Quote from: Peregrin;418160One thing that strikes me after reading through a few of those Forge links is how little Ron seems to think of games focused on world-emulation, treating it as if it's some sort of autistic exercise.

It's because they don't have a "creative agenda".  They aren't about creating anything.  Trying to frame all of the reasons to play as "creative agendas" starts off by making a false assumption about why people play.

Quote from: Peregrin;418160Just because I wasn't competing with anyone or aspiring to create art doesn't mean my time playing with legos as a kid was wasted.  I enjoyed it.  That's all that matters.

Not if you aspire to do "meaningful things" and lead a cult.  You need to think more like a narcissist.

Quote from: Sigmund;418272I know this wasn't addressed to me, but since you smugly told CRKruegar to "Shut the fuck up" in your little arrogant tirade where you basically reinforce the negative stereotype of the "Forge elitist" that others have tried to dispel, I thought I'd answer your questions.

Hold on a second. CRK can tell me to take a bat penis out of my mouth and I don't get to say shit? What kind of crap is that? Fuck you, too, Sigmund.

Quote(1) I don't recall any GM of mine making calls like this. When we were required to surrender our weapons to attend a function we would be told up front, giving us the opportunity to comply, balk, or even circumvent by attempting to sneak weapons in. Why would a GM make this call later? That would completely eliminate a chance for roleplaying and PC actions such as the aforementioned weapon sneaking, as well as possible spell-casting, scouting of corruptible guards/servants, etc... Wasted opportunity is what I would call that.

It might be fun to start a scene in the middle of the action--the guards burst in!--and go from there, since being presented with a stark situation and having to react to it can be powerfully immersive. The problem you raise is real, though--but it could be dealt with via flashback ("But I would have bribed the steward to let me keep my dagger!"). But the sense I'm getting is that you consider temporal linearity and continuity to be important to your sense of immersion.

Quote(2) If it got to this point, I might make them roll for the chance, or hell just give it to the PC at this point since I would have fucked up by not making the weaponless condition clear up front.

How fucked up? Is that about not being fair to the players or about skipping over in-game events?

QuoteI see though that what you're trying to do is manipulate an answer that will allow you to shout "Aha, you're editing the narrative here and see we already knew this you guys are so stupid blah blah.... " All I see is you folks trying to fix something that for us isn't broken. Sorry if it is for you but that's probably not any of our faults so suck it the fuck up and either actually play some fucking games with nice people you can get along with or find something else to do. I'd wager you and your fancy jargon and shitty attitude aren't going to find much traction around here.

Sigmund, now you've hurt my feelings. I'm not trying to trap you, and I'm not trying to score points for the Forge--fuck that noise. I don't give a shit about fixing your game; I don't think it's broken and it shouldn't matter to you even if I did.  I want to talk about rpgs and what happens when people play them, and I have as much fucking right to be here as you do.

Quote from: Imperator;418084Probably do somethign that interest them, and getting paid for it.

But then you are ignoring what those two "story gamers" were actually saying that their own motives are.  Do you think they were lying about themselves in those quotes?

Quote from: Imperator;418084I don't think the goal is to make anyone comfortable with that, but to explore some themes despite they can make you uncomfy. Same reason why you read disturbing fiction, or see a disturbing movie from time to time, and you still are not a psycho slasher.

The goals, that those people states themselves, was to make people engage in transgressive actions in-game that made them feel uncomfortable.  That fits well with the theme and mechanics Poison'd and quite a few other "story games" that deal with sexual, sado-masochistic, and other anti-social themes, too, as well as various actual play reports about those games.  You are welcome to ignore what those designers actually say motivates their designs and games, but what they say they are doing is not what you want to imagine they are doing.  The game reports that shocked people were not aberrations but seem to be about those games being played as intended by the designers.

Quote from: John Morrow;418274The problem occurs when a game demands that the players make such narrative decisions to make the game work.  It's one thing for a restaurant to offer some cheese at the salad bar and quite another to be handed a menu where every dish contains cheese and be told that it's not optional and I have to eat it.

So could an immersive game work if the sort of mechanism I described--PCs allowed to add some kind of minor setting-elaborating detail when it would arguably enhance the immersion of other players--was an optional thing you could do, like in Amber where you get extra build points for writing character background?

QuoteCan I "switch frames"?  Sure.  Do I want to?  No.  Thinking in character is the frame that I want to engage the game from.  Leaving that frame for various reasons is unavoidable (from having to resolve an attack role with game mechanics to being asked to pass the Cheetos) but I want it minimized, not maximized.  Do I listen to the radio?  Yes.  Do I want someone turning on a radio and playing it loudly while I'm watching a movie in the theater?  Of course not.  Could I still watch the movie?  Yes.  But it's going to be a much less pleasant experience.

Okay, but why is breaking immersion to add minor setting detail worse than breaking it to make an attack roll? I mean, I suppose you could say that making the attack roll somehow represents or "emulates" a character action, but why wouldn't adding minor setting detail ("this is called lembas") represent or emulate the character's native knowledge?

Quote from: CRKrueger;418276A World in Motion campaign doesn't kick off in the middle of a scene using the literary device In Media Res. You're starting from the same shaky foundation as Edwards himself - namely you don't really get how Simulationism works.

Bad premise.  A GM who tells you after the fact that your character did something isn't concerned with setting coherency, he's trying to make the scene more dramatic, or have higher stakes, etc...

Again, same problem, bad premise.  This is based on Nar not Sim.

Assuming that at an "exquisite feast" there would be knives, forks, wine bottles, etc... is part and parcel of World in Motion emulation.  

If the setting is sufficiently divergent from say medieval times that alcohol would not be allowed at a feast, then my players would already know that, or I'm a lousy GM.  World in Motion GMs don't toss world-altering "complications" on players just to fuck with them, again, that's a Nar thing, going for the more interesting story. Minor details are created on the fly all the time, that's the GM's job.

Okay! So immersion doesn't emerge from dramatic engagement with the situation or the ratcheting up of in-game tension. In this kind of play, temporal continuity and coherence of setting are essential to creating the kind of experience you're interested in having. You've talked about it as a Simulationist thing--is that the same as or different from immersion, in your opinion? (Or maybe, what kind of immersion is produced when you play this way?)

Also: what about when play drags? You know, the situation is laid out and players aren't quite getting it, or have gotten exactly the wrong thing and are in the middle of a frustrating wild goose chase? Or we know how the fight is going to end, but it's going to be a long and frustrating slog (in real-world terms) to get there. What devices do you employ to get things moving along and back on track--or is being "on track" an alien concept as well?

Also, you say that it's the GM's job to create minor details, but it's not clear to me why this is necessarily so, since the goals of coherence and consistency could be achieved by giving the GM veto-power over player contributions, and allowing players to introduce minor character-relevant details might give some players a greater sense of really "being there."

Quote from: Peregrin;418193So because those of us who enjoy sim play don't respond well to behavior modifying reward systems, and Ron is all into behavioral psychology, our play style is somehow "non existent" or "misguided" because we engage with the game on an unobservable level?

First: Ron Edwards doesn't understand behavioural psychology. Second: most game designers don't understand it, too, as is proven by RPGs still clinging to that stupid shit of giving out XPs for RPing, and making the core of the game become a job.

Quote from: boulet;418184Hardly. The most vindictive froth at the mouth. The focused ignore the other side. The curious don't mind crossing the border. Many don't feel like they belong to either side. And the majority doesn't even know "a war is going on". It's just postures and hyperboles all around, no actual warfare, more like WWE. Even at the argument level it's weak sauce. The protagonists have better ideas to expose when they concentrate on games they love rather than polemics. But it's good entertainment for sure.

Wordy McWord. The WWE comparison is gold.

Quote from: Bill White;418235And this bullshit of mocking Edwards professional field of study is just that--bullshit. It's smirking Beavis-and-Butthead idiocy that relies on a casual anti-intellectualism that can't imagine there might be any value to studying anything for its own sake (but which ironically valorizes "Science" as the very model of knowledge), and that encourages the knuckle-draggers to come out and add their me-too moronicisms:

After all, the Pundit was a teacher in Compared Bullshit, with great expertise in comparing imaginary frinds throughout the world. I don't seewhy that is less laughable that a guy who studies animals.

QuoteI throw that out as a real question, suspecting however that the knee-jerk One True Wayists here will posture and preen with their characteristic brag, bluster, and bombast. God, I love it here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418246If you would take Ron Edward's poor persecuted bat penis out of your mouth and/or ass for a minute and think, you'd realize what a ridiculous statement that is.

Gay jokes never go out of style.

Quote from: John Morrow;418281But then you are ignoring what those two "story gamers" were actually saying that their own motives are.  Do you think they were lying about themselves in those quotes?

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't remember Paul Czege saying other thing than that, and I'm positive about reading him saying that he wouldn't design for free. I may be wrong, though. Regarding the other girl, AFAIK, she's not a game designer.

Quote from: Bill White;418286Okay! So immersion doesn't emerge from dramatic engagement with the situation or the ratcheting up of in-game tension. In this kind of play, temporal continuity and coherence of setting are essential to creating the kind of experience you're interested in having. You've talked about it as a Simulationist thing--is that the same as or different from immersion, in your opinion? (Or maybe, what kind of immersion is produced when you play this way?)

I believe it is essential for in-character immersion.  Read John Morrow's post here.  He does a great job of explaining IC POV vs. Deep IC.  For me, Immersion is Deep IC and a consistent, coherent, emulated world I think is necessary for Deep IC.

Quote from: Bill White;418286Also: what about when play drags? You know, the situation is laid out and players aren't quite getting it, or have gotten exactly the wrong thing and are in the middle of a frustrating wild goose chase?

I sometimes help things along as a GM, but I try to make it as invisible as possible.  If my players knew I was making it easier on them, they wouldn't like it.

Quote from: Bill White;418286Or we know how the fight is going to end, but it's going to be a long and frustrating slog (in real-world terms) to get there.

One of the benefits of liking simulationist games is that they are usually pretty deadly.  If the players don't use their brains before they use their brawn, they're going to be in trouble and they know it.

Quote from: Bill White;418286What devices do you employ to get things moving along and back on track--or is being "on track" an alien concept as well?

Well, getting back on track is a little alien, back in the day entire roleplaying weekends would never get out of the inn.  Players talk to people, they hear rumors, uncover secrets, gain all kinds of information and then decide what to do with the information.  I always have more then a couple options ready to go, so my players don't really get off track, because they are laying the track, if that makes sense.

Quote from: Bill White;418286Also, you say that it's the GM's job to create minor details, but it's not clear to me why this is necessarily so, since the goals of coherence and consistency could be achieved by giving the GM veto-power over player contributions, and allowing players to introduce minor character-relevant details might give some players a greater sense of really "being there."

Hmm.  I'll give you an example.  John Wick has a term called "Living City".  He creates them by having players play NPCs at the table.  It gives the players a great chance to immerse in the city.   I would call what you term "being there" to be part of the same thing.  You're increasing familiarity with the world, which can make the players connect with the world as players, from a IC POV.  However that comes with ooc knowledge that inhibits Deep IC.  John Morrow nailed it when he said Simulation didn't have a creative agenda, it has an experiential one.  When you are there to experience the world through the eyes of your character, then the more you know that your character doesn't, the less you are experiencing as your character.


BTW, that example you gave about the character who spoke the elven language creating the elven language as he goes along is the best of both worlds.  That allows the player to get more into his character, and hooks the player into the world without disrupting Deep IC.  In fact, for some players, not having an actual language they can interface with at some point can diminish Deep IC.  So no, as far as the language goes, I don't see that as disruptive to my kind of immersion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418290Hmm.  I'll give you an example.  John Wick has a term called "Living City".  He creates them by having players play NPCs at the table.  It gives the players a great chance to immerse in the city.   I would call what you term "being there" to be part of the same thing.  You're increasing familiarity with the world, which can make the players connect with the world as players, from a IC POV.  However that comes with ooc knowledge that inhibits Deep IC.  John Morrow nailed it when he said Simulation didn't have a creative agenda, it has an experiential one. When you are there to experience the world through the eyes of your character, then the more you know that your character doesn't, the less you are experiencing as your character.

What about the reverse? In many circumstances, there are things you could imagine that your character knows that you don't. I once heard a Finnish "larpwright" describe this is as the "hollow man" problem--sure, you may look like a Nazi soldier in your uniform (apparently they do a lot of WWII larping in Scandinavia), but inside you're still you. Do you have any techniques as GM or player for dealing with that?

QuoteBTW, that example you gave about the character who spoke the elven language creating the elven language as he goes along is the best of both worlds. That allows the player to get more into his character, and hooks the player into the world without disrupting Deep IC.  In fact, for some players, not having an actual language they can interface with at some point can diminish Deep IC.  So no, as far as the language goes, I don't see that as disruptive to my kind of immersion.

Good, good--that makes me happy. To systematize that, I suppose you'd have to establish basic parameters for what kinds of details a given PC could introduce, within the broader guidelines of staying within the character's perspective and maybe not overlapping with other characters. I suppose if you were worried about overlapping, you could do an Amber-like auction if you thought there was widespread interest in a particular area ("I bid 100 background points to be the Elf!"), or you could just look at each PC's backstory and hand-wave it.

Quote from: GameDaddy;418262That's not the word I would use... In creating new or unique mechanics, extensive background research should be conducted prior to releasing new game mechanics to ensure that the mechanics haven't already been tried and failed. In addition, the new mechanics should be thoroughly playtested included a playtest group without any vested interest in the final success of the game prior to being released as new mechanics.

I agree that should be standard procedure for any product expected to be viewed as a professional release.

QuoteI have two that comes to mind almost immediately. One is an RPG, and the other is a LARP I observed being run at a gaming convention four or five years back. In both cases the game encouraged and rewarded extreme discriminatory practices on the part of the players. Random castigation as entertainment used to be pretty much limited to religious wars and inquisitions. I was dismayed to see it in practice in gaming.

Do you happen to recall the names of the systems? I ask because I can see how that can happen because of a GM running a game that way, but I can't conceptualize in my mind a system that would specifically encourage this. At the very least out of morbid curiosity, I'd like to see how this is done.

QuoteFinally, concerning morally ambiguous and heinous activity. Being an adult, you should already know what that is, so I would answer your question with a few more questions.

Morality is very subjective these days, at least insofar as how various people I've interacted with define it. I couldn't say for certain that what you would define as "morally ambiguous" or "heinous" concurs with my own interpretations, so wanted to know where you were coming from. If you say heinous referring to Hybrid, I understand. If you say heinous concerning , say, a random game like 7th Sea, I'd be confused.

QuoteThere are plenty of downsides for playing in this manner, however ignoring the moral message such games automatically send by virtue of simply encouraging this type of play, suppose for a few minutes that one would consider allowing heinous activity on the part of the players. Let's also suppose that moral ambiguity is equally rewarded in play, and the players are provided awards and honors for successfully acomplishing both activities during the course of the game.

1) How does this make the game any better than what is already available?

Just so I understand; you're saying that since morally ambiguous systems already exist there is no reason for any more games to explore that or offer that opportunity? I can't imagine why. Are you certain that you are not just applying your own game preferences to the gaming community at large?

Quote2) What new benefits does such a game provide the players that they did not have already?

I'm not sure a game necessarily needs to have "new" benefits. I'm quite fond of the new Doctor Who game, for example, though the system is remarkably unoriginal. However, it's applied in a simple, direct way that I think does exactly what it sets out to do in play, and is very easy to grasp for new players. Perhaps not the best example, as that's more about the mechanics than the game's themes, but essentially I'm asking what you think would be the negative effect of creating games with a grayer approach to morality?

 If moral ambiguity is appropriate to the setting of the game, I don't think it would make sense to say "well, there's already been RPGs where players don't necessarily play stalwart heroes, so we shouldn't do that again". Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying? Is there some specific games you're talking about that I might be familiar with?

Quote from: Bill White;418263When the GM says "...you had to surrender your blade," is he playing the world or the character?

The GM is being a cocksmock. That's because when the players had their characters enter the castle, they should have roleplayed through giving up their weapons. Thus, being without weapons ought not to be a surprise to them. Of course, they needn't roleplay through it every time, just the first is enough.

Remember: the players get to decide what their characters do, the GM tells them if it works. By saying, "you surrendered your blade," the GM is making decisions for the players.

QuoteI'm re-reading the Edwards essay I think you're talking about and I think you're guilty of reading tendentiously.

Not really, I'm reading in the context of Edwards' words over several years. The essay itself is so poorly-written that we can't look solely to it for its meaning, we have to consider what else the guy's said to make any sense of it.

QuoteIronically, in emphasizing the social aspects as paramount--what I think of as the table-level stuff--you leave yourself open to the charge that you're ignoring the in-game aspects (you know, the fictional world in which role-players like to be immersed), which I can't believe you're really suggesting doesn't matter much at all.

Then you don't know my own theory. What matters to the success of a game session are the following four things, in descending order of importance.

• people
• snacks
• setting
• system

The setting and system do matter, but they're small potatoes next to having the right people in the game group, and the right snacks. A good game group with nice snacks can have fun even with a shit game system and abominably stupid setting; a bad game group with poor snacks cannot have fun even with the Best Ever RPG and Most Awesomest Setting.

People first, everything else after.

QuoteBut, reading more closely, I see what you're really saying is that the social level aspects determine the fate of game groups. Sure. But I'd argue that that table-level stuff is often mediated through or expressed via the in-game fiction-level stuff, which if role-playing matters at all has to contribute in some way to the character of the social interactions that determine the success or failure--function or dysfunction--of the gaming group.

Sure, but it's still small potatoes. This week's game session the PCs went into a dungeon. I'm not sure if they'll remember the giant snakes and falling stone trap, but everyone will remember Emil speculating about using the Regrowth spell to create a monkey with two arses and four arms, and Dan saying, "He would be a shit-tossing machine," and we'll remember gorging ourselves on pizza and the chocolate cake Graeme got because it was Aron's birthday the other day, and Graeme smearing pizza grease on his character sheet.

The times we've played thespier stuff it's been less about the dumb jokes and pizza grease. With that, people have written lengthy game logs about the game sessions. That's because they were engaged with the setting, they loved it. Most memorably, that was during the first Tiwesdaeg campaign (the journals are on the individual PCs' pages), but even there, only one player had any clue what the fuck was going on in the game system - it was GURPS. Next time we used FATE, made bugger-all difference in play.

People first.

Quote from: GameDaddy;418104 The game is rascist or discriminatory against one race, group, or type of player.
9) The game can be specifically used to exclude or denigrate individual players at the whim of the other players or GM.

Quote from: TristramEvans;418195I have a hard time even concieving of a game like this. Any specific examples?

From what I've heard (and I'll admit not much knowledge of it), "Steal Away Jordan" (the slavery indie game) may cover #9, as well as #8).

Quote from: TristramEvans;418295Morality is very subjective these days, at least insofar as how various people I've interacted with define it. I couldn't say for certain that what you would define as "morally ambiguous" or "heinous" concurs with my own interpretations, so wanted to know where you were coming from. If you say heinous referring to Hybrid, I understand. If you say heinous concerning , say, a random game like 7th Sea, I'd be confused.

Just quoting this since I've been pondering something. Hybrid, from what I know, isn't actually morally ambiguous or heinous at all. Apart from occasional vaguely sexist references its just largely incomprehensible - probably the work of someone with schizophrenia or something similar.
Anyway, with the three RPGs generally classed as the Unholy Trinity of Worst RPGs, two of the three maybe have direct indie equivalents in terms of thematic content - though apparently with more positive reception in the Forge community. i.e.
FATAL = Vincent Bakers' Poison'd
Racial Holy War = Steal Away Jordan
I have to wonder if there's an indie game equivalent to Hybrid.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;418300Just quoting this since I've been pondering something. Hybrid, from what I know, isn't actually morally ambiguous or heinous at all. Apart from occasional vaguely sexist references its just largely incomprehensible - probably the work of someone with schizophrenia or something similar.
Anyway, with the three RPGs generally classed as the Unholy Trinity of Worst RPGs, two of the three maybe have direct indie equivalents in terms of thematic content - though apparently with more positive reception in the Forge community. i.e.
FATAL = Vincent Bakers' Poison'd
Racial Holy War = Steal Away Jordan
I have to wonder if there's an indie game equivalent to Hybrid.

Isn't Hybrid itself an "indy game"? Well, I'd hesitate to call it a game. It is apparently the nonsensical ramblings of a deluded mind, though there is some rather blatent racism along with the sexism. But, perhaps Normality is somewhat comparable, though I got the feeling Normality was deliberately trying to be nonsensical (read: pretentious) as opposed to the earnest crazy-speak of a disturbed mind.

Is this the biggest thread in RPGSite history, yet?

Quote from: Bill White;418263I read this as pretty straightforward--either you recognize yourself or your experience in this description or you don't. If not, then what are you squawking about? But to argue that this language right here is code for "most gamers are not having fun" strikes me as bizarre. Now you might say, oh, but elsewhere Edwards calls traditional gamers nasty names. But so the fuck what? Personally, I don't regard the brain-damage shit as having anything to do with the Big Model, which is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about "Forge theory." By the same token, I don't regard all that "swine" shit as having anything to do with the emulation-first model that gets all the action around here, even while people pretend they're not talking "theory."

You're missing Kyles point because you're not reading the part of the theory that actually talks about the underlying factors causing the witnessed behavior and their relationship to the core point of the theory: game design.

Jump ahead to where he diagnoses the /problem/ -- the root cause of the turtle behavior he describes -- and then describes the solution.

He believes that the dysfunctional human behavior he sees is a result of what he calls "incoherent" game design: games that support a variety of play agendas rather than a single narrow one.

Further, he believes that the "most likely" result of incoherent game design is -- get this -- on-going power struggle.

But then -- and this is the key bit -- he suggests that some players will get something worse. He didn't explain this in his original essay, but we now know what that was: brain damage.

The theory blames game rules for dysfunctional social behavior around the table. It's holds the game /designer/ responsible for adolescent power struggle and bad times had amongst friends.

That's bad, but what's worse for a theory that pretends to be about game design, is that it argues that the hugely popular games which are clearly not aligned to the theory aren't popular because they're fun (according to the theory Vampire can't be fun -- it "most likely" results in "ongoing power struggle") but because of something he calls "economic factors" in the essay but which appears to be more aligned to his idea that most gamers are Sheeple who are unable to understand that their hobby is about as pleasant as crawling through broken glass.

In case I haven't been clear, his theory isn't just a statement of what he's seen and experienced -- he's generalized /wildly/ from his own personal experience and come up with a predictive model of human interaction. When vast waterfalls of empirical data (the popularity of Vampire) contradict his theory, he declines to change it and instead decides that gamers must be sheeple.

It's ... problematic.

I recommend reading the rest of the essay to get a real understanding of what the theory says.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TristramEvans;418301Isn't Hybrid itself an "indy game"? Well, I'd hesitate to call it a game. It is apparently the nonsensical ramblings of a deluded mind, though there is some rather blatent racism along with the sexism. But, perhaps Normality is somewhat comparable, though I got the feeling Normality was deliberately trying to be nonsensical (read: pretentious) as opposed to the earnest crazy-speak of a disturbed mind.

OMG. Well, thanks - when I posited that, I wasn't actually expecting an answer, I thought Hybrid was irreproducible.
OK, straight to my "Really Bad RPGs" folder, not that there's much there actually RPG related aside from the character sheets. From a quick scan I'd agree, Normality is a bit tryhard in that its actually too random - it doesn't quite give me the same "some pattern there that I'm just not quite able to grasp" feeling.

Quote from: danbuter;418302Is this the biggest thread in RPGSite history, yet?

At least one 4E-hate thread (Tyranny of Fun) went over 1000 posts. I don't believe any non-4E-hate threads have gone past that.