It shouldn't surprise anyone but Matt Mercer & #criticalrole 's new Daggerheart RPG is ripping off awful storygamer ideas.
#dnd #osr #ttrpg
I haven't had time to check out the vid yet. But the headline doesn't t surprise me in the least.
Anything from that crowd would be a million miles away from the style and tone I'd want to play. So I look forward to never giving them and the crybaby Mercer a penny.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on March 16, 2024, 08:01:57 AM
I haven't had time to check out the vid yet. But the headline doesn't t surprise me in the least.
Anything from that crowd would be a million miles away from the style and tone I'd want to play. So I look forward to never giving them and the crybaby Mercer a penny.
Yes, that's the right approach.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2024, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on March 16, 2024, 08:01:57 AM
I haven't had time to check out the vid yet. But the headline doesn't t surprise me in the least.
Anything from that crowd would be a million miles away from the style and tone I'd want to play. So I look forward to never giving them and the crybaby Mercer a penny.
Yes, that's the right approach.
I just watched the vid, mate. Absolutely nailed the points on story games Vs traditional RPGs. And what would likely happen to that a-symmetrical style of play where turns are 'fiction' based. LOL
Spare me from pretentious wanna be actors.
The only game pretentious performers ever come up with is a storygame.
From what little was discussed of this game itself, it seems to be an inversion of PbtA. I am unsurprised that these clowns managed to to screw up even a storygame. Who could have known that voice acting twats are not (story)game designers.
I could actually appreciate some of the "game" concepts involved if the implementation was good instead of complete garbage.
Quote from: Wisithir on March 16, 2024, 04:48:15 PM
The only game pretentious performers ever come up with is a storygame.
From what little was discussed of this game itself, it seems to be an inversion of PbtA. I am unsurprised that these clowns managed to to screw up even a storygame. Who could have known that voice acting twats are not (story)game designers.
I could actually appreciate some of the "game" concepts involved if the implementation was good instead of complete garbage.
Having now learned more about it, it strikes me that actually it's not just a rip off of pbta games. It's like Spenser Starke, the ghostwriter, just put up a bunch of Storygamer Trash on a wall and threw darts at it. Ironically, the game seems super incoherent, which means Forge people would despise it.
BTW: Spenser Starke looks exactly like you might imagine (if you visualize male feminist beta):
(https://critrole.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Spenser-Starke-CO_S2_portrait_1200x1200_WM_spenser.jpg)
(https://scontent-zrh1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/396490398_715924513912769_1346659986796271628_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=IGkbip9RIakAX86PdmX&_nc_ht=scontent-zrh1-1.xx&oh=00_AfARtSc0b3_w1gA6x_cMV1Oj3BpPPF3wgNiHdkcbB_A0Og&oe=65FB3848)
Learning who it's by and who it's for was enough for me determine that I want nothing to do with it. Anything further is just trying to quantify a dumpster fire. I can say that players making "moves" instead of "the fiction" triggering moves is extra stupid, analogous to asking to roll a check/test instead of declaring an action in an RPG. Hence inverting PbtA, which at least got that right. The mistakes only seem to get greater from there.
Quote from: Wisithir on March 16, 2024, 05:29:17 PM
Learning who it's by and who it's for was enough for me determine that I want nothing to do with it. Anything further is just trying to quantify a dumpster fire. I can say that players making "moves" instead of "the fiction" triggering moves is extra stupid, analogous to asking to roll a check/test instead of declaring an action in an RPG. Hence inverting PbtA, which at least got that right. The mistakes only seem to get greater from there.
It looks to me like Daggerheart uses the term "move" differently than PbtA does. A "move" in Daggerheart doesn't necessitate a roll. It's just what the PC is doing. The GM may or may not call for an ability roll based on what the PC's move is. Also, it doesn't have PbtA style playbooks. The sheets looks much more like D&D.
In general... Pundit, if you're not going to spend even five minutes researching the game, then I don't think you can make any claims about plagiarism. There are free playtest materials available here:
https://darringtonpress.com/daggerheart/
The game is written by lead designer Spenser Starke with additional designers Rowan Hall, Matthew Mercer, Alex Teplitz, and Michael Underwood. I don't see anything that's plagiarizing PbtA. It looks like there are some similarities, but far less than the similarities between, say, Palladium Fantasy and D&D.
I haven't read enough to have an opinion on the game at this point. I just took a few minutes to download the playtest and look up the moves quote.
Plagiarism would suggest cutting and pasting. I didn't say that. I'm saying that they have borrowed mechanical ideas from an alphabet soup of Storygaming trash concepts.
Greetings!
I always think it is hilarious how it seems like all of the Liberal males are these feminized, pop-eyed cucks. They look so weak and feminized. So soft and full of jello. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
From what I saw on Double D's stream, the game is actually fairly crunchy. However, I like my crunch to be in service of simulation. From what I can gather, the crunch here
This looks like crunch to be gimmicky. It looks to be more of a board game with roleplaying elements rather than a roleplaying game, with all that action tracker, tokens for dice roll bonus stuff, and cards for class features. Most likely, that's all made in service of monetization. Critical Role will surely create and sell all those fiddly bits and the fanbase will buy them no matter what.
It also has the "Lines & Veils" and X-Card BS that I've come to learn is the absolute bane of any good roleplaying game. And the way the game is structured means the loudest players will get more spotlight. Sure, the game says players are encouraged to put the spotlight on players that haven't acted that much (less or no action tokens in the action token tracker) but that's 100% up to the table.
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.
And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.
I am not a RAW purist, but I can completely understand that approach and a game as a system is only as good as it can run RAW. If the game is only good because the GM is good with "rulings over rules" then the game is not good, the GM is. A great GM can run any game and make it great.
As cumbersome as it may be, only individual Initiative is actually tactical. But above all of that, its the only approach that is based on simulation, since IRL everyone acts at their own pace/reaction time.
This is a product made for their own fanbase, since they will buy anything with the CR brand.
Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
It also has the "Lines & Veils" and X-Card BS that I've come to learn is the absolute bane of any good roleplaying game.
X-Cards I absolutely agree, but "Lines & Veils", if I understand it is just setting boundaries on what a tabletop finds acceptable; usually in a session 0/planning session. Most of the things that fall under that header are puerile things grown adults have no need to waste time detailing vs. fading to black and moving the game along, so I see nothing wrong with reminding new GMs (given that CR-viewership to playing may skip the "learn via D&D" step) of things like "be aware of your player's discomfort levels" that they'd learn from playing at someone else's table first.
QuoteI've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.
Side-based Initiative is fine IF the system used has alternating activations* and/or alternate attack and resolution phases.** There's way more systems than D&D out there for mechanics to be played with and more fluid initiative (vs. cyclic initiative) I've found delivers a much more exciting scenario for the players with more interesting choices to make.
* i.e. side A has one character act, then side B takes a proportional number of turns (ex. 5 PCs vs. 15 monsters means 3 monsters act for each PC who does. Who goes in which order knowing the other side gets to respond with one or more of its units going becomes a tactical consideration, as can allowing someone to go at the end of one turn, and then at the start of the next to exploit some weakness before the other side can close it because you won the initiative that round.
** i.e. everyone's turns are considered simultaneous so, even if you hit and damage something during the turn, it still gets its actions during the turn before any damage dealt or other conditions come into play. This type of system commonly has the winner of initiative go after the losers if there are counteractions that can be employed. Ex. in Battletech (which uses both alternating activations and separate phases) movement is a separate phase from attacking and there is a seperate resolution phase. In a game with firing arcs and weak rear armor, being able to move after your opponent is a significant advantage that goes to the initiative winner.
The reason why Matt Mercers new Andrew Koebel simulator won't be successful is this:
The game will not include introverts.
I haven't seen any studies, but I'm willing to bet that 80%+ of the TTRPG crowds are introverts. I know I fucking am. I'd rather sit back and go with the group. Now when I DM, I get to set up the world I want to run and sit back and listen to the players as they try to figure out what the fuck is going on, its entertaining as fuck. AND Mercer's little shitfest, there is no initiative and you talk whenever and to what extent you want for language and moves. A lot of players are going to up and leave when they find that out.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 16, 2024, 05:03:38 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on March 16, 2024, 04:48:15 PM
The only game pretentious performers ever come up with is a storygame.
From what little was discussed of this game itself, it seems to be an inversion of PbtA. I am unsurprised that these clowns managed to to screw up even a storygame. Who could have known that voice acting twats are not (story)game designers.
I could actually appreciate some of the "game" concepts involved if the implementation was good instead of complete garbage.
Having now learned more about it, it strikes me that actually it's not just a rip off of pbta games. It's like Spenser Starke, the ghostwriter, just put up a bunch of Storygamer Trash on a wall and threw darts at it. Ironically, the game seems super incoherent, which means Forge people would despise it.
BTW: Spenser Starke looks exactly like you might imagine (if you visualize male feminist beta):
(https://critrole.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Spenser-Starke-CO_S2_portrait_1200x1200_WM_spenser.jpg)
(https://scontent-zrh1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/396490398_715924513912769_1346659986796271628_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=IGkbip9RIakAX86PdmX&_nc_ht=scontent-zrh1-1.xx&oh=00_AfARtSc0b3_w1gA6x_cMV1Oj3BpPPF3wgNiHdkcbB_A0Og&oe=65FB3848)
No he doesn't match my image of a male feminist, he's missing the large floppy purple dildo stuck to his forehead.
There was hardly any "uhs" in this?
Obviously AI generated! (OR.... POD PEOPLE!!!)
8)
The minute they started using storygamer words like "the fiction" you know its gonna be a bumpy road ahead, and a ravine at the end.
I doubt Stranger Things had a big a impact on 5e as expected.
Ad for early hostility to 5e. Alot of it was from 4e extremists. And the woke were making inroads into 5e really early on by influencing Mearls.
I watched Red Room's vid about it very funny and worth a watch.
They pointed out that all the artwork has no middle aged white men. It all POC elves 'n shit with goofy died hair. ;D ;D ;D
How sad is that?? Virtue that signal, ye' beyatch!
Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.
And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.
One thing 5 Parsecs From Home did that I really liked for a solo TT skirmish game, is that each character tests to see if they act in the "slow phase" or the "quick phase". The idea is, when an individual character acts is not as important as the question of whether they act before the opponents or after them. So everybody in the quick phase acts before the opponents, and everyone in the slow phase acts after the opponents. This makes a turn go very smoothly, especially for a solo game where the player has to control all the baddies.
I expected this garbage. Thanks for the video!
I thought I heard somewhere were there are no target rolls. You hit and you determine how well you hit from there. When I heard that it screamed Storygame.
If what I heard was true.
Quote from: GhostNinja on March 17, 2024, 04:39:19 PM
I thought I heard somewhere were there are no target rolls. You hit and you determine how well you hit from there. When I heard that it screamed Storygame.
If what I heard was true.
What you describe is Matthew Colville's 4E reskin, now with 40% more leftardism edition. You always hit in that game.
In Daggerheart they drop in a bunch of additional terms to make hitting a player do little to nothing in damage, sure less math recording more more math figuring if you hit.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on March 17, 2024, 05:09:01 PM
What you describe is Matthew Colville's 4E reskin, now with 40% more leftardism edition. You always hit in that game.
In Daggerheart they drop in a bunch of additional terms to make hitting a player do little to nothing in damage, sure less math recording more more math figuring if you hit.
Either way, both sound god awful and something I want to avoid. Thanks for the correction.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 17, 2024, 02:18:55 PM
Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.
And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.
One thing 5 Parsecs From Home did that I really liked for a solo TT skirmish game, is that each character tests to see if they act in the "slow phase" or the "quick phase". The idea is, when an individual character acts is not as important as the question of whether they act before the opponents or after them. So everybody in the quick phase acts before the opponents, and everyone in the slow phase acts after the opponents. This makes a turn go very smoothly, especially for a solo game where the player has to control all the baddies.
That sounds like a good way to go about it, but then again, from the characters that go in the "quick phase" who goes first? Is that determined in some way?
Quote from: GhostNinja on March 17, 2024, 04:39:19 PM
I thought I heard somewhere were there are no target rolls. You hit and you determine how well you hit from there. When I heard that it screamed Storygame.
If what I heard was true.
Here's what I see on page 106 of the playtest doc:
QuoteAttack Rolls
When you make an action roll with the intent to do harm to an enemy, you're making an attack roll. Reference the weapon or spell you're using for the attack to determine what trait it uses. We'll talk more about spellcast rolls in the next section, but for a standard physical or magic weapon attack, use the character trait the weapon requires (see "Equipment"), as well as any Experience or other modifiers that are applicable, and resolve it as you would a normal action roll.
If you succeed, make a Damage Roll (see "Damage Rolls") to determine how much harm you do to the target.
Each character has an "Evasion" score that is the target number for an enemy attack roll. So it looks like what you heard is false. Again, this is a free doc that I trivially downloaded.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 17, 2024, 03:15:54 AM
Plagiarism would suggest cutting and pasting. I didn't say that. I'm saying that they have borrowed mechanical ideas from an alphabet soup of Storygaming trash concepts.
I'd agree that there are general storygame influences on this, but almost nothing looks like it's out of Powered by the Apocalypse. It refers to player "moves", but the term isn't used the same as in PbtA. The Fear mechanic seems similar to the Doom Pool of the Cortex Plus system (as in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying), and there's nothing like that in PbtA. It also has a lot of crunchy class+ability stuff, though, which is more like 4E in style. What you said around 7:26 of the video was:
QuoteIt has become very evident from what I've seen about it on Twitter that Daggerheart is basically going to be a kind of a ripoff of the Powered by the Apocalypse games. Apocalypse World which is a story game it's going to be a story game all right. In a way that's that in itself is a natural evolution. It's also really a cheap deal what they're doing here, because I don't think they've ever said that it's Powered by the Apocalypse. It isn't like it's something very similar. They've just borrowed a bunch of stuff from that particular branch of story gaming and not given any credit about that as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong. Please tell me if Matt Mercer has in fact said that the game is deeply inspired by Apocalypse World or Dungeon World or something like that.
To be clear - I hated the Doom Pool of Cortex Prime. So I suspect I wouldn't like the Fear points of Daggerheart. But if I'm going to give my opinion of a system, I will give a look at the text of the system.
If someone can't even be bothered to look at the free Quickstart of a system to get basic facts of a system, but then spends 25 minutes going on explaining their opinions about that game -- that's willful ignorance.
Quote from: jhkim on March 17, 2024, 09:00:13 PMAgain, this is a free doc that I trivially downloaded.
Is there a direct link for the playtest doc? The only link I found had you submitting your email address to join the playtest.
Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 06:13:52 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 17, 2024, 02:18:55 PM
Quote from: Cipher on March 17, 2024, 04:15:38 AM
I've seen a lot of people shitting on individual Initiative, but the problem with group initiative is something Alexander Macris spoke of, that it heavily favors larger groups. And, on my own take on the matter, is that it also becomes a game of rocket tag, since the side that wins initiative can all act before the other side, which favors alpha striking strategies.
And if we are doing the PbtA "pop-corn initiative" but everyone can still only act once per turn, then that's basically the same only that it becomes again a game of the loudest crowd getting to act first. If people want to frame this as "ruling over rules" sure, but I would reply with that works for literally everything on every system. The GM can always just apply fiat liberally and decide how to run a game.
One thing 5 Parsecs From Home did that I really liked for a solo TT skirmish game, is that each character tests to see if they act in the "slow phase" or the "quick phase". The idea is, when an individual character acts is not as important as the question of whether they act before the opponents or after them. So everybody in the quick phase acts before the opponents, and everyone in the slow phase acts after the opponents. This makes a turn go very smoothly, especially for a solo game where the player has to control all the baddies.
That sounds like a good way to go about it, but then again, from the characters that go in the "quick phase" who goes first? Is that determined in some way?
Player choice.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 17, 2024, 09:06:29 PM
Quote from: jhkim on March 17, 2024, 09:00:13 PMAgain, this is a free doc that I trivially downloaded.
Is there a direct link for the playtest doc? The only link I found had you submitting your email address to join the playtest.
It seems like putting in any email address immediately results in downloading the zip file with the playtest materials. You don't have to put in your real personal email.
https://www.daggerheart.com/play
The stuff about players making moves and following the fiction is baffling. People are assuming that this must be a PbtA game because that sort of language is ubiquitous in PbtA games and not really found anywhere else. It's almost as if it's a leftover remnant of some earlier, PbtA version of the game from before they decided to use their own system instead. It's the only explanation I can really come up with for why the game includes this distinctive, defining PbtA language when the system is not really like PbtA at all.
Also, people on Youtube keep saying that it has advantage and disadvantage like D&D. No, it doesn't. It has advantage and disadvantage but they don't work like they do in D&D at all. The 5e rule it's closest to is something like the bardic inspiration die.
Quote from: jhkim on March 17, 2024, 10:04:47 PMIt seems like putting in any email address immediately results in downloading the zip file with the playtest materials. You don't have to put in your real personal email.
https://www.daggerheart.com/play
I didn't want to sign up because I didn't want a bunch of advertising spam. But, I guess I can just send all that spam to rpgpundit. ;D
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 18, 2024, 03:32:49 AM
The stuff about players making moves and following the fiction is baffling. People are assuming that this must be a PbtA game because that sort of language is ubiquitous in PbtA games and not really found anywhere else. It's almost as if it's a leftover remnant of some earlier, PbtA version of the game from before they decided to use their own system instead. It's the only explanation I can really come up with for why the game includes this distinctive, defining PbtA language when the system is not really like PbtA at all.
I agree that the language was popularized by PbtA, but saying "it's your move" is very common to game play even beyond RPGs, and there is a long history of storytelling RPGs back to at least the Dallas RPG in 1980, and other 80s games like "Prince Valiant: The Storytelling Game", as well as the 90s and 00s including all the story games on The Forge prior to Apocalypse World.
So it's clearly PbtA influenced, but it's also not that much of a stretch. The Dallas RPG refers to the "script" and Prince Valiant to the "story" and "storyteller".
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 18, 2024, 03:32:49 AM
Also, people on Youtube keep saying that it has advantage and disadvantage like D&D. No, it doesn't. It has advantage and disadvantage but they don't work like they do in D&D at all. The 5e rule it's closest to is something like the bardic inspiration die.
It is rolled differently, but it is similar in that advantage and disadvantage don't stack and they cancel each other out.
Does having a mechanic where you can modify either the environment or your action's results with an expendable resoure make a game "storygame trash" just by itself? I'm referring to things like fate/hero/karma/whatever points that allow for things like rerolls or for you to change the encounters some small way directly like by introducing minor details or objects to use on the fly. Does the answer depend on which subgenre the game belongs to in the traditional RPG space (specifically NOT explicitly "narrative" games) like for example doing it in a high fantasy/high magic game vs a grimdark low fantasy one? Or does simply being able to spend a point to alter the skein of fate by changing a miss to potentially a hit or add an item to the environment make the game "narrative" in and of itself? Does the answer depend on whether you're modifying (after the fact) a player's own action versus pre-emptively altering the environment?
Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 12:39:09 PM
Does having a mechanic where you can modify either the environment or your action's results with an expendable resoure make a game "storygame trash" just by itself? I'm referring to things like fate/hero/karma/whatever points that allow for things like rerolls or for you to change the encounters some small way directly like by introducing minor details or objects to use on the fly. Does the answer depend on which subgenre the game belongs to in the traditional RPG space (specifically NOT explicitly "narrative" games) like for example doing it in a high fantasy/high magic game vs a grimdark low fantasy one? Or does simply being able to spend a point to alter the skein of fate by changing a miss to potentially a hit or add an item to the environment make the game "narrative" in and of itself? Does the answer depend on whether you're modifying (after the fact) a player's own action versus pre-emptively altering the environment?
For me, the answer is definitely yes: a mechanic that allows players to
modify environment or results falls on the "storygame, not interested" side of the tracks for me.
That's not to say meta-currency in general is a deal-breaker for me, so long as that currency can only be used to enhance your
own character's actions. In this case, before or after does matter to me as well: spending meta-currency
before the roll is fine, spending it
after the roll is tantamount to "modifying results", and not fun for me.
Quote from: Zalman on March 18, 2024, 01:20:19 PM
Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 12:39:09 PM
Does having a mechanic where you can modify either the environment or your action's results with an expendable resoure make a game "storygame trash" just by itself? I'm referring to things like fate/hero/karma/whatever points that allow for things like rerolls or for you to change the encounters some small way directly like by introducing minor details or objects to use on the fly. Does the answer depend on which subgenre the game belongs to in the traditional RPG space (specifically NOT explicitly "narrative" games) like for example doing it in a high fantasy/high magic game vs a grimdark low fantasy one? Or does simply being able to spend a point to alter the skein of fate by changing a miss to potentially a hit or add an item to the environment make the game "narrative" in and of itself? Does the answer depend on whether you're modifying (after the fact) a player's own action versus pre-emptively altering the environment?
For me, the answer is definitely yes: a mechanic that allows players to modify environment or results falls on the "storygame, not interested" side of the tracks for me.
That's not to say meta-currency in general is a deal-breaker for me, so long as that currency can only be used to enhance your own character's actions. In this case, before or after does matter to me as well: spending meta-currency before the roll is fine, spending it after the roll is tantamount to "modifying results", and not fun for me.
That definition puts Savage Worlds under the header of story game and I'm pretty sure Tenbones would have words about that sentiment.
I would argue a lot depends on whether you're trying to emulate a setting or emulate a genre. The Pulp genre that Savage World's emulates probably the best is full of near disasters turned around by fate or happenstance. Hell, the shorts of that era practically ran on setting up a scene of total failure only to watch next week as some fluke or something that had been deliberately omitted from the camera shot last week allows the hero to overcome certain doom.
That genre aspect just can't be effectively modeled with a determinalistic setting where all possibilities are accounted for before the dice are rolled. Okay, you could do it, but sorta like using D&D 3.5e on a 5' grid for mecha combat... it's a poor emulation compared to a system purpose-built for the genre.
For Pulp, I'd argue that Bennies are probably the best mechanical way to represent that ebb and flow of fortune... it did look like the PCs were plunging to certain doom aboard the train, but a few Bennies later it turns out they actually escaped in the knick of time.
WEG needs its CP and Force Points to keep the PCs from being ignominiously splattered before they even made to the Tantive's escape pods. 5D blaster rifle vs. 3D strength is a bad day without some CP to up that dodge or the soak. People play to feel like Han, Luke or Leia, not generic hallway rebel number seven (and I forget what the official rules said, but every group I ever played with let you burn CP after you rolled; they're too important to character advancement to require them to be spent before you rolled).
Neither of those are remotely story games, so I suspect the definition requires something else beyond metacurrency to alter results for that tag to actually apply.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 18, 2024, 03:10:19 PMI would argue a lot depends on whether you're trying to emulate a setting or emulate a genre. The Pulp genre that Savage World's emulates probably the best is full of near disasters turned around by fate or happenstance. Hell, the shorts of that era practically ran on setting up a scene of total failure only to watch next week as some fluke or something that had been deliberately omitted from the camera shot last week allows the hero to overcome certain doom.
That genre aspect just can't be effectively modeled with a determinalistic setting where all possibilities are accounted for before the dice are rolled. Okay, you could do it, but sorta like using D&D 3.5e on a 5' grid for mecha combat... it's a poor emulation compared to a system purpose-built for the genre.
For Pulp, I'd argue that Bennies are probably the best mechanical way to represent that ebb and flow of fortune... it did look like the PCs were plunging to certain doom aboard the train, but a few Bennies later it turns out they actually escaped in the knick of time.
WEG needs its CP and Force Points to keep the PCs from being ignominiously splattered before they even made to the Tantive's escape pods. 5D blaster rifle vs. 3D strength is a bad day without some CP to up that dodge or the soak. People play to feel like Han, Luke or Leia, not generic hallway rebel number seven (and I forget what the official rules said, but every group I ever played with let you burn CP after you rolled; they're too important to character advancement to require them to be spent before you rolled).
I'd argue that those sorts of points only exist because the game mechanics fail to properly represent the genre they are supposed to emulate. For pulp, the survival of a seemingly hopeless situation at the end of an adventure is really just a story element that can easily be handled by the GM. As for Star Wars, the need for Force Points is only because the game system is too lethal for the setting. Stormtroopers should miss the heroes without the players needed to spend out-of-character resources to make that happen.
It's a similar situation for a narrative device that lets a player change the game world. For this to work, the item changed has to be plausible. And if it plausible, then the GM could just say that, yes, there is a handy object nearby to do what you need. These devices always work to the opposite to their supposed goal. If the goal for a Hero Point is to allow for the hero to find a improbable way out of a situation, then the mere presence of Hero Points means that the GM can never let a player have that improbably object without the expenditure of said point. Thus, these situations will only happen when the player spends those points and, thus, becomes less common than they otherwise would have been.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 18, 2024, 03:10:19 PM
That definition puts Savage Worlds under the header of story game and I'm pretty sure Tenbones would have words about that sentiment.
The first game to use them was Victory Games'
James Bond 007 RPG, in 1980. Up to and including narrative editing of the scene/environment. Is that storygame trash now too, I wonder?
Quote
I'd argue that those sorts of points only exist because the game mechanics fail to properly represent the genre they are supposed to emulate.
Pretty much, but remember you're on a board that thinks that OD&D was the zenith of game design.
Quote from: Zalman on March 18, 2024, 01:20:19 PM
Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 12:39:09 PM
Does having a mechanic where you can modify either the environment or your action's results with an expendable resoure make a game "storygame trash" just by itself? I'm referring to things like fate/hero/karma/whatever points that allow for things like rerolls or for you to change the encounters some small way directly like by introducing minor details or objects to use on the fly.
For me, the answer is definitely yes: a mechanic that allows players to modify environment or results falls on the "storygame, not interested" side of the tracks for me.
That's not to say meta-currency in general is a deal-breaker for me, so long as that currency can only be used to enhance your own character's actions. In this case, before or after does matter to me as well: spending meta-currency before the roll is fine, spending it after the roll is tantamount to "modifying results", and not fun for me.
I get that it's not to your taste, Zalman, but would you say that games like Savage Worlds or the James Bond 007 RPG are "storygame trash" because they have spend-after currency and (for 007) minorly changing the environment? (as others have noted)
In Pundit's video, he goes off on story gaming as if it's some grievous new outrage of SJWs, but storytelling language and influence has been around in the hobby since nearly the beginning, and there were plenty of explicitly storytelling RPGs in the 1980s. They're not to everyone's taste, but it's blatantly ignoring RPG history if one starts with Powered-by-the-Apocalypse as the start of storytelling influence in RPGs.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 18, 2024, 03:16:55 PM
It's a similar situation for a narrative device that lets a player change the game world. For this to work, the item changed has to be plausible. And if it plausible, then the GM could just say that, yes, there is a handy object nearby to do what you need. These devices always work to the opposite to their supposed goal. If the goal for a Hero Point is to allow for the hero to find a improbable way out of a situation, then the mere presence of Hero Points means that the GM can never let a player have that improbably object without the expenditure of said point. Thus, these situations will only happen when the player spends those points and, thus, becomes less common than they otherwise would have been.
I suppose it would depend on your definition of plausible. I've had players ask for items they need on the fly and instead given them a path to the items when it was appropriate; for example, like looking for a mop or broom handle in a building lobby and I tell them none are visible but there is what looks to be from the signage to be a janitors closet down the hall that they might be able to break into with a distraction. Initially the player hoped that a lazy or forgetful janitor left a mop and bucket conveniently in the corner of the room for them to use and I said no; I don't believe that was too harsh or displaying a lack of creativity on my part to say no initially. If it had been a game with this type of mechanic and the player wanted to spend a point, I'd say *poof* sure there is. I don't view that as "story game" or narrative personally. Narrative/Story Game would be the player coming up with the whole scenario on their own without my input and then just looking to me for permission (or worse yet to add onto it in a game with round robin narration). Same would go with looking for a letter opener in an office desk (no point required) versus just finding one on the counter at the front of the office (point required)... or finding a loose stone in a dungeon cell to allow communication/coordination with the next one over as opposed to spending the time and effort to dig it out.
I think there is wiggle room for both to exist without the need to label a game as some sort of story time game trash personally. On the flip side, I wouldn't want that type of mechanic in an old school/OSR feeling game or a gritty grimdark game though because I don't think it fits the expectations in those niches.
Quote from: daniel_ream on March 18, 2024, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 18, 2024, 03:10:19 PM
That definition puts Savage Worlds under the header of story game and I'm pretty sure Tenbones would have words about that sentiment.
The first game to use them was Victory Games' James Bond 007 RPG, in 1980. Up to and including narrative editing of the scene/environment. Is that storygame trash now too, I wonder?
Quote
I'd argue that those sorts of points only exist because the game mechanics fail to properly represent the genre they are supposed to emulate.
Pretty much, but remember you're on a board that thinks that OD&D was the zenith of game design.
Greetings!
Yes. Well, there are some members here that do not worship OD&D as the zenith of game design.
My friends and I left fucking OD&D behind way back when AD&D came out. Since the beginning of OD&D, there have been many improvements in game design.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I don't consider the storygame form to be trash. I have played and enjoyed them from time to time. Its just that the narrative style of play doesn't scratch the same itch as a traditional rpg does for me. I can have a good time with story game one shots but I don't think I could do a whole campaign.
I can also still enjoy OD&D with some customization for what it is. I find RAW AD&D to be a bit too fiddly as an old man. Classic D&D 9B/X) with some additional material is the sweet spot for me.
Quote from: jhkim on March 18, 2024, 03:56:28 PM
In Pundit's video, he goes off on story gaming as if it's some grievous new outrage of SJWs, but storytelling language and influence has been around in the hobby since nearly the beginning, and there were plenty of explicitly storytelling RPGs in the 1980s. They're not to everyone's taste, but it's blatantly ignoring RPG history if one starts with Powered-by-the-Apocalypse as the start of storytelling influence in RPGs.
I think it more has to do with how the two have acted oddly similar and used very similar disinformation tactics. And there were storygamers pushing SJW agendas early on before they fill by the wayside.
There are alot of RPGs that use mechanics storygamers have claimed and twisted out of shape. But are not themselves storygames just because they had those elements. Its like people who keep claiming the old Dragonlance modules are storygames just because they have things like timed elements and so on.
Storygamers as the problem and infestation push a different agenda and use alot of concocted magic words like "the Fiction" and "the Narrative" and "Magic Tea Party" and "Mother May I" and relentlessly tried to subvert RPGs and still do to this day.
Quote from: Omega on March 18, 2024, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: jhkim on March 18, 2024, 03:56:28 PM
In Pundit's video, he goes off on story gaming as if it's some grievous new outrage of SJWs, but storytelling language and influence has been around in the hobby since nearly the beginning, and there were plenty of explicitly storytelling RPGs in the 1980s. They're not to everyone's taste, but it's blatantly ignoring RPG history if one starts with Powered-by-the-Apocalypse as the start of storytelling influence in RPGs.
I think it more has to do with how the two have acted oddly similar and used very similar disinformation tactics. And there were storygamers pushing SJW agendas early on before they fill by the wayside.
There are alot of RPGs that use mechanics storygamers have claimed and twisted out of shape. But are not themselves storygames just because they had those elements. Its like people who keep claiming the old Dragonlance modules are storygames just because they have things like timed elements and so on.
Storygamers as the problem and infestation push a different agenda and use alot of concocted magic words like "the Fiction" and "the Narrative" and "Magic Tea Party" and "Mother May I" and relentlessly tried to subvert RPGs and still do to this day.
Yep, this right here. Just because you have a single mechanic (usually well-gatekept) doesn't mean it's a storygame. Hero points, fate points, bennies, karma, etc., as originally used all have very limited numbers and pretty severe penalties or trade-offs (karma acts as experience points, too, so you don't want to use it willy-nilly). You're aren't expected to use them as a normal and prevalent mechanic; they are for emergencies. Storygames expect such mechanics to be a normal part of the game. That's the difference. But, of course, the usual suspects are incapable of nuance when it comes to arguments they don't like, and see nothing but nuance in their own arguments...
Oh, and P.S., I downloaded the Daggerheart beta. It's storygame trash. And it doesn't have advantage/disadvantage... more like SotDL's boons and banes, just renamed...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 18, 2024, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: Omega on March 18, 2024, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: jhkim on March 18, 2024, 03:56:28 PM
In Pundit's video, he goes off on story gaming as if it's some grievous new outrage of SJWs, but storytelling language and influence has been around in the hobby since nearly the beginning, and there were plenty of explicitly storytelling RPGs in the 1980s. They're not to everyone's taste, but it's blatantly ignoring RPG history if one starts with Powered-by-the-Apocalypse as the start of storytelling influence in RPGs.
I think it more has to do with how the two have acted oddly similar and used very similar disinformation tactics. And there were storygamers pushing SJW agendas early on before they fill by the wayside.
There are alot of RPGs that use mechanics storygamers have claimed and twisted out of shape. But are not themselves storygames just because they had those elements. Its like people who keep claiming the old Dragonlance modules are storygames just because they have things like timed elements and so on.
Storygamers as the problem and infestation push a different agenda and use alot of concocted magic words like "the Fiction" and "the Narrative" and "Magic Tea Party" and "Mother May I" and relentlessly tried to subvert RPGs and still do to this day.
Yep, this right here. Just because you have a single mechanic (usually well-gatekept) doesn't mean it's a storygame. Hero points, fate points, bennies, karma, etc., as originally used all have very limited numbers and pretty severe penalties or trade-offs (karma acts as experience points, too, so you don't want to use it willy-nilly). You're aren't expected to use them as a normal and prevalent mechanic; they are for emergencies. Storygames expect such mechanics to be a normal part of the game. That's the difference. But, of course, the usual suspects are incapable of nuance when it comes to arguments they don't like, and see nothing but nuance in their own arguments...
Oh, and P.S., I downloaded the Daggerheart beta. It's storygame trash. And it doesn't have advantage/disadvantage... more like SotDL's boons and banes, just renamed...
Greetings!
"Storygame Trash!" *Laughing* Yes, indeed, my friend!
And also, Nyahh Nyahh, Nyahh! I didn't download that fucking trash game! *Laughing*
Yes, between Pundit's review of it, and DD's review of it, Daggerheart is total storygame trash. It amazes me how these people even think they have talent as writers and designers.
Can you imagine playing in a group of these people, with a storygame GM? It boggles my mind what exactly they get done, how they even go about it, and from all the jello rules and stuffed animal toys, why they would find such a game fun?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
That's why I've called it for years here "Sharing the Speaking Stick." It's about everyone getting a chance to be the World Narrator, often and regularly.
And no sir, I don't like it. So I don't buy it or run it or give it the time of day anymore, let alone download it.
So as for this new Critical Role darling, DaggerHeart, flirting with OLD IDEAS that I've already tried and disliked? Been there, done that, rolled my eyes at it. Next! 8)
Quote from: Opaopajr on March 18, 2024, 11:53:46 PM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
That's why I've called it for years here "Sharing the Speaking Stick." It's about everyone getting a chance to be the World Narrator, often and regularly.
And no sir, I don't like it. So I don't buy it or run it or give it the time of day anymore, let alone download it.
So as for this new Critical Role darling, DaggerHeart, flirting with OLD IDEAS that I've already tried and disliked? Been there, done that, rolled my eyes at it. Next! 8)
Greetings!
Yep, my friend! Exactly!
Like Pundit said, I guess Storygames are a kind of game, very different from TTRPG's, and certainly inferior to TTRPG's.
I agree with that. And, like you said, "Sharing the Speaking Stick!" *Laughing*
I'm still wondering how these people actually play these games, and how do they accomplish anything meaningful? How is this...kind of game--even any fun, really?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
So basically similar to fan-fiction?
Might as well just write fan-fiction at that point...
We already have an item that fills this literary niche and it's not a stick... it's a conch. Didn't you grognards read Lord of the Flies as kids like I did!?! :)
Quote from: RNGm on March 19, 2024, 12:10:58 AM
Didn't you grognards read Lord of the Flies as kids like I did!?! :)
Certainly any gathering of gamers will resemble the end of
Lord of the Flies in short order.
Don't give a shit about the politics, and mocking the designer's physical appearance is childish. But I did download the playtest packet and Pundit is right about the game being incoherent. It seems to lack mechanics where they would be valuable and tack on mechanics where they're superfluous. The mechanics themselves are all over the place. The authors tell you on page 8 that it's a melting pot of concepts from a bunch of other games. Except we ain't talking chocolate and peanut butter here. The ingredients simply don't go together. The game reads like it would be a headache to play and run.
By contrast, the MCDM game's development appears to be guided by a clear and coherent vision. The mechanics are going through a thorough and iterative design process. I don't expect it will be to my taste as it's super-powered high fantasy and I prefer a Sword & Sorcery style. But I'm confident Colville's game will at least work. Daggerheart not so much.
Quote from: Jason Coplen on March 17, 2024, 02:45:10 PM
I expected this garbage. Thanks for the video!
Thank you for watching it! Share if you can.
Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 12:39:09 PM
Does having a mechanic where you can modify either the environment or your action's results with an expendable resoure make a game "storygame trash" just by itself? I'm referring to things like fate/hero/karma/whatever points that allow for things like rerolls or for you to change the encounters some small way directly like by introducing minor details or objects to use on the fly. Does the answer depend on which subgenre the game belongs to in the traditional RPG space (specifically NOT explicitly "narrative" games) like for example doing it in a high fantasy/high magic game vs a grimdark low fantasy one? Or does simply being able to spend a point to alter the skein of fate by changing a miss to potentially a hit or add an item to the environment make the game "narrative" in and of itself? Does the answer depend on whether you're modifying (after the fact) a player's own action versus pre-emptively altering the environment?
If you as the player can just invent that there's some object or person in the environment that would otherwise not have been there if you didn't have "story points" (or chose not to spend them), that's a Storygaming mechanic, and therefore trash. It destroys the nature of a living world, and it shifts players away from immersing in their characters and instead acting as players with a degree of separation from the character.
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
One big thing of the more psychotic of the storygamers is the push to restrict and shackle the DM into little more than a vend bot for "the fiction!" or in the more extremist groups, get rid of the DM totally.
Perkins in an interview for "totally not 6e D&D!" is pushing this. "the DM is there to serve the players" and "every player is a DM". which is pure storygamer screed. Assuming they get their way this is what "totally not 6e D&D!" will be teaching new DMs.
The really far end of the extremists push for the removal of all game mechanics, and alot of storygames are already low on actual mechanics already.
They also love to try redefine what an RPG even is and during the big push several years ago they loved to pull some "gatcha!" where they tried to prove everyone was really playing storygames all along. Reading a book is really real Role Playing! I wish I were joking.
And the really pathetic part is that for all their incessant bitching about the evils of DMs and how they take away "player agency"... They sure love their railroads and taking "agency" away from others. And if they arent railroading players "for the fiction!" then they are abusing being in character left and right. "Rule of Cool" is a new invention of theirs.
The cure for the hated DM turned out to be a festering cancer.
Quote from: Silverblade on March 19, 2024, 12:09:39 AM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
So basically similar to fan-fiction?
Might as well just write fan-fiction at that point...
Collaborative fiction is closer. And at the more extreme ends of the fanatics thats all it is.
Powered by the Apocalypse broke my heart with Avatar Legends so Daggerheart can sit in the milk with the foul-mouthed rice crispies even before the review video. After the review I now know it's not even a "good" storygame.
I'm a fan of some storygames. If you have the right game group and know that your signing up to tell a shared tale of swashbuckling, pirating, and rescuing ladies in distress it is not impossible for one to enjoy an evening of 7th Sea 2e. Given the reviews I've seen so far I can't say the same for Daggerheart.
My prevailing thought is that much like Avatar Legends this is a method to get fans of the IP to pay for something that they won't actually use or enjoy. I cannot see it being a playable game.
Quote from: Festus on March 19, 2024, 03:05:08 AM
By contrast, the MCDM game's development appears to be guided by a clear and coherent vision. The mechanics are going through a thorough and iterative design process. I don't expect it will be to my taste as it's super-powered high fantasy and I prefer a Sword & Sorcery style. But I'm confident Colville's game will at least work. Daggerheart not so much.
Really?
The game where they keep saying that they don't know how mechanics that are already in their playtest documents work? Colville has said that the idea of the Elementalist using fire powers give them fire knowledge to research more fire powers, but then he admits he doesn't even know how that system is going to work.
It's a game being created by committee. An old saying goes like this: "I don't know what you need to do to please everyone. But, I do know that if you try to please everyone, you will please no one."
Who knows how MCDM will end up, but it does not have a "coherent" vision. In a year that the playtest has been going on they haven't solidified many mechanics. And the little mechanics that have been decided are still mentioned to be completely in flux and subject to change and only go so far as level 1. A few months ago they were still changing how damage and attack rolls work.
That's less game design completed than Candela Obscura. Let that sink in.
Sounds like it will be barely a game. But more of a game than Universalis which is just short of storytelling. Not even a game. The only mechanic in the game is... Bidding for control of the narrative if one of the players (no DM) wants to override or oppose the current player's narration. Use up all your bids and someone could completely override you.
Quote from: Omega on March 19, 2024, 10:05:24 AM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
One big thing of the more psychotic of the storygamers is the push to restrict and shackle the DM into little more than a vend bot for "the fiction!" or in the more extremist groups, get rid of the DM totally.
Perkins in an interview for "totally not 6e D&D!" is pushing this. "the DM is there to serve the players" and "every player is a DM". which is pure storygamer screed. Assuming they get their way this is what "totally not 6e D&D!" will be teaching new DMs.
The really far end of the extremists push for the removal of all game mechanics, and alot of storygames are already low on actual mechanics already.
They also love to try redefine what an RPG even is and during the big push several years ago they loved to pull some "gatcha!" where they tried to prove everyone was really playing storygames all along. Reading a book is really real Role Playing! I wish I were joking.
And the really pathetic part is that for all their incessant bitching about the evils of DMs and how they take away "player agency"... They sure love their railroads and taking "agency" away from others. And if they arent railroading players "for the fiction!" then they are abusing being in character left and right. "Rule of Cool" is a new invention of theirs.
The cure for the hated DM turned out to be a festering cancer.
Yeah, to me that's the problem with the storygame mechanics like Fear. On paper I can understand how someone can find it cool, you use this resource to raise the stakes. The thing is... GMs don't need that to raise the stakes. And, the stakes shouldn't be raised artificially due to a counter.
The monsters cannot even act unless they get action tokens to spend after the players had taken their action, which adds action tokens to the jar. It's trying to be more of a boardgame than a roleplaying game and that makes it very gimmicky. And it seems that's by design, since boardgames have been getting more popular lately with the normie crowd.
But, there's a reason why boardgames are not roleplaying games. As a GM, I don't need the Players to generate Fear through their rolls to give me permission to raise the stakes, or give them a penalty to a test or whatever complication I can come up with as a result of their character's choices.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 19, 2024, 09:36:18 AM
If you as the player can just invent that there's some object or person in the environment that would otherwise not have been there if you didn't have "story points" (or chose not to spend them), that's a Storygaming mechanic, and therefore trash. It destroys the nature of a living world, and it shifts players away from immersing in their characters and instead acting as players with a degree of separation from the character.
I'd assume that it still has to be approved in a traditional RPG by the gm so that it's not just a unilateral bullshit dispenser for players. I agree that it's a storygaming mechanic but don't think that it changes a whole game to narrative trash though. I think the root of the disagreement is that we have different views on what a "living world" truly means. For me, giving the players a limited (both in scope and number) ability to add to the world around them (subject to approval of course) enhances the idea of the campaign as a type of "living world"; I prefer both as a player and GM as a kind of walled garden as opposed to an amusement park ride where you have to stay on the track and only interact where the designers say you can. True storygaming is the chaotic wasteland of the apocalypse outside of that walled garden though. Incorporating that single mechanic doesn't break down that wall in and of itself. As for player/character separation, there will always be a degree of it unless you have an unhealthy amount of either mind altering substances or mental illness present.
Quote from: Omega on March 19, 2024, 10:05:24 AM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 18, 2024, 11:44:48 PM
I didn't know what "storygaming" was until viewing this video. Now I understand it as a glorified version of a campfire story, where you tell part of a story and pass it to the next person to continue where you left off.
One big thing of the more psychotic of the storygamers is the push to restrict and shackle the DM into little more than a vend bot for "the fiction!" or in the more extremist groups, get rid of the DM totally.
Perkins in an interview for "totally not 6e D&D!" is pushing this. "the DM is there to serve the players" and "every player is a DM". which is pure storygamer screed. Assuming they get their way this is what "totally not 6e D&D!" will be teaching new DMs.
The really far end of the extremists push for the removal of all game mechanics, and alot of storygames are already low on actual mechanics already.
They also love to try redefine what an RPG even is and during the big push several years ago they loved to pull some "gatcha!" where they tried to prove everyone was really playing storygames all along. Reading a book is really real Role Playing! I wish I were joking.
And the really pathetic part is that for all their incessant bitching about the evils of DMs and how they take away "player agency"... They sure love their railroads and taking "agency" away from others. And if they arent railroading players "for the fiction!" then they are abusing being in character left and right. "Rule of Cool" is a new invention of theirs.
The cure for the hated DM turned out to be a festering cancer.
the #1 responsibility for the DM was to be a neutral referee and rule arbiter. Once you take that away, there is no rules enforcement, nor clarification of rules by a final say from ONE PERSON. If you don't have that, you don't have a game. You have chaos. The DM is along for the ride and nothing more. All you have left is shitty fanfic.