Quote from: soviet;566542There must be two Ron Edwards. Apparently, one of them is a total failure who no-one ever listens to and whose games all suck. The other one is the head of a global conspiracy that has successfully infiltrated and subverted most online fora and sabotaged several key RPG franchises, and who continues to wage a war of terror on all right-thinking roleplayers even to this day.

If success is doing quite a lot of damage to an inoffensive hobby by getting all manner of partially cooked ideologues to try to use his coat tails as reins, he's a success.

Of course, most people would also view that as epic level fail.

What, falseness in my dichotomy? Its more likely than you think!

Re: CK

I never said I was a guru about game theory.  I speak with no more conviction about what I believe to be better ways to do things than you all do.

And again, I've asked for direct proof of GNS influencing 4e's design, and all I get is a link to some Mike Mearl's livejournal post, and he wasn't even part of the original lead design team.  I also countered that point by linking to a post by Mearls (I believe later than that livejournal post) where he explicitly says he believes that D&D defies nearly all tabletop theory.

Also, if the influence of Edwards and the Forge was such a problem, why is it that mainstream designers didn't hop on during the Forge's heyday in the early 00s?  3e, White-Wolf, and Games Workshop/FFG showed no signs of adopting any of their ideas in their titles (let alone Palladium, which will continue plodding along its own path apart from everyone else).  The feeling I get now isn't that designers in the last few years are trying these things because it's hot new theory shit and they want to dickride Edwards, but because they're either bored or their current work isn't cutting it because our market is continuing to shrink.

edit:

Also, if a designer isn't taking a grain of salt with every word they read on online forums instead of testing ideas with actual play and real people, they're doing a pretty shit job.

Quote from: CRKrueger;56654599% of RPG Gamers have never heard of Ron Edwards...hurray.  Unfortunately that means absofuckinglutely not a goddamn thing because 99% of RPG Game Designers have, and some are Grade-A Kool-Aid Champions.

Then don't play the Kool-Aid games. Seems pretty simple.

Man, less crazy than I thought here, but still enough that I'll have to remark on it after I get the productive stuff out of the way

Quote from: Dan Davenport;565780"My character attacks the orc" is still playing 1st person. "My character attacks the orc and hits" is playing 3rd person.

Actually they're BOTH 1st person because the player is stating consequences which are a direct and logical result of the character's actions from the character's PoV.

But if a player stated that they open a chest to find a teddy bear, then that's, er, well it could be either, but what's important is that the existence of the teddy bear cannot be inferred based on the information available to the character, or be brought into existence as a logical consequence to the actions the character can take.

To think of it another way, consider intent. The player can intend to hit the orc based on the available action opportunities and data. However, they cannot intend to find a teddy bear when opening a chest.

Quote from: silva;565801But my experience with the "traditional" roleplaying GM in general is the same as Noisms said: they come up with a "story" that they pull out from their asses and want me and other players to follow along with our characters. And before someone come up saying they are bad gms, just look at all adventure modules out there and notice 90% of them are pure railroad crap, a story already made from beginning to the end.

Contrast this to games like, say, Freemarket, Apocalypse World and Houses of the Blooded (just to name a few that Ive seen called "storygames" around here) and you see these games propose a much more open-ended gaming structure that (ironically) makes the so-called "traditional" ones look like the true "story-games" in comparison.

It's the grand ironic heart of theRPGsite

Quote from: Gib;565804A far larger group of folks have been fucked and influenced by crap D&D modules than all the story games put together.

Addressing this is one of the reasons The Forge was created. And the issue was addressed through design as opposed to confrontation.

Quote from: Peregrin;565949The only thing I can really say is that in my short time coming back to 3e/Pathfinder gaming, I've had two GMs in a row either railroad, or make comments along the lines of "This story I'm writing is going to be so awesome" or "Why aren't you guys role-playing more I planned out this session for serious role-play" when it was obvious the players, with me being the only experienced D&D player at the table, and the rest new players who were obviously discouraged for being scolded for not playing correctly, just wanted to bash orc skulls and do piss-take jokes while chugging down cola and beer.

I have encountered that attitude at nearly every LGS I've been to.  In fact I've encountered far more pretentiousness about what RPGs are for among trad GMs than anywhere else, with the idea, not that the GM is a referee or judge, but that the GM is literally a dispensary of creative thought and story-telling in order to entertain the players, rather than everyone at the table contributing equally to doing cool things and having fun.  A lot of these people will insist that their method of GMing is correct, the "right" way, "real role-playing", etc.

Those are people I meet all over.  At LGSs, game clubs, IRL acquaintances and parties, not people I meet on the internet on a tiny-ass forum.  From my perspective, the Forge and most online forums aren't even a blip on the subcultural radar, but the adventure-path mindset and the idea that the GM is going to tell you their story is so pervasive that the best I can do is run some Basic or Trav or story-games or whatever else and hope a few people are interested enough to try a game where they actually have some agency, whether via their character only, or being able to influence the narrative.  Just something so that they can maybe enjoy playing a game rather than listening to a dude talk and plow your through their pre-planned scenes for four hours.

The poison runs deep.

Quote from: Ladybird;566461I play to find out what happens, not to win or lose.

I've been pondering this as of late, because I think most traditional RPGs are specifically designed with the latter in mind. However I too would rather have a system which answers 'what if' as opposed to 'can I'?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566466The 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.

You know, this is actually a pretty cool insight and I'm somewhat embarrassed it hadn't occurred to me before. Indeed it is one of the fundamental strengths of the medium.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;566561You know, this is actually a pretty cool insight and I'm somewhat embarrassed it hadn't occurred to me before. Indeed it is one of the fundamental strengths of the medium.

I think Zak S once said something along the lines of, it's like doing your own MST3k of a LotR knock-off.

Quote from: Peregrin;566554And again, I've asked for direct proof of GNS influencing 4e's design, and all I get is a link to some Mike Mearl's livejournal post, and he wasn't even part of the original lead design team.  I also countered that point by linking to a post by Mearls (I believe later than that livejournal post) where he explicitly says he believes that D&D defies nearly all tabletop theory.

you are never going to find direct proof of something like that. It is the sort of thing where people see strong echoes of GnS in 4e, and I think there is merit to the notion that the forge had an impact on its design. I can't say for sure that is the case, only the designers of 4e know for sure how much of an impact it had. But I do think it was an influence, definitely the notion of coherency seems to be at work in 4e. Around the time they were developing the edition, i do recall seeing a lot more active propononets of gns online (I definitely recall people advocating things that were vaguely gns like whenever the subject of game design came up on a thread). You definitely see a lot less of that now. Usually what you see is someone rejecting a lot of GNS but taking bits and pieces or using much of the same kind of argumentation made on the forge. Its infuence is definitely waning in my opinion.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;566558Then don't play the Kool-Aid games. Seems pretty simple.

Brother I wish I could. I gotta hand it to Crane, Baker, Sorensen, Morningstar, they do what they do and if I want to, I pick up a copy.

Unfortunately, either GNS directly or narrativism in general has come to new versions of...
D&D
Warhammer (not even going to justify Peregrine's denial there with a response, just look up Dan's posts).
Lord of the Rings
Call of Cthulhu (mixed signals there)

Not exactly easy to avoid.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;566561Actually they're BOTH 1st person because the player is stating consequences which are a direct and logical result of the character's actions from the character's PoV.

See, I disagree, because if the player can define the outcome of his character's actions, he's taken one step beyond the reach of the character himself. To use a better example, it's the difference between attempting a "Spot Hidden" roll and stating what his character sees.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566583See, I disagree, because if the player can define the outcome of his character's actions, he's taken one step beyond the reach of the character himself. To use a better example, it's the difference between attempting a "Spot Hidden" roll and stating what his character sees.

Do you mean stake setting here, or something else? Because my experience of stake setting is that the GM still has a firm veto over what can reasonably be achieved in any given roll. I haven't seen any games where the player can just succeed in a perception roll and make up what he finds.

Quote from: soviet;566586Do you mean stake setting here, or something else? Because my experience of stake setting is that the GM still has a firm veto over what can reasonably be achieved in any given roll. I haven't seen any games where the player can just succeed in a perception roll and make up what he finds.

There are some, such as InSpectres. Rolls are to determine narrative control rather than success.

And now the CrAzY :=

Quote from: The Traveller;565554And thank you GW for reminding us all of one of the more important reasons storygames are objectionable, the people that accumulate around them.

IRONYGASM!

As much as I love the hobby, I have never gamed with a group as dogmatic in their playstyles, absorbed in pointless minutia, unable to take another PoV (really ironic considering), antisocial to outsiders (and eager to lable people as such), unwilling to change, eager to argue, and unable to bathe, as self-professed 'gamers'. I avoid D&D and Pathfinder games at cons because the chance of encountering and dealing with such players is still too high, and my time is valuable. And while things have gotten a LOT better, I still have better play experiences with so called non-gamers and story-gamers even when playing traditional RPGs.

Quote from: The Traveller;565951Do you think the solution in your railroad-happy social circle is to gut the roleplaying experience or to educate people on the correct way to GM?

There IS no correct way. It's an issue of expectations not being clearly communicated (another thing I find gamers to be notorious for).

Quote from: RPGPundit;566229

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;565558Liking the games isn't the issue. Pundit can't even put out a proper definition as to what gets posted where.

And yet for all that, this forum is at no risk whatsoever of "entering into a winter phase". Who'd have thunk it?

Me for one, because the reason The Forge shut down was because it had a specific mission which it was used to accomplish.

TheRPGstie HAS no mission or purpose other than to complain about other RPG  sites and feed people's egos. And I'll bet good money that the attitudes here have chased away more potential new members than RPG.net has ever banned.

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!

Trouble is he's right, which makes who look more stupid?

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.

Perhaps you missed the memo on how D&D modules started out as tournament games at cons. Or how the end of each encounter/dungeon is an end point. Or how HP is an end point. Or reaching a new level is an end point. Or how D&D players will often pursue a specific Prestige class as an endpoint.

Quote from: The Traveller;566361Anyway 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.

I am always surprised at what comes out of group collaborations, as long as the participants are willing to push their boundraries, which the right set of rules can totally facilitate. And contrary to intuition perhaps, but often nobody knows what's going to happen next, which means that no one can be 'in' on the secret and everyone is surprised.

Quote from: The Traveller;566361Which 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.

I'm with Halloween Jack. Link or STFU.

Quote from: The Traveller;566361Black 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.

The gamers who want to be 'educated' will seek that info out directly, and they will often seek it on sites like The Forge because otherwise they're just stuck in and feeding into the echo chamber.

Good GMing advice isn't exactly rare either, but being able and willing to follow it IS.

Quote from: The Traveller;566553If success is doing quite a lot of damage to an inoffensive hobby by getting all manner of partially cooked ideologues to try to use his coat tails as reins, he's a success.

Please show me on the doll where Ron Edwards touched your hobby.

No seriously, where is this damage you speak of? Because I remember back in the day how TSR was damaging the hobby, and how Vampire was pretentious broken bullshit, WAY before The Forge even existed. And things have gotten better since. Cause to effect? No idea, but it's certainly no worse than the causal logic you yourself are using.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566583See, I disagree, because if the player can define the outcome of his character's actions, he's taken one step beyond the reach of the character himself.

Has he?

If I have a Drawing skill, and I pick up a pencil to draw a cat, does the roll determine if I pick up the pencil, if I'm able to draw a cat, how good the drawing is, or how much it will help me in achieving another task?

If I'm confronting an ork, does the roll determine if I hit, if I draw my sword, or if I even have a chance to take action in the first place?

People tend to have this line between action and consequence which really is a product of conditioning rather than logic. It's all about where you draw the line and what you determine to be a discrete action.

Quote from: silva;566509But yeah, nothing approaches the degree of obssesion found in tabletop RPG forums.

LOL I see you've never spent any time on the bungie.net forums during the great MLG v. casual gamers flamewars surrounding Halo 3, or the Halo v. Call of Duty flamewars that unfolded around. "The BR is BR0KENZZZ!!!ONE! N00B LULZ."

Quote from: chaosvoyager;566593Has he?

Yes, he has.

Quote from: CRKrueger;566523Traveller is correct.

There was always discussion and disagreement, frequently heated, about stances and goals in RPGs, but it took Ron Edwards to turn it into a Cultural War and make it really nasty.

There was always discussion and disagreement, frequently heated, about Editions of D&D, but it took the WotC marketing dept. and the 4vengers to turn it into a Cultural War and make it really nasty.

Oh gosh, if only that were true. People have been saying unbelievably nasty things about people playing elfgames differently since the letters pages of Dragon way way back in the day. If anything made it a "war" it was the Internet making it easy to find a battleground and fight about it in your free time.

There was lots and lots of grumbling about 3e when it came out, for example. Just about every facile "it's a vidjagame" criticism of 4e was also aimed at 3e, and for the same stupid reasons. Just replace "World of Warcraft" with "Diablo."