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' . 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.