Quote from: Aos;423076Fiasco, the new 4e.

There's a 4th edition of Fiasco already?!? And people complain about WotC's edition cycle!

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;423025Except when they do.

Holy crap, how could I forget about Montsegur 1244!  That is the most popular mainstream game in print!  You really showed me up that time!

Your example is what we call "grasping at straws".

People who play Fiasco 3e are hopeless Grognards.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;423041Nor Fiasco, but again, it's like playing Tomb of Horrors and having your character just sit in his room at the tavern. You could do that, but why?

Anyway, yeah, this is just going in circles now.

Ok, so everyone at the table during a session of Fiasco can have things work out in their favour with no repercussions?

And when Tomb of Horrors become its own ruleset?

Quote from: StormBringer;423087Ok, so everyone at the table during a session of Fiasco can have things work out in their favour with no repercussions?

Answered at least twice in the thread already; moving on.

Something I'm particularly proud of in Fiasco is the way the determination of scene outcomes can be transparent - a judgment is made, it can be indicated subtly (by picking up a black or white die), and everyone at the table can then guide the scene toward an appropriate conclusion. It is very non-intrusive, and people who enjoy immersion can roll with it seamlessly once they get the hang of it. It doesn't work all the time (if the scene owner establishes and the rest of the group can't agree on the appropriate outcome, for example) but when it does it is pretty cool. You're in character playing a scene, you get a visual cue, and you don't break stride. I've played with a lot of people who get pretty immersed, and I've played with folks who treat it like a writer's room, with lots of meta-talk. Works both ways.

Stormbringer, stop being an ass.

Your assumptions about the game have been corrected numerous times, and now you're just relying on rhetoric and filibustering to obfuscate your flawed premise in hopes that Pundit or someone will show up and get your back. It's the exact same tired trick you use in every single argument you engage in, because if you sidestep enough contrary counterpoints, you'll never actually have to admit that you're wrong.

Numerous people, with hands on experience with the ACTUAL game, have flat out demonstrated that you are wrong.

"I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will burn me".

Fuck you. That's fallacious and you goddamn well know it.

Fiasco is a game where the outcome is not predetermined, but is effected by randomized elements and player decisions.

Fiasco is a game that seeks to emulate a specific genre, and in which players interact with the gameworld through their characters.

Fiasco is a game that does a marvelous job of keeping the actual mechanics behind the scene, making it a very immersive experience.

You know what these factors add up to? A goddamn role-playing game. Hell, given the criteria, Fiasco is more of a role-playing game than latter editions of D&D.

If you don't like the game then don't play it, but you don't have to be the forum equivalent of a playground bully about it. And yes, that last bit is absolutely an ad hominem argument, you slimy fucking weasel.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;423096I've played with a lot of people who get pretty immersed, and I've played with folks who treat it like a writer's room, with lots of meta-talk. Works both ways.

Yeah, our group tends to be mixed. Everyone gets very into character, but no one minds suggestions and cross-talk on how to make the situation worse / better / more interesting.

Also, the ability to continue playing in flashback form after you die is one of the big things that sold me. That mechanic amuses me to no end.

Quote from: Shazbot79;423166You know what these factors add up to? A goddamn role-playing game. Hell, given the criteria, Fiasco is more of a role-playing game than latter editions of D&D.

"YOU NOW HAVE... THREE... MINUTES TO REACH MINIMUM SAFE DISTANCE..."

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;423175Also, the ability to continue playing in flashback form after you die is one of the big things that sold me. That mechanic amuses me to no end.

I love that too, because it's suddenly an excuse to go back and inject your (now dead) guy into everybody's business and show how he had his paws all over things. It can lead to really funny scenes, because you know the future already. When I run the game for new people I always make a point of telling them that death really isn't an impediment to enjoying the game, so the gloves should be off (especially in Act Two).

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;423175Also, the ability to continue playing in flashback form after you die is one of the big things that sold me. That mechanic amuses me to no end.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;423201I love that too, because it's suddenly an excuse to go back and inject your (now dead) guy into everybody's business and show how he had his paws all over things. It can lead to really funny scenes, because you know the future already. When I run the game for new people I always make a point of telling them that death really isn't an impediment to enjoying the game, so the gloves should be off (especially in Act Two).

I thought that was pretty clever too. Also, with the "Fiasco-as-prologue-to-the RPG" idea, it might be fun to let players use some of the characters from the "PC sematary." Is there a way to set Fiasco up so that a certain character is marked for death from the start?

Quote from: Cole;423210I thought that was pretty clever too. Also, with the "Fiasco-as-prologue-to-the RPG" idea, it might be fun to let players use some of the characters from the "PC sematary." Is there a way to set Fiasco up so that a certain character is marked for death from the start?

I guess you could build it into the playset or work it out ahead of time if that was your thing.

In our group we just have one guy who loves having his PCs die in one-off games, so he always runs right into the lion's teeth.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;423175Also, the ability to continue playing in flashback form after you die is one of the big things that sold me. That mechanic amuses me to no end.

That's pretty darn awesome.

Quote from: Shazbot79;423166Your assumptions about the game have been corrected numerous times, and  now you're just relying on rhetoric and filibustering to obfuscate your  flawed premise in hopes that Pundit or someone will show up and get your  back. It's the exact same tired trick you use in every single argument  you engage in, because if you sidestep enough contrary counterpoints,  you'll never actually have to admit that you're wrong.

That is the dumbest fucking thing I have read in a long while.  There aren't any counterpoints, just whiny fucks with sand in their vagina because their shitty opinions aren't being treated like the Holy Grail.  Responding with "nuh uh" isn't a counterpoint, fuckstain, it's just being contradictory.  Which is the exact same tired bullshit you employ everytime your hands are on the keyboard around here, so shut the fuck up.

If getting me to admit I'm wrong is so overwhelmingly important to folks, there are two things to consider:
a)  You need to get a fucking life or something, because that is about the most disturbingly pitiable reason to be on the internet.
b)  I dunno, maybe engage in some actual discussion to show where I am wrong, instead of bitching about it like Darren will be along shortly to ban me from the board.

I really don't have to wait for someone to 'get my back', the ridiculously weak arguments shown so far are so easily handled, I could get a helmet-tested chimp to randomly slam its ass on the keyboard have more consistent and coherent points than what has been presented to me so far.  Instead of breaking down in tears about how incapable people are of presenting a cogent argument, perhaps they could spend that time developing a cogent argument.  While everyone waits for that to happen, you can shut your fucking cryhole about it.

QuoteNumerous people, with hands on experience with the ACTUAL game, have flat out demonstrated that you are wrong.

And yet, they all stop short of saying "Yes, you can play Fiasco and have everyone succeed at their plans".  It's all mealy-mouthed "Why would you play Fiasco any other way" and "I had this character this one time that came out ahead".  Surprise, dipshit, that isn't 'demonstrating' anything except that the people saying it are struggling to come up with even one contradictory example, and are only doing so to be contradictory.

Quote"I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will burn me".

Fuck you. That's fallacious and you goddamn well know it.

Except that it isn't fallacious in any way.  It's the difference between a priori and a posteriori.  I don't expect to solve that age-old dispute in this thread, but the distinction is important.  If the argument is that the only possible knowledge is a posteriori, then there can be no speculation, no inference, and no possible advancement of knowledge.  That's the fucking fallacy.  There are certainly appropriate uses of an a posteriori argument, but to state that any knowledge whatsoever can only be had through direct experience is pure bullshit that is most often used as a defence from a pathetically weak premise, like the ones that have been presented here.

And you goddamn well know that; you and I have both been in discussions where past experience is at least as supported as direct play experience.  If I told you I wrote a game where you had to roll 75 different dice, pick out the prime numbers and count those as successes, then add up the rest of them (except multiples of 7) as a modifier to a three page table result determined by adding up all the multiples of 7 dice, it absolutely does not require you or anyone to sit through a five hour session to determine that is the worst dice mechanic of all time.

Jam the a posteriori snobbery up your ass sideways.

QuoteFiasco is a game where the outcome is not predetermined, but is effected by randomized elements and player decisions.

That is a direct contradiction of both the marketing material and what everyone here has so far said about it.  Are they mistaken, or are you?  You seem to think their play experience trumps all, so clearly, you don't understand what the game is about.

QuoteFiasco is a game that seeks to emulate a specific genre, and in which players interact with the gameworld through their characters.

Sci-fi is a genre.  Fantasy is a genre.  Steampunk is a genre.  Fargo is not a genre.  The Coen brothers are not a genre.

And the players don't interact with a game world at all, they interact with each other.  Even beyond that, the interaction is strictly railroaded as 'big ambition and poor impulse control'.  So, you don't even get to play your own character!  

QuoteFiasco is a game that does a marvelous job of keeping the actual mechanics behind the scene, making it a very immersive experience.

So does a collaborative story writing exercise, as well as a Pokemon or Harry Potter RP channel in IRC.  Removing all traces of mechanics does not increase immersion by default.

QuoteYou know what these factors add up to? A goddamn role-playing game. Hell, given the criteria, Fiasco is more of a role-playing game than latter editions of D&D.

They would, if any of those factors existed in Fiasco.  So far, all we have is another one-way ticket on the misery tourism bus.  And you have done absolutely nothing to show otherwise.

QuoteIf you don't like the game then don't play it, but you don't have to be the forum equivalent of a playground bully about it. And yes, that last bit is absolutely an ad hominem argument, you slimy fucking weasel.

So, having the stronger argument makes me the bully here?  Fuck you, dipshit.  It's really not my fault that taking the losing side of a shitty and pathetic argument means you lose.

Don't like being 'bullied'?  Then stay the fuck out of the conversation.  Barring that, offer something useful instead of more bitching.

Quote from: Cole;423210I thought that was pretty clever too. Also, with the "Fiasco-as-prologue-to-the RPG" idea, it might be fun to let players use some of the characters from the "PC sematary." Is there a way to set Fiasco up so that a certain character is marked for death from the start?

I can't imagine there being anyway to force any dice rolls.  At the appropriate time, just declare that you failed whatever roll is necessary, like voluntarily failing a saving throw.

Quote from: StormBringer;423215a)  You need to get a fucking life or something, because that is about the most disturbingly pitiable reason to be on the internet.

"And now, back to my 100-point rebuttal about why a game I don't play and haven't read is not a game!"

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;423220"And now, back to my 100-point rebuttal about why a game I don't play and haven't read is not a game!"

Does someone have their feel-bads hurt?  I understand that because it is a game you wrote...  oh, wait, you didn't write this game.  Ok, your company produces and markets this game...  hold on, I don't think you have a hand in that either.

So, you simply play the game, but refuse to brook any critiques about it?  Are you sure the right person is being accused of zealotry here?