Quote from: Daddy Warpig;566247Let's add FASERIP Marvel's Karma, bennies from Savage Worlds, Edge from 4e Shadowrun, Karma from 1e Shadowrun and Earthdawn, those points from d20 Modern whose name I can't remember, and other such mechanics.

Then there's the Whimsy Deck, the Savage Worlds Deck, and Torg's Drama Deck. I'm pretty sure Bloody Stupid Johnson has some comprehensive coverage in his game design thread.

A more limited example are Fame and Fortune points from Top Secret, which allow the player to avoid a lethal wound to his character.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566274. . . [M]aybe we take this recent focus on 'sandbox' play and push it a little harder as a priority to counteract Linear adventure design, Railroading, and the Illusion of Choice...?

Look, I'm a consistent advocate for 'sandbox' play - if you don't believe me, just ask Fifth Element - but, unlike railroading and illusionism, linear adventures or 'adventure paths' are not in and of themselves dysfunctional.

The problem is that much of the advice to referees for running linear adventures expects or encourages railroading or illusionism. This is crap adventure design, of course, but it doesn't inherently need to be that way.

I think a better approach is to teach referees how to roll with the unexpected, to anticipate that their well-laid-plans may get curb-stomped early and often by clever players AND THAT'S OKAY. Do that, and it really doesn't matter if you run a sandbox or a linear adventure.

Forge-inspired narrative games have a lot to contribute to the hobby. Some of them are really great; some of them are hyperfocused stuff that I wouldn't play or wouldn't play beyond a one-shot. None of them are part of a powerful conspiracy to conquer roleplaying games in the name of international communism. As a whole, they encourage designers to build the rules to deliver the experience they want the participants to get from playing the game.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566325Forge-inspired narrative games have a lot to contribute to the hobby.

Sure, but which hobby? They aren't RPGs, and they aren't, I dunno, rugby, so er...

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566325None of them are part of a powerful conspiracy to conquer roleplaying games in the name of international communism.

Doesn't need to be an international conspiracy to attract the mentally ill. What was it yerman said as he closed his ghost town forum, the ringleader of the forgers, we win! No wonder there's an incessant stream of adversarial drivel coming from that huffers anonymous meeting in story games, the personality cultist himself said to go forth and do battle unto the heathen. The missionary zeal of the truly unhinged indeed.

I find it ironic that the second entendre of "forge" was lost on its worker ants, "to fake or falsify". Never a more fitting laurel has been laid on a more deserving brow.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;566324I think a better approach is to teach referees how to roll with the unexpected, to anticipate that their well-laid-plans may get curb-stomped early and often by clever players AND THAT'S OKAY. Do that, and it really doesn't matter if you run a sandbox or a linear adventure.

Wins the thread for me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;566324Look, I'm a consistent advocate for 'sandbox' play - if you don't believe me, just ask Fifth Element - but, unlike railroading and illusionism, linear adventures or 'adventure paths' are not in and of themselves dysfunctional.

The problem is that much of the advice to referees for running linear adventures expects or encourages railroading or illusionism. This is crap adventure design, of course, but it doesn't inherently need to be that way.

I think a better approach is to teach referees how to roll with the unexpected, to anticipate that their well-laid-plans may get curb-stomped early and often by clever players AND THAT'S OKAY. Do that, and it really doesn't matter if you run a sandbox or a linear adventure.

So I'm not disagreeing so mauch as trying to move a step further, perhaps taking the recent movement towards sandboxing a little heavier in terms of a real agenda...not as The WAY, but as an important ingredient in game theory and design priority.

Quote from: The Traveller;566337Sure, but which hobby? They aren't RPGs, and they aren't, I dunno, rugby, so er...

Sure they are. They're games in which you play a role. Actually, I perceive some narrativist games to be more solidly "games" than a lot of RPGs that have been around a long time, as they have a rigidly defined endpoint and win condition, something that we never had while playing Shadowrun or D&D or Mage.

Granted, My Life With Master is one example of a Forge-inspired games that has me questioning its roleplaying element, because it seems to put the player in the position of directing the character moreso than inhabiting the role of the character, with rules that make it difficult to align the character's action with the outcome the character gets at endgame.

Quote from: The Traveller;566337Doesn't need to be an international conspiracy to attract the mentally ill.

Ron Edwards: The Joker of Roleplaying.

QuoteWhat was it yerman said as he closed his ghost town forum, the ringleader of the forgers, we win! No wonder there's an incessant stream of adversarial drivel coming from that huffers anonymous meeting in story games, the personality cultist himself said to go forth and do battle unto the heathen. The missionary zeal of the truly unhinged indeed.

I find it ironic that the second entendre of "forge" was lost on its worker ants, "to fake or falsify". Never a more fitting laurel has been laid on a more deserving brow.

I don't even know what this means. It reads like "Yabble dabble bloog splork." I think you're trying to say that there's another roleplaying forum and that its posters are mad at you? Could you link me to some of this "adversarial drivel?"

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342Sure they are. They're games in which you play a role. Actually, I perceive some narrativist games to be more solidly "games" than a lot of RPGs that have been around a long time, as they have a rigidly defined endpoint and win condition, something that we never had while playing Shadowrun or D&D or Mage.

Ron Edwards: The Joker of Roleplaying.

I don't even know what this means. It reads like "Yabble dabble bloog splork." I think you're trying to say that there's another roleplaying forum and that its posters are mad at you? Could you link me to some of this "adversarial drivel?"

You're wasting your breath. What you are doing is akin to trying to pursuade a scientologist to examine his beliefs with a critical eye.

Quote from: noisms;566343You're wasting your breath. What you are doing is akin to trying to pursuade a scientologist to examine his beliefs with a critical eye.

Jehovah's witness vs Scientologist. Fight!

Quote from: Black Vulmea;566324I think a better approach is to teach referees how to roll with the unexpected, to anticipate that their well-laid-plans may get curb-stomped early and often by clever players AND THAT'S OKAY. Do that, and it really doesn't matter if you run a sandbox or a linear adventure.

In my own writings I emphasize that plot is a PLAN of events. Useful for defining what prep is needed and to create the feel of a World in Motion. The referee needs to update it after surviving contact with the player characters. And like you emphasize that this OKAY and expected.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342Sure they are. They're games in which you play a role. Actually, I perceive some narrativist games to be more solidly "games" than a lot of RPGs that have been around a long time, as they have a rigidly defined endpoint and win condition, something that we never had while playing Shadowrun or D&D or Mage.

The endpoints should have been your first hint that you were trekking through someone's fevered rubber room. Endpoints are a typical characteristic of adversarial team sports, which are the opposite of what RPG groups usually do. I mean sure you could split the group and have internecine struggling, but that's at best only a temporary state of affairs. The growing interplay of characters in a group not only builds immersion but is a very visceral experience.

Although looking at both sides of the coin, your endpoint issue isn't even an issue, since games like WoW also have no endpoint, being based almost entirely on D&D. Are you saying shared narrative games are more of a game than WoW?

Anyway the third person view versus first person view has been done and won, what cracks a grin for me is the impossibility of surprise in shared narrative games. Sure you can handwave and say, oh I was surprised at what the other guy came up with, before we bounced around a few ideas and sucked down a mocha latte with cream to build our story, but really no. When everyone is in on the secret, there's no secret.

Which brings me to the next problem, in that shared narrative games were presumably created to deal with the problem of bad GMs. Instead what you get is a roomful of bad GMs, like what happened to that poor girl someone started a thread about over on rpgnet.

She had the gall to actually want to keep a secret from the rest of the group, so this gang of merry fuckwits spent the entire evening trying to bully and intimidate her into sharing. It took about twelve pages before anyone in the bulging purple suggested this might not have been a good thing. *vibes*

Black Vulmea said it best just above, GM education is the solution to bad GMs. Hell there might even be a business opportunity if someone wanted to run seminars.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342Granted, My Life With Master is one example of a Forge-inspired games that has me questioning its roleplaying element, because it seems to put the player in the position of directing the character moreso than inhabiting the role of the character, with rules that make it difficult to align the character's action with the outcome the character gets at endgame.

Or that delightful Poison'd game, would you care to share a few of the quotes from the last rpgnet debate on that, including those from mods defending such actions? I'd look them up myself only I'd rather keep my appettite.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342Ron Edwards: The Joker of Roleplaying.

Bit more of a David Koresh to be honest, except instead of a firefight he went out with a wiki.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342I don't even know what this means. It reads like "Yabble dabble bloog splork." I think you're trying to say that there's another roleplaying forum and that its posters are mad at you? Could you link me to some of this "adversarial drivel?"

Who said it was directed at you? See, further self absorbed narcissism, hallmark of the righteous.

Quote from: The Traveller;566361Who said it was directed at you? See, further self absorbed narcissism, hallmark of the righteous.

Self-absorbed narcissism, cult personality, the missionary zeal of the truly unhinged--these are all things that describe TheRPGpundit a hell of a lot better than Halloween Jack.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342Sure they are. They're games in which you play a role.

That not the definition of a roleplaying game. There is the part about the referee being an adjudicator of the players actions while playing an individual character.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566342Actually, I perceive some narrativist games to be more solidly "games" than a lot of RPGs that have been around a long time, as they have a rigidly defined endpoint and win condition, something that we never had while playing Shadowrun or D&D or Mage.

Individual encounters have endpoint and win conditions even if it just about the survival of the characters. What sets Roleplaying Games apart from wargames and boardgames is the campaign. Which are open ended by design. Also the roleplaying campaign preceded the development of the RPG. (Blackmoor/Greyhawk/El Raja Key)

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566372Self-absorbed narcissism, cult personality, the missionary zeal of the truly unhinged--these are all things that describe TheRPGpundit a hell of a lot better than Halloween Jack.

Well, hello.

Quote from: The Traveller;566361The endpoints should have been your first hint that you were trekking through someone's fevered rubber room. Endpoints are a typical characteristic of adversarial team sports, which are the opposite of what RPG groups usually do.

Sports are games. An endpoint is a common characteristic of all kinds of games. In fact, off the top of my head, the two categories of games I can think of where an endpoint isn't assumed to be an integral component are young childrens' games (which end when the participants get bored) or theatre games.

QuoteAlthough looking at both sides of the coin, your endpoint issue isn't even an issue, since games like WoW also have no endpoint, being based almost entirely on D&D. Are you saying shared narrative games are more of a game than WoW?

I don't like to make broad assumptions about whole swaths of games I don't play, so I don't really have an opinion on MMOs.

QuoteAnyway the third person view versus first person view has been done and won, what cracks a grin for me is the impossibility of surprise in shared narrative games. Sure you can handwave and say, oh I was surprised at what the other guy came up with, before we bounced around a few ideas and sucked down a mocha latte with cream to build our story, but really no. When everyone is in on the secret, there's no secret.

Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Can you name me a RPG where it's impossible to surprise the other participants because the rules require full disclosure at all times about everything? You can certainly keep secrets from other players in Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard and plenty of other games that I believe are denounced as "storygames" by posters here.

QuoteWhich brings me to the next problem, in that shared narrative games were presumably created to deal with the problem of bad GMs. Instead what you get is a roomful of bad GMs, like what happened to that poor girl someone started a thread about over on rpgnet.

She had the gall to actually want to keep a secret from the rest of the group, so this gang of merry fuckwits spent the entire evening trying to bully and intimidate her into sharing. It took about twelve pages before anyone in the bulging purple suggested this might not have been a good thing. *vibes*

Link?

QuoteOr that delightful Poison'd game, would you care to share a few of the quotes from the last rpgnet debate on that, including those from mods defending such actions? I'd look them up myself only I'd rather keep my appettite.

If you want quotes from other forums, let me share one from SA:

Quote from: JDCorleyThe only people still talking about Poison'd are on therpgsite, they talk about it all the time. They love thinking about Poison'd, it's the game they love to think about more than any other group on earth loves thinking about it.

Hell, I proved story-games.com (home of the Enemy) doesn't even talk about Poison'd and the official therpgsite response was that these statistics only proved that story-games.com was trying to trick everyone.

I've never played Poison'd, wouldn't play it, don't care for it, and don't think it's generally representative of the Forge, so I don't understand why it's such a big deal. I think RPGsite cares much more about it than its author at this point.

QuoteWho said it was directed at you? See, further self absorbed narcissism, hallmark of the righteous.

I never said it was directed at me; go back and read my post. Calm down.