Hang on a minute... this is not how this works at all. A gaming ideology (or most other ideologies) is not established by Men In Black meeting once a year in a secret boardroom and issuing detailed orders ("must have spaceships, or it's not an rpg"). It's established by precedent and habit--by "taking its cue from earlier GDW products," as LW says himself.

Really...shit, must cut down on my Pundit reading. What I meant was, the stuff in Challenge and most other mags for that matter were (are) written based on the rationale given by LZ and not as some grand belief in the way how games should be played.

Regards,
David R

I know. And what I'm telling you is that the grand belief is there. It's just not present in secret-orders or manifesto form. It's just not verbalized. When I was a kid and wrote for a tabloid for a while I knew exactly what was expected of me--subject, sentence length, what to put in, what to suppress, what to lie about. Nobody had to tell me anything. If you need to be told, you're not fit for the job.

Then that "grand belief" (we are still talking about rpgs, right ?) is accomadating towards a whole diverse range of playstyle and not as rigid as some would believe or have us believe.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThen that "grand belief" (we are still talking about rpgs, right ?)

Dude, we're talking about how ideologies are transmitted and reinforced. That includes how to write an RPG adventure in this way rather than in that one, for this mag rather than that one, according to these tacit assumptions rather than those.

Quoteis accomadating towards a whole diverse range of playstyle and not as rigid as some would believe or have us believe.

Given everything's so wide open, how many GDW games do you own, how many have you even played?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDude, we're talking about how ideologies are transmitted and reinforced. That includes how to write an RPG adventure in this way rather than in that one, for this mag rather than that one, according to these tacit assumptions rather than those.

QuoteLW wrote:
The GDW's writers guidlines were fairly broad and I'm not aware of any 'handedness' on the part of the editor at all.

Quote...those that wanted everything laid out for them in an adventure and those who wanted a more bare bones approach because they were going to mod the heck out of it anyway. Trying to meet the customer's needs in this regard did more to shape how adventures were written than anything else.

QuoteThe bottom line is that while Challenge may have taken its cue from earlier GDW products, there was no set 'GDW style' imposed from above.

[/I]

I was basing my comments on this. Let's not get too hung up on how ideologies are transmitted and reinforced.

QuoteGiven everything's so wide open, how many GDW games do you own, how many have you even played?

Not many but even if this wasn't the case I doubt I'd be able to engage in the minutiate of the games discussed that is required of online gamers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI know. And what I'm telling you is that the grand belief is there. It's just not present in secret-orders or manifesto form. It's just not verbalized. When I was a kid and wrote for a tabloid for a while I knew exactly what was expected of me--subject, sentence length, what to put in, what to suppress, what to lie about. Nobody had to tell me anything. If you need to be told, you're not fit for the job.

I apologize for not being precise in my language. Although past GDW products may have informed the way some articles were written, the final result was up to the individual author. This means that some authors chose, whether on purpose or not, to do something different. The fact that these 'nonconformist' articles got published is proof to me that the ideology was weak at best.

LW, I own a grand total of 1 (one) Challenge magazine, so the details will have to be discussed with Settembrini. The one I do have, #30/1987, doesn't strike me as incoherent at all. My hunch is that a) incoherence set in later, which means a GDW style did exist and then got weakened in the late GDW phase; b) we may not mean the same thing by "nonconformism."

I don't think a number-crunching essay on Stutterwarp on one hand and a brief sketch on the Bayern mission on the other are at odds with each other, in the sense they'd dilute a gaming style. For that you'd have to write some kind of angsty Vampire in space scenario. Which may have happened in the late phase, I dunno.

Oh boy, an incoherent flamewar full of people talking past each other while shaking big bags of jargon at each other!

Anyhow, I read Challenge heavily back when there was a Challenge.

GDW was rather distinctly in two camps.  The boarderline wargame camp and the boarderline technical manual camp.  They're work wasn't immersive, emotional, or symbolic.  "It is what it is." would be a good slogan for their style.

Compared to Vampire which, for better or worse, sought to impose meaning, emotion, and develop a personal connection with the player's own life, GDW was a very different sort of animal.  They tried to do some fluff fiction in their later games but really, most of that is poorly done.  Digest Group's Traveller's Digest magazine, on the other hand, could dance narrative circles around White Wolf while putting out a better encyclopedia than GDW.

I don't think you can separate story from roleplaying games.  I think what Sett is talking about is something else.  The key being the question "when does a character die in your game?".  My answer is "When the player pisses me off enough that I need to send a strong message".  For instance, any Vargr named Fido, Fluffy, or Lassie will die in the first fifteen minutes.  

Sett's answer I suspect is "when they hit -10 hp".  It's a valid approach, it makes real tension and thus real excitement in the game.  Anyone can die at any time is a very effective narrative method.  Even moreso when the rules under which that can happen are clear and fair.  There is something to actually beating the odds or the game, else poker and blackjack would be as obscure as Everway.

Many others will answer, "when it's appropriate to the needs of the story" which is also a valid answer if a less clear and fair one.  I think this is what Sett is on about:

Clairity and fairness are pretty important in an rpg and a gamemaster who just kills players for reasons related to some nebulous concept of the story he is telling is surely a poor gm who has forgotten whose story he's telling.

QuoteThey're work wasn't immersive, emotional, or symbolic.  "It is what it is." would be a good slogan for their style.

That´s the only style I can stand. All others leave me puzzled, annoyed or laughing.

Although I´d argue that this approach is the most immersive of all.

Nineties Gaming: the two paradigms in direct comparison.

http://www.allenvarney.com/rev_04.html

Be sure to check out Allen Varney´s struggle with the GDW-school take on internal motivations and explicit morals.
http://www.allenvarney.com/av_morality.html

Those are interesting links esp here where Varney says in his review of Dark Conspiracy :  

QuoteDARK CONSPIRACY doesn't approach its subject the way I would -- but I never ordered the Gaming Gestapo to make everyone play like me. As Smith said, other games already take care of the personal kind of "brooding" horror. Also, not everyone looks on roleplaying as a storytelling experience or an acting challenge, and that's fine with me. This game does a great job on its own terms and for its chosen audience.

keeping in mind what designer Lester Smith said :

Quote"I set out to design something that would allow any of those types of horror to be played," says Smith, whose previous credits include modules for several other GDW games. "I wanted a background history that would explain how '50s flying saucer movies could fit into the same world with werewolves and ghosts and crawling hands. I wanted a referee to be able to get up from a theater seat, or a novel, or a comic book, or even a tabloid, say `I want my PCs to run into that,' and be able to do it, without having to change the campaign. I think DARK CONSPIRACY allows that by integrating everything into one history, rather than simply being generic rules, or being specific to one type."

And some really interesting stuff in the Do the Right Thing article :

QuoteWhat should a game do, then? Should it impose a moral code on the PCs? ``You can't legislate morality,'' either in society or in games.

In society, coercing others to follow rigid guidelines is wrong, narrow-minded, and obviously unworkable. It is the antithesis of freedom, because the coerced party cannot choose the guidelines nor escape them.

A game's setting, however, does not ``legislate morality.'' Nobody forces you to role-play in the setting as written. If you don't like the designer's guidelines, you drop them or drop the game. Instead, a setting offers suggestions, viewpoints, like those in stories or films.

and :

QuoteBut a good campaign setting should offer unlimited options. I don't like games that build in brute-force rules like ``hero points,'' mechanics that reward a specific agenda. A designer who tries to force the players into a mold just restricts adventures and players alike.

Flexibility in a rules set is great. My favorite system, Hero Games' Hero System, imposes no moral restrictions. The gamemaster has total leeway in constructing a campaign setting.

Rules are different from campaign settings, though. Just as a setting doesn't necessarily make for good adventures simply because you can do anything you want, so the reverse is true -- that a good setting doesn't necessarily imply unlimited freedom of action.

I remember Varney's reviews in Dragon, I generally agreed with most of them except his Dark Champions review...

Good links.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David JohansenOh boy, an incoherent flamewar full of people talking past each other while shaking big bags of jargon at each other!

OK, now you're being unreasonable!1!!

Otherwise, good points!

I like "it is what it is." IMHO that's another way of saying: "Initially it's just a situation. It becomes a story only if you interact with the elements smartly."

So, the diff ultimately isn't about character death but about whether or not story is a surefire outcome.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, the diff ultimately isn't about character death but about whether or not story is a surefire outcome.

From a story angle, mayhaps.

I give a fuck about "story", it does not even show up on the radar. Playing the world as it is because it is like it is, shalt be the whole of the law.

Bringin story into the discussion AT ALL is a sign of paradigm clash for me.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, the diff ultimately isn't about character death but about whether or not story is a surefire outcome.

"Whether or not the story has a surefire outcome", I say: from my point of view, once you have begun to interact with that initial situation, no matter how you go about it, you are already engaged in the creation of the story. The smartness of your actions isn't really relevant to that.