Quote from: GameDaddy;418421Google is your friend in answering that question...

Whatever I find is irrelevant to anyone outside my immediate family pretty much. If you know that a game you design will definitely affect an individual, or group by negatively impacting their lives, are you still going to release it?

BBL... gotta go watch the Tudors, Henry's getting ready to backstab a rebellious group of Christians who have taken York. Should be at least as good as this....

I saw that TristramE. had mentioned Greg Cost. game titles which I have looked at but never purchased as noted in my last (edited) post.My question still stands...

Why should I care what he thinks about the book you mentioned?
other questions remained un-answered as well...

So tell me how does one know that a said game is going to "affect an individual or group negatively"?

Some religious folk think that about D&D etal. RPG's.  Any loose cannon can have a game tell them to go sacrafice their nieghbor or whatever so once again I ask...Are we to change our games because a minority might be affected adversly by them?

Lets burn the offending titles along with Catcher in the Rye and throw some witches on the faggotts as well...dark ages man...:rolleyes:

When I design a game I focus on MECHANICS not SETTING (thats for the GM/groups to decide) so tell me how a MECHANIC (ie.game) can be "good" or "bad" from a moral point? Remember rule 0?
have fun watching TV.

:confused:

Quote from: TristramEvans;418423Yes, definitely. Those sorts of people should be weeded out early before they join a cult or fundamentalist church.

:rotfl:

Quote from: skofflox;418417Never heard of Greg Costikyan in over 30 years of gaming (many styles to boot)...who is he and why should his opinion matter?

See his web page.  For the record, I don't agree with all of his opinions, but you should know who he is if you care about role-playing game theory.

Quote from: John Morrow;418435See his web page.  For the record, I don't agree with all of his opinions, but you should know who he is if you care about role-playing game theory.

Thanks for the link,will check it out!
 

@ Tristram/Game Daddy/Sigmund/Scofflox et al...

I always thought that the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was basically the cornerstone of any sort of moral system - the way its usually termed there is Christian (I'm not, BTW - atheist), but the concept itself is the basis for among other things stuff like empathy; hence conscience and so on. I don't think you can have a moral system without recognizing the value of other people.
But...that's a highest standard than I'm willing to apply to RPGs though. Personally, I do refuse to buy stuff that gross (any number of White Wolf products, Carcosa, whatever), but I'm not going to defend that as morally necessary; I think GD's position may be a little extreme.
However...I think we would be better of debating The Nature of Good and Evil in in its own spin-off thread, rather than clouding the Forge debate.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364Simulationism is an awful, dry, negatively loaded word.

The term was taken from the rec.games.frp.advocacy model, where the term was adopted as a single-word euphemism for "world based", which was tied to discussions of immersive play.  In fact, the points of the first threefold triangle posted on rec.games.frp.advocacy were "Interactive Storytelling", "Problem Solving" and "IC Experience", which became "Drama", "Game", and "Simulation".  That people who played "immersively" (thinking in character) were well-represented in those discussions (which predated Forge use) and had no problem self-identifying with "Simulation", I think there is nothing inherently negative loaded into that word.  The problem with it's use in Forge theory (and this is quite clear if your read the whole thread that I pulled the Ron quote that I posted earlier from) is that Ron never really understood what it meant or the purpose it served in the r.g.f.a discussions.  As such, it carries a lot of baggage, but that's no an inherent problem with the word or why it was originally adopted.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364But gamers who want immersion also generally (IME) if not quite always want something to drive the game forward dynamically, whether it's poignant personal themes for their characters (in essence, this is the overlap with that godawful theory GNS' so-called narrativism - poignant personal themes are all to the good if they don't detract from believability), [...]

One place where game theory has missed the boat, in my opinion, is in ignoring the distinction between set-up and play.  There is a distinct difference between setting up an environment and characters rich in potential for adventure and constantly tweaking the events during play to make sure adventure happens.  It's the difference between traveling to Greece because you think Greece would be an interesting place to visit and you are sure to find something interesting there to see and taking a planned tour that guarantees you'll hit all of the main tourist attractions but demands that you stay on the bus and follow the tour guide.  

Giving people advice on how to set up a situation rich in potential for adventure or challenge could be useful to just about anyone and doesn't require a dedicated system to do.  Guaranteeing a certain experience with tightly focused mechanics, on the other hand, is something else entirely.

Do I want to create characters and play in a setting likely to produce interesting adventures, experiences, and even moral quandaries?  Absolutely.  Do I need the system to drive the game forward for my character?  No, not really.  My characters can drive themselves forward.

In fact, I played in a D&D game a while back where the players largely ignored the events the GM had planned out happening the background and just played our characters out in the setting and had a blast.  We kept ourselves busy.  If you create interesting characters with some drive and goals, the GM doesn't need to put a leash on them and drag them to an adventure.  They'll find their own adventures.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364the excitement of combat and puzzles (in essence, this is the overlap with GNS' gamism) or something else entirely, such as the sense of sheer horror among the players in the real world that a Cthulhu game can evoke or the sense of mystery and suspense that an intricate plot peppered if desired with a certain amount of slightly-PvP plotting and conniving can evoke, again, critically, not necessarily for the characters, but more importantly for the players in the real world. Another example, if not so high-falluting, is the sense of comedy that can be evoked among the players by general silliness.

When I'm immersed and thinking in character, my attention as a player in the real world is on my character.  I want to experience the impact of the game through my character, not independently from my character.  As such, catching my interest as a player in the real world only distracts from that.  Terrify, challenge, or amuse my character and I'll experience the terror, challenge, or amusement through them.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364So immersion is a brilliant part of the game, but we do generally need some dynamic beyond immersion as well. Immersion is a good part of the path, but not the entire destination.

Immersion isn't a part of the path.  It's how the path is experienced.  As I said before, the destination is largely irrelevant.  

I'm not sure about the point you are trying to make here.  Yes, a roller-coaster is a more interesting experience for an adult than riding the little train ride for kids at the mall that goes around in circles.  Yes, touring Hawaii or Santorini is more interesting than touring Camden, New Jersey.  The take-away?  Create interesting characters and interesting settings that provide the potential for adventure.  That's maybe a few paragraphs of advice in the game book if you think people don't already know it.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364I do not agree with Pundit's view that player narrative power necessarily breaks immersion simply because realistically your character could not do what you the player can do to the game-world.

Non-sequitur because the issue isn't about what the player or character can do but what they can decide to do and make happen with a decision.  A person can decide to swing a sword.  A person cannot make the sword hit or not hit its target simply because they decide it should.  

If you truly want to understand the what immersion (i.e., "thinking in character") feels like and why awareness of the metagame is toxic to immersion, I suggest watching two movies:

Last Action Hero (in particular, this scene)

The Truman Show (in particular, the car scene)

In both movies, characters become aware of things that they can't become aware of without destroying the verisimilitude of their settings.  This is why there are parodies of genres and specific shows and movies.  Here, here, here, and here, for example, is a skit about Star Trek redshirts who are self-aware of their likely fate.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364However, we are not very far apart in the result, because I believe that the process of using player narrative power weakens immersion because it requires you to stand apart from your character's POV, however briefly, to consider the world globally, and not just from the standpoint of your character, because your narrative decisions affect the entire game and it would not be conducive to a good game if you made those decisions purely from the blinkered perspective of one character.

The only case where I find it useful to consider the entire game rather than the perspective of a single character is when the decision the character is going to make is going to essentially cause the game to crash for everyone.  Other than that, I see no problem with players making decisions entirely from just their own character's perspective.  In fact, I prefer it that way.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364Knowing out of character information does not necessarily (IMHO) prevent you from attaining immersion. What it prevents you from experiencing are the sensations of mystery, horror etc. which depend on immersion but also depend on the sense of the unknown, the sense of a pre-existing game-world which you do not fully know.

And carrying around an extra 50 pounds of lead in a vest doesn't necessarily make it impossible to walk, but it's probably going to make your life a lot less pleasant.  The issue isn't simply whether it's possible to do something but whether it makes doing something harder or less pleasant.  For me, out of character information makes it more difficult to immerse because it makes me second guess my character's decisions because I wonder if the out of character knowledge is seeping through.  Can I firewall the information?  Of course I can most of the time.  But it make things more difficult.  I don't get any benefit from the out of character information, so it's simply easier for me to walk away from the table and not hear it than to go through the hassle of firewalling it.  

The overall problem with your analysis is that you keep assuming that the player experience is primary.  It's not.  When a player thinks in character, the primary experience is the experience of the game world as the character.  I don't care if I'm challenged, surprised, horrified, or whatever as player.  I care if I experience that in character.  And, no, it's not the same thing.

Quote from: Omnifray;418364Critically comprehensive player narrative power also means (as I've said before) that you know there's no real pre-existing game world to be the unknown, so that's a double attack on your sense of the unknown.

That's irrelevant to my problem with it.  My problem is that I simply do not want that control.  It's not a decision I'm interested in making.  If my character runs out of a building and I want to know if there is a car on the street, I'm simply looking for information.  I don't care if the GM says yes or no or rolls a die.  It's simply not a question I want to answer.  And because I don't care, I have no preference to use to pick one choice or the other, so I'd probably roll a die if forced to decide (in fact, I do that when I GM).  So you may be speaking for yourself when it comes to the psychology at play here, but you are not speaking for me.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;418445@ Tristram/Game Daddy/Sigmund/Scofflox et al...

I always thought that the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was basically the cornerstone of any sort of moral system - the way its usually termed there is Christian (I'm not, BTW - atheist), but the concept itself is the basis for among other things stuff like empathy; hence conscience and so on. I don't think you can have a moral system without recognizing the value of other people.
But...that's a highest standard than I'm willing to apply to RPGs though. Personally, I do refuse to buy stuff that gross (any number of White Wolf products, Carcosa, whatever), but I'm not going to defend that as morally necessary; I think GD's position may be a little extreme.
However...I think we would be better of debating The Nature of Good and Evil in in its own spin-off thread, rather than clouding the Forge debate.

 GD appears to be "trolling"...fell into the trap...:duh:

Awesome. I was just reading Costykian's website, and here's his article about the very Forge-esque game My Life With Master, which he believes should be included in any list of the top 100 games of all time.

The irony is overwhelming.

Quote from: TristramEvans;418478Awesome. I was just reading Costykian's website, and here's his article about the very Forge-esque game My Life With Master, which he believes should be included in any list of the top 100 games of all time.

The irony is overwhelming.

also note the link to "Violence"...oh the humanity...:rotfl:

I think this thread has jumped the shark.

Hopefully this post will push it to 100 pages, where it can be laid to rest.

Quote from: BWA;418621I think this thread has jumped the shark.

Hopefully this post will push it to 100 pages, where it can be laid to rest.

WTF. You are the one driving the boat.

Quote from: BWA;418621I think this thread has jumped the shark.

No. U.

(almost there )

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;416951The thing is that the Forgers had stupid ideas. But like Sokal's fake postmodernist paper, stupid ideas - even nonsensical ideas - can be very persuasive. So a bunch of people fall for them, and this poisons the well of conversation that we all draw from. And since rpg systems are just a bunch of rules for having a conversation, having the waters poisoned or even just muddied can really fuck things up.

For example, I once knew a game group who got sucked into all the rpg theory talk. They once played sensible and proper games like D&D and Cthulhu. But then they went to postmodern LARPS like Hackmaster, and thespy crunchy nonsense like Burning Wheel. It became impossible to game with them, and their gaming has over the years fizzled away into nothing.

So I had less gaming because of stupid ideas about rpgs, and the people themselves lost enthusiasm and gave up gaming. I had to make my own group from scratch.

When stupid wrong ideas come to your group, it just generally fucks things up.

Or people would just stop gaming entirely.

Let's put it this way. Remember that I run Geektogethers, so I'm in touch with a lot of gamers in my town, directly and indirectly. Everyone who's been playing or running D&D3.5 or earlier or games from the same era - Cthulhu and the like - in the last decade is still gaming today. Everyone who went and fiddled with Burning Wheel and My Life With Master and that sort of thing is no longer gaming.

Forger games stop people gaming. And that does affect what happens at my game table.

Hi Kyle,

I'm assuming the gaming group you're referring to is us. If so, your statements (underlined above) about forge games leading to us no longer actively gaming are completely incorrect. We play a lot of what you term 'forge' games, a lot of what you term 'proper' games, we have a group of 7 people and we meet weekly to game, as we have done for eight years or so. So you may have to find another example to support your argument.

Regards,

Russell.

No Russ, not your group at all.

I recall one of you had just had their first baby, the group said, "okay mate, tell us when you're ready to game again," he replied, "oh I can game, it's just van we game at my place this week? I have to take care of the baby."

Now that's dedication to gaming. I know you guys wouldn't give it up for anything

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;416951For example, I once knew a game group who got sucked into all the rpg theory talk. They once played sensible and proper games like D&D and Cthulhu. But then they went to postmodern LARPS like Hackmaster, and thespy crunchy nonsense like Burning Wheel. It became impossible to game with them, and their gaming has over the years fizzled away into nothing.

Hackmaster used a variation of the AD&D 1st edition, I was unaware of any LARP variation. What is "thespy crunchy"?

QuoteSo I had less gaming because of stupid ideas about rpgs, and the people themselves lost enthusiasm and gave up gaming. I had to make my own group from scratch.

So you blame the games themselves? I've left groups before because I was simply uninterested in a game they wanted to play or a system they wanted to use. My first regular RPG group would occasionally get a hankering for some Car Wars or Star Frontiers, which I had no interest in and would sit out on, returning when we started playing Warhammer again. Another time a few years ago, my regular group at the time decided to try out some D20 games, and I resigned from the group simply out of disinterest. At no time, however, have I felt the games themselves were to blame, so it's hard for me to empathize with or understand your position. why does it matter to you what games other people play?

QuoteLet's put it this way. Remember that I run Geektogethers, so I'm in touch with a lot of gamers in my town, directly and indirectly. Everyone who's been playing or running D&D3.5 or earlier or games from the same era - Cthulhu and the like - in the last decade is still gaming today. Everyone who went and fiddled with Burning Wheel and My Life With Master and that sort of thing is no longer gaming.

Forger games stop people gaming. And that does affect what happens at my game table.

It's an interesting theory, and I would be interested if someone actually did a study on that; god knows this business could use a source of market research. But I could not take it any more seriously now than as a theory, as that's only anecdotal evidence at best.