Not only for this (but it is one of the reasons):

QuoteDear Indie Game Designers

You know I love you. It is only out of the staunchest hope and admiration that I say any of these things. I want only to be able to spotlight pure awesomeness during the annual post-Gen Con Tribute Pile Shout Out (which due to various family events will probably appear after the film festival this year.) And you all seem to have gotten the memo about pitching your games clearly and concisely. So please, Indie Game Designers, please contemplate the following additional admonitions.

Learn the difference between a text font and a display font. I know you adore that kooky font. But I really like ice cream and don’t eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Take your favorite passage from your game and read it out loud in the voice of Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel from The Simpsons. That’s the impression you’re giving my setting your main text in a goofy, hard-to-read font.

A game is not a forum post. No matter what amazing advice Ron Edwards or Luke Crane have given you, you don’t need to quote them in the body of your rules text. Nor does it help to cite RPG theory to explain what you’re doing. If you can’t explain it in plain language without citation or reference to critical vocabulary, what you’re saying doesn’t actually make sense.

Likewise, minimize the discussion of the long personal journey the rules represent for you, and also how great your various collaborators are. How can I congratulate you if you’re already doing it yourself?

And, most of all...

Show the same excitement in your writing as you do in all those demos you run. If indie gaming is all about expanding boundaries and exploring new territories, why do so many of the rules texts read with all the zest of a clock radio instruction manual? Psych yourself into GMing mode before you sit down to write. Zing up that prose, horizon-busters!

(source)

Yep.

You may take his games or leave them, but the man certainly knows his business.

!i!

Yeah, that's great and spot on.

The honeymoon is apparently over!

I love Robin Laws because of his book on good game mastering (which is awesome, if you've read it...and not Settembrini) and because of Og: Unearthed Edition.

The new edition of OG is what Forgey games should be like.

I love Robin Laws because of this:



Best GM advice ever.

One day I'll have to have a look at Hero Quest and see if it's any good.

Quote from: ClaudiusI love Robin Laws because of this:



Best GM advice ever.

One day I'll have to have a look at Hero Quest and see if it's any good.

I've given that little booklet as Holiday presents to friends 3 or 4 times.  Damn good writer. One of the most concise discussions I've ever seen about being a Gamemaster.

- Ed C.

I think the advice is terrible. The repercussions of RoLoGG are great indeed.
Especially the adventure construction advice is a pile of bullshit.

It's the funniest thing, I recently read ye olde Dungeoneer Survival Guide for the first time ever (back in the day I seem to have stopped buying rules after UA)... and believe it or not, 50+% of Robin's Laws is in there already. 1986. AD&D 1E. It's stunning. Player types, illusionism... from the pen of Douglas Niles, author of multiple Dragonlance modules.

That said, I don't think R's Ls is all bad... to each his own, really...

I DO think RL knows how it´s done. And I DO think RoLoGG has some nifty ideas and not so much bad stuff. But the Wirkungsgeschichte shows that most people misinterpret RoLoGG, and that gives me fits of anger.

Quote from: ClaudiusI love Robin Laws because of this:



Best GM advice ever.

One day I'll have to have a look at Hero Quest and see if it's any good.

Erm we're just in the process of dumping HeroQuest for our Glorantha campaign and replacing it with the WEG D6 Fantasy system.

For us it just didn't work, we found the rules to be far too vague and unsatisfying, so last week the players all demanded I ditch the system and continue the campaign with a more reliable and concrete set of rules.


Vadrus

Quote from: SettembriniI DO think RL knows how it´s done. And I DO think RoLoGG has some nifty ideas and not so much bad stuff. But the Wirkungsgeschichte shows that most people misinterpret RoLoGG, and that gives me fits of anger.

I can see that, actually.  That's a really good word for it, too.

Quote from: SettembriniI DO think RL knows how it´s done. And I DO think RoLoGG has some nifty ideas and not so much bad stuff. But the Wirkungsgeschichte shows that most people misinterpret RoLoGG, and that gives me fits of anger.

Can you give examples of how (people misinterpret RoLoGG / where the adventure advice goes off the track)? Not that I necessarily disagree strongly; it's not like I jump into RoLoGG when I want to plan an adventure. But at the same time, nothing jumped off the page and made me say "BZZZT! WRONG!", either.

I personally found the sections on selecting games and catering to different player's needs enlightening and very important for erstwhile GMs to understand.

For me, the most important part that many people use badly are the player categorizations. Because people are different, mood is different each time you sit down. I´m sure RL knows this, but that´s not how it is interpreted.

Also, I TRIED to sit down an make an adventure out of RoLoGG´s advice. Doesn´t work. Specific GM-Advice books are and have been way better.

The player types/categories RL describes are carricatures, highlighting conflicting interests, not conflicting personal traits.

Oftentimes, RoLoGG is used as an excuse to bitch about the players. Whereas in reality, it´s the GM who enables or disables certain play-goals and fun sources.

The way you prep an adventure is the penultimate enabler or disabler for different fun-sources. "Tactician-fun" can only be had if the GM is prepped for it, if there´s actually something to solve, something defined that can be outsmarted. That´s just an example, but you hopefully get the idea.

So, alltogether RoLoGG identifies in an entertaining way several important (all important?) fun sources. But instead of talking about how to enable them in which environment, with which technique, he pathologizes them and ties them to personal preferences and human behaviour.

Which is a nice read, but sadly set many a GM on the wrong tracks.

Clearer?

BTW, what´s english for "Wirkungsgeschichte"?

Quote from: SettembriniFor me, the most important part that many people use badly are the player categorizations. Because people are different, mood is different each time you sit down. I´m sure RL knows this, but that´s not how it is interpreted.
(...)
The player types/categories RL describes are carricatures, highlighting conflicting interests, not conflicting personal traits.
(...)
Clearer?

Certainly.

I can see how one would have difficulty slotting real players into his categories. But I think all you need to do to make the adjustment is really consider that a given player will fall into more than one of those categories.

But considering that, I find the categories pretty serviceable and cover most cases I am aware of.

QuoteBTW, what´s english for "Wirkungsgeschichte"?

Google says "History of the impact". Not sure if that's the exact term that captures what you are looking for; perhaps "in practice" as opposed to "in theory". :shrug: