That's all well and good, but I only give a shit about the author's design goals insomuch as they jibe with my at-the-table goals.

VectorSigma put it bluntly, but I will elaborate a bit more.

Ray Bradbury once left his class in UCLA after being told by his own student that the book he wrote, Fahrenheit 451, is about censorship and not about technology threatening literature. And while that student was a bit of a dick to argue with the author on the intent of his work, he was right, actually - the book is written in such a manner, that drawing a conclusion that it is about censorship is perfectly legit. In other words, Bradbury should take a stick out of his ass, and if he wanted people to think that Fahrenheit 451 was only about dangers of technology, he should've made that explicit in writing, not in the commentary.

And that is the problem - commentary. When you get a copy of Call of Cthulhu, it oozes a specific mood and theme of the game - you have Sanity mechanic, you have very deadly combat, you have monsters that have attacks like "Tentacle, 100% - kill 1d4 investigators". But do the creators of Call of Cthulhu bother to tell you, that if you use those rules straight - ahead to deliver a dungeon crawling game, you will probably not get a very good mechanic for it?

No, because writers of Call of Cthulhu do not presume they need to "comment" on their game - because commentary is where postmodern shit becomes postmodern art.

If you go on to rant in your work that "You know, you may not have fun if you do not play the game as I intended", then you either are trying to hide bad game design with a commentary, or are afraid that people, Gods forbid, may play your game wrong. If your game is good, it needs no commentary. GMing Advice is a place where you advice how to play your game - but if you try to persuade the player there's only one way to run it properly, then perhaps instead of trying to sell the game, you should just keep it on your own hard drive, as you are apparently the only one who will ever, truly, get it right?

And here's the kicker - if you have fun, you are playing it right. Doesn't matter if you tossed the sex mechanic out, or not. But for the love of Crawling Chaos, don't tell me that all the old school RPGs are good for catstringing, or that if you want to be a real roleplayer you need to have AW, or you will not deliver the true emotions from your players if you are not playing Sorcerer, or if you use Dogs In The Vineyard as a funny mechanic to play Jedis, rather then a setting for creating stories about Fighting Sin, you are playing the game wrong.

Because, I've had people scared shitless when I GMed Call of Cthulhu, and all I needed to achieve that was a bit of imagination, not a mechanic of RPing fear.

And if you want to understand why I utterly despise the pretentiousness of those "geniuses of RPGs" - I think I linked to Foul Ole Ron comparing people who played Sorcerer "wrong" to brain - damaged children earlier in this thread. Happy reading.

In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505142Apocalypse World does have some non-simulationist mechanics, but it's pretty firmly and steadily a traditional game.

We don't actually use words like "simulationist" seriously around here; its a nonsense word from a theory that has now been demonstrably proven false in just about every way. The fact that you do use such a word seriously implies to me that you probably couldn't tell what a regular RPG was if your life depended on it.

Quote(And I say this as someone who pretty virulently argues that there is a rather huge and important distinction between STGs and RPGs that needs to be acknowledged.)

This is particularly true from the player's side of things. On the other side of the screens, AW shakes things up by giving the GM a very specific list of moves. And these moves are the full extent of what the GM does.

Then AW is not an RPG, and this thread doesn't belong in the RPG section.

QuoteThe temptation is to describe this as "constraining" the GM's power, but that's not really it: Baker is instead channeling the GM's power.

No, he really isn't.  Baker despises GMs because he, like most Forge Swine, see them as fucking up the brilliance of the game-designer. How can he trust some sweaty prole to get his genius right?! Its a near-travesty that mere humans should be allowed to play his game at all, unless under his direct supervision, and since he can't do that, he has to instead try to institute rules that castrate GMs.

QuoteIn a day and age where virtually every RPG just assumes that GMs are magically grown on trees, AW's approach of providing the GM with an actual structure for governing play is more than refreshing. It's needed.

No, it really isn't. If anything, the diametric opposite is needed.

This thread is moved to "other games", since it is not discussing an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505181THE greatest irony in all this 'swine' bullshit is that so called story games such as Apocalypse World and Sorcerer actually have LESS emphasis on story than earlier so called traditional games which typically emphasized a MANDATORY story which either HAD to be followed, or couldn't be deviated from regardless of the player's actions. Neither of those two swine games have any scenarios in the form of a mandatory sequence of events or player choices, and at least one has rules specifically to prevent such, yet plenty of traditional games I know did.

That's not "irony", that is intentional based on the Forge Swine's hatred of the White-wolf Swine's methods; rooted in Ron Edwards frankly bizarre definition of what "story" actually is for him.  Now, THERE is an irony: that most Forge Swine, being enamoured with the brilliance of their Dear Leader, don't notice that the type of "story" they're creating isn't really what 90% of the literary world would consider meaningful story.   That's because Ron Edwards is a lunatic who probably thinks that most of the corpus of western literature is "brain damaging" or something.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;506080No, it really isn't. If anything, the diametric opposite is needed.

I agree. What needs to happen isn't to castrate GMs even more and trap them in a structural clusterfuck of rules and procedures right out the gate. What needs to happen is for game designers to remember the game isn't just the sum of its rules, and that pertinent advice included in the rules books, and a vibrant community of game masters helping one another, and of course a lot of personal practice, with all that includes of mistakes thereof, is what makes great GMs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505186IMO the problem of "homo homini lupus est" is more important to post - apocalyptic fiction then "sex is commodity".

Of course it is, to everyone but the "edgy" hipster degenerates at Storygames.  I guess we know what end of the spectrum they'd be falling at in the "are we nothing but animals?" apocalyptic scenario... of course, the fact that most of them despise civilization is nothing new, Vince Baker included.

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;505254To this I really have to say, so fucking what. People around here act like being pretentious is right up there with killing babies or something, but really, it's not, and if someone is pretentious, who cares? When you get right down to it, there's nothing actually horrible about being pretentious, it just means you're kind of annoying. Big deal. You can be pretentious and still be a good writer, artist, or whatever. A significant portion of the best writers and writers in the world are insufferably pretentious. It doesn't mean i'm gonna swear off their work. You can probably even be pretentious and still be a good and decent person.

No, if you were actually good for something and talked yourself up a lot, you'd be arrogant.  See, I'm arrogant.

"Pretentious" is when you're actually worthless, have no talent, are constantly and consistently wrong, have no discernible skills, lack any work ethic to speak of or any desire to improve yourself, and are basically a waste of oxygen, and yet go around making grandiose claims about your own magnificence.  You know, the Swine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;505445Which sounds to me an awful lot like this:

Except of course that when Vince Baker says it, he implies that stupid GMs can't be trusted to effectively do that emulating and must be constrained by the game designer, he actually believes that limiting the power of the GM will make it easier, and not harder, for the GM to realistically emulate the personalities and motivations of characters etc.

Which is of course bullshit. In no way will it create a better GM.  Its like if I told you to write a novel but you couldn't use the letter "e" anywhere in it. Its a stupid exercise who's central purpose becomes obeying the idiotic vision of the person who framed the exercise, and not actually maintaining an effectively emulated world.

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;506079In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

When an author essentially says "you're not allowed to game except in the way I tell you to", it makes logical sense that any normal person would tell him and his games to go fuck themselves.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;506094When an author essentially says "you're not allowed to game except in the way I tell you to", it makes logical sense that any normal person would tell him and his games to go fuck themselves.

RPGPundit

Personally, I am waiting for true Piero Manzoni of Forge, who will perform RPG's equivalent of Merda d'artista and say like he did "You won't call this a game".

And yet, they will.

Still Pundit, I do not think that a move to Other Games is deserving in case of Apocalypse World - it has many principal elements of RPGs, even if they are lost in the tones of pretentiousness. Ironically, by moving it here, you give Baker bullets to his gun - "look what a pretty flower I am, I created an RPG that's not an RPG, I re - invented the wheel, wee - hee!"

Quote from: Benoist;506083I agree. What needs to happen isn't to castrate GMs even more and trap them in a structural clusterfuck of rules and procedures right out the gate. What needs to happen is for game designers to remember the game isn't just the sum of its rules, and that pertinent advice included in the rules books, and a vibrant community of game masters helping one another, and of course a lot of personal practice, with all that includes of mistakes thereof, is what makes great GMs.

As I now took a walk while off shopping, I thought a bit on this, and came up with the following conclusion - the problem is, "indie" RPGs (the TRUE indie RPGs, at least) try to say "You don't need to be a good GM, you need good rules to be a good GM", which is stupid, because it should be other way around - "A good GM will  make the best even of worst of rules". The former will simply not work in  the long run.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506098As I now took a walk while off shopping, I thought a bit on this, and came up with the following conclusion - the problem is, "indie" RPGs (the TRUE indie RPGs, at least) try to say "You don't need to be a good GM, you need good rules to be a good GM", which is stupid, because it should be other way around - "A good GM will  make the best even of worst of rules". The former will simply not work in  the long run.

That's right. Hence, the main issue should be "how can games participate through their design in the formative experiences of decent GMs so they have the opportunity to become Great?", rather than cattering to some imaginary lowest common denominator like is way too often the case now, indie or not.

I'd use a bit simpler words of "Let's make this game work great for anyone who wants to actually try and be great at playing it", but you pretty much stated my mine, Benoist.

Still - this thread belongs to RPG discussion, IMO. Just because something's stupid, doesn't make it less of an RPG, sadly.

Quote from: two_fishes;506079In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

Nah. It's taking crackshots at Vinnie and Foul Ole Ron's luvvies that is just great fun.

Quote from: silva;506059Rincewind and Daddy, Im trying to understand your points here, but I don’t think Im following.

In my case, you're definitely not because I never joined the "Are GM's constrained?" argument, save only by quoting from the text and admonishing those with a position on either side to quote directly from the text when making their claims about what the game is or isn't.

My opinions were solely about the "sex for mechanical bonus" mechanic as a matter of game design. Morality had noting to do with it. And, people may disagree with my opinions, but they were clearly and explicitly stated in this thread:

• Criticism of, suggestions for two better mechanics to replace it.

• Criticism of defense of the mechanic, and a third, even better replacement for it.

• Commentary on how it reduces sex to a banality.

• Why I think the mechanic is skeevy.

• My hopes for your personal game, silva.

(Each is in response to another poster. Read their quote first, to know what I was responding to. Context matters.)

That's it. I made other posts, but they were mostly smacking people for claiming I said things I never did, and claiming I believe things I don't believe.

The above are clear, easily understood, and most of all correct. The trifecta of cogency. Anyone who's slightly curious about my opinion on the "commit sex for a mechanical benefit" mechanic, need only read them for an analysis of the mechanic, why it fails, and 3 better ideas to replace it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506110Still - this thread belongs to RPG discussion, IMO. Just because something's stupid, doesn't make it less of an RPG, sadly.

I agree. A strangely structured RPG, but clearly an RPG. Opinions otherwise border on nuttiness. Moving the thread was an odd decision.

(Wait, isn't now when I'm supposed to get mad? Rage against the dying of freedom on the boards, vent contumely against the person of the Pundit, demand he do exactly what I want or he's just as evil as those other evil bastards on those other evil sites? That sounds like too much work. I decline.)