Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099206The only thing that is being demonstrated is your launching another ad hominem argument. If you got anything worthwhile to say though, let's hear it.

How is it an ad hominem to point out your statements objectively reveal your utter lack of understanding of the subject? You're making blanket statements that are demonstrably false; any evidence to the contrary is considered anecdotal, yet you have no counter-evidence except your own experience. So, either you have little to no experience playing RPGs, you're purposefully being obtuse to strengthen your argument, or you're simply lying to promote your preferred gaming style. I picked the first one, which is the least "ad hominem" I can come up with: you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote from: Itachi;1099211I don't think Alexander meant to offend or diminish anyone with that comment, but simply point out that some those practices and styles are.. sensitive, to some folks around here (which is true IMO). Mr. Kalinowski has been a gentleman so far.

I disagree; he knows exactly what he's doing.

Quote from: Brad;1099238How is it an ad hominem to point out your statements objectively reveal your utter lack of understanding of the subject?

Because you're clearly attacking the person, not the argument.

Quote from: Brad;1099238You're making blanket statements that are demonstrably false;.

Even if true, you've done nothing, zero effort, to demonstrate that.

Quote from: Brad;1099238any evidence to the contrary is considered anecdotal, yet you have no counter-evidence except your own experience.

Which evidence exactly is anecdotal and where is the opposing evidence that is NOT anecdotal? Pretty much everything in RPG forums is based on personal experience as there is very little hard data out there about the subject at hand. But if you have any evidence that is not anecdotal, bring it forth please. Let's hear it.

Quote from: Brad;1099238So, either you have little to no experience playing RPGs, you're purposefully being obtuse to strengthen your argument, or you're simply lying to promote your preferred gaming style. I picked the first one, which is the least "ad hominem" I can come up with: you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me repeat it: you didn't address the issue at all. You did exactly nothing to prove your point but instead switched immediately, off-the-bat, to a personal level and made it about my alleged lack of credibility. See, I could speculate now, as you have done, about your motives for doing so - but it would be beside the point. It would be a detraction from the issue.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099194Trad games usually come with a fixed setting for the players to explore. Shadowrun, CoC, Harn, MERP, Cyberpunk 2020,TORG, RIFTS, Vampire, Dark Albion, you name it.
So, yeah, shared world creation other than the limited stuff for character background that I outlined above seems to be atypical for trad games. And I submit that the ire that this draws from a lot of trad gamers as evidence in support of the assertion.

Looking at this list, I see several kinds of RPG in regards to setting. One that don't specify any, ones that have a setting but it is an example, historical/legendary RPG (some narrow, some broad), and ones that have a specific setting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_tabletop_role-playing_games

It not as typical as you are asserting. Nor it is different compared to the situation today.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099255Because you're clearly attacking the person, not the argument.



Even if true, you've done nothing, zero effort, to demonstrate that.



Which evidence exactly is anecdotal and where is the opposing evidence that is NOT anecdotal? Pretty much everything in RPG forums is based on personal experience as there is very little hard data out there about the subject at hand. But if you have any evidence that is not anecdotal, bring it forth please. Let's hear it.



Let me repeat it: you didn't address the issue at all. You did exactly nothing to prove your point but instead switched immediately, off-the-bat, to a personal level and made it about my alleged lack of credibility. See, I could speculate now, as you have done, about your motives for doing so - but it would be beside the point. It would be a detraction from the issue.

Whatever, didn't read.

Quote from: Brad;1099281Whatever, didn't read.

Making a ton of fans around here with this "state my ideas as fact then throw a tantrum when people call me uninformed" strategy, eh Alexander?

Gee I wonder who called it.

Seriously dude, stop pretending to be an expert and start asking questions. We are so, so willing to tell you about the kind of gaming we do. We even made a whole forum for it and everything.

Quote from: Azraele;1099297Making a ton of fans around here with this "state my ideas as fact then throw a tantrum when people call me uninformed" strategy, eh Alexander?

Gee I wonder who called it.

Seriously dude, stop pretending to be an expert and start asking questions. We are so, so willing to tell you about the kind of gaming we do. We even made a whole forum for it and everything.

The entire premise of his argument is that old school RPGs are much more rigid than storygames.

Location: Germany

Why am I not at all surprised he'd say something like this? It's like the rulebook is some sort of manifesto for this dude, and ANYTHING not explicitly stated in the book is verboten. So, yeah, I'm just annoyed with the endless pretentious posts filled with disingenuous arguments. The biggest issue I have is the notion that there is zero collaborative effort in old school RPGs. Like, what the literal fuck...half the fucking spells in AD&D are named after dudes from the original Greyhawk campaign. The characters from that game shaped the world just as much as the other way around. So, to repeat, this dude has either never played an RPG or he's just lying.

Quote from: Itachi;1099148In other words, the process is not really different from what lots of groups have been doing since ever for collaboratively creating a world together ( I know I did it in GURPS and Runequest well before AW even existed ). It's usually done in the first sessions of arcs or campaigns and is great for providing interesting stuff/hooks/seeds for the group to tap later on, make the world more vivid and colorful, and to provoke player investment (since they're creating it themselves). It's not intended to turn things into some improvising story-telling world-editing game where you create things to change "2 seconds later" or something. This isn't Fiasco or Baron Munchausen. Otherwise it would contradict it's very agenda of "make the world feel real" as you said.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099194Trad games usually come with a fixed setting for the players to explore. Shadowrun, CoC, Harn, MERP, Cyberpunk 2020,TORG, RIFTS, Vampire, Dark Albion, you name it.
So, yeah, shared world creation other than the limited stuff for character background that I outlined above seems to be atypical for trad games. And I submit that the ire that this draws from a lot of trad gamers as evidence in support of the assertion.

This seems like not much of an actual difference of opinion. Shared world building certainly happens within traditional games, and it is even codified in a few semi-traditional games -- notably Ars Magica and Prince Valiant, which had assumed rotating GMs. But it is also very atypical, as Alexander says. Even in games that don't have a predefined background (like GURPS), it is usual that the GM creates the setting - rather than it being a shared creation. That's the assumption of the rules.

My earliest shared-world games were with Ars Magica and Theatrix in the 1990s, which were pretty non-traditional. Our style their was mostly troupe-style, with multiple people collaborating on creation during down time, but a single GM during play time. Ars Magica and Theatrix are more explicit about troupe style than Apocalypse World or more AW-powered games.

Quote from: estar;1099280It not as typical as you are asserting.

Which implies that it's typical after all. But let me continue: DSA/TDE, Paranoia, Bushido, Aliens, Warhammer FRP/40K, Dark Conspiracy, Marvel Superheroes, Recon, Pendragon, Judge Dredd, Legend of the 5 Rings, Star Wars. And so on.
Apart from that, I don't think I specified the degree of how typical coming with a setting is or how atypical coming without a setting is. Much less shared world-building, which is yet another issue.

Quote from: jhkim;1099315This seems like not much of an actual difference of opinion.

I agree. And in the blogpost I have linked I explain why I think it's usually useless to find some attribute that is true for all (no exception!) RPGs or RPGs of a specific type. It makes more sense to talk about what the typical attributes are that set them apart from other games.

Quote from: jhkim;1099315Shared world building certainly happens within traditional games, and it is even codified in a few semi-traditional games -- notably Ars Magica and Prince Valiant, which had assumed rotating GMs. But it is also very atypical, as Alexander says. Even in games that don't have a predefined background (like GURPS), it is usual that the GM creates the setting - rather than it being a shared creation. That's the assumption of the rules.

I mean the argument could be made that the biggest RPG of all doesn't come with one fixed setting and one could even argue that if only part of the playerbase engages in shared worldbuilding this would outweigh much of the smaller games in numbers. But this is a line of argument that I can't accept readily, even if there was a big shared world-building community within D&D (which I somewhat doubt) because... then everything is about what D&D or the D&D community does. So, no, that argument doesn't work for me either, as I think we need to ignore to D&D's market share and community size to have a meaningful discussion of the wider hobby.

Ok, you guys convinced me. Specially the part of Ars Magica not really being conventional in a sense. Shared world building always existed, but it's not typical.

I stand corrected.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099357Apart from that, I don't think I specified the degree of how typical coming with a setting is or how atypical coming without a setting is. Much less shared world-building, which is yet another issue.

You were making a statement about the state of what you call traditional RPGs that wasn't accurate. Yes many of them come with a defined setting and are about roleplaying in that setting. However the situation more nuanced than you make it out to be.

Which weakens your points about shared worldbuilding in traditional RPGs. Which also demonstrates you have gaps in your knowledge about what has been published.

For example are you aware of blue booking as described in Aaron's Allston Strike Force for Champions? Or that Strike Force was released in 1988?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3727[/ATTACH]

It was liked well enough that they had entire sessions that was handled solely through blue booking.

Look, I get you like theorizing about RPGs and the state of things. But you need to realize that while there may be trends and concepts that are widespread throughout the hobby and industry there are no effective way of determining what they are in any objective way. All you can speak accurately about it what influences you and why you do the things you do. Lessons I had to learn while popularizing sandbox campaigns and hexcrawl formatted settings.

So when you make statements about how things are in the industry and hobby, you are going to get pushback from people like myself.

Quote from: estar;1099375You were making a statement about the state of what you call traditional RPGs that wasn't accurate.

Fine, but then it's incumbent to you to demonstrate that.

Quote from: estar;1099375Yes many of them come with a defined setting and are about roleplaying in that setting. However the situation more nuanced than you make it out to be.

So, this is where you're losing me. If I don't even qualify how typical or how atypical either approach to dealing with setting is, then how can I not be nuanced enough?
Even worse: if I am flat-out wrong, as you suggest above (aka shared worldbuilding is not atypical), then it's again not a matter of nuance. It's a matter of simply being wrong.

Quote from: estar;1099375Which weakens your points about shared worldbuilding in traditional RPGs. Which also demonstrates you have gaps in your knowledge about what has been published.

For example are you aware of blue booking as described in Aaron's Allston Strike Force for Champions? Or that Strike Force was released in 1988?

IMG

It was liked well enough that they had entire sessions that was handled solely through blue booking.

Quote from: estar;1099375Look, I get you like theorizing about RPGs and the state of things. But you need to realize that while there may be trends and concepts that are widespread throughout the hobby and industry there are no effective way of determining what they are in any objective way. All you can speak accurately about it what influences you and why you do the things you do. Lessons I had to learn while popularizing sandbox campaigns and hexcrawl formatted settings.

So when you make statements about how things are in the industry and hobby, you are going to get pushback from people like myself.

That's fine. So let me summarize what just happened from my perspective: I made a claim that a particular technique is atypical for trad games. Instead of countering this claim, which you believe to be wrong, by providing evidence of a preponderance (or at least significant use) of the technique in relation to the trad game segment of the RPG hobby, you're drawing up another (even though related) technique, which you must consider obscure enough that you had to post an image for explanation, so that readers, including me, would understand what you're talking about.

So, in other words: you didn't address the issue head-on but dragged out another item, something at least somewhat obscure, in the hopes of, once more, establishing your superior gaming credentials to me. It's yet another appeal to authority fallacy, Rob. When we're talking RPGs, Rob, it's always about you trying to humble me, instead of ignoring me as a person but talking about the actual issue. And your method of doing so is, apparently, touting your own gaming credentials. Quite conveniently so, if I may add.

I mean it would also have been fine if you just said: this is not my impression of the hobby because I have made these and that experiences and have observed that regarding play, including bluebooking. And then we could have exchanged more observations. And after that we would have gone our separate ways.

But it's not about that particular issue for you, is it?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099387Fine, but then it's incumbent to you to demonstrate that.

I do appreciate your trolling, but this is a bit over the top.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099387Fine, but then it's incumbent to you to demonstrate that.

No.  On the off chance that this is a language barrier, I'll spell it out:  You made the initial claim.  It is incumbent on you to provide the evidence.  You have provided none.  Therefore a flat contradiction of your point is sufficient until that changes.

Let's be practical here: what Traditional games present "shared world creation" as the default, intended mode of play?

If we can't find at least a dozen ones, then Alexander's point is spot on.

Quote from: Itachi;1099391Let's be practical here: what Traditional games present "shared world creation" as the default, intended mode of play?

If we can't find at least a dozen ones, then Alexander's point is spot on.

Unless your campaign is a full-on railroad, "shared world creation" is the de facto default, intended mode of traditional RPGs. Characters have autonomy, the do stuff, make friends and enemies, raid castles, build castles, raise armies, create magic items, create spells. And on and on. All of which happens in the game world, and is part and parcel of "world creation".

Drawing an arbitrary line between PC actions and every other action in the world, and designating the latter only as "world creation", is just plain circular.