Quote from: RPGPundit;416520What I'm saying is that the thing that matters most is Emulation (which is the conduit to Immersion), and that anything that lessens the sense of Emulation impoverishes the RPG. And the traditional division of GM-Player authority/responsibilities is the best possible system for creating Emulation.
The second any player can just "decide" that now there's an armorer there, or that now he has a +5 sword, or that now the villain turns out to be his old transvestite girlfriend, the emulation of the world is shattered. (among other issues, like playability).

If I can play devil's advocate here, the fact that a player has narrative power, instead of the ref, doesn't necessarily make the resulting narrative any less believable. Also, the player could be the one deciding that the armourer does NOT have the ability to mend his shattered armour, or that the +5 sword that the ref approved is evil and controlling him.

However I agree it does tend to destroy immersion, but for a different reason - because you have to think about the game-world from a global point of view, rather than just from the point of view of your character. That's the direct reason why it destroys immersion. Because you have to ask yourself what effect your narrative input will have on the game-world, on the game etc. So you have to stand apart from your character as you decide your narrative input.

Also, it may ruin the sense of mystery and suspense, and it may ruin the sense of challenge.

For these reasons generally direct player narrative input not filtered by the ref is potentially ruinous of many of the main sorts of fun that RPGs can give.

But it does not really have any necessary effect on emulation as such. You are plain wrong about that, logically.

Clearly it is not ruinous of the narrative itself, which is what story-gamers want.

But filtered, indirect player narrative input (e.g. fate points used to suggest plot changes) is absolutely fine if the ref has the final say.

Quote from: Omnifray;416578*snip*
But filtered, indirect player narrative input (e.g. fate points used to suggest plot changes) is absolutely fine if the ref has the final say.

why ref. as opposed to group?
if the whole group agrees to the change then where is the issue? A self regulating game seems to be a natural developement...

Quote from: skofflox;416580why ref. as opposed to group?
if the whole group agrees to the change then where is the issue? A self regulating game seems to be a natural developement...

1. speed of decision-making
2. minimising impact on player immersion
3. minimising impact on sense of mystery and suspense
4. minimising impact on sense of challenge
5. we are a roleplaying group not a hippy commune

Quote from: Omnifray;4165901. speed of decision-making
2. minimising impact on player immersion
3. minimising impact on sense of mystery and suspense
4. minimising impact on sense of challenge
5. we are a roleplaying group not a hippy commune

Please note that when I bring up counter points in a discussion it does not mean I personaly hold that view...as a game designer/player I am curious to see how others feel so with that being said.

1: Agree, though not every group cares about this so much as is evedenced by the complex rules/multi-rolls to accomplish anything.
2: hmmm...depends as above.
3: disagree. Sometimes the whole "we don't know much about the world" player paradigm is wonky,depends on the genre/setting I guess.
4: strongly disagree. How does the person presenting the challenge make it any moreso?
5: well,most groups aren't but it can work if we open our hearts to the mystery bro...:rolleyes:

Quote from: Imperator;416531Yeah, that is why half of the threads in Story-Games.com are about hacking and houseruling games. Because they hate it.

The "hacking" that Forge Swine do of games is along the lines of "Can DiTV be done with Jedi? Can it be incorporated to the theme of adolescent coming of age?", not in the sense of actually allowing the GM to fiddle with the rules.

QuoteOh, also, according to your argument, D&D 4e is the best iteration of the game ever. Abyssal Maw is going to be so happy.

No, in fact, because 4e has clearly failed to garner the same kind of following that earlier editions had.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;416597No, in fact, because 4e has clearly failed to garner the same kind of following that earlier editions had.

RPGPundit

Now I'm no great fan of D&D 4e, but it certainly has a huge following in my part of the world. They have been asking for DMs at the Encounters night just to keep up with the demand. Last week they had five tables with five GMs and 25+ players. Not too shabby a turnout on a worknight.

Quote from: Seanchai;416545Give us an example. Owning and having played indie games, I can't think of one. I can't think of any mechanic to which I couldn't add the rider: "Unless I, as GM, don't like it."

ANY Forge game that involves "stakes", for one example; where a player says "if I win the roll, x happens next" and where the GM has to say "well, if I win, then y happens instead", or variations of the same.  If that sort of thing is the basic mechanic, where the basic die roll determines whether the GM or the player (or which player) is in charge of telling the next part of the "story", then you'd have to change the entire basic system to turn it into a game that wasn't a GM-castrating game.

QuoteWelcome to gaming for the last decade. Longer even. This has nothing to do with the Forge, it's ideology, or its adherents. This is how people expect non-Forge games to be played, too.

Nope. This is, outside of the Forge, the mentality of "rules lawyers", which for decades have been utterly derided as examples of BAD players.  It is the Forge types, and a few others with vested interests, who have tried to turn this into a virtue.

QuoteThrough a peaceful election, right? No, wait, I think guns were involved.

The Forge had no intention to hold a "vote" on the matter. Also, you got your history somewhat wrong.  Castro & co. came in looking like they were going to restore democratic government, that was the assumption that even many of the revolutionaries who fought alongside Castro assumed. It was only gradually that the hardcore communists in the revolutionary movement began taking over key positions and swaying the elite into siding with the concept of marxist dictatorship.

QuoteHow could they possibly dominate the ideological field if they and their adherents are a tiny majority? Moreover, what would it matter if they dominated the ideological field if the vast majority wouldn't accept their ideology?

Because most gamers are consumers, not producers of games. If they controlled the lines of distribution, and the very LANGUAGE (and controlling the terms of discourse was a major element of their strategy, hence trying to always come in and frame discussions as though GNS was an accepted reality) that is used in the creative side of RPGs, then they could dominate without anyone having much of a choice in the matter. They didn't even have to produce anything successful, just convince intellectually bankrupt executives that they were the Hip New Thing, and those gaming companies would want to get on the bandwagon. Its why you had so many White-Wolf clones in the 90s.

QuoteWhat you're suggesting is that we need to march on Flat Earth headquarters in case the idea of a flat Earth comes to prominence and people somehow throw away all their ideals, everything they've been taught, and suddenly start to believe that the Earth is flat.

It's ridiculous. In both cases.

Let's look at some better examples: Creationism.  The Creationists don't need to convince everyone that God created the earth 6000 years ago and Dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood. They just need a sufficient mass of fanatical lobbyists and voters to get into the local schoolboards, and then have their way with how the next generation of children are taught.
Another example: Climate Change.  Here we've seen groups on both side push forward arguments and concepts based on disinformation; and take over different sectors of public policy makers and government to push the pro- or anti- Climate Change agenda.

QuoteHowever, when you were confronted with the Forge and its ideals, you vehemently rejected them. If you're right that the majority thinks like you do, then they, too will vehemently reject the Forge.

But if that's the case, there's no need for your crusade. You're preaching to the choir, so to speak. The Forge will fail on its own.

The Forge did fail, and in no small part on its own. And the general mass of gamers rejected Forge-style games without ever hearing about me or people like me. Where I and others like me were necessary was to make sure that they couldn't push a bolshevik-style takeover of the policy-makers in the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;416578If I can play devil's advocate here, the fact that a player has narrative power

If you allow me, I'll stop you right there, mate.

I don't want "narrative" bullshit in my games. What I want is for players to play their characters, and feel like they are their characters. I run actual events as they occur. Characters as they stand there in front of the PCs. I run worlds in motion™. I don't need no stinkin' "narrative." Thank you very much.

Quote from: Omnifray;416578If I can play devil's advocate here, the fact that a player has narrative power, instead of the ref, doesn't necessarily make the resulting narrative any less believable. Also, the player could be the one deciding that the armourer does NOT have the ability to mend his shattered armour, or that the +5 sword that the ref approved is evil and controlling him.

However I agree it does tend to destroy immersion, but for a different reason - because you have to think about the game-world from a global point of view, rather than just from the point of view of your character. That's the direct reason why it destroys immersion. Because you have to ask yourself what effect your narrative input will have on the game-world, on the game etc. So you have to stand apart from your character as you decide your narrative input.

Also, it may ruin the sense of mystery and suspense, and it may ruin the sense of challenge.

For these reasons generally direct player narrative input not filtered by the ref is potentially ruinous of many of the main sorts of fun that RPGs can give.

But it does not really have any necessary effect on emulation as such. You are plain wrong about that, logically.

Clearly it is not ruinous of the narrative itself, which is what story-gamers want.

But filtered, indirect player narrative input (e.g. fate points used to suggest plot changes) is absolutely fine if the ref has the final say.

This pretty much mirrors my view on this stuff.

Quote from: skofflox;4165963: disagree. Sometimes the whole "we don't know much about the world" player paradigm is wonky,depends on the genre/setting I guess.

My trouble with this aspect on a personal level is that I like the sense of exploration I get from RPGs, it's very much one of the central factors that go into whether the game is fun for me, so it explains why I hold the opinions I do about RPGs A good GM bringing a world to life is where the magic of RPGs happens for me.

Quote from: Sigmund;416645 A good GM bringing a world to life is where the magic of RPGs happens for me.

absolutely...
and in my defense (so to speak) note I did quantify (?) the answer with "sometimes" and "depending on".

Upon thinking about this, my initial reply to Omnifray should have been more allong the lines of "Does it matter who presents the info.?"

Quote from: skofflox;416668absolutely...
and in my defense (so to speak) note I did quantify (?) the answer with "sometimes" and "depending on".

Upon thinking about this, my initial reply to Omnifray should have been more allong the lines of "Does it matter who presents the info.?"

Heh, and of course I have no illusions that what I value is what everyone values. Probably lots of folks who don't value the exploration aspect near as much as I. Different strokes and all that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416516All you've managed to prove there is that hardcore postmodernism is pseudo-academic.  Which is probably why so many Forge Swine adore it.

RPGPundit

What would be amusing is pulling off a Sokal style hoax on a Forge journal run by one of Ron Edwards' minions, and years later revealing it as a hoax (after the joke paper has already been officially published).

Quote from: Benoist;416603If you allow me, I'll stop you right there, mate.

I don't want "narrative" bullshit in my games. What I want is for players to play their characters, and feel like they are their characters. I run actual events as they occur. Characters as they stand there in front of the PCs. I run worlds in motion™. I don't need no stinkin' "narrative." Thank you very much.

I was using the term "narrative power" as a convenient shorthand. While playing devil's advocate!

The fact is by running a world in motion you end up largely narrating a sequence of events. Now you can quibble with calling it a narrative all you like but in ordinary plain English, a narrative it is.

"Narrative power" was just a shorthand for "the authority that the ref traditionally has". The ref is the one who decides the course that events actually take, with the sole major exception of players' choice of actions for their player characters. So, the ref is shaping the resulting sequence of events, and indeed largely narrates that resulting sequnce of events, so you can't really get away from the fact that it is a narrative and the ref has narrative power, even if you want to emphasise that the focus is not on deliberately setting out to arrive at a somehow appealing narrative, but rather simply on immersion and/or on some other factor of fun.

My own preferred style of game, as I say, is immersive, with a strong sense of challenge, mystery and suspense. But let's not try to obfuscate the plain meaning of words!

Quote from: skofflox;4165963: disagree. Sometimes the whole "we don't know much about the world" player paradigm is wonky,depends on the genre/setting I guess.
4: strongly disagree. How does the person presenting the challenge make it any moreso?

Re 3:-

If the contents of the game-world are largely basically retroactively narrated by the players, then there is no substantial pre-existing game-world in any real sense. If there is no substantial pre-existing game-world in any real sense then, and blatantly so, then blatantly you can't have any sense of mystery and suspense about the secrets that the game-world holds, because there aren't any. So, if you want that sense of mystery and suspense, comprehensive player narrative power ruins it. Of course you could have some sense of mystery and suspense about the way other players and the ref will in future use their narrative power, but it's not in any way the same deal. Now maybe you don't want mystery and suspense, but for me at least they are a large part of the fun, and I think they are widely underrated by people who would want them more if they had better experience of them.

Re 4:-

Clearly if you can narrate your way out of unforeseen difficulties by retroactively giving yourself just the gizmo you need for the situation, or just the web of contacts you require, etc., then a considerable aspect of the potential level of challenge to you and your character is immediately negated. I can't see a valid counterargument. Obviously there could be other forms of challenge, e.g. the challenge of coming up with an appealing narrative, but it's not the same thing at all as the challenge of getting your character to survive, succeed or serve the ideals of his faith or whatever.