Quote from: Paka;650476http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2012/06/old-school-renaissance-primer.html

Thank you. :hatsoff:

Late to the clusterfuck.

I understand the historical motives behind the widespread bitterness that sometimes seems to taint everything on these boards (I swear to board the colour scheme should be Bilious Green), but guys? There are better ways to get the kids off of your lawn, than crapping on it.

Quote from: The Traveller;650409I dipped a toe in these waters previously. Some good information in there.

Some really good posts on this thread.

Quote from: Paka;650476http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2012/06/old-school-renaissance-primer.html

This is the must-read introductory text, I think.

For meatier reading, the OD&D-powered musings of our own Philotomy Jurament, collected in PDF here for your reading pleasure.

Quote from: The Butcher;650495Late to the clusterfuck.

I understand the historical motives behind the widespread bitterness that sometimes seems to taint everything on these boards (I swear to board the colour scheme should be Bilious Green), but guys? There are better ways to get the kids off of your lawn, than crapping on it.

:rolleyes:

They have their own lawn, and it's pretty big from what can be seen. We're not trying to get on their lawns, by pretending how RuneQuest can be used to create superior works in spirit of Bierce, that'd be created by shared creative work.

Quote from: silva;650395Again, I think it may be a matter of execution. Its not what those games do, but how they do it. The "conditions" in Fatbeard Simulator ( ) seem to behave significantly different - and result in significantly different outputs - from the ones in Gurps or RQ, specially if you consider the compulsory nature of its triggers.

In this respect it reminds me of more "thematic" games like Unknown Armies and Pendragon, where the mental traits actually dictate behaviours on the players, instead of merely suggesting them.

If players don't want to roleplay the condition, nothing'll force it. You are supposed to roleplay your alignment/cult/sanity etc. etc. If you don't, work on the roleplaying.

I see we're past "Mechanics trying to fix the GMs", we're fully into "Mechanics trying to fix the Role Playing" territory.

Quote from: The Traveller;650460The depressing part about his little segue is that the shared narrative contingent are so unschooled in the the normal cut and thrust of adult discussions, since such pursuits are actively discouraged among their echo chambers, that they will no doubt believe they've sowed discontent among the Emmanuel Goldsteins.

It's one of those very rare situations that make me question my belief in humanity, due in no part to those discussing in good faith.

I assure you I am a rightful and honest bastard. And I do care a bit about "THE LAW(N)". Not because I adhere to some One True Wayism, but because I see more and more people who put the "=" in between storygames and RPGs, and -that- causes the thing that most champions of RAW scream about - the dissociated expectations. Because someone raised on InSpectres or Sorcerer or TSoY will have a vastly different expectations than someone raised on Warhammer, D&D and CoC, and part of that vastness is because those games are practically whole different genres, rather than shadows of one.

I also have a certain stone to grind against the "de - GMisation", ever so present, but that's my private stone, and that is my "True Wayism", and that's something I do not impose on people. Heck, I use various "narrative" tricks - I just use the tricks, not go the full monty.

Quote from: Rincewind1If players don't want to roleplay the condition, nothing'll force it. You are supposed to roleplay your alignment/cult/sanity etc. etc. If you don't, work on the roleplaying.

I see we're past "Mechanics trying to fix the GMs", we're fully into "Mechanics trying to fix the Role Playing" territory.

While I find this style perfectly valid, I must remember you there are rpgs that dont follow it, instead actually imposing/forcing reactions on the players ( aka "Mechanics to fix the Role Playing).  

You dont consider Pendragon and Unknown Armies "rpgs", because of that ?

Quote from: silva;650498While I find this style perfectly valid, I must remember you there are rpgs that dont follow it, instead actually imposing/forcing reactions on the players ( aka "Mechanics to fix the Role Playing).  

Except if you dont consider Pendragon and Unknown Armies "rpgs", of course.

You are dodging. If the player does not feel like role - playing the mechanics, nothing short of a brute standing behind him with a spiked bat will force him to role - play them. Sanity in CoC can be just as much used to impose and/or force the reaction, as the much greater sanity mechanics in UA. It all depends on the role - player. You won't fix the player with roll of a dice or a number on his character sheet.

I understand you may retort that "Yes, but they are penalties & mechanic changes that cause some decisions to be impossible" - perhaps, indeed. But if a player is dull enough, he'll loose a hand in the fight and continue to declare attacks as if his character is not bleeding to death, if you'll let him.

Helps to roleplay are fine, whether mechanical or not. But there is also a problem if they do not intervene with roleplaying too much, and whether they are done for good, or for mechanic's sake.

Rince, I think we´re talking different things.

I dont see the point in "fixing" players. I dont consider engaging in rpgs as a form of art or activity that must be perfected or something. I think rpgs are entertainment. Each player should have fun the way he wants, as long as he dont make the game unfun for the others in the group.

So, while I think the capacity to relate to and interpret his character apropriately helps, I dont consider it mandatory to the point of calling a player "broken" - in fact, I had a lot of friends who played exactly like that, didnt care much for interpreting his characters mental states at all. If the system imposed it on them, fine, they went with it. If not, whatever. ANd thats a perfectly viable playing stance in my eyes.

Quote from: silva;650504Rince, I think we´re talking different things.

I dont see the point in "fixing" players. I dont consider engaging in rpgs as a form of art or activity that must be perfected or something. I think rpgs are entertainment. Each player should have fun the way he wants, as long as he dont make the game unfun for the others in the group.

So, while I think the capacity to relate to and interpret his character apropriately helps, I dont consider it mandatory to the point of calling a player "broken" - in fact, I had a lot of friends who played exactly like that, didnt care much for interpreting his characters mental states at all. If the system imposed it on them, fine, they went with it. If not, whatever. ANd thats a perfectly viable playing stance in my eyes.

Well, therefore I find the notion of "This is a mechanic (not just talking about Torchlight here) that makes a player compulsory to certain feelings" is a bit silly. A mechanic or a keyword or some sort of alignment/traits system may and will probably help, yes - but it'll not automatically make an RPer out of someone, nor will it force someone to play, if they choose to ignore. How often did you see people think they could get away with all those negative traits on their character sheets, that they put there for bonus creation points? And 99% of the times it wasn't even on purpose - they just put so many stuff there, they were not able to role - play it properly.

My notion is, that a mechanic won't do the GM's job for him,  nor the Player's job. The Sanity mechanics in UA, while quite cool, I agree (though I think one could shorten them to 3 rather than 5, personally I found the Stability/Sanity of Trail of Cthulhu a decent enough stuff, but for CoC genre of course), won't give player enough clues, if he's unwilling to take them, and they certainly won't build the mood and behaviour, on their own, for the GM.

Quote from: Imperator;650445I disagree.

UA is not trying to imitate Cthulhu, or be a game about Mythos for people who hates the Mythos, or anything like it. It is just a game that uses a solid and well tested engine with a few clever tweaks to do something pretty original. They didn't try to be ironic about shit, or make the "good" version of anything. UA it's its own. I can't say the same about Torchbearer.

Yes, UA reminded me much more of the X-Files or Dresden Files (except much darker, even moreso than the books), or Blair Witch Project The Video Game Part 1, or various other games where you played as a secret society devoted to keeping a lid on paranormal activites. Except you may not even get a society to back you up.

Quote from: silva;650458Im also not understand what youre looking for exactly.

Fair question.

I'm trying to expand my horizons. I've done a lot of fantasy gaming, and read a lot of fantasy games. Even so, there's some gaps.

People praised the Gray Box Forgotten Realms. So, I'm reading it. People lauded the Palladium fantasy world. So, I'm reading 2e. And people praised OD&D, in particular the Gygaxian dungeon. Which game I've already read, and played.

Obviously, they got — or were taught — something different than what I experienced. I wanted to learn something new.

So I asked.

Quote from: The Butcher;650495Some really good posts on this thread.

Yes, that's what got me interested. Didn't quite find what I was looking for.

I was hoping for something along the lines of:

"The classic dungeon is more than just a storehouse for monsters to kill and treasure to take. It is an opponent. Better, it's an challenge. You approach a dungeon like a team of SEALS would approach an enemy compound. Planning, caution, and intelligence are your chief assets. The goal of a dungeoncrawl isn't the survival of an individual character; it's the conquest of an obdurate foe — the dungeon and the challenges within — through canny play."

And so forth. What is the attitude, what are the goals, where does the fun lie, what methods do you use, how do you approach it, and so forth.

Quote from: The Butcher;650495For meatier reading, the OD&D-powered musings of our own Philotomy Jurament, collected in PDF here for your reading pleasure.

Thank you, very much. Downloaded.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650431Why do you love your playstyle? That's what I'd like to know.

I will post a personal OSR "manifesto" thread sometime this week. I am happy to talk about why I love dungeons.

Quote from: One Horse Town;650436Either that or it's simple RPGsite mating season and everyone is marking their territory.

And that's why I brought my War Crotch.

Quote from: silva;650504I dont see the point in "fixing" players.

Bob Barker disagrees.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650538And that's why I brought my War Crotch.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Spinachcat;650538I will post a personal OSR "manifesto" thread sometime this week. I am happy to talk about why I love dungeons.

And I will be more than happy to listen. Thank you.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650515People lauded the Palladium fantasy world. So, I'm reading 2e.

God no, you're doing it all wrong! Just kidding, of course. 2e is best for setting information, but the rules consist of the current ill-conceived patchwork that passes for Palladium's house system. 1e features the embryonic Palladium system (think AD&D 1e with d100 skills) which looks clunkier but I've actually found more playable.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650515Yes, that's what got me interested. Didn't quite find what I was looking for.

I was hoping for something along the lines of:

"The classic dungeon is more than just a storehouse for monsters to kill and treasure to take. It is an opponent. Better, it's an challenge. You approach a dungeon like a team of SEALS would approach an enemy compound. Planning, caution, and intelligence are your chief assets. The goal of a dungeoncrawl isn't the survival of an individual character; it's the conquest of an obdurate foe — the dungeon and the challenges within — through canny play."

And so forth. What is the attitude, what are the goals, where does the fun lie, what methods do you use, how do you approach it, and so forth.

If I may be so bold as to quote myself on that same thread:

Quote from: The Butcher;582585"Dungeon", in D&D terms, is shorthand for the place where D&D's magic happens -- where PCs interact with secrets, traps and puzzles, and with the setting's history; where monsters are fought and treasure acquired; in short, the go-to destination for adventurers seeking their fortune, which is the essence of D&D.

Clark Ashton Smith's Mount Voormitradeth ("The Seven Geases"), Fritz Leiber's House of Angarngi ("The Jewels in the Forest"), Robert E. Howard's lost city of Xuchotil ("Red Nails") and of course, Tolkien's Lonely Mountain ("The Hobbit") are some of the source fiction (pulp fantasy) templates for the D&D dungeon. See also our own Philotomy Jurament's "The Dungeon as a Mythic Underworld" essay (can't find a link right now, I'll link it up later).

The name "dungeon" probably originates with Gary Gygax's Castle Greyhawk dungeons; though Dave Arneson probably did it first, I suppose Gary did codify the idea and shape it into its modern form.

And regarding methods, I once started a thread on the subject (more specifically, about megadungeons), and there was plenty of good advice all around, but I consider Benoist's epic "show, don't tell" response the most comprehensive and consistent read on the subject I've ever encountered.

Is that anything like what you're looking for? I'm pretty sure I could expand on this, though I'm sure the real grognards which frequent these forums would do a far better job of it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650515Thank you, very much. Downloaded.

Glad to be of service.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650496:rolleyes:

They have their own lawn, and it's pretty big from what can be seen. We're not trying to get on their lawns, by pretending how RuneQuest can be used to create superior works in spirit of Bierce, that'd be created by shared creative work.

:rolleyes: right back at ya.

It's the constant standing assumption of bad faith, the enduring conviction that every time someone asks about dungeon-crawling it's an open declaration of war on all that is good and holy about RPGs. That's where these threads lose me.

Also, it's not "their" lawn, or mine, for that matter. Old school D&D and its retro-clones, are out there for anyone who wants to reach out and make them their own. However, the cultural reference frame that made these games so mind-numbingly obvious and awesomely popular back in the day, has shifted; and people (myself included) often need someone to point out that the "wacky" parts are not wacky at all, but intentionally and carefully engineered pieces of game design.

I understand that everyone's tired of sparring with people arguing in bad faith, but I don't really see the point of having a community if we're going to circle the wagons every time someone asks about the play style that seems to be most popular with forum goers here.

Quote from: The Butcher;650570And regarding methods, I once started a thread on the subject (more specifically, about megadungeons), and there was plenty of good advice all around, but I consider Benoist's epic "show, don't tell" response the most comprehensive and consistent read on the subject I've ever encountered.

Much, much seconded. The megadungeon thread might well be the best rpg thread I've read. Certainly in the top 3. Fantastic, great thread. A must-read.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650496And I do care a bit about "THE LAW(N)". Not because I adhere to some One True Wayism, but because I see more and more people who put the "=" in between storygames and RPGs, and -that- causes the thing that most champions of RAW scream about - the dissociated expectations. Because someone raised on InSpectres or Sorcerer or TSoY will have a vastly different expectations than someone raised on Warhammer, D&D and CoC, and part of that vastness is because those games are practically whole different genres, rather than shadows of one.

What makes RPGs different is the feeling of being there, a hotline direct to that very primal part of humanity which allows us to imagine we really are swinging on ropes through a violet-hued jungle. RPGs cleverly put a structure on this phenomenon which allows us to share our imagination with others in a useful way, the rules and the dice, while letting people hold on to their own imaginings, and sheer fucking awesome was born.

I mean give me a pencil, some paper, and a dice, and I can bring a group of people anywhere we can imagine, and really be there in many ways. Incredible! This is what makes RPGs different from every other kind of game or sport.

Enter ronnie and forgers. They didn't get the imagination part of the game, or possibly were offended by it in some sort of demented cargo cult version of rationalism, see the link in my sig below for more information about them.

From their bottoms fell shared narrative games, which aren't about being there, they are about a) sharing power which didn't really exist in the first place (which attracted some serious nuts) and b) trying to create some sort of novel, turning RPGs into a collaborative writing tool, which in effect made everyone into a general marshalling armies around a board. AKA wargames.

That is all.

And the thing is, they're crap. Even as different games, they aren't fun. The bits they borrowed from RPGs are kind of fun, but they were forced to turn to transgressionism to keep anyone interested, like talentless shock jocks, see Maid for reference.

Now what we're seeing is the release of purely standard issue RPGs under the banner of shared narrative gaming, as more and more of their community come to realise that the point of playing games is fun and shared narrative games aren't fun. Dungeon World is the only such game that I've really looked at, but it's the definitive example of what's happening. New old school from the necksters.

Such a spectacular and bizarre amount of effort to end up exactly where they started is singularly deserving of the Gary Busey Ovation award: