TheRPGSite

I saw a thread (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4012&page=1#Item_0) over at story-games talking about this book, which I've never seen here Down Under. They basically dismiss it as "out of date" (that old "our hobby is progressing and totally different to that primitive D&D stuff"), complain that it doesn't support "Bang-driven play" and otherwise speak of it in ways that make it sound good to me :D

Anybody got it and read it recently? Tell us about it!

Look here: http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2006/06/john-henry.html#links

for an excerpt.

In my opinion, it´s pretty sound reasoning, the whole book and totally not outdated.

In my opinion, it is firmly mediocre. Certainly not something the people on StoryGames tend to like*, but I don't think it is even useful for most traditional gamers. It is basic advice, spending too much on the obvious; more interesting as a historical artifact than actual guidelines. Completely unlike the 1e DMG, which manages to be instructive, fun, and chock full of colourful tidbits after all those years.

* But then those forums also produce threads (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2435) where posters lionise freaking Lorraine Williams. :eek:

I remember flipping through a copy once and not being impressed; a lot of it seemed to be an exercise in stating the obvious. Melan's right that the 1E DMG is a better source, as is Gary's Q&A threads on Dragonsfoot.

The 1E DMG is one of the best pieces of RPG writing ever. 2E was sooo boring in comparison, even though I liked the system changes.

-clash

Our downtown Library had at least two copies of it a couple of years ago. I checked it out as a curiosity.

 There is still good advice in there - but its mostly for someone who is new at being a Gammaster , or only been at it  for a year or two.


- Ed C.

I'm not particularly fond of that book or the sequel.  I agree that the 1st edition DMG is superior.

A better intro to DMing can be found in the Mentzer edition basic set. The AD&D 1st ed DMs manual is, as has been stated, also an excellent read for any GM.

What the hell is "Bang-driven play".

Quote from: RockViperWhat the hell is "Bang-driven play".

Haven't you heard of FATAL? :O

-clash

I checked it out from my local library and never finished it. It was overly wordy, as Gygax likes to be, but it didn't make up for it with entertainment value and usefulness. After a couple chapters I started fast forwarding through it looking for good bits, and finding precious few.

It also has some fairly "swinish" parts, discussing the "right" way to play and bemoaning those poor folks who play it wrong. The book is also set out to teach you how to be one of the elite "Masters of the Game" so you can be better than those poor schlubs who are playing without ever having read Gary's scintillating advice.

Overall, if you're a Gary fan like myself I'd say to check it out for nostalgia's sake. If you're incredibly new to GMing (i.e. haven't read your favorite games' GM Advice sections) I'd say it might prove useful, but there are better options available these days: Amber DRPG's GM Advice Section, Johnn Four's Roleplaying Weekly, and Robin's Laws spring to mind.

Quote from: RockViperWhat the hell is "Bang-driven play".

Not nearly as fun as it sounds.

Quote from: RockViperWhat the hell is "Bang-driven play".

According to the Forge document that Google pointed me to, bang drive play is where "the GM has prepared a series of instigating events but has not anticipated a specific outcome or confrontation." In other words, its a label applied to a style of gaming that's been around for decades, and is easier to say but harder for a neophyte to understand.

I didn't read the article, and only followed that link and one link to jhkim;s blog where some people talk about it in the comments section, so if I've missed something I'm sure someone will come along and tell me shortly. :)

Quote from: James McMurrayI checked it out from my local library and never finished it. It was overly wordy, as Gygax likes to be, but it didn't make up for it with entertainment value and usefulness. After a couple chapters I started fast forwarding through it looking for good bits, and finding precious few.

It also has some fairly "swinish" parts, discussing the "right" way to play and bemoaning those poor folks who play it wrong. The book is also set out to teach you how to be one of the elite "Masters of the Game" so you can be better than those poor schlubs who are playing without ever having read Gary's scintillating advice.

Overall, if you're a Gary fan like myself I'd say to check it out for nostalgia's sake. If you're incredibly new to GMing (i.e. haven't read your favorite games' GM Advice sections) I'd say it might prove useful, but there are better options available these days: Amber DRPG's GM Advice Section, Johnn Four's Roleplaying Weekly, and Robin's Laws spring to mind.

This is my take on it as well.  Really not terribly helpful, and not terribly entertaining, with Gygax's usual "here's how you MUST do things if you want to be an ELITE player!".  Borrow it, don't buy it.

Quote from: James McMurrayAccording to the Forge document that Google pointed me to, bang drive play is where "the GM has prepared a series of instigating events but has not anticipated a specific outcome or confrontation." In other words, its a label applied to a style of gaming that's been around for decades, and is easier to say but harder for a neophyte to understand.

No, that's it, James. But to be fair 'bang-driven play' could be viewed as quite the rediscovery against the background of late-80's to '90's white wolf/AD&D2 style GM advice, where it's the player's job to follow along with the GMs preordained plotline, etc.

Explicitly stating that a bang doesn't have to be a good fight, but also can be confronting a hero with a moral dilemma of some kind, is also something useful to point out to people who don't know it already.

Sorry, my internet tone sometimes comes across as disparaging when I don't mean for it to be. I wasn't trying to say there's anything wrong with using terminology. I do software engineering in the military sector. I live and breathe specialized terminology. :)

It's pretty much a necessary evil. Otherwise every sentence in posts about bang-driven play would be repeating the definition of bang. As long as it isn't overdone and there's a handy reference, specialized terminology can help fast forward discussions, and make them possible where trying to talk would have been too tedious otherwise.

Quote from: SettembriniLook here: http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2006/06/john-henry.html#links

for an excerpt.

That's good stuff, Settembrini! I have to get my hands on this book.

"Brute force is not always the way to achieve a desired goal, and a good RPG will offer player characters opportunities to use their wits as well as their weapons."

Quote from: WarthurI remember flipping through a copy once and not being impressed; a lot of it seemed to be an exercise in stating the obvious. Melan's right that the 1E DMG is a better source, as is Gary's Q&A threads on Dragonsfoot.

And his "Ask Gary Gygax" threads at EN World, the total of which may be longer.

Yes, and you can learn all you need to learn about steak and whiskey! :D

Wow, that story-games thread (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4012) goes on! Their thread didn't stay on track about Gygax's Roleplaying Mastery, so ours doesn't, either.

They continue the discussion about how D&D doesn't promote/allow/encourage (they keep changing the qualifier) "Bang-driven play." Which of course is utter bollocks.

Anyway, they really don't know D&D. Mike Holmes lays out a situation as an example (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4012&page=2#Item_18), where a Chaotic Neutral thief swipes food from a starving peasant, the Lawful Good Paladin hears about it and demands he give it back.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe thief player decides to refuse to cooperate with the Paladin's reasonable request to return the stolen items. Heck, he doesn't want his alignment changing so that he can't reasonably use his theif powers on whoever he comes across!

What are the options of the player of the Paladin?
A) Let the theif get away with it. Everyone is disappointed because the Paladin acted out of character. Especially disappointing to the player of the Paladin, because he really wanted to play the character as being unflaggingly for good.
B) Attack the thief to get the stuff back. In AD&D1E, this would be the player's only option - there weren't any social skills or anything back then. In fact, if it's BD&D or earlier, there aren't even any rules to attack to subdue. The only way to overpower somebody is to kill them, or get them to surrender. This is dissapointing to both players because the result will be one or more wounded or dead characters, which is a waste of tactical resources.

Now, he's mixing up all the different versions of D&D and choosing the worst rule in each case - "worst" in the sense of reinforcing his point. Now, in AD&D1e, the GM was supposed to note the "drift" of a PC's alignment. You could have your character do a few minor things outside their alignment, but if they consistently acted against it, or did something major, then they'd have to change. Alignment change got a level drop, so it was serious.

Now, by any reasonable reading of things, if someone gives up something to a threat of force, that's a minor alignment violation, if a violation at all. Secondly, Chaotic Neutral characters hold that "absolute freedom is necessary", and whether this causes good or ill doesn't matter. Reasonably we could say that a command of a Paladin is a violation of your freedom; but the thief could weigh it up and say that being conked over the head would be a greater violation of his freedom than giving up the food to the starving peasants. It says later on that you can have obedience and service in chaotic societies, it's just all out of mutual consent and not obligation; so some compromises are possible.

Now, as to D&D having no social skills, for my copy of AD&D1e this is true; but it's also true that there are many guidelines for roleplaying NPCs. As well as alignment, you can roll up or choose for NPCs traits like "pessimist" or "hedonist" or ""deceitful" or "avaricious". So when PCs are interacting with NPCs, it was expected the players would roleplay it; it didn't occur to Gygax to have skills doing the job. I'm not defending this approach specifically, but I note that almost thirty years after AD&D1e was written, this remains controversial - what do we do if a socially-clueless player has a socially-skilled character, and should PCs be able to affect each-other with their Intimidate, Seduction, Fast Talk and so on? So we can't bash old D&D for not having rules for social interactions between PCs, because few games do - most games expect you to just roleplay it.

AD&D1e has rules for subdual, and also has rules for "Non-Lethal and Weapons Combat Procedures", with the three basic techniques of Pummel, Grapple and Overbear.

What Holmes is really describing is a player issue, not a rules issue. The thief player is going against what the paladin player wants, and vice versa. And by arguing in this way and seeking conflict with each-other, both are going against the party as a whole. Holmes himself notes that the approach of AD&D1e is,
"1. Each player rolls up a character.
2. Then all the players together are a party."

So in the game group, the roleplaying of the characters must be such as to balance the individuality of the characters, and the interests of the group as a whole. Players who have their characters do things they know that will piss off other PCs we call "jerks". This is possible in any game system, and no game system prevents it. Suppose AD&D1e had social skill rules - say, the Paladin could use his superior Intimidate or Diplomacy to persuade the thief - well if your character is forced by the rules to act against what you want them to do, you're pissed off.

So social skill rules, in this case, would make the thief-paladin player conflict worse, not better. The players must find a way to make their characters work together. Again, this is an old problem in rpgs, and not restricted to D&D: "why are these guys all together?" Gygax addresses that, too, suggesting giving them a common purpose they can work towards. So for example the thief might just give up the peasants' food because really their mission is to save the princess daughter of the King, for which they'll get a large reward.

But nothing in-game prevents the players from being jerks to each-other.

Quote from: Mike HolmesNow perhaps there's a third option here of some sort, but in actual play in situations like this, these are the only two options I've ever seen anyone take. And I've seen both of them taken. And the choice made actually has far less to do with tactical sensibilies or such than with the metagamed arguments that players will make around the subject as it's about to happen.

I would say that this is not a failure of the rules, but just that he'd played with some jerks. Now, what are his D&D experiences? Perhaps being part of some decade-long campaign? Several groups with short campaigns of a dozen sessions to tackle some adventure module? To his credit, he tells us,

Quote from: Mike Holmesforgive me if I can't recall precise details from a game I haven't played much in 25 years

So we can reasonably infer that his criticisms are in fact speculation coming from a few bad experiences. This reinforces my old theory that a lot of hostility of Forgers towards "traditional roleplaying" comes from their having little experience of it, and that experience bad. Rather as if after my first girlfriend screwed around on me with my best friend, I had then developed an elaborate theory about how women are all bitches, they can't help it.

At least McMurray pwns him in the thread, though,

Quote from: James McMurrayI can only marvel at the horror that your D&D gaming must have been if you thought a lack of social skills meant you could never interrogate, negotatiate, or otherwise interact socially in an attempt to achieve a desired result. But I don't really think that's how you played, I think it's how you've chosen to model the scenario so it best fits your outcome.

and later gives him examples of how the paladin could persuade the thief without violence or social skills.

Holmes doesn't give up on it, though.

Quote from: Mike Holmesit may interest you to know that, when playing in 1979, that, in fact, no, we never, ever, spoke in character. There was no text that indicated we should in the editions we played, and no examples of it in the books.

DMG, 1978, pp97-100 - an example where the players often speak in character. Then in the red box Basic D&D, there was a solo adventure to introduce you to the game, and in that you spoke in character. Nowhere does it say "you should speak in-character sometimes." But you know, maybe Gygax thought he didn't have to state the obvious. The obvious like McMurray said,

Quote from: James McMurrayYou're definitely right, people that value their own fun over all other things don't work well together in shared fun environments.

Holmes still just wants us to try Burning Wheel, though.

I think the wankiest moment comes from "lachek", whoever he is.

Quote from: lachekAs for the source to the statement that early iterations of D&D were no more immersive roleplaying experiences than playing Warhammer 40K with only one figurine per person, I'm going to have to leave that as an exercise for the reader - because frankly, that's such a well-known fact that:
    a) Since it's not a matter of contention, it's moderately hard to find sources claiming either it or the contrary, and
    b) I just can't be bothered proving it for the benefit of the few that somehow missed it.

This sooooo much the old Forger way. "We have established the Truth, and you are not qualified to doubt us. Be silent, ignorant scum."

Whoever ludanto is, he says,

Quote from: ludantoFirst of all, while "Don't be a Dick" is a good rule of thumb, it does NOT make a good social conflict resolution system.

Actually, it does. That's what we have the GM for. "Hey, don't be dicks. Jane, back off on Dave. Dave, shut the fuck up and roll the dice."

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the whole story-games and Forger scene comes about from a few bad game groups who spawned these lonely bitter gamers. There's some crappy DM out there we can blame Ron Edwards on.

_____________________

Could we move this thread to the Theory or Off-Topic subforums, please? Whichever the mods think is more appropriate. Talking about how rules in general do or don't stop players being cocksmocks to each-other is a theoretical sort of issue, I think. And mocking other rpg discussion forums is Off-Topic (or RPGPundit's Own!)

I should also like to note that normally I look at my copy of AD&D with nostalgia, but no desire to play. But reading story-games changes all that. It makes me want to play or GM it, and do it well, just to be able to say, "bullshit." But of course they'd find some bullshit excuse to dismiss that... after all, they know The Truth! Even if they've hardly ever played the game and don't remember its rules properly, they know The Truth!

Quote from: Kyle AaronI should also like to note that normally I look at my copy of AD&D with nostalgia, but no desire to play. But reading story-games changes all that. It makes me want to play or GM it, and do it well, just to be able to say, "bullshit." But of course they'd find some bullshit excuse to dismiss that... after all, they know The Truth! Even if they've hardly ever played the game and don't remember its rules properly, they know The Truth!

That's how I deal with it...and ignore their "truth" when it gets asinine.  I deal with real academicians doing real academic dick-waving all day long.  I don't like it when hobbyists do it...I just want to drink some beer and kill some monsters.

Quote from: 'Some Guy from StoryGames'B) Attack the thief to get the stuff back. In AD&D1E, this would be the player's only option - there weren't any social skills or anything back then.

Yeah right, Ace. Sure it would. :rolleyes:

Quote from: 'Kyle Aaron'The more I read, the more I am convinced that the whole story-games and Forger scene comes about from a few bad game groups who spawned these lonely bitter gamers. There's some crappy DM out there we can blame Ron Edwards on.

This could merit a separate thread, but for now, I'll just express agreement and copy a recent post of mine from ENWorld for those people who don't read it:

QuoteA lot of people have this perception because of poor experiences with juvenile DMs. Teenagers often make dumb mistakes, especially when it comes to trust, fairness and human relationships. That is why they aren't adults - they have yet to learn all these things over several years. Here's the problem: in the hands of an immature person, games can lead to pretty f-ed up social dynamics, betrayals, unpleasant power fantasies, etc. It is not the fault of the game, but the participants will blame it anyway. This, in some, leads to negative stereotypes which are reinforced by a whole corpus of anecdotal evidence. I will have to mention that old school games are not the sole targets for these stereotypes: often, it is "traditional" games in general, or GMs in general, or gamers in general (RPGNet's "Creepiest Gamer" thread, for example, is a veritable treasure trove of self-hate and condescension towards one's fellow gamers, feeding on a sad and sick one-upmanship).

I think there is a strong impetus on part of those who suffered from these negative phenomena in formative years to make games "safe" - to build anti-abuse catches into the rules or the social structure of the books. This, in many ways, has turned into a general crusade for "fairness"; today, it extends to initiatives to prevent item loss, abolish random ability scores and hit points, remove save or die for the last time, etc. etc. etc. Safety.

I don't think this is the sensible way. I think we have to recognise the problem as human, and don't make (futile) attempts to fix it through rules. The only solution is itself social; the ability of adults to be selective with their friends, or occasionally aid the maturation of their fellows (as pretentious as this sounds). Juvenile people make mistakes, and some people always remain juvenile. In the hands of sensible, mature people, old school games are safe.

That's all.

Actually, the whole thread is pretty interesting, check it out (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205883).

Mike Holmes isn't just "some guy on story-games", he wrote Universalis! :p

Seriously, I lke the guy, he has useful things to say about many things, it's just that on his occasion he's talking bollocks.

It's just a strange thing that people could have a game session or two of something and then develop a whole rpg theory as to why it's crap and their Brilliant New Game will "fix" that. I mean, I've played lots of games I didn't like - I didn't come up with any theories, I just didn't play them again. And I don't blame a few hundred pages of sloppily-written, badly-edited, saucily-illustrated rules for someone being a dick - even when that someone was me.

Edit: and your ENWorld post is very sensible, Melan. And I don't say that only because it's the essence of Cheetoism: "Fuck System. People Matter."

In related news, Robin Laws, reflecting on what he got at GenCon, PWNS indie game designers (http://robin-d-laws.livejournal.com/230629.html):
   Dear 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!

Okay, I was going to chastise you, Kyle, for rubbernecking at that car wreck of a thread...but that lachek character really is a hoot. Esp. the quote about early D&D being no more than a miniatures game with one figure per person. Because we can now discount that entirely, with what we know about Braunstein and Blackmoor. Take a look at the last post on this page (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=73010) for example.

QuoteDave Wesley had devised an idea for a different kind of game all together. He created a scenario set in a fictional German town, called, Brownstein. The scenario had the usual wargame elements. Two opposing army commanders, both with orders to take and hold a bridge that might be crucial to the battle. But, then things got a little weird. Dave knew that around eight people usually showed up for the get-togethers, which basically left six people standing around watching the two army commanders go at each other. So, at this time, he developed "roles" for the others to play in the scenario. In addition to the army commanders, he had: the mayor of Brownstein, the banker, the university chancellor.The list went on and on. Each role had its own unique briefing on the situation and its own objectives and goals to achieve. When around 20 people showed up that night to play — instead of the eight he had planned for — he improvised and created roles for them to fill — right there, on the spot.
He had envisioned that players would come to him one at a time in the room (where the map of the scenario was placed) and he would brief them on the situation. To keep the game interesting, the players would not be allowed to share information with each other outside of that room. But it wasn't long before two players, one an officer in the Prussian army, and the other a pro-French radical student, came into the room together stating that their characters had challenged each other to a duel. Not to be caught flat-footed by such a request, Dave immediately improvised a rule and rolled some dice and declared that one had shot the other...and the victor was being hauled off to jail.

Already in 1967, people were playing roles, not merely pushing lead around a map. And Blackmoor was an extension of the same concepts--pure roleplaying, using  Chainmail as an adjunct for the resolution of physical actions:

QuoteAround the same time, heavily influenced by Tolkien's Lord of the Rings , Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax (who were both in the Castle and Crusade Society) were interested in bringing a mythological fantasy component to their games. So Gary wrote a fantasy supplement to Chainmail. That small addition caused Chainmail to become the best-selling product of Guidon Games.
After a weekend of too many monster movies and nonstop Conan novels, Dave decided to chuck his stuffy Napoleonic campaign and create a medieval fantasy-flavored Brownstein, called, Blackmoor. For the players, Blackmoor was a real trip. Instead of making up characters, Dave had each of the players enter the world as themselves! But Blackmoor was a dangerous place, (ask one of them to tell you about the vampire rosebush) and the players were getting worried about getting their alter egos killed, so they quickly retired those characters and created new ones that they weren't afraid to lose.
The major conceptual difference between Blackmoor and the previous Brownsteins was that for all their RP elements, the Brownstein games were stand-alone for the most part and had only a loose connection from one session of play to the next. Blackmoor was different. The game never ended. The characters progressed, and as Dave rewarded them they become more powerful — or finally got killed. They used Gary's Chainmail rules to handle combat, but very quickly needed additions to handle all the situations the players were facing.

With this, lachek's claim (and Mike's) falls apart completely.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMike Holmes isn't just "some guy on story-games", he wrote Universalis! :p

So I guess he's famous or something? Aha. Nice to know.


( ;) )

In other words, you were going to chastise me for rubbernecking at the car wreck, until you looked and realised just how interesting a car wreck it was :p

On the Braunsteins, there's a link to a discussion with Wesely himself somewhere in my Big List... let's see... ah, here (http://www.acaeum.com/forum/about3888.html) it is.

Also it seems that if there was no connection between the different scenarios Wesely ran, it was mainly because he ran them months or years aart with different players. I imagine that if he'd been able to run them regularly with the same group, the idea of having the same character each time would just naturally have popped up.

I've also seen Dave Arneson talking about how they didn't rely on dice too much, like for a save vs poison you'd make some roleplaying argument as to why the character should live... pretty thespy stuff. Can't recall where I saw him say that, though.

Hmmm, on looking around, I still can't find it. I did however find this interview (http://au.pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p3.html) where he tells us that when he got Chainmail, one of the first things he did was houserule it in response to player complaints.
   Combat in Chainmail is simply rolling two six-sided dice, and you either defeated the monster and killed it … or it killed you. It didn't take too long for players to get attached to their characters, and they wanted something detailed which Chainmail didn't have.
He was unhappy with the rules, and he made new rules to fit! He listened to his players, and that's how D&D was invented. That is, he wasn't a jerk about things. But apparently house rules shouldn't happen and no GM ever listens to the players, or the players to each-other, in the story-games version of "traditional gaming." Bizarro.

Edit: On Arneson's rather rambling page here (http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html), he says,
   Well since there were NO rules for practically anything the players wanted to do the game was "loose" and "unstructured". The old referee got VERY good at thinking on his feet. I say I was good because the game, and I, both survived the player's onslaught. And even without a lot of rules we had rules lawyers back then too! Thank he lord for that black notebook. Even if the rules weren't all in there I was usually able to convince the players that the rule was in the black folder, or at least would be soon.
So sometimes there were no rules for things, but the group figured out a way to handle it anyway. What would Mike Holmes' imaginary Paladin and Thief players say to that, eh?

Quote from: Elliot Wilenbut that lachek character really is a hoot.

You know, I never really understood internet hostility.  "It's just the internet, fuck it," was my motto.  But when you call cool people that I've met assholes, it's different.

Just because someone doesn't look at gaming the same way you do doesn't mean they are an asshole.

No, it´s when they start lying it´s that they become assholes.

Quote from: LostSoulJust because someone doesn't look at gaming the same way you do doesn't mean they are an asshole.

Elliot said lachek was "a hoot", not "an arsehole."

"I find this person amusing because of the strange things he says" is not the same as "he's an arsehole."

I realise it's a story-games and Forger tradition that if someone disagrees with you they must be a cunt, and can only possibly redeem themselves by a lengthy discussion in which out of sheer exhaustion and boredom with the topic they end up just pretending that their ideas aren't so different after all, but that's not the way discussions work in most of the world.

lachek, along with several others there, say things which are amusing because they're so ridiculous. lachek is a hoot. Likewise, our own Settembrini is also a hoot. That does not mean that I or Elliot think they are vile people, nor does it mean that upon meeting them we'll piddle on their shoes.

lachek says absurd things. If you do not wish for your buddy to be mocked for saying absurd things, then you should encourage him not to say them :p

LostSoul: for the record, lachek doesn't seem to be an asshole going by that thread. However, he does seem to be a dogmatist - someone who expects reality to conform to his theories (which, as always, are reinforced by a generous helping of anecdotal evidence).

...come to think of it, here's the disconnect some people in that thread appear to have with theory: they hold the opinion that there is a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between theory and reality, while in fact, it is more of a fuzzy connection... in that theories draw your attention to certain facets of reality, usually to make a point, but they don't (and shouldn't) represent the whole. Looking solely through the lens of abstraction is dogmatism. They don't see the big picture and they end up rejecting common sense - because common sense is always a fuzzy cluster of "yes buts" and "howevers". Real life is complicated, subjective and irregular.

(Oh, I do so love Google's RSS search feeds and the vanity which causes me to use it)

Hi guys! I'm glad I could provide some amusement over there on Story Games. I just thought I'd pop in and share a few words. Apparently I'm funny, so I hope nobody will mind.

To clarify, an old Forger I ain't. I've been interested in "indie games", a term I despise, for about 8 months, actively played them for maybe 4. I rarely post on the Forge. I read and think a lot about games, which I believe is a necessary evil to make something better. Maybe in time I won't be quite so abrasive in my naiveté.

Nor am I much of a "lonely, bitter gamer". I (frantically) run a website trying to build a community of roleplayers in my 600k strong Canadian city, actively play a role in matching people up with groups, and attend as many local cons as I can playing all manner of different games. I host games for two different gaming groups. We currently play GURPS, All Flesh Must Be Eaten and a bunch of "indie games", Spirit of the Century in particular.

From reading here, especially Elliot's post, I'm starting to get an inkling of the very early history of D&D, and how in very early iterations roleplaying (as defined as the process of acting - blah blah blah) was indeed a key element in many campaigns. I guess my misunderstanding was due to the fact that I can't ever recall seeing that formalized anywhere. In particular, the rules for all editions I have seen (which in all fairness comes down to only 2nd and 3e, approached mostly as a player) have been very low-key in its approach to character acting, being careful not to reward it or stress it too much, and specifically noting that character acting is entirely optional.

Some of this misunderstanding may also have been due to being raised in the Swedish rather than North American roleplaying hobby, with a potentially different set of games and assumptions about acting and "good RP". When I came here, and sought out gaming groups, all my encounters with other gamers in the area came down to "we play D&D, and our games are about killing things and taking their stuff" in various alternate phrasings. I must admit I rebelled against that, feeling that surely you could introduce deep character and epic tragedy into a game of D&D, and pushing very hard for that to happen with terrible results. Ever since then, I've been spending my time fuming at the DM and other players for being so "unsophisticated" and "shallow".

The language used at Forge and Story Games allowed me to turn that around and theorize that maybe the problem wasn't with the DM, or the other players, or the game at all - maybe the problem was with me, trying to play the game in a way which that particular game did not encourage. The other players - older and wiser than me - probably knew this intuitively and balked at my crazy notions, knowing they'd lead to misery rather than fun. Had I known then what I know now, I'd probably have enjoyed myself quite a bit, whereas at the time it was literally torture. Imagine that - Forge theory actually encouraging people to play and enjoy D&D!

It was disconcerting to me, when I thought I'd come to this great and glorious insight that would allow me to have more fun playing a game I'd discounted entirely for so long, that some would turn my notion around and again blame everything on the DM - in effect telling me that the only way I could enjoy D&D would be to keep getting burned on all these "bad" (not my term) DMs and groups until I found some reasonable folk. I may have gotten a little defensive due to this, but hey, if it made y'all laugh it wasn't completely for naught, eh?

LostSoul, I appreciate the benefit of doubt with regards to my assholishness. "Cool people I've never met" will definitely be my new motto when considering fellow forum-goers from now on.

Game on, guys.

Quote from: lachekThe language used at Forge and Story Games allowed me to turn that around and theorize that maybe the problem wasn't with the DM, or the other players, or the game at all - maybe the problem was with me, trying to play the game in a way which that particular game did not encourage. The other players - older and wiser than me - probably knew this intuitively and balked at my crazy notions, knowing they'd lead to misery rather than fun. Had I known then what I know now, I'd probably have enjoyed myself quite a bit, whereas at the time it was literally torture. Imagine that - Forge theory actually encouraging people to play and enjoy D&D!

I'd say this is close, but the problem that leaps at me has nothing to do with the game you're playing. It seems to me that the problem is that you joined established groups and tried to get them to play your way, when they were already happy playing theirs. This can happen with pretty much any game, and any clash of game styles.

James, this has happened to me a few times, and in each case it was a group which formed as a result of fellow local gamers meeting up and trying to get a game off the ground. Otherwise, I'm sure your theory is sound.

The Gygax Roleplaying Mastery thread was never intended as a "my way is better than yours" or "D&D is teh suckz" thread. I used to think that, before I started getting involved in all this theory crap, but the more I read and think about I come to the conclusion it's not the case at all. Having that interpreted as "oh, so D&D sucks then, huh?" is disenchanting and the opposite of what I'm getting at.

But I understand we approach this from two different directions and are as likely to come to a full agreement as Israel and Palestine. Really, the reason I came here was to acknowledge that I was wrong about roleplaying not having existed before some magical post-D&D game invented it, and to deliver a set of justifications for my ignorance so you guys wouldn't think I'm a total ass. In addition to having a need to be right, I also have a need to be loved, see.

I dunno if I can help you with the love thing, lachek (you might try google), but this D&D issue is a bit different from how you've portrayed it even in your gloss of my comments.

To begin with, it might help to note that Dave Weseley was against the term "roleplaying game" (http://www.acaeum.com/forum/post-65129.html&highlight=#65129).

QuoteBy the way, I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared, as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing, already existed: The term was already being used for (1) a tool used to train actors for improvisation (an example being the Cheese Shop Game since imortalized by Monty Python) and (2) a tool used for group therapy and psychiatric analysis ("Pretend you are an animal.  What kind of an animal do you want to be? How does your aniimal feel about Janet?") And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty. I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck with "RPG".

One might wonder what the games were, then, if they were neither hack & slash nor amateur theater. The answer is that they were character-immersive experiences, where the overall setup was designed to allow the players to approach the internal fiction of the game from a perspective similar to that of the characters they played. "Acting" did follow on, as many people started to "get into character" of the projected imaginary personas, but the baseline of the game was a representation of the character-world interface through the GM and rules. A lot therefore did depend on the group: the game provided a substrate for roleplaying and some impetus for certain types of play (adventure! intrigue!) but it didn't do much to prevent any style. Consequently I think many people did latch onto the mechanics of combat/spells/items/levels and pursue a spiral of leveling-up-by-any-means-necessary, basically where an NPC or creature was only of interest as a source of XPs. And I think some of this worked its way back into the game as those portions became more elaborate; nevertheless at no time did D&D have a "right" way to play in such a narrow sense.

Basically, I agree with James: if you play the game with a group of friends who are compatible, and everyone is attentive to each other's interests, D&D is capable of a variety of playstyles. Personally, for general gaming I prefer something different to early D&D: more mechanical differentiation of characters, a shallower advancement curve (though starting higher), and experience mechanics which put less stress on combat & gold. But broader factors, essentially situated in the social realm (I mean things like the group's overall approach to worldbuilding and scenario-framing) can and do overcome those mechanics-based preferences.

lachek, you're fishing in dead water there. The Big Model, alas, gives you no understanding of what really matters - people. People make or break a game session. To understand how game groups fuck up, you need Cheetoism (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage).

Thanks for the link, Kyle. It looks interesting and I'll be sure to give it a thorough read.
But there is no dichotomy - System Matters and People Matters are both true. Whether you like Ron Edwards or not. Yes, that's an assertion - if you want to debate that point, feel free to email me at lachek at gmail dot com.
That the Big Model deal with people to the same extent as Cheetoism does is obvious from even a cursory glance at its Wikipedia entry. The essence of roleplaying is both a wave and a particle. We've reached the same goal but with different conclusions based on our starting points. The only difference is how much effort it takes each of us to get there.

Elliot, that's really interesting. You obviously know your D&D history and have far more intelligent conclusions about early D&D and the act of roleplaying than I do. I don't find it odd that a brand new hobby with a rather poorly defined mode of play (which makes sense since it grew out of a DIY adventure gaming subculture) was misinterpreted by a bunch of 12-14 year olds, who kept playing that way and came to define the hobby over the following decades. I guess my argument would be in terms of the nature of truth - did D&D have roleplaying because that's what the creators envisioned but failed to communicate outside their own groups, or did D&D not have roleplaying because that's how many (most?) played?

If I was going to phrase an argument, that is. I'm not. I didn't come here to continue the thread "behind enemy lines" as it were. I made a mistake with regards to the origin of roleplaying, and I'm here to apologize and explain why the mistake was made. I consider it "mission accomplished".

Quote from: Kyle Aaronlachek, you're fishing in dead water there. The Big Model, alas, gives you no understanding of what really matters - people. People make or break a game session. To understand how game groups fuck up, you need Cheetoism (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage).

I'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic here or not, Kyle.

If you read into Cheetoism you'll find it has a much stronger emphasis on people, rather than abstract concepts, compared to the Big Model. Also, it's (largely) descriptive, rather than prescriptive, which is another difference.

The other difference is that no-one can possibly seriously call themselves a Cheetoist. That's why I kept that name, which was initially just a joke dismissing all other theories. Groups who take themselves seriously are more likely to end up saying ridiculous things, and to be nasty.

System matters to a degree, but it's the least important thing. For the success of a game session, the order of importance is,

• People
• Snacks
• Setting
• System

A good group can have fun with a bad system; a bad group cannot have fun with a good system. It's because we have a social creative hobby. First and foremost we're dealing with people, and people don't fit into simple categories, whether Gamist or Scorpio or Intuitive or Conservative or whatever. Those sorts of categories can be a spark to the fire of a discussion about people as individuals, but they cannot be the entire fire. When we focus on the theory as a real thing, then we start trying to adjust reality to fit into the theory, and get a crap game session.

I've a friend who ran a game store up north for a few years, and he had a space for gamers to come and play. He said that he could always tell when game groups were going to implode. And it wasn't because someone had a different Creative Agenda or anything like that, it was just personality conflicts. Jim got annoyed with Bob, and once he found one thing that pissed him off about him, looked for more - and of course found them.

That's why people come first. Because it's a social creative hobby.

Snacks come next because if you're hungry or over-full or eating something distasteful it distracts you and stops you focusing on the game. And if you're sharing food and drink with friends it relaxes you and forms bonds between you all. There's a reason almost every culture in the world has traditions of hospitality, that when someone comes to your place you offer them food and drink. People bond over food and drink.

Setting comes next because the game world has to interest the players. "You wake up with no memory and no clothes in a dark room with no doors or windows."
"Oh for fuck's sakes..."
If the game world is boring to the players and GM, they'll get distracted by other more interesting things. A roleplayer cannot roleplay well when distracted by other stuff any more than a football player can catch and kick well when looking at the hot chick in the front row of the audience. Focus!

And it's the setting that players use to bounce their characters off, the setting shaping the characters and the characters shaping the setting.

Lastly we have system, which is only on the list because it's the tool we use for our characters to interact with the setting, and vice versa.

And that's the way it is for all right-thinking gamers. Of course you may think differently, but that just means you are crazy and wrong and should be hunted down and pelted with d4s until you admit your wrongness.

And I am entirely serious, like any Cheetoist.

Quote from: ErstwhileI'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic here or not, Kyle.

:cool:

Quote from: Melan* But then those forums also produce threads (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2435) where posters lionise freaking Lorraine Williams. :eek:

I'm not a big D&D fan...but God some of the opinions in that thread are fucking moronic.

Indeed. Lorraine Williams was a dedicated "story-gamer"? Rocky & Bullwinkle "had a sophisticated edge"?

These guys remind me of what instructors used to say in the Army. "Don't be afraid to ask questions. There's no such thing as a stupid question. On the other hand, there are a lot of stupid answers."

Well that book was pretty important for me. (although I liked Gary's Master of the Game much more).

Those two books are what nudged me into the industry and I'll be forever grateful.

Probably wasn't so much what Gary said. But his attitude of "you can do this...." and the feeling gaming was more of a community than a business.

Something that struck a chord with me personally I suppose.

Again my comments pertain more to the companion book.

(offtopic) Jolly - Welcome to TheRPGSite! :)

Quote from: JollyRBProbably wasn't so much what Gary said. But his attitude of "you can do this...." and the feeling gaming was more of a community than a business.

Something that struck a chord with me personally I suppose.

Again my comments pertain more to the companion book.

I can totally see that.  Gygax went out of his way to explain that the individual gamer is part of a social scene and should be positively contributing to it.  Cheeto-tastic!

nice job Kyle, but I think you missed out environment which can play a critical part in certain kinds of games, and just having peace and quiet away from interruptions helps.

Sure. I covered that sort of stuff here (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage). But for a forum thread, that's getting into needless detail. And I know about needless detail, I run GURPS.