I have gamed with Forge fans and a couple Forge game designers at conventions and never did any of them talk about non-immersion or immersion as a bad thing.

If anything, the storygamers I have known believe they are getting more immersed into the character and the setting via narrative RPGs and their "creative agenda" designs. I don't get it, but they certainly do.

Most of the "PC as game pawn" attitude I have seen is among 3e & Pathfinder players where the character was just a build and the adventure was just a grind for XP to increase their builds.

RPGs have one real problem: a lack of marketing. Everything else is beyond unimportant for the health of the hobby. Having Ron Edwards spend $10M in advertising would be far better for D&D and every other RPG compared to the current near zero advertising situation where WotC and Paizo just living off the corpse of the hobby.

Yeah, the idea that Warhammer 3rd was created based on influence from the Forge is so false its not funny.

Quote from: TristramEvans;622494Yeah, the idea that Warhammer 3rd was created based on influence from the Forge is so false its not funny.

Actually, the fact that the designer Jay Little is quite a believer in Edward's philosophies has been gone over here before both by me and Dan, who's dealt with the man.  We can do this a third time if you really, really feel the need to...

As far as to what degree that influenced WFRP3, we've pretty much established not only do you not play it RAW, but you argue anything chopped out for the purposes of focusing on narrative structure from the standpoint of Oberoni Fallacy.

But then again, according to you, firing a bow, and then determining whether I...
1. Hit, but had to somehow move into danger.
2. Hit, but now used ammo.
3. Hit, but for less damage.
Is somehow a choice the character can make and it's not a metagame one.

Let me guess, because your GM actually keeps track of ammo that makes DW not a narrative game, right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;622502Actually, the fact that the designer Jay Little is quite a believer in Edward's philosophies has been gone over here before both by me and Dan, who's dealt with the man.  

Yep.

To this day, he's the only industry pro I've dealt with who has mentioned GNS and Edwards by name.

Although i couldn't give a shit about the 40k game, it's also worth mentioning that the (past, i dunno whether he's still there) lead designer for the 40k line is a big fan of Maid. I recall, though have no link, that he and Andy K were joking about a 40k/Maid mash-up.

Quote from: CRKrueger;622502Actually, the fact that the designer Jay Little is quite a believer in Edward's philosophies has been gone over here before both by me and Dan, who's dealt with the man.  We can do this a third time if you really, really feel the need to...

As far as to what degree that influenced WFRP3, we've pretty much established not only do you not play it RAW, but you argue anything chopped out for the purposes of focusing on narrative structure from the standpoint of Oberoni Fallacy.

But then again, according to you, firing a bow, and then determining whether I...
1. Hit, but had to somehow move into danger.
2. Hit, but now used ammo.
3. Hit, but for less damage.
Is somehow a choice the character can make and it's not a metagame one.

Let me guess, because your GM actually keeps track of ammo that makes DW not a narrative game, right?

Your post is so confused I don't even know where to start, to the point that you forget what game you're talking about by the end of it.

If what you were saying was 100% true Jasyn, we wouldn't have had the gross missteps of D&D4 or WFRP3 to begin with.  Yes, the "Pure Edwards" part of the equation, namely that simulationism doesn't exist, isn't pushed by anyone actively except Edwards for a time.  Instead, the memetic war does it for them.  

If Hybrid games become indistinguishable from RPGs then people will consider Hybrids to be RPGs and non-hybrid RPGs can be replaced.  "We've always been at war with Oceania."  That's the power of intentional or unintentional memetic clash.

The RPG consumer needs to know 0% of this for it to happen.  All that needs to happen is for the designers or the moneymen to buy in and it's done.

D&D4e is the D&D Edwards would have made.  G/n/
What would have happened if the OGL and WotC incompetency hadn't allowed Pathfinder to kill 4e?  Who knows?  But I'm glad it did.  The OGL allowed a true meme competition for D&D and while Spinach is right, a lot of 3ers and PFers don't even really RP, that's fine, because D&D has always been about the OPTION.  The problem with OOC mechanics is that it forces one OOC.
Older style D&D through PF and the OSR won the meme clash at least against the meme as expressed in 4e.  If someone was actually trying to wage a memetic war where would they go next? :hmm:

The OSR.  Narrative games are "old school" because you talk instead of roll dice like 3e.  Dungeon World has Dungeon in it, it's OSR.  It's not that the OSR grew in popularity because it was a total backlash against the ForgeD&D, nah, it's all that crazy wargaming stuff 4e had.  Basically the new evolution is to jettison extreme Gamism, jettison obviously Storygame frameworks and construct simple mechanics (ie "old school") that nonetheless are from the OOC viewpoint and thus not based in roleplaying.  Again, a dishonest attempt at assimilation, not an open clash of ideas, except at places like here.

OSR is real popular so let's mimic the OSR style but keep the games narrative-based and sell it as the same thing.

Could there be lots of reasons having nothing to do with a conscious attempt at Idea War?  Sure.  However, just look at...

• The design movement that still today embraces "System Matters" makes no attempt to advertise System when marketing products.
• Key memetic words - immersion, role-playing, old-school, are constantly and consistently under attack.  The language of the debate itself is trying to be re-framed.
• The logical flow of fronts, waves, movements, whatever you want to call them.  

First - The largest licensed IPs, D&D, Warhammer, Middle Earth, Marvel, Star Wars.
Next - The non-narrative indie movement OSR.
[/LIST]

It looks, walks, quacks like a duck, someone needs to give me some shred of evidence it's an elephant, especially when the whole thing started with a duck.

Quote from: TristramEvans;622509Your post is so confused I don't even know where to start, to the point that you forget what game you're talking about by the end of it.

Since the last part is based on a post a couple days ago, somehow I think you got it.  Let me break it down though.

You said Dungeon World wasn't narrative at all, just like you said WFRP3 wasn't narrative or Forgie at all.  As I posted and not a single person yet has even attempted to refute, I can't even fire a bow in DW without being forced OOC by the mechanics.

I suggested to you, since your GM says he hates Storygames, particularly AW, the father of DW, that maybe he's not running the game RAW (we know, from earlier threads, you guys don't run WFRP3 Raw either, which probably explains why you don't think that's very narrative either).  If you ignore the narrative elements, and toss in your own roleplaying elements, kind of hard to judge the game on what's actually there, eh?

Since you're supposedly reading DW for yourself, maybe you just haven't gotten to the basic moves yet, if that's the case, then just let me know what you think of Volley when you get to it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;622507Yep.

To this day, he's the only industry pro I've dealt with who has mentioned GNS and Edwards by name.

That's one thing people forget, the true father of narrative gaming isn't Edwards.  You'd have to give that distinction to Robin Laws.  Robin is the mainstream guy that everyone talks about and says what their stuff is really about.  Edwards, however, is the extremist on the fringe, who very few actually mention because they know he's not popular, but very few actually denounce, because while the brain damage stuff didn't go over too well with the public, coherence was very influential.

Quote from: CRKrueger;622521coherence was very influential.

Only in circles that were more concerned with what other people thought about their gaming.

Successful games, as we know, are capable of being played in many ways by people who are grown up enough to take what they want from a game and run with it.

Narrow focus = narrow gaming.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621380but no one is forcing you to buy Technoir any more than they are forcing you to buy MHR or Runquest 6e or D&D Next. You can tell from reading a game review or mooching through the rule book in a shop or an online pdf whether you like it or not.

And yet now we have storygamers trying to market many of their games as being part of the OSR, in spite of these games not being RPGs, much less having any mechanical resemblance to D&D or any other old-school game.

So they may not be "forcing" someone to buy their games but they're doing their absolute damn hardest to TRICK people into buying their games.

And in the process, they're engaging historical revisionism where they try to claim that the Forge has always loved old-school games and were responsible for the OSR's success (which is about on par in absurdity as if the Republican party tried to claim now that they had always been instrumental protagonists for gay rights).  So again, they're not literally forcing people (only because they can't), but they're quite willing to LIE to people, trick them, and coerce them by changing language and co-opting existing games, which are all standard strategies employed by the storygames movement.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;622522Successful games, as we know, are capable of being played in many ways by people who are grown up enough to take what they want from a game and run with it.

I'd one up on that and just say I believe that's precisely what makes them successful in the first place. The most successful games provide some structures of play, a way to apprehend the game play itself through its core concepts (e.g. dungeon structure, wilderness structure, investigation structure, sandbox network structure, mission structure, etc.), but they don't close themselves on it exclusively so that pretty much all sorts of gamers can get what they want out of the game's premise and rules.

Also, Krueger's posts are stellar.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580WFRP1 is an RPG, but it has one mechanic that allows me to cheat death, Fate points.  I can spend a Fate point to say "No, I don't die." and then the GM figures out what happened to me.  Definitely a narrative mechanic even though WFRP1 is not a storygame.

And preceded by many years by Fame and Fortune points in Top Secret.

Interesting that these sorts of things make their earliest appearances in espionage games.

Quote from: Spinachcat;621666This forum, for all its utter fucked-up-ness, is a paragon of civility and virtue compared to any random Yahoo article's comment section.

Suck a bag of cocks, you fucking mangina.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474I know no roleplayer who believes that roleplaying is impossible. Primarily because it's so damn insane to claim that.

I recently had a conversation with posters at Big Purple who insisted that 'roleplaying' doesn't apply to roleplaying as well as 'narration' does.

True story, bro.

Quote from: CRKrueger;622519If what you were saying was 100% true Jasyn, we wouldn't have had the gross missteps of D&D4 or WFRP3 to begin with.

? This sentence makes no sense to me.

What I'm saying: GNS had an influence. It can be seen (in part) in the current fad for Narrativist mechanics, designers who see no difference between storygames and RPG's, and attempts to produce coherent "Gamist" RPG's like 4e.

These three are currently the biggest threats to roleplaying.

That's what I said. How does it contradict your sentence at any point?

(I went on to say that most roleplayers aren't even aware of the GNS or Edwards, they're affected by the games that get produced. A wise proponent of classic roleplaying would start influencing the conversation with and between designers, to make the virtues of roleplaying clear, to popularize the word "simming", and to explain why classic roleplayers find narrative control mechanics intrusive and off-putting.)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;622538I recently had a conversation with posters at Big Purple who insisted that 'roleplaying' doesn't apply to roleplaying as well as 'narration' does.

True story, bro.

You're contradicting something I never said, by taking that single sentence out of context, ignoring what I said in the rest of that post, the post before, and the post after. So no, what you describe doesn't surprise me, because it exactly matches what I said.

Which was (following post):

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622477On the Internet, among people who are not average roleplayers (and not even the majority of Internet posters). Most roleplayers never get near these discussions, and have no idea what the GNS is.

Same post:

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474Honestly? No. Not among most roleplayers.

The notions of "creative agenda" and the like are utterly foreign to most roleplayers. Only those promulgating GNS, and those opposing it, have been so unlucky as to have read those words.

Prior post:

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622462That is one of the lies they pushed, but I don't see anyone outside of the hardcore Forgists accepting or promulgating that.

You had to ignore what I said in three subsequent posts to make your point.

You're contradicting something I never said.

@Jasyn

I keep seeing you use the word simming, and I can't catch the exact meaning you have from the context. Is there a post where you explain what you are defining and/or could you explain it for me.

Makes it hard to understand the point entirely when a term isn't popularized, and as you said, you want it popularized, so a definition would be cool if you don't mind.