That actually makes me want to read LA again and play it. Damn you, Gary!

Quote from: Brad;650685True, but I'm in fact playing a narrative-based game where I type out messageboard posts.

[keanu] Whoa. [/keanu]

Quote from: jeff37923;650721See, this is Mistwell engaging in sucking up. Luke Crane's game was witten about in Forbes, ohmifuckinggod Forbes, so it must obviously have worth and merit. Since Mistwell believes that associating with that which he percieves as having worth and merit will elevate his own social status, he defends the game against all enemies real or imagined.

Good Luck with the social climbing, O White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law. We will be watching, and cheering you on inside of your mind, from afar.

Jesus Christ you are fucking retarded.  My comment was not even about this game and I don't even know who Luke Crane even is...no, nevermind.  You're just not intelligent enough to comprehend what I was saying anyway, so why bother?

Quote from: One Horse Town;650720Mate, these types of game were most certainly part of a movement or cause when they first started coming out of the Forge.

The missionaries were on every forum in the land. It was the main reason for this board being set up.

Now, there's a Mexican standoff and in most corners a live and let live attitude.

The fact that the blurb for this game touches on phrases that have long been used to disparage traditional gaming by these douches, shows that some of these 'whiter than white, what war?' types are loading up their muskets and giving us both barrels.

Missed my point.  Again, when answering the question of "what is the big picture" the answer is not "it's a movement".  I mean, if you want to give more power to that movement by making it seem more important than it is...well go on with your bad self.  But the big picture is just "are people enjoying their games?"  That's it.  Because the topic is "games", that's the most important big picture issue.  The rest is mostly bullshit that a few guys like to talk about on internet message boards when they are bored.  You might care what their original intent was, you might care if they view it as a movement, but none of that means fuck-all to answering the question about the big picture concerning tabletop games.  

Me, they're not my type of game, and I don't play them, and I don't care one whit who makes those games and what their names are.  I don't give a shit about their movement, and I don't think their movement is the important issue.  You seem to think it's really important.  Well, OK then, you go one giving them what they want, and keep telling everyone how their movement is more important than whether or not people enjoy the games they choose to play.

Quote from: Mistwell;650792You might care what their original intent was, you might care if they view it as a movement, but none of that means fuck-all to answering the question about the big picture concerning tabletop games.  

The big picture concerning tabletop games isn't of interest here. I don't care about a big picture that includes poker and snakes and ladders, both of which are tabletop games, it's an irrelevancy.

Quote from: Mistwell;650792Me, they're not my type of game, and I don't play them, and I don't care one whit who makes those games and what their names are.  I don't give a shit about their movement, and I don't think their movement is the important issue.  You seem to think it's really important.  Well, OK then, you go one giving them what they want, and keep telling everyone how their movement is more important than whether or not people enjoy the games they choose to play.

As far as I'm concerned, shared narrative games aren't fun. That may be subjective but it probably represents the opinions of quite a lot of people. We can talk about the flop that was 4e and its connections to shared narrative/forger theories, we can compare sales figures and find out that DW is doing really well compared to anything else baker has ever been involved in, we can go back and forth for a hundred posts, but it wouldn't matter.

The big picture is one of a fairly inoffensive hobby blighted by a person and company who couldn't or wouldn't understand roleplaying and wanted to destroy it, doing his level best to bamboozle, bully, and bluster others into believing the same. The curtains only fell back at the end with his 'brain damaged' comments, but the frankenstein monster still has a few lurches left in it.

You understand this, the idiot wanted to destroy the hobby.

You know I posted on the forge when I first left the silent majority and decided to look up RPG discussion forums online? The forge is a cemetary. Moving on to the pirhana tank that is rpgnet, I was struck by how fractured and balkanised the hobby was online, but one particular group stood out as being an incessant cause of trouble, the shared narrative contingent.

Go back to the earlier discussions, around 2002, and see how different and more relaxed the atmosphere was then. Note I'm banned from nowhere, I can post where I like as I like; I deliberately chose to kick that site's dust from my heels and come here after I had an exchange with the admins which convinced me they cared almost nothing about RPGs.

But that's just one man's experience. The reality remains as I outlined earlier, shared narrative games are a step back struggling to take the same step forward that everyone else took thirty years previously. I'm not calling anyone names for enjoying shared narrative games, just highlighting a few realities that might not suit the more aggressive among them, and there's no shortage of those despite that grognards.txt was broken, its golden boy humiliated, and that the forge remains a ruin.

Quote from: Mistwell;650789and I don't even know who Luke Crane even is...

Psst, read the thread.

It's totally in the thread.

Quote from: The Traveller;650805The big picture concerning tabletop games isn't of interest here. I don't care about a big picture that includes poker and snakes and ladders, both of which are tabletop games, it's an irrelevancy.


As far as I'm concerned, shared narrative games aren't fun. That may be subjective but it probably represents the opinions of quite a lot of people. We can talk about the flop that was 4e and its connections to shared narrative/forger theories, we can compare sales figures and find out that DW is doing really well compared to anything else baker has ever been involved in, we can go back and forth for a hundred posts, but it wouldn't matter.

The big picture is one of a fairly inoffensive hobby blighted by a person and company who couldn't or wouldn't understand roleplaying and wanted to destroy it, doing his level best to bamboozle, bully, and bluster others into believing the same. The curtains only fell back at the end with his 'brain damaged' comments, but the frankenstein monster still has a few lurches left in it.

You understand this, the idiot wanted to destroy the hobby.

You know I posted on the forge when I first left the silent majority and decided to look up RPG discussion forums online? The forge is a cemetary. Moving on to the pirhana tank that is rpgnet, I was struck by how fractured and balkanised the hobby was online, but one particular group stood out as being an incessant cause of trouble, the shared narrative contingent.

Go back to the earlier discussions, around 2002, and see how different and more relaxed the atmosphere was then. Note I'm banned from nowhere, I can post where I like as I like; I deliberately chose to kick that site's dust from my heels and come here after I had an exchange with the admins which convinced me they cared almost nothing about RPGs.

But that's just one man's experience. The reality remains as I outlined earlier, shared narrative games are a step back struggling to take the same step forward that everyone else took thirty years previously. I'm not calling anyone names for enjoying shared narrative games, just highlighting a few realities that might not suit the more aggressive among them, and there's no shortage of those despite that grognards.txt was broken, its golden boy humiliated, and that the forge remains a ruin.

I think you've edged into the same brain damage territory that they did though.

You were responding to this:

"Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.  To say otherwise strays into that "brain damage" zone where fans of other games somehow must be defective for enjoying those games. I get wanting different names for Traditional RPGs vs. Narrative RPGs, but I can't get aboard denigrating people for their choice of fun."

And your response was, essentially, it doesn't so much matter if people have fun with those games, because there was a nefarious intent behind their creation, and it's that intent that is the big picture we should take from all this, not the fact that some people have fun with those games.  And you've continued down that road, with total focus on intent of the original authors of this stuff.

But, then you admit those original authors lost.  Their forum is a wasteland.  So why do you care SO MUCH about that, at the expense of simply being happy for the people who found games they like?  You really do sound like you're dancing around saying that anyone who likes those games just isn't wired right.  How are you any better than those authors?  Why are you using the sins of those authors a decade ago as a justification to be completely dismissive of the fact that some people like those kinds of games now? It's OK that people like types of games you and I do not like.  It's a good thing when gamers find games they enjoy.  Can't you be happy for them, without all the rest of this wankery?

Quote from: VectorSigma;650829Psst, read the thread.

It's totally in the thread.

I get from the thread that some people think he is important to the storygame movement on some level (and that he is an asshole).  Aside from that, I don't really know why they think he is important.  And I suspect, even if you listed games he's authored, I probably would not recognize most of them.  I do own Mouse Guard though (because I am a fan of the comic books), and I saw that connected to this, so maybe he wrote that? For some reason I thought Dave Peterson authored that.

[Edit - Looked it up, and yes, Crane is an author on Mouse Guard.  So, I do own something he wrote.  Never played it, seemed like a pain in the ass system, but nice artwork!]

Quote from: Mistwell;650792Missed my point.  Again, when answering the question of "what is the big picture" the answer is not "it's a movement".  I mean, if you want to give more power to that movement by making it seem more important than it is...well go on with your bad self.  But the big picture is just "are people enjoying their games?"  That's it.  Because the topic is "games", that's the most important big picture issue.  The rest is mostly bullshit that a few guys like to talk about on internet message boards when they are bored.  You might care what their original intent was, you might care if they view it as a movement, but none of that means fuck-all to answering the question about the big picture concerning tabletop games.  

I like FATAL, I enjoy it, and I can show 5 people who will like it, therefore we are "people".

Your move.

Quote from: Mistwell;650831And your response was, essentially, it doesn't so much matter if people have fun with those games, because there was a nefarious intent behind their creation, and it's that intent that is the big picture we should take from all this, not the fact that some people have fun with those games.  And you've continued down that road, with total focus on intent of the original authors of this stuff.

Not so much. I've already mentioned that the 'fun' comments were subjective with considerable weight behind them, and I've no difficulty with that. The rest is quite seperate.

Quote from: Mistwell;650831But, then you admit those original authors lost.  Their forum is a wasteland.  So why do you care SO MUCH about that, at the expense of simply being happy for the people who found games they like?  You really do sound like you're dancing around saying that anyone who likes those games just isn't wired right.  How are you any better than those authors?

It sounds like you're running with someone else's comment and taking it to unintended conclusions, an ill advised ad absurdum. As for the rest, at this point if you need it said there's no point in saying it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650834I like FATAL, I enjoy it, and I can show 5 people who will like it, therefore we are "people".

Your move.

Uh, cool? I am happy you found a game you like.

I never really looked into FATAL, so if there is some otherwise obvious joke inherent in your comment, it went over my head.

Quote from: Mistwell;650839Uh, cool? I am happy you found a game you like.

I never really looked into FATAL, so if there is some otherwise obvious joke inherent in your comment, it went over my head.

QuoteJoin Date: Feb 2006

And you never looked into FATAL. Yeah. Right. Not even a curious google. Please, invent your stories better for defending causes.

You are the one mistaking the point. It isn't about people enjoying the games or not, it's about people thinking that they are RPGs, and how storygames are, in a bizarre way, closer to board games than RPGs (which were based on wargames/boardgames) nowadays - while supposedly more "modern" RPGs.

But you are pulling "But but democracy! Popularity!" as if democracy was the testament of quality. If such, D&D would be the best RPG ever, and I think many of us agree it is way too flawed for such - it's popularity and simple mechanics are it's main point (or only saving grace, take your pick).

And yes, it does matter who the authors are. Not who, but why they are authors of such games. The whole movement was started to try and flip the meaning of RPGs, to allow for creation of easy, self - contained games that'd be only good for one thing and one thing only in most cases. And as I said before, many of those authors base their "shtick" on fighting "crusades", such as "what's wrong with RPGs? GMs/Bad GMs/Bad Players".

And I am not the first one to point that out to you, nor the last one. You are either thick for real or on purpose.

I just have to laugh.

Quote from: Eisenmann;650843I just have to laugh.

At what, if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious.

Quote from: The Traveller;650844At what, if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious.

At the recursiveness that is the purple vibe that's reactionary to the purple vibe.