A discussion on #rpgnet got me reminded of some of the snarking at D&D and old school design and play that popped up in the RPG books of the 90s when I started gaming.
GURPS 3rd Edition's chapter on adventure riding is stuffed with this kind of nonsense, for example, here's the sidebar on dungeons:
QuoteDungeons
The term "dungeon" is often used for a
simple fantasy adventure. In the typical
dungeon, the players wander from room to
room, killing monsters and grabbing trea-
sure. There is often no rhyme or reason to
the contents of the rooms - in children's
fantasy games, every encounter may be
rolled randomly!
But a dungeon setting is good for a
beginning adventure; it teaches the basic
game mechanics quickly. And an under-
ground labyrinth does not have to be "kid
stuff - it can be part of a very realistic
background.
A "dungeon" can also be a building,
battleship, space station, etc. If the players
are dropped into a limited area, with little
or no goal except to grab what they can
and get out alive, it's a "dungeon."
A dungeon is easy to map, since its area
is limited. When players go too far, they
just run into a blank wall and have to turn
around. The typical dungeon is a collection
of rooms, connected by corridors, shafts or
tunnels.
Dungeon Inhabitants and
Plot
The GM should populate his dungeon
(or building, or whatever) with appropriate
men, beasts and monsters. If you are just
creating a "hack-and-slash" dungeon, you
don't need to worry about what they are
doing there, what they eat, why they attack
the party, or anything else - just stock the
rooms and go.
Likewise, the "plot of the story" for a
hack-and-slash adventure will be very simple.
"Joe the Barbarian, with his friends Ed the
Barbarian and Marge the Barbarian, went
down into a cave. They saw lots of
monsters and killed them and took their
treasure. A dragon ate Ed. Joe and Marge
ran away. The End."
If you want to play on a more "mature"
level, and create a situation that actually
makes sense, you have advanced to the
level of adventure design. Congratulations.
Read on ...
What are some other examples you've come across?
I saw that back in the day and promptly ignored it.
Since then I learned that Steve Jackson intensely dislikes D&D and its tropes.
Even with Dungeon Fantasy they still treat the whole thing as over the top. (Notably 250 point characters). But as the line continued their commitment to quality in the GURPS line won out and it today it is a pretty good series of supplements to run old school classic D&D adventures with GURPS.
I suppose SJ Games makes up for it for having to treat it seriously in GURPS in their various Munchkin products.
Quote from: J Arcane;686411What are some other examples you've come across?
Every old World of Darkness game ever?
This kind of anti-AD&D sniping has been present in quite a lot of Hungarian RPGs, never mind the fact that AD&D has not been in print since 2000. To cite one of the worst offenders, Koleria, a game released in 2011, had the following gems in its foreword (!):
QuoteBeautiful Ladies, Glorious Lords,
(...)
Forgive if I will continuously compare my system to other fantasy RPGs, but the birth of this world makes it necessary. I have to puke out my guts whenever I see ideas like an inn in every village, a "tavern" filled to the brim with "adventurers". Of course, the creators of AD&D could defend themselves by claiming it was their world and that's how they created it, and I should shut my mouth.
Well, sure. But for me, it is not real that so many experienced warriors should just march around and undertake secret assignments or as common thieves from here to there, and back again. Feudalism, the main characteristic of mediaeval society, manifested in hierarchical relations. The serfs served their petty nobles, who served their own sires, who served the greater nobles, who served the king, who served the emperor. Someone who stood outside the chain of fealty could be killed with impunity, he was alone, vulnerable, on the edges. So, these are yourt AD&D adventurers.
Defrocked priests, assassins who have left their guilds, elves and dwarves who have wandered far from their home. Nice and quaint, but why would a god continue to support a priest who was no longer in touch with the head official of his monastery? How could a knight in full armour mount his horse without the aid of his servants? He probably could not even dress! Why would anyone tolerate a tavern collecting potential troublemakers on his feudum? And why would we want to force 21st century ideas of freedom on mediaeval circumstances? We shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't be afraid of our character having a feudal master, nor to play a noble who has underlings.
Sure, I can't deny either that even in the Middle Ages, there were people outside society, like robber knights, mercenaries, criminals, or we could even mention the assassins' "guild", the justly famous Hassassins, the etymological root of the English word 'assassin'. But we must make limits, and we can't have every village be filled with adventurers. And let's just realise there were no typical inns with tables and rooms on the second floor. Mediaeval travellers knocked on the doors of monastic orders, slept in the stables with pigs and horses, or huddled together in the forest. In a few cities, they built an inn before the gates for those who arrived after darkness had fallen and the gates were shut. There is no bar counter at these places, there is only filth, straw on the floor where one may even sleep, no waiter girls, no separate rooms with a double bed. Forget these stereotypes. Or go play AD&D.
(...)
(Long rant about how city guards are also not realistic)
(paragraphs mine)
Granted, the game
kinda sunk immediately after its release. It also makes a great case for playing AD&D.
Quote from: estar;686418I saw that back in the day and promptly ignored it.
Since then I learned that Steve Jackson intensely dislikes D&D and its tropes.
I suppose SJ Games makes up for it for having to treat it seriously in GURPS in their various Munchkin products.
I think you broke my sarcasm detector. Munchkin is nothing more than Steve Jackson hating on D&D and getting rich doing it.
Quote from: Melan;686433This kind of anti-AD&D sniping has been present in quite a lot of Hungarian RPGs, never mind the fact that AD&D has not been in print since 2000. To cite one of the worst offenders, Koleria, a game released in 2011, had the following gems in its foreword (!):
(paragraphs mine)
Granted, the game kinda sunk immediately after its release. It also makes a great case for playing AD&D.
It reads like someone who doesn't understand how good stories or fiction work.
The vast majority of human fiction is about people who ARE in some way outside the norms. And when it isn't, its often about how much being inside the norm sucks.
I'm not surprised a game that appears to be about conformity didn't exactly sell well to a bunch of geeks.
Oh, it is a completely clueless piece of writing, since the author mixes his uninformed disdain for the bogeyman "AD&D" with his equally uninformed liking of "feudalism" (his game goes on to introduce a palette of fantasy races, a mish-mash of Viking and Egyptian mythology, and dares to call it a realistic "mediaeval" setting). "AD&D" comes in as the bad guy because it was the favoured target of mid-to-late 90s game designers and magazine columnists, and that sort of uninformed but hostile mentality stuck.
Quote from: Melan;686433This kind of anti-AD&D sniping has been present in quite a lot of Hungarian RPGs, never mind the fact that AD&D has not been in print since 2000. To cite one of the worst offenders, Koleria, a game released in 2011, had the following gems in its foreword (!):
(paragraphs mine)
Granted, the game kinda sunk immediately after its release. It also makes a great case for playing AD&D.
Did the author die of vitriol poisoning?
These days you don't need other games to snark at D&D, you just need to ask a question which edition is the best one.
Fantasy Hero for Hero 4e was an excellent resource in a lot of ways, but looking back on its section of campaign styles, its section on "hack and slash" fantasy read like an over the top caricature of D&D stereotypes. The way it presented a campaign style it openly mocked made that section seem less like a resource for the game and more taking pot shots at D&D.
Quote from: David Johansen;686434I think you broke my sarcasm detector. Munchkin is nothing more than Steve Jackson hating on D&D and getting rich doing it.
Yes it was more rolling eyes than sarcasm but yes I agree with you about Munchkin.
It was surprising how useful and straightforward the Dungeon Fantasy line turned out to be in light of Munchkin. It could have been a quasi-comedy presentation. Stuff like DF 8: Treasure Tables made it incredibly useful even for a 150 pt fantasy campaign.
Not so much snark, but in Tunnels & Trolls 5.5, there's an intro piece by Ken St. Andre that talks about wanting to play D&D, but finding the rules complicated, so he set off to make his own rules. He does give thanks to D&D.
Despite its virtues, The Riddle of Steel took a particularly snotty tone.
Quote from: Melan;686433It also makes a great case for playing AD&D.
Funny, I've found that to often be the case - people hatin' on somethin' by expressing what are, to me, its virtues.
I Like and sometimes LOVE 'snark' aimed at D&D.
Thats probably why that description in 3rd edition GURPS never bothered me.
In the '80s a local game club that I belonged to we nicknamed it 'Dumb & Drag'. (Several of us one night thought the sessions we had been in were dumb and a bit of a drag)
NEVER had fun or an 'immersion moment' in all the D&D sessions thatr I tried in the '80s and '90s. The only Role Playing Game that clicked with me and ghave me moments of immersion fun was TRAVELLER.
Ever since thewn I've pretty much have preferred Sci Fi setting RPGs.
- Ed C.
Quoteand Marge the Barbarian
Great, now I have visions of an amazon with a tall blue beehive-afro.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;686919Funny, I've found that to often be the case - people hatin' on somethin' by expressing what are, to me, its virtues.
I'll admit that I've come around to this over the years. No it doesn't support my play style but other people really like it and it's well designed for what they want it to do.
Really if WotC wanted to utterly rule and dominate the market they'd take Clash's idea for a fully modular build your own game system data base and build it under the name Dungeons & Dragons.
You'd just click series of branching survey questions and get the game you want with the options you want. They'd be unified by a monster / npc profile that would be standard for adventures and about one step up from Tunnels and Trolls' Monster Rating.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;686489Fantasy Hero for Hero 4e was an excellent resource in a lot of ways, but looking back on its section of campaign styles, its section on "hack and slash" fantasy read like an over the top caricature of D&D stereotypes. The way it presented a campaign style it openly mocked made that section seem less like a resource for the game and more taking pot shots at D&D.
The 5e Fantasy supplement was way, way better.
I have a vague recollection of some snark in the introduction to Cyberpunk 2013 (or may have been 2020) to the effect that you could either play in a William Gibson, likely-to-happen-any-time-now dark near-future or you could go off and play "that game with the elves and pixies and magic".
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687070I have a vague recollection of some snark in the introduction to Cyberpunk 2013 (or may have been 2020) to the effect that you could either play in a William Gibson, likely-to-happen-any-time-now dark near-future or you could go off and play "that game with the elves and pixies and magic".
This may've been snark at Shadowrun, rather than D&D, and it wouldn't be isolated in that. One of Bruce Sterling's books contains a remark describing SR as 'rendered idiotic' by the addition of fantasy elements like elves and dragons.
I don't think any game spat on D&D quite as much as Fantasy Wargaming.
"Who the hell wants to play the role of a hobbit?" :p
Quote from: Exploderwizard;687072I don't think any game spat on D&D quite as much as Fantasy Wargaming.
"Who the hell wants to play the role of a hobbit?" :p
Yes but
Fantasy Wargaming was probably the shittiest RPG I've ever seen so I never took offense at what were clearly the ravings of a madman.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687073Yes but Fantasy Wargaming was probably the shittiest RPG I've ever seen so I never took offense at what were clearly the ravings of a madman.
But....but..... Its the
highest level. Says so right on the cover. :rotfl:
Quote from: J Arcane;687071This may've been snark at Shadowrun, rather than D&D, and it wouldn't be isolated in that. One of Bruce Sterling's books contains a remark describing SR as 'rendered idiotic' by the addition of fantasy elements like elves and dragons.
I thought about that but Cyberpunk 2013 hit in 1988, Shadowrun wasn't released until 89 or so. Of course it's entirely possible Mike Pondsmith knew about SR beforehand, or that I'm thinking of Cyberpunk:2020.
(ha ha, Firefox thinks Cyberpunk is a real word but Shadowrun isn't :D :D :D )
Quote from: Exploderwizard;687074But....but..... Its the highest level. Says so right on the cover. :rotfl:
"Who the hell wants to play a Hobbit when you can play this RPG over here where you can be burned at the stake for being left handed?"
To get back on topic: Tunnels & Trolls was, essentially all anti-D&D snark.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687078To get back on topic: Tunnels & Trolls was, essentially all anti-D&D snark.
Hmmm, I caught a little bit of "hat's off and thanks" in the beginning, but can't remember too much if anything after that- although it's been a long while since I've read my 5.5.
As an aside- there were some stupid crap in the books that I disliked.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;687072"Who the hell wants to play the role of a hobbit?" :p
I'm pretty sure Gary Gygax said about the same thing in the original three booklets. "Hobbits (though why anyone would want to play one is beyond) me..." or some such thing.
As for Tunnels and Trolls, I don't recall any anti D&D snark in fifth edition beyond Ken St Andre saying that he wrote it because he thought D&D was too expensive and complex.
And then there's Fantasy Wargaming which was written by a guy who'd IRRC had only played Tunnels and Trolls and Chivalry and Sorcery not Dungeons & Dragons. So most of his complaints are aimed at a completely different game. :D
I remember the anti-D&D snark in either Cyberpunk 2013 or 2020. I think it was 2013. I loved the comment by Bruce Sterling about Shadowrun, mainly because I agree with it.
Munchkin d20 was parody of 3.x, and some of it is pretty funny. The thing is, since they went the extra mile with the parody and made the entries actually useable in a 3.x game, I have found them great little surprises in my 3.x games for Players. So as straight anti-D&D snark, they kinda backfired.
Would the entirety of Hackmaster be anti-D&D snark?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687140Would the entirety of Hackmaster be anti-D&D snark?
I think it came from a place of love. I never had the core books but the modules always seemed like you had to have played and enjoyed the originals to enjoy find them funny. Knights of the dinner table and hackmaster struck me more as D&D players making fun of themselves.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;687142I think it came from a place of love. I never had the core books but the modules always seemed like you had to have played and enjoyed the originals to enjoy find them funny. Knights of the dinner table and hackmaster struck me more as D&D players making fun of themselves.
Most likely.
Quote from: jeff37923;687114I remember the anti-D&D snark in either Cyberpunk 2013 or 2020. I think it was 2013. I loved the comment by Bruce Sterling about Shadowrun, mainly because I agree with it.
Gibson isn't a fan either, but he's too busy having a career as a world-famous author and futurist to actually care about it beyond a question in an interview once.
Anti-whatever snark will quickly turn me off a book. Don't tell me why (You think) another game is shit. Tell me why your game is great, on it's own merits... that said, the GURPS dungeon advice sounds pretty sound to me. You can throw some monsters in a set of rooms, and that'll be fun, or you can think about it and make it even more fun.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687140Would the entirety of Hackmaster be anti-D&D snark?
It's all
Pro-D&D Satire and Parody.
When I went to the game club for my AD&D1e game earlier this week, it struck me how many people were sitting around with figurines on grids, and how many more had character sheets and were rolling dice. Nobody else was playing AD&D1e, but...
You may choose to hate your parents, but you still look like them.
Quote from: jeff37923;687114I loved the comment by Bruce Sterling about Shadowrun, mainly because I agree with it.
You dont happen to have that quote handy do you? Just curious about it.
Quote from: Ronin;687175You dont happen to have that quote handy do you? Just curious about it.
From Bruce Sterling's
The Hacker Crackdown:QuoteThe next cyberpunk game had been the even more successful Shadowrun by FASA Corporation. The mechanics of this game were fine, but the scenario was rendered moronic by sappy fantasy elements like elves, trolls, wizards, and dragons—all highly ideologically-incorrect, according to the hard-edged, high-tech standards of cyberpunk science fiction.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/101/101-h/101-h.htm
Interesting, thank you
Quote from: Ladybird;687156Anti-whatever snark will quickly turn me off a book. Don't tell me why (You think) another game is shit. Tell me why your game is great, on it's own merits...
Agreed. It just shows a complete lack of class.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;687170You may choose to hate your parents, but you still look like them.
Unless you're adopted.
I think some folks' snark detectors are a little too sensitive. So what if Ken St Andre didn't like AC and said so, or if the first guys to come up with a unified skill system were proud of it, or if Steve Jackson thought GURPS was better than the competition.
Quote from: The_Shadow;687258I think some folks' snark detectors are a little too sensitive. So what if Ken St Andre didn't like AC and said so, or if the first guys to come up with a unified skill system were proud of it, or if Steve Jackson thought GURPS was better than the competition.
Yeah, dissing on D&D isn't something Id conflate with dissing on hackNSlash dungeon crawls with no internal setting logic anyways.
heh...go read some old Space Gamers and you'll get a clearer picture of SJ's attitudes :D
Quote from: The_Shadow;687258I think some folks' snark detectors are a little too sensitive. So what if Ken St Andre didn't like AC and said so, or if the first guys to come up with a unified skill system were proud of it, or if Steve Jackson thought GURPS was better than the competition.
I like GURPS as a system but I don't believe it to be "better" or "worse" than D&D. GURPS is complex and tactical, D&D is simple & abstract. They each do a good job. Its all about what you want as a player. Do you want to just generate a quick archetype character in 5 minutes and get playing or do you feel like building the exact character you want. I see these games at opposite ends of a spectrum instead of competitors with each other.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;687484I like GURPS as a system but I don't believe it to be "better" or "worse" than D&D. GURPS is complex and tactical, D&D is simple & abstract. They each do a good job. Its all about what you want as a player. Do you want to just generate a quick archetype character in 5 minutes and get playing or do you feel like building the exact character you want. I see these games at opposite ends of a spectrum instead of competitors with each other.
That's pretty much my attitude too (always been a fan of both games).
Never mind the '90s, White Wolf was doing it in their manuals well into the 2000s.
WW liked to spread the love around, too. Remember that Aberrant book that sneered at the idea of being treated as a mere superhero game?
Oh and the 'happy little trees and elves" thing was from CP2020 so it could very well have been a knock at Shadowrun. I'd always assumed it was directed at D&D but SR makes sense.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687075I thought about that but Cyberpunk 2013 hit in 1988, Shadowrun wasn't released until 89 or so. Of course it's entirely possible Mike Pondsmith knew about SR beforehand, or that I'm thinking of Cyberpunk:2020.
(ha ha, Firefox thinks Cyberpunk is a real word but Shadowrun isn't :D :D :D )
According to Jordan Weisman, he was originally going to do a purely cyberpunk game but Cyberpunk 2013 scooped him, so he shifted tack to add fantasy elements and Shadowrun was born.
Quote from: Raven;688167WW liked to spread the love around, too. Remember that Aberrant book that sneered at the idea of being treated as a mere superhero game?
You mean the corebook? ;)
Seriously, I couldn't get through it because it seemed to want to spend most of its time telling me over and over how it wasn't the thing it so clearly was.
Quote from: RPGPundit;688070Never mind the '90s, White Wolf was doing it in their manuals well into the 2000s.
I recently looked over the nWoD core book and was struck by the fact that a) it doesn't really address what an RPG is until chapter 8 (and even then it doesn't even offer an example of play), and b) it gets distracted partway through that explanation to talk about that whole "
role-playing over
roll-playing" bee WW had in its bonnet, which was already completely groanworthy halfway into oWoD's lifespan.
Quote from: Warthur;688176I recently looked over the nWoD core book and was struck by the fact that a) it doesn't really address what an RPG is until chapter 8 (and even then it doesn't even offer an example of play), and b) it gets distracted partway through that explanation to talk about that whole "role-playing over roll-playing" bee WW had in its bonnet, which was already completely groanworthy halfway into oWoD's lifespan.
The first chapter briefly describes how the game works, though, on page 22:
"Storytelling games involve at least two, although preferably four or more players. Everybody involved in the game participates in telling a group story -- the players create and act out the roles of their characters, and the Storyteller creates and reveals the plot, introducing allies and antagonists with which the players' characters interact. The players' choices throughout the course of the Storytelling experience alter the plot. The Storyteller's job isn't to defend his story from any attempt to change it, but to help create the story as events unfold, reacting to the players' choices and weaving them into a greater whole, introducing secondary characters and exotic settings."Incidentally, there's an example of play in chapter 7, on pages 182-185, but that's more accurately an example of combat, not a description of what takes place at the table.
Also, that "some people call those
roll-playing games, since they're more focused on dice rolling than
role-playing"
paragraph is right at the beginning of chapter 8, and doesn't exactly derail the rest of the text. Besides, it
is, strictly speaking, true: some people do that.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;688188The first chapter briefly describes how the game works, though, on page 22: "Storytelling games involve at least two, although preferably four or more players. Everybody involved in the game participates in telling a group story -- the players create and act out the roles of their characters, and the Storyteller creates and reveals the plot, introducing allies and antagonists with which the players' characters interact. The players' choices throughout the course of the Storytelling experience alter the plot. The Storyteller's job isn't to defend his story from any attempt to change it, but to help create the story as events unfold, reacting to the players' choices and weaving them into a greater whole, introducing secondary characters and exotic settings."
Whilst true the description there is very sparse as far as such descriptions go - the spiel at the start of chapter 8 works better - and it's buried in a minefield of confusing game fiction.
As such, I suspect a lot of novices reading the book would miss that part entirely, and if they did take note of it, it doesn't describe the contract in quite enough detail to really help put things together for them.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;688188Also, that "some people call those roll-playing games, since they're more focused on dice rolling than role-playing" paragraph is right at the beginning of chapter 8, and doesn't exactly derail the rest of the text. Besides, it is, strictly speaking, true: some people do that.
Oh sure, the chapter was utterly progressive by WW standards! It suggested (in all seriousness) that instead of mocking the "unwashed masses" who play D&D it was the WW gamer's job to show them the error of their ways and correct them.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;688898Oh sure, the chapter was utterly progressive by WW standards! It suggested (in all seriousness) that instead of mocking the "unwashed masses" who play D&D it was the WW gamer's job to show them the error of their ways and correct them.
You'd be talking about this from the same page:
"Just don't get lost in the Ivory Tower. Don't deride those who see gaming as a fun hobby (which it is), or those whose roleplaying stories don't aim higher. Instead, encourage and persuade players to stretch their boundaries. Storytelling is about achieving something great through an interactive tale, but not at the expense of fun."But note that the advice's not in any way directed towards
D&D or any specific kind of RPG at all. It's meant to apply equally to players with no experience of any other games than
WoD itself.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;688927You'd be talking about this from the same page: "Just don't get lost in the Ivory Tower. Don't deride those who see gaming as a fun hobby (which it is), or those whose roleplaying stories don't aim higher. Instead, encourage and persuade players to stretch their boundaries. Storytelling is about achieving something great through an interactive tale, but not at the expense of fun."
But note that the advice's not in any way directed towards D&D or any specific kind of RPG at all. It's meant to apply equally to players with no experience of any other games than WoD itself.
Its pretty clear to everyone who they meant. They obviously weren't going to say "D&D" to avoid a lawsuit.
Its notable how their smug sense of superiority just drips off the page.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;689259Its pretty clear to everyone who they meant. They obviously weren't going to say "D&D" to avoid a lawsuit.
That doesn't really fit in with
some of their past products (http://icv2.com/articles/home/6686.html) from the same time period.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;689270That doesn't really fit in with some of their past products (http://icv2.com/articles/home/6686.html) from the same time period.
Not very relevant. The fact that they made money off d20 just proves they're a smart company. It doesn't change what they were trying to push as an ideology with nWoD.
Quote from: RPGPundit;689596Not very relevant. The fact that they made money off d20 just proves they're a smart company. It doesn't change what they were trying to push as an ideology with nWoD.
Eh, that's nothing more than the same old "RPGs can be art too" stance which White Wolf has already held for over twenty years. It never stopped these same people from playing
D&D as well.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;688188The first chapter briefly describes how the game works, though, on page 22: "Storytelling games involve at least two, although preferably four or more players. Everybody involved in the game participates in telling a group story -- the players create and act out the roles of their characters, and the Storyteller creates and reveals the plot, introducing allies and antagonists with which the players' characters interact. The players' choices throughout the course of the Storytelling experience alter the plot. The Storyteller's job isn't to defend his story from any attempt to change it, but to help create the story as events unfold, reacting to the players' choices and weaving them into a greater whole, introducing secondary characters and exotic settings."
Got around to checking up on this and not only is your quote the full extent of the explanation (which I maintain is too brief to be of very much use for new players), it's also jammed into a section where it doesn't belong that talks about "The Elements of Stylish Horror" and focuses more on the different themes of the game. Apparently White Wolf didn't feel the need to lead off their book with a section clearly entitled "New players start here" or "What sort of game is this?" or "What is roleplaying/Storytelling?" or anything like that because that'd get in the way of all the game fiction or something.
QuoteIncidentally, there's an example of play in chapter 7, on pages 182-185, but that's more accurately an example of combat, not a description of what takes place at the table.
Which is exactly the problem: a dialogue-based example of play instantly communicates the idea of what happens at the table to new players. They've been included in gaming rulebooks literally since OD&D (check out booklet 3, it's in there) and nobody's really developed a decent equivalent aside from actual play podcasts/videos/posts online - and certainly nobody's developed an equivalent which works as well as an inclusion in an actual rulebook.
Quote from: Warthur;689601Got around to checking up on this and not only is your quote the full extent of the explanation (which I maintain is too brief to be of very much use for new players), it's also jammed into a section where it doesn't belong that talks about "The Elements of Stylish Horror" and focuses more on the different themes of the game. Apparently White Wolf didn't feel the need to lead off their book with a section clearly entitled "New players start here" or "What sort of game is this?" or "What is roleplaying/Storytelling?" or anything like that because that'd get in the way of all the game fiction or something.
Well, that first chapter
is meant to serve as a general "What is the (new) World of Darkness?" introduction. It (briefly, admittedly) describes the basic idea of the gameplay, includes a summary of the system, and presents as in-character documents the only detailed setting information in the book, except maybe for the section on ghosts as antagonists at the very end.
Samples of play more in the style of session logs are useful, but hardly mandatory. Instead, the
WoD core has shorter examples scattered throughout the text.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;689597Eh, that's nothing more than the same old "RPGs can be art too" stance which White Wolf has already held for over twenty years. It never stopped these same people from playing D&D as well.
It was never "can be". It was "RPGs ARE art in our hands, because we are delicate unappreciated artistes... because we say we are! No backsies!"
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;690295It was never "can be". It was "RPGs ARE art in our hands, because we are delicate unappreciated artistes... because we say we are! No backsies!"
I'm pretty sure that "RPGs can be art" was printed as the actual "mission statement" in
White Wolf Magazine. And how the
WoD core phrases it is "Storytelling can strive to be an art form". (Followed by "This might sound pretentious, but...")
Quote from: The Yann Waters;690306I'm pretty sure that "RPGs can be art" was printed as the actual "mission statement" in White Wolf Magazine. And how the WoD core phrases it is "Storytelling can strive to be an art form". (Followed by "This might sound pretentious, but...")
Again, though, they're not implying "maybe WW games are art", like you seem to be trying to claim they are.
They're very obviously saying "WW games ARE art, while D&D and other "unwashed masses" RPGs are NOT art, or are at best 'bad art' being done by bad people you are superior to if you play WW games".
That's the obvious and very fucking pretentious message throughout their whole history.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;690961Again, though, they're not implying "maybe WW games are art", like you seem to be trying to claim they are.
They're very obviously saying "WW games ARE art, while D&D and other "unwashed masses" RPGs are NOT art, or are at best 'bad art' being done by bad people you are superior to if you play WW games".
There's a difference between "maybe it's art" and "it may be art". The latter's what the GM advice is talking about: how under the right circumstances the actual play of
WoD, and by extension other games with a presumed emphasis on drama, can become art. That doesn't, obviously, exclude
D&D approached with a similar mindset.
What becomes art is up to social consensus. Society has pretty much universally decided that playing RPGs is not art.
I personally have never understood the need for legitimacy people have that leads them to posit make believe games as art in the first place.
Quote from: TristramEvans;691000What becomes art is up to social consensus. Society has pretty much universally decided that playing RPGs is not art.
That's not entirely the case in Northern Europe, though.
Quote from: The Yann Waters;691006That's not entirely the case in Northern Europe, though.
Oh groovy, funky northern Europe!
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbf46q0IPm1qiakemo1_400.gif)
Quote from: The Yann Waters;688188The first chapter briefly describes how the game works, though, on page 22:
0_0
Umm... yeah... I figured out why RPGs aren't terribly popular.
Quote from: Piestrio;6910720_0
Umm... yeah... I figured out why RPGs aren't terribly popular.
Almost everything before that "Elements of Stylish Horror" section is fiction, mostly in the form of in-character documents. The book begins with an eight-page "investigation report", there's a page-long vignette at the beginning of each chapter, and the first chapter alternates between descriptions of what the World of Darkness is and more cited documents by characters who've encountered something weird. A reader who doesn't mind fiction in gaming books, or skips it altogether, shouldn't have trouble reaching the right spot soon enough.
Quote from: TristramEvans;691000I personally have never understood the need for legitimacy people have that leads them to posit make believe games as art in the first place.
The lack of any other discernible talents or skills and the total lack of the discipline to wish to engage in the kind of hard work required to develop such abilities. Its easier to say "See this stupid thing I already do and that anyone can do really? When I AND ONLY I (and my ilk) do it, its ART!!!!!"
Its the refuge of the pretentious and incompetent. Its one step down from that equally-abhorrent brand of "modern artist" that have no abilities whatsoever and replace that with taking a 5 gallon jar of baby urine and putting it on top of a church pew and calling that "art".
Those people are also worthless posers, but the RPG-as-artiste guys are like them but even less willing to do the absolute minimum of effort to deserve being self-styled "artistes". They're the people who think that everyone else should recognize them as artists just because they "feel" like they are artists.
RPGPundit
Late to the parade but...
Fantasy Wargaming tops my list still. They have an attitude against D&D, RPG gamers, AND fantasy writers too. The book just rubbed me the wrong way from the dustcover on.
White Wolf gets my vote for piss ant sniping. The writers like to wander around and stir up trouble or badmouth TSR/WOTC. Why the hell WOTC had them do IP books for them is anyones guess.
Gahan Wilson in his Twilight Zone magazine review of Call of Cthulhu takes a minor shot at D&D.
Not sure which one but some published LARP had some offhanded comments on D&D in it. IFGS?
As for T&T. My copy of 5th ed just has a throwaway comment at the start about wanting a less complex and expensive RPG. Not so much snarking as probably just matter of fact statement of goal. This is fine by me. It is nice to know the reasoning behind a games creation and "I wanted something simpler and cheaper." is a valid reason to set out."
Hackmaster and especially Munchkin and Knights of the Dinner Table just bug me for some reason. Some times its hard to tell where poking fun at ends and sniping begins. I think Knights drifts too frequently to the snipe side for my tastes. Friend of mine loves the series and Hackmaster...
Torchbearer is though rapidly climbing up my dislike list. Everything I read about it just makes me dislike it and the designer a little more and a little more. This one may beat out Fantasy Wargaming at this rate if the designer cant learn to shut the hell up.
The designer for Road/Kill made a backhanded comment about Car Wars fans kitbashing Hot Wheels. Obviously his 10$ 15mm scale minis smaller than a thumbnail are sooooooo much better. KS campaign has failed twice now. Second time due to really poor set up rather than snark.
Probably more in my collection just forgotten or never noticed.
Torchbearer's author is well known for despising D&D, as well as GM-authority, and RPGs in general.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;691503Its the refuge of the pretentious and incompetent. Its one step down from that equally-abhorrent brand of "modern artist" that have no abilities whatsoever and replace that with taking a 5 gallon jar of baby urine and putting it on top of a church pew and calling that "art".
Those people are also worthless posers.
Well said.