Quote from: vytzka;607145If you really did, this wouldn't be in Other Games.

I understand how this looks to you.  Stick with me a second.

But imagine if TBZ wasn't it's own game.  Imagine if the author didn't have the guts to do his own thing, so instead he co-opted an existing and long-standing license and turned it on it's head with fundamentally different mechanics.  For instance, if TBZ wasn't TBZ, but Robotech 2.0 from Palladium.  Do you think that would go over too well?

That's exactly what Rob Boyle did with Shadowrun 4 before he decided to make his own Transhumanist game, Eclipse Phase, with the mechanics and setting he wanted all along.

That's exactly what Rob Heinsoo did with D&D4 before he decided to make 13th age, a game with the mechanics he wanted all along.

That's exactly what Jay Little did with WFRP3 before he decided to make The Coriolis Defect, a game with the mechanics he wanted all along.

There are games, that through their very mechanics, force you to make decisions not as a character, but as a player.  For some, it not only completely defeats the purpose of role-playing to begin with, but is actually antithetical to the RPG hobby since, unlike other offshoots of other hobbies or design theories, the narrative one seems unwilling to declare itself as such (aside from Roleplaying 2.0, which at least admits there is some difference).

If you're a narrative game designer and you won't identify your game as such, then expect others who don't like "roleplaying without roleplaying" to do it for you.

The original author of course, knows nothing about this, he made the damn game a decade ago.  Kitowski, on the other hand, Mr. Roleplaying 2.0 himself, knows exactly what people are talking about here, guaranteed.

Now having said all that do we really need a second forum for games that contain non-roleplaying mechanics?  Well, no, we don't.

HOWEVER, as long as the narrative wing of the tabletop hobby continues to deny any distinction between a game with perhaps one or two non-character driven mechanics and a game where 50% or more of them are non-character driven, then you can expect things like this from a vocal segment of the RPG population.

Why?  Because if you're deliberately obfuscating an obvious distinction, then there really are only a few valid reasons why.  Actually not seeing it is possible, but since it's blindingly obvious to others, that is usually viewed with suspicion.  What's left is an agenda.  With lunatics like Ron Edwards, who actually had an agenda and actually promoted a 5th column atmosphere, it's easy to see games like Shadowrun 4, D&D4, WFRP3 as some kind of assault, not an actual planned one(which I think is ridiculous), but a memetic assault nonetheless.

People use qualifiers like Rules Light, Rules Heavy, Metaplot, Sandbox without batting an eye, but no one wants to say Narrative RPG or Tactical RPG, in fact the very idea is somehow offensive.  Tell me why that is, and we might push this argument past the last thousand threads in which we've had this discussion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607248The original author of course, knows nothing about this, he made the damn game a decade ago.  Kitowski, on the other hand, Mr. Roleplaying 2.0 himself, knows exactly what people are talking about here, guaranteed.

I seriously doubt the game has been changed that radically. Anyway, you can find AK's blurb on "why storygamers would like TBZ" over on the SG forum. Pretty sure it's in a public section. I'm pretty sure the original author knew/knows that his own game was a major innovation, based on an interview I read.

So I think AK said he'd made some changes, possibly changes that would move the game from one category to another in someone's opinion. That's why I contradicted Skywalker. But I think this was at most analogous to whatever happened in the iterations of Burning * or FATE, not the outright vandalism with which 4e or WHFRP 3e have been tarred.

AndyK has said what changes he made to TBZ and FWIW this is what he said:

QuoteI changed like three things in the game, rulewise:
* The Kongohki's original Overdrive activation time was "a number of rounds equal to Spirit, for a number of times per day equal to Body". Which is ridiculous, because that's literally All The Time. 90% of combats in Tenra last at most like 5 rounds, and there's not that many combats per game. So I changed it to a lower score (but still one that is effectively still "ALMOST all the time").
* I added the option to create NPCs that were simply made of 2-3 simple stats plus a pile of Vitality with or without a dead-box. That wasn't in the original (and a lot of original fans had hard times making major NPCs due to time/research requirements). But this is 100% in line with ALL of Inoue's games he wrote after this; I actually got the idea partially from his game Alshard.
* I can't even remember the third one now (I need to dig through that director's cut book), it was so small as to be almost insignificant. Like changing the karma scores for gunpowder weapon reloads, something small like that.

In more positive news, TBZ is on the verge of going to print with PDF general release being a few weeks thereafter.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607248Mr. Roleplaying 2.0 himself, knows exactly what people are talking about here, guaranteed.

Can you explain what this means?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;607376Can you explain what this means?

Go to story-games.com, Kitowski's site, the website declares at the top of the forums...

Story Games: Tabletop Roleplaying 2.0

So, at least to his way of thinking, there's enough of a difference to at least merit a version change.  Which is what I meant by him knowing exactly what people like Ben are talking about.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607440Go to story-games.com, Kitowski's site, the website declares at the top of the forums...

Story Games: Tabletop Roleplaying 2.0

So, at least to his way of thinking, there's enough of a difference to at least merit a version change.  Which is what I meant by him knowing exactly what people like Ben are talking about.

That's funny. I know there are plenty of others from the tech market here who can relate. I get a chuckle when anyone claims they are the next big thing. It doesn't make me angry, just amused. It is usually those who rush to make the claim who more than others are sitting on the shoulders of giants.

Or it might be

dun dun dun

a joke.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607440Go to story-games.com, Kitowski's site, the website declares at the top of the forums...

Story Games: Tabletop Roleplaying 2.0

I wouldn't read too much into that. like vytzka suggests.  Andy has changed that header every few months for a while, and it's usually something pretty silly.  

In any case, I disagree with the main earlier point that story gamers are denying any difference between more narrative RPGs and more traditional.  They absolutely do - it's a generally accepted given that there are differences between traditional RPGs and current story games.  

On the other hand, in the Story Games forum, the moderators don't split out discussion of traditional RPGs into a different subforum.  You'll find discussion of Call of Cthulhu exactly side-by-side with FATE and Fiasco.  This isn't because we think these games are identical, but because the compare-and-contrast between them and cross-discussion is beneficial to both.

Quote from: jhkim;607621In any case, I disagree with the main earlier point that story gamers are denying any difference between more narrative RPGs and more traditional.  They absolutely do - it's a generally accepted given that there are differences between traditional RPGs and current story games.

Boy, they sure do deny it here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607640Boy, they sure do deny it here.

I don't think anyone denies that storygame RPGs have some differences from traditional RPGs. What people argue against is the idea that this difference is so big that storygames are a different type of thing altogether, such that comparing D&D to Burning Wheel is the same as comparing D&D to Magic the Gathering, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Halo, or mountaineering.

What I am personally denying is that there could possibly be any genetic relationship between the Forge and Tenra Bansho Zero.

Because of... unidirectional time flow and shiznit.

Quote from: vytzka;607649What I am personally denying is that there could possibly be any genetic relationship between the Forge and Tenra Bansho Zero.

Because of... unidirectional time flow and shiznit.

Yeah, it's way too old.  However, Kitowski's been working on translating this thing, since what 2003?  It's more likely that TBZ ideas have cross-pollinated into american narrative games then the other way around.

That is more possible though still unlikely. There's precious little of what might be considered TBZ influence in Burning *, and Crane seems to have been the closest to Kitkowski with regards to this game, and Andy himself used to be rather critical of the more extreme indie game subculture (anyone remembers Spulturatorah?).

But even if true, it's hardly the fault of Junichi Inoue (or even Andy Kitkowski, in his capacity as the translator) that Luke Crane or Vincent Baker have their, uhhh, issues.

THis is the most sad pathetic debate i've ever read.

it's an rpg not a virus.