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.

Cult of personality, no, you can't call one of those a bollocks and get away with it, the rest I'll grant you, noting only that I make no particular claims towards enhingement myself.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566386Sports 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.

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.

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.

Weasel words - its impossible to surprise the other participants because of the nature of shared narrative games. The anticipation, the potential possibilities when people playing their character are in a world of mystery, that's what makes an adventure. I mean literally, look up the definition of adventure. It doesn't include "talking out the possiblities with your buddies then metagaming them real".

Don't get me wrong, if that works for you, great, but don't serve me up a plate of McDonalds finest and call it Burger King my friend. There's only one source for a Royale with Cheese, lets not kid ourselves.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566386Link?

Fuktifino, Google doesn't index half the site and they have search disabled. I'm sure if you're that interested you can go ahead and dig through it yourself, it was somewhere between six months and two years ago. Unless you're saying I'm lying, of course.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566386If you want quotes from other forums, let me share one from SA:

Thats the place where you insult and abuse members of this forum? I haven't checked whether or not I'm getting the treatment because it would be a more valuable use of my time to think about... lets say... soup.

AHAHAHA Halloween Jack quoting JDCorley who's been banned from the RPG Site for being a total fuckwit for months on every thread he posted on and later went on (and still works at) his personal crusade against us.

That's the "authority figure" he quotes from SA. Hilarity ensues!

Quote from: The Traveller;566417Weasel words - its impossible to surprise the other participants because of the nature of shared narrative games. The anticipation, the potential possibilities when people playing their character are in a world of mystery, that's what makes an adventure. I mean literally, look up the definition of adventure. It doesn't include "talking out the possiblities with your buddies then metagaming them real".

I don't think you know what "weasel words" are. But don't talk to me about "the nature of shared narrative games," because I'm not interested in listening to you talk about a broad category of games that you've decided you don't like, but don't actually know about to discuss.

Step 1: Name me a Shared Narrative game.
Step 2: Explain why the rules of that game make it impossible to surprise the other participants.

I'm actually loosening up the requirements of what I asked for in my last post, because I'm not even asking you to prove that the particular game you choose is representative of the whole! Just demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to one, single "storygame."

QuoteDon't get me wrong, if that works for you, great, but don't serve me up a plate of McDonalds finest and call it Burger King my friend. There's only one source for a Royale with Cheese, lets not kid ourselves.

That's pretty much the perfect analogy, since you're getting mad about someone conflating two things which are pretty much the same.

QuoteThats the place where you insult and abuse members of this forum? I haven't checked whether or not I'm getting the treatment because it would be a more valuable use of my time to think about... lets say... soup.

I asked them to translate your bizarre gobbledygook rant about what I now understand to be the storygames forum, which I've never read or posted to before, though perhaps I'll go have a look at it.

Quote from: Benoist;566422AHAHAHA Halloween Jack quoting JDCorley who's been banned from the RPG Site for being a total fuckwit for months on every thread he posted on and later went on (and still works at) his personal crusade against us.

That's the "authority figure" he quotes from SA. Hilarity ensues!

Quote from: A Version of Halloween Jack that only exists in Benoist's imagination"authority figure"

Just keep digging that hole, dude. You're doing a great job.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566444I'm actually loosening up the requirements of what I asked for in my last post

You appear to be labouring under the impression that I care about your requirements. I mean come on, the only reason you come here is to troll then retreat back to SA to mock people where nobody cares.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566444That's pretty much the perfect analogy, since you're getting mad about someone conflating two things which are pretty much the same.

That's where you're wrong my friend, never confuse the two. I pity the palate too jaded to have a preference. See I deliberately avoided comparisons between dogshit and actual food, since I'm taking the moral high ground here. Or verbal, whatever.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566444I asked them to translate your bizarre gobbledygook rant about what I now understand to be the storygames forum, which I've never read or posted to before, though perhaps I'll go have a look at it.

o/

The goon he quoted sort of has a point, tho. I'd never heard of Poison'd until people started bringing it up as some sort of counter to the Grimachu rape criticism.

Quote from: Benoist;566446Just keep digging that hole, dude. You're doing a great job.

Ironically, he is actually doing a great job.

I asked this up thread, but was conveniently ignored: I'd be interested to know which of you people who are claiming that "story games" are not RPGs, or that they are two different things, has actually played a "story game" in good faith - and can explain, simply and coherently, with actual examples and anecdotes from that game, why it doesn't belong in the same broad category as a traditional RPG.

Quote from: The Traveller;566450You appear to be labouring under the impression that I care about your requirements. I mean come on, the only reason you come here is to troll then retreat back to SA to mock people where nobody cares.

I'm labouring under the impression that you actually care, maybe a tiny bit, about having an argument in good faith--instead of hanging a sign that reads "storygames" on a straw man and whacking it with a stick over and over.

A whole bunch of people on this forum are ranting and raving against an imaginary enemy, and it's sad. If you want to see what I have and haven't posted and/or copypasted to grognards.txt, you can go to the thread and read it--if you actually care about the truth. You don't. I keep trying to have discussions in good faith with people on this forum, and people keep plugging their ears and shrieking "Na na na I can't hear you evil agent of the other Internet forum which I've decided is my mortal enemy even though I don't know anything about it because I choose not to na na na."

Do you want to talk about some roleplaying games? Or do you want to play imaginary Internet politics about who's on what team?

I'm going to take the rest of your post as a demonstrative warning to eat less fast food.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566455A whole bunch of people on this forum are ranting and raving against an imaginary enemy, and it's sad. If you want to see what I have and haven't posted and/or copypasted to grognards.txt, you can go to the thread and read it--if you actually care about the truth. You don't. I keep trying to have discussions in good faith with people on this forum, and people keep plugging their ears and shrieking "Na na na I can't hear you evil agent of the other Internet forum which I've decided is my mortal enemy even though I don't know anything about it because I choose not to na na na."

I'm going to take the rest of your post as a recommendation to eat less fast food.

HJ: i think your rhetoric would have a lot more weight if you were not posting regularly at SA in grognard tet, which does to OSR and older gamers what you accuse the rpgsite of doing to storygamers. I myself am not a fan of name calling ad insult trading but dont you think this is the pot calling the kettle black?

Quote from: noisms;566454Ironically, he is actually doing a great job.

I asked this up thread, but was conveniently ignored: I'd be interested to know which of you people who are claiming that "story games" are not RPGs, or that they are two different things, has actually played a "story game" in good faith - and can explain, simply and coherently, with actual examples and anecdotes from that game, why it doesn't belong in the same broad category as a traditional RPG.

Sure. I spent a day playing In A Wicked Age at a convention once - I'd happily play it again, because it was a lot of fun. I don't remember the session details well enough to describe, because it was a while ago. Sorry.

The game is made up of a number of phases; first you create the basic concept for the session, based on the Oracles, which lists of plot elements that you draw cards for. The group then creates characters based on that setting, assigning them dice ratings in various traits (Directly / Covertly, Violence / Love, Others / Self), and decides who they want to play as.

The someone will suggest the first scene, and some characters involved, and it will go from there. One player may be a GM, but it works okay without an obvious GM, and they have to be very involved in the scene anyway. You all talk it through, as the scene rises to a crescendo...

And then out come the dice. You agree on the stakes for the scene, depending on how the RP has gone so far, and roll. I won't go into the mechanics of that here, but it's in three phases, with some RP in between each, and the possibility of it ending early. Eventually one character will come out of it the winner, get what they wanted, people play out the rest of the scene, then they discuss what should happen next.

After a few scenes, the situation is coming to a head; the final scene starts, and the final conflict resolves it. Characters then get put away for a while, maybe to come back in another story in the same setting if appropriate, but it doesn't have to be chronological. You can jump around.

What you have is a system that is great for creating a setting. It's great for forcing conflict; only one character can "win" a scene. With the right players, it;s a lot of fun. But I didn't get to associate with my character as much as in a traditional RPG. Because the story mechanics, the stake-setting, kept forcing me out of it to work out what was "appropriate". The resolution system, with the stages, meant we had to work towards the given goals, rather than go with whatever came up. I certainly wanted him to triumph, and it came down to the final segment of the final scene, but I didn't feel like I was him.

I play to find out what happens, not to win or lose. And that's why, while I'd happily play IAWA again, I wouldn't class it as an RPG.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566458HJ: i think your rhetoric would have a lot more weight if you were not posting regularly at SA in grognard tet, which does to OSR and older gamers what you accuse the rpgsite of doing to storygamers.

That's not true. I'd never accuse the rpgsite of actually reading what "storygamers" say, quoting it, and then discussing it in detail. It would be awesome if you guys wanna start doing that, though.

Quotedont you think this is the pot calling the kettle black?

No. The key difference is that in grognards.txt, we actually know who and what we're talking about. The thread basically pisses people off through the abominably cruel act of quoting them in their own words. Never has use of the "copy" and "paste" functions made anyone so very, very sad, on the Internet.

Quote from: Ladybird;566461Sure. I spent a day playing In A Wicked Age at a convention once - I'd happily play it again, because it was a lot of fun. I don't remember the session details well enough to describe, because it was a while ago. Sorry.

The game is made up of a number of phases; first you create the basic concept for the session, based on the Oracles, which lists of plot elements that you draw cards for. The group then creates characters based on that setting, assigning them dice ratings in various traits (Directly / Covertly, Violence / Love, Others / Self), and decides who they want to play as.

The someone will suggest the first scene, and some characters involved, and it will go from there. One player may be a GM, but it works okay without an obvious GM, and they have to be very involved in the scene anyway. You all talk it through, as the scene rises to a crescendo...

And then out come the dice. You agree on the stakes for the scene, depending on how the RP has gone so far, and roll. I won't go into the mechanics of that here, but it's in three phases, with some RP in between each, and the possibility of it ending early. Eventually one character will come out of it the winner, get what they wanted, people play out the rest of the scene, then they discuss what should happen next.

After a few scenes, the situation is coming to a head; the final scene starts, and the final conflict resolves it. Characters then get put away for a while, maybe to come back in another story in the same setting if appropriate, but it doesn't have to be chronological. You can jump around.

What you have is a system that is great for creating a setting. It's great for forcing conflict; only one character can "win" a scene. With the right players, it;s a lot of fun. But I didn't get to associate with my character as much as in a traditional RPG. Because the story mechanics, the stake-setting, kept forcing me out of it to work out what was "appropriate". The resolution system, with the stages, meant we had to work towards the given goals, rather than go with whatever came up. I certainly wanted him to triumph, and it came down to the final segment of the final scene, but I didn't feel like I was him.

I play to find out what happens, not to win or lose. And that's why, while I'd happily play IAWA again, I wouldn't class it as an RPG.

I still consider IAWA a RPG, but I sympathize with your sentiment. It sounds like you had the same feelings about IAWA that I did about My Life With Master; that is, I feel that I'm creating a character, directing the character's
actions, and then seeing how it turns out, but with only intermittent periods of feeling like I'm embodying the character.

The thing is, one of the fundamental things that sets RPGs apart is that you do get to experience the medium as Actor, Director, and Audience, not just one of the three. How well a game facilitates each of the three is part subjective taste and part method which can be discussed and debated and modified--Forge-inspired games spur that discussion, even for those of us who rarely and barely play the games themselves.

Quote from: Ladybird;566461Sure. I spent a day playing In A Wicked Age at a convention once - I'd happily play it again, because it was a lot of fun. I don't remember the session details well enough to describe, because it was a while ago. Sorry.

The game is made up of a number of phases; first you create the basic concept for the session, based on the Oracles, which lists of plot elements that you draw cards for. The group then creates characters based on that setting, assigning them dice ratings in various traits (Directly / Covertly, Violence / Love, Others / Self), and decides who they want to play as.

The someone will suggest the first scene, and some characters involved, and it will go from there. One player may be a GM, but it works okay without an obvious GM, and they have to be very involved in the scene anyway. You all talk it through, as the scene rises to a crescendo...

And then out come the dice. You agree on the stakes for the scene, depending on how the RP has gone so far, and roll. I won't go into the mechanics of that here, but it's in three phases, with some RP in between each, and the possibility of it ending early. Eventually one character will come out of it the winner, get what they wanted, people play out the rest of the scene, then they discuss what should happen next.

After a few scenes, the situation is coming to a head; the final scene starts, and the final conflict resolves it. Characters then get put away for a while, maybe to come back in another story in the same setting if appropriate, but it doesn't have to be chronological. You can jump around.

What you have is a system that is great for creating a setting. It's great for forcing conflict; only one character can "win" a scene. With the right players, it;s a lot of fun. But I didn't get to associate with my character as much as in a traditional RPG. Because the story mechanics, the stake-setting, kept forcing me out of it to work out what was "appropriate". The resolution system, with the stages, meant we had to work towards the given goals, rather than go with whatever came up. I certainly wanted him to triumph, and it came down to the final segment of the final scene, but I didn't feel like I was him.

I play to find out what happens, not to win or lose. And that's why, while I'd happily play IAWA again, I wouldn't class it as an RPG.

Thanks.

I've played In A Wicked Age too, and I understand your feeling about it (though it wouldn't lead me to class it as "not an RPG"), but I've only played it a little bit. And In A Wicked Age is somewhat unique in that you're not really supposed to identify with the character - chances are you won't be the same character from session to session - it's very 'meta' in that sense.

A lot of "story games" aren't like that. Apocalypse World, for instance, assumes you are the same character each session, and in my experience in that game I identified even more with my character than I have done playing D&D or Call of Cthulu or whatever. I'd say the same about Burning Wheel or Blood & Honour too.

EDIT: For some reason I didn't read your last sentence. I find it interesting you put it down to winning and losing, rather than finding out what happens. It seems to me that both story games and tradition RPGs can either be about winning and losing, or finding out happens, or both. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, except maybe that some story games have a more explicit end point. (Certainly not all, though.)

Quote from: noisms;566454Ironically, he is actually doing a great job.

Actually, as far as you are concerned, this asshole is preaching to the choir. You are not exactly the target audience here, assuming the guy actually attempts to convince people of the errors of their ways, that is, instead of fishing for grog quotes to run back to SA and get a few pets on the back from Ettin and Co.

Quote from: noisms;566454I asked this up thread, but was conveniently ignored: I'd be interested to know which of you people who are claiming that "story games" are not RPGs, or that they are two different things, has actually played a "story game" in good faith - and can explain, simply and coherently, with actual examples and anecdotes from that game, why it doesn't belong in the same broad category as a traditional RPG.

You don't need to taste shit to know its shit.

It's the same principle here. But that said, I actually do have an extensive experience with storytelling games since I am a fan of White Wolf games and have been very much into the "artsy storytelling" approach to the game in the first half of the 90s, so much so in fact that after a while I was burnt out on this whole RPG thing and thought I was done with it - it made me quit the hobby for a while, in other words, because it made me believe the games were about some artform or other they never were about. I then did play a variety of games during and after the d20 boom that did include some forms of mechanics like Fate points, rewinding scenes and bennies and bullshit which have consistently brushed me the wrong way. I do not play a game to be a co-author in a collaborative storytelling effort. I play to experience the game world live from my character's POV. These kinds of mechanics totally rub me the wrong way.

Now with that sort of experience, it doesn't take much to have a look at a game like Fiasco, as explained in that thread with videos of Wil Wheaton and friends playing it, and actually understand that for me, from my experience, this is not a traditional role playing game, and I certainly do not want that shit anywhere near trad games I like, such as the D&D game, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer and so on.

You can cry and moan and point the finger and laugh, but that's my POV and experience. If you think that somehow because you play all these games and are not able or willing to see the difference in approach in their designs and game play that somehow proves that these are exactly the same type of games and that really we're all "just mean" because we talk about "storygames v. role playing games", you are a fucking idiot. A self-absorbed idiot who's decrying in others the very sin he is a victim of, as a matter of fact.

Quote from: NoismsA lot of "story games" aren't like that. Apocalypse World, for instance, assumes you are the same character each session, and in my experience in that game I identified even more with my character than I have done playing D&D or Call of Cthulu or whatever. I'd say the same about Burning Wheel or Bl

Hey Noisms, do you really think Apocalypse World is a storygame? I wouldnt call it "trad", sure, but also wouldnt stretch it so far as to call it a "storygame". I dont remember seeing any "narrative sharing" rules or "drama points" on it. Care to elaborate ?

Quote from: Benoist;566468You don't need to taste shit to know its shit.

That is an extremely classy and intelligent attitude to take, I must say.

QuoteIt's the same principle here. But that said, I actually do have an extensive experience with storytelling games since I am a fan of White Wolf games and have been very much into the "artsy storytelling" approach to the game in the first half of the 90s, so much so in fact that after a while I was burnt out on this whole RPG thing and thought I was done with it - it made me quit the hobby for a while, in other words, because it made me believe the games were about some artform or other they never were about. I then did play a variety of games during and after the d20 boom that did include some forms of mechanics like Fate points, rewinding scenes and bennies and bullshit which have consistently brushed me the wrong way. I do not play a game to be a co-author in a collaborative storytelling effort. I play to experience the game world live from my character's POV. These kinds of mechanics totally rub me the wrong way.

Fine: that doesn't make story games "not RPGs" or an attempt to subvert the hobby from within.

I'm sure you know - from your extensive knowledge and experience - that White Wolf type storytelling games are even further removed from modern story games than traditional RPGs are, right?

QuoteNow with that sort of experience, it doesn't take much to have a look at a game like Fiasco, as explained in that thread with videos of Wil Wheaton and friends playing it, and actually understand that for me, from my experience, this is not a traditional role playing game, and I certainly do not want that shit anywhere near trad games I like, such as the D&D game, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer and so on.

Weren't you saying you would enjoy playing Fiasco earlier in the thread? Now its shit? Make up your mind, for goodness' sake.

QuoteYou can cry and moan and point the finger and laugh, but that's my POV and experience. If you think that somehow because you play all these games and are not able or willing to see the difference in approach in their designs and game play that somehow proves that these are exactly the same type of games and that really we're all "just mean" because we talk about "storygames v. role playing games", you are a fucking idiot. A self-absorbed idiot who's decrying in others the very sin he is a victim of, as a matter of fact.

Nobody is crying, moaning, pointing the finger, or laughing.

I just think it's utterly bizarre that people can express so much hatred and vitriol about something they know nothing about, and which merely has the temerity to be very very very much like a pastime they love, but ever so slightly different from it.