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

That doesn't make any sense.  Creativity can be seen as a kind of problem solving.  All tabletop games are inherently social.  Maybe you're equating Tactical Wargamer with "problem solver" and Improv Actor with "creative"?  Even then I still don't agree.

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.

Let 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.

I can't speak for anyone else... but I'm pretty sure nobody thought story-gamers were any cooler than any other gamer nerds.  With the possible exception of some of the story-gamers.

James, yes. My now defunct 3.x group didn't follow the Build paradigm either. Thing is, that paradigm is hardwired into the 3.x rules as it was not into earlier editions. It comes naturally. You still can play the game against that grain, but that's just it.

On a general note, Ian is actually a Good Man (TM). He just has this thang about D&D... well, and Exalted, which is his saving grace.

Hi, Skatch!

Quote from: James J SkachAlso, 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.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. You did back off, and the discussion's thr richer for you and somegamer's reasoned exchange. My apologies; on review of the thread it seems my brain blended yours and John Morrow's responses into one.(And John, not trying to callyou out, but thanks to this incoherence between me and James I guess I gotta clarify).

But, James. . .

Quote from: James J SkachThe referenced quote from the OP was not the one that mentioned not being able to name a character.

Uh. . .yeah, it, uh. . .actually was. Like this:

Quote from: RPGPunditOften, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.  Hell, many of my players get a bit flustered at having to name their character;

And then:

Quote from: RPGPunditBut think about it: how many of the others have you seen getting totally stuck on the choice of a name for their character?

So there you have it. Though actually, your point is somewhat apt because my post was as much a message to somegamer to be careful not to let the conversation slide along those polarizing and inflammatory lines, as it was to those debating her. And you are right that her first post references "creatively contributing" but again I think that's likely at least partly an artifact of where Pundy drew the initial line ("creating characters").

All in all, I think perhaps my contribution is warped by having to play catchup (you guys are too fast for me! I have a frickin', job, and I'm trying to prepare for actual play!) with the thread,and some of my feelings being slightly outdated by the time I post them. Oh well.

Peace,
-Joel

[Edited because my spacebar isconspiring againstme. Yeah.Like that.]

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJames, yes. My now defunct 3.x group didn't follow the Build paradigm either. Thing is, that paradigm is hardwired into the 3.x rules as it was not into earlier editions. It comes naturally. You still can play the game against that grain, but that's just it.

yeah, I could see saying it's more hardwired than it has been in the past - probably the result/drawback of unified mechanics, IMHO. But I think it is natural if you tend follow the CR/ECL/etc formulas and such, again IMHO.  Yet again, IMHO, if you stick to the core three and don't worry about the suggested formula for encounters you're playing closer to earlier versions than many think...

Quote from: MelinglorHi, Skatch!

Dammit Joel, there's no 't'.

And just to clarify, look at post 25

What I meant was that when somegammer responded, she did not reference the line about not being able to name characters. It might have been the kind of gamer she meant, but it wasn't in the quote she used so it wasn't clear....

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.

Thank you, B. That is quite true. I move we strike the phrase 'player empowerment' from the lexicon.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat I meant was that when somegammer responded, she did not reference the line about not being able to name characters. It might have been the kind of gamer she meant, but it wasn't in the quote she used so it wasn't clear....

I see what you're saying. My perspective (which is admitedly, rather conjectural) was that the "naming characters" remark was coloring the whole issue, which was finally surfacing in later references to it. But I think we're on the same page.

And because I'm tired of making a bajillion posts to the same thread,I'll tack this on:

Quote from: BalbinusAt the risk of quoting a long post with a short comment, good post Joel, I largely agree with your points.

Thanks for the kind words, Max! Your point is also top-notch,as others have been acknowledging.

....

Wait a minute, shouldn't I be telling someone to fuck themselves at this point in the thread? I don't wanna have a breach in protocol. . .

Peace,
-Joel

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.

D&D does not require optimized builds to make the game work.  D&D also does not penalize you for being imaginative in a fight, or even making sub-optimal decisions because that's what your character would do.  You can do all of those things in D&D.  Based on why I read from the character creation section of Burning Empires, if you try to create a character without the requisite plot hooks, the GM should berate you and tell you to go play X-Wing.

Quote from: Ian NobleIt presents one play-style, just as much as numerous story-games.

Actually, it doesn't.  While I don't think it was entirely successful in achieving what it was designed to do, Ryan Dancey rather clearly explained that D&D 3e was designed to work with multiple styles of play.  In fact, that's one of the sources of the complaints about 3.5 making miniatures seem mandatory to many people who would prefer not to use them.

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.

And in my experience, D&D has rarely been like that.  With multiple groups, including one campaign run by one of the authors of Castle Whiterock in a group with only one person I'd ever role-played with before.  Anecdotal evidence varies so much from person to person in this hobby that it's a very weak foundation to build on.

Quote from: MelinglorAlso, the Dogs players do NOT get to declare reality or override your GM background facts.Here's a post from Vincent Baker correcting me in no uncertain terms on whether the players can contradict the facts I've prepared for the town. Short answer: They can't. "The only power the players have to judge or decide anything, anything at all, bindingly, is by having their characters act and then backing it up with dice."

OK, two points:

1: OK, the players roll dice, play the little dice-fighting game, and succeed. Then do they get to change the background facts?

2: This is actually somewhat contradictory to the message in the rulebook - and several AP posts by Baker and by people who've played with Baker - where it's clear that it actually is up to the players to interpret and if necessary make up the dogma of the church on an ad hoc basis. (The next Dogs game I play in I'm totally going to have my initiation conflict be "In initiation I convinced the elders of the faith that it's a-OK for Dogs to summon demons to serve them in the execution of their duty", and then dumping all of my relationship dice into hardcore demons.)

Warthur,

1. The "little dice-fighting game" (which is an analogue to the the "Roll init, now move, now roll to attack" little dice-fighting game) lets you enact the will of your character. "I want to convince the Steward to enforce same-sex marriage." "I want to expose the blacksmith as a Sorceror before the whole assembly." "I want to shoot that lying liar's face off." in other words, "Having their characters act,and then backing it up with dice."

2. The players are free to make any judgments they want--again, through their characters. The special clause is there to say that nobody can judge your character but you. Nobody can say "you can't shoot that lying liar's face off; you're a Dog." Instead,they go: "Whoa. Your Dog just shot his face off. He's a cold mutherfucker." And you go, "A-yup. He's becoming quite the monster for his ideals, isn't he?" (Or conversely, nobody can say you have to shoot him,if you're doing the merciful or conciliatory thing.)

You ARE supposed to make up specific doctrines on the fly, because Vincent didn't want a set of rules that you have to follow to play right. The Faith isn't a strait-jacket on roleplaying. The game does provide a nice overview of what the Faith believes, particularly in terms of social roles, and sin and its supernatural consequences, plus the duty of the Dogs and other officiaries of the Faith. And so you decide what your Dog thinks in her heart is right, and back it up with specific Scriptures that you make up or swipe from the real Bible or whatever. . .just like people of vastly different views do in real life.

If the above looks like stupid or boring or broken shit to you, that's fine. I'm not trying to sell you or anyone on the game here. I just wanted to stick up for what the game actually does,and maybe explain its purpose in doing so.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Melinglor1. The "little dice-fighting game" (which is an analogue to the the "Roll init, now move, now roll to attack" little dice-fighting game) lets you enact the will of your character. "I want to convince the Steward to enforce same-sex marriage." "I want to expose the blacksmith as a Sorceror before the whole assembly." "I want to shoot that lying liar's face off." in other words, "Having their characters act,and then backing it up with dice."

Yes, but:

- If the player succeeds in exposing the blacksmith, the blacksmith is exposed, even if he wasn't actually a sorcerer.
- If the player knew damn well that the blacksmith wasn't a sorcerer, and was exposing him to make a point, that's fair enough.
- But what if the player was genuinely convinced that the blacksmith was a sorcerer? Then, if the player later uncovers evidence of the blacksmith's innocence, how can the player fail to take that as an implicit condemnation of his PC's actions?

The thing is, Joel, I don't see how it's useful to say "The GM is banned from directly saying that a PC's actions were bad by saying `that's not how Lawful Good people act', but he's perfectly free to indirectly say that by using his control of the scenario to make that PC's actions have awful, horrible, life-blighting and unforeseen consequences." If anything, the second scenario is just as bad at the first: it's the equivalent of the GM slapping the PC in the face with the in-game situation and saying "Bad Dog! Look at what you did!" Either you're allowed to do that in Dogs, in which case the injunction against judging the PCs actions is utterly meaningless, or you're not, in which case the PCs are absolutely unassailable and none of their actions can have consequences that they didn't intend.

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.

Exactly -- the interesting question is why co-opt the language?

Why spin shared narrative control as "empowerment?"

I think a lot of the discussion about empowerment is really about trust: a good deal of the indie dialog isn't about better stories (because indie games actually don't give better stories) or higher-quality play.

It's about mitigating the GM role for players who can't, won't, or don't trust the folks they play games with.

Of course putting that way would be fundamentally negative (sometimes people do put it that way -- and they use analogies of abuse or sadomasochism), so it's much prettier to claim that shared models are in some way an empowerment or quality thing.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Exactly -- the interesting question is why co-opt the language?

Why spin shared narrative control as "empowerment?"

I think a lot of the discussion about empowerment is really about trust: a good deal of the indie dialog isn't about better stories (because indie games actually don't give better stories) or higher-quality play.

It's about mitigating the GM role for players who can't, won't, or don't trust the folks they play games with.

Of course putting that way would be fundamentally negative (sometimes people do put it that way -- and they use analogies of abuse or sadomasochism), so it's much prettier to claim that shared models are in some way an empowerment or quality thing.

Cheers,
-E.

In my experience the language gets coopted for two reasons, neither of which incidentally is malevolent in nature:

1.  Crappy play experiences with railroading GMs.

2.  An interest in sharing narrative control that gets frustrated by GMs who think the game should follow their plot.  That latter element is important, as someone who wanted shared narrative control in a player empowered game would realise they weren't getting all they wanted but would likely not have a shitty experience into the bargain.

IMO the whole Forge movement is born of some people having had some truly shitty GMs, nothing more.

Edit:  And you're right on the trust point, a large amount of story game design seems to be about using the rules to address trust issues at the table.  Personally I just play with people I trust, and we therefore don't need all that stuff.