Quote from: skofflox;417881:cool:

"Once upon a time" is a card based storytelling system that is very simple.All about getting rid of your hand and wrapping the story up first. I was thinking the original version from Atlas games (?) might pre-date most other Storygame titles. :idunno: (have been thinking to get this game again)

95% of my RPG collection is Trad. I do keep a few NuSkool games around to riff from...(some wargame titles lurking in there too)

I would never limit my gaming experience...variety being the spice and all! I pondered "Forge Theory" for a few years and kinda decided it was ho-hum and not really saying much.
Gamers vary...Games vary...wow...works done here.

Cheers...

Well, the theory doesn’t say alot. IMHO in the forge they’ve concluded that “incoherent” play or design (mixing the types) is bad, because otherwise the categorization itself would serve no real useful purpose - which was my conclusion on the theory, basically. There are piles of games classed as "incoherent" that are fun to play.

Quote from: BWA;417857Several of us just noted that we play (or at least own) lots of different games, and that made-up divisions between them are pointless and silly.

Now, if you can locate something, somewhere, that tells you that, per "Standard Forge Theory", people must choose what sort of "category" they are, and may not enjoy many different types of games, then you should go right ahead and disregard it, because clearly such a thing is nonsensical.

Mind you, I think that you are mistaken that such a thing exists, but if you're correct, then I will be the first to join you in a hearty condemnation of it.

As far as combining types: you can see lengthy discussion of games that are bad because they’re a fusion of styles – e.g. see “Incoherence” in the forge glossary.
Looking through his “Simulationism: right to dream” article, it heads off partway into a lengthy discussion of illusionism (i.e. invisible railroading) for reasons that are unstated, but can be inferred.
Then you have a lengthy discussion on how Gamists, Simulationists and Narrativists will end up at each others throats under most circumstances.
Moving to his Gamism article, there’s a superficial attempt to repudiate “common” attitudes to gamists ("...the first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach about "those awful Gamists..."),  where he also takes a stab at the Simulationists again for their bigoted attitudes towards gamists (heh). More essays on how Gamism takes over groups...(and taking his description of Gamists at face value, I wouldn’t want to play with them either). There's also his description of the “The bitterest role-player in the world” – if you categorize yourself as a “gamist/simulationist”  under his nomenclature, I’d say this is what he thinks you are.

Narrativism essay:  tl;dr for the first section, its a yawner. Later on down we get some discussion of “Ouija board roleplaying” i.e. combining Narrativism /Simulationism – basically, this is Edwards slamming anyone who thinks you can have a story emerge in a real world.  “The Hard Question” in this discusses how most people are Narrativist or Gamist naturally, then become Simulationists due to most RPG books being Simulationist. Again, on the surface he’s all “well so if you’re a Gamist, cool!” but fairly subliminally, it reads that becoming a Narrativist is clearly better (it counts as having your consciousness raised). Compare to  his brain-damage comments where he discusses how those he tried to educate “cling onto Protagonism with their stump-fingered hands” and scream loudly.

Overall synopsis of his views:  realistic rules are bad in RPGs, since they warp potential storygamers into something else. Don’t play with those not of your own kind; anyone with mixed priorities  - that is, who would enjoy a range of games - is basically screwed. Games that combine multiple agendas are bad.

You know, I can't help but think these storygames and such might have made alot more headway among regular gamers if it hadn't been for Ron Edwards. It would be one thing to design these wierd little games that are RPG-ish, it's another thing to tell gamers they were literally "brain damaged" by the intrinsically abusive GM-player relationship. Here's a guy telling us we don't know what a "story" is because of gaming. Dude, ask any three literature professors what a "story" is and you will likely get three different answers. Add to that all the gleeful idiots chiming in to say "You're right! I'm brain damaged from bad gaming! Save me Jebus!" and naturally anything that comes from that culture is suspect. That he is an expert on bat peeners sort of redeems it though. You can't make shit like that up.

So cheers to the Pundit for fighting the good fight! It may be a tempest in a teapot, but that's our fucking teapot, dammit!

Quote from: jeff37923;417681As long as you are comfortable in your denial, that's OK.

To be in denial requires some reality to, you know, deny. There is no such reality around here.

Again, you are the guys worrying about internet wars that are unknown to most gamers.

Quote from: Koltar;417687People DO over-analyze some shit on here.

This is a place just for that, mate. It is a discussion place.

QuoteOh and no metaphorical GURPS fans died - you weren't standing near any.
- Ed C.

Because there is no one left alive! Zing!

Quote from: RPGPundit;417736No, that's not actually the standard of "success" I use.  My standard is actually "did this make MORE money/get and KEEP more adherents than the last edition"?

RPGPundit

A curious definition, that makes many successful things actually unsuccessful.

Quote from: Peregrin;417801*looks at his copy of Burning Wheel, which is sitting right next to Dogs in the Vineyard, which is sitting right next to Sorcerer, which is sitting right next to the core AD&D books, which are sitting right next to the 4e corebooks, which are sitting right next to the 3.5 corebooks, which are sitting right next to Diaspora and a bunch of FATE games, which are sitting right next to CoC and Masks of Nyarlathotep, some Battletech books, and a myriad of other games*

Nope.  The old shelf still hasn't caught fire yet.

Your shelf looks a lot like mine.

Quote from: Imperator;417955A curious definition, that makes many successful things actually unsuccessful.

Moreover, it's new. He already declared 4e a success some time ago. Now suddenly it's not again because he has a new definition of success.

Seanchai

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;417904Overall synopsis of his views:  realistic rules are bad in RPGs, since they warp potential storygamers into something else. Don't play with those not of your own kind; anyone with mixed priorities  - that is, who would enjoy a range of games - is basically screwed. Games that combine multiple agendas are bad.

See, the theory does have problems (big fucking problems in some places), but critical analysis is much more poignant when it addresses the subject with some accuracy.  Your understanding of what RE actually said and how the theory is applied are off by a wide margin.

GNS/The Big Model, while they may influence designs, are more concerned with "Why did this happen during play?  Was it rewarding/not rewarding?  If not, how can we improve play to provide a more rewarding experience?"  

Really, all that theory discussion had fuckall to do with actual game design (hence why a lot of crappy games started pouring out from people who only read RE's stuff and didn't have a background or understanding of game design).  What it does is give you a springboard for thought experiments when it comes to addressing how system affects play from which you can then begin to design or improve an already existing one.

If you're happy with your gaming, GNS, System Matters, The Big Model, etc., aren't for you.  It says so in the essay.  You shouldn't concern yourself with it.  It's not out to fix what isn't broken.  Edwards himself never said that getting satisfying play out of a traditional is impossible.  In fact he's said the opposite.  You can even have fun with White-Wolf games!  

The only beef Edwards had was with designs that promised some sort of different style of play or rewards that they couldn't give you.  White-Wolf games promised you deep, artsy stories, and that their games were "different", but in reality they're not much different from Palladium or D&D in terms of how the system interacted with play.  The whole Edwards thing is just over the fact that if someone tells you their game does X, you shouldn't have to significantly hack or ignore the system in order to get X.  You shouldn't have to design your own procedures for play in order to get a game to what you want it to in the first place.  That doesn't mean you can't have fun with older games, that doesn't mean you should stop playing older games, because if you're having fun any sort of theory or design experiments are going to do jack for you and your group.

GNS isn't about classifying players, it's not about classifying designs (although it can be used to study how a design works), it's about analyzing what happens when system meets actual play and how to get the most bang for your buck.  Plenty of people have already figured out how to get the most bang for their buck, so of course those people are going to think Edwards is nuts.  But there are a lot of people who were, at some point, let down by a design.  White-Wolf was a prime example, which is why Edwards went after them.  I can get just as much "story" out of a D&D game as I can a White-Wolf game, but the fact that the text in the books suggests that somehow it's a better game for stories, somehow more mature, that it will do things D&D cannot, is a bunch of misleading bullshit that ended up frustrating a lot of groups and players.

None of that excuses Edwards for coming off as a smug arse, or being the worst PR rep in the history of gaming.  But I think the demonization of what the Forge or GNS stand for is amusing as hell.  They're people, not demons.  They're ideas, not mandates.  It's a small community's idea of how to make something work.  You're free to take it or leave it -- think about it or ignore it.  Really, no one is judging you for playing older games.

Quote from: D-503;417724Yeah, I understand that.  I don't really agree, but it's a sensible enough position to take.

Well, it gets more understandable if you read about the motivations of the authors of the games that I find really offensive. Dogs in the Vineyard was written by a guy who was a former Mormon who has admitted to hating that branch of Christianity. Poison'd was written in response to the author's fantasy of raping Kiera Knightly after he watched Pirates of the Carribbean. These two "games" have more in common with revenge porn than they do with RPGs.

Quote from: jeff37923;417988Poison'd was written in response to the author's fantasy of raping Kiera Knightly after he watched Pirates of the Carribbean.

Not that I doubt you, but is there an online source for this? That is all kinds of fucked up right there.

Quote from: jeff37923;417988Well, it gets more understandable if you read about the motivations of the authors of the games that I find really offensive. Dogs in the Vineyard was written by a guy who was a former Mormon who has admitted to hating that branch of Christianity. Poison'd was written in response to the author's fantasy of raping Kiera Knightly after he watched Pirates of the Carribbean. These two "games" have more in common with revenge porn than they do with RPGs.

Requesting source on the Keira Knightley inspiration. (Damn, Space Wizard beat me to it )

As for the Mormons, well, they're Mormons.  Their organization has a very shady history and unfortunately that reflects on all members because it's such a centralized religion.  Some of my family stopped going to church after they found out that the Vatican was unwilling to cooperate with authorities regarding the sexual abuse cases.  There is nothing offensive about being critical of religious organizations -- that is something separate from personal belief.  The fact that the religion I was raised under has pictures and statues of Jesus all over its churches doesn't excuse the fact that it, as an organization with people at the helm, committed hypocrisies and foul acts worthy of condemnation.

Sure, some of V Baker's designs are weird.  I'll give you that.  The focus on mechanical bits involving sex strikes me as a bit odd.  But I really don't see how Dogs is in any way offensive.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;417994Not that I doubt you, but is there an online source for this? That is all kinds of fucked up right there.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7349

This is the thread, its about 72 pages long and has links to all the relevant information.

Quote from: Peregrin;417973GNS isn't about classifying players, it's not about classifying designs (although it can be used to study how a design works), it's about analyzing what happens when system meets actual play and how to get the most bang for your buck.

Given that it takes this simple premise:

"Figure out the cool stuff your game does, and then make sure that's easy to get to and central to play.  Also, don't lie to your readers about what kind of play you're trying to be a booster for."

...And wraps that up in several dozens of pages of pseudo-academic talk, inflammatory and exaggerated examples, and loads of gamer-politics?  One might well come to think, given the incredible bulk and density of it, that the wrapping, not the idea, is the significant part of the exercise.

Should you come to think that, you might well ask, then, what could motivate that?  And many of the answers lead to gamer-politics, and thereby to Pundit's wilder notions.  The chain here isn't hard to follow.  

Denying big chunks of it is silly.  There is a thread of self-indulgent hipsterism in indie gaming circles - think of the game "Sea Dracula".  Personally, what I see now is hilarious and fun hipsterism far more than sneering, but I've seen sneering.  And there were political drives in the way that the Forge went after "indie" as a title, dressed up theory, and so on.  Carving out space to do something weird means staking a claim and selling it as a good space, and that's what happened.  Calling the mainstream bad names is a standard tool in the box for doing that, and it got used.

I like a chunk of the actual games that came out of that; I think a whole bunch are interesting and good (And others are tripe.  That's true everywhere).  But let's not make like the process, and the theory, wasn't stuffed full of politics, whether those were the point, or not.

Quote from: Imperator;417955A curious definition, that makes many successful things actually unsuccessful.

Its the standard used in industry and business ALL the time.  If your previous product made $6 million in profit, and your new product makes $1.5 million in profit, your new product was not a success for your company, not when you're now making less money than before.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;417963Moreover, it's new. He already declared 4e a success some time ago. Now suddenly it's not again because he has a new definition of success.

Seanchai

Two different arguments.  In the first, I declared that 4e was clearly not going to be an abject sort of failure.
In the second, it has not been a success comparatively, due to the fact that it apparently lost 4.5 MILLION players compared to the previous edition.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;418001Its the standard used in industry and business ALL the time.  If your previous product made $6 million in profit, and your new product makes $1.5 million in profit, your new product was not a success for your company, not when you're now making less money than before.

RPGPundit

Hum, no.

THe measure of success includes a lot of additional factors that you ignore. Saying that 4e is not a success because they are not selling the same amount of books TSR did with the Red Box is plainly silly. Not the same market, not the same economy, not the same demographics, culture and everything. You don't have a significant criteria for comparison. Your statement is too simplistic.

Once you adjust for inflation and the like Avatar is not the best-selling movie in history. It's the 26th best-selling movie. The movie with the biggest box numbers is Gone with the Wind, once you make the adjustmets for comparison. Same here.

WotC keeps being the 400 pound gorilla. The cage may be smaller, but nonetheless it is the biggest monkey. Now, I can agree with you that some decisions, like pulling the plug on the old D&D PDFs, were weird and retarded, but that doesn't change the success of the game.

If I was the WotC's CEO I would make every single edition of D&D available at competitive prices, so everyone can buy the D&D they want and like from me. Probably I would focus my resources on developing new stuff for the current edition, but I would make sure that my whole catalog is available, even in PDF only. Nerds are collectors. Everyone would love me and I would sell lots of PDFs and books, and whatnot. But big corps are slow to adapt and reluctant to change. A pity.

Quote from: Imperator;418004Hum, no.

THe measure of success includes a lot of additional factors that you ignore. Saying that 4e is not a success because they are not selling the same amount of books TSR did with the Red Box is plainly silly.

That's not what I'm comparing it to. I'm comparing it to 3e, its immediate predecessor.

QuoteOnce you adjust for inflation and the like Avatar is not the best-selling movie in history. It's the 26th best-selling movie. The movie with the biggest box numbers is Gone with the Wind, once you make the adjustmets for comparison. Same here.

You can't adjust "number of players" for inflation.

QuoteIf I was the WotC's CEO I would make every single edition of D&D available at competitive prices, so everyone can buy the D&D they want and like from me. Probably I would focus my resources on developing new stuff for the current edition, but I would make sure that my whole catalog is available, even in PDF only. Nerds are collectors. Everyone would love me and I would sell lots of PDFs and books, and whatnot. But big corps are slow to adapt and reluctant to change. A pity.

Well, on that I'd agree with you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Peregrin;417973See, the theory does have problems (big fucking problems in some places), but critical analysis is much more poignant when it addresses the subject with some accuracy.  Your understanding of what RE actually said and how the theory is applied are off by a wide margin.

GNS/The Big Model, while they may influence designs, are more concerned with "Why did this happen during play?  Was it rewarding/not rewarding?  If not, how can we improve play to provide a more rewarding experience?"  

Really, all that theory discussion had fuckall to do with actual game design (hence why a lot of crappy games started pouring out from people who only read RE's stuff and didn't have a background or understanding of game design).  What it does is give you a springboard for thought experiments when it comes to addressing how system affects play from which you can then begin to design or improve an already existing one.

If you're happy with your gaming, GNS, System Matters, The Big Model, etc., aren't for you.  It says so in the essay.  You shouldn't concern yourself with it.  It's not out to fix what isn't broken.  Edwards himself never said that getting satisfying play out of a traditional is impossible.  In fact he's said the opposite.  You can even have fun with White-Wolf games!  

The only beef Edwards had was with designs that promised some sort of different style of play or rewards that they couldn't give you.  White-Wolf games promised you deep, artsy stories, and that their games were "different", but in reality they're not much different from Palladium or D&D in terms of how the system interacted with play.  The whole Edwards thing is just over the fact that if someone tells you their game does X, you shouldn't have to significantly hack or ignore the system in order to get X.  You shouldn't have to design your own procedures for play in order to get a game to what you want it to in the first place.  That doesn't mean you can't have fun with older games, that doesn't mean you should stop playing older games, because if you're having fun any sort of theory or design experiments are going to do jack for you and your group.

GNS isn't about classifying players, it's not about classifying designs (although it can be used to study how a design works), it's about analyzing what happens when system meets actual play and how to get the most bang for your buck.  Plenty of people have already figured out how to get the most bang for their buck, so of course those people are going to think Edwards is nuts.  But there are a lot of people who were, at some point, let down by a design.  White-Wolf was a prime example, which is why Edwards went after them.  I can get just as much "story" out of a D&D game as I can a White-Wolf game, but the fact that the text in the books suggests that somehow it's a better game for stories, somehow more mature, that it will do things D&D cannot, is a bunch of misleading bullshit that ended up frustrating a lot of groups and players.

None of that excuses Edwards for coming off as a smug arse, or being the worst PR rep in the history of gaming.  But I think the demonization of what the Forge or GNS stand for is amusing as hell.  They're people, not demons.  They're ideas, not mandates.  It's a small community's idea of how to make something work.  You're free to take it or leave it -- think about it or ignore it.  Really, no one is judging you for playing older games.

Well, in practice the theory is going to be used for classifying people. I suppose you can debate actual intent, to a point.
Demonization? Sure, I'll agree they're people. The ideas themselves are IMHO toxic to the extent that when someone uses Forge theories to try to construct something, its intrinsically un-useful and will hinder them ("hey lets get rid of all this sim and build a pure Gamist RPG !", overlooking the need in many potential fans for some degree of world consistency).

He also went and poured some salt in the wound with the "fantasy heartbreakers" thing - apparently anyone who wants to houserule or modify D&D is a derp (and would be better off joining his cause to make indie RPGs). (This irks me just because I spend a reasonable amount of time fooling around with mechanics myself).

I'll actually agree with Edwards that White Wolf promising deep artsy stories is largely untrue (from what I've seen: the only WW games I've played to any extent were Aberrant and some Werewolf, briefly, though I've heard lotsa Vampire stories about blowing stuff up),  but I'd argue that's because you can get roleplaying out of any system, not because the system itself is misconstructed.