Quote from: Peregrin;416797The reason the whole war against the Swine is imaginary is because their model is temporal and limited.  It is a set of collected ideas that are roughly related and organized in a particular way that the designers felt was useful to themselves.  It is merely a tool.  It is not the Truth, and if the creators say it is, they're full of shit.  .

The popularities of their theories are temporary.  Their movement is temporary. But the Swine are not. With the Forge dead, they will now just move on to some other kind of pretentious movement to try to ruin RPGs with.

That's why the war is with the Swine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;416799I have (ONCE) played a GM-less game, Montsegur 1244, defo a story game not a trad game. In effect what happened was we were swapping GM roles among the players. So it wasn't TRULY GM-less. The GM role still exists. It's just that you pass it back and forth.

That's a great point ... you should repeat that in the also-contentious GM thread.

In fact, the GM-less games I've played were all like this. It's just that the responsibility for creating conflict for the characters is divided up, rather than concentrated in one player.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416796Make your own games, and you make Pundit sound like a raving lunatic.  Actively proselytize and try to convert game designers and you make his point for him.

Except a) I don't want to do either of those things (make games or prostelytize to game designers) and b) Pundit needs no man's help to sound like a raving lunatic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416811With the Forge dead, they will now just move on to some other kind of pretentious movement to try to ruin RPGs with.

What do you think it will be? Maybe you could start a betting pool.

Looks to me like they will go to lots of different forums and have long-winded bullshit arguments with people who don't like the Forge.

Quote from: Seanchai;416809And so they purchased and now play Warhammer third edition?

Seanchai

No, but they can no longer buy the stuff WFRP2 was planning because Jay Little is a Ron Edwards devotee and so instead of cool information about the Old World we get Dramatic Railroads with Acts and Scenes(with "Rally steps") and Priestesses of Shallya who can't heal outside of combat because just like 4e, the world doesn't exist when the players aren't in combat invoking powers.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416845... Priestesses of Shallya who can't heal outside of combat because just like 4e, the world doesn't exist when the players aren't in combat invoking powers.

Oh God, please tell me that you are making this up.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416808That's why we all were, in the late 90s, because it didn't matter if you didn't buy a single WW-product; virtually all the major gaming companies had turned their products in to WW-style pretentious-setting metaplot-rich wankfests,...

You know, I once played Mage as a tabletop game and it was pretty much D&D with slightly different mechanics and a different setting. Now, granted, the people I was playing with were the sorts of people who probably grew up with D&D, so maybe they weren't being faithful to the books, but still.

And I've played a fantasy boffer LARP with the appearance of having been derived from D&D/Runequest which had weekly "interactives" where people get together in character and just roleplay (with occasional combat / spellcasting), and Mind's Eye Theatre Vampire: The Requiem LARP, and apart from the setting and bits and pieces of mechanics, the main difference is that you are rolling dice in the MET game and swinging rubber swords in the boffer LARP. They are both utterly and fundamentally roleplaying games and they play exactly like any traditional roleplaying game, D&D included.

Now, maybe the people running these games are not in the slightest bit true to the concepts in the books. Maybe they are from a Pundit point of view people who are not Swine at all, but they have just picked up a Swine book, and turned it into a trad game. And personally, when I buy a WW vampire sourcebook as a supplement for the MET game, I basically ignore all the narrative bullshit and just pick out the mechanics from the little teensy mechanics section in the back. But the way these games run in practice is the same as any other roleplaying game.

They are not storygames like Montsegur 1244. They are most definitely traditional roleplaying games. The books might be a bit pretentious and I can see how that could get your back up. I can also see how it could get your back up if they in fact led to industry-wide collapse of the hobby (I wouldn't profess any knowledge about that one way or the other). I mean, if you're right about that, then I can empathise with your feelings on the matter.

But the way these games actually play, the WW ones I mean, is the same as any trad roleplaying game. WHFRP 2nd edition, D&D 3rd ed, whatever.

Of course, LARPs (and boffer LARPs especially) generally involve more actual roleplaying than tabletop games do, and better immersion, but that's a different story.

PS for what difference it makes I hate the actual mechanics in the WW games nearly as much as I hate the mechanics of D&D 3rd edition / Pathfinder. (The mechanics of AD&D 1st edition I actually quite like.) But they don't get in the way of the game very much because well really they're just a side issue once you're actually wearing what passes for costume and just roleplaying.

PPS I haven't seen much vampire emo angst either, although one girl, who claimed not to be a roleplayer (she now refs the game) did pull it off quite well.

Quote from: Omnifray;416847Oh God, please tell me that you are making this up.

Google WFRP3 Shallya healing, I'm not making it up. Either she has access to unlimited amounts of healing or nothing out of combat.  Complete and total narrative focus on the "spotlight time" of the combat section.  

I say narrative cause there are no real maps and all ranges are abstracted, like 3:16.  So if you happen to have an encounter say in a hub and spoke formation rather then my side and your side of the line of scrimmage you're actually doing more work then if you just counted the flippin squares.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416854Google WFRP3 Shallya healing, I'm not making it up. Either she has access to unlimited amounts of healing or nothing out of combat.  Complete and total narrative focus on the "spotlight time" of the combat section.  

I do not need this level of depression

But the upshot of what you say seems to be she has unlimited healing out of combat. Which is OK, if you want to be playing a very silly game with stupidly high levels of magic...

Congratulations RPGPundit.

Quote from: Omnifray;416799You're missing the point. It's not about whether there is or is not an encyclopedia about the game-world in existence when you start play. It's about the way that the illusion of unfolding mystery is ruined by >> you the players being equally in charge of revealing anything that hasn't yet been stated openly about the game-world, and there being no GM secrets, and the fact that you KNOW that everything fixed about the world has been openly stated and are constantly reminded of that fact by the very mode of play <<

Re challenges, obviously you can create challenges for your character. But you're not really creating challenges for yourself or for you + your character in combination.

*snip*  

It still seems you are assuming some things about shared creation style games which covers a broad spectrum of approaches.I have underlined the contentious part in the quote above.
   
I do see the point but it puzzles me. How can having someone other than "The GM" introducing stuff into a setting automaticly "ruin" the "illusion of unfolding mystery" (here you are saying it is illusory to begin with?) or be any less "surprising" than having "The GM" do it? Sure,there are no "GM secrets" but why do you assume there are no "player" secrets?
   
When we sit at the table in a Trad. game it is with a certain amount of info. in regards to the game world;races,skills,monsters,Gods,Magic,type of adventures looming (as per what skills/types of char. we have to choose from)it is not totaly blank as that would be completely bogus in most cases. So we have a limited knowledge.
 
When we sit at a table with "shared creation" some knowledge the players/char's. have, as in the Trad. game,as set by the group before play actualy begins. I do not know exactly (or perhaps even vaguely) what the other players may have cooked up asides from the challenges/twist/details will follow the genre/setting limits we have set which,depending on the rules, may be amended later. In shared games not every detail is decided beforehand,only the basic "laws" as it were regarding magic etc.same as the Trad.game though not contained in a book but on a crib sheet or whatever.

Sounds similar to the Trad. game but even more flexible ie "surprising"!Sometimes it is easy to peg a GM's style,less so with a whole group.

I do not understand what you are saying in regards to challenges in the above quote. In most cases someone else is creating the challenge.

I concur with your other points (*snipped*) .

Obviously 3 minds working to surprise you may surprise you more than 1 in some respects. A staid GM may be predictable. Even a good GM may be predictable.

But it's not just about being surprised. It's about building up the illusion that there is this real world which you are discovering - the sense of mystery which comes not just from the not knowing, but from the (potentially in some cases partly or even largely illusory, but also in some cases potentially real) sense of the pre-established existence of the unknown. If you yourself are doing part of the job of creating that "unknown" world as you go along, including with retroactive details, then surely that brings home to you that you are directly engaged in telling a story, rather than discovering the mysteries of a secret world. You are not exploring the unknown. Rather you are collectively inventing things as you go on, which previously you did not know, not because they were unknown things, but because they weren't things at all.

I accept there may be an element of the subjective in this, but it seems to me it's a fairly obvious point which will affect a lot of people in a similar way.

I don't really feel any empathy with people who really really want to game in this so-called "shared" way. I mean, sure, I'll do it in a spirit of trying new things. But why aren't you happy with the one GM? One person who can coordinate the whole game-world and its many secrets, making sure it all makes sense taken as a whole - one person who accepts knowing the secrets of the game, but in return gets to watch people enjoying his creation. What's wrong with that? Why this obsession with everyone being involved in that process?? Is it because people like to feel in control of the subject-matter and twists and turns the game is taking? It seems to me that that's the opposite of the game set-up that you want if you want mystery and suspense to develop. Being in control is positively a bad thing from that point of view.

It seems to me you just end up with people being half-player and half-GM and not really getting everything they could out of either role. They are neither fully immersed in the game (like a player), nor (in the manner of a GM) fully able to take a broad view of the game-world, the backstory, the motives and abilities of the characters etc., in order to shepherd the game into interesting directions. It seems to me they get the worst of both worlds. It also seems to me that the people who hanker after this could often be the sorts of people who would whinge a lot about the GM taking a game in directions they don't like. Having said which you personally may be a perfect sport.

Don't get me wrong, playing Monstesgur 1244 wasn't a terrible experience by any means. I quite enjoyed it. But it's not something I'd be eager to repeat time and time again like roleplaying is.

Quote from: Omnifray;416891*snip*
I don't really feel any empathy with people who really really want to game in this so-called "shared" way. I mean, sure, I'll do it in a spirit of trying new things. But why aren't you happy with the one GM? One person who can coordinate the whole game-world and its many secrets, making sure it all makes sense taken as a whole - one person who accepts knowing the secrets of the game, but in return gets to watch people enjoying his creation. What's wrong with that? Why this obsession with everyone being involved in that process?? Is it because people like to feel in control of the subject-matter and twists and turns the game is taking? It seems to me that that's the opposite of the game set-up that you want if you want mystery and suspense to develop. Being in control is positively a bad thing from that point of view.

It seems to me you just end up with people being half-player and half-GM and not really getting everything they could out of either role. They are neither fully immersed in the game (like a player), nor (in the manner of a GM) fully able to take a broad view of the game-world, the backstory, the motives and abilities of the characters etc., in order to shepherd the game into interesting directions. It seems to me they get the worst of both worlds. It also seems to me that the people who hanker after this could often be the sorts of people who would whinge a lot about the GM taking a game in directions they don't like. Having said which you personally may be a perfect sport.

*snip*

:cool:
I am perfectly happy with one GM if they are proficient or in the process of learning.That is the bulk of my experience and will continue to be so.As you allude, it is nice to try new things and the group approach can deliver on many levels for sure, especialy with mature players wishing to stretch their creative capacities while riffing on great ideas!.

It is a fact that not all folk are concerned so much with total immersion or what have you.Sometimes I  want the challenge to be about staying in the flow of the game on multiple levels and not restricted to the IC POV approach.

Perhaps some GM's/people have controll issues and that is why they deride the group approach.I have seen some in-flexible DM's stick dogmaticly to their rail which can turn some folk to seeking other ways...more power to em' if they are having fun! IMO a good DM/Game is one where the feed-back loops are intact,lest it reach the point of players walking away from the game. (hey,if it has to be that way, cool).

In regards to the last bit,I concur that many gamers would feel this way.I think that players have the right to "whine" if the game is going in a direction not to their liking. IMO a good DM would see this happening and pay a bit more attention to the players wishes.
Goals vary as you well know so once again some may feel "meh" about those points. I like to be either a Char. or GM most of the time.

thanks for sharing your thoughts in such a detailed and friendly manner!

Quote from: danbuter;416828Looks to me like they will go to lots of different forums and have long-winded bullshit arguments with people who don't like the Forge.

Funny and short.  Nice!

Quote from: Omnifray;416891But why aren't you happy with the one GM? One person who can coordinate the whole game-world and its many secrets, making sure it all makes sense taken as a whole - one person who accepts knowing the secrets of the game, but in return gets to watch people enjoying his creation. What's wrong with that? Why this obsession with everyone being involved in that process?? Is it because people like to feel in control of the subject-matter and twists and turns the game is taking?

Speaking personally, sometimes I like different things. The kind of game you clearly prefer? Good stuff. Sometimes that's what I want. The kind of game you don't seem to care for? Also good stuff. Sometimes THAT'S what I want. Depends on my mood and what the other people in my game are up for,

I don't see where your characterization of "obsession" comes from. In five years of following online RPG discussions, I can't remember a single person ever once writing that no games should have GMs. Ever. Not once.

What I see, on this forum this week, is a couple people saying "Hey, GM-less games, and games with greater player authority can be fun to play sometimes." A pretty measured comment. You see this as "obsession" and a refusal to be "happy" with one GM. I don't quite get where you're coming from.