Quote from: Elliot WilenDroog, nobody's driving you out of the hobby though you're doing a good job of playing the martyr lately.

Martyrs aren't laughing as much as me, Elliot.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point of commonality we have--I think--isn't challenge & competition, but the player's "alienation" from the game-world, mirroring the character's. It happens that this provides a good arena for challenge, since if there's any conflict at all, the need to negotiate the inner workings of the game world to overcome the conflict is likely to be more challenging than rolling to win some agreed-on stakes.

Not all of the Forge games use agreed-on stakes (eg Sorcerer, or Dust Devils). Furthermore, agreeing on stakes beforehand is not revolutionary: simply a formalising of something many of us have done in the past on an ad hoc basis. Often one follows a similar procedure, but after the roll.

Don't swallow the Kool-Aid, man.

Quote from: David ROh definitely Elliot, there is a distinction but it's a distinction that does not disqualify one set of games from being RPGs - which is what Sett is aimimg for.

Sett can answer you on that.

I think the distinction is worth observing because it shows how to avoid chocolate-peanut butter arguments. (Or more like fried liver-ice cream. Again, take a look at many, many of Blakkie's contributions.)

QuoteNow surely you don't think this makes much sense.

Actually, it does make sense to me. Conceiving of RPGs in terms of "story" makes it allowable to regard concrete cause-and-effect, internal dynamics, as peripheral--so you can gloss over them with mechanically-irrelevant description. (Or even mechanically-relevant description that has nothing to do with internal dynamics. Dogs and Wushu go here. Also, in a way, any GM-fudged & stage-managed game.)

Note: "story" doesn't require violating or sidelining internal dynamics; that's something I think a number of people have shown including you, Kyle, Marco, and -E.

QuoteWhat I really think is at issue here - and one that I would be very surprised that would bother you - is this. The root cause of Sett's problem between "trad" and "Forge" games is that the latter perhaps is evidence that the definiton of what an rpg is is expanding.

Again, you'll have to see what Sett says. For me the distinction is useful because it helps illuminate craft & criticism.

Quote from: droogI'm sure you're just going to accuse me of sophistry again, but that is Ron's distinction between nar on one hand, and sim or gam on the other. You appear to have rolled the two categories into one, that's all.

Maybe because RPGs grew out of wargames, which comfortably included "sim" and "gam" (though not "sim" in the centrally-railroaded-to-tell-a-story fashion), and that combination has managed to work just fine in RPGs, thanks very much, provided nobody at the table decided to start "telling a story".

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think the distinction is worth observing because it shows how to avoid chocolate-peanut butter arguments.

So does the Big Model.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMaybe because RPGs grew out of wargames, which comfortably included "sim" and "gam" (though not "sim" in the centrally-railroaded-to-tell-a-story fashion), and that combination has managed to work just fine in RPGs, thanks very much, provided nobody at the table decided to start "telling a story".

It may have worked for you, but there are enough people around (on the Forge tit or not) that wanted 'a story' to make it problematic. Ron's contribution was to try and identify what 'a story' might be in RPG terms, and how that might be achieved in the context of an RPG.

Quote from: droogNot all of the Forge games use agreed-on stakes (eg Sorcerer, or Dust Devils).

I don't know DD. Sorcerer is less radical than many of its successors, though (based on reading) it has a number of characteristics both mechanically and in GM advice (or maybe it's the online scholia, hard to remember what's in the book and what's in the glosses) which push it away from the center of "experiential play".

In any case, "made at the Forge" isn't the same as "expressive"/Thematic/"Forge-y".

Quote from: droogSo does the Big Model.

It tries to but then it gets the categories all wrong, since the only answer it offers to the issue is GNS. And GNS overdiagnoses delusion with latent Narrativist tendencies, prescription: shock therapy in the form of DitV/Sorcerer.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn any case, "made at the Forge" isn't the same as "expressive"/Thematic/"Forge-y".

Now that's a radical statement. Care to back that up with examples?

Quote from: droogIt may have worked for you, but there are enough people around (on the Forge tit or not) that wanted 'a story' to make it problematic. Ron's contribution was to try and identify what 'a story' might be in RPG terms, and how that might be achieved in the context of an RPG.

...and created a different hobby for it. Which is fine and well.

But the play-aim of "telling/constructing/adressing a story" is so fundamentally different from what RPGs are actually built to do!

This was the conflict that lead to many crappy games, and to the formation of the Forger way of doing things. And for their stuff, it all works and makes sense. Sadly, some of them, Ron the most, don´t understand or grasp that story is not what RPGs where developed for.
And is not what most PLAYERS want.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt tries to but then it gets the categories all wrong, since the only answer it offers to the issue is GNS. And GNS overdiagnoses delusion with latent Narrativist tendencies, prescription: shock therapy in the form of DitV/Sorcerer.

But you have to separate the intellectual content from the emotional dialogue around it. You can say the same thing about the Settembrini Model--only a little while ago Sett was claiming poor moral standards for people who didn't go for challenge in their games.

Quote from: droogRon's contribution was to try and identify what 'a story' might be in RPG terms, and how that might be achieved in the context of an RPG.

Nonsequitur. Special pleading. It doesn't exonerate him or all the "little Rons" from screwing up discussion by misdiagnosing delusion when someone balks at anti-experiential mechanics and/or arrangements of authority/responsibility.

Quote from: SettembriniThis was the conflict that lead to many crappy games, and to the formation of the Forger way of doing things. And for their stuff, it all works and makes sense. Sadly, some of them, Ron the most, don´t understand or grasp that story is not what RPGs were developed for.
And is not what most PLAYERS want.

Most players who prefer a certain model, you mean. That's kind of circular.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNonsequitur. Special pleading. It doesn't exonerate him or all the "little Rons" from screwing up discussion by misdiagnosing delusion when someone balks at anti-experiential mechanics and/or arrangements of authority/responsibility.

That's a separate issue, as I pointed out above.

QuoteMost players who prefer a certain model, you mean. That's kind of circular.

So what? The whole scene is circular, so that´s just fitting. See Elliots misdiagnosis argument.