Quote from: RedFoxMan, what?

It's just the thread being dragged blakkiewards again. He likes to take it away from discussions of real people playing a game and talking to each-other like human beings, "pass the cheetos", and "fuck this game has a crap index, where's the rules for falling and drowning?" and "chainsaw? yeaaaaaah baby, come get some!" and "I think my character should find a husband, will there be some kind of rules for him as an ally or dependent, or what?", away from that normal stuff and into the abstract world of semantics and other nonsense.

Just ignore the silly drongo, and carry on as if he'd never stepped in and talked, as if the thread still had some relation to its original post. You'll find you get 10-20 posts of clarity and interest before he pops in again with his abstract shit. Just think of it as like driving a truck which has a natural drift to one side into the ditch. You just have to correct its direction from time to time - but it'll always drift, unfortunately, so long as it's got that blakkiewards bias. If you don't correct it, then it eventually rolls into the ditch, gets hopelessly stuck, and you have to abandon it and hitch a ride into town to get yourself a new ride.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's just the thread being dragged blakkiewards again.

You know what? Fuck you Bob. Fuck you and your little dog too.

Oh yeah. It's so bad to question "oh everyone knows THIS" statements. Ones where the 'obvious' actually is, well, wrong.

I don't have a little dog, so you'll have to settle just for me, though if you prefer small furry animals I'm sure we can find at least a webforum for you. But I insist on dinner first, and you must promise to cuddle afterwards.

The problem is not that you question "this is obvious" statements, but that you drag things into useless abstraction and semantics, missing the main point. It happens again and again. Conversations with you are like when a politician's being interviewed. "That's an interesting question, you know, and I'm not going to answer it, but here's this other thing I wanted to talk about..."

Quote from: blakkieOh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John. Oh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism. When the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing. So RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

What a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

My position's not quite as extreme as you think it is:

Bad rules are bad. Good rules are better. I don't think anyone disagrees with that -- but IME most rules for resolving conflicts like relationships (e.g. "social combat" rules) tend (IMO) to be "bad."

So I don't find them helpful.

I *do* like rules that help to define relationships (e.g. DNPC rules in Champions) and measure some kind of cost depending on how valuable the relationship is to the character (e.g. the pay-for-advantage system most point-based games use).

But if someone (RedFox) was saying that he wanted relationships to be more useful in his games, I wouldn't immediately turn to game rules -- but that's because the rules sets I'm aware of are poor for that kind of thing... and I currently have a hard time believing any set of rules would be "good."

I've been wrong before, though...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RedFoxI don't use relationships nearly as much or as well as I should.  I feel this is because I focus too much on the action.  Sequences of events, set dressing, moving things forward, stuff like that.  Working out the nuances of characters and their relations is something I find boring and difficult as far as prep-work goes, but endlessly fascinating and fun to play off of while playing.

Redfox what do you mean by relationships? The reason I ask is because if you read some of the answers here, a lot of folks talk about relationships - and I understand what they mean but nobody has really defined what they mean by relationships...okay some have - but I would like to know, how you define relationships.

One of the reasons I don't really dig rules for this kind of thing, is because to me relationships most often is about roleplaying - interactions between characters, which rules sometimes gets in the way of.

IME if players are not interested in this kind of thing, there's very little you can do as a GM to make them interested. Also what would you like relationships to do in your games?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: blakkieYou know what? Fuck you Bob. Fuck you and your little dog too.

Oh yeah. It's so bad to question "oh everyone knows THIS" statements. Ones where the 'obvious' actually is, well, wrong.

Jim-Bob is right, you're just fucking up the discussion, you're not questioning everyone knows this statements, you're playing semantic games until the whole thing becomes impossible to talk about.

You redefine words without saying you're doing it, play rhetorical tricks, utterly derail things so we can't discuss an interesting topic without this bullshit.

And why?  It's fucking pointless, all you do is mess up the thread when you pull this shit, and you know precisely what you're doing.

When people talk about rules they're talking about codified game mechanics written down in the game books, you know that, you're just creating your own definition that nobody else uses so you can score bullshit points.

I really don't get this behaviour, you've done the same in threads I've started where in the end I just had to give up on the discussion because you were intent on winning in some kind of phony debating contest.  Please stop it.

Quote from: blakkieOh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John. Oh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism. When the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing. So RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

What a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

Pathological?  God forbid people should have different tastes to you.  Some of us find that rules don't make this part of play fun.  You could, were you interested, learn more about that and how people approach games in different ways.  But, instead, you insult people because you can't bear that we don't adopt your play preferences.

You're proselytising, your posts aren't part of a discussion, they're a monologue.  Once again we come down to you telling us that we don't enjoy what we think we do and that we don't understand what works for us and what doesn't, that's the horseshit.

Quote from: blakkieYes. And it also illustrates the problem.  You are thinking of more closed and inflexibile rules, the crappy variety. And you are focusing on the limitations. The problems. Instead of the benefits. When you are digging out of prision a spoon is a really crappy shovel. But when you don't have a shovel the spoon is still pretty damn fabulous.

What are the benefits, exactly?

Quote from: blakkieI've seen this. The "oh, we can just roleplay that", the "it's faster without the rules". Only, even when they are just learning the rules if you clock and pay attention to both ways it often isn't. The familiarity with the old has gotten you used to all the problems and you've started ignoring them.

What are the problems that you think I'm ignoring?

Quote from: blakkieAnd then when you actually get used to the rules and worked them in and personalized them and built on them? If for no reason it has given everyone something to focus on and a basis to work around. Well wow, they really roar.

And what makes you so sure we aren't "roaring" now?  When I've asked people what makes Forge games so intense and good, I've been told to read actual play threads and to be perfectly honest, my reaction has been, "My groups' games already play like that."

Quote from: blakkieIf you want every game to have the same tone. *shrug* But what if you want to have a different tone?

What makes you think that our games have the same tone?  What kind of tone changes are you looking for?

Quote from: blakkieOr play with different people. Or someone new joins.

I've started playing with another extended group recently and the experience with that group has not been all that different than the experience with my existing group.  I've even had good social role-playing experiences in convention games when the group is into it.

Quote from: blakkieThat's why there are different combat rules and such, to give a different tone. To simulate a different world. But some people seem to have this magical line in their head where it has to stop.

You seem to be assuming that the players are unable to adjust to different tones, genres, and situations without rules telling them how to do it.  Why?

Quote from: blakkieLook at Abyssal Maw, the word "relationship" triggered this magical line for him that he didn't even realize that he was categorizing D&D 3e as Thematic. It's like that stereotypical "man" response where the word comes up and they freak out and all the baggage comes tumbling out and the brain shuts off. :rolleyes:  Then he goes around spouting about how I don't understand. :keke:

Going back by my point that, "Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules," we can and do use social rules for a handful of things that are difficult to role-play, largely relating to willpower (because the player doesn't feel the pain that their character feels), lying (because that doesn't always come through the player's or GM's portrayal properly), we use things like Charisma to color the way characters hear what a character is saying, and we sometimes use whatever social skills come with the system we are using to fast-forward over scenes that are not terribly important but would take too long to role-play out.  But I consider most of those "necessary evils" and not things I want more of.

Quote from: blakkieSure do. But it seems you don't.  That part about different people all "knowing" but what they "know" is different (and contradictory)? Well when you write it out you can address that. It is a way to address problems, misunderstandings and such. Similar to cognitive behavioral therapy. All those 'rules' in your that you use to evaluate what happens, you pull them out explicitly and examine them. Tune them up, fix those illogical bits that you hadn't noticed before, and then turn it back into practice. Now you have a more solid base to work from and build on.

Sure.  If the rules help you do something better than you can do it without the rules, then use the rules.  My problem is with the assumption that the rules always make things better.  Often they don't.

Quote from: blakkieOr in this case the people that find themselves around a table have solid base to build on and reach further. Most helpful since the world of an RPG is more abstract and imagined than just our everyday lives, often dealing with worlds that we have no personal (or sometimes widely varying amounts or sources of experience).

You keep talking in vague terms like "reach further" and 'helpful".  What kinds of rules are you talking about and what are the specific benefits that you expect a group to get from them.

Since this thread has well...

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I've asked people what makes Forge games so intense and good, I've been told to read actual play threads and to be perfectly honest, my reaction has been, "My groups' games already play like that."

John, this is a very good point. When my current group played DiTV- they only ever played TSR games and d20 before I showed up - they said more or less the same thing. "How is this game different from the kind of games you normally run?" Which is why I think that play defines the reality around the gaming table not the game...if this makes any sense at all.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSince this thread has well...



John, this is a very good point. When my current group played DiTV- they only ever played TSR games and d20 before I showed up - they said more or less the same thing. "How is this game different from the kind of games you normally run?" Which is why I think that play defines the reality around the gaming table not the game...if this makes any sense at all.

Regards,
David R

Ditto, the actual play reports on the Forge don't sound that special to me either, but I think a great many posters there and folk like Blakkie are persuaded that we're having shitty games (though we may not realise it).  The alternative, that our games are also great, is threatening because it implies you don't need to adopt entirely new approaches to have fun.

Which you don't, the reason to play Forge-style games is because they're good games (when they are), nothing more or less than that.

Otherwise, I think here you're essentially saying that system doesn't matter, or at least that system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people at the table.

Apologies for my part in derailing the thread, I lost my temper a bit.

Quote from: blakkieOh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John.

Yet another internet psychologist chimes in.  Where, exactly, do you get the degree that qualifies you to make psychological diagnoses over the Internet?

Quote from: blakkieOh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism.

What makes you claim that a perfectly functional group that's having fun is "paralyzed"?  Do we do "some of it" with rules and dice rolls?  Sure.  But our approach is minimalist -- as I've stated, only use rules where they are really necessary.  That doesn't seem to be the approach you are pitching.  Do you support the minimalist use of social rules or are you advocating a more expansive use of them than d20, say, or Hero?

Quote from: blakkieWhen the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing.

How is that supposed to improve my role-playing experience in a specific way?  

Quote from: blakkieSo RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

No.  We have rules for things that we can't do without rules.  We don't need rules for things that we can do without rules.  Since role-playing consists of sitting around and talking, I think there is less of a need for rules covering sitting around and talking than, say, climbing a cliff or flying a spaceship.

Quote from: blakkieWhat a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

No.  The problem is that you have to think about the rules.  Like I said, if a person is doing fine without the rules, the best the rules will do is tell them something they already know and in the worst cases, it will tell them the wrong thing and make the game worse.  So, at best, unnecessary rules get in the way and at worst they make the game worse.

Why are you telling me to put training wheels on my bicycle when I already know how to ride?  How are they going to make me ride a bicycle any better?

Quote from: BalbinusThe alternative, that our games are also great, is threatening because it implies you don't need to adopt entirely new approaches to have fun.

I wouldn't even go that far.  For a hobby full of people convinced that they are more imaginative than the general population, we all (myself included) seem to have trouble imagining other people doing things that we can't do.  We'd rather believe that something is impossible than accept that someone else can do something that we can't.

Quote from: BalbinusWhich you don't, the reason to play Forge-style games is because they're good games (when they are), nothing more or less than that.

We'll, for people whose games aren't great, adopting a new style of play via Forge games might help them have great games that they couldn't have otherwise.  The problem comes from the assumption that people can't possibly be having great games using conventional systems like d20 or without special rules to force the game to be great.

Quote from: BalbinusOtherwise, I think here you're essentially saying that system doesn't matter, or at least that system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people at the table.

I think that how much system matters can also depend on the people at the table.  My group has always just ignored rules that we don't need or which get in the way, which is why our combats run pretty fast, even using systems like Hero and d20.  When I was on the Fudge mailing list, there were people who stridently opposed adding crunchy rules to Fudge because their experience was that if the game contains a rule, the group is going to push to use it.  Where my group strips heavy systems down to make them light, the experience other people have is that if the rule exists, the group will insist on using it.  So system will matter a lot less for my group than for those other groups.

And I think that goes into a broader issue of what purpose the rules serve in the game.  In my own opinion, the rules serve the game and the game doesn't serve the rules.  When the rules try to control every aspect of the game, that's the tail wagging the dog as far as I'm concerned.

John, I agree with everything in your post quoting mine, including the qualifacations to my comments that you added.

So, bit of a me too post, but I wanted to acknowledge your comments which I thought were pretty much spot on.

Quote from: David RRedfox what do you mean by relationships? The reason I ask is because if you read some of the answers here, a lot of folks talk about relationships - and I understand what they mean but nobody has really defined what they mean by relationships...okay some have - but I would like to know, how you define relationships.

One of the reasons I don't really dig rules for this kind of thing, is because to me relationships most often is about roleplaying - interactions between characters, which rules sometimes gets in the way of.

IME if players are not interested in this kind of thing, there's very little you can do as a GM to make them interested. Also what would you like relationships to do in your games?

Regards,
David R

In my case, I mean relationships in the way of "relations."  Meaningful connections between characters.  I take a minimalist view on mechanics.  Enough to get the job done is fine by me, and I don't need any fancy social combat mechanics or other such wonky stuff because I find that it gets in the way of good ol' human interaction.

To see what I want to get at, scroll up quite a ways and look at Silverlion's post.  I want that.  Interesting NPCs that work fine outside of the context of "the plot" or "the action" and really draw the PCs into caring about them.

Quote from: BalbinusDitto, the actual play reports on the Forge don't sound that special to me either, but I think a great many posters there and folk like Blakkie are persuaded that we're having shitty games (though we may not realise it).  The alternative, that our games are also great, is threatening because it implies you don't need to adopt entirely new approaches to have fun.

Or....they aren't actually "entirely new" approaches! That this "traditional" and "non-traditional" divide is a bunch of fucking hogwash. There has just been a evolving and refining proccess of RPGs so they are being written the way they have actually been used. That the rules are implementing much closer to a practical usable form what often took years of experience and distilling some abstract essays (and then only hit and miss, but sometimes faster for a few gifted people). For example ditching that oft not used NPC reaction table for a more functional and useful replacement form.  That we are seeing games that are a more natural fit for different purposes.

So RPGs aren't like a cross between a jigsaw puzzle and Ikea furniture (sans assembly instructions) requiring a crapload of assembling just to get it functioning. Oh sure there are people that would like taking a few days to assemble a chair. A sizable percentage of the people here likely. Past products tends to weed out those that don't put up with that sort of thing. But you don't think there are a lot of people out there that upon buying a chair would just like a fucking chair to sit their ass in? Or at least a chair you can put together in 10 minutes or less. Lower the barrier! The really kickass good news is that at least some of the people that got turned off come blazing back, and bring new customers with them, when you address some of the worst of the problems that drove them off and then get the word out about fixing it. If D&D 3e and more recently SR4 showed anything it was that.

Oh, and a nice wide variety of chairs too. Chairs of all sort and shapes and sizes. That'd be nice I think. Even of the types I don't like much! (but I'll play too sometimes, like I'll listen to country music when I'm in the right mood)

P.S. Fuck your little dog too.