Quote from: Seanchai;362956It's not always as much fun.

Seanchai

Which is why I would not agree to run or even play in a game that included unrestrained improv on the part of the players.

Random answers and comments

Why are Forgies so obsessed with power? - Bad GMing.

Thanks AM for proving my point nicely that non-IRPGers just don't get what IRPGers are talking about.

My Ron Edwards doesn't bash 4e rant. - Of course he doesn't.  He never really understood Immersion to begin with, as far as he was concerned there were elite Narrative players, knuckle-dragging Gamists, and then the rest of us who were fooling ourselves that we were having fun being de-protagonized by the same bad GM's that once touched him in the bad place.  Now D&D 4e doesn't even know what Immersion is, so Uncle Ron is a happy camper.  :rant:

Ranting and humor aside, I do think there sometimes is some hostility towards those who favor high levels of Immersion in games.  People who had bad GM's or people who simply didn't play in a setting where the GM really brought it to life don't really have a frame of reference to discuss how different an Immersive campaign is compared to one concerned more with Narration or Mechanics.  For them, AD&D wasn't that great.  For Narrative players, bad GM's ruined the experience to the point that they wanted to develop a different paradigm for looking at power relationships in the setting and story.  For Tactical players, each successive ruleset has added, refined, or tightened the gameplay up from earlier versions, so of course for them 4e is worlds better then AD&D.  Add to that the fact that since IRPGers talk about an experience with games that they did not have, it probably seems to NRPGers and TRPGers that IRPGers consider themselves to be playing on a higher level, only by embracing Immersion are you "truly roleplaying" (and there are lots of people out there who probably do think that, which just makes the situation worse.)

Quote from: Peregrin;362946People doubted?  I thought it was common knowledge that some of the designers on 4e liked using theory as a basis, even if they reject some parts of it.

Mike Mearls was originally supposed to help found the 'Hephaestus Forge' with Edwards and another fellow before he was pulled away to "work on a revision of D&D."  He's defended theory personally on RPGnet in the past -- back in 2004 I think, and said he and the other designers had talked about it in relation to D&D, even when 3.x was still going strong.  Edwards also endorses 4e as a gamist engine, and I haven't heard him speak an ill word of it unlike older editions of D&D.

Not that I mind, since 4e exists in limbo for me, ever attracting and repelling me at the same time, but I can see where it could bug other people.

Mearls was never involved with the Forge. he was involved with the Gaming Outpost (which was a website similar to this one). Other notable people who hung out at the Gaming Outpost: Jared Sorenson, Gareth Michael Skarka (every once in a while) and Gareth Hanrahan (mongoose Traveller amongst other things).

That particular group at the Gaming Outpost was really focused on self publishing free rpgs and stuff.

The forge was founded in the year 2000. It was Ed Healy & Ron Edwards. Ed Healy left that project (and later went into the military, and now he's back), Clinton Nixon stepped in to help renew the domain name after it had been up for a year. But left it sometime in 2006 07 or something.  

Mearls was never really involved in the forge. By 2000 he actually had a real job writing for Feng Shui (Elevator to the Underworld, which I found out has a co-author that also hangs out at this very site, who I won't name..) By the time D20 third party hit, he was self publishing and also freelancing a lot. Firey Dragon, Fantasy Flight, Atlas Games, you name it.  

You can go back and look at the forge archives and see the things they were talking about all the way back to the beginning. Most of it is still there as far as I can tell.

Quote from: CRKrueger;362966Random answers and comments

Why are Forgies so obsessed with power? - Bad GMing.

Thanks AM for proving my point nicely that non-IRPGers just don't get what IRPGers are talking about.

Actually I get it just fine, I just think it can be taken to an extreme and that can be off-putting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;362966Ranting and humor aside, I do think there sometimes is some hostility towards those who favor high levels of Immersion in games.  People who had bad GM's or people who simply didn't play in a setting where the GM really brought it to life don't really have a frame of reference to discuss how different an Immersive campaign is compared to one concerned more with Narration or Mechanics.  For them, AD&D wasn't that great.  For Narrative players, bad GM's ruined the experience to the point that they wanted to develop a different paradigm for looking at power relationships in the setting and story.  For Tactical players, each successive ruleset has added, refined, or tightened the gameplay up from earlier versions, so of course for them 4e is worlds better then AD&D.  Add to that the fact that since IRPGers talk about an experience with games that they did not have, it probably seems to NRPGers and TRPGers that IRPGers consider themselves to be playing on a higher level, only by embracing Immersion are you "truly roleplaying" (and there are lots of people out there who probably do think that, which just makes the situation worse.)

I'm disagreeing here. My own experience tells me that there are people who are obsessed about the perfection of the model of the game rather than interested in the act of actually playing it (which involves social skills, collaboration, compromise, etc), and those people are not worth dealing with. Theyre hung up on bullshit, and 90% of the time they don't play that often anyway. Their needs, wants, and desires can safely be discounted.

Quote from: two_fishes;362889The short answer is that I like being able to contribute to the fiction this way and I find games where players are allowed this are more fun.

The longer answer is that I think this is an interesting question and a question worth asking. When a bunch of players get together to play and rpg, they're all friends and equals. None of them is more special than any other. One player is selected (or self-selects) to be the GM and given a special authority over the fiction because that serves play, and makes a better game. The other kinds of players get a different level of authority over the fiction for the same reason. I think it's worth it to experiment with the limits of player authority, to try new things and see what works and what doesn't. Any limits to any players' control over the fiction should be  accompanied by good reasons for those limits--the limits should be for the purpose of making a better, more enjoyable game. So when CRKRueger says he prefers those limits because it improves his immersion, that's something I can accept. But simply saying, "No, you can't do that because I'm the GM and I say so," is a very unsatisfying answer for me. Going on to punish my character (and by extension punishing me as a player) by associating the character with sheep-fuckers not just unsatisfying, but downright insulting.

I agree with you in pretty much everything you say here, and I'd also add that I would not have reacted in the same manner as CRKrueger put forth. However, I am choosing to disregard the specific manner of his hypothetical reaction and will admit that I would have reacted the same in spirit to his example. I would not be supportive of such a contribution in-game unless the group as a whole had discussed and agreed to this sort of in-game break with the rules before play had begun, or more likely before the campaign had even been kicked-off. In counterpoint to your approach to limits I would say that in games I prefer, I would need good reasons for removing the limits on player control over the fiction before I'd agree to play, although I do see nothing inherently wrong with experimenting as you describe. I guess I'm just more cautious about allowing the time I have to game devoted to such experimentation.

QuoteA GM willing to negotiating with the player about added elements to the fiction is totally cool. Being told that it's important that the group is currently out of favour would be interesting and fun. If I introduced something like that and you said, "Okay they don't exist, make a bluff check." I could go with that, too, and maybe initiate a conversation about it after the game. That sort of contribution is not always welcome, and bringing it in unbidden could be considered rude. But being told okay but they're actually sheep-fuckers is an insult, a complete perversion of player intent. For that I might stop the game and say, Hey, what the fuck?

I see nothing wrong with your response here and agree that a more diplomatic solution than "perverting" the player's contribution would most likely be more appropriate and better received.

I still maintain that in the context of the DnD rules this a poor example of how these elements might be experimented with.

What about those of us who enjoy both immersive and nar play?  I see pros and cons to each, and I find it fairly easy to "switch modes" during play if need be, just as I could when playing 3e with miniatures.  You'd have your IC dialogue and character interactions, and then you'd put on your captain's hat and engage the game tactically once you had an encounter.

Also, didn't Edwards take back some of his hostility towards sim play?  I'm pretty sure he wrote an essay in defense of it, and concluded that it was his fault he didn't seem to "get it."  Just sayin'.

*edit*

Dunno AM, I never said he was 'involved' per se, but in a recent interview with The Walking Eye podcast, Edwards said that Mearls was one of the original people with him and Healy to push the idea of the Forge before 2000, but that Mearls stepped away before anything moved beyond talking.

Quote from: Peregrin;362974What about those of us who enjoy both immersive and nar play?  I see pros and cons to each, and I find it fairly easy to "switch modes" during play if need be, just as I could when playing 3e with miniatures.  You'd have your IC dialogue and character interactions, and then you'd put on your captain's hat and engage the game tactically once you had an encounter.

Well, that's exactly what happens in 4th Edition D&D too.

As far as Edwards hostility towards "simulationism", I have no idea. My impression of him (Ron) is that he really cared about one thing and one thing only, and that was marketing his own game. The use of an easily manipulated collective to do the marketing for him was it's own phenomenon.

Quote from: Peregrin;362974Dunno AM, I never said he was 'involved' per se, but in a recent interview with The Walking Eye podcast, Edwards said that Mearls was one of the original people with him and Healy to push the idea of the Forge before 2000, but that Mearls stepped away before anything moved beyond talking.

Well that was because of the huge self-publishing boom that was going on at Gaming Outpost. Mearls was a regular at the Gaming Outpost- he was just one of the regular posters just like you and I are talking right now; he didn't work for an RPG company or publish anything. He had just graduated Dartmouth and was living in NYC. But the vibe was much closer to the Free Rpgs blog than the forge. Back then at GO.. any original RPG design or content was cool, there was no D20 movement yet.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362975Well, that's exactly what happens in 4th Edition D&D too.

Not saying it doesn't, just using 3e as a reference point where immersion didn't seem to be the be-all-end-all before the Forge "got to our game."

QuoteAs far as Edwards hostility towards "simulationism", I have no idea. My impression of him (Ron) is that he really cared about one thing and one thing only, and that was marketing his own game. The use of an easily manipulated collective to do the marketing for him was it's own phenomenon.

He failed pretty miserably then, seeing as most of the younger designers from and associated with that collective are more successful than he is.

Quote from: Peregrin;362978He failed pretty miserably then, seeing as most of the younger designers from and associated with that collective are more successful than he is.

I think so too. And you'll also notice the most successful are the least beholden to his theories.

Quote from: Sigmund;362965Which is why I would not agree to run or even play in a game that included unrestrained improv on the part of the players.

Do you think random events, rules, or traditional GMing styles always lead to fun? If you say no, why haven't you stopped using those?

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362975As far as Edwards hostility towards "simulationism", I have no idea. My impression of him (Ron) is that he really cared about one thing and one thing only, and that was marketing his own game. The use of an easily manipulated collective to do the marketing for him was it's own phenomenon.

Thanks, that's quite an interesting take I hadn't seen before.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;362976Well that was because of the huge self-publishing boom that was going on at Gaming Outpost. Mearls was a regular at the Gaming Outpost- he was just one of the regular posters just like you and I are talking right now; he didn't work for an RPG company or publish anything. He had just graduated Dartmouth and was living in NYC. But the vibe was much closer to the Free Rpgs blog than the forge. Back then at GO.. any original RPG design or content was cool, there was no D20 movement yet.

In late summer 2008 Mearls gave an impressively frank and sincere Q&A on his designer bio at a con. Here's what I recall (wish I could link it, it was live, never broadcasted, but got transcripted as these things always get thanks to the internet - I never bookmarked it and google didn't help me). After graduating from Dartmouth he went into e-business and was working his ass off, to the point of utterly depressing him. His disillusionment pretty much coincided with the dot com bubble bursting. Mearls moved back home to live with his mother. He started to write RPG stuff for d20 like crazy. AM already mentioned the companies. We all knew what happened over the next years. As summed up by Erik Mona in 2007,

QuoteI like and respect Mike Mearls. He is a product of the d20 license and the OGL, and was really the first "from out of nowhere" freelancer to arise from the minor leagues, establish a reputation for himself on the internet, and graduate to the lofty RPG R&D department at Wizards of the Coast. It's exactly where he belongs, and Mike would probably have been the first person I'd have contacted were I in charge of redesigning D&D.

I mention the above trivia because
1. Mearls' occupation with dot com explains his temporary leave from things related to RPG around 2000, and may explain what is referenced as Edwards saying 'Mearls left before things were taking off'.
2. I'm personally impressed by people who are that frank about the things they went through to get where they are.

Quote from: Windjammer;3630132. I'm personally impressed by people who are that frank about the things they went through to get where they are.

The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.

Quote from: Aos;363014The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.

Let's have them, then!

PS. Here's another Mearls interview where he relates the Gaming Open experience ca. 1998. It's also one of the best ever interviews on 4E's design. Just 2 minutes in I remembered listening to this when it came out in 2008. Wow. Really great moments.

Quote from: Aos;363014The pundit has great stories to share about the years he spent as a rent boy.

So that's why he's afraid of zucchini!

Seanchai