I don't see how having sex to gain free commodities that are magically created by Narrative Need is helping emulation or immersion.

Also two_fish - if you do the art of selective quoting, you can quote the rest of the thread as well .

Quote from: RPGPundit;380828Well, not exactly; the thing is in the Swiney games, they like stuff like "relationship mapping", but all in the context of creating the story centered around the characters; there is an assumed kind of reactiveness going on, maybe in the better cases with a bit of retroactive activity in relation to the characters.

Emulation is when the GM envisions in his head, as things are actually going on, what other NPCs are doing and getting into as individuals without relation to the PCs, and is often not just not particularly prioritizing to the idea of "generating story" but can be downright detrimental to "story creation" as a goal since it removes a great deal of exposition from the audience (that is, the players).

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;505445Except I never said genre emulation. That's something you're adding. There are plenty of elements in AW that don't fit neatly into the post-apoc genre, like the psychic maelstrom. What I said was:



Which sounds to me an awful lot like this:

The um, fuck wasn't for you BTW.

You're right, but i'm saying it.

If you want emulation, then genre is in the top 2 things you should consider.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505449The um, fuck wasn't for you BTW.

You're right, but i'm saying it.

If you want emulation, then genre is in the top 2 things you should consider.

Well I was only making a point that I'm not some Captain Purist that will burn the sin of SEX in gaming with hot scolding iron and bonfires.

But mechanics of sex? Wasn't  that book of erotic adventures of w/e it was called ridiculed for just that stuff? And yet it becomes touch of genius when it's not a supplement for DnD.

better:
http://www.dungeon-world.com/

Quote from: BWA;505447For those of you objecting to the inclusion of these particular rules, have you read or played the game?

Read the goddamn thread. I directly quoted parts of the text. And repeatedly cite character classes and concepts from the game itself.

Had you read the goddamn thread, that might have suggested an answer to your question. Indeed, obviated the need for such a jerktastic query in the first place.

"Well have you read it", implies an obligation to read the game before criticizing it. It also places an obligation on you to read the goddamn thread before blindly asserting a deep insight regarding other's thoughts, objections, and motivations.

Quote from: BWA;505447It's hard to believe that the fact that it's SEX is completely irrelevant.

It's "hard to believe" because you didn't read the goddamn thread to find out what people's real objections were. Believe it or not, they're there.

Quote from: BWA;505447Because I think context matters.

Then read the goddamn thread. That's the context for this discussion.

Reading the goddamn thread is preferable to jumping in the middle of the discussion with no idea of what people are talking about, then trotting out your own idle speculations about what they might be thinking.

You don't have to guess why I disagree. I wrote it out explicitly, in the rest of the goddamn thread.

Which, BTW, you should read.

tl;dr: You didn't read the goddamn thread. You need to.

QuoteWhich, BTW, you should read.

I disagree, were it not for my knuckleheadness, I'd also escape this futile conflict.

Quote from: two_fishes;505445Except I never said genre emulation.

Except you did, in your very first post:

Quote from: two_fishes;505033The sex moves, for all the heat they got, made relationships in the game feel like a commodity, worth more for the resources they provided than for any human comfort, which is again fitting to the genre.

"Fitting to the genre" means they belong in the genre. Hence, they aid genre emulation.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505459Except you did, in your very first post:



"Fitting to the genre" means they belong in the genre. Hence, they aid genre emulation.

I stand corrected - and also with arms crossed.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505426That's all very nice, but my argument was based on two_fishes statement that the game fitted what he called the site's definition of emulation.

As an emulation of genre, i say it fails miserably.

Like much of the author's work, it seems to be titillation dressed in meaningful clothes. Something i know that you've decried in the past.

I've decried rape and dehumanizing acts getting called out in the rules, and I still wont touch Poisond.  I don't think AW is anywhere near that, though.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505434In fact, let's take a quick look at the better works of the genre. I probably miss a fair bit of what I read/saw, but I am darn tired.

"Hey, dudes! I found a fantasy book without any dragons in it! I think it's totally inappropriate for D&D to have dragons! They clearly don't belong in fantasy!"

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505436So pointless, that all the game's defenders repeatedly stress how it's easily ignored, only invoked for the mechanical benefits, and other "it really has nothing to do with the game" caveats.

"If you don't like dragons, just don't use 'em. There are lots of other things you can do in the game besides fight dragons."

"Well, obviously dragons are so pointless that even the game's defenders repeatedly stress how easy it is to ignore them. Obviously dragons were only included for the mechanical benefits of those who like killing reptiles. Fucking swine."

Quote from: Rincewind1;505316The greatest trick someone call pull is to take the freedom of choice away, then persuade you you never needed it.  

"Holy shit, dude! Did you see this? In OD&D Gygax told the GM he has to make a wandering monster check every turn! He's trying to trick us into giving up all our freedom of choice!"

QuoteThen again, if I do not understand indie RPGs and play them "wrong", I am apparently damaged like child that suffered from sexual harassment.

"Some guy on the internet who has nothing to do with D&D said stupid things! This must mean that D&D is a terrible game!"

Quote from: Rincewind1;505378Except that AW is one of the many members of the Cult of RAW that plague the storygames.

"Hey! D&D claims that PCs should never be allowed to kill dragons! That's bullshit!"

"Actually... the rulebooks seem to spend a lot of time talking about PCs killing dragons."

"Well, you have to read between the lines. D&D is one of the many members of the Cult of Auto-Killing PCs that plague roleplaying games."

Quote from: Rincewind1;505425Boardwalk Empire is all about fade to black...

Which, notably, is exactly how the sex mechanics in AW treat it.

Aw, crap. This is going to turn into another one of those threads where you pretend that a game manual mentioning sex is equivalent to a graphical description of sexual acts, isn't it?

I'm beginning to think that you should be seeing a therapist about this sexual hang-ups you've got.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505489

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505436So pointless, that all the game's defenders repeatedly stress how it's easily ignored, only invoked for the mechanical benefits, and other "it really has nothing to do with the game" caveats.

"Well, obviously dragons are so pointless that even the game's defenders repeatedly stress how easy it is to ignore them. Obviously dragons were only included for the mechanical benefits of those who like killing reptiles. Fucking swine."

In an attempt to disprove my statement you substantively misrepresent it. I never called anyone swine. Nor did I claim anything about Vincent's motives ("only included for"). So, you're full of garbage on those points.

Stripped of those irrelevancies, a plain English restatement of your sarcastic faux-analogy would reveal just how foolish it is. So let's do that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505489"If you don't like dragons, just don't use 'em. There are lots of other things you can do in the game besides fight dragons."

So, your faux-analogy, made up quotes are is based on the notion that "Sex moves are to AW as dragons are to Dungeons and Dragons". In this quote, the "correct quote", you claim that dragons are entirely optional. Which means the sex mechanics are entirely optional.

Which is exactly what I said. Yet, I'm wrong to have done so.

Your entire refutation of my statement, therefore is this: "The 'have sex to gain a bonus' mechanic is optional. And people pointing this out are wrong to say so. (Even though they're factually correct.)"

That's some real good argumentation there, Lou.

And to make it, you only had to cherry pick one specific sentence from the many posts I made. And ignore the context of that sentence. And then just make some shit up (aka "strawman fallacy").

Seriously, you couldn't find a single other thing I said that you could attempt to disprove? I've listed numerous reasons the mechanic was boring, suggested 3 separate mechanics which would have been better, and pointed out how even people like you say the mechanic is irrelevant to the game.

And you couldn't really disagree with any of that? Couldn't argue against any of it? This was the best you could do?

Man, when you're reduced to just making shit up to try and win an argument, you should stop and rethink the whole thing.

(Pre-emptive strike: "Now you're 'making shit up' and 'misrepresenting' what I said." Then next time, speak your argument in plain English. Because this faux-analogy, false quote schtick takes some cleverness. And, on this subject, you're not as clever as you think.)

Finally, the basis of your entire response to Rincewind and I is to claim that sex moves are to AW, as dragons are to a game called Dungeons and Dragons? Really? (And yet, they're also entirely optional?)

Dude, how did you not know you were screwed coming out of the gate? It's a colossal mistake to even attempt that argument.

Next time you rant against Rincewind, leave me out of it. And next time you try and argue against something I said, try not to rely so much on bad analogies and spurious claims about what I said.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505518So, your faux-analogy, made up quotes are is based on the notion that "Sex moves are to AW as dragons are to Dungeons and Dragons". In this quote, the "correct quote", you claim that dragons are entirely optional. Which means the sex mechanics are entirely optional.

Which is exactly what I said. Yet, I'm wrong to have done so.

You seem to have forgotten the part where you attempted to draw fallacious conclusions from your false-and-unspoken premise that "anything in a game that isn't mandatory must be there for prurient interests".

You also seem to be laboring under the impression that I'm taking anything you or Rincewind say seriously. But you've already proven that you're firmly entrenched in your ignorance and stupidity. Why on earth would I (or anybody else) take you illiterate buffoons seriously?

QuoteFinally, the basis of your entire response to Rincewind and I is to claim that sex moves are to AW, as dragons are to a game called Dungeons and Dragons? Really? (And yet, they're also entirely optional?)

Your unspoken premise here that "every session of D&D ever played has included a dragon" is also pretty hilarious, BTW.

I am still waiting for you to answer me Justin about those mystical energies of GMs that you somehow channel.

Say, is there an order of evil GMs that almost hunted down every GM that was capable of channelling those energies? Is there a dashing smuggler of RPGs from South America who believes that a fistful of dice at his side is better then all that hocus - pocus?

As Pseudo called you out before, you turn into a snivelling sarcastic worm once you can't prove a real counter - argument - which is why I don't really bother with you.

Fuck's sake, I read a thread on AW forums where people did not know what to do if you shoot a PC in the head in their sleep. I mean, you obviously can't kill them, because that'd go against the STORY!

All Baker's games are based on an idea that you need to be The Very Special Type Of GM to GM them, which of course helps sell them to those pitiful fools (fortunately, I just borrowed my copy from a friend of mine who is sadly a fool that buys all his junk), because you now get to be the REAL, ELITE GM.

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.

At this point, I think the purpose of the thread is fulfilled - the game seems to play as good as the reading sugests. Ive even convinced some of my pals here in Brazil to give it a try. Maybe later I post some playtest impressions.

Thanks again.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505518Next time you rant against Rincewind, leave me out of it. And next time you try and argue against something I said, try not to rely so much on bad analogies and spurious claims about what I said.

As soon as Justin starts throwing repression and such nonsense about, he's basically got nothing to counter with. It's an old record, played often.

I wonder what genres 'sex moves' do emulate though. Mills & Boon, relationship melodrama and porn, i suppose.