Quote from: soviet;652282This is the thing though, there isn't a clear distinction between storygames and not, because it's a (very blurry!) spectrum. Even on this site people are split as to whether Dungeon World is a storygame or not

I don't think so. The last DW thread was moved to this forum by the Pundit for reasons best known to himself, but I doubt there's any confusion over what it is among those who don't care who was involved in its production.

It's easy to distinguish a shared narrative game from an RPG. There are three main tells, although they are basically the same thing:

1. A lack of surprise and hence a lack of adventure. When the narrative is discussed beforehand springing things on the players is impossible.

2. Control of the setting beyond what a character would reasonably have, if you find yourself as a player arbitrarily inventing an elf army which swings to your rescue, you're playing a shared narrative game. Connected to this is the dissociation from your character that emerges from being able to control and manipulate any number of entities within the game structure - this is why shared narrative games are closer to wargames or boardgames than RPGs.

3. RPGs are being there in a way that engages the imagination beyond the lizard brain. When I play a game I am there, and this is the conundrum that broke ron's mind, the purity of engagement which he was unwilling or unable to comprehend, leading to him calling people like me, people like the members of this forum and others "brain damaged".

If a game doesn't check one or more of these boxes, odds are it isn't a shared narrative game.

Then we add into the mix what appear to be genuinely fucked up individuals like Luke Crane who aren't able to maintain intellectual integrity for the span of a single sentence while raining abuse on their perceived enemies like a drunken bum and we have the shambles that is the shared narrative community, in short.

Quote from: soviet;652282and this very thread took 555 posts before the mods decided that Torchbearer was a storygame.

They may have had other reasons for leaving it in the main forum for a while, just something to consider.

Quote from: Haffrung;652259I'm actually more of a boardgamer than an RPG player. I was one of the first couple hundred members of Boardgamegeek. I'm well acquainted with a lot of the long-standing pundits and reviewers of hobby boardgames. I've played and rated hundreds of boardgames, and participated actively in boardgame forums for 15 years.

And I don't think I've come across a single boardgamer who wants RPGs to be more like boardgames. Or has complained because RPGs don't have tight enough rules, or are vulnerable to DM tyranny. Boardgamers understand that RPGs are a completely different kind of game, that enable a completely different kind of experience at the table. So why is it so hard for some RPG designers to understand the difference?

I'll say it again: a complex RPG designed to adopt the mechanics of a modern boardgame is just a really shitty boardgame. If you're ignoring the principle innovations in modern boardgame design - elegance, brevity, tempo of choice, transparency - you're missing the entire point. Even the competitive angle misses the mark - among adventure boardgames cooperatives are the dominant mode of play.

If there was any evidence that Crane genuinely understands boardgame design, his efforts to design an RPG on the same principles might have some value as a curiosity - an amusing exercise in theorywank. As it stands, it's clear enough that he doesn't understand the appeal of RPGs or boardgames.

I think even if this kind of evidence was provided, people would probably disregard it anyway. WotC have proven they are more than capable to straddle both arenas but still get blasted for 'bad design'.

I'm also more of a board/card game player but on the flipside, Luke's rant makes more sense to me. Perhaps this is a dialectical issue? I don't know.

Quote from: K Peterson;652245I'd think that this guy would have a lot more success designing boardgames, because his design ethos is firmly planted in that style of game. Instead, he's intent on emasculating the role of GM... to level the playing field?? So that everyone abides by the laws of the fatbeard game designer who simply knows better?

Basically.  Stuff like this...

Quote from: LukeFatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby.

Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."

...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.

If you accept his premise that the traditional GM role is one of a megalomaniacal power-trip, then there's some key thoughts that naturally come from that premise.
1. People who enjoy traditional gaming must enjoy being the abused in a dysfunctional power relationship (Ron Edwards "Brain Damage" comment).

2. Games must not allow traditional GM roles, therefore they must have definite structure to curtail the GM as much as the players. (Cult of the Designer, Cult of RAW).

3. Storygaming.  If there is no GM who plays the entire rest of the world with authority, then how do you actually determine the outcomes of things for which there is no hard mechanical rule?  Conflict Resolution instead of Task Resolution, Shared Narration Metagame vs. in-character immersion.

They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;652319They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.

I don't think so. Even the most nightmarish game would be hard pressed to accept someone like crane as GM. I think it's more about unbelievably bad GMs convincing people that their way is normal.

Quote from: CRKrueger;652319Basically.  Stuff like this...
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.

If you accept his premise that the traditional GM role is one of a megalomaniacal power-trip, then there's some key thoughts that naturally come from that premise.
1. People who enjoy traditional gaming must enjoy being the abused in a dysfunctional power relationship (Ron Edwards "Brain Damage" comment).

2. Games must not allow traditional GM roles, therefore they must have definite structure to curtail the GM as much as the players. (Cult of the Designer, Cult of RAW).

3. Storygaming.  If there is no GM who plays the entire rest of the world with authority, then how do you actually determine the outcomes of things for which there is no hard mechanical rule?  Conflict Resolution instead of Task Resolution, Shared Narration Metagame vs. in-character immersion.

They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.

I'd also add here, that the whole GNS/Treefold was often criticised (and rightfully so, in my opinion), because what Foul Ole Ron was really doing there, was trying to show that Narrativism is the superior way. As part of trying to redefine RPGs to storygames, of course.

Quote from: CRKrueger;652319Basically.  Stuff like this...
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.
.

The whole "macho patriarchal power trip" thing was definitely quite odd. Don't really know much about Luke Crane, but I see this sort of mindset elsewhere (almost entirley on the internet) and I don't get it. I mean if someone wants to play games where the GMs authority is more evenly distributed i have no objection, but I don't get the insistance that people who want a more traditional GM role are somehow on a perverted power trip or just want players to suffer. It is the assumption about our motives or goals that drives me a bit nuts.

I've bumped into the occassional bad GM, but usually knew right away this wasn't someone I'd want to game with past a single session. And when a Good GM makes a questionable call, you either move on or raise and objection and move on....it isn't a game shattering event anymore than a ref call at a sporting event.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;652231Luke Crane on game design, from right here on this very forum.


Originally Posted by luke  
Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house? "Here, in my house, the knight doesn't move in an L pattern. He moves how and when I say he moves."

Rules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior. I understand that you yourself are too dumb to understand this, but I think this concept is self-evident to most people: You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.

When you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."

You and Pundit and company have a complex about the "power of the GM" and how he's special and he has more power than any other player in an RPG. You go on and on about swine, but this is the most swinish behavior of all in gaming.

RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.

I'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.

This isn't about play style. This isn't about preference. Don't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."

Eh??
So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
Can we have a link to that thead?

Quote from: CRKrueger;652319Basically.  Stuff like this...
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.

If you accept his premise that the traditional GM role is one of a megalomaniacal power-trip, then there's some key thoughts that naturally come from that premise.
1. People who enjoy traditional gaming must enjoy being the abused in a dysfunctional power relationship (Ron Edwards "Brain Damage" comment).

2. Games must not allow traditional GM roles, therefore they must have definite structure to curtail the GM as much as the players. (Cult of the Designer, Cult of RAW).

3. Storygaming.  If there is no GM who plays the entire rest of the world with authority, then how do you actually determine the outcomes of things for which there is no hard mechanical rule?  Conflict Resolution instead of Task Resolution, Shared Narration Metagame vs. in-character immersion.

They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Quote from: xech;652327Eh??
So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
Can we have a link to that thead?

Clicking the little arrow next to the name of the person quoted, on top of the quote (as you can see next to your name in the quote I made of you in this post above), sends you to the original comment.

In this particular instance (Luke's), here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=291849#post291849

Quote from: xech;652327Eh??
So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
Can we have a link to that thead?

Sure.

Quote from: xech;652327So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?

What about it?

Quote from: jeff37923;652162See, all of this is your desperate attempt to weasel out of the fact that you have been trying to White Knight for Torchbearer because...

This is a recurring problem with you.  For whatever reason, you suck at following the flow of a message board thread.  That, or you love strawmans.  Either way, if you look back, none of this that you're replying to here was in response to Torchbearer.  This part was specifically about Burning Wheel.  Now, I know you want it to be about Torchbearer, I know that makes your non-responsive responses seem more rational to others who might not have bothered to read the whole thread, but that's not what happened here.  Someone made a comment about Burning Wheel, I responded, and now you're pretending I am white knighting Torchbearer - which frankly had nothing at all to to with my comment.

Quoteyou believe that any fucked up game that gets a mention in Forbes or MTV.com is on in which you want to be associated. Tell us more about your desire to be one of the cool kids.

Again, we're not even talking about that game, and I have never mentioned Forbes or MTV.  Nice strawman.

QuoteI, as especially demonstrated by my behavior, do not give a fuck about what other people think. If they are being stupid, then I will call it out. Just like I am calling you out on your pathetic attempt to insinuate yourself into whatever group you believe will most help your social climbing.

Come on, tell us more about how you wish to hump Luke Crane's leg in appreciation for his genius.

I've never said anything positive about Crane.  I've certainly never called him a genius.  I did not even know who he was before this thread.  AND ANYONE WHO EVEN VAGUELY FOLLOWED THIS THREAD KNOWS THAT.  So which is it Jeff, are you a liar, or just horrible at reading comprehension?

Would you two kiss already?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652325The whole "macho patriarchal power trip" thing was definitely quite odd. Don't really know much about Luke Crane, but I see this sort of mindset elsewhere (almost entirley on the internet) and I don't get it. I mean if someone wants to play games where the GMs authority is more evenly distributed i have no objection, but I don't get the insistance that people who want a more traditional GM role are somehow on a perverted power trip or just want players to suffer. It is the assumption about our motives or goals that drives me a bit nuts.

I've bumped into the occassional bad GM, but usually knew right away this wasn't someone I'd want to game with past a single session. And when a Good GM makes a questionable call, you either move on or raise and objection and move on....it isn't a game shattering event anymore than a ref call at a sporting event.

Such is also my opinion on the matter. There's also a whole bizarre approach that viking hat GM = NO DISSENT AT THE TABLE.

I once, and quite recently, got into a nearly half an hour long argument about law and whether or not you could threaten to commit someone to a mental hospital because they refuse to be examined by a doctor. In the end, we've reached a stalemate, but I've also conceded that this may be a valid threat. It's not perhaps the most heartwarming tale, but after that, we just went on with the game. I'm a human. I can make mistakes when I GM. I may get knuckleheaded, I may think you're wrong, but we can just...talk about that.

Somewhat ironically, lately I've been mostly seeing those "story - orientated" GMs use the "I'm the GM I'm right" argument more than I do.

Quote from: Rincewind1;652349Would you two kiss already?



Such is also my opinion on the matter. There's also a whole bizarre approach that viking hat GM = NO DISSENT AT THE TABLE.

I once, and quite recently, got into a nearly half an hour long argument about law and whether or not you could threaten to commit someone to a mental hospital because they refuse to be examined by a doctor. In the end, we've reached a stalemate, but I've also conceded that this may be a valid threat. It's not perhaps the most heartwarming tale, but after that, we just went on with the game. I'm a human. I can make mistakes when I GM. I may get knuckleheaded, I may think you're wrong, but we can just...talk about that.

Somewhat ironically, lately I've been mostly seeing those "story - orientated" GMs use the "I'm the GM I'm right" argument more than I do.

My approach has always been to hear players out and even seek their input when I don't know something (i.e., if a player knows about something in real life and its relevant to a judgment I have to make, I will pick his brain before deciding). I am also okay admitting when I made bad call. I am far from a perfect GM, but have never ever had complaints from players about this kind of stuff.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;652345What about it?

Video game rpgs are popular. So rpgs are popular. But video games are limited as of "I took an arrow in the knee".

Individual GMs give players the possibility to travel to places, meet persons and beasts that video game rpgs cant. How is that? Because individual GMs, depending on players' actions, are designing the game on the spot, aided by a proper ruleset to help them organize the task (of course players are communicated with those rules, understand and accept them and thus reason and communicate their actions upon them). Rules are there to help GMs organize their game and not as something to play -in contrast to video games where rules are already designed and given to players to follow and play them rules out -or should I say "commands" instead of "rules" if I were to use the right terminology. This is what "rulings over rules" means and it is in total contrast with what Luke were saying over there.

I believe that Luke thinks of rpgs as if they were boardgames which is not something right, at all.