Quote from: Baulderstone;1048446The original edition of the game had a mechanic where you could draw a number of words, cut from magazines and newspapers (yes, it is an old game), equal to your score in the trait you were using, then attempt to narrate your action using those words. For each word you were able to successfully include in your description, you got a success.

If such a staid, solid example of traditional RPG design has been corrupted by the Swine, surely all of gaming is lost. I'll break out the bunker's supply of cyanide capsules.

To clarify, a completely optional and stupid set of rules somewhere in the back that no one I knew ever used. It was a throwaway notion, it had nothing to do with the actual system itself. You're trying to pretend that it was somehow part of the actual WARP system.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1048564I'm already turned off by "the players roll all the dice." For whatever reason, whether I'm a player or a GM, that has never appealed to me.

It's a common hallmark of Storygames that want to reduce GM power to an absolute minimum. To reduce them to the level of Monopoly Bankers.

Quote from: S'mon;1048584The GM is both the referee and plays the opposition.

A GM isn't a referee. A GM is the Architect of the universe.

Of course, that's in an RPG.

In a storygame, they don't usually even want a GM to be a referee. They want him to be a kind of powerless figure that has no ability to interfere with the divine inspiration of the Game Designer.

Quote from: Blusponge;1049000To be fair, that's not terribly different than the original mechanic.

What's different is that it uses one number to represent every trait your PC has, and it's the same for every PC.

Quote from: Blusponge;1049000The setting is just plain weird.

I know, and my concern is that they're going to make it less weird.

Quote from: Blusponge;1049000Honestly, I'm not really seeing what the argument is about.

Simply put: The system does not help the game be about what it's trying to be about, and none of your choices improve your chance of success.

I don't have a horse in this race. I didn't plan on buying this in the first place, and nothing's changed my mind. But here is a transcript of the Q&A with Cam Banks and Jonathan Tweet that was held the other day. No idea what all's there, or if it'll even be useful. It just is what it is.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1049681I don't have a horse in this race. I didn't plan on buying this in the first place, and nothing's changed my mind. But here is a transcript of the Q&A with Cam Banks and Jonathan Tweet that was held the other day. No idea what all's there, or if it'll even be useful. It just is what it is.

After reading this transcript, to say nothing of the changes with regards to the setting or the mechanics themselves - which, I'm pretty sure some people are going to flip their lids over reading about the changes to the latter and how the designers describe the game mechanics they deliberately excluded such as having separate mechanics for things like combat or including hit points or even individual abilities (I mean, even fucking Heroquest 2 lets you define and rate/improve freeform abilities individually) - it's pretty clear these guys have been drinking a bit of their own koolaid.

Which is, I suppose, to be expected from any game designer. Still, there's an itch at the back of my neck I can't quite seem to scratch regarding all this new information.

How could anybody actually think the new edition of OtE would NOT be a storygame?

OtE is one of my top three rpgs of all time.

I have no interest in buying this one. Three reasons exist

1) There is absolutely nothing wrong with the last edition of OtE. Nothing!

2) The 2d6 "thing" described in the Gumshoe transcript makes no sense whatever.

3) I don't hate anyone in the rpg industry. Not Ron Edwards. Not Skarka. NO ONE. Except Cam Banks. One run in with the gnip-gnop on the internet -- that was it. Die in a fire kinda hate...

Quote from: LouGoncey;10498932) The 2d6 "thing" described in the Gumshoe transcript makes no sense whatever.

It absolutely makes sense. It works similarly to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in Mongoose Traveller 2e. The reroll mechanic increases or decreases your chances of beating the target number of 7 without changing the overall potential range of the roll, which is always between 2 and 12.

You have your self-defined attributes, and your character level. Actions that fall within your attributes operate at your character level, and actions that fall outside of them operate at a lower level. You compare this effective level to the challenge level of whatever you're up against. If they are the same, you roll 2d6 and that's that. If your level is higher, you get to reroll a die X number of time depending on the difference in levels, increasing your odds of rolling higher. If the challenge level is higher, then the GM gets to reroll a die X number of times in a similar fashion, decreasing your odds of rolling high. (In neither case do you have to use those rerolls. If you already rolled good enough[or bad enough], you can stop there.)

It's honestly one of the simpler systems I've seen. The only part that seems remotely storygame-like is the self-defined(with GM approval) attributes.

Quote3) I don't hate anyone in the rpg industry. Not Ron Edwards. Not Skarka. NO ONE. Except Cam Banks. One run in with the gnip-gnop on the internet -- that was it. Die in a fire kinda hate...

I recall reading his blog a while back, and I stopped due to the heavily political direction his posts often went in. It probably didn't help that I disagreed with his political views immensely(still do, but for somewhat different reasons). I also met the dude a couple times at conventions. He seemed like a genuinely nice and cheerful person at the time, but I'll admit our chats never veered anywhere near politics or religion. This was quite a while back, though -- about 6 years for the 2nd and final time I met him, back when Marvel Heroic was new and shiny -- so things might be different now.

Quote from: LouGoncey;10498931) There is absolutely nothing wrong with the last edition of OtE. Nothing!

To be fair, the draft document says as much on page 3 , and in fact, outright tells you that you can and should mix and match between editions depending on your personal taste.

When I first read the rules I was underwhelmed, but it has kind of grown on me, it clicked that the game is pretty much "diceless " 99% of the time, with a barebones resolution thingie when you want to screw up player's lives.

Quote from: Pat;1048437What do we know about the system? The KS mentions a 2d6 roll, which determines success/failure plus a positive or negative "special result", but that says almost nothing, and the FAQ is empty. Though there does seem to be a draft available to backers.

I heard an interview with him on KARTAS (admittedly was taped a while ago), and it sounded like the main point of deviation wasn't "story games" per se, so much as the twee new game designs like GeneSys, TOR, Fragged Empire, and the like, that award special results for specific results on dice that are also being used for your total.

To be fair, it sounded like it just used normal D6's instead of funky dice, so it has that going for it.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;1049992I heard an interview with him on KARTAS (admittedly was taped a while ago), and it sounded like the main point of deviation wasn't "story games" per se, so much as the twee new game designs like GeneSys, TOR, Fragged Empire, and the like, that award special results for specific results on dice that are also being used for your total.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that in my explanation above. This gives you 12 different types of result(sounds more complicated than it really is when you say it like that) instead of just a binary succeed or fail. Just remember "3 bad, 4 good" and the rest is easy.

Quote from: LouGoncey;10498933) I don't hate anyone in the rpg industry. Not Ron Edwards. Not Skarka. NO ONE. Except Cam Banks. One run in with the gnip-gnop on the internet -- that was it. Die in a fire kinda hate...

Well that doesn't sound good.

OTE was the godfather of story games. This new version is all Jonathan's design. For him it's like coming around full circle. Even if you're not a fan of the rules, the new 21st century take on the island is pretty dang good. I hope you'll check it out.

Cheers,
Cam

Except mechanically it was in no way a 'godfather of storygames'.

Also, I dread to imagine what the 'new take on the island'.  Knowing the current insanity of the Derangement Crowd, it'll probably be full of really pathetically transparent "evil Trump" metaphors that will age horribly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050745Except mechanically it was in no way a 'godfather of storygames'.

Also, I dread to imagine what the 'new take on the island'.  Knowing the current insanity of the Derangement Crowd, it'll probably be full of really pathetically transparent "evil Trump" metaphors that will age horribly.

I don't know - how well do you know Jonathan Tweet?

This game is closer to the game he wanted to write in 1992, and to the game he was running at the time for his friends. I always trust the author as a developer.

Cheers,
Cam

Quote from: Cam Banks;1050765I don't know - how well do you know Jonathan Tweet?

  Given that he was one of the organizers of the #Gamers4Her movement, and used a Bundle of Holding of the previous edition to raise funds for Planned Parenthood, I'd say it's a safe bet that the game will not be particularly welcoming to non-Progressives.