Quote from: Future Villain Band;606676Man, I never did it when I was losing an argument about rules, although I'll cop to having some fun when banning somebody.  And frankly, if I was the bottom rung for moderation, then saying, "Waah, I learned it from you, Daddy!" is not really going to sound like anything but excuses.

If you guys really want to be better than I was -- and I applaud you for trying -- then be better than I was.  Otherwise, I'm happy to have you on the bottom rung with me.

Carry on talking about the fucking game. If you don't want to talk to people in the thread raising questions you think aren't relevent, don't reply to them - they'll go away.

All the while there's a discussion about mechanics, however, i think that what has been talked about is within the bounds of the thread. No doubt some will disagree, but it's the old opinions/arseholes chesnut.

Quote from: Lynn;606665Very interesting! My Japanese just isn't up to reading the original.

I'd ask Skywalker for specifics on that.

Look, I like Andy Kitkowski (as far as I've ever interacted with him, which has purely been on the net), and I've followed his development of TBZ off and on. It sounds interesting to me whichever way you classify it. (To give you an idea of what I mean--by comparison, having read The Shadow of Yesterday, where neither PCs nor major NPCs can die unless a player chooses to "bring down the pain", I think it also could be a fun game.)

But I remember Andy saying, early in his work, that he wasn't just translating TBZ--he was also developing it and removing some "simulationist baggage". What and where that was, I have no idea.

Maybe my memory isn't quite right, but I wouldn't take Skywalker's word for it, either.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606649Don't have it, so can't comment, but it sounds like you're right, yeah.  If there's no way ever that someone can shoot a normal human without him saying something then yeah, that's the same thing.  It's not a question of kind in that sense, but of degree.

It's literary genre emulation, not world emulation, without a doubt.

There is a way, first of all, which is if no one tries to say anything. There's no rule that says that "if you shoot at someone he automatically has a chance to talk first", much less "he must give a soliloquy first".

Second, its still only means he gets to talk slightly quicker than you can attack, in the same way that in B/X D&D, people get to try to shoot an arrow at you before you get to finish casting a spell.  The events are happening nearly simultaneously, and there's NOTHING in the game that says that the shooter necessarily will be stopped by the talking; all it says is "trying to say something is slightly faster than pointing and firing a gun". Its an initiative system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: vytzka;606650You know what? Fuck you, fuck your ridiculous crusade and fuck your intellectual dishonesty. I'll be gaming on, motherfucker, and subverting your precious hobby with time paradox Ron Edwards-infested Japanese role playing games. And you can do jack and shit about it except whine on your blog.

I welcome you to keep gaming on, whatever kind of gaming you like.  But as for subverting my hobby, I'll keep right on making sure to expose that subversion to try to stop you in your tracks.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606655No, I'm saying that if the GM shoots my guy in the head while I'm being held prisoner, it's a dick move.  If it's a character I've invested more than a couple of months in, it's also gonna be an argument.  

I really don't mean to question your personality as a player, but why would it be a dick move, or an argument? If you're playing in a world where the Darkwraiths seek to end all life, and you get knocked unconscious, and everything that makes sense in the actual virtual world your character inhabits would dictate that the Darkwraiths suck your character dry, why in the world shouldn't he die?
Doesn't his not-dying invalidate all the point of the game? Doesn't it make everything you did up till then meaningless, because no risk you took was ever going to actually matter?

QuoteAnd seriously, even Ron Edwards was clever enough to address the fact that immersion isn't the only viable goal in playing RPGs, and everybody from Robin Laws on up have agreed.  If the definition here is that immersion is the end all and be all, then you guys have become as myopic as the Forge was.

Actually, let's be historically factual: Edwards didn't say immersion "wasn't the only viable goal", he claimed that Immersion was either an "impossible thing" at best or a dangerous mental illness at worst. He sought to absolutely annihilate Immersion because he recognized that it was one of the main points of roleplaying for most regular roleplayers, and he had the intelligence to realize that it (along with Emulation, which he also tried to utterly disenfranchise) was completely incompatible with the type of game he wanted to push with his theory, one where the intentional creation of story in the process of the game itself was the central goal.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606657At least Edwards didn't play petty-ass Junior High games with moving threads around when he was losing an argument.

I moved the thread to the appropriate forum at this point because in fact the argument has seemingly confirmed (by vytzka's own admission) that in fact TBZ is a Storygame, which classifies it as an "Other Game". That's not actually relevant to winning or losing the argument (I think there are a couple of different arguments going on in this thread and I don't feel like I'm losing any of them at the moment), its just a question of uncovering the facts.

If someone wants to put together sufficient evidence to try to argue that TBZ is not in fact a Storygame (for example, if it turns out that Vytzka's statement about how in fact you cannot kill someone off who hasn't got the death box checked is not factually correct), then if convinced I'll put it back in the RPG forum.

RPGPundit

PS. Also, its always particularly funny to hear a member of the RPG.net Modclique criticize the "oppressive" moderator-abuse here, or have the gumption to try to classify anything about our moderation policy as "stupid junior high games", considering the track record of the person who's saying it.

Quote from: The Traveller;606677Right here, post number 322. That's an extract from hitler's mein kampf apparently, except good old jack decided to compare the holocaust to the Pundit's storygame thing for the entertainment of his contemporaries in something awful. Because nothing says funny like Jew jokes.

Says a lot more about Jack's nature than anything else, really.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606709If someone wants to put together sufficient evidence to try to argue that TBZ is not in fact a Storygame (for example, if it turns out that Vytzka's statement about how in fact you cannot kill someone off who hasn't got the death box checked is not factually correct), then if convinced I'll put it back in the RPG forum.

This thread seems sufficient evidence to me.

Will you be asking threads on WFRP, where a Fate point can be spent to avoid death, or Dr Who, where talking allows you to act before other people in a conflict, to provide such evidence? If not, it shows your bias and self motivation in the decision to move this thread. This attempt to now look impartial is a luaghably transparent attempt to cover over this and the your poor moderation decision.

In light of the above, you know full well that such efforts to provide you with sufficient efforts are futile as you will just ignore them. Which is exactly why you did what you did, right?

Quote from: RPGPundit;606709I moved the thread to the appropriate forum at this point because in fact the argument has seemingly confirmed (by vytzka's own admission) that in fact TBZ is a Storygame, which classifies it as an "Other Game". That's not actually relevant to winning or losing the argument (I think there are a couple of different arguments going on in this thread and I don't feel like I'm losing any of them at the moment), its just a question of uncovering the facts.

If someone wants to put together sufficient evidence to try to argue that TBZ is not in fact a Storygame (for example, if it turns out that Vytzka's statement about how in fact you cannot kill someone off who hasn't got the death box checked is not factually correct), then if convinced I'll put it back in the RPG forum.

RPGPundit

At this point, I take One Horse Town's admonition to talk about the game in response to my complaint about the move as an admonition to shut up about it.  It's your site, do what you want.

QuotePS. Also, its always particularly funny to hear a member of the RPG.net Modclique criticize the "oppressive" moderator-abuse here, or have the gumption to try to classify anything about our moderation policy as "stupid junior high games", considering the track record of the person who's saying it.

Again, the message I got was received loud and clear.  You guys run your site and move your threads the way you want.  I'm enjoying posting here, so I'm not going to say "boo" lest I get banned.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606710Says a lot more about Jack's nature than anything else, really.

It says plenty about the company he keeps.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606655No, I'm saying that if the GM shoots my guy in the head while I'm being held prisoner, it's a dick move.  If it's a character I've invested more than a couple of months in, it's also gonna be an argument.  

Have you ever played a game not rooted in comics/anime/superhero/pulp genres?

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606655Villains do all sorts of shit that's not realistic and pragmatic because it's the game you're playing.

That's because the game you're playing is one in which the bad guy straps James Bond to a death machine and then stops to monologue.  In Shadowrun, if the Yakuza get a hold of me, I'm going to try everything I can to escape, because a horrific death is probably in my future.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606655I don't know why this is novel.

Oh it isn't.    It's rather pedestrian and boring since it seems that's the only way you play.  Yeech.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606655When I'm captured by mobsters, sure, they can shoot me in the head, but it's my PC -- I'm going to be pissed if the GM does it, especially if we're not playing in a genre where that's appropriate.

Again, some of us play in a genre called verisimilitude, where if you are mortal, you can indeed die, whoda thunk it?

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606655If the definition here is that immersion is the end all and be all, then you guys have become as myopic as the Forge was.

Nope. I don't care about definition, I care about distinction. There is, in fact, a clear distinction between genre emulation and world emulation, between literary genre convention and verisimilitude.  One is not the other, period, and there should be a way to define games as such.

When most people create something new, they are excited about calling it something different then what came before.  For some reason, the narrative mechanic guys are almost fanatically sticking to the lie that these games are not different then traditional RPGs.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606676Man, I never did it when I was losing an argument about rules, although I'll cop to having some fun when banning somebody.  And frankly, if I was the bottom rung for moderation, then saying, "Waah, I learned it from you, Daddy!" is not really going to sound like anything but excuses.

If you guys really want to be better than I was -- and I applaud you for trying -- then be better than I was.  Otherwise, I'm happy to have you on the bottom rung with me.

Says the guy who hasn't been and won't be banned unless he practically begs for it.

This isn't flaccid purple dude.  Walking away because you can't stand up, doesn't count as a valid argument tactic here, neither does crying.

Quote from: Skywalker;606713This thread seems sufficient evidence to me.

Will you be asking threads on WFRP, where a Fate point can be spent to avoid death, or Dr Who, where talking allows you to act before other people in a conflict, to provide such evidence? If not, it shows your bias and self motivation in the decision to move this thread. This attempt to now look impartial is a luaghably transparent attempt to cover over this and the your poor moderation decision.

In light of the above, you know full well that such efforts to provide you with sufficient efforts are futile as you will just ignore them. Which is exactly why you did what you did, right?

First, in WFRP you eventually run out of Fate points. As I previously stated, I have no problem with a mechanic like that; any more than I would with a mechanic that says "when you get to 0 hit points you are usually unconscious, not necessarily dead".  The problem is when the GM says "ok, they kill you off" and the player gets to say "no I don't because I refuse to give consent".

Second, having not yet read the text, and relying on secondhand confirmation about what is or is not in the rules, it would be pretty simple to convince me otherwise. Show me that the rule as stated is not in fact the rule as written.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;606699But I remember Andy saying, early in his work, that he wasn't just translating TBZ--he was also developing it and removing some "simulationist baggage". What and where that was, I have no idea.

Maybe my memory isn't quite right, but I wouldn't take Skywalker's word for it, either.

Should ask Andy if he considers it a Roleplaying Game or a Roleplaying 2.0 game.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606715At this point, I take One Horse Town's admonition to talk about the game in response to my complaint about the move as an admonition to shut up about it.  It's your site, do what you want.

This might again be a rhetorical move on your part, but since you're still fairly new around these parts and you might honestly think so (from prior experience on other forums) I feel like I should clarify to you that its not an "admonition" in the sense of any kind of moderator warning or the like. You're absolutely free to keep arguing with any of us, and absolutely nothing you have said or written thus far is in the slightest way a problem. OHT was just giving you friendly advice as one poster to another in how he felt you might be able to spare yourself personal frustration, which you are free to accept or reject based on whether you think that its valid or you are actually enjoying the discussion (I sure am! It feels like Old Home Day around here!) and not in any sense saying "don't argue with the mods" because that's not how we operate around here. Just saying, because I don't want you to have the wrong idea.

QuoteAgain, the message I got was received loud and clear.  You guys run your site and move your threads the way you want.  I'm enjoying posting here, so I'm not going to say "boo" lest I get banned.

Again, if you're not saying this as a rhetorical strategy, I feel obliged to tell you that you're wrong; you won't get banned here for anything like this, we're not rpg.net. People question our decisions all the fucking time.

RPGPundit