Quote from: RPGPunditObviously, to me, "Designer imposed playstle" means when what a designer is imposing is his PERSONAL IDEOLOGY and not something that matches up with emulation of genre (or regular system mechanics, or abbreviations, or anything else).

Well, it's obvious now, but it wasn't obvious to begin with.  With that clarification, your previous statements make more sense.  Perhaps, the first time somebody asked "But ... isn't genre emulation a type of imposed playstyle?" you could have made this clarification rather than treating it like a stupid question.  Just a thought, for the future.

Quote from: SettembriniYou idiot!
That´s what all debates are about. Only that my experience was vindicated in many, many threads, to fight your kind of "gamer"-casting and bashing.

So which is it?  You're saying "Of course!  There is no objective right or wrong, there's only opinion.  But my opinion is objectively right, as shown in many past threads!"

Sheesh, Sett ... make up your mind.

I was thinking my objection to the mixing of designer's notes & hard rules was getting lost, but Sett nails it below:

Quote from: Settembrinican´t get their act straight, and instead of building a strong hands-off model, present lame intermiglings of crappy rules along with preachy table-play advice. They need to do that, cause their models can´t stand on their own. Thusly, you are not given a tool or model, but a wordy prescription of table-play event-chains.

On top of that, I think another method of externally-imposed focus comes from marketing, essentially: using various signals, social, graphical, and otherwise, to suggest the sort of people who should play the game and to warn away the sort who shouldn't.

Hey Elliot: in this post-nox site of ours, your sig is kind of outdated. There's not much cess over at off-topic these days, mostly its just people talking about Iron Man.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHey Elliot: in this post-nox site of ours, your sig is kind of outdated. There's not much cess over at off-topic these days, mostly its just people talking about Iron Man.

RPGPundit

That song is great, but I always kind of figured it was a tune about some DM's really awesome home-made Iron Golem.

Yeah, I've been thinking about taking it down. I still think the sentiment is relevant because OT isn't the point of this place, but I'll put it on indefinite hiatus and maybe think of something else.

Quote from: Thanatos02That song is great, but I always kind of figured it was a tune about some DM's really awesome home-made Iron Golem.

Stolen.

. .that actually took this "theory" about game's and put it to use for practical game design.  Oh, wait, I kind of wrote something like that a long while ago.  Back when I decided the only "game theory" worth a lick of salt was something that applied to practical game design.

After all the only way to get actual play out of a game is to design a game, and before you can design a game you really need to know what a game is and how to construct one.  Right?

Well there's an freshly minted PDF attached.  Read it if you like.  You may find it laughable, after all this was written nigh on 3 years ago, but like another poster said "There is no objective right or wrong, there's only opinion."

Enjoy.

I have different RPGs because I want to experience different playstyles.  Genre vs. author preference seems like a very poor designator unless you are one of those blessed individuals that have found your personal "right" playstyle.  I would think most peoples tastes are a range of playstyles because of the accomadating social factor of RPGs.  If the author's implied playstyle doesn't fit in my playstyle range, I won't buy it.  I'll play a generic system over multiple genres until I grow bored and want to experience another playstyle.  The extreme of either position is rather bland to me.

What I don't get: Why is mixing GM advise into the system a BAD thing? It takes pressure off the GM, makes it more like a regular game (where everyone follows the rules and the game goes ahead, not where you have to count on one person to make up the board and interpret all the rules), and makes people of varying styles able to play together because you can't argue about how to do things, it's in the rules. If one person prefers things one way and another prefers them differently, YOU CAN ALTERNATE GAMES. You don't have to ONLY play one game forever. Forge games in general aren't meant for 10 year campaigns (hell, I don't think ANY game is, but the longest game I've ever been in is around 2 years and the next longest was 6 months or so, both online).

Why is it bad that a game tells you how to enjoy it? If you don't enjoy what it tells you to enjoy, play another game. That's one thing I've never gotten about complaints about Forge games, people act as if the game is meant to be the be all, end all, final RPG. It's not. Forge games are meant to, most of the time, do one thing and do it well. It's not like GURPS or even D&D, if you don't want to play a game where the players have complete control over the moral authority which most of the NPCs believe in don't play Dogs in the Vineyard. It's like buying a BBQ cook book then being pissed off because you are a vegetarian and the cookbook is telling you to cook meat.

Edit: Why is designer imposed playstyle a bad thing? I mean, unless there is NO designer out there who you like the playstyle of. Personally, I like games with imposed playstyle, it puts everyone on the same page right from the beginning and people can't bicker about it like they could if it was just the GMs or a certain players playstyle. Like I said, Forge RPGs aren't meant to be Desert Island games that you play from now until forever in one constant campaign. I think they are made for, and in many cases by, people whose primary RPG experience and taste lie with short campaigns with a year in the long run. Again, I think it's stupid to be against the designer putting his own style into the game, because then you end up with games which are bland and have a big time "And what do I do with this?" problem (which is a problem I've had with basically every RPG I've ever bought), because they wanted to do as much as possible and thus have no clear starting point. I don't want a game that can give me a story about fanged superheroes OR Machiavellian politics OR angsty vampires or a combination, I want a game that does one of those things well. Again with a cooking metaphor, it would be like being angry with a TV chef because he puts a lot of spice in his dishes because he likes spice. In his opinion to make the best dish you need a lot of spice, so he puts it in the recipe. If you leave out everything that someone could potentially have a problem with, you end up with a very lame dish.

Edit: Oh, crap, didn't notice this was a necromancy. Sorry.

I stopped watching Sets Edwards Interview, before he barely opened his mouth. The sound quality is so atrocious, that both Edwards AND Set come over as complete psychos in the clip. I only scrolled through the interview, because I couldn't bear listening to it.

What I don't get is why this particular thread re-surfaced today.

- Ed C.

I do get it, and I don't like it one little bit.

Viral Apologetics Snake Oil from the wagon of Sleazewick the Weasel. Accept  imitations.

Per the new policy, this being a Forge-related thread, shouldn't it go into off-topic?

It was referenced in the Indie vs. Trad game thread, I thought there was an interesting counterpoint to be made and didn't notice the thread was 5 months old. No agenda here.

BTW, this is not about the interview I did, it´s about a radio interview done by someone, like, totally different.