Quote from: RPGPundit;416343...its not enough to just walk away from those guys in particular, no, you have to FORCE all GMs everywhere to be submissive to the dictates of the game designer.

But they're not, are they?

There's no reason a GM has to run an indie with a different distribution of power if he or she doesn't want to do so. Moreover, there's no reason a GM can't change the portion of the rules to better suit whatever distribution of power he or she envisions for the game.

In fact, the Forge, it's designers, et al., CAN'T force anyone anywhere to do anything. In other words, people are voluntarily choosing distributions of power you don't approve of.

Thus it seems to me you're on a crusade against the wrong folks. You should be attacking the GMs and groups who game differently than you do.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;416343Can you? Certainly, in the sense that you can expect a GM to have the maturity and the criteria to listen to his players.
But for the Forgers that's not enough, you see, the whole mentality behind the Forge Swine is that because there are SOME GMs who are "abusive"; its not enough to just walk away from those guys in particular, no, you have to FORCE all GMs everywhere to be submissive to the dictates of the game designer.

RPGPundit

nicely put...though the last bit seems somewhat, er...rhetorical...

"FORCE all GMs everywhere..." is not something I have  encountered in the Forgey style games I have read/played...including Sorcerer. They seem to be proponents of the obverse...can you cite a specific quote/rule showing this?
:idunno:

An RPG is a set of rules (written or not) by which we agree to abide while inventing a fictional tale of adventure and derring-do.

Let's say we're playing a fantasy adventure game, and our characters are in a frontier village. Is there a armorer in village? There is no objective reality we can consult to determine the answer. There's no real village. So we need a method that everyone at the table agrees on.

• In some D&D games, there is ONLY an armorer if the GM has previously decided there is an armorer.
• But in other D&D games, maybe the GM hadn't thought about it beforehand, but he'll make a decision on that right now, when a player asks.
• While in another D&D game, the GM might say "Beats me. I guess if you want there to be one." and the player says yes, and the armorer's name is Murgo the Foul-Tempered.
• In Storming the Wizard's Tower, maybe there's an armorer as long as someone picked "Murgo, the armorer" as their free contact during character creation.
• In a FATE-based fantasy game (I think there is one, but I can't remember what its called), there is an armorer if the player is willing to spend a fate point on it.
• In Burning Wheel, the player has to make a Circles roll to see if he can find an armorer.

And so on.

To play together, we just need a method of determining who gets to decide what about the imaginary world we are sharing.

If you can ONLY enjoy Method #1, I think that's weird, but it's a free country. More power to you.

The idea, however, that ONLY Method #1 is a role-playing game, and the other things are all something else entirely is not just pointlessly obtuse, it's irrational. Any normal human being, if asked, would correctly identify all these things as being fundamentally the same thing.

Quote from: BWA;416346An RPG is a set of rules (written or not) by which we agree to abide while inventing a fictional tale of adventure and derring-do.

Let's say we're playing a fantasy adventure game, and our characters are in a frontier village. Is there a armorer in village? There is no objective reality we can consult to determine the answer. There's no real village. So we need a method that everyone at the table agrees on.

• In some D&D games, there is ONLY an armorer if the GM has previously decided there is an armorer.
• But in other D&D games, maybe the GM hadn't thought about it beforehand, but he'll make a decision on that right now, when a player asks.
• While in another D&D game, the GM might say "Beats me. I guess if you want there to be one." and the player says yes, and the armorer's name is Murgo the Foul-Tempered.
• In Storming the Wizard's Tower, maybe there's an armorer as long as someone picked "Murgo, the armorer" as their free contact during character creation.
• In a FATE-based fantasy game (I think there is one, but I can't remember what its called), there is an armorer if the player is willing to spend a fate point on it.
• In Burning Wheel, the player has to make a Circles roll to see if he can find an armorer.

And so on.

To play together, we just need a method of determining who gets to decide what about the imaginary world we are sharing.

If you can ONLY enjoy Method #1, I think that's weird, but it's a free country. More power to you.

The idea, however, that ONLY Method #1 is a role-playing game, and the other things are all something else entirely is not just pointlessly obtuse, it's irrational. Any normal human being, if asked, would correctly identify all these things as being fundamentally the same thing.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: RPGPundit;416334In a regular RPG (that is to say a real one) your ONLY real option if the GM says "suddenly a thousand Ogres attack" is to not play with him again. It is the GM's choice what he does or doesn't do, the GM controls the world.  And Edwards and the Forge Swine knew that, identified it, and specifically had issue with that, so they tried to CHANGE THE HOBBY to alter that reality by creating games that essentially castrate the GM.

RPGPundit

Changing the entire hobby? How is that even possible? The fact that one group is playing Game X arguably has minimal effect on the ability of another group to play Game Y.

Although I suppose it's possible you could be afraid of what are called network effects--you know, the value that's created when more people join a particular community--if you thought that more people playing Forge-inspired games meant fewer playing traditional or old-school games. That would make sense if the pool of gamers were fixed in size.

On the other hand, it's just as likely that the existence of a greater diversity of games and game-styles means that more folks who would otherwise leave the hobby stay in or come back, and more folks who would otherwise never role-play at all maybe sit down and play. Wasn't one effect of the popularity of Vampire in the 1990s to induct a cohort of gamers who otherwise would have done something else than game?

Quote from: BWA;416346An RPG is a set of rules (written or not) by which we agree to abide while inventing a fictional tale of adventure and derring-do.

Let's say we're playing a fantasy adventure game, and our characters are in a frontier village. Is there a armorer in village? There is no objective reality we can consult to determine the answer. There's no real village. So we need a method that everyone at the table agrees on.

• In some D&D games, there is ONLY an armorer if the GM has previously decided there is an armorer.
• But in other D&D games, maybe the GM hadn't thought about it beforehand, but he'll make a decision on that right now, when a player asks.
• While in another D&D game, the GM might say "Beats me. I guess if you want there to be one." and the player says yes, and the armorer's name is Murgo the Foul-Tempered.
• In Storming the Wizard's Tower, maybe there's an armorer as long as someone picked "Murgo, the armorer" as their free contact during character creation.
• In a FATE-based fantasy game (I think there is one, but I can't remember what its called), there is an armorer if the player is willing to spend a fate point on it.
• In Burning Wheel, the player has to make a Circles roll to see if he can find an armorer.

And so on.

To play together, we just need a method of determining who gets to decide what about the imaginary world we are sharing.

If you can ONLY enjoy Method #1, I think that's weird, but it's a free country. More power to you.

The idea, however, that ONLY Method #1 is a role-playing game, and the other things are all something else entirely is not just pointlessly obtuse, it's irrational. Any normal human being, if asked, would correctly identify all these things as being fundamentally the same thing.

Of your examples it is my opinion that only #4 and arguably #5 diverge substantially from the a traditional GM role. I am not familiar with Wizard's Tower itself but if the NPC's existence is predicated on a player narration/creation resource and precluded otherwise, that is unusual. The Circles roll in #6 was even as you phrased it a roll to find the armorer. Depending on interpretation #5 may be just the same.

It's a different matter still though from a situation wherein player A asks the GM if there is an armorer, the GM says 'yes,'and player B assets "No, there is not. I am inserting the complication that the party has entered a town where the armorer was killed yesterday." Is this still an RPG? It is a question of semantics, I suppose. My theoretical answer is "on a line between "RPG" and "Something else" it rests further down the line than the "RPG" end. My instinct is, if this is a characteristic function of play, it is more a kind of story-telling game (I don't mean to say a storygame in the sense of the forum of the same name - i am speaking in plain english, not technically.)

Quote from: BWA;416346An RPG is a set of rules (written or not) by which we agree to abide while inventing a fictional tale of adventure and derring-do.

Nope.

To me it's not a tale. It's actuality. Hence, immersion.

BWA,
 You're full of shit.

Classic case of over-analyzing stuff.

 When "I" run a game if it makes sense for there to be a fucking armorer in this village - then there is a damn fucking armorer there.

 -OR-

The players or I roll a dice roll thats 'close but no cigar' (or no armorer in thise case)

In that instance the kindly elder-aged woman villager thats friendly to visiting strangers says: "Yes, we have an armorer but I'm terribly sorry you can't see him right now."
PLAYERS: "Why is that kind lady who gave us biscuits?"

HELPFUL LADY: "Its because Arik the honorable Armorer heard that his Aunt was sick so he went to her village to help out her family. He may perhaps return in a week, maybe a month. He said he would be back to work here - but his family came first."

Then the players might find out that the other village is at least two days ride from where they are at the moment - if they know the terrain or have decent maps.
 These are somewhat out-of-the-way villages.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Benoist;416355Nope.

To me it's not a tale. It's actuality. Hence, immersion.

I like the point you make. From my perspective, immersion aside (though I think it is desirable and sometimes unavoidable), RPG play at its best has very little to do with inventing a story and everything to do with interacting with a situation. The players are engaging in a fictional act of adventure. This may be recounted after the fact as a fictional tale of adventure, but is not identical with that. Today, when I ate lunch, I engaged in a nonfictional act of eating lunch. I was not engaged in inventing a tale of eating lunch. NOW I am inventing a (nonfictional tale) of eating lunch, but that's not the same as the eating. I would say there is a comparable relationship between the fictional act and the fictional tale.

Quote from: Cole;416359I like the point you make. From my perspective, immersion aside (though I think it is desirable and sometimes unavoidable), RPG play at its best has very little to do with inventing a story and everything to do with interacting with a situation. The players are engaging in a fictional act of adventure. This may be recounted after the fact as a fictional tale of adventure, but is not identical with that. Today, when I ate lunch, I engaged in a nonfictional act of eating lunch. I was not engaged in inventing a tale of eating lunch. NOW I am inventing a (nonfictional tale) of eating lunch, but that's not the same as the eating. I would say there is a comparable relationship between the fictional act and the fictional tale.

Eureka!

It's all in the intent.  Immersive role-playing isn't done with the intent of creating a story, it's done with the intent of immersing yourself into a setting and playing the role of a person in that setting.  Storygaming is about creating the story, roleplaying the character is only a means to an end, hence the typically dissociated mechanics.  With immersive role-playing, playing the role is the end itself.

Quote from: Benoist;416355Nope.

To me it's not a tale. It's actuality. Hence, immersion.

Beat me to it.  Spot on.  For me roleplaying isn't about 'sitting in a circle and pulling a cool story out of our arses'.  Its all about facing a set of challenges while staying true to the character I'm playing. I expect the same from my fellow players and I expect the GM to keep things rolling, present interesting challenges and when a call needs to be made to god damn make one.

Quote from: Koltar;416356When "I" run a game if it makes sense for there to be a fucking armorer in this village - then there is a damn fucking armorer there.

 -OR-

The players or I roll a dice roll thats 'close but no cigar' (or no armorer in thise case)

Just to make sure I understand. To resolve the issue of "Is there an armorer in this village?" you employ either (a) common sense or (b) a die roll, where:

(a) "Common sense" is shorthand for taking information you've already established about the world (e.g., maybe you know it's a medium-sized village in an out-of-the-way part of a peaceful country) and extrapolating the implications of that information (a peaceful country probably won't have armorers on every block) in order to reach a decision, and

(b) a die roll takes that "common sense" procedure one step further by assigning a probability to its conclusion (e.g., "It's very unlikely that this medium-sized, peaceful, out-of-the way village has an armorer in it; you need to roll 17 or better on a d20 for one to be here").

Is that about right?

Are there ever circumstances where what you're rolling for isn't "Is X the case?" (e.g., "Is there an armorer here?") but is instead, "Can I find X?" or "Can I find out X?" What I mean is, you can imagine that in a big city there might be plenty of armorers, but some fact about the city -- the PCs are strangers there, there's a lot of time pressure on them, and so forth -- makes you want them to roll to succeed rather than simply automatically failing or succeeding by your say-so. In those circumstances, to what extent would you incorporate character attributes into the probability calculation, such that a character with a high Charisma score or Streetwise skill (for example) would get a bonus to the roll?

Bill you're doing the same shit that BWA is.

 You or me as GM are at the table.
 We judge by player's reactions and body language : "Do they want more time in this village?" , "Do I as GM want to spend more time in this village with NPCs?"

".....Do I have a cool map ready if I send them off to another Village?"

"Do I really have enough time for X, or do I need to speed things up?"

"We only have an hour and half left to play "

...cvompared to

"Cool!! Trina just said she doesn't work tomorrow after all - we've got two more hours than we thought we had.  That means I can stretch things out a little."

Its never some grand fucking algebra or calculus formula - every game session is a little bit different depending on the afternoon or night. There are always similiarities, but there are alwaqys minor differences.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Cole;416359I like the point you make. From my perspective, immersion aside (though I think it is desirable and sometimes unavoidable), RPG play at its best has very little to do with inventing a story and everything to do with interacting with a situation. The players are engaging in a fictional act of adventure. This may be recounted after the fact as a fictional tale of adventure, but is not identical with that. Today, when I ate lunch, I engaged in a nonfictional act of eating lunch. I was not engaged in inventing a tale of eating lunch. NOW I am inventing a (nonfictional tale) of eating lunch, but that's not the same as the eating. I would say there is a comparable relationship between the fictional act and the fictional tale.

Thank you! This is exactly what I meant.

Quote from: Bill White;416304I've been playing D&D since 1981, so I have as much right to be here as you, motherfucker. I was impressed at how you guys talked Levi into giving the place a second chance, and I started posting when I saw the guy who's been reading Dragon Magazine talk about an article I wrote back in 1994. So get off my fucking back. I like it here. I'm staying. Argue with me, insult me, or ignore me, but I have a right to say what I think.

Never said otherwise, old bean. Just pointing out what prompted you to come here.