Quote from: BWA;4247171. It wasn't "supposed" to turn out a certain way. Since you seem to have read at least the preview and a couple AP reports, you're probably aware that, in a given scene, a player can choose either the set-up or the resolution, but not both. So sometimes a player doesn't know if a scene will end badly for their character or not. It depends on what color dice are left on the table, and what the other players want to do. It's almost "game-like", in that sense.

Ok, but more often than not, the determination is how badly it turns out rather than whether or not, correct?  And if the other players are consulted about how the scene plays out, the 'game-like' part is kind of superfluous, it would seem.  Helpful? No question.  More like drawing yarrow sticks for an I Ching reading, though.  It's not really predicting the future, just kickstarting your brain to head in a new direction.

Quote2. See above. The actual morality/legality of your character's actions in the game have no real impact on whether or not you get what's coming to you - just the dice. My character from another game, referenced upthread, who retired wealthy and successful, did all kinds of bad things,

I don't disagree with your experiences, but rather the general statement.  If the fate of the female cop in your example was sealed early on, decided during the Tilt, or sometime after that is somewhat irrelevant; had you decided to simply punch the gay husband character (NPC?), the results logically would have been somewhat different even with the same dice rolls.  As well, gathering the evidence against the gay con-man lover and arresting them both would have been another very different result.  Neither case, however, would have been a 'fiasco', of which numerous people have mentioned essentially subverts the whole point of the exercise.

Your successfully wealthy retiree character appears to be something of an anomaly.  Obviously, not forbidden by the rules, but as I have been bringing up from the start, clearly a contravention (almost a perversion?) of the spirit of Fiasco.

Quote3. Each player narrates a montage at the end of the game, the length of which depends on how many dice they have left. So it's part of the game. I'm not sure what it's "point" was, but it was really funny.

Ok, that does sound like an enjoyable wrap up for the session, and fully within the framework set up by Fiasco.  I find it a bit contrived, perhaps, or forced; appropriate under the circumstances nonetheless.

Quote from: StormBringer;425048Ok, but more often than not, the determination is how badly it turns out rather than whether or not, correct?  And if the other players are consulted about how the scene plays out, the 'game-like' part is kind of superfluous, it would seem.  

Yes, it might indeed seem that way to someone with a half-formed, uncertain understanding of the rules, like an object glimpsed only through murky water.

The other players don't chip in with their opinions, in the manner of, say, a collaborative writing exercise. The way the game works is this way: Each player gets a small allotment of scenes starring their character. To begin these scenes, they choose to Establish, which means they set the scene, but the other players determine whether it has a positive or negative outcome for their character, or Resolve, which means they get to choose the outcome, but the other players get to set the scene.

You collect positive or negative dice based on these scenes, which means the fate of your character is matter of strategy. The more positive dice you have amassed, the better your character will fare in the endgame, and vice versa.

Quote from: StormBringer;425048I find it a bit contrived, perhaps, or forced; appropriate under the circumstances nonetheless.

StormBringer, you don't "find" it to be anything, because you haven't read or played the game.  

If you did either of those things, you might indeed find the endgame contrived. We will never know.

Quote from: BWA;425527Yes, it might indeed seem that way to someone with a half-formed, uncertain understanding of the rules, like an object glimpsed only through murky water.

Ok, so we are back around to "...and you have numerous examples where things turn out great for everyone."

QuoteStormBringer, you don't "find" it to be anything, because you haven't read or played the game.  

While you may find a posteriori arguments unassailable, I think we have already shown they are quite limited, in fact.  For example, if no one could be declared the winner in chess-opoly unless they donned a pink tutu and performed a scene from Swan Lake, I think people can reasonably discuss whether or not that is worthwhile before they are fitted for ballet shoes.  In fact, I find it hard to believe (nigh hypocritical) that you would even level such an accusation, because you have never met me, nor have we ever gamed together.  Since you have no direct experience of anything I have ever done, how are you able to make such a positive assertion?  It's almost as if you have a double standard:  you allow yourself to make the wildest and most unsubstantiated claims about anyone and everything (becoming deeply indignant when challenged), but no one else can be allowed to have any discussion whatsoever unless they have at least as much direct experience as you, but preferably as much as the creator.

It was such a pleasant conversation again until you had to get the sand in your vagina over having a weak argument again.  For example, you have no idea whether or not I have read Fiasco.  The only reason that could be of any importance whatsoever is because your interpretation must be correct at all costs (hint:  we aren't talking about the play experience, just the written product).

QuoteIf you did either of those things, you might indeed find the endgame contrived. We will never know.

And if you could form an argument that isn't entirely and exclusively based on direct experience, you might form a cogent point.  Sadly, this too we will never know.

Sorry your little trap didn't work out for you, but if you approached discussions in good faith, you probably wouldn't end up looking like a douchebag.

Possibly due to my douchebaggery, indignation and sandy vagina, I find it a little silly that you keep making all these pronouncements about a game you seem to have so little actual knowledge of.

So I am clear, and so that I don't accuse you of any malfeasance, StormBringer, have you actually read the game?

Quote from: BWA;425640Possibly due to my douchebaggery, indignation and sandy vagina, I find it a little silly that you keep making all these pronouncements about a game you seem to have so little actual knowledge of.

So I am clear, and so that I don't accuse you of any malfeasance, StormBringer, have you actually read the game?

Í don't know why you even try.

Quote from: BWA;425640Possibly due to my douchebaggery, indignation and sandy vagina, I find it a little silly that you keep making all these pronouncements about a game you seem to have so little actual knowledge of.

This is where a posteriori arguments always lead.  Because direct experience isn't the only form of valid knowledge, these arguments always fall back on the same tired strategy of desperately howling that there is no possible understanding of a subject without extensive direct contact.  And they always end up with the exact same goalpost moving exercise when the walls start closing in.  This is also known as the 4e defence:  'You can't talk about it unless you have played; you can't talk about it unless you have played to level 5; you can't talk about it until you have played a whole campaign; you can't talk about it until you have played several classes for a whole campaign' and so on ad infinitum.  When each arbitrary milepost is reached, the next one is then required, because the underlying position is inherently weak.

At least David R had the backbone to admit he had no interest in game design discussions, and then steered clear of them.

QuoteSo I am clear, and so that I don't accuse you of any malfeasance, StormBringer, have you actually read the game?

You have spent just about every single post in this thread accusing me of malfeasance.  The very post I am responding to opens by accusing me of malfeasance.  You are seemingly incapable of participating in good faith, or of responding to criticism about a product (with which you have no financial or professional connection whatsoever) with less than severe emotional distress.

You didn't write Fiasco.  You don't sell Fiasco.  You have no stake whatsoever in any aspect of Fiasco.  And yet, you will absolutely not tolerate any kind of critical discussion, nor even comments that don't shed the maximum positive light on Fiasco, let alone anything remotely negative.  You come out swinging with all the rage you can muster as though the circumstances of your birth were called into question.  It is exactly your kind of sloppy, reactionary, egocentric reasoning process that undermines the value of critical thinking in the public sphere.  'I will just scream and kick my feet and lash out at everyone, that gets attention and makes me look important!', and then other people join in and soon it devolves into a couple hundred posts of who can squall the loudest and the longest while completely avoiding anything that resembles a reasonably measured and considered counter-point.

Wrapping up, then:  Since you are so very, very keen on having direct and extensive experience with a topic before being able to discuss it, I will assume that you will now withdraw.  You have engaged in a bare minimum of discourse about Fiasco, of which you allege to have a dizzying level of experience, but the maximum amount of time in order to utilize every possible misdirection attempting to characterize a person you have never met, gamed with, or converse with in any other context.  You desperately want to be the expert here, and in the Herculean effort to achieve this, you have blindly painted yourself into a corner of your own devising.

Mr White!  We were starting to get a good discussion going about gaming, where did you go?

Quote from: Imperator;425656Í don't know why you even try.

Don't start, Ramón.

S-B: Deadlines, deadlines! End-of-the-semester pressures plus trying to finish a TOC adventure for Pelgrane Press! Another day and I'll have a breather and be able to post; I've also been reading a very interesting book called The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia that tackles things from a different angle. I'm interested in this conversation, have no fear! -- Bill

Quote from: Bill White;425718S-B: Deadlines, deadlines! End-of-the-semester pressures plus trying to finish a TOC adventure for Pelgrane Press! Another day and I'll have a breather and be able to post; I've also been reading a very interesting book called The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia that tackles things from a different angle. I'm interested in this conversation, have no fear! -- Bill

Understood.  You were gracious in allowing for my own delays, I would be remiss in not providing you with the same.  I hope I didn't sound like I was insinuating that you had ditched the conversation!

EDIT:  Skimming the book on Google, it looks like a fascinating read.  I will have to find it at the library now.  In regards to that, have you seen the bit of brilliance that is The Boardgame Remix Kit?

Just got the game.

The book is very well produced -- simple, but stylish and effective layout with clear text.  The digest size is nice, too.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to run through this soon.  Currently dealing with a lot of health problems at the moment, but once those are under control, I'll be able to commit to a real playtest.

Quote from: Peregrin;425728Hopefully I'll get a chance to run through this soon.  Currently dealing with a lot of health problems at the moment, but once those are under control, I'll be able to commit to a real playtest.

Hope it's nothing serious!  Get better soon, I would like to see your playtest as a PbP here, if you feel up to it.

Quote from: StormBringer;425743Hope it's nothing serious!  Get better soon, I would like to see your playtest as a PbP here, if you feel up to it.

Thanks!  No idea what it is yet, but I'm not dying, so, could be worse I guess.

But yeah, I'm looking forward to playing it.  I'm curious about how it'll actually work in practice, especially without a GM, since I've never played a GM-less game before.  

I'll see if I can't get a podcast recorded or something, assuming I can get a hold of a decent mic.  Eventually I'll be doing an OD&D campaign (S&W "Complete" with some houserules) and experimenting with some "story-games", and those will go up as well, so in the near future I may get a blog setup to host all this stuff as it comes out, and I'll link it all here if that happens.

Although I will warn you -- the group is made up of a bunch of early-twenty-somethings, so it [strike]might[/strike] will involve alcohol, and it will get retarded.  

Quote from: Peregrin;425748But yeah, I'm looking forward to playing it.  I'm curious about how it'll actually work in practice, especially without a GM, since I've never played a GM-less game before.  

That seems to match the trepidation I had about playing a diceless game for the first time, Nobilis.  It turned out really well, though, and I don't doubt you will have a similar pleasant surprise.

QuoteI'll see if I can't get a podcast recorded or something, assuming I can get a hold of a decent mic.  Eventually I'll be doing an OD&D campaign (S&W "Complete" with some houserules) and experimenting with some "story-games", and those will go up as well, so in the near future I may get a blog setup to host all this stuff as it comes out, and I'll link it all here if that happens.

I would very much like to hear the S&W podcast.  I can host the file and set up an account on my blog software, if you would rather avoid the hassle of researching it all.

QuoteAlthough I will warn you -- the group is made up of a bunch of early-twenty-somethings, so it [strike]might[/strike] will involve alcohol, and it will get retarded.  

As any competent research and development team will tell you, the most useful stress test results are from the people who are virtually incapable of using the product correctly.

Quote from: StormBringer;425714You have spent just about every single post in this thread accusing me of malfeasance.  The very post I am responding to opens by accusing me of malfeasance.  You are seemingly incapable of participating in good faith, or of responding to criticism about a product (with which you have no financial or professional connection whatsoever) with less than severe emotional distress.

You didn't write Fiasco.  You don't sell Fiasco.  You have no stake whatsoever in any aspect of Fiasco.  And yet, you will absolutely not tolerate any kind of critical discussion, nor even comments that don't shed the maximum positive light on Fiasco, let alone anything remotely negative.  You come out swinging with all the rage you can muster as though the circumstances of your birth were called into question.  It is exactly your kind of sloppy, reactionary, egocentric reasoning process that undermines the value of critical thinking in the public sphere.  'I will just scream and kick my feet and lash out at everyone, that gets attention and makes me look important!', and then other people join in and soon it devolves into a couple hundred posts of who can squall the loudest and the longest while completely avoiding anything that resembles a reasonably measured and considered counter-point.

Wrapping up, then:  Since you are so very, very keen on having direct and extensive experience with a topic before being able to discuss it, I will assume that you will now withdraw.  You have engaged in a bare minimum of discourse about Fiasco, of which you allege to have a dizzying level of experience, but the maximum amount of time in order to utilize every possible misdirection attempting to characterize a person you have never met, gamed with, or converse with in any other context.  You desperately want to be the expert here, and in the Herculean effort to achieve this, you have blindly painted yourself into a corner of your own devising.

Goodness.

I managed to get through all that, even the 4E business, but I still don't know if you've read the game we've been talking about for 15 pages, or not.

I'll stipulate all your comments above; the severe emotional distress and the desperate wanting and the Herculean efforts and the ruination of public discourse (it's been a far more universally impactful thread than I had imagined), and all that stuff, if you'll indulge just this one thing.

You say that direct experience isn't required to form opinions, and that is certainly true in some contexts. But if you haven't played the game, and you haven't even read the game, then what experience are you drawing on to form these opinions? There must be something.

Is that a question that you can answer? It seems straightforward to me, and enormously, undeniably relevant.

Quote from: StormBringer;425715Don't start, Ramón.

Dude, I was telling that in good faith. It is my honest opinion.

My perception, as an external observer is that not only there are profound differences regarding your conceptions of what is an RPG, but also a lot of personal stuff which I perceive as straight aversion. Seriously. It does't matter who started.