Quote from: James J SkachI'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that I espouse a One True Way of RPG's that is objectively the best way? Or that I do it but it's rare? Or that it's rare I talk about RPG's?

I'm saying you do all right. Lots of other people don't.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkEveryone who is enjoying their roleplaying experiences will espouse their approach as the cool way to play.  If you don't truly believe your method is best, why do you continue to do it that way?  The Forge is just a different slant on the drooling d20 fanboys on, say, Enworld that get off on +5 vorpal swords, feat chains and other kewl shitz.

It's normal human behaviour.

I understand that I play RPGs for different reasons than a lot of people, and that my preferences in approach and style are marginal in the overall hobby (and getting more marginalized every year). And I'm okay with that. I realize my preferences are not typical, nor are they more sophisticated.

Too many indie/forge gamers don't realized this. They really think that if only WotC went out of business, or the d20 fanboys all switched to WoW, then there would be a renaissance in RPGs, a new dawn of adult, storydriven gaming with no authoritarian GM and no teenagers boasting about their kewl powerz.

Well, they're fucking deluded. The size of the indie storyteller RPGing hobby is about as big as it will ever get. There will be no revolution. The indie crowd will just have to content with being a niche, marginal offshoot of a bigger hobby. And the more they stand on an ivory tower and wave the banner of revolution (and praise games about throat-raping necropheliacs), the more they'll piss off the far larger number of traditional gamers and marginalize themselves even further.

Quote from: HaffrungThe size of the indie storyteller RPGing hobby is about as big as it will ever get.

Is Spirit of the Century indie?

Because if it, and games like it, are indie by your view, then I think you're wrong.  Indie games appear to be growing by diversifying out of that one niche.

If it's not indie, then nevermind; we'd be talking about different things.

Quote from: somegamer1. Every "player empowerment" game I've ever played has negotiation tactics that allow you temper (or ignore) player input. For instance, with the masked swordsman, you may say, "ok, but you only get to see one eye." Moreover, since you invested so much into this "kewl" fellow, what are you going to do if the dice go insane and I kill his ass? One of my personal frustrations with strongly pre-plotted games in the past were that I always seemed to kill a crucial NPC. Story games tend to be able to roll with or re-negotiate these punches better.

2. From your tone, it sounds like you've encountered similar attempts from players before. The alternatives are to tell them to shut up and stop stepping on your GMing toes or find ways to accommodate their contributions. Such as player empowerment mechanics.

3. The other players' interest will totally depend on what the other players are interested in, won't it? If they like tough moral decisions, they'll cheer when I introduce a complication like that. If they just want to kill things and take their stuff, well they're not entertaining me, either are they? Man, heterogeneous playstyle groups can be tough to balance. But going one way or another permanently isn't exactly fair, either.


.

Sorry, this thread ballooned on me, and I have to get to this to read another hundred or so posts...

1) If you kill him, you kill him. Maybe you expose his identity sooner if you do, but that's fine. The point isn't that he's kewl, its that I may have made him a particular person for a reason (he's really the duke's son, or some shit...). By magically making him someone unimportant to the setting, and only important to the one player, all the potential, partly related, adventure hooks are thrown off willy nilly to satisfy your sudden whim.

Negotiation be damned, thats MY NPC, you get a shiny character to play, I just get a world and the whiny demands to be entertaining on, occasionally, a moments notice (see: Galavanting across the continent on a whim, see 'wake him up from his exhaustion nap so he can run a spur of the moment birthday adventure for us'... no, I'm not bitter.. ) If you kill him, he's still mine, and all the lovely hooks are still attached to his not so lovely corpse.  (Duke's son: Oops, now look who you killed....why was a rich kid doing banditry anyway?)

2) Given that I typically run fairly loose sessions, rather than heavily plotted, I don't really worry about it. What I DON"T need, however, are mechanics that are designed to muck up what few things I do plan out as adventure hooks.  My players are free to contribute as much as their characters can (say, by galavanting half way across the continent on a whim...). If they want to get involved with the plot that much, hey! They can fucking GM for once. I'd love a chance to roll up a character and toss the dice at an orc or three.

3) The swashbuckler is your characters ex? Not a moral complication for most parties I've played with, sorry. Your character might face a moral choice in the matter, but bob the fighter next to you? Not so much.  Now, you talk about heterogeneus playstyles... meh.  

See, as a GM I'd view what you want like this: You think your ex is involved in some shady stuff? Great, peachy. Than take your character and go INVESTIGATE HIM. Maybe I'm a bit dense, but eventually I'll realize that I need to put some 'mysterious clues' for you to find.  Bob the fighter can get behind that. Suddenly, he can help figure out what 'mysterious ex' is up to along with everyone else, rather than just witnessing your characters personal drama.  Even if bob is an unispired thug in real life, he can still go 'maybe I can thump some heads... rough the landlady up a bit for info?'. As long as you keep feeding players clues and avenues of investigation, then its an adventure and potentially exciting for everyone.  But again: My world, my NPCs, they are all I get so let me fucking enjoy them.

Capische?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI really don't see why this is a problem.  Innovation starts with people that are dissatisfied with the current way of doing things.  And the very fact that any kind of indie movement exists suggests that they are not alone.

It's possible to innovate & design without believing the existing model is broken or abusive. I see the "movement" part of the indie design community as being the problematic part of the equation. Certainly a lot of people design games without that kind of belief.

Having a personal preference for non-traditional games is fine. But once you believe that they're inherently abusive or damaging or whatever you have to start making some pretty ugly assumptions about traditional gamers (that they're deluded or sheeple or superstitious and cowardly or have poor taste) to explain why traditional games are so popular relative to other models.

Certainly this is an effective *marketing* technique -- a lot of people would like to believe that their taste in games represents an refinement that sets them apart from their fellow hobbyists. I don't think it's such a good foundation for actual game design though. For one thing, I think the whole idea that empowerment applies to rpg players (or hobby activities, in general)   is a category error... not the most solid foundation for rpg design could imagine.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Having a personal preference for non-traditional games is fine. But once you believe that they're inherently abusive or damaging or whatever you have to start making some pretty ugly assumptions about traditional gamers (that they're deluded or sheeple or superstitious and cowardly or have poor taste) to explain why traditional games are so popular relative to other models.

At the end of the day, what do you care what they think?  We are led to believe that the indie game movement is very small and basically inconsequential to the hobby as a whole.  So who cares what a handful of crackpots think?

Unless of course... perhaps... nah, it couldn't be because some of their assumptions have an inkling of truth? :rolleyes:

QuoteCertainly this is an effective *marketing* technique -- a lot of people would like to believe that their taste in games represents an refinement that sets them apart from their fellow hobbyists. I don't think it's such a good foundation for actual game design though. For one thing, I think the whole idea that empowerment applies to rpg players (or hobby activities, in general)   is a category error... not the most solid foundation for rpg design could imagine.

Really?  The thing is... the indie game movement makes games that they seem to like.  They also manage to snag the occasional trad gamer along the way.  To me, that suggests the foundations of their game design are solid enough to satisfy their own needs.  That's solid enough, wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIs Spirit of the Century indie?

Because if it, and games like it, are indie by your view, then I think you're wrong.  Indie games appear to be growing by diversifying out of that one niche.

I think Spirit of the Century would count as indie, but Haffrung was talking about the indie storyteller RPG niche. Spirit of the Century isn't a "storyteller"-y game, as far as I can see - it doesn't play around with the allocation of authorial control in the same way that most narrativist games do. It's really very traditional, and I'd argue that it's been able to get as big as it has at least partially because it's moved away from the "indie storyteller" niche and reached out to more traditional gamers.

Quote from: WarthurI think Spirit of the Century would count as indie, but Haffrung was talking about the indie storyteller RPG niche. Spirit of the Century isn't a "storyteller"-y game, as far as I can see - it doesn't play around with the allocation of authorial control in the same way that most narrativist games do. It's really very traditional, and I'd argue that it's been able to get as big as it has at least partially because it's moved away from the "indie storyteller" niche and reached out to more traditional gamers.

Yes, well you'll note that the few games out of the Forge/storygames scene to have even limited success have done so by producing what are clearly "hybrid" games, that mix elements of Forge-bullshit with elements of regular game design; and in all of these cases it is the regular game design which continues to be the good and enjoyable part and the forgey-influence is an unnecessary burden most people try to gloss over.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, well you'll note that the few games out of the Forge/storygames scene to have even limited success have done so by producing what are clearly "hybrid" games, that mix elements of Forge-bullshit with elements of regular game design; and in all of these cases it is the regular game design which continues to be the good and enjoyable part and the forgey-influence is an unnecessary burden most people try to gloss over.

What have you read or heard from people buying and playing the game that makes you believe this?

Or are you just making it up?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAt the end of the day, what do you care what they think?  We are led to believe that the indie game movement is very small and basically inconsequential to the hobby as a whole.  So who cares what a handful of crackpots think?

Unless of course... perhaps... nah, it couldn't be because some of their assumptions have an inkling of truth? :rolleyes:

Really?  The thing is... the indie game movement makes games that they seem to like.  They also manage to snag the occasional trad gamer along the way.  To me, that suggests the foundations of their game design are solid enough to satisfy their own needs.  That's solid enough, wouldn't you agree?

The Truth! It burns! It burns!

No--seriously: In the big picture I don't care. I do respond when people insult the way I play. I'm actually okay with that; it might be better if most of these discussions weren't vicious flamewars, but if that's what people are bringing to the discussion, I'm fundamentally okay with that.

On the other hand, I see folks in the indie community bemoaning the level of hostility in the discussion. Simply changing their rehtoric without in any way compromising their preferences would do a lot to aleviate that.

As far as solid-or-not, I'll let history judge.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat have you read or heard from people buying and playing the game that makes you believe this?

Or are you just making it up?

I'm basing it on my own opinion. Anything salvageable in SoTC, or Conspiracy of Shadows, etc. is the stuff that is precisely NOT forge-based.  

The fact that the Forge is making games like this means that they know that their own ideology is so repugnant that they have to produce these kinds of "mixed" games to ram in their Forge crap with the more regular RPG stuff people might actually be drawn to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fact that the Forge is making games like this means that they know that their own ideology is so repugnant that they have to produce these kinds of "mixed" games to ram in their Forge crap with the more regular RPG stuff people might actually be drawn to.

Boy, are you gonna hate my new game.