See, this is Mistwell engaging in sucking up. Luke Crane's game was witten about in Forbes, ohmifuckinggod Forbes, so it must obviously have worth and merit. Since Mistwell believes that associating with that which he percieves as having worth and merit will elevate his own social status, he defends the game against all enemies real or imagined.

Good Luck with the social climbing, O White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law. We will be watching, and cheering you on inside of your mind, from afar.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650682Wasn'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?.

Yes.

Well AFAIK.

The skill system, at least, bears this out. You check your skill once (per encounter or "scene" or whatchacallit), that's it. Wich I really like. The rationale given is that if you say have to check stealth/climbing/riding/swimming/etc every 10 rounds, say, or at any rate keep checking said skill throughout an encounter, then the PC will fail sooner or later (well unless the skill is 100% in wich case it's meaningless but y'know).

I like this, and will most likely use it in other systems.

Quote from: One Horse Town;650720Mate, 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.

Yarp. This game is so worthy of getting pointed to,and laughed at.

Quote from: Imperator;650445I disagree.

UA is not trying to imitate Cthulhu, or be a game about Mythos for people who hates the Mythos, or anything like it. It is just a game that uses a solid and well tested engine with a few clever tweaks to do something pretty original. They didn't try to be ironic about shit, or make the "good" version of anything.

Neither Fatbearder, Ramon. The author stated its inspiration for creating the game was capturing the "suffocating" experience he got from his real life exploration of natural caverns, that most games lack or dont focus on in his opinion. This is as valid a goal as any other in my view.

But even if the author goals was to try and "fix" something that in his view was broken, whats the problem with that ? Im a huge Shadowrun fanboy but I pray everyday that someone comes up with a better system that "fixes" it. And even if I loved it 100%, why botter with people trying to adapt its premise to a system of his liking ?

Another example is the Heroquest rpg. Its clearly an attempt at a Glorantha roleplaying game that matches the vision of its creator better than Runequest could. So, yes, we can say its a "fixing" of Glorantha. So its also passive of reprovation or hatred because of that ? I dont think so.

EDIT:

This made me thinking... have you guys wondered what the opinion of Gygax and Arneson would about these "re-imaginings" of their games ? Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Torchbearer, etc ? Perhaps they would feel actually good and honored to see the game they invented being adapted to a multitude of styles and sub-styles, instead of getting pissed off as some people around here do.

Quote from: silva;650727This made me thinking... have you guys wondered what the opinion of Gygax and Arneson would about these "re-imaginings" of their games ? Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Torchbearer, etc ? Perhaps they would feel actually good and honored to see the game they invented being adapted to a multitude of styles and sub-styles, instead of getting pissed off as some people around here do.

Gygax and Arneson would be wondering why this dumb fuck Luke Crane wasn't just playing D&D in the first place.

Did Arneson or Gygax actually writed about/emitted opinions on other rpgs ? Im curious.

Quote from: silva;650727This made me thinking... have you guys wondered what the opinion of Gygax and Arneson would about these "re-imaginings" of their games ? Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Torchbearer, etc ? Perhaps they would feel actually good and honored to see the game they invented being adapted to a multitude of styles and sub-styles, instead of getting pissed off as some people around here do.

How would that affect anything?  Why would their attitudes have anything to do with others' tastes?  They'd probably think the Forgites were full of hot air anyway...because they were grown-ups who understood that these are games.

Anyway, EGG didn't like "amateur thespian" play and there are tons of posts by him on various Q&A threads around the internet where he advocates for "role assumption" over acting in play.

Not too sure Gygax'd hate Torchbearer though. I mean he liked stuff that screwed PCs (especially incautious ones!) over every now and then, I mean see say Tomb of Horrors

Interesting, KenHR. Thanks.

Other thing Im curious about is the design process of D&D - why they chose Dx over DY, or whay they chose "Armor Class", "Levels", etc. Does something like that exists ?

By the way, I would be curious to see something similar for other games too. If you guys know it, please point me to it.

Quote from: jeff37923;650730Gygax and Arneson would be wondering why this dumb fuck Luke Crane wasn't just playing D&D in the first place.

Nonsense; Gygax would be gently attempting to steer the conversation onto the subject of Lejendary Adventures.

Quote from: The Ent;650735Not too sure Gygax'd hate Torchbearer though. I mean he liked stuff that screwed PCs (especially incautious ones!) over every now and then, I mean see say Tomb of Horrors

Still on the "designers notes" point, I remember coming across some link where Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin described some of the "whys" and "hows" of designing Runequest, but I dont remember where it is now. If someone do, let me know.

Quote from: Planet Algol;650738Nonsense; Gygax would be gently attempting to steer the conversation onto the subject of Lejendary Adventures.

LOL True. Along with a pun or two along the way.

Quote from: silva;650736Interesting, KenHR. Thanks.

Other thing Im curious about is the design process of D&D - why they chose Dx over DY, or whay they chose "Armor Class", "Levels", etc. Does something like that exists ?

By the way, I would be curious to see something similar for other games too. If you guys know it, please point me to it.

You might want to look into getting a copy of Playing At the World, which even my most jaded friends have praised; it's on my wishlist at Amazon.  The author's blog (same title) is interesting for historical points like this, as well.

I know there is a paragraph in the PHB about the term "level," where Gygax indicated that alternate terms were proposed.  Monsters have a "rank," classed characters have "order," spells have "power," etc.  But the sheer number of terms was determined to be too cumbersome as opposed to using "level" in multiple senses.

Quote from: silva;650732Did Arneson or Gygax actually writed about/emitted opinions on other rpgs ? Im curious.

What I'm often talking about, that the goal of an RPG isn't to "create a story" or anything like that, that the substance of the game itself isn't a "story", but that the story if there's one is the stuff that you can tell other people at the bar in RL after the game has been played, is actually something that comes from E. Gary Gygax, discussed on two occasions, one time on ENWorld, I'm pretty sure, and the other probably on the LA discussion boards.

I could never find the posts back, but I'm not the only one remembering it (Rich Franks did also, along with the gentle jokes about "thespies" in RPGs), so... yeah.

Quote from: Benoist;650747What I'm often talking about, that the goal of an RPG isn't to "create a story" or anything like that, that the substance of the game itself isn't a "story", but that the story if there's one is the stuff that you can tell other people at the bar in RL after the game has been played, is actually something that comes from E. Gary Gygax, discussed on two occasions, one time on ENWorld, I'm pretty sure, and the other probably on the LA discussion boards.

I could never find the posts back, but I'm not the only one remembering it (Rich Franks did also, along with the gentle jokes about "thespies" in RPGs), so... yeah.

I remember reading those as well, Gygax basically saying "When we called it a role-playing game we didn't mean immersing yourself in a role, but playing your role on the team." Quarterback, artillery, medic. Very much in line with 4e's class roles.