Well, i was agreeing with the sentiment of the post and that one slipped me by.

I can't speak for the Pundit, but i think there won't be a list - that way lies RPGnet types of accumulation of rules and by default rules-lawyering.

Post a thread where you truly think it belongs on this site, not where you think in your own stick it to the man ideology, it belongs.

Let's face it, if it comes from a Forge/storygames writer, you most likely know where it should go.

If you start putting stuff like WFRP in here because, you know, Fate Points! then you're being a silly arse looking for a fight. You know, we know it.

Those that fall in the cracks - well Pundit can deal with those as and when he feels like it IMO.

Quote from: soviet;668704Why then do these GMs decide to run these games?  Are they (...) forced into it by peer pressure? (...)

Quote from: RPGPundit;668707(...) If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.

(...)

Yes, at least in the cases I have encountered it was a kind of peer pressure. These were groups of people repeatedly claiming that "traditional" RPGs (for lack of a better term) represented a lesser way of gaming. There certainly seemed to be peer pressure at play: to be counted among the open-minded, intellectual and hip initiates you *had* to play these hipster games. Mind you, I'm only speaking about the cases I encountered, I really don't know how common this attitude was or is nowadays. I just know that it annoyed the heck out of me back then, as did the hijacking of the term "indie game".

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;668915Yes, at least in the cases I have encountered it was a kind of peer pressure. These were groups of people repeatedly claiming that "traditional" RPGs (for lack of a better term) represented a lesser way of gaming. There certainly seemed to be peer pressure at play: to be counted among the open-minded, intellectual and hip initiates you *had* to play these hipster games. Mind you, I'm only speaking about the cases I encountered, I really don't know how common this attitude was or is nowadays. I just know that it annoyed the heck out of me back then, as did the hijacking of the term "indie game".

I've certainly seen the same attitude myself in RL, from good friends of mine. The people who used to be all smug about how RuneQuest was more realistic than D&D and how Vampire was just deeper and "more mature" are the same guys I know now are playing narrative games of one stripe or another, and the same basic hipster smugness is still very much a part of their gaming DNA.

The Forge basically took all this spite and bundled it saying "NO, these story telling games suck and if you think they can actually produce story you are brain-damaged! Don't be like these unwashed masses of rape victims! Here are our elite games for the avant-garde of the gaming revolution! Be a member of the Party, buy a card - $19.95, please - , and help us change the nature of gaming forever!" It's a very Bolshevik type of rhetoric when you think about it. I don't mean it in terms of left or right - that's got fuck all to do with politics - I mean in terms of thinking you can brainwash people into becoming different by rejecting capitalism, going to socialist reeducation camps for a generation or three, to finally come out in the Red era of a better, more prosperous, purer society tomorrow.

Hell. Just look at IPR's website. If that's not hipster neo-communist marketing, like listening to your iPod, playing XBOX in your mom's basement with a poster of the Che taped on the wall because it's just "cool" and "rebellious", I don't know what is.

Quote from: Benoist;668917I've certainly seen the same attitude myself in  RL, from good friends of mine. The people who used to be all smug about  how RuneQuest was more realistic than D&D and how Vampire was just  deeper and "more mature" are the same guys I know now are playing  narrative games of one stripe or another, and the same basic hipster  smugness is still very much a part of their gaming DNA.

(...)

Of course, on the other side of the spectrum we had the DSA* railroading mob; these guys were basically just sitting there while their "GM" read the adventure to them and showed them which buttons to push. These people were not *that* annoying though, because there was generally less smugness involved, except for a small group of extremist fanatics constantly going on about how this was the most professionally produced, most elaborate and fantastic game ever.

*Das Schwarze Auge: a successful German RPG partly translated into English as The Dark Eye, its player culture was discussed in detail elsewhere on these forums

Holy crap, I love that communist chic font!

And I just checked out Ribbon Drive, the game of road trips and mix tapes. It's almost as delightfully ridiculous as Welfare Queens, except it might actually take itself seriously. I totally need to run this as a mashup with Caddilacs and Dinosaurs.

We'll all play self-absorbed hipster victims arguing over whose mix tape is more obscure than thou while T-Rex carnage picks off our numbers one by one. Instead of Jenga resolution we'll use Kerplunk or Pretty, Pretty Princess. He who plays Sigur Ros first is going to be sooo quaint!

Quote from: CRKrueger;668447Well, assuming you are talking about Dungeon World here, how about we be "exact" with your description first?

So let's sum this up:

(1) You tell us to go look at an example of play.
(2) We use that example.
(3) You get angry that we're using the example you told us to go look at.

For some reason I have difficulty believing that you're actually participating in this discussion in good faith.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668676No. In an RPG, its the GAME MASTER who describes what happens, not the player. The player says what he would like to do.

Interesting. So if we boil that conversation down it looks like this:

Player: I want to do X.
GM: You succeed. Describe how you do X.
Player: I do it like this.

According to you, this sort of thing -- where the player describes what their success looks like at the specific prompting of the GM -- indicates that a story game is being played, not a roleplaying game.

Are you sure about that?

Are you really, really, really sure?

Okay. Fine. In that case, I've got another story game for you: It's called Amber. You may have heard of it. Here's the Example of Play straight from the rulebook:

Cindy: I'll proceed with the duel.
GM: The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you. (...) What injury do you wish to leave her with?
Cindy: I want to wear her down to exhaustion, then put a small cut on her nose.

Well, fuck, Cindy. You've just convinced Pundie that Amber is a story game.

(It would probably be best if no one told Pundie about how that "swine" Wujcik wrote a lengthy section of the rulebook specifically forbidding the GM from breaking the rules of engagement. It would probably give him an aneurysm.)

I love how neither Benoist nor Pundie is capable of participating in these discussions without defining their favorites RPGs as story games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668557You have failed. Storygaming has been forcibly defined as something OUTSIDE the RPG hobby, which means I've won, and you will never get that genie into the box again.

Ironically, Pundie, you're currently one of the biggest impediments to people taking the division between STGs and RPGs seriously. Your definition is vague and variable. You apply it with either ignorance or in a biased attempt to post hoc your opinion (or both). You attempt to enforce it with the fervor of a religious zealot selectively reading passages from the Old Testament.

The problem is that when you use your podium to declare that games which are RPGs are actually STGs while simultaneously doing things like claiming that FATE doesn't have any narrative control mechanics in it, you create the impression that the very real dividing line between RPGs and STGs doesn't exist and is just the raving of a crazy person who can't keep his intellectual house in order.

For those of us who actually do believe that it can be valuable to understand the dividing line between RPGs and STGs, you are an ignorant, confusing embarrassment.

For example...

Quote from: RPGPundit;668559If you want to talk about the difference between RPGs and storygames: -any game where a PC can't be meaninglessly killed in an utterly random encounter is not an RPG.
-any game where the GM can't kill off a player WITHOUT the player's permission or consent is not an RPG.

These things can trivially happen in Dungeon World.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668676And unlike most RPGS, the GM has no power whatsoever to interpret these successes or failures or consequences.

The rulebook says the exact opposite of that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668568There is no "fiat" involved if a GM is FORCED by the rules to give initiative to the person who says something first.

The rulebook says the exact opposite of that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668749If its really the latter, then you and the others making these claims should put your money where your mouth is; send me a copy of dungeon world to review.

Everyone else should take note here: The guy who has just spent several pages of this thread confidently telling people who own the game, have read the game, and who have played the game that they're lying about what the rulebook says has just admitted that he has never even touched the rulebook.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668565So yes, I suppose that if you LIE, then a Dungeon World actual-play looks kind-of almost like a D&D actual play.

The problem here is that you're the liar. Every time you presume to make these definitive claims about a game you've never even seen you are lying.

The only question is whether you're just lying to us, or if you're also lying to yourself.

Soviet, for what it's worth, my groups experience with so-called 'storygames' is similar to your own. As far as we are concerned, they are rpgs that use some innovative new game mechanics. And, while we would like to think of ourselves as young hipsters that are new to this role-playing lark, the truth is sadly the opposite.

(As an aside, my twenty-year old son recently stopped me from buying a pair of mirrored shades. "They're for hipsters, Dad," he said, "It's just not you." He was so authorative on the subject, I gave in and put them back on the rack. I'm still regretting not buying them...)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961So let's sum this up:
Okay. Fine. In that case, I've got another story game for you: It's called Amber. You may have heard of it. Here's the Example of Play straight from the rulebook:

Cindy: I'll proceed with the duel.
GM: The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you. (...) What injury do you wish to leave her with?
Cindy: I want to wear her down to exhaustion, then put a small cut on her nose.

Well, fuck, Cindy. You've just convinced Pundie that Amber is a story game.

(It would probably be best if no one told Pundie about how that "swine" Wujcik wrote a lengthy section of the rulebook specifically forbidding the GM from breaking the rules of engagement. It would probably give him an aneurysm.)

I love how neither Benoist nor Pundie is capable of participating in these discussions without defining their favorites RPGs as story games.

That was the exact impression I got when I read the game. I guess that any RPG can be construed as a storygame if you describe things in a certain manner instead of another.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;668962Everyone else should take note here: The guy who has just spent several pages of this thread confidently telling people who own the game, have read the game, and who have played the game that they're lying about what the rulebook says has just admitted that he has never even touched the rulebook.

This is not something new. I have pointed similar things with other games, years ago. I just gave up.

Quote from: Glazer;668970Soviet, for what it's worth, my groups experience with so-called 'storygames' is similar to your own. As far as we are concerned, they are rpgs that use some innovative new game mechanics. And, while we would like to think of ourselves as young hipsters that are new to this role-playing lark, the truth is sadly the opposite.

My experience, exactly. My players will play AW or BW or Donjon and treat them as RPGs with slightly different mechanics.

Quote from: Glazer;668970(As an aside, my twenty-year old son recently stopped me from buying a pair of mirrored shades. "They're for hipsters, Dad," he said, "It's just not you." He was so authorative on the subject, I gave in and put them back on the rack. I'm still regretting not buying them...)

You had a golden opportunity to come back with, "Hold up, son. These be my stunna shades for when I get all thizz faced. Ya dada meen? 's gon' get hyphie up 'n heah!"

Likely mortified within an inch of his life, he would never again question your shopping decisions in public.

Quote from: Opaopajr;668978Likely mortified within an inch of his life, he would never again question your shopping decisions in public.

Sage advice, Opaopajr, but sadly there is very little that I can do to make any of my kids stop questioning my shopping (or other!) decisions in public

Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961For some reason I have difficulty believing that you're actually participating in this discussion in good faith.

You've rarely participated in any discussion here in good faith this year.  Skywalker validadated the example was incorrect.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961Player: I want to do X.
GM: You succeed. Describe how you do X.
Player: I do it like this.

And here is you being disingenuous AGAIN.  The problem with DW is when is goes like this.
Player: I want to do X.  Rolls dice and gets the "Choice" result.
GM: You can do A and achieve this partial result plus complications, B and achieve this partial result plus complication, or C simply fail or do a substandard success.

It's ok to like narrative OOC mechanics when you roleplay Justin, you don't have to embarrass yourself by going out of your way to avoid the narrative parts when you discuss the game.

Except that every weak-sucess option can be taken In-Character.

And. You. Know. That.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668877Its funny, because Gygax of course meant this as a liberating concept; the Forge Swine on the other hand seem to take this as a literal statement, that GMs should be as oppressed and strictly controlled as possible or else they might actually end up doing their job and running the world, and then where would the Glorious Player's Revolution be?!

You realise that just about every single game designer, indie or otherwise, is primarily a GM? That they wrote their games with the intention of then running them for their group?

You can't seriously believe that the Forge Swine have been conspiring against themselves?

Quote from: Opaopajr;668939And I just checked out Ribbon Drive, the game of road trips and mix tapes. It's almost as delightfully ridiculous as Welfare Queens, except it might actually take itself seriously. I totally need to run this as a mashup with Caddilacs and Dinosaurs.

"A game about road trips, music, and self-discovery."

What