Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: From your erratic comment I take it, there´s a major misunderstanding going on. You can´t be in any way  discussing the same things we are. Whatcha talking about?

We are talking about the same things. What I'm saying, and have been saying since I decided to post in this thread, is that you're simply going over old ground. And in general, while you make some good points now and then, the Forge stuff is better; probably because they had many good minds working together for longer.

Quote from: droogNo, it's not.

Well, I'm going to bed, and I hope to spend most of Sunday out of doors. You can have the last word after this.

The point of the thread is that there's a difference between Forge-Nar and "everything else", and that difference is sinking in where previously a lot of Forgers have been One True Wayist evangelizers. You acknowledged most of this when you said that first page or so all boiled down to Sett recapitulating GNS. Whether Ron's good or bad or GNS is an accurate way of breaking down gaming culture is a digression.

@droog
You aren´t understanding what I´m writing. This is not a theory. And the Forger terms are biased, dishonest and viral marketing. that´s why we should use others. That´s what I´m saying.

Moreso, the Big Model is flawed from the core, in that it tries to adress things it doesn´t even understand. That has been proven time and time again.

But that´s totally not the issue here.
The issue here is if it´s fruitful to seperate two styles of games in certain times in certain discussions.

You are muddling everything up, you surely are not talking about what I´m talking about.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point of the thread is that there's a difference between Forge-Nar and "everything else", and that difference is sinking in where previously a lot of Forgers have been One True Wayist evangelizers. You acknowledged most of this when you said that first page or so all boiled down to Sett recapitulating GNS. Whether Ron's good or bad or GNS is an accurate way of breaking down gaming culture is a digression.

Well, you know, old Coaltar is a GURPS evangelist. Poontang is an Amber evangelist. My old mate Brett is an RQ evangelist. It's hard to say anything about that except that some people should step the fuck back now and then.

While there are some common points between some Forge games, and while you can trace some lines of development through several different games, that means nothing except for the obvious point that some people have influences. At most, you can talk about 'Forge games', though I'd have to qualify that if I used it myself.

Now, your 'experiential vs expressive' divide is a bit better than Settembrini's 'adventure vs thematic'. though it seems that neither of you are fully aware of the range of Forge games. And in the end, neither seem to say more than 'traditional vs Forge-like'.

Quote from: SettembriniThe issue here is if it´s fruitful to seperate two styles of games in certain times in certain discussions.

It would be best to talk about each game in its uniqueness, in point of fact.

PS Muddles are fun. xxx

QuoteNow, your 'experiential vs expressive' divide is a bit better than Settembrini's 'adventure vs thematic'. though it seems that neither of you are fully aware of the range of Forge games. And in the end, neither seem to say more than 'traditional vs Forge-like'.

Welcome to the discussion...:rolleyes:

I don't mean to drag this on, so consider this my final thoughts on the topic.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm with Lisa Padol in her review of Pantheon: she says it's a story-telling game; I've said that games which give players a lot of control outside their characters, or which require players to regard their characters in the "third person", or which expect players to accept rather transparent story-motivated manipulation by the GM all feel more like "story-telling games" than "roleplaying games" to me. I just don't say that much in public anymore because people flip out when they hear it. Besides, it's a relative distinction, and the two genres are related and overlapping both in form and in audience.

To be honest I dislike the term "storygames" partly because as an old school gamer who used the term "story" frequently to describe games and to see it now being used to differentiate between games/playstyles...well let's just say the term (as it is used now) robs "the overlapping" part of any of it's meaning.

QuoteThe important question I think is, "So Elliot doesn't consider Polaris to be as much of an RPG as Runequest, so what?"

Elliot this whole Swine shite is about making it clear that some forms of gaming is unacceptable.

QuoteSo...I don't think it's crap, in fact based on a little play I think it's kinda fun. I don't think it can or should be excluded from discussion at RPG.net or theRPGsite. I just don't think that when somebody has a problem with D&D, the answer is automatically to drop D&D in favor of a Forge game, or to introduce Forge-y techniques to D&D.

This is to be expected when you post your problems about D&D in forums where there are a diverse range of playstyles and games. I mean this is where the "overlapping" occurs.

The way how I see it, one has two choices.

1. Post your questions about D&D in a forum where D&D is mainly played or

2. Clearly define your post to exclude elements that you think don't fit into your playstyle - something you have done before.

QuoteI don't think he means the word "Thematic" to define the distinction so much as to represent the most common motivation for not playing in "adventure" mode.

What is this "adventure" mode you - Sett - keep going on about? So thematic play is the most common motivation not to go on "adventures"

QuoteI think we've had this discussion a bunch of times; fudging is anti-experiential because it fosters metagame expectations and calculations.

So anything that fosters metagame expectations and calculations is ...thematic?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: Even if you ignore these aspects, you aren´t adressing a "premise" in a meta-way. All things are about an imaginary world, and the adventures and fictional lives of the characters.

Back to this. Naturally PD is not addressing a premise, or even facilitating the addressing of a premise. What it's doing is attempting to recreate an atmosphere. It aims to foster the dream of Arthuriana.

Combat in PD gives you little chance for tactical skill. It's a matter of hacking away until somebody goes down. It's as much window-dressing as is combat in Sorcerer.

Not to go on too long about it, I say you are missing an important category of style/motive/agenda. That is the category known at the Forge as simulationism.

Quote from: droogCombat in PD gives you little chance for tactical skill. It's a matter of hacking away until somebody goes down. It's as much window-dressing as is combat in Sorcerer.

Actually, this is a good reason you should try something where combat is an entertaining game in its own right, like DnD.

The fight scenes can then become a part of the story, instead of something that changes the direction of the story.

Takes the action from (they fight) (someone wins) to actually taking part of the narative.

Er - the battles in Babylon 5 were a lot of the first sort - they consisted of more or less a montage of ships shooting at each other and people looking intently at radar screens, but giving no real impression of what is going on. Which is in contrast to like a documentary about Trafalgar, where what is going on.

Or the difference between a soap about the lives and loves of policemen vs. a police proceedural focusing on the crime.

Its good. You should try it. Its always possible that you really don't like the fighting and would prefer to concentrate on other things, but theres a good chance you would enjoy it alot.

You might even think it inovative enought to want to incorperate it in to your new games. I know I did.

Awake, I hope briefly, because I have some sleeping to catch up on.

Droog, what the Big Model calls Exploration, Sett calls The Method of Roleplay. "Transport to an imaginary world" is first-person play, "experiential".

You're also mixing up varieties of evangelism. Maybe you're trolling. The form of evangelism I'm referring to works like this: "RPGs are for telling stories. Until now, you and I have been using a set of "broken wheels" in the form of wargame-derived games to tell our stories. I've found this great new type of game that helps me tell stories better. You'll like it better, too." At this point the first sentence is questioned, and then "telling stories" is debated through a series of moronic arguments, when all you really have to observe is: lots of people like RPGs because of the experiential aspect, wargame-derived rules work well for that, and it's killed dead for them by these supposedly "better games".

David, the Swine stuff isn't about some forms of gaming being unacceptable (well, maybe it is for Pundy), it's about people who tell you that you don't understand your own preferences.

"Adventure" mode = strong correlation of player-knowledge and player-action with character knowledge/action, reinforcing cognitive identification with the specific role. It fosters "adventures" in the sense of experiencing strange new worlds in person.

Gotta stop here. "Thematic" is basically that which works against "Adventure", though.

Yepp, you can´t have my srot of "Sector Duke Fun" with Burning Empires. They are incompatible, for example.

Now, I´m a big proponent of amalgamated and "incoherent" play. I have players who like this aspect or that aspect, and we have to make healthy compromises. But certain traits in a game make certain fun-sources impossible.

Thinking of RPGs as "Story-Machines" is one of those.

Settembrini, I believe what droog is saying here is that in your weaker moments you sound like nothing more than a Forge gamist. In other words, like a Gleichman minus Gleichman's wisdom.

Deep down you do think Pendragon is a bit boring, no? And that's fine. But so does RE, I'm sure. It's pretty weak in both sector duke and storytelling terms. You don't get to dethrone Arthur, and you can die pathetically in a third-rate joust--see recent reports on Stafford's Dundracon game on rpg.net.

You really need to clarify the relation between character / empire build on one hand, "adventure game" on the other. Are they identical? -> Welcome to the Forge. Or is the latter more comprehensive? -> How so, precisely?

Quote from: SettembriniThinking of RPGs as "Story-Machines" is one of those.

Well, not quite--again, as a few people including I think David, Marco, and -E have shown, you can use the terms "story" and "plot" without necessarily reaching the conclusion that The Mountain Witch is a technologically-superior tool with the same purpose as Bushido.

What does take you there is thinking of "story-machines" in terms of entitlement to expression rather than a ticket to an experience.

Edit: Sett, Pierce is right, your message is occasionally muddied by an emphasis (overemphasis?) on Challenge. Though your post here and mine here address the issue. I'd like to see further questions work from those as a basis.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, not quite--again, as a few people including I think David, Marco, and -E have shown, you can use the terms "story" and "plot" without necessarily reaching the conclusion that The Mountain Witch is a technologically-superior tool with the same purpose as Bushido.

What does take you there is thinking of "story-machines" in terms of entitlement to expression rather than a ticket to an experience.

Edit: Sett, Pierce is right, your message is occasionally muddied by an emphasis (overemphasis?) on Challenge. Though your post here and mine here address the issue. I'd like to see further questions work from those as a basis.

Well Eliot, it´s all true what you say.

@Story: If I didn´t think story was one factor/dimension that is important to adventure gaming, I´d advocate the usage of the term "story-game".

I´m obviously not.

There is a certain, "Edwardian", interpretation of what story means. And this is sort of idiosyncratic: it´s the embarassing embodiement of petite-bourgeious north american 50ies+ navel gazing, that Pierce, droog and I talked about some while ago. If some other word than "Thematic" is a better fit, I´ll gladly use it.

@overemphasis of challenge: That is most likely a parochialism. You must know, that in Germany we have gaming going on, that is TOTALLY void of any challenge whatsoever. You get rewards on the social and in-game levels for behaving according to a pre-set catalog of morals, as well as "keeping and reinforcing the ambiance". My RQ comment has to be seen through this lens: I doubt that any RQ gaming in an anglophone country REALLY is void of challenges on whatever level. Consequences are a staple of simulationist (english meaning) gameplay.

It's important to note that when they say story they don't even really mean story, they mean "making moral statements."

So this whole story thing is a lie from the beginning. It's just another repurposed vocab word that is being used to fool unwary people into buying things. (Which borderlines on a  fucking scam, if you ask me. I mean if your'e trying to sell stuff, be honest.)

See, the big not-so-secret is ... everyone values story. Everyone. Every single person in gaming. Everyone of you reading this. This is a universality of roleplaying games in general. Otherwise we'd be playing chess. The story matters.

I started out with this thinking "sure, my campaign's story and their uhh.. "shooting children in the face to illustrate how intolerant religion can be" games are both creating stories. Right? Just one is different from the other.

But they are not willing to reciprocate on this. Which is really too bad for them, really. Because for one thing their stories are pretty fucking tedious. And for another thing, this hobby is our ocean, they just swim in it. We don't have to take their shit, as it turns out.

Well, anyhow, that's the whole thing. They don't consider stuff like what happens in a campaign a story at all, because it lacks the Approved Moral Lesson part. If your game lacks an Approved Moral Lesson..it doesn't have a story... to them.  

Remember that.