Away with your pretentious microgame, swine! Give us a real RPG!" Huh. I guess a constrained situation (like where you all play loyalty-divided Samurai on their way to kill a sorceror, or religious gun-toting circuit judges) can make for exciting play if all the players buy into it and pour all their creativity into the game. So if you're looking for that kind of constrained experience, you might check out a game specifically designed to do that well ("OK, tonight you're all the abused minions of a diabolical Master.") or tweak an existing constrained game to serve your needs ("Tonight you're all the terror-stricken slaves of a mad necromantic Pharaoh."),or just roll out a constrained scenario with an existing, more broadly applicable game (as you did with LoSH). They're all good and interesting options--I'd love to play an all-Paladin/Cleric or all-Thief/Assassin game of D&D sometime.

Now,you may not like any of the games I referenced above. You may in fact loathe them. That's fine. I'm just saying that it's the same kind of thing you're talking about (and not new either; Marvel Super-heroes and I presume DC Heroes have supported "Play these characters, in this general situation" gaming for years), even if you hate those particular appllications of the idea. Which is fair enough, really.

I think there's something else going on with this tread,too, slightly related to the above: You set the initial tenor of the discussion in your OP, and people are following that pattern perhaps a little unconsciously. For instance, Somegamer's talking about players not ponying up creative input, and people are like, "Aha! There's that snide assumption that trad players aren't creative!" But the fact is, she's responding to your initial portrait of players who can't even name their character; that seems to be a fair target for "they're not contributing creatively to the game." Hell, that misunderstanding ain't not even your fault, Pundit; I just think the discussion is becoming polarized by a lack of contextual awareness on some folks' parts.

Peace,
-Joel

PS Somegamer: welcome to the site!

At the risk of quoting a long post with a short comment, good post Joel, I largely agree with your points.

Quote from: Ian NobleWhatever, James.  My experiences with D&D have always been like that.  With multiple groups.  I've never heard anything different from my friends' experiences either.

D&D is just as rigid as most story-games only with a big difference in goals.

I'm sorry for you.  Those must be horrible.  If I were you, I would just change over to WoW.  I mean, why go through all the trouble when you could just pay 9.95 a month and bang on your drum all day?

If your assertion is true, how could I have experienced what I have? I'll give you a hint, your assertion is wrong.

Quote from: Ian NobleThanks!

Alas, I can't say the same for you: you're already labeled in my book.

I'll be losing sleep over this tonight.

Quote from: BalbinusPlayer empowerment has fuck all to do with whether players have narrative control, and any argument that it does is just someone trying to coopt the language.

This is truth.

Quote from: MelinglorI think there's something else going on with this tread,too, slightly related to the above: You set the initial tenor of the discussion in your OP, and people are following that pattern perhaps a little unconsciously. For instance, Somegamer's talking about players not ponying up creative input, and people are like, "Aha! There's that snide assumption that trad players aren't creative!" But the fact is, she's responding to your initial portrait of players who can't even name their character; that seems to be a fair target for "they're not contributing creatively to the game." Hell, that misunderstanding ain't not even your fault, Pundit; I just think the discussion is becoming polarized by a lack of contextual awareness on some folks' parts.

Joel,

I'm responding to this because, as far as I can tell, I'm the first one responded to the creativity comments. I want you to know that you made me concerned enough that I went back and read through the thread to see if I had, indeed, made that leap. I would request you do the same. And please pay attention to how the conversation progresses.

I actually try to point out how somegammers statements might be taken wrong. The attempts at clarification become a generalization about traditional players not creatively contributing.  The referenced quote from the OP was not the one that mentioned not being able to name a character. Now perhaps she didn't intend to make this leap, but it was not a leap that I made.

It should also be noted that in her first post (the one that starts out "Sooo...") it's somegamer that sets up the dichotomy.  I didn't make the connection until she made the comment about people being cowed and afraid to contribute.

Also, please note that once somegamer makes the differentiation between "creative contribution" and "player empowerment" I, personally, back off.  Players of all kinds of games contribute creativity in a thousand levels and variations. The idea that "player empowerment" leads to, or facilitates more, creative contribution was something, however, that I felt need to be challenged/clarified.

Unfortunately, Mr. Noble has persisted in this view.

Hope that helps,
Jim

Quote from: Ian NobleIn D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds.  If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

By D&D you mean D&D 3.x here... and maybe late 2E. But you know from Old Geezer's and Calithena's and many other people's posts that that is not nearly the whole story.

I'm playing B/X D&D right now. We generated our PCs by rolling 3d6 in order. My Thief has Dex 14, Int 6, Cha 17. Male bimbo, optimized for fun play but not for combat exactly. My Fighter has Str 13, Int 13, Cha 5. A 5'2" Quasimodo with a warrior soul and a heart of gold. Optimized build? Fuck no!

Gah!  Pierce beat me to it.

I know it's not the popular thing to say to people who really dig D&D 3.x... but in a lot of ways it really is a different game.  

Quote from: Ian NobleIn D&D, if I try to be creative in char design, I'm ignoring optimized builds. If I try to be imaginative in a fight, that's usually meaningless if I ignore my standardized combat feats.

It presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

For 3.x, I can't entirely disagree with this.  For earlier versions, it's not true at all.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBy D&D you mean D&D 3.x here... and maybe late 2E. But you know from Old Geezer's and Calithena's and many other people's posts that that is not nearly the whole story.

I'm playing B/X D&D right now. We generated our PCs by rolling 3d6 in order. My Thief has Dex 14, Int 6, Cha 17. Male bimbo, optimized for fun play but not for combat exactly. My Fighter has Str 13, Int 13, Cha 5. A 5'2" Quasimodo with a warrior soul and a heart of gold. Optimized build? Fuck no!

Pierce,

I would quibble a bit here with the implication.  Particularly because I took my AD&D Cleric and used him, almost verbatim, as the basis for my major 3.5 Living Greyhawk character - and trust me when I tell you he's not optimized. He's certainly more powerful than 3d6 in order, but that's the rules of LG, not D&D.

At the last convention, I played with some guys from Minnesota. To a much greater degree than I, these guys were tactically oriented. Amazingly they did not get upset when I played this less-than-optimal build in a less-than optimal way and, to some extent, caused the death of one of their characters (because I, as a cleric of St Cuthbert, stayed to protect a weaker ward rather than race across to save his Tank).

Which goes to my other point about the rigidity of D&D.  I played at a table with guys from another state that I never met; some played power attack this or spiked chain that while others at the table were..less optimized. This experience should never occur if the theory that D&D is rigidly geared toward  optimization is true.

Thanks,
Jim