TheRPGSite

So, are you an optimist? A pessimist? Do you think everything that can go wrong will? Do you believe in humanity? Does humanity suck in your eyes?

And in all these cases, how does your personal view of the world end up affecting how your games work? Does it affect their themes? Or their very universal laws?

Alternately, did you have encounters with other GMs who's personal philosophies clearly affected their games? And did it suck?

RPGPundit

In short, yes to all the questions.

I'm big into freedom, so in my fantasy world, there is a Spartacus hack character that freed his slave race from a magocratic Empire, successfully.  My personal views affect my game world through my NPCs and governments, and their actions and motivations.

I think it's unavoidable.

Even if we play games in a very casual, beer & bretzels kind of way, this in itself is the result of an influence of our lives on our gaming. It means we need to have beer & bretzels moments because of stress, responsabilities, our outlook on our own lives.

Now, that said, I feel that my personal world view does affect the way I run games, and the way I perceive game worlds. I am, for instance, a Catholic and a believer, and also a lover of mythologies and spiritualities from around the world. This leads me to view pantheons in fantasy worlds as emanations of the world itself, a representation of a whole that, outside of the game world, could be called "God", like Ao in the Forgotten Realms, say.

I also tend to view Good and Evil as principles that do exist and inspire people in one way or another, but the practical limits between these principles is often foggy. Many people believe they are performing good deeds when doing ill things to other people. So in say D&D, I'm reluctant to draw black and white lines between these principles but also like the alignment system.

These are just a few examples. But yes, that's happening all the time. I've played with GMs whose world view was obviously influencing their gaming. To take my example above, atheist GMs portraying religion in a constant grey, suspicious light, or others who consistently make the point that "power corrupts".

I guess it can be a good thing when it brings the world to life in a convincing way. It often has to do with the compatibility of the GM's world view with my own. Which makes total sense, when you think of it. I like the world to be immersive, and don't like politically driven stereotypes (in a large sense of the term, not just actual politics).

So yes. In a nutshell: I believe it happens all the time. Whether it's obvious, and whether it affects the fun I have playing the game, depends on the personal skills of the GM and the compatibility of his world view with my own.

Yes. I am very interested in Marxist & Marxian philosophy in real life, and the structures of the societies I create in my game worlds are strongly influenced by materialist conceptions of historical progress. I try not to be too dogmatic about it though, since that's tedious.

An example from my Dawnlands setting: The old kingdom of High Kaddish was an imperialist city-state oriented around an aristocratic warrior class. They eventually fell prey to a revolution composed of the urban proletariat and proto-bourgeoisie who had been cultivated and developed through the surplus wealth generated by these imperialist adventures. The proto-bourgeoisie (magic users, technological innovators, professional administrators, rich merchants) then seized power from the urban proletariat and instituted an ideology intended to bolster their own dominion (Trying to be king is treason, everyone in Kaddish is formally free and equal, etc.). Since then, Kaddish has basically been a proto-capitalist city-state administered by a bourgeois class called "orthocrats".

That's a very schematic explanation though. The people in setting don't understand it in those terms, nor do I explain it to my players in those terms, but it is the set of ideas I was working with when I came up with the Orthocracy of Kaddish.

Of yeah, my outlook and values do colour the games I run. It's not necessarily a good thing as it limits my range as a GM and it makes me less flexible and reponsive to the mood among the players. But I guess in the end there something in the game for the GM too.

I would definitely say yes.  My games are filled with people and situations that exhibit pettiness, pride, foolishness, and naked self interest.  That's the pessimist in me.  The optimist in me sees it all as a set up for the players to rise above it...at least some of the time.

Oh yeah, I run a lot of Sword & Sorcery.  Why do you ask?  


TGA

Oh Absolutely.  I'd say it had a great effect on how i wrote the Dead, and the way the government and other survivors are portrayed.

I'll also echo The Good Assyrian's comments...I try and do the same thing for my other games, and not let my own feelings influence the actions of the players in any way.

I try to come up with stuff that's entertaining and challenging, so to the extent that I like to be entertained and challenged, then yes.

But as far as reflecting my philosophy of life? Perhaps only a tiny bit. My characters, both player and non-, tend to be competent and pragmatic, reflecting my approach toward living. I have to work at the dreamers, the impractical characters given to extravagance.

Most definitely and I don't see why it would be a problem unless you hammer your world view down your player's throats.

Whatever's going on in my head greatly affects my game-worlds.  My original primary game world (1986-2008) was very Moorcockian Atheist swords & sorcery - "Kill all the gods and let Man be Free!"  

My current setting influenced by the rise of Islam as the dominant political religious force in the UK is much more Paleoconservative, influenced by CS Lewis and Tolkien and based loosely on 8th century southern France (Song of Roland, Battle of Tours et al).  The PCs are the defenders of a small, weak quasi-Christian kingdom constantly under political and violent attack from agents of the much stronger quasi-Islamic power to the south.

Hmm, even typing that on rpgnet would probably get me suspended.  :\

Definitely, but in an inverse fashion.  My game worlds tend to play up ideals and levels of goodness I don't believe in IRL.  My settings tend to be idealized Europe-alikes with plenty of the standard archetypes, but I like to put morally ambiguous twists on them.  I always ditch literal alignment when I run D&D.  I still try to throw in plenty of Lovecraftiana and dashes of grimdark, but I think that fantasy that isn't in some form escapist misses the point.  Stories and NPCs I come up with are informed by games and other media just as often as real people.  

I tend to think top-down when designing, and I put in my settings what I think will elicit positive reactions from prospective players.  Still, I'm sure you can find my values somewhere if you squint at my scenarios and NPCs enough.

When I run Exalted, I downplay the elements of the setting which make me uncomfortable.  Exalted themselves are supposed to be unions of the human and the divine, and I try to emphasize the "human" part of it.  I present the solars as being the most human of the exalted, and this fact as the reason they present a possible new path for the world- the other exalted have all given up their humanity to some degree, from the Melibonean dragon-blooded to the bestial lunars.  I think this view is slightly supported by canon, but not nearly as much as I'd like.

I've got notes on my main fantasy homebrew going back to my preteen days... and it's easy to read the shifts in my education, worldview, and political interests...
In the Wayback it was pretty black & white... with the human/establishment being mostly virtuous... nowadays it's much much more complex and there are no 'white hats' anymore... and the governments are no longer attempts at Utopian arrangements where everyone has equal footing.
It's a crueler world view for sure... but not hopeless.
I'm not sure how much my opinions/beliefs effect actual play though... if players want to see the setting in dualistic ways I won't advise them differently.

Yes, it does - to a significant extent, Fomalhaut is a satire of Hungarian society and politics, and as such, the way it works reflects my real life views. That said, I'd like to believe I am subtle enough not to make it ham-handed.

All the time. In my current game the entire Kingdom is going  through a sort of economic crises  not unlike our own wordy affairs.

Why yes, running CoC and Warhammer is very comfortable!

Like any author, the voice of the GM will come through the characters and the world to some extent.   However, one of the things I enjoy is creating stuff that runs counter to my perspectives.  

I had a T&T fantasy setting where communism and the barter system worked with great harmony and education, common sense and literacy were universal among the populace.   It's not something I believe exists or even wish for, but for me it was interesting to explore those concepts inside a RPG.  Sadly, two players sunk that game because they were so offended...cuz they were real American patriots.

My desires and tastes influence my games. I believe in heroism, pure and simple, that doesn't mean I expect everygame to be about that, but it is a reason why I run "hero only" oriented games. I don't mind falls, and redemption, but the goal has to be heroism in the end. I rather like and enjoy the concept of people taking fate in their own hands and making a difference in the world. On the other hand--how much can that be done in real life?  

There are themes and topics I won't address because they're not appropriate to address in a past time--for fun. They might be discussed, considered, or otherwise examined, but not in a game context.

My god, Sett's getting a heart attack reading this thread.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;295115My god, Sett's getting a heart attack reading this thread.

Regards,
David R

With any luck...:D

(http://mynameisearlkress.com/weblog/triumph01.jpg)

I keed! I keed!


TGA

Beware TGA, if you refer to Sett, three times in a row....he appears.

As to the OP, droog asked something similar some place else.

Here's what I said.

QuoteBrother, I'm sure you are aware that my um preoccupations , find their way into my games. But it's always in the form of questions. I don't run games to teach or educate or inform, for that matter. The most interesting "entertainments" ask questions, I don't see why rpgs should be exempt....IMO etc.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;295115My god, Sett's getting a heart attack reading this thread.

Regards,
David R

David,

 Refresh my memory here: why woud Sett being have a K'niption fit with this thread?

 He doesn't post as often as he used to.


- Ed C.

Ed, Sett believes that in rpgs themes and adventures are mutually exclusive.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;295049So, are you an optimist? A pessimist?

A: An optimist who many times turns into a pessimiust when I let things get me down.
 I TRY to be an optimist.

QuoteDo you think everything that can go wrong will?

A: Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes all the surprises are GOOD ones - but even that can throw you for a loop and make you say 'What the FuQ ?!?!'


 

QuoteDo you believe in humanity?

A: Kind of, yes. In general humanity has the capacity and potential to be REALLY good.  (That has to be encoyraged and helped at times)

QuoteDoes humanity suck in your eyes?

A: NO, see the above answer. Humanity itself does not 'suck, indivual humans can be sucky people. (its really an effort resisting a natural pun with this question...)

QuoteAnd in all these cases, how does your personal view of the world end up affecting how your games work?

A: My campaign settings tend to be places where herpic deeds are possible but they're mostly inhabited by what might be considewred average folk. If there are really BRIGht, capable individuals in them - sometimes those characters don't know until others help them see it ...or circumstances let them shine or rise to the occassion.

 

QuoteDoes it affect their themes?

Yes, but many of 'campaign themnes' wound up being accidental or were stumbled upon me around the 3rd or 5th session of the campaign. Except maybne my BANESTORM campaign - bettween the 1st session and the 2nd I knew what thew zubtle theme was going to be. Or at least the undercurrent of what I was hoping to lay in there. It mostly worked out too. My player who usually HATES fantasy settings and magic liked what went on.


 

QuoteOr their very universal laws?

A: Universal Laws? Niot sure where you going withg that question , Pundit. I do have universal laws in my settings - like slavery is assumed to be bad, everyone should have freedom and rights(even clones, cyborgs, androids and sentinent robots)

QuoteAlternately, did you have encounters with other GMs who's personal philosophies clearly affected their games?

A: Oh hell yes. There are some GMs I've met who I KNOW I could never be a player in their campaigns. I honestly feel sorry for their players when I meet them. If I'm at the store I sometimes have to bite my tongue about that. Although, If I see a player that wants to GM and they seemn to have a good attituide or the right attituide - I'll helkp them out as much as I can.

QuoteAnd did it suck?

A: See the above answer.

Its very difficult for me to trust other GMs/ DMs if I am going to be a player.


- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPundit;295049So, are you an optimist? A pessimist? Do you think everything that can go wrong will? Do you believe in humanity? Does humanity suck in your eyes?

And in all these cases, how does your personal view of the world end up affecting how your games work? Does it affect their themes? Or their very universal laws?

Alternately, did you have encounters with other GMs who's personal philosophies clearly affected their games? And did it suck?

RPGPundit

Not sure what the first paragraph has to do with the topic, but the answer to the topic question is yes. This i think is a good thing.

Sure.

I believe that there aren't really "forces of history" or any nonsense like that. I think that it's all about what humans choose to do, and that small groups of annoying people create most significant change in the world, both good and bad.

Luckily, this is one of the themes of most heroic fiction that players have in mind when they sit down to play. I mean, if you want a long boring story where all your actions are futile and don't affect the world as a whole, you have your own life, you don't need to roleplay. You want your character to be remembered, to have made a difference - good or bad.

I think the "force of history" is the weight of circumstances plus the choices made by people with motivations. This is pretty freaking essential stuff to consider and understand if you're going to have any kind of RPG campaign with a "timeline".

RPGPundit

Quote from: David R;295122Ed, Sett believes that in rpgs themes and adventures are mutually exclusive.

Regards,
David R

My answer in droog's thread on the other site was as a game designer, not as a GM. I think that themes are something that belongs on a group level, not a design level. That's a common occurance with me, though...

-clash

Quote from: RPGPundit;295049[H]ow does your personal view of the world end up affecting how your games work? Does it affect their themes? Or their very universal laws?

I seem to differ from most other posters in this thread.  My fantasy settings and campaigns invariably differ pretty radically from my actual beliefs, values, and principles.

I'm a thoroughgoing social liberal.  Politically, I'm firmly committed to universal human rights, individual liberty, and democratic systems of government (despite their frequent dysfunctional quirks, I agree with Churchill that "democracy is the worst system of government yet invented -- except for all the others".).  In contrast, most of my fantasy settings are ones in which tyranny is the norm, and even the 'good' realms are rigidly hierarchical and, by contemporary standards, quite oppressive (e.g., no 'religious liberty').  I find fantasy settings in which liberal social and political norms can be found (e.g., Forgotten Realms) either obnoxious or silly.

I'm also a 'rationalist' (in the common sense of that word -- i.e., I think that reason is the only reliable guide to knowledge -- not the more specific epistemological/philosophical sense) and an atheist. I don't think that we have any plausible reasons for believing in any supernatural entities or forces (whether God, magic, astrology, pixies, or whatever), and many good reasons for not believing in such supernatural entities or forces.  Yet my fantasy settings -- as the word 'fantasy' indicates! -- are filled with magic, mystery, active gods, destiny, and so forth.  

Fantasy gaming, for me, is an escape from reality.  I'm happy to leave my actual beliefs and commitments "in the office," so to speak, when I crack out the dice for a session of old school D&D.

Akrasia : one doesn't have to portray an ideal governement/religious organization/social order to fit the "does your perspective of life affect your game worlds?" proposition. If you create a setting where monarchies are prevalent while being opposed to monarchism it doesn't necessarily mean you're muting your beliefs. You could use this setting for a very opinionated satire. It's a bit like the sci-fi genre which has been used as much as an anticipation medium as a social comment one.

Quote from: boulet;295276... If you create a setting where monarchies are prevalent while being opposed to monarchism it doesn't necessarily mean you're muting your beliefs. You could use this setting for a very opinionated satire....

Yeah, I understand that.  Even though, in my settings 'good' monarchies really are legitimate, given the metaphysical assumptions of the settings in question (which, obviously, differ very much from my metaphysical beliefs about the real universe).

I'm simply too ham-fisted in my DM'ing to try to convey any kind of satire.  (Maybe in WFRP, where the hard work already has been done for me.)

Quote from: boulet;295276Akrasia : one doesn't have to portray an ideal governement/religious organization/social order to fit the "does your perspective of life affect your game worlds?" proposition. If you create a setting where monarchies are prevalent while being opposed to monarchism it doesn't necessarily mean you're muting your beliefs. You could use this setting for a very opinionated satire. It's a bit like the sci-fi genre which has been used as much as an anticipation medium as a social comment one.

Another possibility is that you design the fantasy setting to cohere with your notions about how the world works without making it simply a utopian version of your desired form of government. For example: I am not a monarchist but my settings do feature monarchies. However, those monarchies function in manner that I find plausible based on my understanding of how the world works.

Another example:

I have a friend who believes in some variant of the "Great Man" theory of history. He genuinely believes that strong-willed individuals dominate the world around them regardless of social forces that they may encounter. So in the games he runs, the socio-political elements and customs of the setting are really just trappings and stage decoration because the strong-willed individualistic NPCs are not going to be constrained by them in any particular way. For example, none of them will be genuinely religious or adhere to the religious morality of the setting, even if ordinary people do so unquestioningly.

Now, these strong-willed individuals might be in a democracy or republic or monarchy or whatever, but it doesn't really matter, even though he himself is mildly in favour of democratic-republican forms of government IRL. The reason it doesn't matter is because he thinks the Great Man idea is more fundamental  to how the world works than his preference for democracy.

Perhaps a shrink could find something in it, though. Maybe you really want a world such as you portray?

Not that I'm saying this is actually the case, but it's very hard to keep yourself out of things you create, and that can take a million different forms.


@Pseudoephedrine – me too.

Quote from: droog;295284Not that I'm saying this is actually the case, but it's very hard to keep yourself out of things you create, and that can take a million different forms.

I agree that it is hard to keep oneself out of the things that one creates.  I didn't mean to suggest that I did 100%.  My settings reflect my sense of humour, my aesthetic judgements, my notion of what makes for a good adventure, and so forth.  After all, I want to have fun!  Those things are different, though, from my moral, political, and metaphysical views.

I also sometimes use fantasy games to explore some of my 'darker' impulses, e.g., fantasies of violence and power.  For instance, some of my favourite NPCs to role-play (and even PCs, although I'm rarely a player) are unscrupulous power mongers.  

I just don't use fantasy games in order to play out my Millian commitments concerning personal liberty, for instance.

Quote from: flyingmice;295230My answer in droog's thread on the other site was as a game designer, not as a GM. I think that themes are something that belongs on a group level, not a design level. That's a common occurance with me, though...

Could you elaborate on this. IMO your games are loaded with themes. Not in a bash you on the head kind of way, but it's there. Some of it is genre emulation - IHW - but for other stuff like BloodGamesII (see, Pundit's review of where he thought you went wrong with the game) and Sweet Chariot, it's something else....

I get Akrasia's point.

I game for escapism too but the way how I present ideas and concepts in game, that IRL I would disagree with, is more nuanced. I suppose this is because I believe that a more compelling "story" is created.

Regards,
David R

This seems an appropriate enough thread for my first post.

The games I run absolutely reflect certain aspects of my psychology, political views, weltanschauung, all of that.  Often it's a conscious choice, but sometimes I don't realize it til later - perhaps even years later.

When I sat down some time ago I found certain thematic threads - duty vs freedom, the anchoring power of family bonds, cleverness trumping brute force, etc - that have been weaving in and out of my campaigns for the last twenty years or so.

I suppose just as literary critics and readers can look at an author's works and see a progression of themes (and revisitation of same), we can do that with our rpg experiences, whether as GMs or players.

Welcome, VectorS!

Quote from: David R;295335Could you elaborate on this. IMO your games are loaded with themes. Not in a bash you on the head kind of way, but it's there. Some of it is genre emulation - IHW - but for other stuff like BloodGamesII (see, Pundit's review of where he thought you went wrong with the game) and Sweet Chariot, it's something else....

In Pundit's review of BG II, he is disappointed that the theme he thought was going to be present was not present. It was not "an RPG where you played mystics and skeptics alike who were fighting in a secret war against anything that works to take down human society, working to keep chaos at bay." Instead it was "a kind of hodgepodge kitchen-sink fantasy-horror game". Sounds more like he thought there was no theme.

-clash

I'd have to say that yes, my perspective on life affects the games that I run or write. I'd include a caveat in that though about analysis.

Just because part of my game world includes incestuous mass murderers who kill their own family members for immortality (my own take on vampires), doesn't mean that I condone that behavior. The problem is that an outsider cannot accurately analyze what part of my perspective on life is being reflected in my work without asking me. An outsider can make some good guesses, but without my input they will at best be only partially correct.

Horror writers are not the horrors they write about, they are the ones who can imagine the particular horrors that they write about. A similar condition exists with each person who creates for a RPG.

Quote from: flyingmice;295367In Pundit's review of BG II, he is disappointed that the theme he thought was going to be present was not present. It was not "an RPG where you played mystics and skeptics alike who were fighting in a secret war against anything that works to take down human society, working to keep chaos at bay." Instead it was "a kind of hodgepodge kitchen-sink fantasy-horror game". Sounds more like he thought there was no theme.

-clash

Or a theme (White Wolf-ish) he didn't dig. Naturally I can't speak for the Pundit, only for myself. I mean stuff like the Honor/Practicality mechanic from IHW surely points towards a theme of some kind. Like I said, it's not obvious and all this is just my opinion.

Regards,
David R

Clash's games present this worldview: You should try to be either loved (Honor) or feared (Practicality). If you try to be both you will probably stuff it up, if you're mostly one and occasionally the other it won't work very well.

Clash Machiavelli.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;295371Clash's games present this worldview: You should try to be either loved (Honor) or feared (Practicality). If you try to be both you will probably stuff it up, if you're mostly one and occasionally the other it won't work very well.

Clash Machiavelli.

This is genre emulation, not a theme. This mechanic is designed to reinforce the military feel of the game. Both ways work, and the more you are one or the other, the better they work, but they work in different ways. I think what David is seeing as themes are mechanics designed to reinforce genre.

Quote from: flyingmice;295375This is genre emulation, not a theme.

Same thing, really.

I mean, let's not go all Forgey and split semantic hairs. What is a "genre" if not the sum of its themes?

Quote from: flyingmice;295375This is genre emulation, not a theme. This mechanic is designed to reinforce the military feel of the game. Both ways work, and the more you are one or the other, the better they work, but they work in different ways. I think what David is seeing as themes are mechanics designed to reinforce genre.

I hate to say it though, Clash, but it is your interpretation, your view, your perspective, your philosophy that is informing that mechanic. It is the designer enforcing their philosophy through their mechanics. Unfortunately, this can be said of just about any mechanic by any designer. The real question becomes can it be molded to reflect the group play and should it?

Hmm. What themes of the genre are you trying to emulate and how is it reflected in the rules. (more or less what kyle said actually). I mentioned this earlier with regards to IHW.

Quote from: David R;295335Some of it is genre emulation - IHW - but for other stuff like BloodGamesII (see, Pundit's review of where he thought you went wrong with the game) and Sweet Chariot, it's something else....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: HinterWelt;295378Unfortunately, this can be said of just about any mechanic by any designer.

I don't see it as unfortunate. I like RPGs with personality.

Quote from: droog;295381I don't see it as unfortunate. I like RPGs with personality.

However, from the point of view that Clash and I share, it is unfortunate. I understand your point though and to a degree I agree with it. To have a certain flavor to a game i what attracts me. However, I prefer that flavor in the setting where I find it more easily ignored, altered or emphasized as fits with the group's preferences. This is a part that I believe Clash and I differ on. He is better with system than I and is usually able to build his systems to be more neutral or optional than I do. Part of my "more trad than trad" thing.

Quote from: HinterWelt;295385However, from the point of view that Clash and I share, it is unfortunate. I understand your point though and to a degree I agree with it. To have a certain flavor to a game i what attracts me. However, I prefer that flavor in the setting where I find it more easily ignored, altered or emphasized as fits with the group's preferences.

Wouldn't this make it difficult to emulate a genre, then ? Just as how a recurring theme in CoC was the loss of sanity in the face of unimaginable horror and madness as a consequence of the use/abuse of power in UA, I assumed, clash was aiming for something similar considering the genre he was emulating - Patrick O'Brian novels but also the Horatio series.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: HinterWelt;295378I hate to say it though, Clash, but it is your interpretation, your view, your perspective, your philosophy that is informing that mechanic. It is the designer enforcing their philosophy through their mechanics. Unfortunately, this can be said of just about any mechanic by any designer. The real question becomes can it be molded to reflect the group play and should it?

No, actually. It is the designer enforcing the collective philosophy of the authors/directors of the genre he is emulating, not his own philosophy. Putting my philosophy in there would screw it up entirely.

-clash

Quote from: David R;295380Hmm. What themes of the genre are you trying to emulate and how is it reflected in the rules. (more or less what kyle said actually). I mentioned this earlier with regards to IHW.



Regards,
David R

In regards to In Harm's Way, these themes include: (as Kyle said) it is better to be loved or feared, but you can't be both (Honor/Practicality); High birth gives you a leg up (Influence); Fortune rewards the bold (Notice); and honorable scars are the marks of glory (Debilitating Wounds).

These are themes of the genre, but they are not *my* themes. They reflect nothing of me.

-clash

Quote from: David R;295396Wouldn't this make it difficult to emulate a genre, then ? Just as how a recurring theme in CoC was the loss of sanity in the face of unimaginable horror and madness as a consequence of the use/abuse of power in UA, I assumed, clash was aiming for something similar considering the genre he was emulating - Patrick O'Brian novels but also the Horatio series.

Regards,
David R

It depends on your method of emulation. You have basically two methods, System and Setting. Most folks can relate to system because it is quantifiable;i.e. CoC has a sanity meter. However, it is also an expression of your philosophy how you implement the mechanic. Do you view insanity as a strength or a weakness? Do you view insanity as a play ending issue? Now, you might say it is defined by the genre and it might well be, but it also can be an expression of how you view life;i.e. your philosophy. My views on insanity are much more...liberal...than some would have. I would not have it be a game ender and in some cases it would make you stronger, in some weaker. Another designer might make it a game ender. Another still might make it a detriment across the board.

However, as a setting element you allow the group to define it. More than that, you allow situational definition. To be sure, the two methods can and do overlap, a meter to indicate sanity followed by the player or group defining the form the insanity takes.

And of course, this is just my take on it. I could be wrong.

Quote from: flyingmice;295450No, actually. It is the designer enforcing the collective philosophy of the authors/directors of the genre he is emulating, not his own philosophy. Putting my philosophy in there would screw it up entirely.

-clash

No, actually, it is the designer enforcing his interpretation through his filter of the world view he holds. However, I think we are functioning with differing definitions of philosophy and world view so I will yield the point.

Quote from: flyingmice;295453These are themes of the genre, but they are not *my* themes. They reflect nothing of me.

Off course. I didn't mean to imply they did. See, this thread was about personal perspectives affecting the game. The fault may be mine. You responded to a comment off mine about themes in games ( a general comment), something Sett and I have brawled about before. In no way did I mean to imply that the themes in your published games were a reflection of your personal perspectives only that there were (IMO) themes in your games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: HinterWelt;295456No, actually, it is the designer enforcing his interpretation through his filter of the world view he holds. However, I think we are functioning with differing definitions of philosophy and world view so I will yield the point.

Actually, enforcing is entirely the wrong word - a better word would be "enhancing". You could play in a campaign of In Harm's Way without any attention to these mechanics at all, and have a great time. A couple of my players have. Their characters still get better at what they do, they still advance, though slower, in rank, and they still can be effective at what they do.

As for the "personal filter" business, I call bullshit. Let someone who doesn't know me read the rules and from this derive my personal philosophy. I would laugh at the result. It may be a truth, but it's a meaningless and useless truth.

-clash

Quote from: David R;295458Off course. I didn't mean to imply they did. See, this thread was about personal perspectives affecting the game. The fault may be mine. You responded to a comment off mine about themes in games ( a general comment), something Sett and I have brawled about before. In no way did I mean to imply that the themes in your published games were a reflection of your personal perspectives only that there were (IMO) themes in your games.

Regards,
David R

OK - I was mixing up the two threads, David. This thread is about "your perspective on life" while yours wasn't. Apologies! Let me say then the themes I put into my games have little to no correlation to my personal perspective. I am going for genre emulation, and use the themes inherent in the genre, not themes which reflect me, my attitudes towards life, or my personal philosophy.

-clash

Actually, anything I would run currently would be far too nihilistic for anybody's liking. I could turn a game of Toon into something more depressing than a room full of goths on heroin.

There is a serious difference between "emulation of genre" and "primmadonna game designer imposing concepts".

writing a game about military operatives in vietnam, where the rules encourage thing like stress or have rules for drug addiction could be emulation of genre.
writing a game about vietnam where the PCs are mechanically obliged to commit atrocities would be Designer Fiat.

CoC's sanity rules are emulation of genre.
If someone redesigned CoC to make it impossible to use guns because CoC "isn't supposed to be about that" it'd be Designer Fiat.

Now, in Clash's particular games I've seen maybe one or two things that might be accusable as Designer Fiat, namely the idea that social class and IQ are inversely proportional values. However, to suggest that because he's incorporating the general elements of the Napoleonic Naval adventure genre he's engaging in Designer Fiat is just ridiculous.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;295564However, to suggest that because he's incorporating the general elements of the Napoleonic Naval adventure genre he's engaging in Designer Fiat is just ridiculous.

Like anyone suggested that.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;295580Like anyone suggested that.

Regards,
David R

I am glad you understand David even if you do not agree. ;)