Quote from: jahud;413967And much like Windows, the D&D of operating systems, it has proven to be viable business. And that is what counts.

The worst thing would be a smooth, elegant system, as no one would ever buy any of the later versions.

Well, you know, I am still running Windows XP (Service Pack 2), because it gives me everything I want from an operating system. I am happy with it. It is the killer app of operating systems, and Microsoft almost-kinda committed an error by releasing such a good product. Likewise, I think the basic d20 framework is one of the killer apps of roleplaying games - granted, I play a greatly simplified variant that's modified to reflect more old-school principles, but I think even on its own, the general rules of 3.0 are the bee's knees.

Quote from: Melan;414045Well, you know, I am still running Windows XP (Service Pack 2), because it gives me everything I want from an operating system. I am happy with it. It is the killer app of operating systems, and Microsoft almost-kinda committed an error by releasing such a good product. Likewise, I think the basic d20 framework is one of the killer apps of roleplaying games - granted, I play a greatly simplified variant that's modified to reflect more old-school principles, but I think even on its own, the general rules of 3.0 are the bee's knees.

Odd.  I always thought you were an AD&D guy.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;414049Odd.  I always thought you were an AD&D guy.

(It's off topic, but what the heck. We can always create a thread about that later on.) I know I'm going to make you gasp, Bill, but AD&D and 3rd ed aren't really that far apart compared to other editions of the game. They're closer than AD&D and AD&D2 ever were, to me.

Quote from: Benoist;414051(It's off topic, but what the heck. We can always create a thread about that later on.) I know I'm going to make you gasp, Bill, but AD&D and 3rd ed aren't really that far apart compared to other editions of the game. They're closer than AD&D and AD&D2 ever were, to me.

Wha-?

Okay, I think there is plenty of similarity in AD&D, AD&D 2nd, and D&D 3rd.  I like the latter two a lot.  But 3rd more similar to AD&D than 2nd? How so?

delver: I knew you'd respond to that post. Well, AD&D. It is an inspiring game in ways d20 has never been. The DMG is absolutely great, the MM is the best single monster book produced for a game, and it has that special something that's EGG's genius. I like AD&D for its underlying ideas of complex roleplaying (much of that vision is realised more explicitly in early JG and occasionally Palladium, but it is definitely in there). For the mechanics, I prefer the integrated and streamlined approach of d20. Not so much the excesses, but again, I play a custom d20 light system, not 3.0. I've actually got a really condensed English translation of that, but need to add about two pages to complete it as a 24 p. doc that could go on my site.

Quote from: mxyzplk;413940Great explanation!  As a sim player, 4e left me totally behind because of this.  I actually don't mind a little narrativism, but the strong gamist/narrativist combo pack that the Forge is all about now is diametrically opposite to my chosen play style (you know, pretending you're a real character in a real world...  Not sure how we got away from that...).

Your'e not a "sim" player. There's no such thing as GNS, it doesn't exist in real life.

And for the record, what you are describing ("a real character in a real world") is not really connected to the incredibly garbled Edwards-definition of "simulationism" anyways (though many people assume it would be, since that sounds right).  What you're describing is just another way to say "I like emulation of genre", which is indeed a real thing, and is indeed something that the Forgies hate; along with Immersion, which when put together are what 98% of all gamers really like about RPGs and what the Forge wanted to eliminate from RPGs altogether.  Which makes it really obvious why they ultimately failed so badly; their "revolution" could only succeed by basically FORCING the vast majority of gamers to give up everything they like about the game, or just go away.  Their utopia was a world where the tiny group of storygamers got to dictate gaming to everyone else; their best case realistic scenario was one where gaming was reduced to about 2% its size as a hobby and they were kings of the apocalyptic rubble.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ggroy;413971Does there even exist a smooth elegant rpg system to begin with?

Yes, several. They're all rules-lite.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;413973And the other folks he said he'd ban? If you recall, once he'd decided he was going to start banning the folks who were irritating him, that's when I compared him to the Big Purple mods. I didn't kick off the mess.

In other words, the guy who says we have free speech, that he's an exemplary mod, etc., said, basically, "I'm tired of being criticized. If you keep doing it, I'm going to ban you."

More difficult to defend when you look at it as a whole, isn't it?

Seanchai

Except that people still criticize me here, all the time, without being banned.  Tons of them have done so on this very thread, without being banned.  Cylonophile, who is the first person to be banned in something like six months or more, never criticized me at all (except for things related to not getting rid of Koltar). So gee, could it be that this wasn't what I actually said at all?

What I did say was that people who were on this site for no other reason than to engage in a prolonged campaign to harass me and destabilize this site will get banned.  There were few of them, and fewer still who actually got banned, the rest mostly went away, with one or two of them smartening up and realizing that there were things they liked enough about theRPGsite that it wasn't worth being on a 24-hour a day Anti-Pundit Crusade.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PaladinCA;414028I called Pundit an Arrogant Asshole and told him he only did reviews for the free swag (for which I apologized) and he didn't ban me.

PaladinCa, you were partially correct. Pundit can be at Asshole at times. The thing is he is also a fair and pretty even-handed asshole.

As for the swag thing - Hey, its not a bad idea. If I thought I could get free GURPS and Savage Worlds stuff by just saying I did reviews - I would.


- Ed C.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;413997So no, a "perfect" system does not exist. It's actually provable that it can't exist.

The perfect system is the system that manages to provide the possibility to handily formulate the decidable questions that people expect.

For example, it does not matter if a system can provide any range of chances of options regarding say combat choices if real people that are in a combat situation similar to the one the game portrays are expected to more or less end up with a couple of significant choices carrying their respected expected chances. What it matters is that the game mechanics actually manage to capture and provide these specific chances.

Think of bets. Say that one could let you formulate some betting question on some combat match and you had extensive information of the parameters that remain more or less standard. A system that manages to do this sort of thing is an elegant and clean roleplaying system.

Everyone, please. Can we get this thread back to a point where people make deranged pronouncements about conspiracies and secret cabals dedicated to the ruin of all that is good and true?

Quote from: RPGPundit;414075Their utopia was a world where the tiny group of storygamers got to dictate gaming to everyone else; their best case realistic scenario was one where gaming was reduced to about 2% its size as a hobby and they were kings of the apocalyptic rubble.

Thank you.

Quote from: ggroy;413952Looking more closely at Heinsoo's discussion of mechanics they experimented with in the design stages of 4E D&D, it didn't look totally "gamist".

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313

For example, there's some more "simulationist" stuff like:  condition tracks, the weird damage system, multiple power acquisition schemes.

Thanks for the links ggroy. Oh well.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;413955The harsh reality is that 4e design appears to have spent about two solid years bouncing ideas off each other and writing each other memos about how they wanted a pony.
...
All that shit about "insights" that monsters didn't have to have backstories, motivations, or interesting abilities is very Forgesque. But it's also very much a set of excuses for doing a half-assed job right at the last minute. Which means that Forge theory didn't necessarily get embraced until the very last minute - possibly as late as November of 2007 - when it became clear that their original plan of playing magical teaparty at lunch until the game system crystalized fully formed in their out box was never ever going to work.
-Frank

There's a chunk in one of Ron's essays on Simulationism where he goes on about how in a sim system, the rules are the "physics engine" and imply that everything in the universe somehow runs off the d20. 4E seems to have comprehensively abandoned the idea of "game reality"  - "minions" that are 30th level with 1 HP, and don't ask how they survived that long, task difficulties that reset to the character's level, magic item merchants that are out of stock only if you whack them, magic items placed according to the player wish list. "Its a game so nothing has to make sense anymore" seems to be to be a central underlying theme.
Other than that, I believe (from hazy recollection of something Windjammer said) that there's talk about running the game with "narrativism" in one of the later books - Martial Power maybe? I forget.  A bit after the actual design phase of course.

Quote from: BWA;414127Everyone, please. Can we get this thread back to a point where people make deranged pronouncements about conspiracies and secret cabals dedicated to the ruin of all that is good and true?

Thank you.

Hey just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Quote from: One Horse Town;414035Erm, Seanchai was banned from there about 6 years ago.

:teehee:

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;414156Other than that, I believe (from hazy recollection of something Windjammer said) that there's talk about running the game with "narrativism" in one of the later books - Martial Power maybe? I forget.  A bit after the actual design phase of course.

DMG II.  Written by Mike Mearls, Robin Laws, and some contributions from Rob Donohue (of FATE fame).

So yeah.  It was kind of tacked on after-the-fact, but you put Robin Laws and Donohue's stuff together and you're going to get more story-focused advice for running a game.

I don't think that really qualifies as "Narrativism", though, just more emphasis on "story" and characterization.

Quote from: Peregrin;414248DMG II.  Written by Mike Mearls, Robin Laws, and some contributions from Rob Donohue (of FATE fame).

So yeah.  It was kind of tacked on after-the-fact, but you put Robin Laws and Donohue's stuff together and you're going to get more story-focused advice for running a game.

I don't think that really qualifies as "Narrativism", though, just more emphasis on "story" and characterization.

Hmm. On Laws - I spoke with him briefly and sat in on several of his discussion panels at Gen Con Oz in '08. At one point there was a question from an indie in the audience relating to the 'threefold model' and he couldn't actual list the terms offhand, so I'd say he's clean.
I don't know about the FATE guy, though.