So, since coming here, I've read a lot of things by the Pundit. A lot of things people agree with. A lot of things I agree with. However...I've come across a few things a don't. This one in Particular:
 
"they shouldn't tell me how to play their game!"
-RPGPundit
 
Why not. A game is defined by it's rules. As the BIGGEST purveyor of 'rpgs are games' I've read, how can he not tell you to play it they way the designers intended.
 
When you play Monopoly and you add a second board (one of the theme boards works best, like Star Wars, the Simpson's or a Local edition), are you still playing Monopoly?
 
No. You're playing Jaks homebrew double-board Monopoly.
 
When you play a game of when you play a game of WHFRP, but you use the storyteller system and the Orcs weild lightsabers and are in control of the Empire, are you still playing WHFRP?
 
No. You're playing Jak's weirdo homebrew Fantasy game based in the WHFRP universe converted to a different RPG game system.
 
The setting and suggested playstyles are just as much a part of a RPG as the rules themselves. If you post a game on you FLGS message board for an open call to play Dungeons and Dragons and when people get there you tell them it will be a purely diceless social game where they're all fairy-princes vying for a single dragon princesses heart in a faraway castle.
 
Who's going to stick around? No one. Why? Because you are not playing DnD.
 
Pundit's biggest enemy in this argument is White-Wolf Game Studios, which I am an admitted fan of. In their games the character creation section has advice and suggestions to make the three dimensional characters the designers want you to play. They often have a section of running the game (Storyteller advice) which explain to you the themes and moods they've crafted into their game and setting and ways to explore them.
 
If I went to a Werewolf: the Forsaken game where werewolves could, in this game, only turn into small puppy-dog immobile stuffed animals. I would be unhappy to say the least. Why unhappy? Because this isn't Werewolf. The game of Bestial Horror and Territorial Rage isn't there.
 
The designers, however, cannot tell you what to do with their book: You can farm it for ideas for your Unknown Armies game; You can read the fiction to find out what happens to your favorite character; You can even add to the structure of you hardback fortress you built in your living room to keep out the governament. But...
 
In a book about how to play their game, they can tell you how to play their game.

Obviously in the literal sense they technically can tell you how to run your game. My argument is that a good game won't. Or more accurately, that a good game will direct itself to a wide scope rather than a narrow one, and choose to give DMs MORE choices, rather than less just because the game designer thinks he's hot shit and has a vision of what he wants the game to be played as.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditObviously in the literal sense they technically can tell you how to run your game. My argument is that a good game won't. Or more accurately, that a good game will direct itself to a wide scope rather than a narrow one, and choose to give DMs MORE choices, rather than less just because the game designer thinks he's hot shit and has a vision of what he wants the game to be played as.

RPGPundit

This goes a long way toward describing why you don't like story-games.

I agree with the OP, and since I only run short games with a definite beginning, middle, and end, I don't care how to play it.  There's a game out there that will do what I want...every time.

Quote from: RPGPunditObviously in the literal sense they technically can tell you how to run your game. My argument is that a good game won't. Or more accurately, that a good game will direct itself to a wide scope rather than a narrow one, and choose to give DMs MORE choices, rather than less just because the game designer thinks he's hot shit and has a vision of what he wants the game to be played as. RPGPundit

Why the huge need for More Choices? Why is it so inconcievable that
game targetted for certain kind of play might have someone who wants
to play it like so, and rest can uh, just not buy it?

Why do the games have to be huge messes of rules, thousands of feats and classes where the first thing you actually should do when GMing is rip out huge swatches to get it like you want? (No ninjas in my swashbuckling fantasy, please.)

Which is about as easy as just building the whole game up from generic ruleset like fudge (which is btw. great fun, creative and thus more pleasing than cutting and pasting from published material).

What I want to say is: make a believable argument for wider scope beeing always better.

QuoteWhy do the games have to be huge messes of rules, thousands of feats and classes where the first thing you actually should do when GMing is rip out huge swatches to get it like you want? (No ninjas in my swashbuckling fantasy, please.)

That's a totally different issue.  I can get wide-open play out of the three classes and four races of the OD&D rules or the six careers and one race of Classic Traveller.

Quote from: DiscordianWhy the huge need for More Choices? Why is it so inconcievable that
game targetted for certain kind of play might have someone who wants
to play it like so, and rest can uh, just not buy it?

That's not how most of these games sell. Mostly they sell by deception, a buyer thinking he's getting one thing, that will let him play x, but in fact he's only going to be able to play a very specific tiny sliver of x, or play x but only in a certain way.

QuoteWhy do the games have to be huge messes of rules, thousands of feats and classes where the first thing you actually should do when GMing is rip out huge swatches to get it like you want? (No ninjas in my swashbuckling fantasy, please.)

Red herring. Most games aren't like that at all. Warhammer is a very broad game with a wide variety of options given to its players, yet I haven't had to shave away a single rule or "swatch" of the book thus far.

Ditto with Shadowrun, ditto with Star Wars. Ditto with countless others.

QuoteWhat I want to say is: make a believable argument for wider scope beeing always better.

The freedom to play your game, instead of the game someone else wants you to play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's not how most of these games sell. Mostly they sell by deception, a buyer thinking he's getting one thing, that will let him play x, but in fact he's only going to be able to play a very specific tiny sliver of x, or play x but only in a certain way.

Could you give some examples of this deception?

Vampire was were deceptive. "Cool, I can play a vampire!"
And then you had to choose a paltry subset of the awesome stuff movie vampires could do, along with a pre-fabricated mindset. And you had to join some Ancient Frat House.

I came to suck blood and kick ass and all I got was clove cigarettes.

Quote from: RPGPunditMy argument is that a good game won't. Or more accurately, that a good game will direct itself to a wide scope rather than a narrow one, and choose to give DMs MORE choices, rather than less just because the game designer thinks he's hot shit and has a vision of what he wants the game to be played as.

 
How does this distinguish between a good game and a bad game?
Now the obvious difference between a good game and a bad game is fun. Good games are fun, bad games aren't. So, how does a limited scope inhibit fun or create (for lack of a better term) not-fun?
 
DnD, which IIRC is a fun game by both of our standards, is comparably just limited in scope in it's suggested playstyle as the other popular RPGs (WoD or Exalted being it's number 1 competitor, without exact sales figures, we'll never know which one). It's a generic, tolkein-esque, fantasy game focused on combat and adventure. The playstyle is also reinforced by the mechanics where 90% of the stats are applied in combat or dungeoneering.
 
In my experience, trying to have DnD do anything else is not fun. The ruleset breaks down if you try to play a gritty horror fantasy game with it. You have to house-rule so much it goesfrom DnD to Jak's D20 based horror game. The designers of the game have the experience with it know what it is capable of, what it is designed to do and how to get the most out of it.
 
Games of a limited scope have been great fun for me. Kobold's ate my Babies was a raucous good time for me and my group (to the point we were getting together every day for two weeks to play it). Our Ninja Burger adventures are remembered fondly. These games are of a very limited scope, and I have yet to have a bad time with them. However, I have read both horrible and ecstatic reviews of these games.
 
On the opposite end of the spectrum you have GURPS and HERO, which are both successful games, if not popular. These games represent (to most) the ultimate in gaming freedom. You can make a world how you want it, a charcter how you want him/her/it, or you can use one of the many pre-created/licensed worlds. You can make combat as complex or simple as you want. I have never had fun playing GURPS. I bought it for Discworld. However, there are many people I've heard that won't play a game any other way.
 
What this ultimately comes down to is this: wide scope of playstyle, when it comes to fun, is ultimately a preference rather than an absolute. You yourself lamented about enjoying DnD which is a game of (comparably) limited playstyle and scope when compared to games like GURPS (and IMHO WoD). A good game is a fun game, and fun games can be both limited and wide in scope.
 
However, the people that have designed and (hopefully) been playing a game for the for months (and sometimes years) before you have a print copy should have a better idea of how to play the game, what it is capable of and what makes it fun compared to you, the FLGS skimmer.
[/SIZE]

Quote from: SosthenesVampire was were deceptive. "Cool, I can play a vampire!"
And then you had to choose a paltry subset of the awesome stuff movie vampires could do, along with a pre-fabricated mindset. And you had to join some Ancient Frat House.
 
I came to suck blood and kick ass and all I got was clove cigarettes.

Whose Vampire game are you playing. Vampire the Masquerade had many, many supported playstyles in it. It was however, one of the first games that even suggested introspective and social chronicles. Which is why it beame so popular with those that wanted to play a game like that.
 
However, one of the playstyle suggestions in the rulebook was "Splatterpunk". Create Vampires (Caitiff were the Clanless Vampires that could pick their own powers) get into wars and fights with other vampires, werewolves, humans, goblins or whatever else you ST could come up with for you to kill.
 
In Vampire: the Requiem, pick a clan, pick up some kick ass out of clan disciplines and go Independent. If you want more of an edge pick up a bloodline like Bruja or Khaibit. Then play with a ST who wants to play an asskicker game.

Quote from: KrakaJakWhose Vampire game are you playing. Vampire the Masquerade had many, many supported playstyles in it. It was however, one of the first games that even suggested introspective and social chronicles. Which is why it beame so popular with those that wanted to play a game like that.

Social what? You mean campaigns?

It's a game where you play frickin' Vampires. Yes, you need some kind of McGuffin so that players won't kill each other, but some kind of vampire "classes" (in the D&D sense) and a secretive mega-conspiracy to tie them together?

Ask most people what they think of when you say "Vampire". Most of them won't come up with Cosa Nostra made men snorting blood instead of cocaine.
 V:TM mainly supported Anne-Rice-ish whining vampires, which might be rather popular amongst some folks, but is a very specific look at bloodsuckers. Yes, I could rip out most of it and play the way I like it, but what would I gain then? The first edition of the Storyteller rules wasn't that good and I could scrap all the books, as my world wasn't the WoD.

I agree that Vampire: The Requiem is a much better game. No strict "clans" anymore, conspiraces on a much lower level. Nice. If they only would've come up with that from the start...

Don't ask me about the night I tried Vampire LARPing...

Quote from: SosthenesVampire was were deceptive. "Cool, I can play a vampire!"
And then you had to choose a paltry subset of the awesome stuff movie vampires could do, along with a pre-fabricated mindset. And you had to join some Ancient Frat House.

It's hardly deception when its all there in the rulebook, just because your idea of vampire doesn't match with theirs it isn't deception. I personally don't find Cleric in 3rd Ed match my view of priests in a fantasy setting, its not deception however.

QuoteI came to suck blood and kick ass.

Which the game completely supported, and many, many campaigns were run like that.

Quote from: BagpussIt's hardly deception when its all there in the rulebook, just because your idea of vampire doesn't match with theirs it isn't deception.

Well, I wasn't the only one thinking like that, there are even conversions of V:TM online that rip out most of the stuff that deviates from the classic vampire archetype. And one might say that V:tR (which might or might not be an actual croatian word) did the same. So history is on my side

If your picture of vampires was supported by the WoD, that's fine. Scary, but fine. But there were lots of people disappointed and felt that a game called "Vampire" should've stayed closer to the roots.

But let's get back on topic. If that doesn't count as deceptive advertising, what does? Selling D20 as D&D?

Quote from: SosthenesSocial what? You mean campaigns?

Sorry I tend to use the terminology defined in the game I'm talking about. DnD has campaigns. We're talking about Vampire. Vampire has chronicles.
 

QuoteIt's a game where you play frickin' Vampires. Yes, you need some kind of McGuffin so that players won't kill each other, but some kind of vampire "classes" (in the D&D sense) and a secretive mega-conspiracy to tie them together?

Again, it sounds like you wanted to play DnD with vampires, so go play DnD with Vampires. Clans a very different from DnD classes, andif you tried to play the as such, you were in for a bad time. Mechanically, all clans do is provide you with a weakness and a discount on certain disciplines.
 

QuoteAsk most people what they think of when you say "Vampire". Most of them won't come up with Cosa Nostra made men snorting blood instead of cocaine.

Except for the Giovanni players out there....
 

QuoteV:TM mainly supported Anne-Rice-ish whining vampires, which might be rather popular amongst some folks, but is a very specific look at bloodsuckers. Yes, I could rip out most of it and play the way I like it, but what would I gain then? The first edition of the Storyteller rules wasn't that good and I could scrap all the books, as my world wasn't the WoD.

Vampire: the Masquerade considered itself "Gothic-Punk" and mainly supported your Blade, Ultraviolet and Underworld (as many people consider Underword a direct rip-off of the WoD, and it's all about Vampires kicking ass) type vampires, with pulp mega-conspiracies, kitanas, machine-guns, gypsies, mobsters and werewolves in the jungle ruins. Playing your way was fully supported by the game as the "7 vampires and a pick-up truck" playstyle.
 
It sucks you didn't find a game of Masquerade to you your liking.
I'm also suprised you like Requiem more than Masquerade. As Requiem mechanically enforces the social "Anne Ricey" aspect much more than Masquerade ever tried. However, this isn't a thread about WoD vs the World. I reiterate (old or new) WoD as an example of a game that can be played many different ways and you as an example of why the game designers were right about how to play. It's not DnD and the designers advised you not to play it like DnD, but you didn't listen.

Play it like D&D? I was complaining that it supported some aspect of D&D too much. I understand why it did that (cooperation amongst predators), but I didn't agree that this was really needed. The clan system and the Camarilla was the defining factor of Vampire. Not using that would mean not using V:tM.

By the way, I agree that the WoD has been a huge influence on the movies you mentioned. And I don't like a single one of them. Vampires fighting against vampires isn't the kind of "kicking ass" I had in mind. If you separate the predator from the prey too much, the myth loses some of its poignancy.

I don't want this to become a flame-fest. We're getting away from topic and communicate amongst way to few people. Let's continue this via PM, or agree to disagree, okay?