TheRPGSite

Haha :D Due to the abrupt closure of the previous thread by mods here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24342, this thread is for continued discussion of the hyper-asian RPG Tenra Bansho Zero, the second RPG to be translated from Japanese to English.

Anyway, back to discussion. The last update on the KS is that the final PDFs should be due this week or next and then its off to the printer. Woot :)

What anime or Japanese movie or TV are people watching to inspire their TBZ games? The list in the rulebook had some good movies that I have not yet seen, such as Shinobi. It even had a good example of a Annelidist with their magical tapeworms :)

Also, for completeness, a thread started due to its highly successful Kickstarter can be found here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23789. The website can be found here: http://tenra-rpg.com.

Quote from: Skywalker;605979What anime or Japanese movie or TV are people watching to inspire their TBZ games?

Samurai Champloo! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_Champloo)

Kitkowski even statted (http://www.tenra-rpg.com/blog/?p=296) the "heroes" up! Although, no Fuu :confused:

Although somehow lacking as entertainment, I found Samurai 7 very in line with TBZ.

Could we include Manga? Hishashi Sakaguchi's Ikkyu is a compendium of all things Buddhist, with excellent examples of how the Phoenix Order / Ebon Mountain / Bright Lotus sects can be presented.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606006Could we include Manga? Hishashi Sakaguchi's Ikkyu is a compendium of all things Buddhist, with excellent examples of how the Phoenix Order / Ebon Mountain / Bright Lotus sects can be presented.

Definitely. I actually found Okko by Hub (though he's French) to be closest to TBZ than any thing else I have seen :)

Quote from: Skywalker;606008Definitely. I actually found Okko by Hub (though he's French) to be closest to TBZ than any thing else I have seen :)

Don't tell me. I have seen for years those Okko books standing on the shelves of my local store without buying them and now they are nowhere to be found. I'll have to resort to Amazon.

Edit: I've just ordered them!

Due to a post-apoc themed gaming party on the 21st, I'm trying to find a way to marry Tenra Bansho Zero to Getter Robo Armageddon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getter_Robo_Armageddon).

(incidentally TBZ description of karma finally made parts of that series to make sense)

Basilisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk_(manga)) is a great example of how both annelidists and ninja (and perhaps samurai/shiki) would work in Tenra.

For examples of Tenra style robots,cyborgs and big weapons, Samurai 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CkQjPIJ4Pw) is a great example of Tenra style warfare.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606012Don't tell me. I have seen for years those Okko books standing on the shelves of my local store without buying them and now they are nowhere to be found. I'll have to resort to Amazon.

Edit: I've just ordered them!

:) Its less gonzo than some of the anime equivalents, retaining the gritty hardboiled vibe of good Samurai movies, but it is set in a fantasy world like historic Japan much like the sample setting in the TBZ rulebook.

It has Onmyoji, Yoroi Armour, Kongohki, Samurai (normal Samurai), Shinto Priests etc

Is it a regular RPG, though? Does it involve narrative game mechanics and the like? Are you the co-author of a story in this game? Is there a paragraph explaining "what is role playing" and could you quote it to us?

Quote from: Benoist;606151Is it a regular RPG, though? Does it involve narrative game mechanics and the like? Are you the co-author of a story in this game? Is there a paragraph explaining "what is role playing" and could you quote it to us?

You mean, storygame RPGs like TSR's Classic Marvel Super Heroes? Karma is an insidious storygame mechanic, I tell ya.  +40 karma for gloating, very swine like.

Japanese TRPG authors have literally no awareness of either our OSR or Storygame RPG movements here.

Quote from: vytzka;606022Due to a post-apoc themed gaming party on the 21st, I'm trying to find a way to marry Tenra Bansho Zero to Getter Robo Armageddon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getter_Robo_Armageddon).

(incidentally TBZ description of karma finally made parts of that series to make sense)

I look forward to your developments, especially since I loves me hot blooded shonen mecha action.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606152You mean, storygame RPGs like TSR's Classic Marvel Super Heroes? Karma is an insidious storygame mechanic, I tell ya.  +40 karma for gloating, very swine like.

Fuck you. It's a serious question.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606152Japanese TRPG authors have literally no awareness of either our OSR or Storygame RPG movements here.

It's neither here nor there. I don't give a shit whether they give names to games like we do or not. My questions are still unanswered: is it what we here call a regular RPG? Does it involve narrative mechanics? Is the goal of this game to tell a story? Is there a "what is role playing" pitch in the book, and could you please quote it here? Thank you.

Quote from: Benoist;606151Is it a regular RPG, though? Does it involve narrative game mechanics and the like? Are you the co-author of a story in this game? Is there a paragraph explaining "what is role playing" and could you quote it to us?

I am no longer sure what that means on these forums any more, to be honest.

FWIW I set out a pretty detailed run down of the game on the last thread and most people agreed that it was a traditional RPG for the most part, with some narrative mechanics. Feel free to trawl back through that thread.

Short Version:

Storygame - No

RPG with (pretty heavy) Narrative mechanics, yes.

As we would classify them, Ben, I'd say it's about 50/50.

Quote from: Skywalker;606156I am no longer sure what that means on these forums any more, to be honest.

Is the purpose of this game world and/or genre emulation, immersion, or something else? Is it to immerse in the game world as your character, with the rules basically describing what your character can do in the world, or is it a game where you are the co-author of a story, with mechanics that allow you to influence the flow of the game outside of your character, e.g. narrative mechanics? Is the role of game master or referee standard, e.g. the word of the game master is law, you can modify the rules, the rules are infeoded to you, not the reverse, or is it constrained by specific actions GMs can and cannot do during the course of the game?

Is it a regular RPG according to Pundit's landmarks?

Quote from: Skywalker;606156FWIW I set out a pretty detailed run down of the game on the last thread and most people agreed that it was a traditional RPG for the most part, with a few narrative mechanics. Feel free to trawl back through that thread.

What are those few narrative mechanics? Are they, in fact, few, or are they pervasive throughout the work?

Quote from: CRKrueger;606157Short Version:

Storygame - No

RPG with (pretty heavy) Narrative mechanics, yes.

As we would classify them, Ben, I'd say it's about 50/50.

Jesus, thanks. An actual fucking answer. Hallelujah!

What are those pretty heavy narrative mechanics? How about a quote from the "what is role playing" section from the book?

Quote from: Benoist;606159Is the role of game master or referee standard, e.g. the word of the game master is law, you can modify the rules, the rules are infeoded to you, not the reverse, or is it constrained by specific actions GMs can and cannot do during the course of the game?

From the book:

THE GM's POWERS AND ABILITIES
For the player who participates as the GM, there are some additional powers and abilities that come with the job. Of course, they should stick to the rules as much as possible. Moreover, they should try their hardest to apply the rules impartially to all the players.
If the GM makes a mistake in the application of a rule, they should apologize immediately and use the correct rule from that point on. Don't try to "rewind time", as it were, and try to reapply the correct rule to the situation. Think of it like a referee's call in a sports game; it shouldn't be undone. What's past is past. Just make an effort to use the correct rule or judgment in the future.

1: RULE CHANGES AND CANCELLATION
The GM is allowed to change rules or decide to work around or outside of the rules at any time.

2: DECIDE HOW TO USE RULES TO RESOLVE A SITUATION
In situations where the rules don't clearly cover how to resolve a situation, the GM can decide which rules should be used or how to resolve that particular situation.
If the GM faces a situation where the rules don't apply at all or where the PCs what to do something not covered in the rules, please use the following criteria when thinking of a judgment:
Does it feel like it fits the atmosphere of the scene?
Does it sound cool?
Does it seem to fit inside the plans of the rest of the adventure?
Does it add to the fun of the players?

3: CANCELING THE EFFECT OF ANOTHER PLAYER'S ACTION
If the player decides to do something that completely counteracts the atmosphere of the game, the GM can say that it didn't happen, and have the player choose their action again. The GM should never have to use this power often with a focused group of enthusiastic players, but it is there as a sort of "emergency break", just in case.

4: DECIDING THE ACTIONS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.
The GM can control the basic actions of the NPCs without making them roll dice. They simply succeed or fail at tasks as the GM decides.


From the Rules Lexicon:

Game Master or GM This is the person in the group who is in charge of the game. She is responsible for the flow of the game, setting the stage and creating scenes, and creating the adventure scenario in which the other players will play. She also creates conflicts for the characters, and describes what happens when the players react to those conflicts. The GM is also the referee and judge of the rules.

Player or PC
The rest of the participants in the game aside from the GM are players. Each player is in charge of a Player Character (PC), which they guide through role-play. Players who take part in a scene are called "acting players", and a player who takes the role of an important character for that scene is called the "scene player".

Player Character or PC
These are the heroes and characters that the players use to tell a story, as opposed to the background characters that the heroes meet, which are called NPCs.

Non-Player Character or NPC
These are the various story characters that the Game Master controls, such as townspeople, leaders, and villains. They interact with the PCs. Sometimes the players will take on the roles of these NPCs as well.

Quote from: Benoist;606159Is the purpose of this game world and/or genre emulation, immersion, or something else? Is it to immerse in the game world as your character, with the rules basically describing what your character can do in the world, or is it a game where you are the co-author of a story, with mechanics that allow you to influence the flow of the game outside of your character, e.g. narrative mechanics? Is the role of game master or referee standard, e.g. the word of the game master is law, you can modify the rules, the rules are infeoded to you, not the reverse, or is it constrained by specific actions GMs can and cannot do during the course of the game?

The players play their PCs and the rules govern the PCs action.

There are narrative mechanics in that bennies are awarded if the PC acts in accord with their Fates (much like in Storyteller's Nature, FATE's Aspects or Pendragon's Virtues).

There is also some genre emulation in that when the PC gains sufficient power, they become Asura (a Buddhist concept of a person fallen to the dark side).

Quote from: Benoist;606159Is it a regular RPG according to Pundit's landmarks?

Mr Pundit doesn't like it, if that's what you are asking.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606164From the book:

Cool. Thanks Frundsberg. Is there a "what is role playing?" section in the book? Could you quote the definition of role playing one can find there? Thanks.

Quote from: Benoist;606166Cool. Thanks Frundsberg. Is there a "what is role playing?" section in the book? Could you quote the definition of role playing one can find there? Thanks.

Of course:

WHAT IS A ROLEPLAYING GAME?
A role-playing game is a form of creative entertainment that you engage in with your friends. It's an ancient form of entertainment given new form. Behind all of the gloss, dice, and rules this game simply comes down to telling stories with your friends.
Together with a group of friends, you will create a tale. The story will have a backdrop, the world of Tenra. It will have unique and interesting characters, which you will role- play: You will pretend to be those characters, guiding their actions and speaking through them. Using some rules and a little creativity, a story will develop. There will be crises and climaxes, and the characters will change as you pass from chapter to chapter in the story.

Quote from: Skywalker;606165Mr Pundit doesn't like it, if that's what you are asking.

No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm talking about the game theory landmarks (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931) posted by the Pundit in the design and dev forum. Is this game violating any of the landmarks? Does it define itself as a narrative game, for instance?

Quote from: Frundsberg;606167Of course:

WHAT IS A ROLEPLAYING GAME?
A role-playing game is a form of creative entertainment that you engage in with your friends. It's an ancient form of entertainment given new form. Behind all of the gloss, dice, and rules this game simply comes down to telling stories with your friends.
Together with a group of friends, you will create a tale. The story will have a backdrop, the world of Tenra. It will have unique and interesting characters, which you will role- play: You will pretend to be those characters, guiding their actions and speaking through them. Using some rules and a little creativity, a story will develop. There will be crises and climaxes, and the characters will change as you pass from chapter to chapter in the story.

Awesome. Thanks again, Frundsberg. This is very helpful.

That confirms that TBZ is not for me.

Quote from: Benoist;606168Does it define itself as a narrative game, for instance?

It defines itself as an RPG:

QuoteWHAT IS THIS BOOK?
This book takes us behind the scenes of Tenra, a “Hyper-Asian” setting of fantasy, swords, technology and magic introduced in the world guide. Th is book is a tool for you and your friends to use to create thrilling tales within the world of Tenra. It is a tabletop role-playing game: A rulebook, informational resource and play guide. Th is book and some friends are all you require to play the game.

Quote from: Benoist;606154Fuck you. It's a serious question.



It's neither here nor there. I don't give a shit whether they give names to games like we do or not. My questions are still unanswered: is it what we here call a regular RPG? Does it involve narrative mechanics? Is the goal of this game to tell a story? Is there a "what is role playing" pitch in the book, and could you please quote it here? Thank you.

You can not give a shit however much you want,but facts still over ride you - the game is what the original authors define it as, not what you want it to be. If you want to rant about Storygame RPGs, then create a new one about DITV or Sorcerer, which are defined by their own authors as Storygame RPGs.  The creators define and control the conversation and the product identity, not you. And to the folks at F.E.A.R., TBZ is a Hyper-Asian fantasy TRPG. You desperatly want TBZ's round peg to fit into your chamber of square hole ammunition.

Also, any storygame RPG elements in TBZ aren't terribly different from what was found in games like MSH:RPG or anything that uses a luck or karma point mechanics.  Karma in TBZ is more like XP than anything else, for example.

Question answered - non sequitur, zero set.  Moving on!

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606171You can not give a shit however much you want,but facts still over ride you - the game is what the original authors define it as, not what you want it to be. If you want to rant about Storygame RPGs, then create a new one about DITV or Sorcerer, which are defined by their own authors as Storygame RPGs.  The creators define and control the conversation and the product identity, not you. And to the folks at F.E.A.R., TBZ is a Hyper-Asian fantasy TRPG. You desperatly want TBZ's round peg to fit into your chamber of square hole ammunition.

Also, any storygame RPG elements in TBZ aren't terribly different from what was found in games like MSH:RPG or anything that uses a luck or karma point mechanics.  Karma in TBZ is more like XP than anything else, for example.

Question answered - non sequitur, zero set.  Moving on!

Well, I'll just repeat myself: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

YOU do not get to redefine anything, ESPECIALLY not Role Playing Games on this board. Believe it or not, I was actually asking out of interest, to see whether it'd be worth my time to have a look at TBZ. But your fucking childish attitude regarding the role playing games versus story games divide, which is real, since these two type of games simply don't have the same object and purpose, is simply put fucking ridiculous. Thanks for being such a butthurt bitch about it, douchebag!

So you can indeed move on now, and go fuck yourself.

Quote from: Skywalker;606170It defines itself as an RPG:

Thank you. I see that now. The part where they define role playing as creating a tale and spinning a story really turns me off, however. Now that doesn't stop some RPGs using the same rhetoric to actually be traditional RPGs, like say Vampire, but that's the kind of pitch that really makes me cringe right off the bat.

Although I've just my word to back it, I'd like to say that my playing group's a very traditional one, with a strong dislike for anything "storytelly", and they are all having a lot of fun with this game. Without changing, omitting or house ruling anything.

Quote from: Benoist;606179Thank you. I see that now. The part where they define role playing as creating a tale and spinning a story really turns me off, however. Now that doesn't stop some RPGs using the same rhetoric to actually be traditional RPGs, like say Vampire, but that's the kind of pitch that really makes me cringe right off the bat.

Well, it also speaks about GM authority and the part about "unique and interesting characters, which you will role- play: You will pretend to be those characters, guiding their actions and speaking through them". Dunno if it helps. I guess that because I'm enjoying this game so much, I'd like everyone to enjoy it too.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606182Although I've just my word to back it, I'd like to say that my playing group's a very traditional one, with a strong dislike for anything "storytelly", and they are all having a lot of fun with this game. Without changing, omitting or house ruling anything.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat.  It's got loads of kewl powers, it's got sweet giant robots and mecha and cyborgs, and you can explicitly play a dude whose armor is made out of a parasitic worm or who is Vampire Hunter D.  It reminds me of RIFTS more than anything storygamey.

If Benoist doesn't think he'll like it, that's cool, because he knows he and his group, but honestly, I have no interest in fringe game design where people are more intereted in a "story" than a "character," and the only thing possibly contentious about TBZ is the karma system's determination that if you go over 108, you become a demon. And even that's functionally a power-cap, like Taint from Aberrant or Essence/Humanity in Shadowrun and Cyberpunk.

Wow, I haven't used any bad words. I must have touched a truth nerve.

The writers at F.E.A.R. don't give two farts less about the OSR or Storygame RPG movements here, and the movements certainly did not exist when the game was written (2000 or so I believe). So, again, they define what their game is, not you.  I feel that you're hanging tightly onto this because you have a thing against Kitkowski, who runs storygames.net and is a proponent of some views that differ from yours. Your view is non an analytical one, but a political one. I'm sure that taste is a strong part of this too, but I sense that you'd enjoy seeing a Kitkowski project fail because of how you feel about him and his in the larger hobby, not based on the merits or failings of TBZ. I'm not defining what TBZ is about, F.E.A.R. did that when they wrote their game.


Anyway, that doesn't matter. I'll happily buy you the PDF when the game is released if you would do a review of the game here.  $30 is worth getting your view of TBZ and seeing how a proponent of a particular view of the OSR movement and your view of traditional gaming.  You down with that, Benoist?

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606185Yeah, I'm in the same boat.  It's got loads of kewl powers, it's got sweet giant robots and mecha and cyborgs, and you can explicitly play a dude whose armor is made out of a parasitic worm or who is Vampire Hunter D.  It reminds me of RIFTS more than anything storygamey.

If Benoist doesn't think he'll like it, that's cool, because he knows he and his group, but honestly, I have no interest in fringe game design where people are more intereted in a "story" than a "character," and the only thing possibly contentious about TBZ is the karma system's determination that if you go over 108, you become a demon. And even that's functionally a power-cap, like Taint from Aberrant or Essence/Humanity in Shadowrun and Cyberpunk.

FVB, what about the scene framing mechanics and the Passion/Relationship mechanics, or the emotion matrix? I can see where some uber-hardcore Trad gaming folks might find that questionable.

Quote from: Benoist;606179Thank you. I see that now. The part where they define role playing as creating a tale and spinning a story really turns me off, however. Now that doesn't stop some RPGs using the same rhetoric to actually be traditional RPGs, like say Vampire, but that's the kind of pitch that really makes me cringe right off the bat.

Isn't that what traditional D&D is anyway?  Not trying to be an ass, seriously.

I always thought that the big objection in the Trad gaming crowd against storygame RPGs was against mechanics used to control things like scene framing, outside control of narrative, and other such, like what Marvel Heroic Roleplaying does.  I mean, all D&D DMs and players I've met are into story, they just want it to be uncontrolled by mechanics, actor vs author stance kinda stuff.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606186Wow, I haven't used any bad words. I must have touched a truth nerve.

Well. Each time you guys are circle-jerking, like on the Apocalypse World thread, about how above all that you are and that there's really no difference between story games and role playing games bla bla blah I want to tell the lot of you to shut the fuck up. Some people like myself DO see a difference, and it DOES matter to take pleasure gaming for us.

So the bullshit about how I don't get to define the game as an RPG or not or whatnot, you keep it to yourself. When I actually play the game, I do categorize it and I do take pleasure or not at the game table based on my own criteria. Thank you very much.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606186Anyway, that doesn't matter. I'll happily buy you the PDF when the game is released if you would do a review of the game here.  $30 is worth getting your view of TBZ and seeing how a proponent of a particular view of the OSR movement and your view of traditional gaming.  You down with that, Benoist?

I'd love to take you up on that offer, but I am busy with my own game design already.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606187FVB, what about the scene framing mechanics and the Passion/Relationship mechanics, or the emotion matrix? I can see where some uber-hardcore Trad gaming folks might find that questionable.

I dunno what kind of territory hard-core trad gaming folks have staked out, but the emotion matrix struck me as effectively being the offspring of reaction tables, which I recall from D&D, albeit here they're also used for PCs, and which I've seen time and time again over the last thirty-plus years.  The scene-framing mechanics simply formalize a lot of what goes on in normal games (although I was shocked to discover how much they predict what Robin Laws is doing over in Hillfolk these days) and the Passion/Relationship mechanics don't seem so revolutionary to me.  

The things that made me go "Wow" and which I'd never, ever seen before are the damage mechanic, the reverse death-spiral, and a few other things.  But the emotion-matrix and personality stuff was just a very efficient use of things I've been seeing since Champions.

Unless you're going to censor my output here, like they might try to do at other boards, I'll express myself as I see fit. Unless I am in violation of board rules, I will express myself as I see fit.  Of course, feel free to cuss me out and call me wrong, or engage me in debate. That's why I'm here!

Also, I don't recall being in any Apocalypse World threads :idunno: AFAIK, AW is a Storygame RPG and that's that.

But, if you're working on you're own design, that is cool.  When you're time frees up, let me know, and I will buy you the PDF.  I'm also interested in how a true-way OSR'er would 'save' TBZ from it's swinish self.

Also, wanna start a thread on what you are working on, or point me to a pre-existing one?  I'm always interested in new RPG work.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606192I dunno what kind of territory hard-core trad gaming folks have staked out, but the emotion matrix struck me as effectively being the offspring of reaction tables, which I recall from D&D, albeit here they're also used for PCs, and which I've seen time and time again over the last thirty-plus years.  The scene-framing mechanics simply formalize a lot of what goes on in normal games (although I was shocked to discover how much they predict what Robin Laws is doing over in Hillfolk these days) and the Passion/Relationship mechanics don't seem so revolutionary to me.  

The things that made me go "Wow" and which I'd never, ever seen before are the damage mechanic, the reverse death-spiral, and a few other things.  But the emotion-matrix and personality stuff was just a very efficient use of things I've been seeing since Champions.

Great nuggets, FBV.  Would you characterize TBZ as a trad game, a storygame, or somewhere inbetween?

Reverse death spiral is something a lot of RPGs need.  L5R and the Storyteller games's mechanics go contrary to their in-setting fluff because of Death Spiral.

I want to see more Japanese TRPGs translated by the Trad crowd.  Games like Meiyuu Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meikyu_kingdom) stink OSR with a twist and I'd love to a japanese view of the classic D&D experience.  There were Japanese editions of D&D released, and I'd like to see how the ran with it.

Quote from: Benoist;606175Well, I'll just repeat myself: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

YOU do not get to redefine anything, ESPECIALLY not Role Playing Games on this board. Believe it or not, I was actually asking out of interest, to see whether it'd be worth my time to have a look at TBZ. But your fucking childish attitude regarding the role playing games versus story games divide, which is real, since these two type of games simply don't have the same object and purpose, is simply put fucking ridiculous. Thanks for being such a butthurt bitch about it, douchebag!

So you can indeed move on now, and go fuck yourself.

Holy shit, you're sensitive.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606192I dunno what kind of territory hard-core trad gaming folks have staked out, but the emotion matrix struck me as effectively being the offspring of reaction tables, which I recall from D&D, albeit here they're also used for PCs, and which I've seen time and time again over the last thirty-plus years.  The scene-framing mechanics simply formalize a lot of what goes on in normal games (although I was shocked to discover how much they predict what Robin Laws is doing over in Hillfolk these days) and the Passion/Relationship mechanics don't seem so revolutionary to me.  

The things that made me go "Wow" and which I'd never, ever seen before are the damage mechanic, the reverse death-spiral, and a few other things.  But the emotion-matrix and personality stuff was just a very efficient use of things I've been seeing since Champions.

I was sweating for an answer with my poor English skills, but the above sums it up nicely.

The Emotion Matrix, besides not being so binding as it sounds, has sparked a lot of roleplaying opportunities that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

And the übermunchkin among us is spending hours (even at the office) designing new mecha, shiki, archetypes and studying the mechanica section to make his PC the ultimate killing machine.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606197And the übermunchkin among us is spending hours (even at the office) designing new mecha, shiki, archetypes and studying the mechanica section to make his PC the ultimate killing machine.

I'm very interested in this aspect of the game.  I really like how it gives you tools to design new stuff (martial arts, ninja powers, etc) right out of the box.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606195Great nuggets, FBV.  Would you characterize TBZ as a trad game, a storygame, or somewhere inbetween?

I'm the wrong guy to ask, because there's clearly been a lot of defining going on by various sides, and I'm not read up enough on the foundational philosophical documents.  To me, it's a traditional roleplaying game, because I play it -- I know that sounds pat, but it seems a reasonable enough definition as any.  I can't define a traditional RPG, "but I know it when I see it," to quote Justice Potter.  

At the same time, an equally reasonable examination (AFAICT) reveals that, "It's been translated by Andy K, who runs Storygames.com, and so it's a storygame."  

I mean, to me, traditional roleplaying games are large and contain multitudes.  Barring certain anomalies like Universalis or something, I think half of what people call storygames or indie RPGs are actually traditional RPGs, and the rest is tribalism.  Maybe I'm just not aware of the boundaries.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606197And the übermunchkin among us is spending hours (even at the office) designing new mecha, shiki, archetypes and studying the mechanica section to make his PC the ultimate killing machine.

The first weekend I had a copy, all I did was grind out crunch.  I think I made Stormbringer first, then dhampirs, then I built Soul Reapers as a splat and made Kenpachi Zuraki.

I'll go over the landmarks for the sake of you sensitive guys who are offended about I dunno what the fuck exactly but hey I'm here sitting at home tonight playing through SRW Z for the second time already and Rand is cliche as fuck.

To preserve your sanity I will not split the quotes, but will reply in bold.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1488721. The vast majority of gamers are having fun gaming.

TBZ rather stresses the fun part in many places.

2. The vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played.

Um, yeah.

3. D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks. You don't have to say it is the "best" RPG, but you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG.

Thank you note to David Arneson and Gary Gygax in the first page. I'll just leave it at that.

4. Given number 3 above, it is self-evident that games that have a broad spectrum of playstyles (as D&D does) are by definition successful games. Any theory that speculates that games must be narrowly-focused to be "good" games is automatically in violation of the Landmarks. Note that this doesn't mean that you must say narrow-focus games are "bad", or that narrow-focused games can't be considered appropriate, only that you cannot suggest that gamers don't want to play in RPGs that have a broad spectrum of playstyle, because they obviously do want to play exactly those kinds of games.

I don't think it's that narrowly focused to be honest. I mean yeah it's hyper Asian fantasy whatever that is but with all the setting hacks in the works it will prove to be rather versatile. There is certainly nothing uniquely hyper or Asian about the core resolution mechanic.

5. Conflicts do arise in gaming groups; these conflicts are usually the product of social interaction between the players and not a problem with the rules themselves. The solution to these problems is not to "Narrow the rules", but to broaden the playstyle of a group to accomodate what the complaining players are missing. Thus, it is a Landmark that all correct gaming theories, if they deal with "player dis-satisfaction" at all, must focus the nature of that dissatisfaction on the rules ONLY to suggest that a given rules-set is too narrow; and even then only because it is a symptom of an interpersonal social conflict within a group.

Wait, what?

6. Given point #3, above, any gaming theory that suggest that the GM should get disproportionately more or less power than they do in D&D in order for a game to be "good" is inherently in violation of the Landmarks. The vast majority of players enjoy a game where the GM has power over the world and the players over their characters; and while a theory can suggest ways that GMs and Players can experiment with interactively creating the setting, it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do (except for the "power" to walk away from a game).

I would say the GM has about as much power as in D&D if not more in some aspects. Sure the players get some input over showing up in scenes but the GM can veto that. And while players can influence each other character's emotion matrix rolls (and so can GM) it's neither here nor there. The setting is created by GM alone.

7. Any gaming theory that tries to divide gamers into specific criteria of "types" must make it clear that this is only one kind of categorization, and not an absolutist and literal interpretation that is a universal truth; it is only one form of categorizing gamers.

No types to be seen anywhere.

8. Any theory that suggests, therefore, that its "types" are mutually exclusionary in gaming groups is in violation of the Landmarks. Individual people can end up being mutually exclusive to each other, unable to play in the same group, etc; but that is because of individual personal issues, not because of an issue of playstyle.

See above.

9. Any gaming theory that suggests that a significant element of what many players find entertaining is in fact a "delusion" or unreal, or that the gamers themselves don't know what they're doing or what they're thinking, or what they want from gaming, is in violation of the landmarks.

Jesus fucking Christ it's not written by Ron Edwards okay. Ron Edwards was not yet a "thing" when this game was written. His ideas were not considered by the original authors on account of lacking time machines and/or general interest.

10. Given points #9 and #1, the suggestion that so-called "immersion" is not a real or viable goal in an RPG, or that "genre emulation" is not a viable priority in a game, is in violation of the Landmarks.

None of that shit in TBZ.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193Unless you're going to censor my output here, like they might try to do at other boards, I'll express myself as I see fit. Unless I am in violation of board rules, I will express myself as I see fit.  Of course, feel free to cuss me out and call me wrong, or engage me in debate. That's why I'm here!

Trust me: if I have to tell you something as a mod/admin, you'll know. I'll tell you that much, and you'll be warned. Don't become one of these people who just takes everything as being the threat of a ban. This is not RPGnet here.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193AFAIK, AW is a Storygame RPG and that's that.

Lose the "RPG" part and yes, I agree. AW seems to be a story game. Not a role playing game.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193But, if you're working on you're own design, that is cool.  When you're time frees up, let me know, and I will buy you the PDF.  I'm also interested in how a true-way OSR'er would 'save' TBZ from it's swinish self.

I'm an old-schooler yes, and a gamer. I can't say I'm happy with the way the "OSR" has become this sort of sticker that's put on people's heads according to the type of games they want to play though. Strikes me as cliquish, to be honest.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193Also, wanna start a thread on what you are working on, or point me to a pre-existing one?  I'm always interested in new RPG work.

I'd love to talk about it of course, but cannot yet.

Quote from: vytzka;606196Holy shit, you're sensitive.

Depends. I'm a big believer in the way a good "fuck you" makes one feel better at times, and I appreciate the RPG Site for being able to get it out of my system when I feel the need for it. This was one of those times.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606199I'm very interested in this aspect of the game.  I really like how it gives you tools to design new stuff (martial arts, ninja powers, etc) right out of the box.

TBH, except the archetype thing I've mentioned, the other ones (shiki, mecha, mechanica) are just purchase and customize processes. But the rules are flexible and intuitive enough to easily come up with new stuff.

To hit on one part of the Emotion Matrix that people might overlook, yes, people can influence a character's feeling for a character or an NPC when they first choose them, but it's explicitly economic -- "I think it would be cool if you viewed this character as a rival, here's a reward for doing so."  You can turn down the reward.  It's mainly an economic exchange for coolness.  I think it's neat, personally.  But it's certainly not mandatory.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606201The first weekend I had a copy, all I did was grind out crunch.  I think I made Stormbringer first, then dhampirs, then I built Soul Reapers as a splat and made Kenpachi Zuraki.

I take my hat off to you.

You can hear excerpts from "actual play" of Tenra Bansho Zero at the table on the latest episode my brother's podcast, Virtual Play (http://virtualplay.podbus.com/?p=185), if you're interested.

Quote from: Benoist;606206Depends. I'm a big believer in the way a good "fuck you" makes one feel better at times, and I appreciate the RPG Site for being able to get it out of my system when I feel the need for it. This was one of those times.

I'll never speak against a man's right to a hearty fuck you, so long as I get to say so in return! I hold more to a general politeness policy, though,because politeness is free and bespeaks discipline and character. Yes, the rpgsite is good for that.

Kinda like when Spock expresses nothing but gratitude to the Vulcan Science Academy when he declines admission.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606210I take my hat off to you.

Post that schnizz up, dawg! Let's see it! I agree.

Quote from: Benoist;606168I'm talking about the game theory landmarks (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931) posted by the Pundit in the design and dev forum

What a load of crap.

Quote from: silva;606222What a load of crap.

For one thing, those seem to explicitly be benchmarks for examining a theory and not an RPG.

Quote from: Benoist;606160Jesus, thanks. An actual fucking answer. Hallelujah!

What are those pretty heavy narrative mechanics? How about a quote from the "what is role playing" section from the book?

Well, one example: Your character can't die unless as a player you decide to risk death for the character.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606224For one thing, those seem to explicitly be benchmarks for examining a theory and not an RPG.

Yes. And theory influences design. My question is whether the RPG was based on a theory or design concepts that violate the benchmarks alluded to there: that is, is it a "coherent" Forgist game, does it try to redefine the role of the GM in the RPG game play, and so on. Kind of litmus test for me to determine whether this game is for me or not. But given the butthurt of some people around here each time the difference between a story game and a role playing game is pointed out, we're talking instead about all this is just "a load of crap." Quaint, though not that surprising, in hindsight.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606228Well, one example: Your character can't die unless as a player you decide to risk death for the character.

WTF? What?! Your character can't die unless you decide it as a player?

Ben, mind looking at my post on the previous page examining the benchmarks vis a vis TBZ? Are any parts unclear or disagreeable?

Quote from: Benoist;606232WTF? What?! Your character can't die unless you decide it as a player?

Yes, that is correct.  You must decide as a player that you are going to risk the death of your character.

Quote from: vytzka;606233Ben, mind looking at my post on the previous page examining the benchmarks vis a vis TBZ? Are any parts unclear or disagreeable?

I think you're taking the benchmarks too literally (like "there's a thank you note for Dave and Gary so they love D&D obviously"), but I appreciate the effort.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606235Yes, that is correct.  You must decide as a player that you are going to risk the death of your character.

Wow...

Quote from: Benoist;606229Yes. And theory influences design. My question is whether the RPG was based on a theory or design concepts that violate the benchmarks alluded to there: that is, is it a "coherent" Forgist game, does it try to redefine the role of the GM in the RPG game play, and so on. Kind of litmus test for me to determine whether this game is for me or not. But given the butthurt of some people around here each time the difference between a story game and a role playing game is pointed out, we're talking instead about all this is just "a load of crap." Quaint, though not that surprising, in hindsight.

It's not, as others have stated, based on any kind of Forgeist philosophy, although I can't claim to know what's been introduced by the translators in the course of translation.  The game was originally released in 1997, on another continent, as part of a gaming culture that's never heard of our weird philosophical debates.

I'm not trying to be flippant or dismissive -- as a purely cultural artifact of the Japanese gaming culture, it's an interesting book, because the author was ahead of his time in some ways (and a product of his time in others -- it's clearly a product of the same era that gave us TORG and RIFTS and other multi-genre games).  And, the translators have gone to great lengths to explain portions of the book that veer from our cultural touchstones, such as "cafe gaming" or the significance of 108 when it comes to the karma system, or the choice of terms.

Quote from: Benoist;606229Yes. And theory influences design. My question is whether the RPG was based on a theory or design concepts that violate the benchmarks alluded to there: that is, is it a "coherent" Forgist game, does it try to redefine the role of the GM in the RPG game play, and so on. Kind of litmus test for me to determine whether this game is for me or not. But given the butthurt of some people around here each time the difference between a story game and a role playing game is pointed out, we're talking instead about all this is just "a load of crap." Quaint, though not that surprising, in hindsight.

Yup, storygame RPGs, Trad RPGs, still just RPGs, truth be told.  All good in the hood with me.

TBZ, simply by it's trad GM/Player structure steps out of the bounds of a storygame RPG. A Storygame RPG would have the Aiki mechanic grant bonuses to traits when a particular personality trait when invoked, like FATE's aspects,as opposed to TSR's MSHRPG which hands out it's version of Karma to influence the success of roles purely at the GM's discretion. In fact, the only thing you can do with Karma besides purchase advancement and influence your own rolls in MSHRPG is to lower someone else's Zone result, if memory serves.  In TBZ, Aiki is just a benny for entertaining other players, although player use for it ties into the rest of the system and is sophisticated.

Orthdodox Forgeites, IMO, wouldn't like TBZ.

Quote from: Benoist;606232WTF? What?! Your character can't die unless you decide it as a player?

Put simply, yes.

To get into more detail, you have two wound tracks - vitality which is sort of like D&D hit points and wound boxes which are sort of like White Wolf damage boxes with penalties assigned.

Except that 1) it's completely up to the player where to assign the damage points and 2) the White Wolf damage boxes give out bonuses instead of penalties. When your vitality runs out you pass out. When you have moderate damage marked, you get +1 to all rolls. When you have heavy damage, you get +2 but lose a Vitality point every round (except for your last one). When you mark your dead box, you negate all other damage for the attack, get +3 to all actions and when you run out of Vitality, you die.

Genre emulation, beyotch. I thought the landmarks were all over that shiznit... yo?

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606239Yup, storygame RPGs, Trad RPGs, still just RPGs, truth be told.  All good in the hood with me.

"Storygame RPG" means "story game role playing game". It's like saying "a red wine white wine" or "salted butter unsalted butter". It does not make any sense. "Yup, red wine white wine, traditional white wine, it's all just white wine to me!"

Quote from: vytzka;606240Genre emulation, beyotch. I thought the landmarks were all over that shiznit... yo?

So, characters in Tenra Bansho only die when they decide it in the genre being emulated? That's a "thing" in the game world, like the character knows he's impossible to kill UNLESS he actually risks something? I don't think you got that "genre emulation" thing quite pinned down yet.

Quote from: Benoist;606237Wow...

you knew that anyway. it was made clear earlier on in the first thread.

Quote from: Benoist;606245So, characters in Tenra Bansho only die when they decide it in the genre being emulated? That's a "thing" in the game world, like the character knows he's impossible to kill UNLESS he actually risks something? I don't think you got that "genre emulation" thing quite pinned down yet.

Over here in the non-stupid country, no, a character doesn't know he's impossible to kill, what the fuck. I mean they could probably get coup de graced by an NPC while they're unconscious, you just don't do that shit if you don't want to be in Dick City: Population Benoist. So you throw them in a dungeon or whatever.

A character probably does know that instead of giving in and passing out they can instead go for the blaze of glory and either win or risk certain death. Sometimes you can do both.

Does that make too much sense?

Sadly I have to go to bed now. I hope this place doesn't melt down completely in the meantime.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;606246you knew that anyway. it was made clear earlier on in the first thread.

I honestly didn't know. I didn't read the whole previous thread in detail.

Quote from: Benoist;606245So, characters in Tenra Bansho only die when they decide it in the genre being emulated? That's a "thing" in the game world, like the character knows he's impossible to kill UNLESS he actually risks something? I don't think you got that "genre emulation" thing quite pinned down yet.

The PC presumably does not know this.  It's no different than Toon not allowing PC death, or games like Shadowrun allowing you to pay Edge points to buy a death back to a severe wound, except the economy behind it encourages the player to stake his character's life in big fights by incentivizing it.

Rules like this predate the Forge movement by years.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606238It's not, as others have stated, based on any kind of Forgeist philosophy, although I can't claim to know what's been introduced by the translators in the course of translation.  The game was originally released in 1997, on another continent, as part of a gaming culture that's never heard of our weird philosophical debates.

I'm not trying to be flippant or dismissive -- as a purely cultural artifact of the Japanese gaming culture, it's an interesting book, because the author was ahead of his time in some ways (and a product of his time in others -- it's clearly a product of the same era that gave us TORG and RIFTS and other multi-genre games).  And, the translators have gone to great lengths to explain portions of the book that veer from our cultural touchstones, such as "cafe gaming" or the significance of 108 when it comes to the karma system, or the choice of terms.

Yes, I get that part now. Thank you.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606250The PC presumably does not know this.  It's no different than Toon not allowing PC death, or games like Shadowrun allowing you to pay Edge points to buy a death back to a severe wound, except the economy behind it encourages the player to stake his character's life in big fights by incentivizing it.

Rules like this predate the Forge movement by years.

Rolemaster Standard System had optional Fate points that let you minimize effects of criticals.

And then Coleman Charlton was a Ron Edwards.

(yeah yeah gone for real now)

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606250The PC presumably does not know this.  It's no different than Toon not allowing PC death, or games like Shadowrun allowing you to pay Edge points to buy a death back to a severe wound, except the economy behind it encourages the player to stake his character's life in big fights by incentivizing it.

Rules like this predate the Forge movement by years.

I know, but they are still narrative in nature, and narrativism in RPGs gives me seizures. I don't play a role playing game to be the co-author of anything. I play to immerse myself in the game world.

Now, I'm going to take objection with Toon. Toon by not allowing PC death is actually emulative of the source fiction, where characters are flattened like crepes and take pianos on the head without dying - that's the reality in which the toon characters live. Now I will agree that the Edge spend to buy a death back to a severe wound is similar to what we're talking about here, albeit this seems here in Tenra Bansho to go much farther than that, that is, in Shadowrun's case the basic rule is that you die, and the Edge spend bends that rule, whereas in TB's case the basic rule is that you never die, and the player decision to have the character take a risk bends it.

From the point of view of watching an anime show, it is genre emulation in the sense of escalating tension as the character risks it all and can go out in a blaze of glory.  

However, the key decision is really metagame outside the character's perspective in that if I decide I do not want my character to die, it is absolutely impossible for that character to die.  That is so far outside a roleplaying decision, it's really mind-boggling that someone could mistake it for such.

Quote from: vytzka;606256Rolemaster Standard System had optional Fate points that let you minimize effects of criticals.

And then Coleman Charlton was a Ron Edwards.

(yeah yeah gone for real now)

Yes, I am not a fan of Edge points, Fate points and whatever else of that ilk.

Quote from: vytzka;606247Over here in the non-stupid country, no, a character doesn't know he's impossible to kill, what the fuck. I mean they could probably get coup de graced by an NPC while they're unconscious, you just don't do that shit if you don't want to be in Dick City: Population Benoist. So you throw them in a dungeon or whatever.

A character probably does know that instead of giving in and passing out they can instead go for the blaze of glory and either win or risk certain death. Sometimes you can do both.

Does that make too much sense?

Not enough. I actually had no idea whatever the fuck you were talking about reading this.

Quote from: Benoist;606245So, characters in Tenra Bansho only die when they decide it in the genre being emulated? That's a "thing" in the game world, like the character knows he's impossible to kill UNLESS he actually risks something? I don't think you got that "genre emulation" thing quite pinned down yet.

Yes, its according to genre. In many of the anime that inspire TBZ (and many fantasy stories), death is only present as a risk if something the character believes is at stake.

Quote from: Skywalker;606263Yes, its according to genre. In many of the anime that inspire TBZ (and many fantasy stories), death is only present as a risk if something the character believes is at stake.

So the game is an anime emulator, in fact.

Quote from: Benoist;606257I know, but they are still narrative in nature, and narrativism in RPGs gives me seizures. I don't play a role playing game to be the co-author of anything. I play to immerse myself in the game world.

Now, I'm going to take objection with Toon. Toon by not allowing PC death is actually emulative of the source fiction, where characters are flattened like crepes and take pianos on the head without dying - that's the reality in which the toon characters live. Now I will agree that the Edge spend to buy a death back to a severe wound is similar to what we're talking about here, albeit this seems here in Tenra Bansho to go much farther than that, that is, in Shadowrun's case the basic rule is that you die, and the Edge spend bends that rule, whereas in TB's case the basic rule is that you never die, and the player decision to have the character take a risk bends it.

Well, I think the rule we're discussing is emulation, in the sense that it's a rare genre of fiction where protagonists can die in unimportant fights (and not just anime).  I think the genius behind this rule -- and where it's more elegant than mere "fluke roll insurance" -- is that it inherently incentivizes taking that risk and behaving heroically.  

I respect you don't dig stuff along these lines, but there's not a lot of baggage here for me.  It's a pretty elegant little twist -- I could see using it for something like Rogue Trader, L5R or Spycraft, but not CoC, Unhallowed Metropolis or Warhammer FRP.

Quote from: Benoist;606264So the game is an anime emulator, in fact.

It has genre emulating mechanics in it, yeah.

The Death Box is as much a genre emulator as the initiative order in Dr Who is, and both are ultimate a decision by players i.e. in Dr Who your PC can always go first if he chooses to talk.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606224For one thing, those seem to explicitly be benchmarks for examining a theory and not an RPG.

That's correct.  Those are guidelines for framing theories about games, not for judging games themselves.  That said, you can infer from that a set of Landmarks of what would define a game as a Regular RPG or not.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606238It's not, as others have stated, based on any kind of Forgeist philosophy, although I can't claim to know what's been introduced by the translators in the course of translation.  The game was originally released in 1997, on another continent, as part of a gaming culture that's never heard of our weird philosophical debates.

I'm not trying to be flippant or dismissive -- as a purely cultural artifact of the Japanese gaming culture, it's an interesting book, because the author was ahead of his time in some ways (and a product of his time in others -- it's clearly a product of the same era that gave us TORG and RIFTS and other multi-genre games).  And, the translators have gone to great lengths to explain portions of the book that veer from our cultural touchstones, such as "cafe gaming" or the significance of 108 when it comes to the karma system, or the choice of terms.

If you find some clay pots from a pre-christian era, you can't accuse them of having a Christian fundamentalist agenda.  But if the people presenting said pots are trying to use the to claim that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, you can still question the spin and motivations said "archeologists" have got going, and whether their translation of the writing on said pots (or the interpretation of the same) is trustworthy.

At the very least, you can assume they're doing what they're doing not so much out of concern about the culture and love of archeology as they are doing it to try to prove their wacky theories for the sake of their religious cult.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606239Orthdodox Forgeites, IMO, wouldn't like TBZ.

And yet, several of them do. Several of them have come onto theRPGsite to gush about how great it is. Some of them are the ones who have actually translated it.

So you see the conundrum.. either your opinion isn't worth much or there's some fishy motives going on somewhere.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Skywalker;606263Yes, its according to genre. In many of the anime that inspire TBZ (and many fantasy stories), death is only present as a risk if something the character believes is at stake.

I think you're misunderstanding emulation here; in TOON, its emulation that elmer fudd doesn't die, even if a shotgun blows up in his face, because that's how the "physics" (to use the term very loosely) of that reality works.  There are occasional exceptions to this where the character is turned into a little angelic version of themselves floating up to heaven with a halo and a harp, possibly only to have their ghost get shot or blown up too; but the very next episode they're back and alive.

In Gundam or Macross or whatever, its assumed the world is one where the physics of the world are such that people DO in fact die. That death is a reality of the physics; and that characters who die in ep.41 of the series do not come back in episode 44, unless they had never actually really died at all.
So the idea that characters don't die "meaninglessly" is not a matter of emulation of the genre-world, its just a literary conceit, necessary if you are TELLING A STORY, but not necessary or desirable in the least if you are PLAYING A ROLEPLAYING GAME.

See what I did there?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Skywalker;606267It has genre emulating mechanics in it, yeah.

The Death Box is as much a genre emulator as the initiative order in Dr Who is, and both are ultimate a decision by players i.e. in Dr Who your PC can always go first if he chooses to talk.

I contributed the initiative order to Doctor Who. I based it on the initiative ordering system in the Rules Cyclopedia of D&D. I laugh my ass off every time Swine have praised it since.  Its a classic example of Story Swine misappropriation, and this is my own special little case of entrapment to prove it.  So thanks!

The difference, so you see, is that in the Doctor Who RPG, a blast from a Dalek raygun will kill you. No matter who you are.  You might be able to dodge with action-points, but if you are out of them or fail your dodge, you're dead. You don't get to choose if you're dead or not because you're supposed to be Sgt. Benton and Sgt. Benton didn't die in the show.

I would have no problem with a mechanical system that really WAS emulative, including one where you fight better while injured in exchange for a higher risk of death; if the thing wasn't set up so that you can't die from a stupid meaningless wound you bleed out from, or get blown up in a pointless battle because you couldn't pull out from a blast fast enough (both of which are deaths of major characters in Macross, by the by); and mainly, because of the notion that if you drop to 0 vitality someone still can't kill you by saying "I pump three bullets into his unconscious fucking skull" because you can just say "nuh uh! I CHOOSE not to die, and you can't kill be because I'm a story-relevant character!".

That's the moment it stops being an RPG and starts being a Storygame.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606362I contributed the initiative order to Doctor Who. I based it on the initiative ordering system in the Rules Cyclopedia of D&D. I laugh my ass off every time Swine have praised it since.  Its a classic example of Story Swine misappropriation, and this is my own special little case of entrapment to prove it.  So thanks!

I am well aware the mechanic is attributed to you, that you sourced it from the Rules Cyclopedia (which, by your own admission, as origin has no bearing on the true nature of what a mechanic is) and that you claim it to be a genre emulation mechanic.

The point that I was hoping to provoke from you was the distinction between the two mechanics.  So thanks for obliging me. In Dr Who, I could go up against the faster person in the world, but if I want my PC to go first, all I need to choose is for the PC to talk. You claim that is genre emulation as it somehow reflects the physics of the world.

I fail to see the distinction you attempt to make with the Death Box, as the fact that the mechanic applies to death rather than order of action is irrelevant in determining the nature of the mechanic. They both arise from the conceits of the genre on which the RPGs are based on.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606360I think you're misunderstanding emulation here; in TOON, its emulation that elmer fudd doesn't die, even if a shotgun blows up in his face, because that's how the "physics" (to use the term very loosely) of that reality works.  There are occasional exceptions to this where the character is turned into a little angelic version of themselves floating up to heaven with a halo and a harp, possibly only to have their ghost get shot or blown up too; but the very next episode they're back and alive.

In Gundam or Macross or whatever, its assumed the world is one where the physics of the world are such that people DO in fact die. That death is a reality of the physics; and that characters who die in ep.41 of the series do not come back in episode 44, unless they had never actually really died at all.
So the idea that characters don't die "meaninglessly" is not a matter of emulation of the genre-world, its just a literary conceit, necessary if you are TELLING A STORY, but not necessary or desirable in the least if you are PLAYING A ROLEPLAYING GAME.

See what I did there?

RPGPundit

Not really, because those literary conceits are elements of what is called genre.  Macross is not A Game of Thrones.  The hot young pilot does not die from a bullet wound or in a dogfight with a mook.  Just because people do die that way in that setting doesn't mean that you're emulating the heroic action genre by allowing protagonists to do so. (For a similar example, Dorian Hawkmoon does not get killed by shield-carriers, but his companion Oladahn certainly does.) In that sense, TBZ is emulating basic modern action genre principles, and not just acting as some kind of weird storygame sleeper cell.  

To demonstrate this, one need only look at a dozen other RPGs which are trying to ape basic heroic dramatic principles which also allow PCs (read: protagonists) to shrug off death if it comes at what the player deems is an undramatic moment, and which are emphatically not story games. TBZ takes it a step further in some interesting ways -- the reverse death spiral, the two methods of receiving damage, the incentives for staking one's PC's life on important battles -- but honestly, there's nothing in this game that's too different than anything that mainstream RPGs have been working toward for two decades.

 Yes, there are genres where protagonists get killed by a small-but-vicious dog or a knife in the back from spear-carrier #3, but that's not the genre that most RPGs are trying to emulate, and in that, again, TBZ is hardly exceptional.  If anything, TBZ is a potential step forward in trad gaming design, at least insofar as the heroic genre is concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;606262Not enough. I actually had no idea whatever the fuck you were talking about reading this.

You somehow attempted to make the argument that a metagame mechanic cannot do genre emulation. Which was pretty daft of you if we're perfectly honest.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606366Not really, because those literary conceits are elements of what is called genre.  Macross is not A Game of Thrones.  The hot young pilot does not die from a bullet wound or in a dogfight with a mook.  Just because people do die that way in that setting doesn't mean that you're emulating the heroic action genre by allowing protagonists to do so. (For a similar example, Dorian Hawkmoon does not get killed by shield-carriers, but his companion Oladahn certainly does.) In that sense, TBZ is emulating basic modern action genre principles, and not just acting as some kind of weird storygame sleeper cell.

In a proper RPG, there is no such thing as a "protagonist" because there is no genre convention shielding characters from the lawful consequences of their actions.  Hot Young Pilot can, and will if he's too reckless, get punked out like a bitch by a mook in a proper RPG because he has no Drama/Plot Armor.

QuoteTo demonstrate this, one need only look at a dozen other RPGs which are trying to ape basic heroic dramatic principles which also allow PCs (read: protagonists) to shrug off death if it comes at what the player deems is an undramatic moment, and which are emphatically not story games. TBZ takes it a step further in some interesting ways -- the reverse death spiral, the two methods of receiving damage, the incentives for staking one's PC's life on important battles -- but honestly, there's nothing in this game that's too different than anything that mainstream RPGs have been working toward for two decades.

Most of those games are crap, which is why they don't endure like D&D has.  A key draw for proper RPGs is "I can do better than that.", and you can't fill that need if you shield players from failure like this.  Far better to be honest, let their guys get ganked (or worse), and learn from the experience than to coddle them as if they were toddlers unable to cope with losing a game via some crap mechanic--usually metagame, which is worse--that's insufficiently or incompetently designed to do so.

QuoteYes, there are genres where protagonists get killed by a small-but-vicious dog or a knife in the back from spear-carrier #3, but that's not the genre that most RPGs are trying to emulate, and in that, again, TBZ is hardly exceptional.  If anything, TBZ is a potential step forward in trad gaming design, at least insofar as the heroic genre is concerned.

And the best examples in such source materials are those where those things do happen; it's why Legend of the Galactic Heroes is one of the best anime series ever made, and why so much is utterly boring-as-fuck bullshit.

Proper RPG? Oh my.

Quote from: Skywalker;606365I am well aware the mechanic is attributed to you, that you sourced it from the Rules Cyclopedia (which, by your own admission, as origin has no bearing on the true nature of what a mechanic is) and that you claim it to be a genre emulation mechanic.

The point that I was hoping to provoke from you was the distinction between the two mechanics.  So thanks for obliging me. In Dr Who, I could go up against the faster person in the world, but if I want my PC to go first, all I need to choose is for the PC to talk. You claim that is genre emulation as it somehow reflects the physics of the world.

I fail to see the distinction you attempt to make with the Death Box, as the fact that the mechanic applies to death rather than order of action is irrelevant in determining the nature of the mechanic. They both arise from the conceits of the genre on which the RPGs are based on.

In Doctor Who, people who do the talking go first. After they're done talking, if a Dalek shoots them, they die.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606366Not really, because those literary conceits are elements of what is called genre.  Macross is not A Game of Thrones.  The hot young pilot does not die from a bullet wound or in a dogfight with a mook.  Just because people do die that way in that setting doesn't mean that you're emulating the heroic action genre by allowing protagonists to do so. (For a similar example, Dorian Hawkmoon does not get killed by shield-carriers, but his companion Oladahn certainly does.) In that sense, TBZ is emulating basic modern action genre principles, and not just acting as some kind of weird storygame sleeper cell.  

Right yes, just like how Roy Fokker and Ben Dixon died in totally meaningful ways in that series, which was clearly not about the meaningless horrors of war. Total genre emulation going on there.

But seriously, your argument is meaningless, because if we're emulating PROTAGONISTS OF A STORY, that's not a genre. That's just a literary technique. By your logic, because Drrzt doesn't die in the Salvatore novels, no D&D character should ever die either; and because Captain Kirk doesn't die from a random klingon disruptor blast, no character should ever die that way in any sci-fi game.

You're not, at this point, talking about emulating genre at all, you're talking about emulating literature; which is to say, you're trying to use a meaningless position to try to sneak in Storygaming through the back door.
Since its an established Landmark of RPGs that they are not meant to have "creation of story" as their main goal, your point is invalid.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606396In Doctor Who, people who do the talking go first. After they're done talking, if a Dalek shoots them, they die.

You are putting an emphasis on the concept of death being the defining characteristic here, but I am not seeing why the subject of the mechanics matters. It's the nature and goal of the mechanics that count. In this the Death Box and the Action Order are nt significantly different.

You do seem to agree that the Action Order mechanic in Dr Who is based on how the genre conceits play out in the Dr Who stories. But you don't suggest that the characters in Dr Who actually move faster when talking. As such, it's driven by genre and not physics of the world in which Dr Who stories take place. The Death Box is identical to that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606399But seriously, your argument is meaningless, because if we're emulating PROTAGONISTS OF A STORY, that's not a genre. That's just a literary technique. By your logic, because Drrzt doesn't die in the Salvatore novels, no D&D character should ever die either; and because Captain Kirk doesn't die from a random klingon disruptor blast, no character should ever die that way in any sci-fi game.

Wait, what? So, having any mechanics that are reserved for the PCs only or PCs and major NPCs now makes an RPG a storygame? That seems to open a whole new can of worms.

Quote from: skywalker;606405wait, what? So, having any mechanics that are reserved for the pcs only or pcs and major npcs now makes an rpg a storygame? That seems to open a whole new can of worms.

AND THEN COLEMAN CHARLTON WAS A RON EDWARDS

(lowercase)

Benoist waited. The forums before him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were storygames in the Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Main Forum. He didn't see them, but had expected them, now for years. His warnings to Cernel RPGPundit were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.

Benoist was a machine that kills fascists for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the forums and he said to Gygax "I want to play Tenra Bansho Zero, Gary."

Gygax said "NO! YOU WILL BE BRAIN DAMAGE BY STORYGAMES!"

There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in therpgsite he knew there were storygames.

"This is RPGPundit," the facebook crackered. "You must fight the storygames!"

So Benoist gotted his new avatar and lokced a thread.

"彼は私たちを殺すつもり," said the swine!

"I will use arguments at him," said the Kaiu Keiichi and he explained his thinking. Benoist swore at him and tried to ban him. But then the forums locked up and they were trapped and not able to ban.

"No! I must ban the storygamers," he shouted!

The facebook said "No, Benoist. You are the storygamers."

And then, Benoist was a kugutsu.



This is a work of fiction. All similarities to existing people, forum personas, role playing games or works of fan fiction are purely incidental. Doom: Repercussions of Evil originally copyright by Peter Chimaera. Probably.

Quote from: vytzka;606256Rolemaster Standard System had optional Fate points that let you minimize effects of criticals.

And then Coleman Charlton was a Ron Edwards.

(yeah yeah gone for real now)

I knew there was a reason i never picked up RMSS.

RMII baby!

Yeah but I think mostly the same folks worked on RM2 that did on RMSS (except for, among the bigger names, Monte Cook towards the tail end of RM2). So I'm afraid your second edition is still infected by the retro-future Forgeist cooties.

(RM2 is probably a saner choice if you only have to use one but SS did make some fun advances with the supplements)

Quote from: vytzka;606417Benoist waited. The forums before him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were storygames in the Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Main Forum. He didn't see them, but had expected them, now for years. His warnings to Cernel RPGPundit were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.

Benoist was a machine that kills fascists for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the forums and he said to Gygax "I want to play Tenra Bansho Zero, Gary."

Gygax said "NO! YOU WILL BE BRAIN DAMAGE BY STORYGAMES!"

There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in therpgsite he knew there were storygames.

"This is RPGPundit," the facebook crackered. "You must fight the storygames!"

So Benoist gotted his new avatar and lokced a thread.

"彼は私たちを殺すつもり," said the swine!

"I will use arguments at him," said the Kaiu Keiichi and he explained his thinking. Benoist swore at him and tried to ban him. But then the forums locked up and they were trapped and not able to ban.

"No! I must ban the storygamers," he shouted!

The facebook said "No, Benoist. You are the storygamers."

And then, Benoist was a kugutsu.



This is a work of fiction. All similarities to existing people, forum personas, role playing games or works of fan fiction are purely incidental. Doom: Repercussions of Evil originally copyright by Peter Chimaera. Probably.

Bit early in the A.M to be so drunk.

It's past noon over here.

(I am way drunk though, you called it.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;606399Right yes, just like how Roy Fokker and Ben Dixon died in totally meaningful ways in that series, which was clearly not about the meaningless horrors of war. Total genre emulation going on there.

Roy Fokker and Ben are clearly not the main characters.  Macross is an action show centering on a love triangle (that's out of the creator's mouth) -- the main character is Rick/Hikaru, or if we're being very generous, they're Rick/Lisa/Minmei.  It's not Roy.  It's not Ben.  It's arguably not even an expansive enough category to hold Max.  

QuoteBut seriously, your argument is meaningless, because if we're emulating PROTAGONISTS OF A STORY, that's not a genre. That's just a literary technique. By your logic, because Drrzt doesn't die in the Salvatore novels, no D&D character should ever die either; and because Captain Kirk doesn't die from a random klingon disruptor blast, no character should ever die that way in any sci-fi game.

Again, these literary techniques you rail against are all elements of genre.  You don't get genre without things like that.  And you're delving into postmodernism -- D&D is an RPG, but Drrzt books are heroic fantasy based on that RPG to sell books, and so Drrzt doesn't die unless he's going to fight his way out of Hell or something.  But if I wanted to make an RPG that reflected being able to play Drrzt, then I'd be within my rights to give the PC some kind of plot immunity to random, meaningless death, because Drrzt has that.  (And this is certainly not the first time that a licensed novelization character works to different rules than he would in the underlying source material.)

QuoteYou're not, at this point, talking about emulating genre at all, you're talking about emulating literature; which is to say, you're trying to use a meaningless position to try to sneak in Storygaming through the back door.
Since its an established Landmark of RPGs that they are not meant to have "creation of story" as their main goal, your point is invalid.

I'm not trying to sneak storygaming through anything; unlike you, I don't have a horse in that fight, I don't care about storygaming, and as I've made clear throughout this thread, my definition of traditional RPG and its goals is far more expansive than yours.  You can keep drawing lines in the sand, but I suspect they're meaningless to most of the gamers out there, or at least most of the ones I've encountered.  I respect people like Benoist who say, "Hey, I see what GAME X is doing, and I don't like it."  But it doesn't mean that it makes GAME X or its ilk any less an RPG for my purposes.

And honestly, I find it hard to argue with you about this, because your whole claim to relevancy in the field of Internet punditry is predicated on there being some war between storygamers and trad gamers, and before that indie gamers and trad gamers, and before that WW fans and everybody else.  Because of that remarkable self-interest, anybody interested in getting to the heart of this matter is well off by not letting someone like you, interested in arbitrary distinctions for personal self-interest, to do things like set out landmarks or decide where the boundaries of the playing field are.  I'm sorry, but there it is: any definitions you lay out are as suspect as a storygame designer who wants to co-opt every meaningful evolution in mechanics over the last decade.  Both of you have very real reasons to move goalposts and self-servingly define key definitions.

Quote from: vytzka;606417And then, Benoist was a kugutsu.

Benoist is a kugutsu?!?! This explains so much! :rotfl: ::tosses Aiki token to vytzka::

I've only played TBZ the once, but I'd put it at 50/50 RPG/Storygame, depending on what elements the table decides to focus on.

The structure of play is divided into Acts and Scenes, and players can spend their bennie tokens to "force" other PCs into scenes based on reasons as storygame-y as "hey, wouldn't this scene be cooler if this character was present?" A table could easily choose to ignore that application of the tokens and play more traditionally.

Our GM still did almost all of the scene framing, and could easily have done all of it if she hadn't been sat playing with hardcore storygamers.

Based on what I know of Benoist (I'm a longtime lurker) I reckon he's right in that it ain't for him.

This is speaking just for myself, but I’ve always had a problem with games that allow the character the choice of not dying, or “character immunity”. I’ve found that without the specter and potential for death, there’s really no true heroism, because the ultimate risk is not on the table. I want every battle to have the potential to be lethal.

If I wade into battle and know that the worst that happens is that I’m knocked out, because this isn’t a “meaningful” fight, that takes a lot of the drama away from me. It feels like killing time until I get to some greater goal. I want there to be a possibility of death any time I’m doing something dangerous, whether it’s fighting a thug in a tavern or going up against the Despot of the Galaxy. I understand there’s this idea of genre or literary emulation, but if that’s the case, I suppose it’s not something I’m particularly interested in emulating, however you define it.

In my games, heroes can die on the 4th level of a forgotten cavern in a puddle of slime, unmourned and undiscovered, or they claw, scrap, and barely survive their way to 20th level and glory. Or, they might get hit with a particularly lethal arrow trap their first morning out of the village and that’s it. I want chance, I want folly, and I want the ever-present threat of death. Otherwise, what follows feels like a cosmic application of the NFL’s red jersey (http://www.fox59.com/sports/wxin-050412-nfl-andrew-luck-first-practice-story,0,1907889.story) for that character, until we get to something that is “really important”.

That’s ok, though; I’m not really the target audience for this game. The conversation, such as it is, just sort of steered towards this topic.

Scene framing (when pertaining to Tenra Bansho Zero) is pretty much an admittedly very loaded and somewhat poisoned term for the GM saying "Ryu and Ken have reached the temple. When you approach the guards, they raise their weapons. What do you do?"

Zachary: how does it compare to the fact that a high level fighter can literally not be killed with a single sword stab in most D&Ds (barring exceptional circumstances like coup de grace and the like)? Do you think it's related?

Quote from: vytzka;606436Zachary: how does it compare to the fact that a high level fighter can literally not be killed with a single sword stab in most D&Ds (barring exceptional circumstances like coup de grace and the like)? Do you think it's related?

No, I don't believe so. If I've carefully nurtured my Level 10 fighter through all manner of peril, but get in a fight with a pack of trolls, I can still die. I don't have the option to note that it isn't a part of my character's destiny, or doesn't fit in to my plans to usurp the Tyrant of the North, and live to fight another day. It might be inglorious, but that's how the chips fell. Whether Level 1 or Level 20, when he dies, he dies.

In a revelation which might explain much, I am a long-time Rolemaster player and GM, so I am used to the continual possibility of death in combat--something that doesn't change at Level 5 or 15. :)

I can't check it at this exact moment but I think in Tenra Bansho Zero they could still kill or eat your character once you've fallen unconscious. It's just considered a total dick move (and IME prevents more interesting situations than it encourages).

Quote from: vytzka;606440I can't check it at this exact moment but I think in Tenra Bansho Zero they could still kill or eat your character once you've fallen unconscious. It's just considered a total dick move (and IME prevents more interesting situations than it encourages).

Does it directly say in the text it's a dick move (or the equivalent), or is that more garnered from from group/player input/experience?

I'll get back to you on that.

Quote from: vytzka;606442I'll get back to you on that.

No worries; more idle curiosity on my part more than anything.

You know, I'm starting to believe the crazy is not an act.

Quote from: Benoist;606175Believe it or not, I was actually asking out of interest, to see whether it'd be worth my time to have a look at TBZ.

Well why didn't you say so in the first place? I could have told you this isn't the game for you and saved you the time :)

Quote from: Benoist;606232WTF? What?! Your character can't die unless you decide it as a player?

No. Your character can't die unless you decide to risk it explicitly. Huge difference there both in terms of meaning and psychology.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606362I contributed the initiative order to Doctor Who.

Really? I had no idea.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606362You might be able to dodge with story-points, but if you are out of them or fail your dodge, you're dead.

Fixed your spelling.

Also, you can try to dodge if you have them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606362I would have no problem with a mechanical system that really WAS emulative

You mean like how in DWAiTaS I can just say: "nuh uh! I CHOOSE to go first by talking, and you have no choice but to hear me out"? No way the character knows that is the case. It's entirely a product of the player's POV.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606396In Doctor Who, people who do the talking go first. After they're done talking, if a Dalek shoots them, they die.

So what? I still got the Dalek to listen to me, and if the new Who is anything to go by I can use that to hold the Daleks at bay with a tart. The initiative system is a conceit that the characters are not and CANNOT be aware of, but which still serves to support emulation of the show.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606399But seriously, your argument is meaningless, because if we're emulating PROTAGONISTS OF A STORY, that's not a genre. That's just a literary technique.

This is too far into Crazytown for my Passport. You need to explain what emulating protagonists in a story IS.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606399By your logic, because Drrzt doesn't die in the Salvatore novels, no D&D character should ever die either; and because Captain Kirk doesn't die from a random klingon disruptor blast, no character should ever die that way in any sci-fi game.

Well actually, the RPGs for both lines do a horrific job of emulating their respective novels. I'd even go so far as to say that the novels here outright misrepresent the games they're based on or off.

So that logic is sound, if intended.

Quote from: Zachary The First;606435I've found that without the specter and potential for death, there's really no true heroism, because the ultimate risk is not on the table. I want every battle to have the potential to be lethal.

And yet all the evidence generated by innumerable psychological studies and every single game I have run have shown this to be entirely FALSE. In fact, people will take greater and more meaningful risks more often if they (feel they) have a CHOICE to. When faced with unknown risks with high stakes, people tend to do nothing.

And unless every situation is potentially lethal, the players are STILL making a CHOICE to risk death in a traditional RPG doing it inside the fiction rather than outside. So if a thief decides to try and disarm a trap, they are risking death. And usually the only CHOICE presented to the player is to either attempt to disarm the trap, or not, because everything else will be decided by a random roll.

But it's not like playing with the constant specter of death is the wrong way to play, so long as the players accept that and CHOOSE to play that way. And you can do exactly the same thing in TBZ by just CHOOSING to risk your live in every combat. And while it IS fun playing survivalist style, it's a different kinda high than playing heroic style.

But if every situation IS potentially lethal, and every action can result in death, then you're probably playing Paranoia, which is totally a Storygame despite its traditional roots :)

Quote from: Zachary The First;606435This is speaking just for myself, but I've always had a problem with games that allow the character the choice of not dying, or "character immunity". I've found that without the specter and potential for death, there's really no true heroism, because the ultimate risk is not on the table. I want every battle to have the potential to be lethal.

If I wade into battle and know that the worst that happens is that I'm knocked out, because this isn't a "meaningful" fight, that takes a lot of the drama away from me. It feels like killing time until I get to some greater goal. I want there to be a possibility of death any time I'm doing something dangerous, whether it's fighting a thug in a tavern or going up against the Despot of the Galaxy. I understand there's this idea of genre or literary emulation, but if that's the case, I suppose it's not something I'm particularly interested in emulating, however you define it.

In my games, heroes can die on the 4th level of a forgotten cavern in a puddle of slime, unmourned and undiscovered, or they claw, scrap, and barely survive their way to 20th level and glory. Or, they might get hit with a particularly lethal arrow trap their first morning out of the village and that's it. I want chance, I want folly, and I want the ever-present threat of death. Otherwise, what follows feels like a cosmic application of the NFL's red jersey (http://www.fox59.com/sports/wxin-050412-nfl-andrew-luck-first-practice-story,0,1907889.story) for that character, until we get to something that is "really important".

That's ok, though; I'm not really the target audience for this game. The conversation, such as it is, just sort of steered towards this topic.

I respect that position and where you're coming from.  What I think is interesting is that TBZ making the decision to stake a PC's life on a conflict does not protect the characters from every negative decision -- you can still be taken out of action in a fight, still be beaten, still be captured, etc.  It just insures that the loss of a character is something that the player explicitly signs up for in that conflict, and it incentivizes it.

That means that if I'm facing an army of mook ninjas and I want to show off how badass my Buddhist Palm kung fu is, I can wade in there and kick ass, and I know that I won't lose my character for just trying to be cool -- I may be captured, knocked out, and then imprisoned or what have you, but I'm not going to lose my character unless I explicitly make that decision to.

Which again mirrors the way people have been using "action dice" for a while.  They're insurance against chance.  Some people don't dig that and that's fine -- seriously, there are certain games where I don't want "chance insurance" either, like CoC -- but I find this to be an elegant evolution of the mechanic.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606471That means that if I'm facing an army of mook ninjas and I want to show off how badass my Buddhist Palm kung fu is, I can wade in there and kick ass, and I know that I won't lose my character for just trying to be cool

What's the point?

Rolling dice knowing all you're doing is showing off how your 'kewl powerz' work?

That's grinding with all the tedium that entails, with little of the consequence and from what i can tell, none of the pay-off.

I don't understand how that gives you the thrill of the break-kneck escape, the grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat that actual risk gives you.

Why on earth would i waste my time rolling dice fighting mooks with the risk taken out? It's like boxing where the fighters aren't allowed to punch each other.

Quote from: One Horse Town;606475What's the point?

Rolling dice knowing all you're doing is showing off how your 'kewl powerz' work?

That's grinding with all the tedium that entails, with little of the consequence and from what i can tell, none of the pay-off.

I don't understand how that gives you the thrill of the break-kneck escape, the grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat that actual risk gives you.

Why on earth would i waste my time rolling dice fighting mooks with the risk taken out? It's like boxing where the fighters aren't allowed to punch each other.

That you don't die doesn't mean that you cannot be defeated. If your vitality drops to zero you are K.O. Your enemies can now advance with their plot unopposed (the sword is stolen, the princess kidnapped) growing stronger for the final scene.

Quote from: One Horse Town;606475What's the point?

Rolling dice knowing all you're doing is showing off how your 'kewl powerz' work?

That's grinding with all the tedium that entails, with little of the consequence and from what i can tell, none of the pay-off.

I don't understand how that gives you the thrill of the break-kneck escape, the grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat that actual risk gives you.

Why on earth would i waste my time rolling dice fighting mooks with the risk taken out? It's like boxing where the fighters aren't allowed to punch each other.

Maybe you wouldn't.  For me, there are plenty of scenes in movies or books that I want to emulate in a game, setpieces where the character shows off how badass he is and risks negative outcomes without bringing the whole narrative to a halt (i.e., death.)  The opening scene to the movie Blade is a textbook example of this kind of scene -- Blade shows up and is a badass.  Blade may experience a negative outcome, he might get captured or get a silver stake in his shoulder, he might get chased by the cops, but we're in the opening scene of the movie, so the audience knows Blade isn't going to die.

In an RPG without "bad luck insurance," and I'm playing the dhampir vampire-slayer, I don't have that guarantee.  It's hard to replicate that self-assured ass-kicking without some kind of leeway in the rules, whether it be mook rules or bad luck insurance or what have you.  

As a matter of fact, each Blade film has such a setpiece scene, which is a common enough cliche in action movies, where Blade "powers up" via a draught of blood and then proceeds to wade through a horde of vampires to show off how badass he is.  So in the first film, when Karen feeds him her blood, Blade then cuts through the army of security guards and Quinn fairly handily, and this is narratively okay because we know the real fight is against Deacon Frost and La Magra.  In the second movie, Blade's body gets dumped in the blood bath and he rises up to blow the shit out of a dozen guards and fight Reinhardt, who he kills pretty handily.  Then he goes on to fight the real antagonist/anti-hero, Nomack.  Why is that okay?  Because a) it confirms how badass Blade is, and b) the dramatic tension is in the fight against Nomack.

TBZ models that kind of scene framework and those action cliches -- Blade's player did not stake his life by using up his mortal wound level on those earlier conflicts, so while he can be hurt, he can suffer a negative outcome, he can't die.  On the other hand, against Frost or Nomack, he's staking his life on the outcome, he's getting that dice bonus, because it's dramatically appropriate.

(A similar scene is Riggs escaping from Endo in the first Lethal Weapon movie.  Or Leon versus the cops at the conclusion of Leon: The Professional.  If those were RPG scenes, the players would be signalling that they want to fight Mr. Joshua on the lawn and not die in the shootout at the nightclub, that they want to have a face-off with Standsfield, and that they're willing to die then, but not during these earlier setpieces.)

It's the action genre.  TBZ replicates that aspect of it the same way that Spycraft 2.0 has some incredible rules for the face-off between gun-toting badasses.  You may not like a game that emulates that; you may not want to play or run a game like that; all of that's fine.  I disagree, but I think most of these issues are over preference anyway.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;606463And yet all the evidence generated by innumerable psychological studies and every single game I have run have shown this to be entirely FALSE. In fact, people will take greater and more meaningful risks more often if they (feel they) have a CHOICE to. When faced with unknown risks with high stakes, people tend to do nothing.

And unless every situation is potentially lethal, the players are STILL making a CHOICE to risk death in a traditional RPG doing it inside the fiction rather than outside. So if a thief decides to try and disarm a trap, they are risking death. And usually the only CHOICE presented to the player is to either attempt to disarm the trap, or not, because everything else will be decided by a random roll.

But it's not like playing with the constant specter of death is the wrong way to play, so long as the players accept that and CHOOSE to play that way. And you can do exactly the same thing in TBZ by just CHOOSING to risk your live in every combat. And while it IS fun playing survivalist style, it's a different kinda high than playing heroic style.

But if every situation IS potentially lethal, and every action can result in death, then you're probably playing Paranoia, which is totally a Storygame despite its traditional roots :)

Well, again, I do think it's just a playstyle decision, albeit one I'm not particularly interested in. I like the unknown and the constant idea that any threat or encounter could be their last. I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people probably love it; I just don't believe I'm one of them.

As to the idea of there always being choice, I can't gainsay what your experiences have been at your gaming table, and I won't try. But I when I talk about every encounter being perilous, or at least have some small chance of being so, I’m not meaning every time they go to the bathroom or eat a leg of mutton. I mean every time they engage in a battle, or dungeon/cave/ruins exploration, there’s a hint that some inglorious needle trap/pit/random orc could do them in. I don’t want combat to lose that lethality; I want the suspension of that unexpected critical, as I roll to see if the conscript really just decapitated their haughty dwarven fighter. It’s how the game has led us in expected directions, making heroes out of widely unregarded PCs, and recurring villains out of what should have been minor encounters. For me, that’s an entirely heightened level of unpredictability and risk. If the worst that’s going to happen is that they’re red-faced or knocked out, it has all of the suspense of a 1960’s Batman episode.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606471I respect that position and where you're coming from.  What I think is interesting is that TBZ making the decision to stake a PC's life on a conflict does not protect the characters from every negative decision -- you can still be taken out of action in a fight, still be beaten, still be captured, etc.  It just insures that the loss of a character is something that the player explicitly signs up for in that conflict, and it incentivizes it.

That means that if I'm facing an army of mook ninjas and I want to show off how badass my Buddhist Palm kung fu is, I can wade in there and kick ass, and I know that I won't lose my character for just trying to be cool -- I may be captured, knocked out, and then imprisoned or what have you, but I'm not going to lose my character unless I explicitly make that decision to.

Which again mirrors the way people have been using "action dice" for a while.  They're insurance against chance.  Some people don't dig that and that's fine -- seriously, there are certain games where I don't want "chance insurance" either, like CoC -- but I find this to be an elegant evolution of the mechanic.

I definitely see where you’re coming from; at the same time, I’m pretty sure it’s just a playstyle choice I’d care for. I’ve played in games with similar direction, via handwavium or more explicit rules, and just didn’t care for it. I know some people want mitigated/lessened risk going into an encounter; that's ok, but it's deadly boring for me. I don’t want to derail anything further, so I’ll save the spinoff on this for perhaps another thread.

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts, and happy gaming!

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606486You may not like a game that emulates that; you may not want to play or run a game like that; all of that's fine.  I disagree, but I think most of these issues are over preference anyway.

Of course - it's all preference.

I don't want to be 'playing' in a film or a book when i'm playing an RPG. I want to play a game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;606490Of course - it's all preference.

I don't want to be 'playing' in a film or a book when i'm playing an RPG. I want to play a game.

Which is cool.  From day one, for me, back when I named my token Bilbo in a game of Dungeon! while my Dad's friends were playing OD&D, I wanted to play out a book or movie with me as the main character, or at least a major character.  The next night, when they let me make a character and play with them, I was intent on playing out a fantasy story using the game's rules to keep it from just being me telling a story to myself.  That was, like, 1979 or 1980.  Basically, I've always wanted a game where the end-result is a cool story.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606428I'm not trying to sneak storygaming through anything; unlike you, I don't have a horse in that fight, I don't care about storygaming, and as I've made clear throughout this thread, my definition of traditional RPG and its goals is far more expansive than yours.  You can keep drawing lines in the sand, but I suspect they're meaningless to most of the gamers out there, or at least most of the ones I've encountered.  I respect people like Benoist who say, "Hey, I see what GAME X is doing, and I don't like it."  But it doesn't mean that it makes GAME X or its ilk any less an RPG for my purposes.

And honestly, I find it hard to argue with you about this, because your whole claim to relevancy in the field of Internet punditry is predicated on there being some war between storygamers and trad gamers, and before that indie gamers and trad gamers, and before that WW fans and everybody else.  Because of that remarkable self-interest, anybody interested in getting to the heart of this matter is well off by not letting someone like you, interested in arbitrary distinctions for personal self-interest, to do things like set out landmarks or decide where the boundaries of the playing field are.  I'm sorry, but there it is: any definitions you lay out are as suspect as a storygame designer who wants to co-opt every meaningful evolution in mechanics over the last decade.  Both of you have very real reasons to move goalposts and self-servingly define key definitions.

Perfect.

Mind if I get this for my signature ? :)

Quote from: Zachary The First;606489I definitely see where you're coming from; at the same time, I'm pretty sure it's just a playstyle choice I'd care for. I've played in games with similar direction, via handwavium or more explicit rules, and just didn't care for it. I know some people want mitigated/lessened risk going into an encounter; that's ok, but it's deadly boring for me. I don't want to derail anything further, so I'll save the spinoff on this for perhaps another thread.

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts, and happy gaming!

Thanks.  Just to note something interesting your post made me realize, which I hadn't until now -- I actually would hate this "can't die unless you stake your life on it" rule if it wasn't formalized.  If it were just some handwavium around the table, I'd resent the hell out of it.  Which is odd, because if it's a formal rule, I think it's neat.

I played in a Werewolf campaign where the conclusion was a klaive duel with my long-time foe, and the GM said before we started, "Do you want to live, or are you willing to let the dice fall where they may?"  And I resented the shit out of that question.  Of course I wanted the dice to fall where they may.  I'm not just going to let you narrate out my fight.

Interesting.  One day I'll have to examine why I make that demarcation between table-handwavium/GM fiat and explicit rules.

Quote from: Skywalker;606404You are putting an emphasis on the concept of death being the defining characteristic here, but I am not seeing why the subject of the mechanics matters. It's the nature and goal of the mechanics that count. In this the Death Box and the Action Order are nt significantly different.

You do seem to agree that the Action Order mechanic in Dr Who is based on how the genre conceits play out in the Dr Who stories. But you don't suggest that the characters in Dr Who actually move faster when talking. As such, it's driven by genre and not physics of the world in which Dr Who stories take place. The Death Box is identical to that.

Yes, it is absolutely a genre conceit that reflects the "physics" of the world. In the Doctor Who universe, people don't move faster when talking, but when someone talks it seems a universal rule that everyone waits to see what they say.

Whereas you admit readily that what's going on in TBZ is not reflective of the universe but an attempt to establish Literary Protagonism.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Skywalker;606405Wait, what? So, having any mechanics that are reserved for the PCs only or PCs and major NPCs now makes an RPG a storygame? That seems to open a whole new can of worms.

If said mechanic is "The GM can't kill you if you don't consent".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606516Yes, it is absolutely a genre conceit that reflects the "physics" of the world. In the Doctor Who universe, people don't move faster when talking, but when someone talks it seems a universal rule that everyone waits to see what they say.

This is deeply stupid. There is no law of physics preventing someone from pulling a trigger before someone else finishes talking. It would just make for shitty story if they did. You're working awfully hard to get your double standard on.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606428Roy Fokker and Ben are clearly not the main characters.  Macross is an action show centering on a love triangle (that's out of the creator's mouth) -- the main character is Rick/Hikaru, or if we're being very generous, they're Rick/Lisa/Minmei.  It's not Roy.  It's not Ben.  It's arguably not even an expansive enough category to hold Max.  

Again, these literary techniques you rail against are all elements of genre.  

Its bullshit. You can't have an RPG where the PC cannot be forced to die without permission, and then claim it is emulative of a real world (rather than Attempted Literature, which is NOT what RPGs do).

QuoteAnd honestly, I find it hard to argue with you about this, because your whole claim to relevancy in the field of Internet punditry is predicated on there being some war between storygamers and trad gamers, and before that indie gamers and trad gamers, and before that WW fans and everybody else.  Because of that remarkable self-interest, anybody interested in getting to the heart of this matter is well off by not letting someone like you, interested in arbitrary distinctions for personal self-interest, to do things like set out landmarks or decide where the boundaries of the playing field are.  I'm sorry, but there it is: any definitions you lay out are as suspect as a storygame designer who wants to co-opt every meaningful evolution in mechanics over the last decade.  Both of you have very real reasons to move goalposts and self-servingly define key definitions.

Damn right I have a self-interest in this. But its not the selfish one you seem to ascribe.  Its from a love of the RPG hobby and a desire to protect it from people who would undermine it and replace it with something else operating under the same name.

The Landmarks aren't something arbitrarily set up or decided by me. They're self-evident. They're very clearly those things that if you take them out of the equation, leave you with a game that is no longer definable as an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: vytzka;606442I'll get back to you on that.

Please do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Zachary The First;606489If the worst that's going to happen is that they're red-faced or knocked out, it has all of the suspense of a 1960's Batman episode.

I demand more signature space, just for this.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;606463You mean like how in DWAiTaS I can just say: "nuh uh! I CHOOSE to go first by talking, and you have no choice but to hear me out"? No way the character knows that is the case. It's entirely a product of the player's POV.

So what? I still got the Dalek to listen to me, and if the new Who is anything to go by I can use that to hold the Daleks at bay with a tart. The initiative system is a conceit that the characters are not and CANNOT be aware of, but which still serves to support emulation of the show.

But here is a very important point that sets the difference, and explains why Dr. Who is an RPG, and TBZ (if the rules are set out the way its described in this thread) is apparently not.
If the Doctor Who game worked the way TBZ apparently does, you should always be able to stop/delay/confuse opponents through talking because the Doctor always does.  But that doesn't happen. All that happens is a reflection of what goes on in the show but not something related to the protagonism of the main characters of the show.
Hence, likewise, there is no rule that says PCs can't be fucking killed.

Whereas in TBZ, where by the way there is no genre except "anime" (which is about as huge a "genre" as saying "all literature"), the rule about not being killed is entirely an effort to reflect a literary conceit: "My character can't die because he's the hero of the story, he's Always Rick Hunter, and heroes don't die pointlessly".  
At that point, you're not running "Macross: the RPG", you aren't playing an RPG set in the world of Macross where you might be Rick Hunter or you might be Ben Dixon  or you might be Ted, the guy who pilots a destroid; instead you're running "Rick Hunter, Protagonist: the Storygame!"

Understand?

RPGPundit

Quote from: CRKrueger;606531I demand more signature space, just for this.

Rotation schedule, maybe? :)

BTW, I'm not against narrative mechanics per se, one of my favorite games, WFRP1 has narrative mechanics via Fate Points.  Get too many of them though, pull me out of decision-making as a character too often, and it ceases, not to be enjoyable, but to be enjoyable as a RPG for me.

That's why I'm always asking Skywalker about the narrative mechanics in all these cool games he finds, trying to see if it's something I might want to get into a long-term RPG campaign with, or maybe just have fun doing at a con.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606527Its bullshit. You can't have an RPG where the PC cannot be forced to die without permission, and then claim it is emulative of a real world (rather than Attempted Literature, which is NOT what RPGs do).

Nonsense. I mean, this is a wholly made up, arbitrary, totally nonsensical line in the sand you're drawing.  This is the hobby that gave us Hit Points.  From day one RPGs have been emulating things like this.  

QuoteDamn right I have a self-interest in this. But its not the selfish one you seem to ascribe.  Its from a love of the RPG hobby and a desire to protect it from people who would undermine it and replace it with something else operating under the same name.

Please, let's be honest here.  Your whole schtick is that there's a group of people who are swine, and you rail against them.  There's hardly any profit in it if you go, "Hey, those guys over there do something I don't like, but they're having a good time, good for them."  

I probably dislike the indie/storygaming stuff as much or more than you do.  I don't like it, I can't get into it, and while the indie scene has produced some pretty cool ideas, in general I'd rather not game at all than play their games.  But nobody playing Universalis or Dogs in the Vinyard has ever had any impact on my RPGs at all.  They're not stealing prospective players, they're not redefining what an RPG is and confusing shit -- for everybody on Earth who doesn't game, RPG still equals = D&D -- any more than boardgamers are.  It's like arguments against gay marriage stating that they somehow undermine ordinary marriage.  No they don't, it's nonsense.  Storygames being played somewhere else in no way affect my gaming.  

The real threat to the hobby is Call of Duty: Black Ops II, not the latest 45-page self-published ditty discussed on storygames.com.  Rail against that.

QuoteThe Landmarks aren't something arbitrarily set up or decided by me. They're self-evident. They're very clearly those things that if you take them out of the equation, leave you with a game that is no longer definable as an RPG.

So you say, but I take "landmarks" about as seriously as a I do three-fold theory.  You've got a pet framework, it doesn't mean anyone or everyone else has adopted it.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606471I respect that position and where you're coming from.  What I think is interesting is that TBZ making the decision to stake a PC's life on a conflict does not protect the characters from every negative decision -- you can still be taken out of action in a fight, still be beaten, still be captured, etc.

Except that it means that the gangstas who take you out, capture you, and beat the shit out of you can't put three fucking bullets in your skull unless you say "I consent".

QuoteThat means that if I'm facing an army of mook ninjas and I want to show off how badass my Buddhist Palm kung fu is, I can wade in there and kick ass, and I know that I won't lose my character for just trying to be cool --

Then you're not cool.  
Li Mu Bai is cool because whenever he wades into an army of mook ninjas, in spite of his great power, he knows death might be there for him, but he does it anyways.
Because Li Mu Bai is not a character in a story, he's a virtual person in a virtual world.

If you're trying to emulate a virtual world with your game, then you're probably playing an RPG.  If you're trying to imitate the structure of a story; guess what? You're playing a Storygame.

QuoteWhich again mirrors the way people have been using "action dice" for a while.  They're insurance against chance.  Some people don't dig that and that's fine -- seriously, there are certain games where I don't want "chance insurance" either, like CoC -- but I find this to be an elegant evolution of the mechanic.

Its unrelated. Action Dice are meant to represent a person's fortune; this is just a rule that says YOU CAN NEVER DIE.
If you have a game where not even god can kill you unless you want to be killed, then you aren't actually playing in an emulated world at all. Therefore, not an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;606475What's the point?

Rolling dice knowing all you're doing is showing off how your 'kewl powerz' work?

That's grinding with all the tedium that entails, with little of the consequence and from what i can tell, none of the pay-off.

I don't understand how that gives you the thrill of the break-kneck escape, the grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat that actual risk gives you.

Why on earth would i waste my time rolling dice fighting mooks with the risk taken out? It's like boxing where the fighters aren't allowed to punch each other.

Yeah really. What's the fucking point? Why bother rolling at all at that point? Why not just say "I beat the shit out of the mooks, because I'm the protagonist" and the GM says "yeah, sure that happens, because we're telling a story here about how great you are".

RPGPundit

What I find interesting in the conversation is the way the concept of genre or world emulation has been coopted to mean emulation of another medium that is not RPG, that is, emulating not the world depicted by the source material, but the source material and its narrative structures, the way it goes about telling stories, instead. It's really about emulating the type of storytelling used by some other medium, instead of emulating the world depicted within those stories to translate them into a truly emulating level in an actual role playing game.

That's what I meant when I concluded TBZ is an anime emulator (or anime building game, like Marvel Heroic Role Playing is really a Comics building game, which would be another word for a story building game). It actually emulates anime as a storytelling medium, a narrative structure, instead of emulating a world you can immerse yourself in as though it were real in the "now" of play.

Quote from: vytzka;606525This is deeply stupid. There is no law of physics preventing someone from pulling a trigger before someone else finishes talking. It would just make for shitty story if they did. You're working awfully hard to get your double standard on.

It appears to be a natural rule; not just for the Doctor but for everyone. In doctor who, anyone who pauses to make a speech has everyone wait until he's done, with hardly any exceptions.

That makes it a rule of Genre Physics, and not just an element of literary structure for protagonists.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606546Except that it means that the gangstas who take you out, capture you, and beat the shit out of you can't put three fucking bullets in your skull unless you say "I consent".

They weren't going to do that anyway, because it's boring as fuck.  If a GM put three bullets into a captured guy's head rather than something interesting, we'd throw him the hell out unless we're playing something grim & gritty.

QuoteThen you're not cool.  
Li Mu Bai is cool because whenever he wades into an army of mook ninjas, in spite of his great power, he knows death might be there for him, but he does it anyways.
Because Li Mu Bai is not a character in a story, he's a virtual person in a virtual world.

Huh?  He's emphatically a character in a story.  He wades into an army of mook ninjas because he's a badass and that's what happens in kung-fu novels or movies.  And if I'm playing a character based on Li Mu Bai in an RPG, then I fight ninjas because it's narratively appropriate and because, again, that's what happens in kung fu games. I mean, it's a kung fu game, it's what I signed up for.  

He's an avatar.  I might like my avatar, I might not want him to die unless it's cool (or even not then) but he has no independent knowledge of life or death beyond what I give him.  I may say, "I fear death because if these ninja mooks kill me, I will never be able to confess my love for Michelle Yeoh," but that's me making shit up, acting out a character and his story arc.

QuoteIf you're trying to emulate a virtual world with your game, then you're probably playing an RPG.  If you're trying to imitate the structure of a story; guess what? You're playing a Storygame.

No, because as I've said, people have been trying to emulate stories in their games since day one.  You don't get to revise away decades of stuff that happened to support your jihad against a clique you don't like and which appeared, like, two years ago.

QuoteIts unrelated. Action Dice are meant to represent a person's fortune; this is just a rule that says YOU CAN NEVER DIE.
If you have a game where not even god can kill you unless you want to be killed, then you aren't actually playing in an emulated world at all. Therefore, not an RPG.

It's just an RPG you don't like, not a non-RPG.  I'm sorry, but you're reaching here.

Quote from: Benoist;606551What I find interesting in the conversation is the way the concept of genre or world emulation has been coopted to mean emulation of another medium that is not RPG, that is, emulating not the world depicted by the source material, but the source material and its narrative structures, the way it goes about telling stories, instead. It's really about emulating the type of storytelling used by some other medium, instead of emulating the world depicted within those stories to translate them into a truly emulating level in an actual role playing game.

That's what I meant when I concluded TBZ is an anime emulator (or anime building game, like Marvel Heroic Role Playing is really a Comics building game, which would be another word for a story building game). It actually emulates anime as a storytelling medium, a narrative structure, instead of emulating a world you can immerse yourself in as though it were real in the "now" of play.

That's a pretty solid insight.  At the same time, I don't think it makes something "not an RPG," because there was a wave of early to mid '90s games that tried to do the same thing with Hong Kong action or action movies (HKAT!, Feng Shui!, Maximum Damage or something).

To me, an RPG is a game where I play one (or more, in the Ars Magica exception) characters, whose parts I play out as an adventure goes on.  There needs to be some system for resolving conflict.  And then we have both our "roleplaying" and our "game."  That's a fairly expansive definition, but it's a big hobby.  In both TBZ and MHRP I'm playing my character during an adventure.  The adventure's beats may conform to comics or it may steal certain elements from the anime milieu, but at the end of the day, it's an RPG.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606543Nonsense. I mean, this is a wholly made up, arbitrary, totally nonsensical line in the sand you're drawing.  This is the hobby that gave us Hit Points.  From day one RPGs have been emulating things like this.  

Hit points can reach 0 without player permission. There's nothing of Attempted Literature or Always Rick Hunter about that.

QuotePlease, let's be honest here.  Your whole schtick is that there's a group of people who are swine, and you rail against them.  There's hardly any profit in it if you go, "Hey, those guys over there do something I don't like, but they're having a good time, good for them."  

If it were those guys, OVER THERE, having a good time, I'd have no problem with them.  But they're not over there; they're here, pissing in my garden.  They're trying to steal the name "roleplaying game" and re-appropriate it for a hobby that looks nothing like the games I play. They're consistently lying, cheating, and manipulating language to try to achieve that end.  This thread is only indicative of that; where you have some of the biggest Swine on the site coming on and claiming loudly and to the rafters that this game is a "totally traditional RPG" and that at the same time it proves how great the innovative mechanics of storygaming are, and that even the japanese can understand that so why can't we?

They are sniveling lying little twerps with a constant double-discourse who can't just man up and admit that they want the hobby to be different from what it actually is; who can't, in other words, fight an honest fight face to face and let the best man win, if getting to be called the RPG hobby instead of going off and starting their own storygaming hobby is so important to them.

So there is no equivalency here. They shot first, and from behind, and even now continue to try to sneakily subvert the hobby at every turn. It matters because they can convince and manipulate the design-level of the hobby; they did so enough that D&D 4e was made to conform to GNS theory, and that may well have destroyed motherfucking D&D's viability as a product!  So yes, it does matter. I'm not out to destroy storygaming, storygaming is out to destroy RPGs; I'd be fine with letting them be the Storygaming Hobby somewhere else, but for Storygaming to actually be the RPG hobby it has to by definition convert or destroy the existing RPG hobby first.

What I'm doing hasn't made me a lot of profit  as you seem to think (though I guess more than I ever expected when all this started); its not an act or a schtick; its one person trying to make sure that his hobby gets to keep being his hobby.

I didn't draw the line in the sand; its always been there. I'm just pointing at it and saying None Shall Pass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;606551What I find interesting in the conversation is the way the concept of genre or world emulation has been coopted to mean emulation of another medium that is not RPG, that is, emulating not the world depicted by the source material, but the source material and its narrative structures, the way it goes about telling stories, instead.

This is a classic example of how the Swine like to manipulate, twist and control language to suit their purposes.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606555That's a pretty solid insight.  At the same time, I don't think it makes something "not an RPG," because there was a wave of early to mid '90s games that tried to do the same thing with Hong Kong action or action movies (HKAT!, Feng Shui!, Maximum Damage or something).

To me, an RPG is a game where I play one (or more, in the Ars Magica exception) characters, whose parts I play out as an adventure goes on.  There needs to be some system for resolving conflict.  And then we have both our "roleplaying" and our "game."  That's a fairly expansive definition, but it's a big hobby.  In both TBZ and MHRP I'm playing my character during an adventure.  The adventure's beats may conform to comics or it may steal certain elements from the anime milieu, but at the end of the day, it's an RPG.

I get that's where you're coming from.

For me, that's a different matter. When I am invited to play a role playing game and find myself playing in the position of the co-author of a story, I feel like I am playing a radically different game than what I was expecting, which was to play AS my character in an emulated world role-played by the GM. I find the differenciation of story games and role playing games useful, at the same level that the differenciation between wargames and role playing games is useful to determine what type of game I'm going to play tonight.

Quote from: Benoist;606560I get that's where you're coming from.

For me, that's a different matter. When I am invited to play a role playing game and find myself playing in the position of the co-author of a story, I feel like I am playing a radically different game than what I was expecting, which was to play AS my character in an emulated world. I find the differenciation of story games and role playing games useful, at the same level that the differenciation between wargames and role playing games is useful to determine what type of game I'm going to play tonight.

I don't know if we're that far apart -- when I play my character, I don't want to co-author the world, I want to play as my character, too.  To me, all of the gloss -- say, TBZ's reverse death spiral/final death mechanic, or Exalted's stunts, or whatever else -- are simply ways of saying, "This is the kind of fictional world we're in."  In some of them, my guy can die from a dirty knife wound days after being stabbed, and in some, I know that I have to make a willing choice for my character to die.  But that's all "world rules," rather than me co-authoring, just like TORG's different genre settings.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606554Huh?  He's emphatically a character in a story.  

No; in the novelization of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon he may be a character in a story. In an RPG, he's a real (virtual) person existing in a real (virtual) world. RPGs are not literature, they're world-emulators.

QuoteNo, because as I've said, people have been trying to emulate stories in their games since day one.  You don't get to revise away decades of stuff that happened to support your jihad against a clique you don't like and which appeared, like, two years ago.

Oh yeah, I saw your nice little story about being 6 and wanting to play out a story about bilbo back in the dawning days of AD&D.  Very nice. Probably made up; but suitably well-crafted for rhetorical purposes; nothing wrong with that if you're trying to use it to prove a point.

However, most little boys don't want to "play out a story about bilbo", they want to BE Bilbo, not to pretend they're JRR Tolkien writing a novel, thinking about what would bilbo do and how things would happen around him according to literary necessity; but to pretend that they can really transform into a hobbit and actually live in middle earth, and pretend that middle earth is actually a real place somewhere, and not "just a story".

THAT is what has been there since day one. That is what defines the RPG: IMMERSION into virtual characters in an Emulated World.  And its pretty piss-poor to want to replace that with a hobby that consists of trying to generate stories in a really awkward and confusing way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606563I don't know if we're that far apart -- when I play my character, I don't want to co-author the world, I want to play as my character, too.  To me, all of the gloss -- say, TBZ's reverse death spiral/final death mechanic, or Exalted's stunts, or whatever else -- are simply ways of saying, "This is the kind of fictional world we're in."  In some of them, my guy can die from a dirty knife wound days after being stabbed, and in some, I know that I have to make a willing choice for my character to die.  But that's all "world rules," rather than me co-authoring, just like TORG's different genre settings.

In TORG the GM can kill you without having to ask your permission.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606557If it were those guys, OVER THERE, having a good time, I'd have no problem with them.  But they're not over there; they're here, pissing in my garden.  They're trying to steal the name "roleplaying game" and re-appropriate it for a hobby that looks nothing like the games I play.

I didn't draw the line in the sand; its always been there. I'm just pointing at it and saying None Shall Pass.

RPGPundit

As shocking as it may be to most of the posters we have here now (most of the originals have gone now) i used to share this view.

I shared it because whenever i heard 'storygame', the game in question almost always turned out to be some sort of fucked-up attempt at "edginess" or some twee lecture on how traditional gaming was badwrongfun.

I shared Pundit's views because i didn't want those games and those authors being associated with my hobby.

Thing is, i think that the fucked-up crowd are actually now a fringe of a fringe and everyone knows who they are and point and laugh when they raise their heads (or lick their arse if they're an original Forge fan-boy).

So, these bizarre fetishistic storygames that seemed to be nearly the whole output of the movement (yes it was a movement) seems to have lessened to a degree that i really don't give a shit anymore what they call their games.

I'll still point and laugh when something too stupid to live turns up, but otherwise, meh.

I don't think we're looking at the fringe of the fringe. When you consider something like Dungeon World, a variant built on Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World, and that the game is talked about in some OSR circles/blogs as this great old school traditional RPG with some hip parts to it, you tell yourself that there's a problem somewhere.

I can tell you right here and now, if I was invited to some Hangout game that was sold to me as traditional dungeon crawling and the like, and that I found myself sitting at a table of Dungeon World, I'd wonder if I was hallucinating the whole thing.

Quote from: Benoist;606582I don't think we're looking at the fringe of the fringe. When you consider something like Dungeon World, a variant built on Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World, and that the game is talked about in some OSR circles/blogs as this great old school traditional RPG with some hip parts to it, you tell yourself that there's a problem somewhere.

I can tell you right here and now, if I was invited to some Hangout game that was sold to me as traditional dungeon crawling and the like, and that I found myself sitting at a table of Dungeon World, I'd wonder if I was hallucinating the whole thing.

What pisses me off the most is that you know they don't give a shit about dungeons; in fact its one of the things they HATE about Regular RPGs; but they do stuff like this because the OSR is big and successful and they feel like its their sacred cause to infiltrate and subvert it.

They have such little faith in their own product that they always feel like they have to lie and try to trick you into playing it. That should tell you something right there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606529Please do.

Actually no, you're not gonna like this. Finishing Blow (Coup de Grace to people who are out of Vitality) cannot be delivered to player characters if they haven't checked the Dead box.

QuoteThink about the action movies or anime you’ve seen: Why doesn’t the villain simply finish off a fallen enemy? Because it’s simply not interesting. The PC has a place and a time where they are fated to be finished off. Of course, the player may declare that this is the time and place by checking that Dead Box. In that case, the GM should respect the player’s wishes and finish them off if they lose all of their Vitality and go down.

Until that time, though, the enemy will do things that villains usually do: Walk away, not realizing that the character still faintly clings to life. Or realize that the PC is still alive, and simply gloat while exiting the stage to push their evil agendas further. Or the characters could be taken captive. Or they could be publicly humiliated. There’s a lot of options which the GM can employ, the default being that the enemy simply walks off, presuming the PC is dead:”Oh, that’s all she had in her, eh? Humph, good riddance, I’m off to the castle/tavern/pleasure district.”

This is somehow super different than always letting people speak their mind before shooting in the head, but I don't particularly care how precisely.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606557Hit points can reach 0 without player permission. There's nothing of Attempted Literature or Always Rick Hunter about that.

What about gaming groups where no one really ever dies? I have played like that. The GM just says "there will be no character death in this campaign." You can very well do that in D&D. Does that make a non-storygame into storygame.

QuoteIf it were those guys, OVER THERE, having a good time, I'd have no problem with them.  But they're not over there; they're here, pissing in my garden.  They're trying to steal the name "roleplaying game" and re-appropriate it for a hobby that looks nothing like the games I play. They're consistently lying, cheating, and manipulating language to try to achieve that end.  This thread is only indicative of that; where you have some of the biggest Swine on the site coming on and claiming loudly and to the rafters that this game is a "totally traditional RPG" and that at the same time it proves how great the innovative mechanics of storygaming are, and that even the japanese can understand that so why can't we?

They are sniveling lying little twerps with a constant double-discourse who can't just man up and admit that they want the hobby to be different from what it actually is; who can't, in other words, fight an honest fight face to face and let the best man win, if getting to be called the RPG hobby instead of going off and starting their own storygaming hobby is so important to them.

So there is no equivalency here. They shot first, and from behind, and even now continue to try to sneakily subvert the hobby at every turn. It matters because they can convince and manipulate the design-level of the hobby; they did so enough that D&D 4e was made to conform to GNS theory, and that may well have destroyed motherfucking D&D's viability as a product!  So yes, it does matter. I'm not out to destroy storygaming, storygaming is out to destroy RPGs; I'd be fine with letting them be the Storygaming Hobby somewhere else, but for Storygaming to actually be the RPG hobby it has to by definition convert or destroy the existing RPG hobby first.

So, your hobby is being hijacked by the Japanese from 15 years ago? Man, I think you're fucked.

Quote from: Benoist;606582I can tell you right here and now, if I was invited to some Hangout game that was sold to me as traditional dungeon crawling and the like, and that I found myself sitting at a table of Dungeon World, I'd wonder if I was hallucinating the whole thing.

Don't you ask about what you're going to play before signing up?

Quote from: RPGPundit;606517If said mechanic is "The GM can't kill you if you don't consent".

Again, you incorrectly place emphasis on the subject of the rule to make your distinction and not the rule itself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606516Yes, it is absolutely a genre conceit that reflects the "physics" of the world. In the Doctor Who universe, people don't move faster when talking, but when someone talks it seems a universal rule that everyone waits to see what they say.

Whereas you admit readily that what's going on in TBZ is not reflective of the universe but an attempt to establish Literary Protagonism.

No, they are both genre conceits. This post alone shows your failure to make a valid distinction between these two mechanics.

Quote from: Benoist;606582I don't think we're looking at the fringe of the fringe. When you consider something like Dungeon World, a variant built on Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World, and that the game is talked about in some OSR circles/blogs as this great old school traditional RPG with some hip parts to it, you tell yourself that there's a problem somewhere.

I don't think Dungeon World threatens my hobby.

I'll point and laugh all day long at the parent game and its author, though.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606563I don't know if we're that far apart -- when I play my character, I don't want to co-author the world, I want to play as my character, too.  To me, all of the gloss -- say, TBZ's reverse death spiral/final death mechanic, or Exalted's stunts, or whatever else -- are simply ways of saying, "This is the kind of fictional world we're in."  In some of them, my guy can die from a dirty knife wound days after being stabbed, and in some, I know that I have to make a willing choice for my character to die.  But that's all "world rules," rather than me co-authoring, just like TORG's different genre settings.

FWIW I am the same :) I personally dislike co-authoring a story as a player, but I am a fan of rules that embed the rules of the fictional world the game is set in when playing my PC, even if they are narrative as termed by CRKrueger. I always have been since I started RPGing in the early 80s.

Quote from: Skywalker;606612Again, you incorrectly place emphasis on the subject of the rule to make your distinction and not the rule itself.

I think it is actually rather important (not to pundit of course) that it's not that much consent as it is encouragement or celebration. TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL kind of thing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606552It appears to be a natural rule; not just for the Doctor but for everyone. In doctor who, anyone who pauses to make a speech has everyone wait until he's done, with hardly any exceptions.

And, in Dr Who, only protagonists and major antagonists get Story Points...

Quote from: vytzka;606607Actually no, you're not gonna like this. Finishing Blow (Coup de Grace to people who are out of Vitality) cannot be delivered to player characters if they haven't checked the Dead box.

Right, so its a Storygame.

QuoteWhat about gaming groups where no one really ever dies? I have played like that. The GM just says "there will be no character death in this campaign." You can very well do that in D&D. Does that make a non-storygame into storygame.

No, that's the GMs choice. I think its a stupid choice; but its the choice of the group.
Likewise, you could take a storygame and houserule it to try to make it run like as if it was an RPG; but that wouldn't make the game itself an RPG.

QuoteSo, your hobby is being hijacked by the Japanese from 15 years ago? Man, I think you're fucked.

No, its suffering an attempted hijacking from a group of people translating a 15 year old japanese game to try to use it as ideological fodder in their efforts.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;606624No, its suffering an attempted hijacking from a group of people translating a 15 year old japanese game to try to use it as ideological fodder in their efforts.

Ron's Hate On Zebra? I know, right! :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;606564Oh yeah, I saw your nice little story about being 6 and wanting to play out a story about bilbo back in the dawning days of AD&D.  Very nice. Probably made up; but suitably well-crafted for rhetorical purposes; nothing wrong with that if you're trying to use it to prove a point.

This is why I can't take this conversation seriously.  In what world do people make that shit up?  I mean, what interest would I have in making up a story about my first time gaming?  How does it accomplish anything?  How is this some cunning countermove in the war of Swine against True Gamers?

I'm not trying to be facetious, but you seem to ascribe conspiratorial and blackly cunning motives to even innocuous statements to people you disagree with, and it comes off as ridiculous.  I mean, either argue with my point or don't, but to have some aside about me lying about playing Dungeon -- I mean, that's the dumbest, hokeyest story in the world.  What do I have to gain by saying I wanted to be Bilbo Baggins?

QuoteHowever, most little boys don't want to "play out a story about bilbo", they want to BE Bilbo, not to pretend they're JRR Tolkien writing a novel, thinking about what would bilbo do and how things would happen around him according to literary necessity; but to pretend that they can really transform into a hobbit and actually live in middle earth, and pretend that middle earth is actually a real place somewhere, and not "just a story".

You're overthinking this for advantage.  As I told Benoist, I actually like to "play" my character as well, just like a Real Gamer.  Because I am a Real Gamer, and have been playing for thirty-some years.  You can't claim I've been missing the point all of these years -- I've played in gaming groups across the country, across literally dozens of systems.  If my end goal was a cool narrative, to experience a grand adventure, that doesn't undermine my place in the gaming tableau, because it's not incompatible with anything anybody else in those groups was doing.

Seriously, you're falling afoul of the same crimes you ascribe to Edwards and others -- the lines in the sand you're drawing do not map neatly to the reality of how people play.  It might map neatly to one group, but if your theory disenfranchises gamers who have been playing since 1980, it's a broke theory.

That should be one of your Landmarks.  Oh, wait, I think it is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606624No, its suffering an attempted hijacking from a group of people translating a 15 year old japanese game to try to use it as ideological fodder in their efforts.

RPGPundit

A group of one person.
A game that's 15 years old from a completely different culture to the culture that creates the things you hate.
What efforts.
What.
The.
Fuck.

Quote from: vytzka;606525This is deeply stupid. There is no law of physics preventing someone from pulling a trigger before someone else finishes talking. It would just make for shitty story if they did. You're working awfully hard to get your double standard on.

But there may be a law (of genre emulation) that allows it. The Doctor always seems to be able to spout off some nonsense and still pull off whatever he's trying to pull off.

I don't know where this started, but I recall when I first got into Champions that it was the first in which you could make soliloquies without taking any time.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606554They weren't going to do that anyway, because it's boring as fuck.  If a GM put three bullets into a captured guy's head rather than something interesting, we'd throw him the hell out unless we're playing something grim & gritty.

So right here you're saying that you don't care whether or not the gangsters would actually kill you, you care whether it makes for an interesting narrative.  You only allow it if the literary framework you are accepting is gritty, like we're playing "Tarantino Stories" where anyone can die as a convention of the genre.

You're an intelligent guy.  Forget terminology and sides for a minute.  Surely you're not going to tell me with a straight face, honestly, that there is not a fundamental difference between what you are describing and someone playing a game where the bad guys can simply kill you and toss you in a ditch (regardless of how boring), because that's what they would really do.

There is a difference and everyone here damn well knows it.  All we're arguing about is what name you put to it.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606627If my end goal was a cool narrative, to experience a grand adventure

"cool narrative" and "EXPERIENCE a grand adventure" are two different things.

Its like the difference between saying your end goal is to tell a great story about fishing, or to have the EXPERIENCE of a great fishing trip.

The latter will probably end up with some great and real fishing stories as an incidental byproduct of what actually mattered (ie. going fishing); the former is just storytelling.

Now, what storygamers say is "but our games are MADE to tell a story so that you have a better experience of a story and the stories created are better crafted, which is what all gamers actually want even if they didn't realize it all these years because they were probably brain damaged".
Only that's NOT the point. That's NOT what gamers actually want; not if the cost of "making a better story" is that you don't actually EXPERIENCE the adventure. You can't actually become IMMERSED, feel a real character in a real world, if at the same time you're being all postmodernist and knowing that you're just telling a story; and what we're saying is that your method might create better fishing stories but its pointless if they're actually lies. Its no substitute for the real experience.

RPGPundit

Quote from: vytzka;606607Actually no, you're not gonna like this. Finishing Blow (Coup de Grace to people who are out of Vitality) cannot be delivered to player characters if they haven't checked the Dead box.

Was that part of the original Japanese game, or is that something relatively recent?

Quote from: Lynn;606640Was that part of the original Japanese game, or is that something relatively recent?

Original game. The translation did not alter the existing mechanics of TBZ.

Quote from: Skywalker;606619I am a fan of rules that embed the rules of the fictional world the game is set in when playing my PC, even if they are narrative as termed by CRKrueger.

Here, unfortunately, is where you guys always start getting slimey and weaselly when challenged, and the agenda of defending what you like becomes apparent(which is ironic considering your main argument is usually "there is no difference, you just don't like it").

Nice try on the "rules of the fictional world" thing, but we all know that "rules of the fictional world" like magic exists, gods answer prayers, and faeries wear boots is not the same as "I can't be killed if I don't want to because the main characters in anime are almost never killed".

Literary Genre emulation is not world verisimilitude emulation, and you damn well know it's not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606636There is a difference and everyone here damn well knows it.  All we're arguing about is what name you put to it.

I don't have an issue with this, whatever you call it. But equally, the action order mechanics in Dr Who have the same effect in using the genre conventions of Dr Who to stop bad guys from shooting if you decide to talk, even if they would look to shoot as quickly as possible.

Quote from: Skywalker;606647I don't have an issue with this, whatever you call it. But equally, the action order mechanics in Dr Who have the same effect in using the genre conventions of Dr Who to stop bad guys from shooting if you decide to talk, even if they would look to shoot as quickly as possible.

Don'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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606624Right, so its a Storygame.

You 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606645Literary Genre emulation is not world verisimilitude emulation, and you damn well know it's not.

I agree that the Death Box is a narrative mechanic (or whatever you want to call it). But if it is so, then the Action Order mechanic is the same.

Further, neither of these make the RPG which they are in a story game, as they are a singular rule that mechanical establishes a genre convention and do not see the player become a co-author in a story in any significant way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606649It's literary genre emulation, not world emulation, without a doubt.

Cool. :) The reason this discussion was raised is that people were using the Death Box as justification for TBZ being a story game, whilst the Dr Who action order is not because it's genre emulation and matches some kind of in-built physics of the world based on that genre. My only point is that the two can't be distinguished.

Quote from: Skywalker;606652I agree that the Death Box is a narrative mechanic (or whatever you want to call it). But if it is so, then the Action Order mechanic is the same.

Further, neither of these make the RPG which they are in a story game, as they are a singular rule that mechanical establishes a genre convention and do not see the player become a co-author in a story in any significant way.

Actually, I would argue both of them allow the player to break the rules of the world in order to further a player's agenda.  Dr. Who lets a player always get off his sentence (like reveal the bad guy's plan) before the bad guy can silence him, and TBZ gives the character player-driven immunity.

If those aren't player-decided, world-editing means of influencing the narrative, then nothing is.

However, one narrative mechanic does not a storygame make, like I said at the top, with WFRP1(Fate Points are also a world-editing mechanic, btw).

Quote from: CRKrueger;606636So right here you're saying that you don't care whether or not the gangsters would actually kill you, you care whether it makes for an interesting narrative.  You only allow it if the literary framework you are accepting is gritty, like we're playing "Tarantino Stories" where anyone can die as a convention of the genre.

No, 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.  

QuoteYou're an intelligent guy.  Forget terminology and sides for a minute.  Surely you're not going to tell me with a straight face, honestly, that there is not a fundamental difference between what you are describing and someone playing a game where the bad guys can simply kill you and toss you in a ditch (regardless of how boring), because that's what they would really do.

There is a difference and everyone here damn well knows it.  All we're arguing about is what name you put to it.

Villains do all sorts of shit that's not realistic and pragmatic because it's the game you're playing.  I don't know why this is novel.  It makes more sense for Dr. Destroyer with his high IQ to become an investment banker and build a workable Ponzi scheme then fire a laser through Detroit -- heck, while we're at it, why Detroit? -- but he does that shit because he's a supervillain, and it's a comic-book RPG.  When 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.

You guys are like, "The bad guys should be able to shoot your TBZ character in the face and then fuck his corpse's head like he's in HALO deathmatch," but even when I'm playing a mainstream RPG, that doesn't happen.  Why not?  Because it's a bit stupid.  TBZ simply admits that it's stupid, and formalizes how you signal you're willing to have your character die in a Big Cool Battle.  

People have been doing this for years and years.  It's not "storygaming," because it predates the shit out of storygaming.  It's just how some people play their RPGs.  

And 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.

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.

At least Edwards didn't play petty-ass Junior High games with moving threads around when he was losing an argument.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606654Actually, I would argue both of them allow the player to break the rules of the world in order to further a player's agenda.  Dr. Who lets a player always get off his sentence (like reveal the bad guy's plan) before the bad guy can silence him, and TBZ gives the character player-driven immunity.

If those aren't player-decided, world-editing means of influencing the narrative, then nothing is.

However, one narrative mechanic does not a storygame make, like I said at the top, with WFRP1(Fate Points are also a world-editing mechanic, btw).

We agree.

I think the really important question is: Is Tenra now, or has it ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Tenra roulette.

In each scene/encounter/whatever you play at least one person has to have death on the table.

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.

Ha ha ha :D Classic. I take that as a win all round.

Also, I think this thread serves as a good one to refer to in later discussions :)

So, is it time to start a thread about the appalling modding on TheRPGsite? :)

All I care about is if I can have fun with a game at the table and whether the system it provides works with me or against me. If it has a bunch of mechanics or is taking an unusual path for an RPG, i appreciate a heads up from the publisher in some form on the cover (whether that is a qualifier before "rpg or am explanatory tagline doesnt matter) so I know what to expect.

I am currently prepping for my first session of Dr. Who. Personally I really likethe mechanics and have a good feeling about how they will play out come gameday. In particular I like the inititiative system, because it makes the whole Dr. who approach work (in a lot of rpgs the doctor would be dead by the time he opened his mouth or tried to fiddle with his sonic screwdriver). I dont know what I would label the game. It certainly takes some chances with interesting mechanics, but not in a way that feels too distracting to me. it looks like they did a good of of capturing the feel of the Dr. who show.

Quote from: Skywalker;606644Original game. The translation did not alter the existing mechanics of TBZ.

Very interesting! My Japanese just isn't up to reading the original.

I lived in Japan for some time and get back now and then, but the only time I gamed there was with fellow ex-pats.

What I find curious is how the game dynamic is influenced by Japanese culture (meaning normal, everyday small group dynamics - not the setting or formula elements).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;606663I am currently prepping for my first session of Dr. Who. Personally I really likethe mechanics and have a good feeling about how they will play out come gameday. In particular I like the inititiative system, because it makes the whole Dr. who approach work (in a lot of rpgs the doctor would be dead by the time he opened his mouth or tried to fiddle with his sonic screwdriver). I dont know what I would label the game. It certainly takes some chances with interesting mechanics, but not in a way that feels too distracting to me. it looks like they did a good of of capturing the feel of the Dr. who show.

Dr Who is a great RPG for Dr Who games. I hope to hear reports of your experiences here in "Other Games" so we Swine can read about it ;)

Quote from: Skywalker;606662So, is it time to start a thread about the appalling modding on TheRPGsite? :)

Work away, but if you're complaining about the modding on a site where halloween jack can crack Jewish holocaust jokes in order to call the owner a nazi and still remain unbanned, you may want to consider how your priorities look.

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.

Mate, if it was pretty much anyone else on the board with this jibe, it might hold some water.

But from you, who used to play petty-ass Junior High games when making ban announcements at RPGnet?

Not so much.

Those rocks are best thrown by someone else.

Quote from: Lynn;606665What I find curious is how the game dynamic is influenced by Japanese culture (meaning normal, everyday small group dynamics - not the setting or formula elements).

TBZ is rather a marvel in mechanical innovation. It's way ahead of its time.

The game came about due to the realities of Japanese life in demanding shorter campaigns. It's packed with Japanese culture and the translator has taken a lot of care to comment on the impact of the culture on the RPG, both in the book and also in a Directors Book, which is to be made available soon in PDF.

Quote from: Skywalker;606666Dr Who is a great RPG for Dr Who games. I hope to hear reports of your experiences here in "Other Games" so we Swine can read about it ;)

I dont have a dog in the story game fight. If it goes here or it goes in the main forum, doesn't really matter to me. Honestly, it is the same number of clicks away (about as far as the D&D main forum fom the d20 forum on most sites). Doesnt seem like an issue worth getting workedup over to me.

Quote from: The Traveller;606667Work away, but if you're complaining about the modding on a site where halloween jack can crack Jewish holocaust jokes in order to call the owner a nazi and still remain unbanned, you may want to consider how your priorities look.

Where didhe crack a holocaust joke?

Quote from: One Horse Town;606668Mate, if it was pretty much anyone else on the board with this jibe, it might hold some water.

But from you, who used to play petty-ass Junior High games when making ban announcements at RPGnet?

Not so much.

Those rocks are best thrown by someone else.

Man, 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;606674Where didhe crack a holocaust joke?

Right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24880&page=33), 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;606672I dont have a dog in the story game fight. If it goes here or it goes in the main forum, doesn't really matter to me. Honestly, it is the same number of clicks away (about as far as the D&D main forum fom the d20 forum on most sites). Doesnt seem like an issue worth getting workedup over to me.

It's cool, Brendan. I personally find the artificial, inaccurate and biased distinction being made is an issue in fragmenting an already niche hobby. I would prefer that we all leave it behind and not get worked up about it, much like you suggest. But some people have their entire reputation built on it, so achieving that takes some effort.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24880&page=33), 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.  :D  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. :p

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

Quote from: CRKrueger;606722Says the guy who hasn't been and won't be banned unless he practically begs for it.

Again, if you want to talk to me about the game, talk to me about the game.  I'm not going to comment on site policy.

QuoteThis 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.

My comments pretty much stand on their own, and I stand by them.  (This is posted before I saw Pundit's post.)

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

I lived in Japan for some time and get back now and then, but the only time I gamed there was with fellow ex-pats.

What I find curious is how the game dynamic is influenced by Japanese culture (meaning normal, everyday small group dynamics - not the setting or formula elements).

that's because it's a japanese game.

it's not like Steve Jackson's In Nomine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606724First, in WFRP you eventually run out of Fate points.

Again, you try and make a distinction based on something other than the nature of the rule itself and fail by doing so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606724Second, 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.

No one denies the rule exists in TBZ. The only thing in question is why you use this single rule to catergorise a whole RPG, when rules of a like nature do not cause a similar reaction from you elsewhere as shown on this very thread. You are now trying to shift responsibility to another poster in a weak attempt to look impartial, but this does not hide that your decision is clearly just motivated your own personal bias and arises from your failure to argue the point.

Quote from: Skywalker;606742No one denies the rule exists in TBZ. The only thing in question is why you use this single rule to catergorise a whole RPG, when rules of a like nature do not cause a similar reaction from you elsewhere as shown on this very thread. You are now trying to shift responsibility to another poster in a weak attempt to look impartial, but this does not hide that your decision is clearly just motivated your own personal bias and arises from your failure to argue the point.

and you're trying to draw a false equivalency between an expendable very low resource and an absolute constant rule, or being able to speak first vs. never being killed.

I'm all for admitting it's a question of degree, not of kind, when we're talking about the definition of the mechanic itself, but it's a big fucking degree that dramatically changes the entire foundation of the game.

I know being a guy who likes narrative mechanics you got a lot riding on dismissing Pundit as a crank, etc., but going to the mattresses and tossing out logic isn't doing you any favors.

Quote from: Skywalker;606742No one denies the rule exists in TBZ. The only thing in question is why you use this single rule to catergorise a whole RPG, when rules of a like nature do not cause a similar reaction from you elsewhere as shown on this very thread. You are now trying to shift responsibility to another poster in a weak attempt to look impartial, but this does not hide that your decision is clearly just motivated your own personal bias and arises from your failure to argue the point.

Its not a single rule, though. Its a number of things talked about the system that add up to make it clear that the system is not a regular RPG, with the particular rule forbidding nonconsensual PC death being the nail in the coffin, coupled with the obvious eagerness of the Story Swine crowd to embrace this game and promote it because of those various mechanics.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;606733that's because it's a japanese game.

it's not like Steve Jackson's In Nomine.

Yes, that's clear. My point being how deeply the rules themselves are influenced by assumptions of small group interaction within Japanese society, not the cultural elements of the setting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606755Its not a single rule, though. Its a number of things talked about the system that add up to make it clear that the system is not a regular RPG, with the particular rule forbidding nonconsensual PC death being the nail in the coffin, coupled with the obvious eagerness of the Story Swine crowd to embrace this game and promote it because of those various mechanics.

Yeah, I get it. It's your forum. You get to say what goes where and do shit, without rhyme or reason.

Quote from: CRKrueger;606746I'm all for admitting it's a question of degree, not of kind, when we're talking about the definition of the mechanic itself, but it's a big fucking degree that dramatically changes the entire foundation of the game.

You have a point and I would happy to discuss the question of degree for these rules. Ultimately, I think that discussion over all the rules in an RPG is an essential part of characterising an RPG. However, the counter arguments so far have exclusively been on the basis that these rules are fundamentally different in nature, mostly from a fear that these matters are not as black and white as some people would like.

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.

From my experience of both as moderators, Edwards was far more dictatorial in moving and closing threads that he didn't like.  He was less rude about it than Pundit is, but he would regularly close threads based on what he thought of the conversation's direction.  

I have a few beefs about moderation here - particularly in the last year or so, but overall I think it is still much more open in discussion than The Forge was.  I disagree with and sometimes insult Pundit regularly, but still do well here.  

I don't know anything particularly about Tenra Bansho so I don't have much to say about the main topic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606755Its not a single rule, though. Its a number of things talked about the system that add up to make it clear that the system is not a regular RPG, with the particular rule forbidding nonconsensual PC death being the nail in the coffin, coupled with the obvious eagerness of the Story Swine crowd to embrace this game and promote it because of those various mechanics.

RPGPundit

Seriously dude, you're pulling that crap out of your ass.

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.


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.

Grow up.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606755Its not a single rule, though. Its a number of things talked about the system that add up to make it clear that the system is not a regular RPG, with the particular rule forbidding nonconsensual PC death being the nail in the coffin, coupled with the obvious eagerness of the Story Swine crowd to embrace this game and promote it because of those various mechanics.

This is what your crusade has been reduced to? Claiming that a game with one non-simulationist mechanic is communist because it associates with communists?

You should be embarrassed by the level of stupidity you're demonstrating here.

Speaking as someone who thinks that there is a really meaningful and important line that should be drawn between RPGs and STGs, I find your McCarthy-esque crusade disgusting and abhorrent. It's not useful. When people see idiocy like yours, all it does it convince them that there's no validity to the position which you've made a mockery of.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;606797all it does it convince them that there's no validity to the position which you've made a mockery of.

This.

I am sad that this discussion (that I have not been a part of) was banished to the "outcast" forum.
Granted, the signal to noise ratio in this thread was quite low but there was a real discussion going on beneath all that bickering.

I had begun a lengthy answer before the move but I won't finish it as I got the feeling that earnest discussion of the borderline cases between RPG and SG is not welcome.

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.

:D

Quote from: One Horse Town;606661Tenra roulette.

In each scene/encounter/whatever you play at least one person has to have death on the table.

This is very interesting. Something that could work very well for adaptations of the rules to some settings.

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.

There was a bit of errata added during translation. For example, Kongohki (robots/animated armor suits with human souls inside) Overdrive was originally measured in rounds per day which was both inconvenient and impossible to balance. Now it's rounds per session. So you might be thinking about that sort of thing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606704I 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.

Ahaha, you're actually serious here? :banghead:

Quote from: RPGPundit;606755Its not a single rule, though. Its a number of things talked about the system that add up to make it clear that the system is not a regular RPG, with the particular rule forbidding nonconsensual PC death being the nail in the coffin, coupled with the obvious eagerness of the Story Swine crowd to embrace this game and promote it because of those various mechanics.

You have pretty much decided here that it's a storygame because it's translated, not even written but fucking translated, by Kitkowski and supported by other people you don't like. Pretending it's about dead boxes is red herring.

Apart from the discussion about the game, I would like to make a point:

Guys, Pundit's ridiculous strategy of moving threads around is useless. If you use the New Posts button, it shows you every new post and thread regardless the ubication, so those threads don't need to go unnoticed. Seriously, complaining about that is a fucking waste of time. So he doesn't like threads about some games on certain subforums. More power to him. Arguing about that is legitimizing his dick move.

Quote from: Imperator;606911Apart from the discussion about the game, I would like to make a point:

Guys, Pundit's ridiculous strategy of moving threads around is useless. If you use the New Posts button, it shows you every new post and thread regardless the ubication, so those threads don't need to go unnoticed. Seriously, complaining about that is a fucking waste of time. So he doesn't like threads about some games on certain subforums. More power to him. Arguing about that is legitimizing his dick move.

Not it's not.

Using the new post button isn't the point.

Quote from: Imperator;606911Apart from the discussion about the game, I would like to make a point:

Guys, Pundit's ridiculous strategy of moving threads around is useless. If you use the New Posts button, it shows you every new post and thread regardless the ubication, so those threads don't need to go unnoticed.

Yeah, really. Its so inept of me as a means of censorship that you'd almost have to think I don't actually mean to censor the thread...

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;606921Not it's not.

Using the new post button isn't the point.

It is the point that renders the argument of "moving threads around is censorship!" moot.

Of course, you can argue if storygames are RPGs or not until you die, but who cares? To the owner of this site, there's a difference and that's it. I think they're all the same at the core, but I don't need to persuade anyone.

Quote from: RPGPundit;606941Yeah, really. Its so inept of me as a means of censorship that you'd almost have to think I don't actually mean to censor the thread...

Of course you are not censoring anything. That is preposterous. It is your fucking forum and you arrange threads however it suits you. We can discuss any fucking game we want, Why should we bother on which subforum it goes? It's nerdy anal behaviour.

Quote from: Imperator;606911Apart from the discussion about the game, I would like to make a point:

Guys, Pundit's ridiculous strategy of moving threads around is useless. If you use the New Posts button, it shows you every new post and thread regardless the ubication, so those threads don't need to go unnoticed. Seriously, complaining about that is a fucking waste of time. So he doesn't like threads about some games on certain subforums. More power to him. Arguing about that is legitimizing his dick move.

Yeah, the only time it matters to me is if I'm not sure where to post a thread...because every time I visit, I go to the front page and click "New Posts" and then open up the threads that seem like interesting discussion or an interesting train wreck. I pay no attention to what board they are on.

I honestly don't care that much about the moving of threads, other than the deep deep irony of comparing it to the D20 Ghetto ...

It's derailing whole threads with "Are you now or have you ever been a storygamer" bullshit I don't think we really need.

Quote from: J Arcane;607067I honestly don't care that much about the moving of threads, other than the deep deep irony of comparing it to the D20 Ghetto ...

It's derailing whole threads with "Are you now or have you ever been a storygamer" bullshit I don't think we really need.

I agree with you there. I don't really care if a game is a storygame or an RPG, as long as we're having fun playing it.

I don't really care if we're talking about MMOs, card games, wargames, story games or role playing games if we're having fun playing them either. I do care which is which, however.

Quote from: Benoist;607135I don't really care if we're talking about MMOs, card games, wargames, story games or role playing games if we're having fun playing them either. I do care which is which, however.

If you really did, this wouldn't be in Other Games.

I haven't read Tenra Bansho Zero, nor am I likely to, but here's something I don't get.

There's a rule that says PCs can only be killed if they explicitly tick a box to risk their character's life on that particular roll, right? Well, surely, if you're someone that otherwise enjoys TBZ but likes the risk of PC death, you could just, I dunno, always tick the fucking box?

Is there some reason why this wouldn't work out?

Quote from: soviet;607197Is there some reason why this wouldn't work out?

None.

You know, I'll just leave this here.

(http://i.imgur.com/EopVB.jpg)

Quote from: soviet;607197I haven't read Tenra Bansho Zero, nor am I likely to, but here's something I don't get.

There's a rule that says PCs can only be killed if they explicitly tick a box to risk their character's life on that particular roll, right? Well, surely, if you're someone that otherwise enjoys TBZ but likes the risk of PC death, you could just, I dunno, always tick the fucking box?

Is there some reason why this wouldn't work out?

There is another very important purpose to the Dead box. It not only makes it possible for the character to die, it gives +3 dice to all actions because the character is operating at the limits of their capability. In fact, that is its primary function - the possibility for death is the balancing disadvantage.

Quote from: The Butcher;607204You know, I'll just leave this here.

(http://i.imgur.com/EopVB.jpg)

Please stop, or they'll send the thread to the Rational Discussion Flowchart Images sub-subforum.

Quote from: vytzka;607210There is another very important purpose to the Dead box. It not only makes it possible for the character to die, it gives +3 dice to all actions because the character is operating at the limits of their capability. In fact, that is its primary function - the possibility for death is the balancing disadvantage.

Is there any other benefit to allowing yourself to die? For example, bonus on your next character, option to come back as a ghost, etc?

Quote from: Lynn;607225Is there any other benefit to allowing yourself to die? For example, bonus on your next character, option to come back as a ghost, etc?

Normally, when you take a hit, you'd check off an amount of health boxes equal to the damage taken; when you check off your Dead Box, though, it absorbs all the damage for that hit. No matter how much you take. But you've only got one dead box, and you can't heal it in combat.

As for benefits for dying, no. I guess it could give you a motivation for your next character ("Avenge my relative's death")? But it would be up to you to decide.

Honestly, reading it (And I admit, I haven't read it cover-to-cover yet due to how frustrating the unoptimised pre-print PDF's are to read, just a quick skim-through), it's like a more comprehensible, better-explained equivalent to Exalted. I think if you like that, or if you thought Exalted looked like fun other than the shitty rules, you'll like TBZ.

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. :D

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

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.

Quote from: vytzka;607457Or it might be

dun dun dun

a joke.

NO, IT CANNOT BE BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR AND THAT IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.

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

Mate, it is a matter of degree.

Quote from: Imperator;607792NO, IT CANNOT BE BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR AND THAT IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Oh Pundit is very much at war :D I just can't say the same about Kitkowski I'm afraid.

Quote from: vytzka;607795Oh Pundit is very much at war :D I just can't say the same about Kitkowski I'm afraid.

It's easy to win a war if you're the only actual combatant and you get to define your own victory conditions.

It's harder to make anyone else care.

Also you can't win either because then Eurasia will no longer be at war with Oceania and all sort of problems develop.

I mean TECHNICALLY according to Pundit he already won against the Forge. But the princess is in another castle and so we have Storygamer witch hunts and stay tuned.

Quote from: soviet;607642I 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.

Wait a second, Burning Wheel is considered a Story Game? Narrative-fueled, sure, but you could play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's The Enemy Within in Burning Wheel. The Beliefs, Instincts and Traits are more of a wishlist than commands. The only narrative forced mechanics in Burning Wheel I see are Circles.

Hell, to me D&D and Burning Wheel are perfect examples of traditional roleplaying games. They have focused progress (gold=xp and skill use), an implied setting in the rules without spelling out the details and strong emphasis on character actions instead of narrative flow.

Quote from: vytzka;607816I mean TECHNICALLY according to Pundit he already won against the Forge. But the princess is in another castle and so we have Storygamer witch hunts and stay tuned.

History will teach us that Patton had Rommel, Grant had Lee and Pundit had Edwards.

But let's rejoice with TBZ's last update: new, much better looking, improved and corrected PDFs (I've just downloaded them) AND the files are going to be send to printers imminently.

Shit, I almost forgot.

To the download-mobile!

Quote from: Frundsberg;607901History will teach us that Patton had Rommel, Grant had Lee and Pundit had Edwards.

But let's rejoice with TBZ's last update: new, much better looking, improved and corrected PDFs (I've just downloaded them) AND the files are going to be send to printers imminently.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

(http://www.hailming.com/stevo/kirk_screams_khan.jpg)

Quote from: Crabbyapples;607900Wait a second, Burning Wheel is considered a Story Game?

Well, I think this is part of the dance that goes on here. 'Storygames' are railed against in the vaguest possible terms and sent off to Other Games forum as 'not proper roleplaying'. When there is a discussion about how storygames do terrible thing X, or don't do awesome thing Y, and someone says 'Well hang on, in fact Dogs/BW/Sorcerer/etc hardly touches X and has loads of Y', the response is 'sure, that game is not really a storygame per se'. But when it comes to where that game is allowed to be discussed, or how much of a communist subversive that game's author and players are, suddenly the label is applied blindly again and with full force. It's a way of maintaining the war without having to deal with any facts.

(Not saying that you are doing any of this BTW Crabbyapples!)

Quote from: soviet;607961Well, I think this is part of the dance that goes on here.

Or the people that say "Game X is an RPG despite strong narrative mechanics" aren't the ones who have any power to actually move threads.

You know, whichever. :rolleyes:

Keep cryin' that river Every.Single.Time though, I'm sure the Pundit really cares.

Quote from: CRKrueger;608024Or the people that say "Game X is an RPG despite strong narrative mechanics" aren't the ones who have any power to actually move threads.

You know, whichever. :rolleyes:

Keep cryin' that river Every.Single.Time though, I'm sure the Pundit really cares.

Sorry, what? I couldn't hear you very well. Take the pundit's cock out of your mouth and try again.

Quote from: soviet;608042Sorry, what? I couldn't hear you very well. Take the pundit's cock out of your mouth and try again.

Or, if you actually read the thread, you'd see that I said TBZ was probably 50/50 and not believing it warranted movement, and not having the ability to do so - Hey, how about that, I didn't move it.  Any organized culture you're blathering about it Pundit doing what he wants on the board he pays for.  What a complete and total surprise.  What isn't a surprise is you coming over yet again to complain anytime anyone suggests any difference whatsoever between RPGs and what you like.

That's why there's no point talking to useless cunts like you.  All you have is your agenda.  As has been seen in many threads, you really can't see the difference between making a decision from the POV of the character and the player because you're not really interested in the roleplaying aspect, it's the narrative part that really gets you going, which is fine, other then your bizarre form of cowardice that has you unable to stand up and say "Yeah this is something different, so what, I like it better".

You're not interested in actually discussing things like Skywalker, you periodically comb the threads, see the Pundit attack your agenda and you show up to throw the flag.  Pure propaganda - pedestrian, predictable, and pathetic.

After a while, you'll crawl back under your rock, and then show up to cry the next time Pundit or Ben does something you don't like like a good little soldier.

{Yawn}

Quote from: CRKrueger;608131Or, if you actually read the thread, you'd see that I said TBZ was probably 50/50 and not believing it warranted movement, and not having the ability to do so - Hey, how about that, I didn't move it.  Any organized culture you're blathering about it Pundit doing what he wants on the board he pays for.  What a complete and total surprise.  What isn't a surprise is you coming over yet again to complain anytime anyone suggests any difference whatsoever between RPGs and what you like.

That's why there's no point talking to useless cunts like you.  All you have is your agenda.  As has been seen in many threads, you really can't see the difference between making a decision from the POV of the character and the player because you're not really interested in the roleplaying aspect, it's the narrative part that really gets you going, which is fine, other then your bizarre form of cowardice that has you unable to stand up and say "Yeah this is something different, so what, I like it better".

You're not interested in actually discussing things like Skywalker, you periodically comb the threads, see the Pundit attack your agenda and you show up to throw the flag.  Pure propaganda - pedestrian, predictable, and pathetic.

After a while, you'll crawl back under your rock, and then show up to cry the next time Pundit or Ben does something you don't like like a good little soldier.

{Yawn}

:slurp: :slurp:

Sorry, what? Didn't hear you again.

Anyway, this is my position:

• I agree that storygame RPGs are different from more traditional RPGs.
• I think nonetheless that they are both types of RPGs.
  
• I do not think that when you play a storygame you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the player. At least, I don't do that, and nor does anyone else in my group, and nor I suspect do most people who talk about these games online.
• I do not think that when you play a traditional RPG you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the character. At least, I don't do that, and nor does anyone else in my group, and nor I suspect do most people who talk about these games online.
• I would agree that storygame play involves slightly less character POV stuff than traditional RPG play, but I think the difference is far less than is sometimes claimed. The significant majority of storygame play, in my experience, is still conducted from an in character point of view. If you were to watch me and my group play Other Worlds, you would not see it as something fundamentally different to what I expect you and your group do when playing, I dunno, D&D. The details vary but the core activity remains the same - speaking dialogue, describing actions, rolling dice.
• By storygames I mean stuff like Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, and my own small game Other Worlds. Different from D&D, Shadowrun, or Vampire? Sure. Different enough to be a whole new category of thing that must be kept separate for fear of contamination? No.
• For the record I like both types of RPGs. I'm currently GMing a storygame I wrote called Other Worlds. Before that over the last year I have played Shadowrun, WFRP 2nd edition, D&D 4e, and D&D 'Next', and GMed AD&D 2e.

If you want to have an actual conversation about any of that I am fully prepared to take part.

TBZ isn't 50/50. It's 100% an rpg. That's it.

If DnD had a 'death box', it wouldn't invalidate everything else in the game that makes it an rpg.

Quote from: soviet;608144If you want to have an actual conversation about any of that I am fully prepared to take part.

Sure, why not?  Roleplaying is all about playing pretend, so I'll pretend you're actually here to have a conversation.
 

Quote from: soviet;608144I agree that storygame RPGs are different from more traditional RPGs.

Agreeing with self-evident truths in an attempt to paint oneself as rational.  Standard JC-level opening.  So far so good.

Quote from: soviet;608144I think nonetheless that they are both types of RPGs.

You specifically said "Storygame RPGs", do you think all Storygames are always RPGs or are you drawing a distinction between "Storygame RPGs" and "Storygames"?

Quote from: soviet;608144I do not think that when you play a storygame you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the player.

Again, a self-evident truth, as anyone claiming that is a strawman, since no one here ever has.

Quote from: soviet;608144I do not think that when you play a traditional RPG you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the character.

Again, a self-evident truth, as anyone claiming that is a strawman, since no one here ever has.

Quote from: soviet;608144I would agree that storygame play involves slightly less character POV stuff than traditional RPG play, but I think the difference is far less than is sometimes claimed. The significant majority of storygame play, in my experience, is still conducted from an in character point of view.

What percentages do you assign to "Slightly" and "Majority"?

Quote from: soviet;608144If you were to watch me and my group play Other Worlds, you would not see it as something fundamentally different to what I expect you and your group do when playing, I dunno, D&D. The details vary but the core activity remains the same - speaking dialogue, describing actions, rolling dice.

Either a very specious argument used for deliberate misrepresentation (as twofish frequently used it) or as I think you are using it, points to the key difference between our viewpoints.  If you think roleplaying or not is something you can tell by watching what is going on, you're completely missing the point.  Roleplaying is an internal activity.  What I say, doesn't matter.  Whether my decisions are occuring from the POV of my character or me is something only I know, as that thought process is occurring in my brain alone.

Take for example the earlier conversation between FVB and myself where he was saying if his character was captured by gangbangers, he would consider it a dick move for them to kill his character because that wouldn't make for a very good story.  Roleplaying is a state of mind, and the state of mind behind that statement by FVB is not roleplaying, sorry.  

Either I'm doing something because my character would do it, or I have another motive, tactical, narrative, or socially based.  Any single game is not binary RPG or STG, however, every single decision is.  I'm either making the decision from the POV of the character or I'm adding in other factors.  If the core structures of the game, the base engine of the mechanics forces you to constantly consider things from outside the POV of your character, then it's really hard to see how you can logically consider it a RPG, even if it does contain roleplaying.

Even if you contend that any amount of roleplaying means the game should be considered an RPG, then there should be a qualifier to designate what other non-rpg factors go into the game mechanics.  In other words, a Tactical RPG, Narrative RPG, Literary RPG, whatever the hell you want to come up with but not just "RPG".

Quote from: soviet;608144By storygames I mean stuff like Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, and my own small game Other Worlds. Different from D&D, Shadowrun, or Vampire? Sure. Different enough to be a whole new category of thing that must be kept separate for fear of contamination? No.

Different enough for an adjective so that if I love or hate narrative mechanics I actually have enough information to know wtf I'm buying?

Quote from: soviet;608144For the record I like both types of RPGs. I'm currently GMing a storygame I wrote called Other Worlds. Before that over the last year I have played Shadowrun, WFRP 2nd edition, D&D 4e, and D&D 'Next', and GMed AD&D 2e.

For the record I've tried and have even enjoyed some narrative games, enough to the point that I can identify when I am making decisions as a player and when I am making decisions as a character.

Quote from: soviet;607961Well, I think this is part of the dance that goes on here. 'Storygames' are railed against in the vaguest possible terms and sent off to Other Games forum as 'not proper roleplaying'. When there is a discussion about how storygames do terrible thing X, or don't do awesome thing Y, and someone says 'Well hang on, in fact Dogs/BW/Sorcerer/etc hardly touches X and has loads of Y', the response is 'sure, that game is not really a storygame per se'. But when it comes to where that game is allowed to be discussed, or how much of a communist subversive that game's author and players are, suddenly the label is applied blindly again and with full force. It's a way of maintaining the war without having to deal with any facts.

(Not saying that you are doing any of this BTW Crabbyapples!)

I will concede that I am probably not the best person to try to positively define storygames; what with me not actually liking storygames.

It would be absolutely great if storygamers were to make a concerted effort to define storygames, as its own unique and separate hobby, outside the RPG hobby, the way RPGs did with Wargames.

Unfortunately, storygamers seem to prefer to intentionally try to avoid any strict definitions so as to continue to attempt to subvert the RPG hobby instead of doing what they ought to, and trying to make it on their own.

Now, I may not be the best person to give a good definition of what a storygame is; nor would I care, since I don't enjoy storygames; but I'm a very good person to define what is NOT an RPG.

Is burning wheel a storygame? I've probably called it that out of laziness and lack of a better term; but ultimately, that's not for me to judge.
On the other hand, its various mechanical violations of the landmarks make it NOT an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;608207100%

That number does not mean what you think it means.

Quote from: CRKrueger;608210You specifically said "Storygame RPGs", do you think all Storygames are always RPGs or are you drawing a distinction between "Storygame RPGs" and "Storygames"?

Hmm. I'm not deliberately trying to draw a distinction in my terminology, no. I can see that there is a spectrum, with stuff like Burning Wheel and Dogs on the one side and weirder edge stuff like Fiasco and My Life With Master on the other. And for the record, I don't give a shit about the latter kind of game, they interest me not at all. If you want to say that Universalis isn't an RPG, I don't really care one way or the other.

What I see happening is that vague criticisms of 'storygames' are made that only really apply to the more extreme side of the spectrum. But these criticisms - and resulting policy changes about thread movements etc - are then sort of blindly applied to the more middle of the road storygames as well, such as BW, where they don't really apply. It's those middle of the road storygames that people actually play.

It may well be that a third category would be useful. Traditional RPGs like AD&D, storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel, and sort of purestrain hyper storygames like Fiasco. Although I think to the vast majority of people the term 'storygame' already includes stuff like BW and Dogs, so it may be too late to redefine it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;608210Either a very specious argument used for deliberate misrepresentation (as twofish frequently used it) or as I think you are using it, points to the key difference between our viewpoints.  If you think roleplaying or not is something you can tell by watching what is going on, you're completely missing the point.  Roleplaying is an internal activity.  What I say, doesn't matter.  Whether my decisions are occuring from the POV of my character or me is something only I know, as that thought process is occurring in my brain alone.

Take for example the earlier conversation between FVB and myself where he was saying if his character was captured by gangbangers, he would consider it a dick move for them to kill his character because that wouldn't make for a very good story.  Roleplaying is a state of mind, and the state of mind behind that statement by FVB is not roleplaying, sorry.  

Either I'm doing something because my character would do it, or I have another motive, tactical, narrative, or socially based.  Any single game is not binary RPG or STG, however, every single decision is.  I'm either making the decision from the POV of the character or I'm adding in other factors.  If the core structures of the game, the base engine of the mechanics forces you to constantly consider things from outside the POV of your character, then it's really hard to see how you can logically consider it a RPG, even if it does contain roleplaying.

I don't agree that full immersion in the character is the only way to roleplay. And I think roleplaying *is* something that you can tell by watching. Some people are method actors (DeNiro), other people are consciously playing a role. It's still roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;608210Even if you contend that any amount of roleplaying means the game should be considered an RPG, then there should be a qualifier to designate what other non-rpg factors go into the game mechanics.  In other words, a Tactical RPG, Narrative RPG, Literary RPG, whatever the hell you want to come up with but not just "RPG".

I'm not really saying that any amount of roleplaying makes something an RPG. That's where we start talking about whether Monopoly is an RPG when you give the shoe a motivation and talk in a funny voice. Off the cuff, I would say that something is an RPG when roleplaying represents at least half of the experience (as a minimum). But before we could agree on that, we'd first have to agree on what roleplaying is. Is combat roleplaying? Is combat in D&D 4e roleplaying? And so on.

I have no objections to subdividing RPGs into different categories, although I think it will be very difficult to get people to agree as to where the dividing lines are.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;608210Different enough so that if I love or hate narrative mechanics I actually have enough information to know wtf I'm buying?

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. What do you mean by narrative mechanics?

Quote from: RPGPundit;608213I will concede that I am probably not the best person to try to positively define storygames; what with me not actually liking storygames.

It would be absolutely great if storygamers were to make a concerted effort to define storygames, as its own unique and separate hobby, outside the RPG hobby, the way RPGs did with Wargames.

Unfortunately, storygamers seem to prefer to intentionally try to avoid any strict definitions so as to continue to attempt to subvert the RPG hobby instead of doing what they ought to, and trying to make it on their own.

Now, I may not be the best person to give a good definition of what a storygame is; nor would I care, since I don't enjoy storygames; but I'm a very good person to define what is NOT an RPG.

Is burning wheel a storygame? I've probably called it that out of laziness and lack of a better term; but ultimately, that's not for me to judge.
On the other hand, its various mechanical violations of the landmarks make it NOT an RPG.

RPGPundit

There's no conspiracy. People who like storygames aren't deliberately trying to ride the coat-tails of RPGs in some clever act of trickery. Firstly, fucking hell, if they were going to do that, they would surely pick a more successful medium to get in with. Where's the mileage in pretending to be an RPG when you're not?

It may be that some of the hardcore storygames.com people, playing Fiasco in a cafe and stroking their purple goatees, don't consider themselves roleplayers. I don't know, you'd have to ask them. But then I'm not sure they are describing themselves as such either.

I describe myself as a roleplayer. I play storygames (principally, Other Worlds). I also play traditional RPGs (principally, various editions of D&D). I'm not lying. I'm not trying to trick anyone. That's what I am.

I describe the game I wrote (Other Worlds) as an RPG. And I would describe some games I admire (Burning Wheel, etc) as RPGs too. Storygame RPGs, sure, but still RPGs. That's how I play them, that's how other people play them. I'm not lying, I'm not trying to trick anyone, that's what I think they are.

It's a disagreement over terminology, not a secret masterplan.

What exactly makes Burning Wheel or Other Worlds not an RPG?

QuoteWhere's the mileage in pretending to be an RPG when you're not?

Because they'd sell all of twenty copies if they didn't.

You really think Fiasco would have become the surprise viral hit it has if it hadn't been repeatedly billed as a proper RPG?

Quote from: J Arcane;608247Because they'd sell all of twenty copies if they didn't.

You really think Fiasco would have become the surprise viral hit it has if it hadn't been repeatedly billed as a proper RPG?

Are you saying that most people who've bought Fiasco as though it were an RPG now regret their purchase and feel tricked/ripped off?

(I haven't bought or read it, BTW, I have no idea if it's good or not).

Surely if you're going to piggyback on another hobby to get extra sales, roleplaying games are the worst one to choose? If you wrote Fiasco and wanted to do that wouldn't you pretend it was a CCG without the cards, a boardgame without a board, or a computer game without a computer, some bullshit just like that? Or just sell it as a party game like Murder or something?

Quote from: soviet;608253Are you saying that most people who've bought Fiasco as though it were an RPG now regret their purchase and feel tricked/ripped off?

(I haven't bought or read it, BTW, I have no idea if it's good or not).

Surely if you're going to piggyback on another hobby to get extra sales, roleplaying games are the worst one to choose? If you wrote Fiasco and wanted to do that wouldn't you pretend it was a CCG without the cards, a boardgame without a board, or a computer game without a computer, some bullshit just like that? Or just sell it as a party game like Murder or something?

It doesn't look enough like those other things to sell the comparison.

You yourself said it. To you, at the table, playing a game like Fiasco even looks like any other RPG.

Quote from: J Arcane;608254It doesn't look enough like those other things to sell the comparison.

You yourself said it. To you, at the table, playing a game like Fiasco even looks like any other RPG.

I didn't say that. I've never read, played, or owned Fiasco. I don't give a shit about Fiasco. I am talking about middle of the road storygames such as Burning Wheel.

Quote from: RPGPundit;608213Now, I may not be the best person to give a good definition of what a storygame is; nor would I care, since I don't enjoy storygames; but I'm a very good person to define what is NOT an RPG.

on what basis is TBZ not an rpg?

Quote from: J Arcane;608247Because they'd sell all of twenty copies if they didn't.

You really think Fiasco would have become the surprise viral hit it has if it hadn't been repeatedly billed as a proper RPG?

"Roleplaying", in the sense of the hobby we all participate in, isn't that big a draw. Fiasco has probably done well due to how well it emulates the comedy-of-group-collapse genre (Or however you classify Coen Brothers movies), and due to people enjoying playing it... being on Wheaton's youtube thing probably helped, too.

I haven't played it.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;608258on what basis is TBZ not an rpg?

Well, this thread is in the "Other Games" forum, for a start. And the word "story" is in the book. Listen, just don't mention "story".

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.

Well, call it a roleplaying game or story game, TBZ is fun as hell.

One thing I've noticed: death is consensual. Failure is not. A bad series of dice rolls will still screw you over, but the player decides the way that the combat failure goes: either you're unconscious for like a day and wake back up again, or you toss all your chips in the pot, fail anyway, and die.

The example I like to use is Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride: you can take a near-lethal wound, go down, and stay down, and then you're done. That's it. Out of the fight. Or you can check off your dead box, get back up, and try to keep going, and if you go down THAT time, then you're gone. It's not that hard for the game master to set up the battles so that players are forced to check off their dead boxes and burn lots of karma to win.

I do wonder, however, how much of this was actually in the rules, and how much of it is revisionism and wishful thinking on the translator's part. He's pretty much admitted that at least two mechanics (Kongohki Overdrive and Strategy) were changed from the original Japanese. I wonder how much of the game master hints and the other side material comes from Andy K, too. And there were a couple of pieces of advice that I simply rebelled against and had to say, "No. That's not how it works."

Either way, the game works for me.

Themocaw

Quote from: RPGPundit;608213I will concede that I am probably not the best person to try to positively define storygames; what with me not actually liking storygames.

It would be absolutely great if storygamers were to make a concerted effort to define storygames, as its own unique and separate hobby, outside the RPG hobby, the way RPGs did with Wargames.

Unfortunately, storygamers seem to prefer to intentionally try to avoid any strict definitions so as to continue to attempt to subvert the RPG hobby instead of doing what they ought to, and trying to make it on their own.

Now, I may not be the best person to give a good definition of what a storygame is; nor would I care, since I don't enjoy storygames; but I'm a very good person to define what is NOT an RPG.

Is burning wheel a storygame? I've probably called it that out of laziness and lack of a better term; but ultimately, that's not for me to judge.
On the other hand, its various mechanical violations of the landmarks make it NOT an RPG.

Storygames are defined as the games you don't like. Well that's refreshingly honest, although I cannot be the only one who appreciates the irony in your stance being so similar to Ron Edwards on Simulationism.

Quote from: themocaw;608351I do wonder, however, how much of this was actually in the rules, and how much of it is revisionism and wishful thinking on the translator's part. He's pretty much admitted that at least two mechanics (Kongohki Overdrive and Strategy) were changed from the original Japanese. I wonder how much of the game master hints and the other side material comes from Andy K, too. And there were a couple of pieces of advice that I simply rebelled against and had to say, "No. That's not how it works."

Don't take this the wrong way but I would like to see people actually get the Japanese version and compare the two instead of spreading disingenuous cowardly bullshit.

Kitkowski changed what he said he changed. The onus is on you to provide proof that he's lying.

On a more gaming and less theory/personal agenda related note, I'll probably be running TBZ this weekend for one of my groups.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;608465On a more gaming and less theory/personal agenda related note, I'll probably be running TBZ this weekend for one of my groups.

4th session this weekend:

My players are rallying allies to overthrow the Tachibana usurper. So far they have secured the help of the Inami pirates (who hate the new Regent even more than his predecessor), the South Court, Mutsu provincial lords and a King of tengus. Before launching an assault, they also want to restore a Great Yoroi gone astray and use it to create havoc.

Quote from: vytzka;608369Don't take this the wrong way but I would like to see people actually get the Japanese version and compare the two instead of spreading disingenuous cowardly bullshit.

Kitkowski changed what he said he changed. The onus is on you to provide proof that he's lying.

If I read Japanese, I would. As it is, I only have his word at the moment that his translation is accurate. And he's already made one rather glaring error in the Aiuchi rules.

I'm not accusing him of maliciously lying. I don't believe he has any reason to. But I do wonder if certain turns of phrase or word choice were influenced by his personal tastes in roleplaying games. And I do say roleplaying games: Dead Box and consensual death aside, Tenra Bansho Zero feels like pure roleplaying game.

Sudden insight: Is the Dead Box mechanic a cultural artifact based on the samurai ethos towards death? A "Death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain" type thing?

All of that is secondary. What I know is that I love Tenra Bansho Zero and look forward to playing it again soon enough. :)

Quote from: themocaw;608514I'm not accusing him of maliciously lying. I don't believe he has any reason to. But I do wonder if certain turns of phrase or word choice were influenced by his personal tastes in roleplaying games. And I do say roleplaying games: Dead Box and consensual death aside, Tenra Bansho Zero feels like pure roleplaying game.

Maybe you meant the same thing by this, but this sounds to me very different than suggesting that he had engaged in "revisionism".  

I have no doubt that turns of phrase were influenced by his personal taste.  Translation is always an art that inherently involves making choices about how you phrase things, because a huge number of words, phrases and connotations don't have an exact match.

Quote from: themocaw;608514If I read Japanese, I would. As it is, I only have his word at the moment that his translation is accurate. And he's already made one rather glaring error in the Aiuchi rules.

I think I missed that. What was it?

QuoteSudden insight: Is the Dead Box mechanic a cultural artifact based on the samurai ethos towards death? A "Death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain" type thing?

Possibly!

Quote from: Frundsberg;6085014th session this weekend:

My players are rallying allies to overthrow the Tachibana usurper. So far they have secured the help of the Inami pirates (who hate the new Regent even more than his predecessor), the South Court, Mutsu provincial lords and a King of tengus. Before launching an assault, they also want to restore a Great Yoroi gone astray and use it to create havoc.

Man, that sounds awesome.  And that reminds me, I wanted Tengu in my game...

Quote from: vytzka;608541I think I missed that. What was it?

The first version of the game stated that Aiuchi could be used on both attack and defense. It was pointed out that this made a certain War Art pointless, at which point Andy reread the original and realized that Aiuchi should only be a defensive maneuver. It's basically supposed to be the equivalent of Jin's final attack in Samurai Champloo.

And yeah, "Revisionism" was a poor choice in words. Perhaps "bias?" I don't know.

As for the advice I rejected out of hand, it was all the times that the text suggested that the GM veto a player's actions for the sake of the story. Maybe it's a cultural disconnect, but in my opinion, if a player is willing to spend the resources to kill Darth Vader before he can escape, he should be allowed to do so.

----
That said. . .

I'm already planning my next campaign. My gritty idea is having a gunslinger/priest from the far-off land of Terra show up in pursuit of a powerful Ayakashi called a "Vampire."

My silly idea is a suit-armour rider, bare-knuckle samurai, lightning-summoning onmyoji, and a guy with a giant chakram fighting against an invasion of evil spirits from another dimension, summoned by the onmyouji's half-ayakashi adopted brother.

My super-silly idea is five armour-riders, each of whom are given an armor that forms one of the five pieces of the ancient Great Armour "Voru-Turon" fighting the Karakuri-Beasts from another world.

Quote from: themocaw;608514But I do wonder if certain turns of phrase or word choice were influenced by his personal tastes in roleplaying games. And I do say roleplaying games: Dead Box and consensual death aside, Tenra Bansho Zero feels like pure roleplaying game.

If he changed some rules, that's something quite different. I am assuming he did so with the permission of the author; from what I've read he seems like he's pretty earnest to do things the right way.

The nature of translation is that whatever is translated is intepreted to some extent to make it readable. Sometimes you go for extreme accuracy, and other times you go for intent.

A good translator is as true to the original intent as possible, except when there is some overriding need where mechanical may be best. But it always goes through the translator's "hardware" hence the saying "traduttore, traditore", the translator is a traitor.

Quote from: themocaw;608553My silly idea is a suit-armour rider, bare-knuckle samurai, lightning-summoning onmyoji, and a guy with a giant chakram fighting against an invasion of evil spirits from another dimension, summoned by the onmyouji's half-ayakashi adopted brother.

My super-silly idea is five armour-riders, each of whom are given an armor that forms one of the five pieces of the ancient Great Armour "Voru-Turon" fighting the Karakuri-Beasts from another world.

Where's the silliness? Both sound like very serious business!

Quote from: Frundsberg;608567Where's the silliness? Both sound like very serious business!

Excellent deadpan, Frundsberg. 9/10.

Quote from: themocaw;608592Excellent deadpan, Frundsberg. 9/10.

What? Why? I was praising your ideas (as in "it's not silly if it makes you have a good time"). Blame the Internet.