TheRPGSite

Posted without Comment. (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/05/14/show008-interview-with-ron-edwards/)

I interviewed Ron Edwards for my very, very, very failed gaming documentary a few years ago.

I've never said this before because I don't like being negative, but here it is: he scared me.  He bothered me.  He freaked me out.  He said things about gaming in a a way that unsettled me.  My wife was freaked out, too.

Then, he tried to make me buy one of his games, under the pretense that, since he'd given of my time, I should give of my pocket.

I did not.

You know, I really liked a lot of the things that he said. He makes a lot of sense and came across less pretentious than he writes. Then he continued speaking, and I found myself cringing. He seems to think that there is only one set of play styles -- those he designates.

He generally seems like a nice guy to hang out with... until you start getting into a serious conversation ;)

Doc: Wow.

I haven't watched the interview Joe linked to, and I'm not going to. Because I did watch a section of an interview Edwards did with Settembrini. And that was enough to freak ME out, merely from watching.

Intense bordering on creepy. The former is good (I know a lot of artists), the latter not so much.

In what way did he freak you and your wife out, Doc? I'm a dial-up drongo so can't see these interviews for myself.

Oh Joe Wolz. You troublemaker.

Like piGames, I thought it started out reasonable and then got weird. I think (Ron's) assesment of the original Vampire appeal (and other things) is extremely accurate. But then bizzarity! strikes!

I have to give props to the interviewer at first because he actually asks him the questions that most people want answered. But then he kinda wusses.

I liked the part when Ron goes "Has D&D Ever made anyone any money?!!"
and the interviewer is like "uhm..uhh.. uhh.. no? is the answer no?"

I swear, it's like Jim Jones mockumentary.

I have a couple of stories that are uniquely my own dating back to the Gaming Outpost days but I think I'm saving them for a rainy day.

Sweet Jeebus this thing is long.

Closed if after an hour+...

Listening now. Initial thoughts:

1) That's the worst theme song in history.
2) The awkward pause between "I haven't gotten to look at Elfs" and when he starts again totally feels like "So....no bonus copy for the interviewer, huh?".

More as we go forward.

EDIT: :teehee: "Gothers".

EDIT EDIT: Wow. Worst defense of Brain Damage ever.

Wow, even some of the comments scare me. I guess this is how a Catholic feels when Mormons come around ;)

Quote from: JimBobOzIn what way did he freak you and your wife out, Doc? I'm a dial-up drongo so can't see these interviews for myself.

Basically, he had this very, very intense look in his eye as he described how gamers fetishize their hobby, taking it into the privacy of their homes and pretending that it's some kind of weird secret no-one should know about.  He may be right, but thatdoesn't make him not-creepy.  His demeanor was just...unsettling.

I have the video, but not the audio.  I bought the wrong type of microphone.  I was VERY mad about that.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I interviewed Ron Edwards for my very, very, very failed gaming documentary a few years ago.

I've never said this before because I don't like being negative, but here it is: he scared me.  He bothered me.  He freaked me out.  He said things about gaming in a a way that unsettled me.  My wife was freaked out, too.

Then, he tried to make me buy one of his games, under the pretense that, since he'd given of my time, I should give of my pocket.

I did not.

The problem I have is that Ron Edward's exteme views give other indie designers a bad name.

They get lumped in with Ron because they too create Indie Games.

I really think the best thing that could happen to Indie Games is to not have Ron Edwards involved.

Quote from: Blue DevilI really think the best thing that could happen to Indie Games is to not have Ron Edwards involved.

I don't think he's involved in Indie games...well at least not those that don't fit into his defintion of Indie, he's more of Forge games....right?.

I mean Clash, Hinterwelt, Marco etc are indie designers and they don't have a bad rep or are connected with Ron or the Forge in any way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI don't think he's involved in Indie games...well at least not those that don't fit into his defintion of Indie, he's more of Forge games....right?.

As I have been told, Indie Games are "Creator owned and published games" and I thought a par of The Forge was working to push indie games

Quote from: David RI mean Clash, Hinterwelt, Marco etc are indie designers and they don't have a bad rep or are connected with Ron or the Forge in any way.

Regards,
David R

This could be very true, we don't know what ever game is thinking so we can't be sure there are people who out there who connect them to The Forge (As incorrect as that is).

I will say, for the record I think Clash, Hinterwelt and Marco are great people and make quality games.

As I continue to listen to this podcast I have to say:

"Ron Edwards is Nuts"

Quote from: Blue DevilAs I have been told, Indie Games are "Creator owned and published games" and I thought a par of The Forge was working to push indie games

Well I'm unsure of the definition of Indie or at least the way how Ron defines Indie, but does the Forge push all Indie games? I'm pretty sure he does not push the game/system JimBob created and I'm 100% sure he's not going to push FTA....but since there are only a few independent designers I know of, I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
David R

Well... listening to it I must agree with Ron. At least in the moment when he say, he is fanatic. Yeah. Now, in that moment he was honest with us. :p

I bought Vampire but I didn't get the hot goth sex :(

Perhaps I should have bought two copies?

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI bought Vampire but I didn't get the hot goth sex :(

Hmmm. You must have played it wrong or your brain damage got in the way ;)

Is there anywhere that we can get a transcript of this fucking thing?! I can't sit and listen to this idiot for this long; I could read it much faster though.

Plus, that way Jimbob could hear it too.

RPGPundit

It's hard for me to listen to any podcast that goes on for more than 30 minutes (my mind starts to wander). Maybe I should email Clyde and ask him to think about breaking long interviews up in the future, or something. Doesn't matter who it is or what the subject is, unless it's an actor reading a book-on-CD or something, I can't listen to 1-2 people's voices for any more than a few mins at a time. :(

In any case, Clyde (the interviewer) is the most punk-rock person you're ever likely to meet: He has the word SUICIDAL tattooed on his forehead in big "thugg life" style lettering*... it looks scary at first, and yet he is one of the nicest, genuine people I've ever met (he oozes friendliness once you start talking). Great guy. I hope to meet up with him at GenCon again.

-Andy

* One of my friends was running a game as GM, where  all the characters were punk rockers. When Clyde showed up at the table, facial tattoo and all, he felt like the most milquetoast dude on the planet and got kind of embarrassed ("Hey mister Platonic Form of Punk Rock, here's your character, a 'punk rocker'. He's hardcore. He's got a bobby pin through his ear and ripped jeans..." :D ).

Quote from: David RWell I'm unsure of the definition of Indie or at least the way how Ron defines Indie, but does the Forge push all Indie games?

I believe the definition of indie at the Forge is the same one used by the indie roleplaying awards (http://www.rpg-awards.com/faq.shtml#1a). Essentially, it means that the game's copyright is owned by someone who has written 50% or more of the game. There are complications involving licensing. (http://www.rpg-awards.com/license.shtml) But basically, by the Forge's definition, Marco, Clash, Hinterwelt, Atomic Sock Monkey Press (Chad U.) all have "indie" products.

As far as "pushing" games, the policy on the Forge itself, with regard to talking about existing games was (last I checked) to encourage actual play discussion of all games. I think the logic of this is that AP discussion is needed to explore tastes and preferences, which then leads on to design.

Naturally the design and publishing forums are just for "indie" games, based on the definition above.

In addition, the Forge hosts specialized forums for a number of games. To get a forum, the game has to qualify as "indie"--which is why the Heroquest forum shut down. (HQ is a weird case since its indie status was disputed from the start, and neither Robin Laws nor Greg Stafford participated in the forum, whereas all the other indie game forums at the Forge are moderated by the creator.) But just being "indie" is apparently not sufficient, though I don't know what other criteria are used.

In the past Ron has regretted the fact that so -called "simulationist" games haven't come over to his side--whether he means The Forge or just the "indie publishing model", I don't know. And he's also expressed this in frankly weird language, in one notable case expressing himself through a parable comparing the situation to the Spanish Civil War (it seems, with "mainstream" publishing corresponding to the Fascists).

In actuality, the appropriation of the word "indie" by the Forge, combined with Ron's moderation style, theory of game design, personality--and the social dynamics created by the way that different people react to those things--has tended at the Forge to marginalize games and designers that are technically indie but which fall outside of the Narrativist paradigm.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI bought Vampire but I didn't get the hot goth sex :(

That's because clearly Vampire was too flexible a game that could appeal to too many different play styles (besides hot goth sex). While we barbarians see this "diversity" as a good thing and one of the reasons we're willing to put down so much money for a game and keep coming back to it, Edwards wisely knows it to be a hindrance to good gaming. What you really needed was a mini-game that focuses entirely on one theme (of hot goth sex) so there's no "incoherence" and all the players are free to cooperate in the goal of crafting a shared story (of hot goth sex) without risking "brain damage" due to conflicting motivations (having nothing to do with hot goth sex). To support this, it should have a proprietary system (somehow revolving around hot goth sex) to set it apart from other games and make it less useful for non-hot-goth-sex games--although people on RPG.net will nevertheless immediately start threads titled "Using Hot Goth Sex system for space opera/post-apocalyptic/wild west game."

Since you're already drooling in anticipation of the hot goth sex action, let me give you this opportunity to pre-order your copy of Hot Goth Sex. Your $20 will get you a 50-page, 5"-by-7" booklet with crappy b&w art I drew myself. Order today and get a free 10-sided butt-plug. Money order or certified check only, please. And go ahead and pat yourself on the back for supporting the indie revolution.

Black Flag, you had me at "Using Hot Goth Sex system for space opera/post-apocalyptic/wild west game." That is so typically rpg.net.

Quote from: Black FlagThat's because clearly Vampire was too flexible a game that could appeal to too many different play styles ....

CAN'T REPLY LAUGHING OH GOD MY RIBS

Thanks Elliot for the reply. I sort of suspected it was something like this:

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn actuality, the appropriation of the word "indie" by the Forge, combined with Ron's moderation style, theory of game design, personality--and the social dynamics created by the way that different people react to those things--has tended at the Forge to marginalize games and designers that are technically indie but which fall outside of the Narrativist paradigm.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI bought Vampire but I didn't get the hot goth sex :(

Perhaps I should have bought two copies?

Of course! You need one for each participant. ;)

Quote from: JongWKOf course! You need one for each participant. ;)

Then ... we're gonna need more than two.

QuoteBecause I did watch a section of an interview Edwards did with Settembrini. And that was enough to freak ME out, merely from watching.

Could you elaborate? I spent quite some time on that thing, and would love to know what creeped you out.

I thought he came over ok on the interview, especially compared to the Demo at the Stasi headquarters.

Quote from: SettembriniCould you elaborate? I spent quite some time on that thing, and would love to know what creeped you out.

It was months ago, and it was nothing specific he said, much less anything to do with your own role (which I don't remember at all at this point, I didn't know you who you were). It was simply that, as Doc put it, the weird demeanor of the guy is a major turn-off.

That said, now we all want to hear about what happened at Normannenstrasse.

Why all this talk about Ron Edwards? He's not special. He's just another nerdy game designer with some outlandish opinions. That's damn common if you ask me. As for the pod cast . . . I got bored listening to it after about two minutes.

I only managed to get halfway through, but it seemed like the interviewer felt out of his depth, which was a shame. Ron Edwards really needed challenging on his definitions of brain damage, incoherence and the function of the golden rule. It's understandable though, he's had years to perfect his spiele and the support of many in refining it.

Interesting, in a "look at the funny man talk" kind of a way, but from bits I did listen to it seemed like the bloke is so entrenched in his beliefs that he's lost perspective on what people are actually doing with the games he has such problems understanding.

All the "goth subculture" crap was exactly that.

Well.

He did explain german-german history to us. And talked to us like we were schoolchildren.

There was heavy eyerolling going on.

Later I was told, one of his german satrapes tried to stop him, unsuccesfully.

And this happens all the time: He´ll speak with enthusiastic importance of his own enlightenment in areas others have long, long, long time ago explored.
There is no intellectual modesty in him, and this makes him make totally ridiculous statements.

See, lack of modesty is not a bad thing in itself. But if it´s coupled with serious lack of knowledge and obliviousness to the thoughts of other people.
 
I can express it much better in german:

http://hofrat.blogspot.com/search?q=spione

look for "We´re off to see the wizard!"

When I met him, it really was a Wizard of Oz moment. He has not even played in a decent adventure gaming campaign, let alone GMed one!
I was shaken, indeed.
He doesn´t understand D&D or Rifts. He can´t think outside of what he calls "story", but should be called thematic gaming. He will tell otherwise, but from what he says, you can quickly point out, that he hasn´t experienced what 99% of happy gamers have experienced.

The real moment of loss of intellectual respect was one in direct personal conversation involving politics. To honour the situation, I´ll just say that he came across politically naivé in the grandest manner.

I am told there were other situations like these involving his satrapes, and all I and they did back then was smile and nod.

Listening to the interview:

OMFG!
He does it again!

US-TV and cinema and story.

It´s pathetic.

Northern Exposure.
Cowboy Bebop.
Star Wars

How can anyone take him seriously?

EDIT: He´s brain damaged from reading comic books. He thinks everything is a parable, that action is irrelevant and only a vehicle for some third rate and cheesy guy´s soap opera. Like Supers comics.
It´s this simple. You can explain all of Ron with that.

Oh, now I see what you mean... that's interesting. I should listen to it after all.

Too bad I have to go to the library now and read some actual B.O.O.K.S.

I kind of stopped listening after hearing his...extremely idiosyncratic definition of story (yeah, I'm in a charitable mood today...).

That's pretty typical Ron, I think. If a game sells better than his (or has a larger fanbase than his) it becomes a target. That it manages to achieve such success using ideas that he has repeatedly decried as being 'broken' or 'wrong' only makes him sound more bitter.

In this interview he not only attacks a game more successful than anything he has ever written as boasting flawed design only because it succeeded by doing things in a different manner than the one that he prescribes -- he also attacks its fanbase as being pathetic goth wannabes looking to get laid. Over and over again.

This is all unfortunate because this bitter resentment overshadows the few really sensible things that he has to say. Ron doesn't speak -- he preaches. And that alienates a lot of his potential audience. His tendency to openly attack the character of those who don't do things his way doesn't help him very much.

Quote from: SettembriniHe´s brain damaged from reading comic books. He thinks everything is a parable, that action is irrelevant and only a vehicle for some third rate and cheesy guy´s soap opera. Like Supers comics.
It´s this simple. You can explain all of Ron with that.

Back up there a sec, pardner.  I'm brain damaged from reading comics books, too.  Comics aren't the issue here.  Ditto TV.  Most of the material for my games comes from so-called trash culture.  That stuff can feed into a very satisfying D&D game.

Settembrini,

What do you make of Ron's actual play reports on Tunnels & Trolls? They seem to be an 'off data point' for your overall interpretation.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeWhy all this talk about Ron Edwards? He's not special. He's just another nerdy game designer with some outlandish opinions. That's damn common if you ask me. As for the pod cast . . . I got bored listening to it after about two minutes.

Yep I agree.

He is an idiot and the only brain damaged gamer I can think of is him.

Ignore Ron, he is a kook and the more attention he is given the worse he seems to get.

He is irrelevant to gaming (Both Indie and Non-Indie).

Quote from: jdrakehThat's pretty typical Ron, I think. If a game sells better than his (or has a larger fanbase than his) it becomes a target. That it manages to achieve such success using ideas that he has repeatedly decried as being 'broken' or 'wrong' only makes him sound more bitter.

In this interview he not only attacks a game more successful than anything he has ever written as boasting flawed design only because it succeeded by doing things in a different manner than the one that he prescribes -- he also attacks its fanbase as being pathetic goth wannabes looking to get laid. Over and over again.

Sounds like someone who is jealous of other peoples success.

It's pathetic when a person has such a low self-esteem that they have to attack other successful people/game designers to make themselves better.

QuoteBack up there a sec, pardner. I'm brain damaged from reading comics books, too. Comics aren't the issue here. Ditto TV. Most of the material for my games comes from so-called trash culture. That stuff can feed into a very satisfying D&D game.

Yeah, I know.
But only if you take the action and adventure in it it at face value!

If you cut only the "story" (== soap-trash) out, and elevated it to the thing "superhero comics are really about and they are relevant in this function", your gaming and your "brain" would suffer.

In short: Trash culture is not the problem. The problem is with people, who think the real value of trash culture lies within the themes and "story" brought up in it. Whereas the themes and "story" in there are mostly an excuse for BigExplosionsTM or CrazyCrossoverTM.
At the very least one can rightfully say that mass culture creators aren´t  using sophisticated techniques for adressing themes and story. I´d go even so far as that it´s mass appeal relies on the triteness and repetitivity of storytelling in mass media.
Which is especially depressing when there is no adventure stuff or explodey stuff involved = Grey´s Anatomy, Northern Exposure, Friends.

And I cannot imagine a Jeff Rients who blogs that he reads the X-Men because of the strong political undercurrents and the exploration of the human condition.

The Jeff I know, would rather post a pic of a BigExplosionTM on his blog.

Because BigExplosions is what Comics are good at.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI believe the definition of indie at the Forge is the same one used by the indie roleplaying awards (http://www.rpg-awards.com/faq.shtml#1a). Essentially, it means that the game's copyright is owned by someone who has written 50% or more of the game. There are complications involving licensing. (http://www.rpg-awards.com/license.shtml) But basically, by the Forge's definition, Marco, Clash, Hinterwelt, Atomic Sock Monkey Press (Chad U.) all have "indie" products.

I have been told, point blank, at GTS 5 or 6 years ago that HinterWelt is not Indie. Since then, I have happily referred to myself as small press.

Bill

Quote from: Blue DevilSounds like someone who is jealous of other peoples success.

Yes, it does.

I've heard him damn D&D and Vampire for the better part of a decade. I've yet to hear him explain why these games are bad outside of the fact that they don't do things the way that he likes to do them (personally). This interview is a great example of what I'm talking about. His Fantasy Heartreaker essay is another.

In said essay (which I've been known to defend), Ron makes some valid points (e.g., that innovation itself isn't a compelling reason for a game to exist). That said, most of these points are buried under a steaming heap of "It sucks because I say so!". Most people who read it see only the steaming heap and that is what's unfortunate.

And, as he does in the interview, Ron alludes to the fact that most of the good bits in popular, mainstream, games are accidental. As if it is impossible that anybody other than Ron could have a good idea. It's this kind of attitude that puts people off of the Forge and much of the product that comes out of there. Which is ironic, because. . .

Lately Ron has taken it upon himself to divide the Forge into "Us" (people who kowtow entirely to Ron's will) and "Them" (people who dare question things that he says) camps. I think that he's calling them 1st Generation Contributors and 2nd Generation Contributors, but he recently made it very clear that the new ways aren't his way and, therefore, are wrong.

While I agree with some of what he said in the series of threads where this division was set up (specifically that people shouldn't publish games simply because they can), I cringed when I saw him draw that line in the sand. The Forge is clearly not about forward motion now (whether it ever has been is another topic entirely, but it clearly is not now).

Quote from: HinterWeltI have been told, point blank, at GTS 5 or 6 years ago that HinterWelt is not Indie. Since then, I have happily referred to myself as small press.

Indie, Small Press, Vanity ---- it's all the same to me. Debating the merits or classifications of each for 10 pages worth of posts is ludicrous and highly annoying, yet unavoidable on just about every forum. All this because some people prefer to use Ron's self-defined vision of Indie...

Quote from: pigames.netIndie, Small Press, Vanity ---- it's all the same to me. Debating the merits or classifications of each for 10 pages worth of posts is ludicrous and highly annoying, yet unavoidable on just about every forum. All this because some people prefer to use Ron's self-defined vision of Indie...

Don;t worry, I am not hung up on definitions. I just wanted to be clear that according to the man who coined the term, my company is not. If everyone wants to debate what the differences are for hundreds of pages, that up to them.

Bill

Quote from: pigames.netIndie, Small Press, Vanity ---- it's all the same to me.

Well it shouldn't be.  Vanity press material is something entirely different and, if you're going to publish anything outside of the arena of roleplaying, you're REALLY going to discover just what an albatross that label can be.  Best to stick with Small Press or Independant Small Press.

Quote from: pigames.netDebating the merits or classifications of each for 10 pages worth of posts is ludicrous and highly annoying...

Which is why I jumped to the last page, responded to you, and now am about to ... OOOH SHINEY!

I listened to the whole thing and found it a bit painful. Neither the host nor the guest are particularly good speakers. I think the host needs a little more time to "find his voice". Ron needs to learn how to start a sentence using a phrase other than "You know".

I've read a handful of Ron's posts over on the forge and quickly formed the opinion that the guy has way to high of an opinion of his importance to the gaming community.

The first bit about "brain damage" didn't make much sense to me, and seemed to be just taking shots at another game company, rather than any constructive insight into the hobby.

Some of the later bits actually sounded reasonable, and made me think he isn't such a bad guy.

Quote from: Kester PelagiusWell it shouldn't be.  Vanity press material is something entirely different and, if you're going to publish anything outside of the arena of roleplaying, you're REALLY going to discover just what an albatross that label can be.  Best to stick with Small Press or Independant Small Press.

Whether it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. It just is. Look around. Let's leave it at that.

Quote from: pigames.netWhether it should or shouldn't be is irrelevant. It just is. Look around. Let's leave it at that.

Point taken.  But I would just like to say I definitely wouldn't classify Hinterwelt, Pig Games, or Better Mousetrap Games as vanity presses.  To suggest otherwise, I think, is to short shrift these small press endeavors and the herculean obstacles they have had to overcome.  Then again, as has been pointed out, they're not "indie" and, as you say, we should leave it at that.

Quote from: jrientsMost of the material for my games comes from so-called trash culture.  That stuff can feed into a very satisfying D&D game.

Same here, and for plenty more than D&D games :)

Quote from: HinterWeltI have been told, point blank, at GTS 5 or 6 years ago that HinterWelt is not Indie. Since then, I have happily referred to myself as small press.

I don't know the details of your production process, but if you match the criteria I linked, then something funky is/was going on. It's apparent that in some cases the percentage of owner-created content is a judgment call, as are issues of licensing, and there's a tendency of the "indie community" to basically defer to Ron. Which means the criteria aren't always as objective as made out.

One thing I didn't make clear in one of my earlier posts is that the identification of the term "indie" with the Forge also marginalizes non-Forge small press publishers within wider RPG discussion. I.e., because of Edwards & the Forge, when people hear "indie", they think of a particular design esthetic, so the enthusiasm and energy that gets drummed up in the name of independent publishing winds up being distributed unevenly based on quite different criteria.

Quote from: SettembriniCould you elaborate? I spent quite some time on that thing, and would love to know what creeped you out.

I thought he came over ok on the interview, especially compared to the Demo at the Stasi headquarters.

OK, this is the one and only thing I am going to address or comment on in this thread:

Settembrini, didn't you say once that you had another segment of that interview to prepare and post? If so, I'm really keen on seeing that.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: jdrakehYes, it does.

I've heard him damn D&D and Vampire for the better part of a decade. I've yet to hear him explain why these games are bad outside of the fact that they don't do things the way that he likes to do them (personally). This interview is a great example of what I'm talking about. His Fantasy Heartreaker essay is another.

That's sad really.

I think Vampire is OK and I do not care for D&D (and do not play it) but I do not damn D&D for it's success.  Games can be good and successful whether we personally like them or not.

Elitism like this is what hurts our hobby the most and is the thing this hobby needs to root out.

Quote from: jdrakehIn said essay (which I've been known to defend), Ron makes some valid points (e.g., that innovation itself isn't a compelling reason for a game to exist). That said, most of these points are buried under a steaming heap of "It sucks because I say so!". Most people who read it see only the steaming heap and that is what's unfortunate.

Yep, people see the piling heap of crap and the valid points get lost in the mix.

Quote from: jdrakehAnd, as he does in the interview, Ron alludes to the fact that most of the good bits in popular, mainstream, games are accidental. As if it is impossible that anybody other than Ron could have a good idea. It's this kind of attitude that puts people off of the Forge and much of the product that comes out of there. Which is ironic, because. . .

Lately Ron has taken it upon himself to divide the Forge into "Us" (people who kowtow entirely to Ron's will) and "Them" (people who dare question things that he says) camps. I think that he's calling them 1st Generation Contributors and 2nd Generation Contributors, but he recently made it very clear that the new ways aren't his way and, therefore, are wrong.

Someone needs to create a site that does what The Forge originally sought to do, create fun games self published and owned by the publishers.

I bet many people would be drawn away and Ron would become more and more irrelevant.

Quote from: jdrakehWhile I agree with some of what he said in the series of threads where this division was set up (specifically that people shouldn't publish games simply because they can), I cringed when I saw him draw that line in the sand. The Forge is clearly not about forward motion now (whether it ever has been is another topic entirely, but it clearly is not now).

From what I can tell The Forge seems to be collapsing into itself, imploding if you will.  The Forge, like Ron Edwards seems to become more and more irrelevant

Some of the piling on here (particularly from Blue Devil) is laughable. Regardless of what you think about Ron & the Forge, neither is irrelevent.

I also think that jdrakeh's interpretation of events over at the Forge (the "us/them" division) is quite a bit off the mark, though Ron's message is often filled with contradictions, leaving room for pretty much any interpretation.

Quote from: SettembriniYeah, I know.
But only if you take the action and adventure in it it at face value!

OK, I tried, but I just can't listen to the creep for longer than 5 mins.

So, all I can is say that all the points you made in this thread sound well taken indeed.

Quote from: Blue DevilSomeone needs to create a site that does what The Forge originally sought to do. . .

The Story Games Community (http://www.story-games.com/forums/) is kind of like that, though they focus almost exclusively on Story Games. That said, they still discuss and apply multiple theories and ideas, something that is largely discouraged at The Forge now. Indeed, Story Games has come under some friendly fire for "dilluting" the substance of Forge theory by promoting the exploration of avenues and ideas that deviate from The Way (i.e., The Big Model). I suspect that such fire won't remain friendly for long.

I know (not merely suspect) that there are Forge members who intensely disagree with The Way, as laid out by Ron. These folks have their own ideas (some very good) which aren't being voiced because they lack the testicular fortitude to challenge Ron's manifesto in public. [Note: If any of you are reading this, you can take however you like.]

Having said that, some of these people are getting understandably digruntled and are starting to make some noise on the Forge forums. In the past, most such people have simply left game design in disgust for fear of being branded as a pariah by their peers, though that seems to be changing a bit. I think that, perhaps, a boiling point may be drawing near.

Which is great.

I await the day that such folks finally strike out on their own as it will lead to change -- something that, in my estimation, is sorely needed in the current "indie" RPG community. Things have been pretty stagnant since The Way was canonized as indisputable truth over there.

[Note: I should clarify that I don't think The Big Model is without its benefits, but to discard all other ideas in favor of one seems patently absurd.]

Quote from: Elliot WilenSome of the piling on here (particularly from Blue Devil) is laughable. Regardless of what you think about Ron & the Forge, neither is irrelevent.

You may think the pilling on is laughable but it really isn't.  Ron and The Forge Are irrelevant.

How many gamers outside of those that go on the internet to discuss role playing games (which  make up a small minority of gamers) have heard of the The Forge or Ron Edwards?

None of the gamers I know have heard of him and I know a bunch of gamers.

He is irrelevent, and his attacks on other games shows his jealousy towards games like D&D and Vampire that have done much better then his

Quote from: Elliot WilenI also think that jdrakeh's interpretation of events over at the Forge (the "us/them" division) is quite a bit off the mark, though Ron's message is often filled with contradictions, leaving room for pretty much any interpretation.

No, with his brain damaged comments and his attitude (which clearly shows through in the podcast) it is us and them.  He makes that perfectly clear

If they're so irrelevant, why does everyone insist on talking about them all the time.

For people that supposedly don't matter, they get an awful lot of attention.  

If you really feel the way you claim about them, why not just ignore them and go about talking about things that do matter?

Quote from: jdrakehHaving said that, some of these people are getting understandably digruntled and are starting to make some noise on the Forge forums. In the past, most such people have simply left game design in disgust for fear of being branded as a pariah by their peers, though that seems to be changing a bit. I think that, perhaps, a boiling point may be drawing near.

Which is great.

I await the day that such folks finally strike out on their own as it will lead to change -- something that, in my estimation, is sorely needed in the current "indie" RPG community. Things have been pretty stagnant since The Way was canonized as indisputable truth over there.

[Note: I should clarify that I don't think The Big Model is without its benefits, but to discard all other ideas in favor of one seems patently absurd.]

It clearly says something if your own base is so tired of your crap that they are starting to lash out.  Oh well, what ever happens happens

Quote from: J ArcaneFor people that supposedly don't matter, they get an awful lot of attention.

Attention =/= Relevance as YouTube continues to prove :) That said, I think dismissing the Forge as "irrelevant" is a mistake. On the other hand, it isn't  near as important as its founders like to pretend it is, either (that thread on RPGnet wherein Clinton, in all seriousness, claims that the Forge was the driving force behind games like HERO 5th Edition and D&D 3.0 had me in stitches).

QuoteSettembrini, didn't you say once that you had another segment of that interview to prepare and post? If so, I'm really keen on seeing that.

There is some technical hassle involved (the tape was lost, until I found it, and it was damaged where it ended up before being found), and it will take me five+ hours at home to cope with that.
That´s the reason why it hasn´t happened so far (when I´ve got five+ hours at home "free", I tend to do other stuff), along with very little feedback or discussion following the other parts. You are the first one to even ask for the remaining part!

I will, someday complete it, but it´s low priority. There is a bit on brain damage, but that is now covered in the Podcast, so the argument isn´t lost. On the tape, he´s taking the same approach, especiall underlining how awful and wrong it was of people to [paraphrase] "jump into a private discussion and linking it to the internet on forums and blogs".

But yes, it will be online one day this year.

Quote from: Blue DevilNo, with his brain damaged comments and his attitude (which clearly shows through in the podcast) it is us and them.  He makes that perfectly clear

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Whatever's in the podcast, jdrakeh was referring to discussion the Forge, and this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23771.msg233417#msg233417) makes crystal clear that RE isn't talking about people "outside the Forge" when he refers to "them". It's an internal  division.

I have to say, I was actually shocked by that interview.

When he asked him about the brain damage comment, I expected him to deny it. Then, as he rambled on and on and on, I expected him to just try and spin and talk until the interviewer forgot the question and/or let it pass.

Which he could have done, but then he says "which doesn't address your question", dives right in, and actually confirms that he thinks folks who play Vampire are literally and really brain damaged (!!!!)

I am stunned.

The fucker really believes guys playing Vampire are brain damaged.

Any chance that I would ever be able to regard Ron Edwards as anything other than a weird, crazy oddity, has vanished.

He's now in the same league as Jack Thompson in my opinion.

Bananas. Totally Bananas.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo, you don't know what you're talking about. Whatever's in the podcast, jdrakeh was referring to discussion the Forge, and this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23771.msg233417#msg233417) makes crystal clear that RE isn't talking about people "outside the Forge" when he refers to "them". It's an internal  division.

Well, in fairness, if you don't agree with Ron on all fronts, he pretty much files you under 'mentally unstable' or 'hopelessly retarded' as evidenced by his numerous failed attempts to justify the notorious "brain damage" remark as some kind of objective classification supported by facts (it isn't, it's just Ron being bitter). That said, yes, I was specifically referring to the internal divide in my post.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI have to say, I was actually shocked by that interview.

When he asked him about the brain damage comment, I expected him to deny it. Then, as he rambled on and on and on, I expected him to just try and spin and talk until the interviewer forgot the question and/or let it pass.

Which he could have done, but then he says "which doesn't address your question", dives right in, and actually confirms that he thinks folks who play Vampire are literally and really brain damaged (!!!!)

I am stunned.

The fucker really believes guys playing Vampire are brain damaged.

Any chance that I would ever be able to regard Ron Edwards as anything other than a weird, crazy oddity, has vanished.

He's now in the same league as Jack Thompson in my opinion.

Bananas. Totally Bananas.

And like Jack Thompson, he'd do far less damage to the gaming community at large if people would learn just ignore him until he goes away.  

Feeding loons like that the attention they crave serves no purpose whatsoever.

Okay, I'm not usually the RE defender but I'll at least offer the nuanced view. (Though note, I'm not all the way through the podcast, instead I'm watching a neato Nova documentary on the stone age peopling of the Americas. But I read all the old crap about BD back when it happened.)

Edwards doesn't say that playing Vampire damages your brain. He says that playing Vampire damages your brain if you think you're "telling a story" when you play it.

Now, it's nonsense, first because he's adding "brain damage" to the long list of terms that he's decided he can use for shock effect, then unilaterally redefine to prove that he was right all along.

Second, the claim interacts in a funny way with the politics of how "Narrativism" eventually got defined, namely that if your game group thrives on characters making big decisions about life and stuff, then you're a bunch of story-craving Narrativists even if you don't think of yourselves that way. Ergo, maybe your brain was damaged after all.

But actually, although RE shows little appreciation or understanding of the socialization that transforms old fogey grognard play into engrossing exploration of characters and morals & shit...he's not really aiming at Settembrini or me or any of our other resident cavemen. He's talking about the generation of the 90's, the kids who started with D&D 2e or Vampire or Shadowrun, who really did think in terms of "telling stories" and had barely any concept of Traveller or original D&D, let alone wargaming.

It's also these people who really latch onto his theories. (I offer up as Exhibit A the René dude from the comments on the podcast, who recently wandered onto my LJ as "elmago79" to defend Forge jargon by saying it's okay to critique it as long as you don't disagree with it.) For them, he's basically right...once you perform the necessary linguistic transformations and backtracking that he refuses to do. (I.e., just admit you were using a metaphor for "conditioning", dude.) For them, because they can't think outside of spoonfed Hollywood-style "story"--and frankly why should they, they're not wargamers or amateur historians of unreal worlds, they really do want to "tell a story"--Narrativism really is the answer. The problem is that they then project their experiences and their delight with their newfound paradigm onto everyone else. Basically saying that if you aren't doing things the Forge way, with explicitly enunciated themes and mechanically-empowered players, you must still be in the benighted state they just emerged from.

I don´t see any defense there, Elliot. You just put it more nicely.

That brain damage was about Vampire has been established from the start, and that Vampire bashing is not pretty original either. Pundit was more on target a year earlier, and we all surely had our own version of Vampire bashing at our local clubs and mags in the late nineties.

The only thing original about it is his literal understanding (and insistance) of brain damage, and that surely qualifies him as ...

God bless Ron Edwards.

Here I thought I was having fun, but now I see it's all a facade for my ignorance and self-loathing. Now I can go start the medication and try to find natural supports in my life to compensate for my disability. I just hope it's not too late to discover a path to normalcy.

Brain injury: It's not just for motorcycle accidents anymore!

Quote from: stu2000Brain injury: It's not just for motorcycle accidents anymore!

Yes, it is also for metal baseball bats...

...and uh... your hobbies. I wonder if it's possible to damage my brain with model trains. I already know I can playing football.

Model trains, I dunno, but plastic and vinyl models give you a chance to fuck yourself up on all kinds of solvents.

Quote from: Elliot WilenModel trains, I dunno, but plastic and vinyl models give you a chance to fuck yourself up on all kinds of solvents.

I thought that was part of the appeal.

Quote from: Blue DevilSomeone needs to create a site that does what The Forge originally sought to do, create fun games self published and owned by the publishers.

I thought on this for a few hours and realized that I have unfairly criticized others for not taking any action, while I myself have stood largely still (aside from vocal contributions to threads like this one which, honestly, don't amount to much).

Here are my amends (http://miscellaneousdebris.freeforums.org/). I've finally managed to nail down a decent, ad-free, forum host and upgraded my own site with a snazzy CSS frontend (here (http://miscellaneousdebris.sitesled.com)).

While I'm certain that it won't be The Next Big Thing, all game theorists and game designers are welcome in the spirit of open discussion. I'll host files on the main site and designer-specific forums by request. Suggestions for improvement by registered posters are, of course, welcome.

The rules (see "Welcome" threads in each forum) are loose and sensible. If you act like a human being, you'll be spared banning. If you act like a sociopath, you'll be treated like one.

If you like to design/write games (even if they're just for you and your play group), by all means, drop by ;)

Quote from: J ArcaneIf they're so irrelevant, why does everyone insist on talking about them all the time.

For people that supposedly don't matter, they get an awful lot of attention.  

If you really feel the way you claim about them, why not just ignore them and go about talking about things that do matter?

Ok I will turn it around:   How is Ron Edwards relevant then?

Quote from: Blue DevilOk I will turn it around:   How is Ron Edwards relevant then?

He's not, not to me anyway.  Which is why by and large I'm happy just not bothering to talk about him, and generally going about my daily life as if he didn't exist.

Because THAT is what it means for something to be irrelevant.  

All threads like this do is validate his existence.  You folks claim to think he's a nutter, that he's irrelevant, etc. etc., yet this site gives an inordinate amoutn of attention to it nonetheless.  

Simply by treating him and his attitude as a "big issue", you've already proven that he IS relevant, to you.  

Nobody has big massive threads on a constant basis about how loony Hybrid is, or starts whole new web forums with mission statments and everything that are all about being anti-Hybrid.  You find Hybrid once, you boggle at it and laugh, and then you move on with your life, with only the occasional mention in conversation occasionally in the years henceforth.  that's how you treat a crazy person.

What you do not do, is give him constant attention above and beyond what he manags to accomplish by himself.

Quote from: jdrakehI thought on this for a few hours and realized that I have unfairly criticized others for not taking any action, while I myself have stood largely still (aside from vocal contributions to threads like this one which, honestly, don't amount to much).

Here are my amends (http://miscellaneousdebris.freeforums.org/). I've finally managed to nail down a decent, ad-free, forum host and upgraded my own site with a snazzy CSS frontend (here (http://miscellaneousdebris.sitesled.com)).

Nice site.  Hopefully it will attract the people who want to discuss indie game design/marketing/etc without The Forge BS

Quote from: jdrakehWhile I'm certain that it won't be The Next Big Thing, all game theorists and game designers are welcome in the spirit of open discussion. I'll host files on the main site and designer-specific forums by request. Suggestions for improvement by registered posters are, of course, welcome.

The rules (see "Welcome" threads in each forum) are loose and sensible. If you act like a human being, you'll be spared banning. If you act like a sociopath, you'll be treated like one.

If you like to design/write games (even if they're just for you and your play group), by all means, drop by ;)

Thanks I will.

As for being the next big thing who knows?  It could very well happen.  And it gives people who want to talk game design another place to go if they have grown tired of the crap on The Forge.

Quote from: J ArcaneHe's not, not to me anyway.  Which is why by and large I'm happy just not bothering to talk about him, and generally going about my daily life as if he didn't exist.

Because THAT is what it means for something to be irrelevant.

I agree with this point

Quote from: J ArcaneAll threads like this do is validate his existence.  You folks claim to think he's a nutter, that he's irrelevant, etc. etc., yet this site gives an inordinate amoutn of attention to it nonetheless.  

Simply by treating him and his attitude as a "big issue", you've already proven that he IS relevant, to you.

Well he isn't relevant to me and I disagree that my replies saying he is irrelevant somehow makes him relevant to me.

I also see how my replies aren't helping the situation

Quote from: J ArcaneNobody has big massive threads on a constant basis about how loony Hybrid is, or starts whole new web forums with mission statments and everything that are all about being anti-Hybrid.  You find Hybrid once, you boggle at it and laugh, and then you move on with your life, with only the occasional mention in conversation occasionally in the years henceforth.  that's how you treat a crazy person.

What you do not do, is give him constant attention above and beyond what he manags to accomplish by himself.

Your are right, I will no longer reply to this thread.  Why give Ron undue attention?

Quote from: Blue DevilOk I will turn it around:   How is Ron Edwards relevant then?

I think he's relevant in the sense that he's got many, many people in the online community hung up on terminology and jargon. I've never visited the Forge, yet have been lambasted for using terms like 'story' when referring to the games I play. It doesn't matter that I've been doing this for over 25 years, or that D&D was sold to me on the basis of being able to create my own adventurous epics like the ones I read in my favourite books, apparently I'm now retroactively a Forgie on the basis of redefined terminology that I don't even agree with.

That, I think will be Edwards lasting legacy. Just another divisive force that got everyone arguing about what was the "correct" way to write and play games. It's a fucking shame, really. It never felt quite as divisive as this in ye goode olde dayes

Quote from: DrewI think he's relevant in the sense that he's got many, many people in the online community hung up on terminology and jargon. I've never visited the Forge, yet have been lambasted for using terms like 'story' when referring to the games I play. It doesn't matter that I've been doing this for over 25 years, or that D&D was sold to me on the basis of being able to create my own adventurous epics like the ones I read in my favourite books, apparently I'm now retroactively a Forgie on the basis of redefined terminology that I don't even agree with.

That, I think will be Edwards lasting legacy. Just another divisive force that got everyone arguing about what was the "correct" way to write and play games. It's a fucking shame, really. It never felt quite as divisive as this in ye goode olde dayes

You can take comfort in the fact that outside Internetland, it's still pretty much the same as it was when I was a lad.

Quote from: DrewI think he's relevant in the sense that he's got many, many people in the online community hung up on terminology and jargon. I've never visited the Forge, yet have been lambasted for using terms like 'story' when referring to the games I play. It doesn't matter that I've been doing this for over 25 years, or that D&D was sold to me on the basis of being able to create my own adventurous epics like the ones I read in my favourite books, apparently I'm now retroactively a Forgie on the basis of redefined terminology that I don't even agree with.

Exactly. I recall getting into a lot of scrapes with folks over the whole "story" thing. I think there a lot of factors at work here. Those against the Forge have in fact fed into the creation of the myth of Ron's influence/relevence. The so-called Forge haters themselves have their own agendas about playstyles so I'm not exactly in their camp either....and nobody seems to play Jorune.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: J ArcaneYou can take comfort in the fact that outside Internetland, it's still pretty much the same as it was when I was a lad.

Bloody good job too. Still, plenty of people have difficulty distinguishing between the online impact of demagogues and their real world influence, which only pours fuel on the fire.

Until I see a Forge shelf in major bookstore chains I'll maintain that in actual, meaningful terms Edwards and the Forge's importance are tremendously overstated. Far more people have argued about their games than have ever played or even read them.

Quote from: David RExactly. I recall getting into a lot of scrapes with folks over the whole "story" thing. I think there a lot of factors at work here. Those against the Forge have in fact fed into the creation of the myth of Ron's influence/relevence. The so-called Forge haters themselves have their own agendas about playstyles so I'm not exactly in their camp either....and nobody seems to play Jorune.

I can't help but feel sometimes that most of the anti-Forge brigade have been suckered. By railing against Ron and his cohorts they're giving the whole "movement" further oxygen and momentum. It's allowing someone else to frame our perceptions of what this hobby actually is, taking up bandwidth that could otherwise be used for far more productive pursuits.

I'd rather just continue not visiting theory sites and get on with chatting about the games I enjoy playing.

Quote from: DrewI can't help but feel sometimes that most of the anti-Forge brigade have been suckered. By railing against Ron and his cohorts they're giving the whole "movement" further oxygen and momentum. It's allowing someone else to frame our perceptions of what this hobby actually is, taking up bandwidth that could otherwise be used for far more productive pursuits.

I'd rather just continue not visiting theory sites and get on with chatting about the games I enjoy playing.

EXACTLY.  

You nail it right on the nose even better than I did.

Quote from: J ArcaneEXACTLY.  

You nail it right on the nose even better than I did.

Oops. I didn't realise I was reiterating a point you'd already made.

That's what comes of flitting between posting here, writing a new adventure for my group and playing God of War 2. :deflated:

Here's (http://mearls.livejournal.com/129570.html) a post by Mike Mearls, a top D&D3.5 designer, saying a nice thing about The Forge at GenCon last year.  He goes on to say:

Quote from: mearlsBoth Agon and Burning Empires were held up at work today as examples of the cool RPG stuff at GenCon. The Forge booth was (accurately) identified as, "This is the place to look for cool new games."

There's also a comment by Ryan Dancy, OGL guru:

Quote from: rsdanceyMy comment to Luke was "if you wanted to examine RPG design in the modern era, you couldn't really go wrong if you walked to the Forge booth and just said "give me one of everything".

The people saying Ron Edwards, and by extension the Forge, has no relevance to Joe d'Gamer have a point.  But to say Edwards and co. has NO relevance at all is short-sighted, not when you have Bob d'Game Designer of the World's Most Important and Significant RPG sitting up and taking notice.

This Internet snowball fight amounts to little more than preaching to everyone's respective choirs.  The real influence the Forge has is not to us gamers, but to the RPG designers.

Quote from: MoriartyThe people saying Ron Edwards, and by extension the Forge, has no relevance to Joe d'Gamer have a point.  But to say Edwards and co. has NO relevance at all is short-sighted, not when you have Bob d'Game Designer of the World's Most Important and Significant RPG sitting up and taking notice.

This Internet snowball fight amounts to little more than preaching to everyone's respective choirs.  The real influence the Forge has is not to us gamers, but to the RPG designers.

I tend to view these sorts of quotes as similar to globally famous musicians waxing lyrical about the obscure little bands they're listening to at the moment.

They might think it's the coolest stuff since the Ramones, but the question is whether or not it actually impacts on the stuff they're under contract to write themselves. I could be waaay off here, but I'm guessing not.

Quote from: MoriartyBut to say Edwards and co. has NO relevance at all is short-sighted, not when you have Bob d'Game Designer of the World's Most Important and Significant RPG sitting up and taking notice.

This Internet snowball fight amounts to little more than preaching to everyone's respective choirs.  The real influence the Forge has is not to us gamers, but to the RPG designers.

It's kind of like Micheal Bay saying he admires/is influenced by Truffault and then  making The Island :rimshot:

And yeah bring on the dogpile :D

Regards,
David R

So here's what I'm gonna do about this Ron Edwards guy.

I'm gonna ignore him.  'Blah blah blah blah STORY blah blah BRANE DAMMIDGE blah blah blah BUY ELFS blah blah blah' whatever.  Okay, Ron.  Great.

So long as he's not actively hurting people, like with a shovel or at least economically, he's just a bug on the windshield.

And I got wipers.

The question isn't necessarily one of influence but of relevance.  Anyone can say "Ron Edwards doesn't speak to me," all they want, but he does have the attention of a number of game designers, small, medium and Hasbro.  Does this mean D&D4e will have Kickers, Bangs and Conflict Resolution?  Probably not.  But while influence and relevance are different, the latter can lead into the former.

I tried listening to it again last night.  The first try, I only made it maybe three minutes before I couldn't take the tone of Edwards' voice.  Last night I only made it about 10 or 12 minutes, when he started explaining his objection to "The Golden Rule" or "Rule Zero" in White Wolf games.

The rule he referred to was the bit that says to the effect of, "It's your game: If you don't like a rule, change it."  Now, this so-called rule has proven quite controversial over the years amongst different folks, but the clear gist of it is that, if a rule doesn't work for you and your group in play, if it isn't fun in play, feel free to figure out a work-around.

That's not how Edwards' explained it, though.  He described the concept as being, if a GM makes a ruling and the players are dissatisfied with it, if they aren't having fun, then the GM should ignore the rules as written and fudge a result that will be satisfying and fun for the players, or for the group as a whole.

His explanation of "The Golden Rule" in the interview was wrong, and rather plainly so.  Either he holds a complete misperception of the rule (which, given his position in the gaming community, I find a little hard to believe) or he was purposefully misrepresenting it to cast WW in a bad light.  I couldn't listen any further than that.

It's also worth mentioning that I found his behavior ironically similar to Pundy's in that fashion.  Say anything and say it forcefully enough to shore up your platform.

!i!

Quote from: Blue DevilSounds like someone who is jealous of other peoples success.

It's pathetic when a person has such a low self-esteem that they have to attack other successful people/game designers to make themselves better.

That would pretty much be the definition of Swine right there: they hate anything that's popular.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J ArcaneIf they're so irrelevant, why does everyone insist on talking about them all the time.

For people that supposedly don't matter, they get an awful lot of attention.  

Precisely. I wouldn't say Ron Edwards is "irrelevant", he is still very much "relevant"; which is what makes him dangerous and an enemy to be stopped.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat would pretty much be the definition of Swine right there: they hate anything that's popular.

Hey, Pundy ... I've been thinking that we could have a fun discussion about The Swine, and whether they actually exist outside of your head.  Maybe revive the pistols-at-dawn format where two people post in the open.  Does that sound like fun to you?

Quote from: DrewOops. I didn't realise I was reiterating a point you'd already made.

That's what comes of flitting between posting here, writing a new adventure for my group and playing God of War 2. :deflated:

That's quite alright.  As I said, you stated things far better than I did.

Quote from: TonyLBHey, Pundy ... I've been thinking that we could have a fun discussion about The Swine, and whether they actually exist outside of your head.  Maybe revive the pistols-at-dawn format where two people post in the open.  Does that sound like fun to you?

You know I'm always up for a challenge, however with several work projects plus a major gaming writing project still up in the air, I don't know if I'd have time just now. Ask me again in a month, if you still want to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know I'm always up for a challenge, however with several work projects plus a major gaming writing project still up in the air, I don't know if I'd have time just now. Ask me again in a month, if you still want to.

Sure, it'll keep.  Just seems like the kind of thing that'd be fun, whenever it makes sense in our lives.

Quote from: DrewI can't help but feel sometimes that most of the anti-Forge brigade have been suckered. By railing against Ron and his cohorts they're giving the whole "movement" further oxygen and momentum. It's allowing someone else to frame our perceptions of what this hobby actually is, taking up bandwidth that could otherwise be used for far more productive pursuits.

You know, add a few more 'anti's and anti-RPG.net, and you've summed up theRPGsite :D

The thing that drives many people batty about Ron is that he wasn't out to create games, but to create a MOVEMENT, and by nature strong movements annoy some people. And while the movement may produce great games and fulfill its purpose, it tends to take over as it's own thing, like all movements are apt to do.

The problem now is that the brand 'indie' is much like the brand 'RPG': ambiguous, public domain, and carrying more identifying weight behind it than any actual indie game brand. Which is why I'll never call anything I do 'indie' or an 'RPG'.

And I listened to the interview, but I'm not getting the same 'vibe' people are talking about. Perhaps I need to see his eyes and mannerisms to get the full effect.

Quote from: David RThose against the Forge have in fact fed into the creation of the myth of Ron's influence/relevence. The so-called Forge haters themselves have their own agendas about playstyles so I'm not exactly in their camp either....and nobody seems to play Jorune.

If their theory cannot include Jorune, well then that's a pretty fundamental flaw.

I'd be delighted to play it, and even GM it. Unfortunately, like all such detailed settings (Harn, Tekumel, etc) you only really get more out of it than any run-of-the-mill setting if you're really interested in all the details of it. You need players who want to read about things, and explore and learn.

If, like me, you've players who aren't roleplaying fanatics and just like to show up and have fun (whether thespy or hacky), then settings like Jorune will just fall flat - or at best, do no more for players than other less detailed settings.

And that's my theory bit for today: "There's no sense in the GM being much more into the game than the players are." :(

Quote from: MoriartyThe people saying Ron Edwards, and by extension the Forge, has no relevance to Joe d'Gamer have a point. But to say Edwards and co. has NO relevance at all is short-sighted, not when you have Bob d'Game Designer of the World's Most Important and Significant RPG sitting up and taking notice.

This Internet snowball fight amounts to little more than preaching to everyone's respective choirs. The real influence the Forge has is not to us gamers, but to the RPG designers.

I think perhaps Moriarty is confusing "admiring" with "influence." I may admire, say, the way Jean-Claude Van Damme does a roundhouse kick, or Nigella Lawson's boobs, but that does not mean that given the chance I would do a roundhouse kick or grab Nigella Lawson's boobs. Admiring things is not the same as being influenced by them.

I've yet to notice any GNS, Dogs of the Vineyard, Sorcerer, etc influence on D&D 3.5. Perhaps those who know it better than I do could enlighten me? In what way have the Forger games influenced D&D? Could someone point me to the game mechanics, writing style, philosophy or anything else which has stepped in?

Quote from: JimBobOzI've yet to notice any GNS, Dogs of the Vineyard, Sorcerer, etc influence on D&D 3.5. Perhaps those who know it better than I do could enlighten me? In what way have the Forger games influenced D&D? Could someone point me to the game mechanics, writing style, philosophy or anything else which has stepped in?

What? You haven't noticed the razor sharp play focus of recent DnD over pointless world building or all that other 90's crap?

Listen to the DnD podcast dude - Mike Mearls is all focused on how things work at the table, rather than the non-gaming part of the hobby.

Obviously that came from the forge.

Pffft!

Before there was the Forge, there was the Gaming Outpost, and thats where Mike was from. If anything, they stole their crap from him.

In any case, the "razor sharp focus" of D&D right now, (which is actually kinda flexible, really) can be much more strongly attributed to Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet,  and Skip Williams.

Quote from: Erik BoielleListen to the DnD podcast dude - Mike Mearls is all focused on how things work at the table, rather than the non-gaming part of the hobby.

Obviously that came from the forge.

This is a quantum leap of logic. WotC is no more influenced by The Forge than Bill Gates or Oprah is.

Saying that the "evolution" of D&D is linked to the Forge (an obscure RPG site) is like saying that the "evolution" of McDonald's is influenced by Joe's Burger Shack (an obscure burger joint in Nowhere, U.S.A.).

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeThis is a quantum leap of logic.

Well, in fairness, Mike Mearls was one of the original people who helped launch the Forge. That said, he's since made most of his money and nearly all of his fame by actively avoiding the application of its philosophy in game design.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWhat? You haven't noticed the razor sharp play focus of recent DnD over pointless world building or all that other 90's crap?

Listen to the DnD podcast dude - Mike Mearls is all focused on how things work at the table, rather than the non-gaming part of the hobby.

Obviously that came from the forge.

You seriously believe focus on table play was invented by the Forge?

I always considered Gary Gygax and Aaron Allston to be very, very, play/table focused.

I think old Gygax was pretty focused on what happened at the game table, so much so that he advised keeping many things mysterious to the players.
   As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It in in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be harnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

- Gary Gygax in the Preface to the Dungeon Masters Guide (1979)
Mind you, the Forger types seem to have a pretty poor grasp of what D&D and other "mainstream" games are about. For example, discussed here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=309124) on rpg.net is John Wick's experience with D&D during a con which led him to write a new rpg, a sort of anti-D&D (as he saw D&D). This all came from his LJ here (http://wickedthought.livejournal.com/612127.html).

Quote from: John Wick"Isn't this where we came in?"

Way back in the '60's, Michael Moorcock created Elric. He did so with a specific purpose: to create a hero who was the polar opposite of Conan.

Conan is big and strong.
Elric is an albino who needs drugs to live.

Conan fears magic and sorcery.
Elric is a sorcerer who makes bargains with demons.

Conan is a barbarian, uneducated and savage, who wins his own kingdom by his own hand.
Elric is an Emperor who throws away his kingdom because he's bored.

And that's how Elric was born. Inspired by Mr. Moorcock's lead, I wanted to design a fantasy game. Specifically, I wanted to design a fantasy game that was the polar opposite of D&D. A game that would address all the things I thought were vital, and yet missing, from the world's most famous fantasy game. Specifically, I wanted to make mechanics out of things that weren't important in Dungeons & Dragons.

I've played a lot of D&D. Probably more than I should have. I took a long, cold, objective look at it, found the things I thought were missing, and went at it.

I took the same philosophy I had with Wilderness of Mirrors. I looked at the other spy games, found what I felt was missing, and made mechanics out of them.

And here's what I came up with.

In D&D, there are certain elements of your character that just aren't important. You can tell because they don't give you any kind of bonus on your rolls. Your character's name. Your character's gender. Your character's family. Your character's past.

I played in a weekend of RPGA events with a character named "Fighter." (Pronounced "Fite-Or.") Fighter was a Thief. (Not a rogue. I hate rogues.) Fighter's gender was "thon." An old White Wolf April Fool's Day joke. Fighter spoke in third person (like Cerebus and The Rock) so I never had to refer to Fighter's gender at all. And whenever we encountered anything that was threatening, Fighter killed it and took its stuff.

I played in a whole series of RPGA events this way. Not once did anyone say anything about my character's oddities or behavior... because they were never an issue. Not once. Fighter was a nameless, sexless killing machine with no past, no friends, no family, no history. And Fighter thrived.

I also noticed the characters were, essentially, psychopaths who killed their way through life for gold and profit. Their actions had little, if any, consequences. There were no laws, let alone law enforcement, and the world's "culture" was anything but. Regardless of their alignments, my playmates were, for all intents and purposes, chaotic evil. Chaotic neutral, at least. They did what they wanted, when they wanted, how they wanted to do it and there was no authority at all to stop them.

No magistrates, no sheriffs, no upper class at all. The only people we ever encountered were serfs and peons. The entire upper class was gone. MIA. Vanished. Invisible.

The money we acquired had nothing at all to do with the economy. In fact, the world had no economy. Just piles and piles and piles of gold. And it seemed we had all of it. As soon as Fighter acquired enough gold to buy a castle (by the end of one weekend of gaming), I said, "Fighter retires." The rest of the group looked at me strangely. "Fighter takes Fighter's gold, buys land, builds a castle around some farms, and declares himself King of Fighterland."

There was no system in place to handle this choice. The other players just looked at me strangely. But I had enough gold to last the rest of my life and no real need to put myself in physical danger ever again. Fighter retired to the Bahamas and was never seen again.

I came away from the experience with the following conclusions. My game needed the following things:


Your character's name is a mechanic that gives bonuses to your rolls.
Your character's background is a mechanic that gives bonuses to your rolls.
Your character's family is a mechanic that gives bonuses to your rolls.
Gender is (if not a mechanic) a crucial element of play.
Economy is a mechanic your character can interact with and influence.
The upper class is the focus of the game and crucial to the world's survival.
The law is not only present, but a mechanic players can interact with and influence.
These were my starting goals.

I was also inspired after playing Spirit of the Century (a great &^%in' game) to employ the open licensed FATE system. While I've taken many liberties with it (which I shall be making OGL myself), the system of Aspects and Phases was so much fun, I just had to use it.

Based on all of that, behind this cut-text link is the beginning of the character creation system for Houses of the Blooded. I hope you enjoy it!

His experience of D&D, I would say, has quite a lot to do with the convention format, combined with his being deliberately a fuckwit (that is, not giving his character a proper name, gender, etc) in the game sessions - a convention game brings together players who don't know each-other, and there's pressure to finish a particular scenario in a specified number of sessions, so if you have a fuckwit player you put up with them. In a long-term, open-ended campaign, I think almost all GMs and players over 13 would have asked Wick if he was going to give his character some sort of personality and background - including a real name and gender.

Gygax's advice was to "expel" any players who were "disruptive" as Wick was trying to be... that is, if the "blue bolt from heaven doing damage on the offender's head" didn't work.

Anyway, that shows how well these guys understand D&D, and tells us something about the idea that they invented this or that way of looking at games.

Wick also doesn't know shit about Moorcock and Elric, but that's another matter entirely. Here we're talking about rpgs. Wick, as a Forger-type, says, "I was a fuckstick at a convention while playing D&D, and no-one kicked me in the 'nads. Obviously D&D is broken."

Wow - that Wick stuff is pretty screwed up.

Quote from: pigames.netWow - that Wick stuff is pretty screwed up.

I'm normally a fan of his stuff but the whole Fightor thing sounded pretty assholeish.  Although his ideas for the fantasy game he wants to do sound really interesting and the stuff he has written on it since are really good.

QuoteYour character's name is a mechanic that gives bonuses to your rolls.
Your character's background is a mechanic that gives bonuses to your rolls.
Your character's family is a mechanic that gives bonuses to your rolls.
Gender is (if not a mechanic) a crucial element of play.
Economy is a mechanic your character can interact with and influence.
The upper class is the focus of the game and crucial to the world's survival.
The law is not only present, but a mechanic players can interact with and influence.

Hmm. HeroQuest.

!i!

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckYou seriously believe focus on table play was invented by the Forge?

I always considered Gary Gygax and Aaron Allston to be very, very, play/table focused.

Erik has a point. If I understand him correctly, he wasn't referring to D&D circa 1978. He was referring to the settings bloat of late AD&D 10+ years later... when D&D got chatty, so to speak.

It's plausible that Forge analysis of various gaming styles further drove home the point to various designers involved in D&D post-2E what the core of D&D pre-2E had been, or in any case what that core now looked like in retrospect.

In some but not all respects, that core is the polar opposite of the dominant style favored at the Forge. Nonetheless, gamism was one of the paradigms it anayzed, and in some examples tried to mesh with narrativism (bidding for narration--the Forger's powergaming). And besides, one can get a heightened sense of what one is doing by negative example: "Forge games are story in its pure state. So, let D&D be crunch in its pure state."

Or, the point Erik is making: Unlike 1990s games, Forge games are all about the play, not about the reading, and so is 3.x, or so it started out anyway.

So, if late AD&D was both storyesque and crunchy (settings, Skillz & Powerz), and if '90s games were as much for play as for reading, both Forge games and 3.x departed from that in their own distinct yet comparable ways. They stripped away the hybridity and the superfluous stuff, or what looked like it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityErik has a point. If I understand him correctly, he wasn't referring to D&D circa 1978. He was referring to the settings bloat of late AD&D 10+ years later... when D&D got chatty, so to speak.

Even so, it's worth noting that D&D 3x was being developed while the Forge was in still in its infancy and most of their theories didn't exist at all or were still being hashed out. Their current philosophy bears little resemblance to their philosophy circa 2000 AD -- back then, drama-driven, story-oriented, play and transparent mechanics were the way of the future and everything else was The Devil.

Today, story-driven drama is almost verboten at the Forge (hence the formation of places like the Story Games Community) and meaningful complexity that empowers players is the order of the day. Games like The Window (once championed by the Forge) are now regarded as abominations. Things have changed quite a bit. In fact. . . I think that current Forge philosophy seems to have taken more from D&D 3x than their old philosophy contributed to it.

James, I'm sure you're right, and it would be madness to argue Ron Edwards invented 3E by negative example or anything. But there's a weird indirect parallelism that's fascinating.

The last part I didn't quite grasp, because I stopped visiting the place over a year ago--what's the latest trend, and is there a game that exeplifies it?

QuoteBut there's a weird indirect parallelism that's fascinating.

No it´s pretty obvious. It´s caused by Blume, Williams, Hickman and Rein-Hagen.

The stuff that happened in the nineties to the US gaming, which basically was a 130° turn from AD&D 1st or the BECMI, had happened in germany right in the eighties.

The Forge is a result, not a cause of the paradigm clash involved in US gaming.

EDIT: And the paradigm clash was basically all laid out on  gamin advocacy and gaming outpost.

And this paradigm clash goes back to the first time someone into superhero comics-stories but not into wargaming picked up RPGs and wanted to experience those thematics with RPGs instead of solving problems at the table.

It´s all about the history of reception.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWhat? You haven't noticed the razor sharp play focus of recent DnD over pointless world building or all that other 90's crap?

Listen to the DnD podcast dude - Mike Mearls is all focused on how things work at the table, rather than the non-gaming part of the hobby.

Obviously that came from the forge.

Yeah.. sure.. it came from that, and not from Peter Adkinson's and Ryan Dancey's rebellion against story-based gaming... :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

...which was in turn a reactonary movement harkening back to AD&D first and  RC/BECMI.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOr, the point Erik is making: Unlike 1990s games, Forge games are all about the play, not about the reading, and so is 3.x, or so it started out anyway.

That's no surprise, both D20 and the Forge/GNS were reactions to the White Wolf Story-based Gaming of the 90s, but they were two VERY different responses. One went back toward the mainstream and actual fun play, while the other went of into pseudo-intellectual wackyland.

RPGPundit

Hofrat, your post needs some unpacking.... bearing in mind that arguably the Threefold was invisible to most people who weren't infraweb geeks from very early on; that Ron & some al. were part of gaming outpost also; and that, while the paradigm discussions had been around for a long time, critical mass (i.e., a significant number of actual games) was reached only in the Forge era.

How Hickman & ReinHagen "caused" anything is unclear to me--except if you mean they "caused" both 3E/Tweet and Edwards to run away from their stuff at full speed (if in different directions).

Well, fuck. I don't know about "movements", but I do know that you cannot have a meaningful campaign unless detailed time records are kept.

Stick that in your milieu and smoke it, Uncle Ronny!

Quote from: Settembrini...which was in turn a reactonary movement harkening back to AD&D first and  RC/BECMI.

Or so it seems to you, padawan.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe last part I didn't quite grasp, because I stopped visiting the place over a year ago--what's the latest trend, and is there a game that exeplifies it?

The latest trend is toward, not transparent mechanics that address only one or two key aspets around which all play revolves by default, but substantive mechanics that validate their existence by fulfilling a wide range of very specific functions in actual play that can accommodate many different styles of play.

I think, for me, Burning Wheel and Burning Empires epitomize this paradigm shift. Look for things like weapon reach, wealth rolls, and lifepath character generation. These are not the product of Sorcerer and the theories that it was built upon. These are the products of Forge theory re-engineered in the wake of D&D 3x's success.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOr so it seems to you, padawan.

Oh, 'cmon, we all know that story-centric roleplay was in full swing during the Spring of 1976 :rolleyes: ;) :D

Good grief.

The only thing that emerged out of The Forge were the games, and a movement veeeery similar to the one for open source software (the parallels are actually quite terrifying). I don't give a flying duck about the movement (and in a strange coincidence I feel the same way towards OSS), just the games. And some excellent games DID emerge as a result of it.

But as I said before, these little thought colonies are rather isolated, and it's more likely that D20 game designers hit upon the same ideas independently of The Forge. I mean, the new Star Wars Saga Ed feels a LOT like FATE to me, and even has mechanics for destiny. It's got a very 'forgey' feel to it though I doubt The Forge had anything to do with it.

Quote from: JimBobOzGygax's advice was to "expel" any players who were "disruptive" as Wick was trying to be... that is, if the "blue bolt from heaven doing damage on the offender's head" didn't work.

You know, you got a point. The Pundit did the same thing in a Vampire game, and now I'm wondering exactly how often this kind of thing happens at conventions. Regardless, I've had enough problem players to know that the only way to deal with them is to kick them out of the game. Punishing them via game mechanics never works.

But the difference is that while The Pundit was trying to (and from what I understand, successfully) piss everyone off, nobody was having any problem with Wick. The way he was playing was not seen as dysfunctional or disruptive.

Quote from: John WickI played in a whole series of RPGA events this way. Not once did anyone say anything about my character's oddities or behavior... because they were never an issue. Not once. Fighter was a nameless, sexless killing machine with no past, no friends, no family, no history. And Fighter thrived.

And I am suspicious of your theory that he was being politely tolerated because it seems most gamers are anything BUT tolerant (let alone polite about it) of people who play RPGs 'wrong' (let alone of John Wick), at least if forums like this are anything to go by.

Quote from: jdrakehOh, 'cmon, we all know that story-centric roleplay was in full swing during the Spring of 1976 :rolleyes:

I have today elsewhere in this forum quoted old Gygax himself saying in the 1979 version of the DMG that the GM should fudge the dice when they see fit to make things more interesting. That sounds suspiciously story-ish to me.

Of course it may be supposed by some that no-one thought of having a story before this or that favourite game designer popped onto the scene. No stories existed, no series of adventures with a common theme, called "campaigns"... no, wait, I mean... er...

B1, In Search of the Unknown, by Mike Carr (1978)
B2, The Keep on the Borderlands, by Gary Gygax (1979)
B3, Palace of the Silver Princess, by Tom Moldvay and Jean Wells (1981)   
(etc, up to B10)

and
A1, Slave Pits of the Undercity, by David Cook (1980)    
A2, Secret of the Slavers Stockade, by Harold Johnson and Tom Moldvay (1981)    
A3, Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords, by Allen Hammack (1981)   
A4, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, by Lawrence Schick (1981)

Then of course there were the 14 Dragonlance modules, from 1984 to 1986, loudly decried at the time as "railroading" because they more or less forced the PCs along a preset journey and with preset events, victories and defeats... as it was described then by gamers I knew, "they want to tell their story, not to let you tell yours!"

My God... it's almost as though... back in the dark old days... they thought you could have a story and an adventure! Those primitives. Freaks!

Quote from: chaosvoyagerBut the difference is that while The Pundit was trying to (and from what I understand, successfully) piss everyone off, nobody was having any problem with Wick. The way he was playing was not seen as dysfunctional or disruptive.

That's his account. He doesn't say that his playstyle was praised, merely that nobody commented to him about it, or slapped him down. He does say that when he said he wanted his character to settle down and build a stronghold and establish a kingdom, he got "strange looks."

The strange looks would have been for two reasons. The first is that he's going against the unwritten rule of gaming - "the GM will offer the PCs an adventure, and the PCs will accept it." His suggestion - in the context of a short, closed-ended game like a convention game - would be like being in a horror game and saying, "no, I won't go back into the dark old house," or being in a war game and trying to negotiate a truce. He was rejecting the whole purpose of being there.

The second would be that in many versions of D&D there are explicit rules for reaching a certain level with your character, and building a stronghold and establishing a small kingdom. You're meant to clear the surrounding lands of monsters so that people can settle there and be your peasants - presumably meant to be the source of further hacky adventures. Wick would have got a strange look because he thought he was being original.

I feel sure that his behaviour was not uncommented on in his absence. When you go to cons, you meet all sorts of gamers, and some of them will be a bit strange. You quietly tolerate them, because after all in a couple of hours you need never see them again, and for every cocksmock you meet, you'll meet at least ten decent people.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerAnd I am suspicious of your theory that he was being politely tolerated because it seems most gamers are anything BUT tolerant (let alone polite about it) of people who play RPGs 'wrong' (let alone of John Wick), at least if forums like this are anything to go by.

Actually, gamers are often more tolerant than they should be. Ask around, and you'll find a lot of head-nodding in response to the article on the geek social fallacies (http://sean.chittenden.org/humor/www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html), which is essentially a list of ways in which and reasons that geeks are overly-tolerant of dorks.

And don't judge gamers by the online versions. Online, everyone has a cybersteel spine. Most of us spray copious amounts of shit at one another, while not tolerating even the tiniest speck of shit on ourselves. Our online behaviour is a combination of incredible insensitivity coupled with insane intolerance.

In person, most people are far more moderate. It's the same in any social activity - people are especially tolerant when they've just met someone.

The real test would be to ask Wick's fellow gamers from that con and see how many of them would be enthusiastic about gaming with him a second time. I would be honestly surprised if it were many.

Quote from: JimBobOzB1, In Search of the Unknown, by Mike Carr (1978)
B2, The Keep on the Borderlands, by Gary Gygax (1979)
B3, Palace of the Silver Princess, by Tom Moldvay and Jean Wells (1981)   
(etc, up to B10)

and
A1, Slave Pits of the Undercity, by David Cook (1980)    
A2, Secret of the Slavers Stockade, by Harold Johnson and Tom Moldvay (1981)    
A3, Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords, by Allen Hammack (1981)    A4, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, by Lawrence Schick (1981)

Most of those modules aren't linked in any way that could seriously be referred to as a "story" (in any sense of the word) but I digress, what you're talking about and what Set is talking about are two entirely different things. Entirely different.

The "story" push of the 1990s wasn't about interacting with a set of pre-scripted plot points or encounters but about creating meaningful characters through player introspection. Ostensibly. Or "that drama crap" as Set likes to call it on occassion.

What you're talking about has been around since D&D came in a little wood-grain box. It was keyed location exploration as opposed to story creation or character immersion, the two staples of 1990s "revolutionary" games. This is what Set was referring to, I'm 98% certain.

And, point blank, this didn't exist back when the first AD&D PHB was printed. Not in any codified, recognizeable, form, anyhow. I'm certain that somebody, somewhere, was playing like that but there was no 'movement' to rebel against. AD&D wasn't a counterpoint to such thinking.

Quote from: JimBobOzI have today elsewhere in this forum quoted old Gygax himself saying in the 1979 version of the DMG that the GM should fudge the dice when they see fit to make things more interesting. That sounds suspiciously story-ish to me.

You should have linked (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=106844&postcount=14) to it because it because it is a valuable data point in any discussion concerning the "historical roots" and "true nature" of role playing.

QuoteThen of course there were the 14 Dragonlance modules, from 1984 to 1986, loudly decried at the time as "railroading" because they more or less forced the PCs along a preset journey and with preset events, victories and defeats...

And it puzzles me to no end that this approach is lauded today in the Adventure Path format, one of the selling points of the Dungeon Magazine, upcoming Pathfinder, and ENworlds War of the Burning Sky.

I admit, there is one difference between DL and today's APs in that there are no pregenerated characters - no Raistlin, Tanis, Tasslehoff & Co.
But then, in my own run of DL I allowed my players to choose whether they wanted to play one of the iconic characters or generate their own one. (So only Tanis and Elistan were part of this group of Innfellows. The spell caster was an illusionist, not a m-u, and far from weak and ill. But he did bite and eventually followed the path of Fistandantilus...)

Quote from: jdrakehThe "story" push of the 1990s wasn't about interacting with a set of pre-scripted plot points or encounters but about creating meaningful characters through player introspection.

So it's not a "story" without player introspection? Dp you mean player-character introspection? I'll assume you, and Gygax-style, confusing "player" and "player-character", otherwise no movie or book could be proven to be a "story", since we don't know if the writers or actors had introspection, we only know about their characters.

Thus, you're saying that it's not a story without character introspection.

So, what - Stars Wars isn't a story? Or is, "but I have to go back to the farm!" enough angst for you to consider it a "story"? In that case, doesn't, "but I'm Lawful Good, I can't just go for a walk while you torture the orcs" also make it a "story"?

There is no definition of "story" which excludes the Against the Slave Lords* series of modules which does not also exclude a whole shitload of movies and books generally considered "stories". If you want to say "Star Wars isn't really sci-fi!" well I'll think you're being a bit pedantic, but whatever. But if you want to say, "Star Wars isn't really a story!" then you are off into Forger-make-up-your-own-meanings-for-everyday-words-land, and no-one can have a useful conversation with you. Well, except a Forger.

* I didn't say, "a good story", just "a story."

Quote from: jdrakehMost of those modules aren't linked in any way that could seriously be referred to as a "story" (in any sense of the word) but I digress, what you're talking about and what Set is talking about are two entirely different things. Entirely different.

The "story" push of the 1990s wasn't about interacting with a set of pre-scripted plot points or encounters but about creating meaningful characters through player introspection. Ostensibly. Or "that drama crap" as Set likes to call it on occassion.

What you're talking about has been around since D&D came in a little wood-grain box. It was keyed location exploration as opposed to story creation or character immersion, the two staples of 1990s "revolutionary" games. This is what Set was referring to, I'm 98% certain.

And, point blank, this didn't exist back when the first AD&D PHB was printed. Not in any codified, recognizeable, form, anyhow. I'm certain that somebody, somewhere, was playing like that but there was no 'movement' to rebel against. AD&D wasn't a counterpoint to such thinking.

I don't think what happened in the 90's is in any way, shape or form different from "who roleplays better" arguments that have been going on since the beginning of RPG-ing.

There have *always* been positions along a continuum of narrative sophistication -- and people have always been saying that their particular position was somehow superior.

What changed in the 90's, with Vampire, was the idea better roleplaying was a function of the game itself rather than individual player's approach.

Somehow, playing an angst-ridden child of the night was more sophisticated than playing an elf.

And today it's the same thing (if you're playing a narrow-focus game with fewer rules and no math from a teeny-weenie publisher, you're more sophisticated).

But do you really think that

Quote from: jdrakehcreating meaningful characters through player introspection.

is any different from someone going on about how roleplaying should focus on character, and how someone's a better roleplayer if he created a character with a back-story or an agenda (pretty common 70's and 80's perspectives)?

Back in the 70's & 80's when I was reading TSR's Dragon magazine, there was all kinds of stuff about having narratives that made sense and reached beyond the dungeon, and deeper characters, and so on.

Pretty much exactly the same stuff, except we use different words now.

And that's the guy behind the curtain: the story-now revolution isn't actually about story at all.

It's about power-struggle and power dynamics. The ideology *ties* it to story with the claim that somehow if you're playing with less GM authority or different kinds of GM authority, you're somehow getting a better / more sophisticate story, but that's simply not true:

Traditional techniques give you reliably good stories. Traditional techniques also give you "immersion" (which back in the day was just called 'playing my character' or getting into that) which is something a lot of the more distributed models aren't so good at.

Impact: Many of the "story games" a) don't give you any better story than traditional games and b) give many players a less-immersive experience.

What they do (well) is deal with authority issues in players and provide an alternative narrative model (collaborative fiction instead of a single, GM-led directorial role).

I think that's new -- but people have been telling stories for a long time before there were RPG's and using them to tell stories (recognizable, human interest stories with suspension of disbelief, characterization, drama, tragedy, etc. etc. etc.) since the very beginning of RPG's.

In fact, that's *why* RPG's were created.

Cheers,
-E.

Hi Folks,

Thanks for listening to my podcast. I apologize as this may be a bit of a non-sequitur with where this thread is at, but I didn't see the traffic as I've been busy all weekend. This is a big gaming weekend for me.

I saw some comments about the file size, from dial up folks. If I could reduce it to around 20 or 30 megabytes from the present 90 some megabytes would that be worth the effort of downloading? I think beyond that and the sound quality would get annoyingly bad.

Another quick thing I wanted to address is I think it was Andy who wondered if I would break down interviews to 30 minutes. Sorry Andy but that's outside my goals. I'm trying to present everything as as-is as possible. This is also due to my inclinations being the exact opposite of yours as I love having the entire thing in one serving, you can tell by my waistline.

Quote from: jdrakehThe latest trend is toward, not transparent mechanics that address only one or two key aspets around which all play revolves by default, but substantive mechanics that validate their existence by fulfilling a wide range of very specific functions in actual play that can accommodate many different styles of play.

I think, for me, Burning Wheel and Burning Empires epitomize this paradigm shift. Look for things like weapon reach, wealth rolls, and lifepath character generation. These are not the product of Sorcerer and the theories that it was built upon. These are the products of Forge theory re-engineered in the wake of D&D 3x's success.

Oh, if we're talking BW and BE, I totally understand what you mean. As Balbinus once put it, BW is the Rolemaster of the 21st century. The thing is, BW has been around for a while, AND it doesn't seem to have inspired other games nearly as much as (certain elements of) Sorcerer has.

Probably because it's a lot easier to design your typical one-trick-pony Nar game than something as intricate as BW. Personally, I'd actually like to see more games like it.

Quote from: -E.There have *always* been positions along a continuum of narrative sophistication -- and people have always been saying that their particular position was somehow superior.

Indeed, but I think the critical difference we're seeing nowadays is that Ron Edwards isn't just claiming his games are "better" than others at delivering story, but that popular mainstream games are incapable of doing so.

That's why I think the Forge gets the levels attention it does, not through quality of output but by the attempted ideological nullification of the competition. I think the "movement" in general and Edwards in particular have done more to deliberately poison the well than any who have come before.

Quote from: Clyde L. RhoerI saw some comments about the file size, from dial up folks. If I could reduce it to around 20 or 30 megabytes from the present 90 some megabytes would that be worth the effort of downloading? I think beyond that and the sound quality would get annoyingly bad.

Just keep the same file and break it up into three downloads...?

I don't get the link between Wick & The Forge, JB. There may be similarities in thought, but Wick isn't closely tied to the Forge unless I'm mistaken.

Dirk, it´s all about Tactics.

The APs leave everything open in the dungeon proper. but you must play the dungeons in the AP, you can´t really decide strategically.

That has got nothing to do with "storytelling". Because 99% of the time at the table is time in the dungeon or with the encounters. And these are open ended. How many TPKs in DL? How many TPKs in the old Campaigns or in the APs?
What you are doing is comparing The Complete Masks to the "Sieben Gezeichneten". There´s a BIG difference, although both contain strategic railroading of the grandest order.

And JB, if you would be so kind as to read a Gygax Module and run it, then you could spare us all the stupidity that is your argument for "storytelling" in AD&D 1st edition.

But you have a point: Story and character interaction are totally one of the fun-sources of AD&D 1st or other pre Vampire games (and every other Adventure RPG). But the challenge that you had to solve remained at the heart of the game. Accomplishment in the fantasto-verse could only happen via accomplishment at the table.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityErik has a point. If I understand him correctly, he wasn't referring to D&D circa 1978. He was referring to the settings bloat of late AD&D 10+ years later... when D&D got chatty, so to speak.

But that's not what he said. He said "focus on table play is the forge philosphy".

All well and good, and it's the only philosophy to have imo.

But to say the Forge invented it, when Gygax, Allston, Bennie and Stackpole were flying that flag pre-Forge is just dumb.

And if that's the definitive Forge philosphy, then they're not all that innovative.

Quote from: DrewIndeed, but I think the critical difference we're seeing nowadays is that Ron Edwards isn't just claiming his games are "better" than others at delivering story, but that popular mainstream games are incapable of doing so.

That's why I think the Forge gets the levels attention it does, not through quality of output but by the attempted ideological nullification of the competition. I think the "movement" in general and Edwards in particular have done more to deliberately poison the well than any who have come before.

Absolutely -- the attention comes from being offensive, and that offensiveness (and the reaction it elicits) contributes to making the theory popular.

GNS tells people what they want to hear: that they're simultaneously better than everyone else and victims (of the games themselves and of mainstream gamers who are afraid/don't understand/etc. their specialness).

That persecution complex is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: the theory is *wonderfully* offensive and almost guaranteed to get a chilly reception by traditional gamers (whom it's largely insulting to).

In the past theory proponents would express amazement and surprise at the hostile reaction they'd get... and they'd claim that anyone taking offense simply didn't understand (or better yet: was projecting and seeing offensive stuff where none existed)

The Brain Damage cleared a lot of that up (you still get people claiming it was a metaphor, or saying that they only disagree with that part of the theory), but it didn't really change the dialog: it's still designed to get attention so that advocates can feel persecuted... and it works!

Nice little system there.
Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jdrakehThe latest trend is toward, not transparent mechanics that address only one or two key aspets around which all play revolves by default, but substantive mechanics that validate their existence by fulfilling a wide range of very specific functions in actual play that can accommodate many different styles of play.

I think, for me, Burning Wheel and Burning Empires epitomize this paradigm shift. Look for things like weapon reach, wealth rolls, and lifepath character generation. These are not the product of Sorcerer and the theories that it was built upon. These are the products of Forge theory re-engineered in the wake of D&D 3x's success.

I think you're quite a bit off the mark here. Like The Riddle of Steel, BW got all its complexity from development before the author came into contact with The Forge. Both games were later "touched up" post-contact, but the dominant type of game developed de novo among Forge movement types remains the tightly focused minigame with mechanics operating primarily on the abstract/thematic level. E.g., The Mountain Witch, Polaris or The Shab al-hiri Roach.

Some people now include Evil Hat among Forge designers but although they do have a forum at the Forge, neither Fred nor Rob claim to use The Big Model or GNS, and their FATE game engine was developed independently, as with TRoS and BW.

Quote from: -E.And that's the guy behind the curtain: the story-now revolution isn't actually about story at all.

It's about power-struggle and power dynamics.

This is on the mark, IMO. (John Morrow has said much the same thing in a few discussions we've had.)

If you look at how Narrativism is defined, it's pretty narrowly based on a certain theory of drama (the screenwriting concepts of Egri). But in practice people "get it" by rapping with RE, who then affirms their understanding in terms of people "saying it in their own words". And what that tends to amount to is: nearly any theory of "story" will do, as long as the interlocutor can convince himself that he's constructing a story.

In other words from a practical standpoint, I think the Forge revolution turns more on sharing power so that each participant can help "tell a story" which they recognize as such in abstract terms, than it does in the narrow neo-Egrian sense of "enjoying making morally-relevant decisions".

But I will say this: at least the Forge is interested in putting players in a position to make some kind of significant decisions affecting play and in that respect it is a reaction to earlier attempts to produce "story" that relied on varieties of either straightjacketing the way that players could play their characters, or using GM manipulation to ensure a certain outcome or dramatic arc. (Not that this is always fully achieved in practice.)

QuoteBut I will say this: at least the Forge is interested in putting players in a position to make some kind of significant decisions affecting play and in that respect it is a reaction to earlier attempts to produce "story" that relied on varieties of either straightjacketing the way that players could play their characters, or using GM manipulation to ensure a certain outcome or dramatic arc. (Not that this is always fully achieved in practice.)

Which they not only strive for, but most of the time deliver. That is the most meritful contribution they made.

Let players do stuff that matters to them.

Sadly, the stuff that matters to me, and most other people, isn´t Egrian TV show conundrums.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut I will say this: at least the Forge is interested in putting players in a position to make some kind of significant decisions affecting play and in that respect it is a reaction to earlier attempts to produce "story" that relied on varieties of either straightjacketing the way that players could play their characters, or using GM manipulation to ensure a certain outcome or dramatic arc. (Not that this is always fully achieved in practice.)

Yeah.

The "downfall" of the traditional system is that you need a trustworthy GM who's a good story teller, but is willing to facilitate and "go with" player decisions.

That's not an impossibly rare combination, but it's not an extremely common one either.

And it's just about as easy to get a real horror show of a GM. Hence the (almost) universal hatred of railroading.

There are certainly elements of RPG theory that aren't insulting, are sound, etc. -- but most of them are said better (and more clearly) elsewhere. That doesn't make them wrong though.

Cheers,
-E.

Edited to add: The whole Egri thing fell apart a *long* time ago. "Addressing Premise" explicitly equals "any human interest stuff." If your story is about anything other than single-unit-wargame and shopping expeditions, you're addressing premise -- STORY NOOOWWW, Baby!

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't get the link between Wick & The Forge, JB. There may be similarities in thought, but Wick isn't closely tied to the Forge unless I'm mistaken.

The similarities in thought are the link. It's like, the Communist Party and the Social Democrats aren't linked, and if you talk to either of them, most likely they hate the other guy like poison - but from the point of view of a bunch of conservatives, there's not really much meaningful difference between the commies and the socialists.

Likewise, whether Wick and the Forge are actually connected or like each-other I neither know nor care. To me they're much the same.

I'd also add that if the Forge can claim a relationship with HeroQuest and Burning Wheel based on some of the authours posting there and sharing one or two of the same ideas, then we can claim a relationship between Wick and the Forge based on his having posted there and sharing the same ideas. If they can claim relationships for the credit, I can claim a relationship for blame.

Their ideas are much the same. "Traditional roleplaying is broken, gamers are all dorks, they don't know what a real story is, I'm going to show them what it really is." Where the Forge and Wick differ is that the Forge takes everything and everyone extremely seriously; Wick takes himself somewhat seriously, but laughs at everyone else. The Forge is like the born-again Christian who takes you aside and says, "I will save you, brother, even though you say you're happy actually you're miserable because you haven't been saved." Wick is more like the dumb kid ushing you in the mud and then going "hee-haw!"

We saw it with the "Jared is losing his copyright!" fracas on rpg.net (see my list of links, "game designers are cokeheads"). We saw it with Wick's account of being a fuckstick at the con. He's a guy who expresses contempt for gamers in general.

Which is very much Forger. He just laughs more than Uncle Ronny.

Quote from: -E.Yeah.

The "downfall" of the traditional system is that you need a trustworthy GM who's a good story teller, but is willing to facilitate and "go with" player decisions.

That's not an impossibly rare combination, but it's not an extremely common one either.

And it's just about as easy to get a real horror show of a GM. Hence the (almost) universal hatred of railroading.

There are certainly elements of RPG theory that aren't insulting, are sound, etc. -- but most of them are said better (and more clearly) elsewhere. That doesn't make them wrong though.

Cheers,
-E.

Personally I wouldn't consider statements like these regarding GMs to be in the "aren't insulting" category.

Quote from: J ArcanePersonally I wouldn't consider statements like these regarding GMs to be in the "aren't insulting" category.

I'm ready to start my own Internet coup now... I just need you to victimize me a little more.

No, seriously: Did I insult GMs?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm ready to start my own Internet coup now... I just need you to victimize me a little more.

No, seriously: Did I insult GMs?

Cheers,
-E.

I'm just a little bit sick of hearing about how GMs suck, how they're all crooked fuckers who need to watched like hawks, how even basic GMing techniques that are as old as time make all play and game systems meaningless, and on and on and on.

It's become so ingrained that apparently you don't even see it when you're going right into it.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm just a little bit sick of hearing about how GMs suck, how they're all crooked fuckers who need to watched like hawks, how even basic GMing techniques that are as old as time make all play and game systems meaningless, and on and on and on.

It's become so ingrained that apparently you don't even see it when you're going right into it.

Sorry 'bout that -- I don't think all GM's suck (this could be a case where you're inserting an absurd absolute into a far less extreme sentiment).

I think GMing requires a set of skills and (maybe more importantly) a willingness to put in a lot of effort that are less common than the skill and effort required to be a player.

To be more clear: In any population of gamers, you'll find fewer people who are willing / want to GM than to play.

I think I did say something that looks suspiciously like a claim that there are about as many good GMs as there are bad ones, which I'll retract -- I honestly don't have a clue what the ratio is, but my guess is that there are actually far more good GMs than bad ones based on the hobby being enjoyable and all.

Thanks for keeping me honest,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm ready to start my own Internet coup now... I just need you to victimize me a little more.

No, seriously: Did I insult GMs?

Cheers,
-E.

Maybe not "insulted", but the habits of bad game masters have nothing to do with the quality of the game, which is a mistake you seem to be making.

I guarantee you I could manage to railroad in any forge game as easily as I could in D&D. Railroading is a choice.

I also consider the special nature of tha game master position a feature of the best designed games (D&D, d20, Hero, GURPs) not a bug. It's one of the things that seperates good rpgs from board games: the presence of a disinterested referee who is there to try and help the game be as interesting as possible.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckMaybe not "insulted", but the habits of bad game masters have nothing to do with the quality of the game, which is a mistake you seem to be making.

I guarantee you I could manage to railroad in any forge game as easily as I could in D&D. Railroading is a choice.

I also consider the special nature of tha game master position a feature of the best designed games (D&D, d20, Hero, GURPs) not a bug. It's one of the things that seperates good rpgs from board games: the presence of a disinterested referee who is there to try and help the game be as interesting as possible.

I, evidently, shouldn't try to post and work at the same time -- clearly I'm not making any sense at all:

I think GM quality has virtually *nothing* to do with the quality of the game.

I completely agree that railroading is a choice.

I think the special role of the GM, with complete editorial authority, keeper of the vision of the campaign, etc. is what makes roleplaying games interesting to me -- I'm profoundly less interested in schemes that involve sharing GM power or responsibility.

That said, I dislike railroading, which I see as an abuse of that power.

I think I'll stop while I'm behind though...

Cheers,
-E.

ah. I think I see it: I said, in an earlier post, "the downfall of traditional games" -- I think I should have said, "a pitfall" or, better yet: "For traditional games to work, you need a GM who's good at story telling and isn't going to railroad you -- something that, apparently, isn't easy for everyone to find."

In my defense, I was responding to another post and my statement about 'downfall' was in that context. I'm a huge fan of the traditional model, etc. I don't think it's been improved on since D&D.

Nevertheless when I read the GMing advice in GURPS 3e it struck me as manipulative and presumptuous about PC motivations...and the stuff that we discussed recently in the other thread (where we were talking about "the princess is in another castle") was along pretty much the same lines. You also find the same sort of thing in many modules. Essentially: the players should be led to believe that their decisions & the mechanical rules would govern the development & outcome of scenarios, when in fact the GM would secretly stage manage things to produce certain results with a certain pacing. I think this sort of advice was far from atypical.

Now, my reaction (which I think was typical of people who'd found their own way in the 70's-80's) was to just regard all that as "advice" completely separate from "the rules". I didn't take it as "the way to play". But outside of "prepare a dungeon and then let the players jump in", I found very little textual advice on other ways to prepare or run scenarios. So I stand by what I wrote: Forge theory* has helped codify** & popularize an alternate method of play from what was found in many late 80's-90's GMing advice texts.

*Note here I mean theory in the same sense as "film theory" or "music theory".

**Note: codify, not invent.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow, my reaction (which I think was typical of people who'd found their own way in the 70's-80's) was to just regard all that as "advice" completely separate from "the rules".

You must admit, that's charactersitics of the 70s and 80s games, though - that the play style advice is presented separately from the rules. In this last decade the advice and rules have become hopelessly mixed-up, as in for example HeroQuest or Unknown Armies. It's much easier to ignore, or consider seriously, if it's split out nice and neatly, rather than having the rules and advice and game designer's design notes all sploshed together.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou must admit, that's charactersitics of the 70s and 80s games, though - that the play style advice is presented separately from the rules. In this last decade the advice and rules have become hopelessly mixed-up, as in for example HeroQuest or Unknown Armies. It's much easier to ignore, or consider seriously, if it's split out nice and neatly, rather than having the rules and advice and game designer's design notes all sploshed together.

Innnnteresting.

I thought this was a good thing. Delving back into programming metaphor, keeping the comments and code separate sometimes results in incorrect comments, or no comments at all. On the other hand if the code is clear enough to serve as its own comments, both aspects remain in sync.

However, I don't believe a set of rules can imply a play style, and I believe a play style can be applied to any set of rules (even Chess). That human element screws up the metaphor.

So are game systems and play styles for the most part interchangeable?

Quote from: chaosvoyagerI thought this was a good thing. Delving back into programming metaphor, keeping the comments and code separate sometimes results in incorrect comments, or no comments at all. On the other hand if the code is clear enough to serve as its own comments, both aspects remain in sync.

The difference is this. In general, a piece of software is designed to do one thing. Whereas an rpg is designed to do a variety of things. So if you want your rpg to only be played in one particular style, then by all means you should mix the game play advice with the rules and both with the game designer's notes. But if you want your rpg to be open to a wide variety of playstyles, you should keep those things separate.

A better analogy using software would be, the manual on how to use the software is separate from the software itself. You keep the software separate from the text on the recommended way to use the software for the sake of simplicity and clarity; though of course you have tutorials within the software itself. In an rpg, you should keep the play style advice - the recommended way to use the game - separate from the game itself. You should do this for the sake of simplicity and clarity, though of course you should have worked examples in the game's text.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerHowever, I don't believe a set of rules can imply a play style, and I believe a play style can be applied to any set of rules (even Chess). That human element screws up the metaphor.

It's true that no set of rules will determine play. But they will certainly influence play. For example, in d6 there's a thing called "the wild die." Your characters are rated as having so many dice in their abilities, and you roll them against another's dice or some target number to determine the results. One of the dice is a "wild die" - if you roll 1, you toss out the highest other die, and if you roll 6, you roll again and add.

The effect on game play is that you'll sometimes find that bullets bounce off an unarmoured character, while that character themselves can crush someone's head with their bare hands. This gives a cinematic and comedic feel to the game session, and players stop taking the session seriously.

So there we've an example of a game mechanic influencing play style. It doesn't determine it - sufficiently concentrated players could ignore it, and we'd not have that feel - but generally speaking those are the results you're going to get. The wild die of d6 will make your game into an Arnold Squashenegger movie.

There are many other examples in many other games, that's just a particularly clear and obvious one.

Now, d6 is actually an example of a game system with no design notes, and little play style advice. So there was no suggestion that the game would come out this way - we had to either be quite smart when we read it, and realise it without being told, or else find it out in play. I think that's as bad as the systems mixing up the rules with the playstyle advice and game designer's notes. What you want is to be able to look at each part of a game system, and say, "if I use this, I will get this effect in play; if I use that, I'll get another." Then you can pick and choose to try to fine-tune things to what you're hoping to get out of a game session.

Of course as you say the human element is most important. This is the mantra of Cheetoism, after all: People Matter. The order of importance in influencing the success of a game session is people, snacks, setting and system. But that does not mean system is unimportant; simply that it's the least important of the four. By the same token, the four smaller toes on my foot are the least important part of my being able to walk, but I still need them, and it matters if they're smashed up or something.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerSo are game systems and play styles for the most part interchangeable?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou must admit, that's charactersitics of the 70s and 80s games, though - that the play style advice is presented separately from the rules. In this last decade the advice and rules have become hopelessly mixed-up, as in for example HeroQuest or Unknown Armies. It's much easier to ignore, or consider seriously, if it's split out nice and neatly, rather than having the rules and advice and game designer's design notes all sploshed together.

Sure. I've certainly noticed that in the recent games I've read. Drives me up the wall--for three reasons.

First, it makes the game hard to read and use as a reference.

Second, it undermines the notion that the mechanical rules actually work, if you have to be constantly reminded of the "mindset" or whatever for using them.

Third, it creates uncertainty as to just how closely you're supposed to hew to those guidelines and advice, and if you stick to them very closely indeed, what the heck is left over for the participants to do on their own.

Some games manage this style better, some worse. And I think there are still games being written that don't do things that way.

But I'm not sure I see the relevance to my main point about the predominance of "preplotting" and "stage managing" as GMing advice in the older games that had any, vs. the popularization of more "situational" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=105556&postcount=14) GMing among Forge designs. (Even though as Clash demonstrates, they didn't invent it.)

I absolutely agree. Its the mark of a tyrannical fucking game designer primma donna who thinks of himself as the fucking fountain of all wisdom that imposes his own personal playstyle advice in the form of RULES, that essentially ruin his game for anyone who doesn't think exactly like him.  And of course, this is what the Forge wants: to force ALL RPGs to be like this, so that we end up with a situation where a tiny elite are telling everyone else how they MUST run their games.

Personally, I've always favoured tyrannicide.

RPGPundit

What madness is this? Rules telling people how to play a game? Surely, you jest.

There's a fine line between rules that tell you how to play a game and rules that tell you how to enjoy a game.

Actually, it's much more than a fine line. It's a huge line.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThere's a fine line between rules that tell you how to play a game and rules that tell you how to enjoy a game.

Actually, it's much more than a fine line. It's a huge line.

Sure. There's no such game though. Unless by "enjoying" a game you mean "actually using the rules". I refuse to believe you're that fucking stupid, though.

IDIOT ALARM!
THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

Man the stockades!
A spoiled earringed hippie brat just entered the building!

He is armed with utter lack of clue whatsoever. Flame on sight. Call the Dragonsfoot-Priest, he shall prepare the excorcism of the soon-to be corpse.

REPEAT, THIS IS NOT A DRILL
IDIOT ALARM!

Quote from: WhitterSure. There's no such game though. Unless by "enjoying" a game you mean "actually using the rules". I refuse to believe you're that fucking stupid, though.

 Dude - have you been on here long enough or been paying attention to past arguments and debates enough to call Abyssal Maw an idiot??

 If you even do a cursory wikipedia or other web search on Ron and the FORGE boys - you'd know what the argument is about.

- Ed C.

It's ok guys, I can handle it. It's good to have someone like Whitter around because he's like a foil we can bounce around a bit. Eventually he  will end up proving all of our points.

Ok. So Whitter, you've misread the entire argument, though.
What I'm talking about is the difference between GM advice and actual rules. The conflation of the two - is the source of a great deal (most?) of the untalented-yet-egotistical designer syndrome that seems to have sprung up as of late.

Anyhow, the main point stands: taking the GM advice and building it into the rules doesn't guarantee anyone a good time. More often than not, it does the opposite. It makes a narrow "nobody really wants to play this" kind of game that fully depends on the cult of personality following the designer. It's human nature.

Some people really, really want to believe that they are in the special club that can see the emperor's finery. So when they hear that "only really special people will be able to understand my Designers Vision", they sign right up and join the chorus. So they identify as "fans" despite often enough-- never having played the game in question, or playing it once or twice (maybe at a con. In a 20 minute demo).

So that drives this sort of weird fringe population, that in turn does two things (both of them bad).

1) It feeds the untalented designers ego, making that person even more annoying and painful to deal with.

2) It promotes a culture of people who basicly have already left the hobby, but somehow haven't gone away. Inevitably they turn into the gaming equivalent of griefers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer).  

And the motivation for doing this "let's build the GM advice into the rules" kind of thing is suspicious itself. It is primarily driven by people who see gaming not as an entertaining pastime, but as a directed social posturing mechanism. I suspect that many of these people want to make gaming suck because they've already given up on it, and now they see the comunity as audience for their divine pronoucements.

But if a game is designed for a tighter focus of gameplay (yes, in fact I do have a non-Forge example), isn't more GM advice on how to play the game important?  The two games that immediately come to mind are Over the Edge by Jonathan Tweet and The Dying Earth RPG by Robin Laws.

OtE I'm sure everyone knows is a trad game at heart, but at the time -- the early 90's -- it's themes and setting were so unlike everything on the market that I can't imagine running a game without a lot of designer input and advice.

The Dying Earth is an interesting case.  I can imagine it being classified as sort of a proto-Forge game.  There's adventures and problem solving to be had for the Settembrini's of the world, but they're more of a talky and banter type.  Not so much as a prime-time soap opera, but set up as the original Vance stories resolved.  But the point is that it was designed for a particular way to play and the rules reflect that.

Is this really just another Forge and WW dig (for the record, I agree with those particular criticisms)?  Because the more I think of it, I mean taking into consideration of games like Paranoia and Amber with their fantastic GM advice and how to play sections; or Call of Cthulhu for that matter, then this broad blanket complaint seems pretty stupid.  All games mentioned are your traditional, adventure games but they play best in a particular way.  A way that is modeled, defined and explaned by the game's designer.

BIG difference - I actually have some Respect for Robin Laws.
 I've read and liked something he wrote in the past . PLUS, I believe Robin Laws contributed to the DMG II - which is a pretty good book thats worth the purchase. (Remember I don't even like D20)

- Ed C.

That's a good point. And yet, consider the counter example:

The advice is still advice, and they don't force you to do it their way.

But then again, neither Tweet nor Robin Laws are especially egomaniacal, or see the purpose of their games as primarily aimed at making people accept their personal moral or social messages.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe advice is still advice, and they don't force you to do it their way.

But then again, neither Tweet nor Robin Laws are especially egomaniacal, or see the purpose of their games as primarily aimed at making people accept their personal moral or social messages.

On the first part, I disagree -- and I'm not dragging out books to get quotes so I'll leave it at that.  However I think with those smaller focused games, you're pretty much already buying into the idea that there is a "right" way to play.  In other words, I'm glad I don't see this "right way to play" in D&D.  In Paranoia, I'm glad it is there!

The latter part, yeah I'm with you.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's ok guys, I can handle it. It's good to have someone like Whitter around because he's like a foil we can bounce around a bit. Eventually he  will end up proving all of our points.

That successful bullying is what passes for being proven right in here? Hell yeah!

QuoteAnyhow, the main point stands: taking the GM advice and building it into the rules doesn't guarantee anyone a good time.

I agree. I'm saying that nobody who does that guarantees the reader they will have a good time. In fact no roleplaying book seriously guarantees the reader they will have a good time, when they'll play it.

Nobody says "do it like this to have fun and if you don't, you won't have any fun". It's "do it like this to play this game I came up with and if you don't, you'll play some other game that's merely based on mine". I seriously doubt that any author really cares whether you play his game or some variant of it. Playing a game "the right way" really only matters if you want to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of that game specifically as opposed to the strengths and weaknesses of some variant of it.

Playing "the right way" has fuck all to do with fun. Fun has to do with what you like or don't like. How a game is supposed to be played doesn't even remotely enter into it. Advice build into rules doesn't explain or guarantee fun. It does explain the game though.

QuoteAnd the motivation for doing this "let's build the GM advice into the rules" kind of thing is suspicious itself. It is primarily driven by people who see gaming not as an entertaining pastime, but as a directed social posturing mechanism. I suspect that many of these people want to make gaming suck because they've already given up on it, and now they see the comunity as audience for their divine pronoucements.

:tears: You really shouldn't drink the kool-aid.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThere's a fine line between rules that tell you how to play a game and rules that tell you how to enjoy a game.

I concur.

Seanchai

Quote from: WhitterThat successful bullying is what passes for being proven right in here? Hell yeah!

Listen, I can't "beat you up" or hurt you in any way. And I really honestly do try to avoid pile-ons, and typical mob rule. Even in those cases where I agree with the mob.

And really, it's a lot harder to be proven right then you think. The only reliable way to do it is have evidence. Luckily, we have a lot of evidence. we can go to the texts and innumerable obnoxious "designer blogs" and show you that they say the exact things I am saying now. We can show you the page that the brain damage discussion occurred on. we can point out quotes in context where they basicly say everything I'm saying here, except these guys actually advocate it.

So I'm not sure what more you want, really.

Quote from: Abyssal MawLuckily, we have a lot of evidence. we can go to the texts and innumerable obnoxious "designer blogs" and show you that they say the exact things I am saying now.

Go ahead.

Google the phrase "system does matter" and start reading then, kid.

Quote from: Abyssal MawGoogle the phrase "system does matter" and start reading then, kid.

Google the phrase "don't change the fucking goalposts" and give me some game text, bitch.

Quote from: WhitterGoogle the phrase "don't change the fucking goalposts" and give me some game text, bitch.

Ah, Whitter. THIS IS THE FUCKING GOALPOST.

Seriously, you should read this yourself and you might actually understand what we're talking about. What game do you think is being "attacked" here? It isn't games, it's people.

Did you even bother to google it? Read the one about "fun is portable". I think it's like the second one. (That one always cracks me up).

Quote from: MoriartyBut if a game is designed for a tighter focus of gameplay (yes, in fact I do have a non-Forge example), isn't more GM advice on how to play the game important?  The two games that immediately come to mind are Over the Edge by Jonathan Tweet and The Dying Earth RPG by Robin Laws.

OtE I'm sure everyone knows is a trad game at heart, but at the time -- the early 90's -- it's themes and setting were so unlike everything on the market that I can't imagine running a game without a lot of designer input and advice.

The Dying Earth is an interesting case.  I can imagine it being classified as sort of a proto-Forge game.  There's adventures and problem solving to be had for the Settembrini's of the world, but they're more of a talky and banter type.  Not so much as a prime-time soap opera, but set up as the original Vance stories resolved.  But the point is that it was designed for a particular way to play and the rules reflect that.

Is this really just another Forge and WW dig (for the record, I agree with those particular criticisms)?  Because the more I think of it, I mean taking into consideration of games like Paranoia and Amber with their fantastic GM advice and how to play sections; or Call of Cthulhu for that matter, then this broad blanket complaint seems pretty stupid.  All games mentioned are your traditional, adventure games but they play best in a particular way.  A way that is modeled, defined and explaned by the game's designer.

I think you have misunderstood the nature of the complaint in question; no one is saying having "GM advice" sections is bad.  In fact, in some cases, like Amber's, OtE's, or CoC D20's, they're freaking awesome.  
What we're complaining about are game designer control freaks who, rather than following the above fine examples of Wujcik, Tweet, or Cook's tradition, instead feel the need to put their preferred playstyle into the mechanics themselves, so that everyone HAS to play the game exactly the way they want it played.

RPGPundit

Well, I wouldn't put it quite like that, Pundit.

I'm okay with embedding a playstyle in the mechanics. If the result is a board game or "story game" so be it.

What annoys me is interleaving "soft rules" and advice on the right attitude for play, in the midst of the hard mechanics. It gets even worse when the advice is more than a sentence or two and contains abstract jargon which has to be explained elsewhere. The worst offender I've seen: The Mountain Witch. It's like the designer is sitting beside you coaching you on your play, "No, not quite like that. A little more frabjitude...NO! LESS!...to the right...gently...gently...glamify just a little bit...NOW HOLD THAT!" The conflict rules, for example, are full of subtle shadings about half-successes and cross-successes.

Quote from: WhitterGoogle the phrase "don't change the fucking goalposts" and give me some game text, bitch.

 Whitter,
 Maybe you shouldn't cuss in an argument like this one - you don't do it well.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Abyssal MawGoogle the phrase "system does matter" and start reading then, kid.

This was always my favorite bit:

"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely disagree.

Thank God all tastes are universal and Ron Fucking Edwards is around to tell me what games are good.

I don't know RPGs, but I know what I like.

Actually, screw that. I totally know rpgs, and I know what I like. ^_^

QuoteThe Dying Earth is an interesting case. I can imagine it being classified as sort of a proto-Forge game. There's adventures and problem solving to be had for the Settembrini's of the world, but they're more of a talky and banter type. Not so much as a prime-time soap opera, but set up as the original Vance stories resolved. But the point is that it was designed for a particular way to play and the rules reflect that.

You are right, Dying Earth does indeed do both things at the same time. but look what kinds of problems this causes:

Nobody plays it, because it´s a big task to come up with modules on your own. The thematic elements are as easy as cake, as we all know. But making mysteries AND word puzzles AND puns AND thematics: Now this is were youre average Whitter fails utterly.

Dying Earth is the only game that you really can be literature-pretentious about, because it´s so hard to run.

Quote from: SettembriniY
Nobody plays it, because it´s a big task to come up with modules on your own. The thematic elements are as easy as cake, as we all know. But making mysteries AND word puzzles AND puns AND thematics.

It's only the puns that are the problem, and it's a fatal one. For many people humor is hard, and wit is simply out of their range (I know mine fails me occasionally, that's why the infraweb invented smileys). Solving mysteries, blowing shit up or being a drama queen OTOH is dead easy.

As I was saying to the white rabbit the other day, whimsical RPGs are rare. Sigh. DE is a beauty, including the artwork, the typography and the (drool) maps. Have you seen the City of Kaiin player guide? Man. So pretty. So smart.

QuoteSo smart.

So unplayable.

Quote from: SettembriniI will, someday complete it, but it´s low priority. There is a bit on brain damage, but that is now covered in the Podcast, so the argument isn´t lost. On the tape, he´s taking the same approach, especiall underlining how awful and wrong it was of people to [paraphrase] "jump into a private discussion and linking it to the internet on forums and blogs".

But yes, it will be online one day this year.

Cool, I'll look forward to it. I really rather like that interview, and I think (among other things) that it really gives a good perspective, for me anyway, on what sort of person Ron is, what he's like. And the same for you, actually.

I understand if you've got other priorities. You don't owe it to me or anything. Just thought I'd ask.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: SettembriniSo unplayable.

Not with the right players.

Hey, I just saw PotC 3. Dying Earth is just like that ;)

QuoteNot with the right players.

Yeah, but that´s a big problem, ain´t it?

And the game doesn´t help with training players. It just puts restraints on the player and gm pool. Restraints on intellectual setup (you must not only be smart, you must be smart in just the right way) of everyone involved.
That´s why it´s played so seldomly.

Uhm, yeah--so? Nobody's pitching it to WOTC as the successor to D&D.

I think it's just not ARSy enough for your taste, sector duke. As for me, once upon a time I had just the right group for it. Unfortunately it wasn't published yet.

Do not underestimate my breadth of taste, dear ex-pat!

Quote from: Abyssal MawAh, Whitter. THIS IS THE FUCKING GOALPOST.

Where did you learn to present an argument? From the fucking Bush administration?

First Fucknuts said:
"GM advice encoded in rules tell us how to play a game! WAAAAH!"

When I pointed out how fucking stupid it is to be offended by this you jumped in and argued suddenly: "No... it's actually GM advice encoded in rules tell us how to enjoy a game! WAAAAH!"

When I pointed out the difference between enjoying a game (having fun) and just playing it as it was designed ("the right way") and how little the two have to do with one another your argument morphed into: "No, it's not GM advice as rules, it's the "text and designer blogs" that tell us how to have fun! WAAAAH!"

When I wanted actual proof to this ludicrous claim you came up with: "Ron Edwards! Ron Edwards is an evil man! It is our moral duty to overthrow his tyrannic regime. WAAAAH! That's what it's really all about, forget what I said earlier!"

You're pathetic.

Whitter, please re-read the thread. Obviously you don´t know what this is about.

And your insults are neither funny, nor fitting or even insulting. Just lame.

There was a discussion going on about the fine differences about how much text and DM advice is intermingled. It was a sub-discussion making differentiated statements.

With your totally out of place statements, you shed some bad light on yourself.

I get the impression you are some goof just here to defend Doc Bat-a-Wang, whereas he´s not even being attacked right now.

Get some bearing on the discussion. And on Gaming.

EDIT: I was told you might be Georgios. If so, then I´m not surprised. And for your totally out of place Forge-Essay evangelism, you´ll earn the same here as in Germany: You´ll be ignored and lampooned. Even, as in Germany, by the Forgers.

Be informed that sock puppets are banned here, something I personally fought against. But be sure to inform the mods which account you want to keep.

Whitter, do you have me on your ignore list or something? You seem not to have read my posts.

There are four basic things you can have in a roleplaying game book setting aside stuff like art and equipment lists,

• rules
• setting
• play style advice
• game designer notes

In setting-dependent games like Vampire or Toon, the rules and setting tend to be mixed up. In "universal" games like GURPS, the rules are usually in one book, and the setting in another; at the very least, they're in separate chapters with little or no overlap. But suppose you wanted to make a "universal" game, and mixed the setting up with the rules - it'd be hard for people to just take the rules out of it and use them for other settings, yeah? This is a common complaint about systems like Unisystem or HeroQuest. "The rules are so mixed up with the setting, it's hard to pull the rules out to use in another setting." Sure, lots of people have done it anyway, but it's harder than if they were kept separate. You tend to find it hard to imagine the rules without that setting.

Likewise, if you mix the playstyle advice in with the rules, then it's hard to imagine playing the game in a style other than that presented. Same with game designer notes.

A game is most flexible, most able to be played with a variety of settings and playstyles, when those four elements are kept more or less distinct and separate. If you mix 'em up, then the game will only have appeal to people who like that particular setting, playstyle, or whatever. Your game will be good for a narrow little bunch of games, but it won't have legs, won't last long. I mean, anyone ever hear of people playing years-long campaigns of Dogs in the Vineyard? Of course not - everything's all mixed-up in it, trying to get you to play one particular kind of game.

I don't know how Uncle Ronny came into it all. maybe as an example of someone whose games were narrow like that. But anyway, point is, the wider the game's possibilities, the wider the appeal. For real popularity you have to combine the wide possibilities with some inspiration, though - it's hard to start with a blank piece of paper. So, most popular will be a game system which has a setting or two to choose from, but where the rules aren't all hopelessly mixed up with the setting stuff. Like... D&D.

Oh, and no-one cares about the designer's notes except the game designer's buddies. Does a painter put a little explanation next to their painting? No. They put what they have to say in the painting itself.

Hmm, I can say that that kind of thing bugged me about the old World of Darkness games.  Those games had an in-built tone, but the tone would often morph and change across books with different authors, so you'd go from genre to genre in the text.  Since it's all presented as a coherent "gothic punk" theme/mood for each game, it can all be quite confusing and hard to get a handle on.  Are the games serious?  Horrific?  Super-heroic?  Cartoony?  If you were at all familiar with oWoD you know how bad this roller-coaster ride was.

If it was presented up-front as a "play this modern occult setting however you want" instead of "a game of personal horror," then I think a lot of factionalization between WoD fans and dysfunctional play could've been avoided.  Instead, since the game was all over the map, people often had wildly different expectations of play.

But then, the setting itself was a poster-boy for that kind of weirdness too, being presented as coherent and whole, but with multiple authors throwing in contradictory "In Character" setting infodumps.  Which resulted in geek "canon wars."  Ugh.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDid you even bother to google it? Read the one about "fun is portable". I think it's like the second one. (That one always cracks me up).

:raise:

:roofle:

Quote from: RedFoxHmm, I can say that that kind of thing bugged me about the old World of Darkness games.  Those games had an in-built tone, but the tone would often morph and change across books with different authors, so you'd go from genre to genre in the text.  Since it's all presented as a coherent "gothic punk" theme/mood for each game, it can all be quite confusing and hard to get a handle on.  Are the games serious?  Horrific?  Super-heroic?  Cartoony?  If you were at all familiar with oWoD you know how bad this roller-coaster ride was.

If it was presented up-front as a "play this modern occult setting however you want" instead of "a game of personal horror," then I think a lot of factionalization between WoD fans and dysfunctional play could've been avoided.  Instead, since the game was all over the map, people often had wildly different expectations of play.

But then, the setting itself was a poster-boy for that kind of weirdness too, being presented as coherent and whole, but with multiple authors throwing in contradictory "In Character" setting infodumps.  Which resulted in geek "canon wars."  Ugh.

Yeah, but you gotta realise that for the game and company all this was good.

As JFK used to say, never take a position on anything, because all it does is put people off (and 'I have no policies! I'll parrot whatever I think you want me to say!' is pretty much a position in itself, and to be avoided).

Essentially you end up with something that a wide range of people can think is reflecting their own views, when really they have cleverly avoided saying anything at all.

Vampire is good not because its a game of personal horror, but because to some people its a game of angst, and to others its supers with fangs and to others highschool politics in cooler clothes.

If they specifically catered to one constituancy, they would have alienated the rest.

I mean, shit man, if it was all about battling the inner beast and less about katanas and trenchcoats I wouldn't have liked it, frex.

Or, incoherence is almost essential to a commercially successful roleplaying game.

My point wasn't that it was incoherent.  I like patlach settings.  What drove me nuts about it was that it was incoherent and yet presented otherwise.  If they'd just said, "Hey, there's dozens of different ways to riff on the Werewolf, and so we're going to throw ideas at you from all over the spectrum," then that would've been cool.  Then you wouldn't have people arguing that Werewolf is a game of savage horror with other folks who want to play Munchmousen ratkin in the fae realms, searching for the green cheese moon.*

Because you wouldn't have to reconcile the bizarre tone shifts as you try to get what Werewolf "is supposed to be."  Because those WoD books kept telling the reader in no uncertain terms what the game was "supposed to be" and then kept contradicting themselves.

* This is actually in Werewolf the Apocalypse.  I shit you not.

Quote from: WhitterWhere did you learn to present an argument? From the fucking Bush administration?

Ah. "..politics!"

(five cents)

Look Whitter, I'm really trying to work with you, but your'e not giving me a serious argument here. I'm trying to get you to actually read this stuff on your own so you (and anyone else who is interested) can see how screwed up and bizarre it is even in it's own context. You don't need my pull quotes, so you can deny they say what they say. You need to put yourself in my place for a second and imagine why I might think this. So far your'e failing miserably at this, but that's ok.

Here's the main point:
There is a big difference between presenting the rules with advice, and just presenting the advice and calling it rules. Or conflating the two-- giving them equal weight. Or mixing them up. Several examples have already been pointed out. I really don't even like to pick on the games for doing this, but I find the motivations of the designers suspicious. I'm certainly not the first or only one to have recognized this.

.. Of course, if you really are a sock puppet account that would kind of explain a bit about you just not getting it.

Quote from: RedFoxIf they'd just said, "Hey, there's dozens of different ways to riff on the Werewolf, and so we're going to throw ideas at you from all over the spectrum,"

Nah - that would be 'I have no policies! I'll parrot whatever I think you want me to say!' (I think it would be taking the position that NONE of this stuff is real/canon/offical, instead of implying that it ALL is.)

And you'd advertise the fact that your stuff is a mishmash of stuff you thought was cool at the time instead of a finely crafted instrument for evokation of mood. Drawing attention to the fact that it isn't a coherent world, instead of burying it behind platitudes.

You don't need a coherent world or mood to run a game*, but theres no need to advertise that now is there.

Isn't the basic approach that whatever they are talking about at the time is the coolest thing in the world?

*Which see, Vampire. It works, it doesn't have one, so you don't need one for it to work. QED.

I'm inclined to consider Edwards' "System Does Matter" article an historical relic.  At the time, I think it needed to be said.  Wasn't the very idea that a functioning system was a feature of a good RPG under assault by a lot of systemless artsy-fartsy types and a flood of pisspoor 1-page internet freebie RPGs?  Looking back at that essay through the filter of everything that Edwards has done since then isn't entirely fair, I think.

Quote from: RedFoxother folks who want to play Munchmousen ratkin in the fae realms, searching for the green cheese moon.*

[...]

* This is actually in Werewolf the Apocalypse.  I shit you not.

Holy crap!  That's awesome!  Why is it that all the parts of the WoD that I think are cool seem to be so well hidden?

The article itself isn't as suspicious as the cult that grew up around it, and that uses it as a slogan.


On the Munchausen ratkin chasing the green moon: jrients, you might be interested in the Werewolf Umbra sourcebook. That's the really fun one.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe article itself isn't as suspicious as the cult that grew up around it, and that uses it as a slogan.

And neither the article nor the community that grew up on the Forge are anywhere near as suspicious as the fictional cult that some folks have created in their heads, by looking at the Forge community from the outside and only paying attention to statements that play into their belief that the Forgeys are a bunch of fanatical nutcases.

The Munchmousen rats do sound hella cool.

Quote from: jrientsI'm inclined to consider Edwards' "System Does Matter" article an historical relic.  At the time, I think it needed to be said.  Wasn't the very idea that a functioning system was a feature of a good RPG under assault by a lot of systemless artsy-fartsy types and a flood of pisspoor 1-page internet freebie RPGs?  

This would be reasonable if the article eneded with its title.

Most folks agree that System Matters in a some very general sense (e.g. that there are differences between systems, and that people often have preferences for one system over another).

But if you actually read the article, you'll see that it's very specific about how and why system matters: GNS. As such, the article itself (and *how* it claims system matters) is as valid or broken as GNS is.

Which is pretty broken.

I think these days people forget that and concentrate on the more-general interpretation... which depending on how broadly you mean it becomes virtually tautologically true.

People defending System Does Matter are particularly likely to take a broad interpretation -- one that's not found in the original article -- because it's a lot more tennable than defending GNS.

I see SDM, as presented in the article, as more of a plea to play/buy narrowly focused games than as a defense against the artsy types listed above, but there's probably a dual focus in that also.

Cheers,
-E.

Quotethe Forgeys are a bunch of fanatical nutcases.

Sadly, as reasonable as your post is, these fanatical nutcases exist. Joe Dizzy/Georgios and Whitter (the same?) is/are one of them.
And there are others like him/them.

Or listen to the interview, and ponder how that sounds to you and others.

Quote from: WhitterYou're pathetic.

Dude, take some friendly advice, because I really don't take sides on here. When you're talking on the internet, you're not (usually) specifically trying to change the mind of the person you're discussing with; you're trying to change the mind of a neutral third party.

You're argument isn't doing you any favors. I'm reading both of you, and it's hard to read what you're trying to get across because I have to read through your personal attacks and occasional drivel to get at your real points.

I mean, the same goes for everyone. Pundit can be real hard to read, and Sett is all over the place. But here, now, you look like you're bombing real bad. Write your entries like you're talking to someone like me (whose not interested in defaming you, or whatever) and you'll do better. Lace it with attacks, and you'll lose every time.

-E., I'll acknowledge not having re-read the article in a while.  I'll go back and check it out again.

Edit:  I just re-read the essay.  (Linky (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html).)  I'd call it a mixed bag.  I disagree most strongly with his implications that incoherent play is always bad and that only lengthy campaigns with cherished PCs matter.  Also, what the fuck is up with saying that AD&D's magic system is Karma powered?

Quote from: SettembriniSadly, as reasonable as your post is, these fanatical nutcases exist. Joe Dizzy/Georgios and Whitter (the same?) is/are one of them.  And there are others like him/them.

Even if you're right (and I'm not familiar enough with the folks you mention to make a judgment), that would mean that the Forge is ... pretty much exactly like every other community in that way, yes?

Jeff,

I think the idea must have been that the baseline thing that a spell does in (A)D&D is introduce a new effect into gameplay, point blank.

This is neither fiat/"roleplaying" nor randomness, though it's not "comparing fixed values" (RE) either - it's an automatic assignment of effect to action.

So it makes some sense to say it's baseline Karma. There are Fortune subsystems (saving throws, random teleportation tables, etc.).

Those three terms don't mean exactly the same thing in RE's writings as they do in Everway, though there is a similarity.

Here's a way to think about it that would make sense of Ron's usage there:

Drama: x happens because of individual or group decisions
Karma: player uses a system-trigger, so x happens
Fortune: player uses a system-trigger to roll and see if x happens (or what happens more generally, like with a random encounter table or the deck of many things)

I don't know that Ron or the broader Forge community uses these terms all that often any more, however. I believe they're in the lexicon though.

Doesn't he explain his repurposing of Drama/Fortune/Karma from Everway? Okay, without editorial comment:

Drama in RE's lingo means that an action is resolved by having someone declare what happens.

Fortune means it's resolved by rolling dice or some other chance mechanism.

Karma means it just happens.

While there's some trickiness in working those out, what RE means is that in AD&D, when you cast a spell, it just goes off without you having to make a casting roll.

[Edit: Crossposted]

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhile there's some trickiness in working those out, what RE means is that in AD&D, when you cast a spell, it just goes off without you having to make a casting roll.

Thanks for the explanation.  But given the number of spells that do involve dice at some point (such as the saving throws and damage rolls for fireballs), doesn't this just become an unecessary quibble?

QuoteThanks for the explanation. But given the number of spells that do involve dice at some point (such as the saving throws and damage rolls for fireballs), doesn't this just become an unecessary quibble?

No, it shows Ron hasn´t played much (A)D&D.

But the three categories from Everway are nice division that structured some thoughts of mine.
EDIT: And truthfully, the essays did so too back in the day.

One goal that a person might be trying to achieve by suggesting that the AD&D spell system was partly or baseline karma-driven could be to help people realize that there's more to 'system' then stuff like skill and attack rolls. A realization that of course helps some people more than others.

a) Lots of Forge jargon is like that. There's a lot of conceptual wiggle room that in practice means the thing being discussed ("D&D spellcasting uses Karma") defines the definition as much or more than the definition illustrates the subject.

b) You might firm it up by talking about the "unit of resolution" and comparing it to other games. So in comparing e.g. GURPS and D&D, you can see that GURPS has a unit of resolution "Does the spell go off?" which isn't at doubt in D&D, even though both games then have various additional rolls for effect.

Edit: nevertheless I'll editorialize and say that the DFK jargon is yet another awful appropriation of words. It manages to both misapprehend the meaning of the original source, and to create a vocabulary that's unnecessarily opaque.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, it shows Ron hasn´t played much (A)D&D.

I saw an Actual Play of Ron trying to run D&D 3.5. It was really painful, because he brought his assumptions of what he thought the game was/should be according to his theories and it ran like shit.

He made a shit-ton of elementary DMing mistakes, and if he were running it for me, I would have stopped the game mid-way through and told him to cut the crap. I mean, I've done it to regular DMs around my parts, and I'd do it him. I don't care about the Gaming War (tm), but Ron couldn't run a decent D&D session to save his life at the time.

Maybe he's gotten better, though.

200+ posts in, I will now comment.

Unlike all you people who think he's a crazy bastard, I think there's something in this interview he doesn't express.

He wants story now, and is dismissive of story before and story after.  He never comes out and says if he's against story before or story after, though.  Is he cool with people who prefer story before (which is most of us)?

And if he is cool with my fun as someone who enjoys story before, he is no longer relevant to me.

Hi Joe,

You can PM him at the Forge and ask him and he'll probably answer you, which is what I think is sort of fucked about this whole thread (and why I've avoided responding to it about twenty times now).

But I strongly suspect the answer he would give is yes, he's cool with your 'story before' sort of fun. Or he might ask you for an actual play example of how it was fun and what you did to make it fun, which might yield some interesting reflections on how to make that kind of play even more fun, but I suspect in that case too the answer would turn out to be more or less the same.

I happen to hate Story Before myself, and I know a lot of other old-school D&Ders who wouldn't go anywhere near some of the Forge games who feel similarly, but if it's what you and your group like, then you're set, and I don't think Ron or most of the other people at the Forge would tell you different.

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: I was told you might be Georgios. If so, then I´m not surprised. And for your totally out of place Forge-Essay evangelism, you´ll earn the same here as in Germany: You´ll be ignored and lampooned. Even, as in Germany, by the Forgers.

Be informed that sock puppets are banned here, something I personally fought against. But be sure to inform the mods which account you want to keep.

Wait... who's Georgios? I've been informed about the possibility of Whitter and Joe Dizzy being the same guy, and we're waiting for him to respond to this before deciding what to do about it (whitter: if both accounts are yours, just say so and there's no problem with that, you'll just have to choose one account and stick to it).

But I'm not familiar with any user named Georgios.. or is that his name elsewhere?

RPGPundit

Quote from: joewolzHe wants story now, and is dismissive of story before and story after.  He never comes out and says if he's against story before or story after, though.  Is he cool with people who prefer story before (which is most of us)?

You see, here's where sub-culture-specific jargon does a topic a disservice.  I have no idea what you just said.  I'm interested, but I just have no idea what you said.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditWait... who's Georgios? I've been informed about the possibility of Whitter and Joe Dizzy being the same guy, and we're waiting for him to respond to this before deciding what to do about it (whitter: if both accounts are yours, just say so and there's no problem with that, you'll just have to choose one account and stick to it).

But I'm not familiar with any user named Georgios.. or is that his name elsewhere?

That's the dude's real name.  Or at least one of the dudes.

While I'm briefly online, Dying Earth is a game that I have both played and run without problem.

It has fuck all to do with this debate and fuck all to do with the Forge.

The GM advice in the game is useful, but if you run it by the rules as written you pretty much get there anyway.  That's not because it is hyper focussed, you can do a fair bit with it actually, but because the rules do work to create a particular mood in play.

Set, it's not remotely thematic, in your terms it's an adventure game but one with comic elements.  It's not hard to run either if everybody is into the genre, and the same could be said for Star Wars or Star Trek or whatever.

It has fuck all to do with this debate.  If GNS meant anything, DE would be squarely sim.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou see, here's where sub-culture-specific jargon does a topic a disservice.  I have no idea what you just said.  I'm interested, but I just have no idea what you said.

!i!

Our Lord and Savior Ron Edwards explained this in the interview I posted.

It's garbage.

Vampire by the way, and most of its related games, is a fairly obvious metaphor for adolescence.

Until recently you lived a life of innocence, now your body has changed in strange ways and with that have come passions that overwhelm your reason.  Passions you barely understand and struggle to keep under control.

The mundane world doesn't understand you, you have special insights and knowledge, you are above that world.  Unfortunately, elder beings keep you in check and prevent you from living as you would wish to.

It's painfully fucking transparent, they might as well have called it Adolescence:  The Unexpected Hairiness and have done with it.

Now, you can do stuff with it unrelated to that, but it's plainly a metaphor for adolescence and that I think is in part why so many adolescents relate to it.  That and it's flexibility of scope makes it a game that can easily be adapted to many different groups.

I think you can write a similar story about D&D with little work.  Levelling up is growing into maturity by overcoming the strange threats of the adult world (monsters), the gods are the everpresent Parents of Doom, etc..

Quote from: jrientsI think you can write a similar story about D&D with little work.  Levelling up is growing into maturity by overcoming the strange threats of the adult world (monsters), the gods are the everpresent Parents of Doom, etc..

You can, but I think it's a much more stretched analogy, whereas with Vampire I think it's actually pretty intentional.

Quote from: BalbinusYou can, but I think it's a much more stretched analogy, whereas with Vampire I think it's actually pretty intentional.

Do you honestly think they thought all that out beforehand?  I think the analogy is apt, but I also believe that the ur-WW folks fell into it on accident.

!i!

Quote from: BalbinusIt's painfully fucking transparent, they might as well have called it Adolescence:  The Unexpected Hairiness and have done with it.

They already did. It's called Werewolf! :haw:

Yes if anything D&D is much more hero's journey than Sturm und Drang. It's going out in the strange world, mastering it, and then assuming a role of leadership in society. Where Vampire from all the descriptions I've read is about urges and social cliques and, y'know, angst & stuff.

Quote from: BalbinusIt has fuck all to do with this debate and fuck all to do with the Forge.

The GM advice in the game is useful, but if you run it by the rules as written you pretty much get there anyway.  That's not because it is hyper focussed, you can do a fair bit with it actually, but because the rules do work to create a particular mood in play.

Set, it's not remotely thematic, in your terms it's an adventure game but one with comic elements.  It's not hard to run either if everybody is into the genre, and the same could be said for Star Wars or Star Trek or whatever.

This was the point I had failed to make with bringing up Dying Earth and my mention of it being 'proto-Forge' just muddied the waters.  One of the thread's topics was the meshing of GM advice as the rules -- but the bits Balbinus posted about "you pretty much get there anyway," and "the rules do work to create a mood in play," are what I was trying to get at.  

Sett's comment about the game hardly being played with, nor Pundit's comment about GM advice by itself, had nothing to do with my point at all.  Its the advice being backed up by the rules themselves is what I was speaking to.  A lot of games, many created by the non-egotisical designers we've all come to know and love, do this:

- Call of Cthulhu's sanity mechanic
- Amber's attribute auction
- ParanoiaXP's...bennies (I think that's the term) that players use to screw over the other players
- Dying Earth's tagline mechanic

All of these games have mechanics that reflect the designer's goals, and to do anything otherwise runs into conflict with them.

Very few games can cater to all styles of play like d20 does; GURPS, Hero and  maybe even Runequest (no experience at all with that one, myself) come to mind.  But the tightly-focuses, niche styled games can do certain things better.  And if d20's style of play is the world's default (it is), then the games that cater to a tighter focus had better do something, mechanically speaking, to actually be different from D&D.

And I'll just throw a couple of Dying Earth RPG tangents that have no bearing to the discussion:

1) Dying Earth was published in 2001 and there were the usual "and for you people new to roleplaying," blurbs in there.  Laws' most recent game, Esoterrorists, doesn't have that in all.  In fact he writes that if you've never been into RPG's at all, how the hell did you get this book?

 Esoterrorists is a game that's much simpler than anything Laws has ever written and I get the feeling that if it were developed at the Forge, there'd be many people singing its praises that this could be the game that brings RPG-ing to the masses.  It seems that Laws kinda gave up on the whole bringing in new gamers thing.  Refreshingly honest, but still kinda sad.

2) The Excellent Prisimatic Spray is a short lived magazine line that supported DE -- designer notes, adventurers, gazetteers and the like.  One of the issues had a nice article by Gygax about the many influences the Dying Earth stories has had on his works.  Another issue had a Laws designer journal where he talks about dice having their own personalities, "the d4 is primal," "the d12 is your zany uncle," and so forth.  I just thought it was one of those cool syncronicities with Pundit's reposting of his dice article from his blog.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaDo you honestly think they thought all that out beforehand?  I think the analogy is apt, but I also believe that the ur-WW folks fell into it on accident.

Yeah. Sometimes a badass vampire is just a badass vampire.

Sleep all day, party all night. Kill everyone who pisses you off.

Hell, I liked playing long established vampires smashing noobs.

Christ man, I'd hate a game that was all a thinly veiled coming of age story.

Like I say, it appeals to a wide church. That is its strength. Theres probably someone out there who really belives Vampire Was A Game About The Struggle Of Balancing Cooked Meat With Pickle in a Sandwitch, but if they made V2 which only had stats for Meat and Pickle lots of others would stand there scratching their heads wondering what changed.

Conversely, if meat-and-pickle guy corners you at a con and tells you he loves the undercurrent of sandwich based taste challenges that runs underneath all of vampire, you can smile and nod and try to sell him your new book, which honestly really is all about chutney and cheese, even if it has a picture of a leatherclad SS cybervampvixen on the front.

Quote from: joewolzOur Lord and Savior Ron Edwards explained this in the interview I posted.

Which I didn't read, garbage or not, because I didn't feel the need to learn a second language to participate in a simple discussion.

Seanchai

Quote from: jrientsI'm inclined to consider Edwards' "System Does Matter" article an historical relic.

System does matter is nonse. I will repost my analysis from rpg.net:

Now the Lumpley Principle and System Does Matter thing I really feel a bit confusing or rather tautological. Lumpley principle is simply a definition (bit strange) of system. And system (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

Now what else does act of game consist of than a means of imagining events? Maybe there is something I am missing, but if I tell, the game is mostly consist of means of imagining events I would probably be right. Or do you disagree? (We can acutally find pretty fine definiton of the game as a recreational activity involving one or more players. Which can by defined by set of rules [written or unwritten] that determines what the players can or can not do).

Well let's go back to the System does matter thing. Using lumpley principle and analysis of what game consist of (my definition) we can conclude...

that "means by which group agrees on imagined events during play" does matter to the game which mostly consist of means of imagining events (the game).

So there are two possibilities. Either the system in the essay means the same as the system in LP or not.

A) System does matter (system = LP)
Objection: it is tautology.

B) System does matter (system =/= LP)
Objection: isn't it strange to accent only someparts on only some of the means by which group agrees on imagined events during play? (The written rules?) Especially if you later deny yourself with LP?

Quote from: Erik BoielleYeah. Sometimes a badass vampire is just a badass vampire.

Sleep all day, party all night. Kill everyone who pisses you off.

Hell, I liked playing long established vampires smashing noobs.

Christ man, I'd hate a game that was all a thinly veiled coming of age story.

Like I say, it appeals to a wide church. That is its strength. Theres probably someone out there who really belives Vampire Was A Game About The Struggle Of Balancing Cooked Meat With Pickle in a Sandwitch, but if they made V2 which only had stats for Meat and Pickle lots of others would stand there scratching their heads wondering what changed.

Conversely, if meat-and-pickle guy corners you at a con and tells you he loves the undercurrent of sandwich based taste challenges that runs underneath all of vampire, you can smile and nod and try to sell him your new book, which honestly really is all about chutney and cheese, even if it has a picture of a leatherclad SS cybervampvixen on the front.

See, this is what I was going on about earlier, though I wasn't sober at the time.*  The old WoD games fronted as having a certain theme or mood, and yet were wildly confused and divergent on maintaining the stated theme or mood.  So everybody has their own pet theories about what the WoD games "are" and what they "mean."

Compare this to other games where this sort of thing isn't intrusive.  Nobody has huge socio-political flamewars about factions in the Forgotten Realms or even Planescape.  Yet Mage: The Ascension has the kind of ideological vehemence and line-drawing that you only see in real-world politics.  There's the "angsty adolescent social club" Vampire players and the "Blade super-friends" Vampire players, and the "scheming social machiavelli club" Vampire players and instead of all getting along well they hate each others' guts.

Why did those games have to create such an atmosphere of "this one true way to play" that drove everybody into the trenches?

As I said before, I absolutely love games that you can play in many different ways.  But these games had me convinced back in the day that if someone was running or playing the game in a way that disagreed with my interpretation, then they were doing it fucking wrong.  And I was not alone.

Now perhaps it's just simple pride making me point to the text of those games and casting blame on where I got that attitude, but it was so rampant and widespread amongst WoD players that I don't believe that so easily.

*Though those green-cheese chasing Munchmausen are certainly not my fever dream.  They're in the Ratkin book, which is packed full of awesome.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm not sure what you're asking here.

Eh, ignore it. It was mainly a question to myself. For some reason I have an easier time answering certain questions when I present them in discussion. Not sure why.

I'm my own Gilligan.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThere's a fine line between rules that tell you how to play a game and rules that tell you how to enjoy a game.

Actually, it's much more than a fine line. It's a huge line.

Yes, but there's a catch, because sometimes one player's way of enjoying the game may negatively impact one or more of the OTHER players' enjoyment of the game. This is why some control over HOW the game is enjoyed is important.

For example, look at how Whitter's enjoyment of the game is affecting everyone else. QED.

But don't let me leave you with the idea that this is only in regards to players who INTENTIONALLY try to interfere with others enjoying the game. I've ceased to enjoy many a game of D&D simply because the rest of the players enjoyed elements of play that I did not, and destroying my fun was certainly NOT on their agenda.

Quote from: SettembriniSo unplayable.

And yet, when I get together with a group of 'Normal' people, I can set up and run a game of Dying Earth more quickly and successfully than I can D&D. While Ron probably shouldn't have used the term 'brain damage', this is the effect he was referring to, and it's why GAMERS, and not ordinary people, are the ones who typically have trouble with games like Dying Earth.

Quote from: Erik BoielleAs JFK used to say, never take a position on anything, because all it does is put people off (and 'I have no policies! I'll parrot whatever I think you want me to say!' is pretty much a position in itself, and to be avoided).

Essentially you end up with something that a wide range of people can think is reflecting their own views, when really they have cleverly avoided saying anything at all.

Word.

And your last paragraph pretty much sums up what I believe game rules should be, but to rephrased for clarity:

"A game system should be something that a wide range of people can think is reflecting their own views, when really it has cleverly avoided saying anything at all."

Quote from: chaosvoyagerAnd yet, when I get together with a group of 'Normal' people, I can set up and run a game of Dying Earth more quickly and successfully than I can D&D. While Ron probably shouldn't have used the term 'brain damage', this is the effect he was referring to, and it's why GAMERS, and not ordinary people, are the ones who typically have trouble with games like Dying Earth.

Thats the popular theory. And yet it isn't quite catching on with the non-gamers either, is it? This isn't to slight Robin Laws, either. Dying Earth Aint Pictionary.

If I had to think of a game that was obscure enough that only gamers would have ever bothered to buy itor play it, I think Dying Earth would be a good pick.

Yeah, as simple and accessible as it is, Dying Earth is pretty much a gamer's game.  An awfully good one, though.

!i!

Quote from: MoriartySett's comment about the game hardly being played with, nor Pundit's comment about GM advice by itself, had nothing to do with my point at all.  Its the advice being backed up by the rules themselves is what I was speaking to.  A lot of games, many created by the non-egotisical designers we've all come to know and love, do this:

- Call of Cthulhu's sanity mechanic
- Amber's attribute auction
- ParanoiaXP's...bennies (I think that's the term) that players use to screw over the other players
- Dying Earth's tagline mechanic

All of these games have mechanics that reflect the designer's goals, and to do anything otherwise runs into conflict with them.

I think you're conflating "emulation of Genre" with "designer imposed playstyle".  They're two different things.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think you're conflating "emulation of Genre" with "designer imposed playstyle".  They're two different things.

RPGPundit

I'm not sure I understand the difference.  I mean, how can you have rules-based emulation of genre without some designer imposed playstyle?

QuoteAnd yet, when I get together with a group of 'Normal' people, I can set up and run a game of Dying Earth more quickly and successfully than I can D&D. While Ron probably shouldn't have used the term 'brain damage', this is the effect he was referring to, and it's why GAMERS, and not ordinary people, are the ones who typically have trouble with games like Dying Earth.

Bullshit, big time. There are no gamers outside some looneys post highschool trauma kitchen psychology adherents.

Dying Earth needs a certain kind of players, and they are distributed following good old Gauss over western societies. It doesn´t matter whatsoever they have RPG´ed before or not.

Uh ... yeah.  I don't see much of an argument there that (for instance) Amber's attribute auction is not intended to whip people up into a competitive frenzy.  And, frankly, when the players deliberately avoid that play-style, it undercuts the usefulness of pretty much all of the rules.  You end up playing freeform, which is all well and good, but which ain't Amber.

Quote from: SettembriniDying Earth needs a certain kind of players, and they are distributed following good old Gauss over western societies. It doesn´t matter whatsoever they have RPG´ed before or not.

Well ... people come into games with certain expectations which have been formed by their past experience.  Past experience gaming can be particularly powerful in helping people form expectations for future gaming.

Wouldn't it make a degree of sense to think that people who have formed certain types of expectations might have a harder time adapting to a game that operates in a very different way?

Chaosvoyager's experiences don't tremendously surprise me.  And, let me say, even if they did surprise me I wouldn't claim that his experiences were bullshit.  I'd just say "Odd ... I don't quite understand how you're getting those experiences.  Can I ask some questions?"

I can only wonder what kind of people you game with.
Totally ridiculous.

How in the world should the ability for humour, puns etc. be in any way a funciton of RPG experiences?

I can only wonder.

Quote from: SettembriniI can only wonder what kind of people you game with.
Totally ridiculous.

How in the world should the ability for humour, puns etc. be in any way a funciton of RPG experiences?

I can only wonder.

Can you clarify who this one's a response to?  It doesn't seem relevant to anything recent, so somebody's gonna have to stretch their thinking in order to try to figure out what you think you're responding to.  If that's not me then I won't worry about it.

I was talking to you.

Again:

How can the ability to make puns and understand Vanican humour be in any way related to having played RPGs?

Quote from: SettembriniHow can the ability to make puns and understand Vanican humour be in any way related to having played RPGs?

I think you may be accidentally putting words in my mouth.  What you're responding to isn't what I said.

I was saying that having played RPGs would give you some expectations about what the next RPG is going to be like.  It sounds to me like Chaosvoyager's experience is that the most common expectations lead people into conflict with the way that Dying Earth is actually played.

I'm pretty sure that nobody is making the argument that playing RPGs impacts your ability to make puns (at least in anything other than a positive way).

It's very hard to separate out the "conditioning" factor from the "selection" factor, though, Tony.

I can't speak to TDE; however, the general argument about conditioning doesn't account for the fact that the population of, say, D&D players is self-selected and doesn't represent the population as a whole. Therefore if D&D players are more likely to have problems than "regular people" with Game X, it could be because of the factors that differentiate people who get into D&D vs. people who don't, not the conditioning effect of playing D&D.

Elliot:  Thassa good point.  I agree.

Quote from: MoriartyI'm not sure I understand the difference.  I mean, how can you have rules-based emulation of genre without some designer imposed playstyle?

Because the former is based on the genre qualities which are understood and accepted, while the latter is based on the writer's own particular ideologies of what matters to him in play.

So, creating a rule where you lose sanity when encountering Cthulhu: genre emulation.
Making a rule that penalizes anyone who picks up a weapon in CoC because the game designer feels Cthulhu "isn't about shooting things": asshole game designer imposed playstyle.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, creating a rule where you lose sanity when encountering Cthulhu: genre emulation.
Making a rule that penalizes anyone who picks up a weapon in CoC because the game designer feels Cthulhu "isn't about shooting things": asshole game designer imposed playstyle.

So in one case it's okay because you feel that the goal (genre emulation) is worthy, and in the other case it's not okay because you feel that the goal (ideological posturing) is unworthy.

I can buy that.  I see that distinction.  But is that the distinction between a designer imposed playstyle and something that isn't designer imposed playstyle?  It looks to me like a different distinction.  I think that they're both designer imposed playstyle, and that the difference is that in one case the playstyle being imposed by the designer is one that you think is worth imposing.

But ends, means, and all that....

Quote from: Abyssal MawDying Earth Aint Pictionary.

But unlike the more complicated RPGs, it could easily be played in the same social environment.

In fact, I could actually ditch the dice, and run DE using Pictionary.

0_0

Holy crap that would be AWESOME!

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf I had to think of a game that was obscure enough that only gamers would have ever bothered to buy itor play it, I think Dying Earth would be a good pick.

And what does this imply?

Quote from: SettembriniHow can the ability to make puns and understand Vanican humour be in any way related to having played RPGs?

Is that all you think Dying Earth is about? No wonder you're upset.

Unlike standard 'adventure' games, DE is designed for interesting failures, NOT dramatic successes, and this goes in reverse of what most gamers have come to expect. The consequence of failure is also less likely to be death than embarrassment, and that death often comes via embarrassment. This frees players from the fear of failure, or at least the kind of failure that completely removes them from the game and costs them all the time they invested in their character up to that point. Most people prefer this style of play, because it encourages interaction and trying new things. Most RPGs however discourage or even punish such, because they focus on survival.

And this is why I think many gamers will just sit there and do nothing unless I throw a monster at them. They're reactive, not active, because every action is a risk to survival. Most non-gamers on the other hand act and explore, because that's what you're ALLOWED and EXPECTED to do in a party game. Just like DE gives you permission to screw over your closest friends, 'Spin the Bottle' gives you permission to kiss that pretty girl/guy, and Twister gives you permission to touch...various places.

And RPGs ARE party games, just like 'Pictionary' :p. And like all party games, the default outcome is humorous. An RPG has to actually work HARD at helping you make the experience anything BUT humorous, and sometimes it inadvertently ends up being even more hilarious for trying. DE just accepts the default and runs with it.

The setup time in DE is also 1/10 of what it is with D&D. That alone is worth the price of admission. Yet a lot of gamers seem to actually crave the involved character creation process present in many games, and feel naked in play without it.

But most importantly, DE is a game with a strong focus on dialog. This is the default of how people interact with each other, however, it is not always the default of how GAMERS interact. In a game of DE, I can be certain of having dialog, but in a game of D&D... well...

...I have played in D&D games that not only had NO DIALOG AT ALL, but where many of the players at the table thought it was a 'waste of time'. I mean, it was like they were playing Chess or something...

...because that's EXACTLY the kind of thing they WERE playing.

Anyway, this is a VERY alien experience for people like me who sometimes even add dialog in games like 'Monopoly' and 'Life', and it seems to be almost as strange to non-gamers. And can you even consider something an RPG if it doesn't have dialog?

I can probably come up with more, but it's late, and I need coffee.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerBut unlike the more complicated RPGs, it could easily be played in the same social environment.

In fact, I could actually ditch the dice, and run DE using Pictionary.

0_0

Holy crap that would be AWESOME!



And what does this imply?



Is that all you think Dying Earth is about? No wonder you're upset.

I'm not at all upset, and I actually quite like the Dying Earth RPG, Robin Laws, AND the books upon which it is based (especially Cugel's Saga).

I just think these claims are starry-eyed foolishness. In reality, people just aren't picking up Dying Earth or any other roleplaying game at parties. Heck, they aren't even really playing Pictionary anymore.

If anyone "gets" what Dying Earth does, it's gamers. By and large, there's no question, it's not alien technology to them. They just have to look at the book and they'll know what it is, and they'll be able to understand. But the grand majority won't choose that particular game for a variety of reasons. It's been out for nearly 6+ years now. It did not catch on.

The point is, established roleplaying game fans (what we call "gamers") really are the only audience for these boutique roleplaying games. The general population of people- even if we look at people who might enjoy playing a game every once in a while- for the most part do not care.

Marketing won't make them do it. A targeted ad campaign won't do it. Handing a free copy to every man and woman in the street won't do it.

If they don't self-select as gamers, they won't care. Those that do, generally don't care either. As evidenced by the last 6 years.

Actually, I think the people who are most likely to "get" DE aren't gamers but fans of Jack Vance. Vance is a continent all unto himself. Gamers are usually  familiar with LotR-type fantasy or Sword & Sorcery, but not with Vance, and that's a hindrance rather than a help.

QuoteBut unlike the more complicated RPGs, it could easily be played in the same social environment.

What kind of self hate thing have you going on?

I have played RPGs in every social environment and with every kinds of people where/with whom playing a boardgame/cardgame would have been appropriate too.
And sometimes even at inappropriate places and times.

I never encountered any problem.

I´d suggest that you drop this old argument, as it has been refuted one too many times.

@Pierce: It doesn´t help being just a Vance reader, although that might instill the longing for play. You need a certain kind of quality input, which you don´t have in five people in Gaussian distribution.
Just like you can´t walk to seven boardgamers and find a workable Empires in Arms group immeadeately. Heck, even seven napoleonics Wargamers might not be the right people to play EiA with them.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityActually, I think the people who are most likely to "get" DE aren't gamers but fans of Jack Vance. Vance is a continent all unto himself. Gamers are usually  familiar with LotR-type fantasy or Sword & Sorcery, but not with Vance, and that's a hindrance rather than a help.

As can be seen by the numbers of D&D players (and D&D haters alike) not knowing that Gygax lifted his "spell memorization" from a literary source.

On a tangent:
I always wondered why Gygax (when borrowing inspiration from the literature) went with the strange stuff instead of the "lowest common denominator" which would have created a truly generic fantasy game.

QuoteOn a tangent:
I always wondered why Gygax (when borrowing inspiration from the literature) went with the strange stuff instead of the "lowest common denominator" which would have created a truly generic fantasy game.

Because he´s a cool DM, who happened to be an author. He wasn´t thinking about marketing, but rather about what he thought was cool.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeAs can be seen by the numbers of D&D players (and D&D haters alike) not knowing that Gygax lifted his "spell memorization" from a literary source.

On a tangent:
I always wondered why Gygax (when borrowing inspiration from the literature) went with the strange stuff instead of the "lowest common denominator" which would have created a truly generic fantasy game.

Because Gygax wasn't setting out to make a generic fantasy game, he was just making what he thought would be fun to play, and as a result picked from a grab bag of stuff he thought was neat.

Dirk, that's a very important point, and I think the answer is: Because he's more complex and more gonzo than he gets credit for!

There are many sides to the guy (and Arneson, presumably). Unfortunately, his writing style can be pompous, and that's what people notice first. That, and the wargamey bits.

But he doesn't get credit for being a kind of fantasy author, or fantasy world builder, in his own right. D&D is not the sum of its sources--it's its own beast entirely. That's why DE, Stormbringer the Conan and the Tolkien RPGs etc. etc. can exist at all--and look how different they all are from D&D.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm not at all upset

Not you, the -other- guy.  <_<

Quote from: Abyssal MawI just think these claims are starry-eyed foolishness. In reality, people just aren't picking up Dying Earth or any other roleplaying game at parties. Heck, they aren't even really playing Pictionary anymore.

True.

And teens... I thought 'Truth or Dare' was risque in my day, but wow you should see what they play now 0_0

But they like anime, manga, cosplay, and console RPGs.

And for some reason they think I'm cool.

That's my IN.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf anyone "gets" what Dying Earth does, it's gamers.

You're probably right. I was being deliberately irritating in choosing to use the terms 'gamer' and 'normal', but iit seemed to fit the style of this forum.

And there IS some validity to it, as long as you assume it to represent a market archetype and not a specific individual.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut the grand majority won't choose that particular game for a variety of reasons.

And I'm STILL not sure why most gamers choose D&D. They even followed it from 3.0 to 3.5, much to the chagrin of the third party book market.

I mean, is there any RPG more uniquely suited to running 'Pirates of the Caribbean' that Dying Earth?

It's a mad, mad world.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe point is, established roleplaying game fans (what we call "gamers") really are the only audience for these boutique roleplaying games. The general population of people- even if we look at people who might enjoy playing a game every once in a while- for the most part do not care.

I don't buy that. I just think that adults get their social fantasy from other sources. They also tend to be a little embarrassed to indulge in fantasy within a large group, so they need a kind of safety veil. A women's book club is a good example. They interpret, but do not act within, the story. They get together for drinks and discuss their thoughts on the characters, their motives, the possible symbolic meanings in the story, and even how all those elements relate to their own lives.

And it can be just as interesting as an RPG session, it's similar to an RPG session, but it's not an RPG session.

It's kinda like an RPG session in reverse.

Quote from: Abyssal MawMarketing won't make them do it. A targeted ad campaign won't do it. Handing a free copy to every man and woman in the street won't do it.

And don't get me started on Free RPG Day (which also happens to be my birthday). I just don't get the point.

RPGs are still rather hard to identify as a concept to consumers. You say board game, people get it, and lots of people have a regular board game night. You say card game, and it's the same thing. Heck, the average consumer even knows what Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh are.

You say RPG, and even I'm not exactly sure what the average person thinks. All I do know is that it's not as socially accepted as any of the other game types I mentioned, and yet it's more fundamentally social than any of them.

I find that weird.

Quote from: SettembriniI never encountered any problem.

I´d suggest that you drop this old argument, as it has been refuted one too many times.

I see. So my personal experience is invalid because it contradicts YOUR personal experience.

[*in the voice of Leonardo Leonardo*] Well played Settembrini...well played ;)

QuoteI see. So my personal experience is invalid because it contradicts YOUR personal experience.

You 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.

Quote from: TonyLBSo in one case it's okay because you feel that the goal (genre emulation) is worthy, and in the other case it's not okay because you feel that the goal (ideological posturing) is unworthy.

I can buy that.  I see that distinction.  But is that the distinction between a designer imposed playstyle and something that isn't designer imposed playstyle?  It looks to me like a different distinction.  I think that they're both designer imposed playstyle, and that the difference is that in one case the playstyle being imposed by the designer is one that you think is worth imposing.

Are they both "designer imposed" in the sense that the designer is the guy writing everything? I guess so... but by that logic using a d20 or a d6 would be a "designer imposed playstyle" too, as would abbreviating Agility as "Agi" or as "Ag". Kind of makes the term meaningless, and that couldn't possibly be your rhetorical goal, could it?  :rolleyes:

Obviously, 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).

RPGPundit

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).

But then, I often had discussions in my game store and in the internet (with Sett, no less) about what elements make the genre "fantasy", what is important for the emulation of the genre.
Is it ...

• the "everything-goes/kitchen sink" approach, or is it
• the limitation to one particular author or work (or time peroid, eg. before fantasy literature was changed by the "D&D genre"), or is it
• "what the media label as fantasy" (including Neil Gaiman, The Golden Compass, Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer and The Beastmaster, Watership Down and The Rats from NIMH, and Marvel's run of Conan etc etc), or is it
• the lowest common denominator of "all of the above"?

Thus the game designer clearly shows his personal ideology when he decides to include psionics, magical stags, phantastic polytheism, crashed spacecraft, "realistic" weapon data, and character classes such as Spell Dreamer and Barbarian, and to omit Gormenghastian diplomacy, Amberite skills, and Barsoomian races, or talking mice from Redwall, or a fairy tale rule like "true love conquers all".
(According to Sett this is a moral/political decision, and thus, personal ideology. At least when it is what the designer wanted to write, as opposed to "got paid for" - then it's the "marketing dept.'s imposed playstyle" that may not even be an "ideology" because they couldn't care less about the meaning of the content. I am looking at 90's TSR at the moment, Spelljammer and Buck Rogers in particular...)


That said, I feel what you are saying. It is just that the words you chose don't do you a favor. There is (I guess) a qualitative difference between designing a game to deliberately leave everything open and interpretable, and expressively forbid certain actions via the rules (or designer's notes). But even that isn't going to help much since that qualitative difference is still open to subjective interpretation.

I also think Pundit is right, but his wording is not as razor sharp, as his journalistic instinct.

I think the difference is actual play based:

For example Traveller:

Traveller presents a Nightwatch-state, that is so libertarian, it borders the cruel. Still, it is presented in rather favourable light.

But it does not push the issue. It leaves wiggle room, for you as a player and group position yourself to it. You can highlight the cruelty of negligience, or the actual crimes if the Imperium, as in the early modules.
Or you can embrace it and advance in it´s organizations.

Or, you let the Empereror be Emperor and keep on hustling in your corner of the Galaxy. Still, libertarian ideas rule this Galaxy. But they don´t rule play at the table.

The same with D&D.

Still, there´s some playstyle decisions that are Author´s ideology that are indeed relevant at the table: Mortality via Firearms in the game, for example. Or more abstract and pillar-crossover kept in mind: The role and conduct of combat.

It´s all decided by the designer, and he designed the rules to match that. Then he moves his hands away from your table.

And this is the big difference: Traveller and D&D present functioning models and subsystems, and let you do with them, whatever you wish.

Whereas the EvilPorcicist games can´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.

Abstracted to absurdity, both types are rules, and ideologically "tainted". but looking closer the difference becomes clear.

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.

Sett, do you still have a link to the interview you did?