Quote from: The Traveller;650586Now what we're seeing is the release of purely standard issue RPGs under the banner of shared narrative gaming, as more and more of their community come to realise that the point of playing games is fun and shared narrative games aren't fun.

Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.

To say otherwise strays into that "brain damage" zone where fans of other games somehow must be defective for enjoying those games. I get wanting different names for Traditional RPGs vs. Narrative RPGs, but I can't get aboard denigrating people for their choice of fun.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650588Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.

Amen!

And it is perfectly possible to enjoy both type of games.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650588Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.

To say otherwise strays into that "brain damage" zone where fans of other games somehow must be defective for enjoying those games. I get wanting different names for Traditional RPGs vs. Narrative RPGs, but I can't get aboard denigrating people for their choice of fun.

A better way to put it might be to say that they weren't designed with fun aforethought. The whole hilarious cul de sac started out with foul ol ron trying to figure out a way to game without roleplaying, or without engaging that human part of his brain which delights in RPing. Most of the elaborations ever since have been attempts to codify this concept. If people have fun while doing that, why not I guess. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

Quote from: The Butcher;6505702e is best for setting information,

Which is, honestly, what I'm looking for, right now. Setting information, and different approaches to fantasy gaming.

Even something like "a dungeoncrawl is a lot like a shadowrun mission" (if true) would have helped.

On that note...

Quote from: The Butcher;650570And regarding methods, I once started a thread on the subject (more specifically, about megadungeons), and there was plenty of good advice all around,

I tried to read the individual post you linked too, and though undoubtedly full of great advice, it's dense with "here's how you implement the idea", but not why it's appealing. It's "How to Make a Stereo in Your Garage", not "The Beauties of Modern Jazz". What to do, not why to do it.

But, I'll go back and read the thread from the beginning. If I have any questions, I'll ask.

Again, thanks.

Quote from: The Butcher;650572It's the constant standing assumption of bad faith, the enduring conviction that every time someone asks about dungeon-crawling it's an open declaration of war on all that is good and holy about RPGs.

So, I tripped over this assumption?: "Ask about dungeoncrawling = undercover SA Goon, tolling for quotes for Grognards.txt."

That may be a good assumption for newbs, who instantly begin to provoke and denigrate (while pretending to be asking a question), but not for someone who's been here for over a year, launched his own mega-thread excoriating storygames, who has a firm record of 1200 posts of sincere discussion, disagreement, and agreement, and whose anti-Ron post has been sigged by a long-time board member.

If that's someone you respond to as if they were an SA Goon sockpuppet, you really need to dial the defensiveness back. You can justify it however you want, but attacking people for asking a question is never a good idea.

(And the whole "if you were sincere, you'd already know" meme is, frankly, fucking bizarre.)

Quote from: The Traveller;650591A better way to put it might be to say that they weren't designed with fun aforethought. The whole hilarious cul de sac started out with foul ol ron trying to figure out a way to game without roleplaying, or without engaging that human part of his brain which delights in RPing. Most of the elaborations ever since have been attempts to codify this concept. If people have fun while doing that, why not I guess. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

People did find simming fun, long before the Forge.

Simming existed long before Ron, he just ran in that direction (ignorantly, without knowing what simming was) out of a loathing for roleplaying. (He genuinely thought people hated playing in character, as he did.)

Simmers who used RPG mechanics even existed before Ron. He just tried to port that idea back into the RPG community, and convert all RPG's into sim-games. It was foolish, wrongheaded, and he used a lot of intellectually dishonest rhetoric and tactics to do so.

In other words, I think your declaration is false on its face — people do enjoy simming, and have for a long while now. Those same people enjoyed sim/RPG hybrids.

But RPG's are not sim-games, and never were, and never can be.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650599In other words, I think your declaration is false on its face — people do enjoy simming, and have for a long while now. Those same people enjoyed sim/RPG hybrids.

I'm not talking about sim games, but rather about shared narrative games. They don't make for good literary collaboration tools, they don't make for good RPGs, they possibly make for good sim games, but if you wanted that you'd just play a sim game.

I think we're pretty much on the same page however.

Quote from: The Traveller;650591A better way to put it might be to say that they weren't designed with fun aforethought. The whole hilarious cul de sac started out with foul ol ron trying to figure out a way to game without roleplaying, or without engaging that human part of his brain which delights in RPing. Most of the elaborations ever since have been attempts to codify this concept. If people have fun while doing that, why not I guess. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

I am pretty sure YOU are the one that lost sight of the bigger picture.  The bigger picture is not the original intent of the designers of those games.  The bigger picture is "Are people having fun playing the games?" That's the big picture dude, not the small one.  It's a game, not a movement or a cause, just a fucking game. The small picture is dwelling on author names and imagined or real intents...most people truly could not give a shit about those things, and if you left author names off those games most players would never notice, nor could they give a damn for some intent concerning RPGs.

At the point where you are more concerned with who the author is, and what their intent might be, more than whether or not people are having fun playing those games, then you've lost sight of the bigger picture.  For players, the point of the game is to have fun playing the game.  If it accomplishes that goal, not much else matters, no matter how butthurt you are about the author and their intent.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650588Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.

Is anyone actually disputing this point? I hate those sorts of games, but I know people who really enjoy them. Anyone who thinks narrative games aren't "fun" doesn't have to play them. It's like sitting down at the poker table in Caesars Palace and bitching about the idiots wasting their time playing craps. And not even playing poker. That's probably the worst part about it: most of the vocal "outrage" against narrative games is from people who don't even play rpgs anymore. Their hobby is simply complaining about the Balkanization of rpgs. Weak.

Quote from: Brad;650673Is anyone actually disputing this point? I hate those sorts of games, but I know people who really enjoy them. Anyone who thinks narrative games aren't "fun" doesn't have to play them. It's like sitting down at the poker table in Caesars Palace and bitching about the idiots wasting their time playing craps. And not even playing poker. That's probably the worst part about it: most of the vocal "outrage" against narrative games are from people who don't even play rpgs anymore. Their hobby is simply complaining about the Balkanization of rpgs. Weak.

If you were playing RPGs, you wouldn't have time to type that.

And it's not Baklanizations of RPGs, it's pretending to be a part of a country while really trying to carve your own there. Something that may be better served if they'd have the courage and just sail to their own colony - something that some of Storygames seem to do, at the very least.

Quote from: The Butcher;650572:rolleyes: right back at ya.

It's the constant standing assumption of bad faith, the enduring conviction that every time someone asks about dungeon-crawling it's an open declaration of war on all that is good and holy about RPGs. That's where these threads lose me.

Also, it's not "their" lawn, or mine, for that matter. Old school D&D and its retro-clones, are out there for anyone who wants to reach out and make them their own. However, the cultural reference frame that made these games so mind-numbingly obvious and awesomely popular back in the day, has shifted; and people (myself included) often need someone to point out that the "wacky" parts are not wacky at all, but intentionally and carefully engineered pieces of game design.

I understand that everyone's tired of sparring with people arguing in bad faith, but I don't really see the point of having a community if we're going to circle the wagons every time someone asks about the play style that seems to be most popular with forum goers here.

I call :rolleyes: and raise you :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Don't put me into the conflict I care nothing about, because I never defended the sanctity of dungeons as portrayed by D&D. I don't even like dungeons that much - they are fun, sure, but not the pinnacle of RPG design by any means. My gripe isn't about OSR or dungeons. It is about the dissonance between storygames and RPGs, and the attempt to sell rap records labelled as heavy metal, so to speak. I like some storygames (well, alright, one - Fiasco). And yes, I don't find that just a tempest in a teapot, because as I said, the dissociation between expectations learned from playing those games and assuming they are RPGs, is much greater than even dissociation between Sandboxers and Heavy Plot gamers. There's also another problem there - the criteria to judge the usefulness/quality of an RPG are becoming useless, if we pretend storygames are RPGs. Because the usual criteria of an RPG are how well the system handles what it tries to emulate, a thin balance between too high abstraction, balance of character's usefulness and too little verisimilitude. Storygames have usually a perfect balance, but at a cost of complete abstraction.


Traveller - I agree with most. Except the "crap" part.  That's the matter of taste. I'd rather put it that way - they deserve their branch. But their branch isn't our branch.

Quote from: Mistwell;650666I am pretty sure YOU are the one that lost sight of the bigger picture.  The bigger picture is not the original intent of the designers of those games.  The bigger picture is "Are people having fun playing the games?" That's the big picture dude, not the small one.  It's a game, not a movement or a cause, just a fucking game. The small picture is dwelling on author names and imagined or real intents...most people truly could not give a shit about those things, and if you left author names off those games most players would never notice, nor could they give a damn for some intent concerning RPGs.

At the point where you are more concerned with who the author is, and what their intent might be, more than whether or not people are having fun playing those games, then you've lost sight of the bigger picture.  For players, the point of the game is to have fun playing the game.  If it accomplishes that goal, not much else matters, no matter how butthurt you are about the author and their intent.

Actually he is right for the most part. The whole "shtick" of Crane and Forge in general, was built around the notions of "evil GMs" for the most part. Wasn't Burning Wheel originally marketed as a "system where there will be no GM sadist"? Or a system built around the experience of playing with a bad GM?

This whole behaviour is one of a leech. You need those who do badly in the hobby, to fuel your own products, by pretending they are a solution.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650682If you were playing RPGs, you wouldn't have time to type that.

True, but I'm in fact playing a narrative-based game where I type out messageboard posts.

Quote from: Brad;650685True, but I'm in fact playing a narrative-based game where I type out messageboard posts.

Good one .

Mistwell, White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650682Actually he is right for the most part. The whole "shtick" of Crane and Forge in general, was built around the notions of "evil GMs" for the most part. Wasn't Burning Wheel originally marketed as a "system where there will be no GM sadist"? Or a system built around the experience of playing with a bad GM?

This whole behaviour is one of a leech. You need those who do badly in the hobby, to fuel your own products, by pretending they are a solution.

Way to entirely miss the point dude.  I was responding to the question of "What is the big picture here?"

It does not matter what the intent of the author is, in the big picture.  Who cares if you or he is correct, if people are having fun playing those games? Why is author intent more important to you than whether or not people enjoy playing those games, when talking about the issue of the big picture?

It's just a game.  If people like playing them, then cool.  We can debate the minutia, but let's not lose sight of the real big picture here - that people enjoy playing them, and that's a good thing. It's good that gamers enjoy playing games, and if those are the types of games some people like to play, then it's good they have those games out there to play.  That's the most important issue - though admittedly it's far less sexy a topic for discussion on a message board that author intent and that sort of stuff.

Quote from: jeff37923;650707Mistwell, White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law.

The position of "If some gamers enjoy playing those types of games, that's a good thing and the big picture" is not a vile position that is lacking support.  It's the majority position.

If you're butthurt that people enjoy playing a type of game that you do not enjoy, that's your issue, and you're the one defending the indefensible.  I don't know why you feel the need to white knight old school D&D players, tilting at some imagined threat from author's intent behind storygames, but old school D&D people do not need your protection - particularly when you're a Taveller player to begin with with littler interest in old school D&D anyway.  They will have fun playing their games just fine, without you bravely sticking up for them against some relatively obscure storygame author's perceived intent.

Quote from: Mistwell;650666It's a game, not a movement or a cause, just a fucking game.

Mate, these types of game were most certainly part of a movement or cause when they first started coming out of the Forge.

The missionaries were on every forum in the land. It was the main reason for this board being set up.

Now, there's a Mexican standoff and in most corners a live and let live attitude.

The fact that the blurb for this game touches on phrases that have long been used to disparage traditional gaming by these douches, shows that some of these 'whiter than white, what war?' types are loading up their muskets and giving us both barrels.