Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080690I'm against Pundit?  

I AM??  

AND NO ONE TOLD ME???

...WHY AM I THE LAST ONE TO KNOW THESE THINGS?

pssst... Chris... You are against Pundit.

Am I like the only one here who gets that your beef isnt with Pundit but what you see as a hypocritical labelling of one game as Story Game and another as Not-Story Game based on which he likes or does not?

Quote from: Omega;1080731pssst... Chris... You are against Pundit.

Am I like the only one here who gets that your beef isnt with Pundit but what you see as a hypocritical labelling of one game as Story Game and another as Not-Story Game based on which he likes or does not?

How do you know if something is pornography or art? I'll know.it when I see it.

There is always going to be subjectivity when it comes to these things. This isn't fucking science.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080690I'm against Pundit?  

I AM??  

AND NO ONE TOLD ME???

...WHY AM I THE LAST ONE TO KNOW THESE THINGS?

Answer the question.

Quote from: Omega;1080730er. How so? Player action to me means the player is doing something outside the actual characters actions. EG: Spend a fate point. Your character did not spend a fate point to reroll a die. The player did. (Of course a few RPGs have allowed characters to do that. TORG comes to mind I believe.)

Which by Pundit's reasoning makes TORG a 'storygame'.

Quote from: Omega;1080731pssst... Chris... You are against Pundit.

Am I like the only one here who gets that your beef isnt with Pundit but what you see as a hypocritical labelling of one game as Story Game and another as Not-Story Game based on which he likes or does not?

If you are, you're the only who's right.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1080748Answer the question.

I'm not against anyone.  I don't know anyone of you well enough to have any personal feelings.  What I disagree with is Pundit's terms.  Storygames is a nothing term that he uses willy-nilly on any game that he doesn't like, which is anything Non-OSR or Amber and select few.  He claims that Storygames have a mechanic that's unique to them, but then completely ignores that certain ones he likes, like Amber, I THINK he liked TORG, I could be wrong there, would ALSO fall unto the same category.

I also disagree with the general term of 'OSR' because it SPLITS gamers, it EXCLUDES some because they prefer 3e or even the dreaded 4e Dungeons and Dragons (as much as I disliked 4e, I still think it added stuff to the table.)  In a hobby in which has ALWAYS been inclusive, (hell, we've been DESPERATELY inclusive for as long D&D and RPGs have been around, we WANT girls to join us, we don't care about your skin colour or orientation, you wanna try D&D?  Pull up a chair, here's the basics, now what do you want to play?) the idea that certain groups know the game 'better' because it's 'old school' (whatever the frick that means) is alien to me.  It's all D&D.

We already have enough people, the normies, mundanes, muggles, sheep, average joes swarming in now that Big Bang Theory et al. made Geekdom 'mainstream' bullying us out of the very hobbies we made our own, why do we need divisive labels like Storygame or OSR to split us even further?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080371No they can't, not as players.

...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080764...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.

Musta missed that.  That proves my point of the stupidity of the LABEL and how Pundit is using it.  That page undermines his entire argument.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080751Which by Pundit's reasoning makes TORG a 'storygame'.

Nah, like a few here Pundit just doesn't seem to be overly fond of "fate points" and equivalents. Remember he wasn't too thrilled with the inspiration points way back either when 5e came out.

I think they are ok within reason and limits. Like the inspiration point in 5e D&D. You have one. All it does it allow you a reroll. Or how Karma worked in MSH.

Quote from: Omega;1080769Nah, like a few here Pundit just doesn't seem to be overly fond of "fate points" and equivalents. Remember he wasn't too thrilled with the inspiration points way back either when 5e came out.

I think they are ok within reason and limits. Like the inspiration point in 5e D&D. You have one. All it does it allow you a reroll. Or how Karma worked in MSH.

So in trying to understand the line, what about Fate Points from WFRP 1st edition?

While the player did not get to determine the exact outcome, they could explicitly save you from impossible scenarios.

You're taking an out-of-character decision to manage a game resource and that apparently breaks some people's immersion. Your character doesn't choose to be lucky after all. It doesn't follow to me, personally, since I am not in constant in-character mode during games anyway. Instead, I rather slide in and out during games as needed and "spending a session in character" for me merely means that I am having an easy time to do so repeatedly (as opposed to other sessions in which I struggle to get into character).

I need to be in character when taking a decision as that character (actor stance) which isnt always the case in combat (where it's more often pawn stance as I play tactically), for example. And of course while talking as that character. Otherwise I don't.

So to me the above mentioned attitude seems rather like fragile immersion but then again immersion is a very subjective thing, as noted before, so who am I to judge?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080414Would you like me to get the page number again, where the players CAN?

Amber Core Book, first printing 1991, page 106, under the heading Choosing Random Events, sub-heading Leaving the Choice to the Players.

That's some very weak sauce. Did you even read that section?! If you did, you're either willfully lying, or you're a complete imbecile.

That section doesn't say "your players can, ooc, tell the GM what happens and he has to go along with it". The section says the player (character's) ACTIONS are what can determine the potential field for random events.

The examples given are of a player character getting to a world where there are agents of a powerful Amberite, and that if they do not do anything to avoid it and just go relax at an in, the 'random event' of one of the Amberite's agents discovering and reporting on them can happen; or that a player character is trying to pick a lock and tests it out without being certain ends up opening the possibility of the lock actually being a trick that activates a trap.

That is NOTHING like what happens in storygames, where the player can just say "I want there to be a person in this world who works for a powerful amberite and they run into me so I can interrogate them" or something like that.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1080676I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit.  This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs.  Seriously what is your real issue Brady?

Pundit Derangement Syndrome.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080764...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.

None of which actually change the world during actual play. Logs just record what's happening, diaries are meant to do the same but from the internal monologue perspective of the PC. The Trumps are literally just drawings.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080886None of which actually change the world during actual play. Logs just record what's happening, diaries are meant to do the same but from the internal monologue perspective of the PC. The Trumps are literally just drawings.

Amber Stories (which I notice you left off) absolutely can add detail to the world that would then further bind a GM to a player's desire if the GM is at all interested in internal consistency. Now, perhaps the GM should exercise a veto authority, but that would be reading into the plain text a control that isn't there.

Unless you want to say that it's all "meaningless detail," in which case... what's the line between meaningless and meaningful detail? Is adding a little flourish about how a certain chemical burns a different color a meaningless detail? Because if so, Corwin sure spun that into an important detail in Guns of Avalon.

I mean, you could seriously Old Man Henderson this.

(Please keep in mind I really don't understand what the beef here is, so I'm seeking understanding.)

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080771So in trying to understand the line, what about Fate Points from WFRP 1st edition?

While the player did not get to determine the exact outcome, they could explicitly save you from impossible scenarios.

You would ask that question a day AFTER I packed away my copy... Its been so long I do not remember how those points worked in the original WHFRP. If it isnt allready in storage I'll try and dig it out and check.

Quote from: Omega;1080926You would ask that question a day AFTER I packed away my copy... Its been so long I do not remember how those points worked in the original WHFRP. If it isnt allready in storage I'll try and dig it out and check.

I had to look it up myself to be sure I wasn't thinking 2nd or 4th edition's mechanic. So I know I got that rule right. They're an absolute, "You do not die," mechanic. The only difference I could find (other than "spending" v. "burning" fate, in 2nd edition) was that in 1st Edition, it was not clear just how much the point saved you. It saved you from dying to that Khorne Warrior's axe this round... but what about next round? In 2nd edition, it was stated that something should happen so that you're not burning another Fate point every turn (Dark Heresy through Deathwatch also carried this version).