Quote from: KindaMeh on April 16, 2024, 10:56:21 PMI mean on the one hand, yeah, some storygames probably aren't RPGs. But I also don't think that everything that's a storygame isn't an RPG, if that makes sense? I basically feel like if it does satisfy immersion in roleplaying a character, and emulation of a living world, and has related game mechanics, then for me it's an rpg even if it has storygaming elements or is arguably a storygame...

Of course there can be degrees, instead of it being a binary yes/no proposition.  However, keep in mind that when reduced to a yes/no proposition, that's short-hand for "did a line get crossed?" 

You can be traveling due North.  You can be traveling mostly North (almost but not quite "due North") but also slightly West (thus no longer truly, actually due North, by definition).  Keep adding more West at the expense of North, eventually you aren't traveling "North" anymore by any reasonable description.  A wag can try to cloud the issue with some sleight of hand about Northwest or North Northwest or West Northwest or Up Down Sideways Northwest or however you want to talk about it. However, all that does when examined clearly is focus on which boundaries are meaningful (or not, as the case may be).

With an RPG, there's a lot more room.  At a bare minimum we have roles, play, and games--which even in their simplest forums are complex by themselves, let alone when they interact in one thing.  Then tack on the actors, audience, the GM, the accounts of what happened, when those accounts are consumed, and any meaning assigned there of.  Oh, and to put the cherry on top, the whole thing is in service to both single person and group imagination.  This is the environment that allows the wag to play semantic games.

You can insert all kinds of things into an RPG at the table that aren't really part of the RPG itself, and it still be (mostly) and RPG.  Heck, they are nearly always social things, with chatter, and food, and generally like a party.  At some point, you put enough of that in, it stops being an RPG and becomes a party.  Same with putting anything else in that isn't about you making a decision as your character or the GM controlling the world's reaction your actions.  That doesn't prove that parties and all that other stuff are RPGs.  It just proves that RPGs are resilient mediums.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 18, 2024, 11:35:35 AM

Quote from: KindaMeh on April 16, 2024, 10:56:21 PMI mean on the one hand, yeah, some storygames probably aren't RPGs. But I also don't think that everything that's a storygame isn't an RPG, if that makes sense? I basically feel like if it does satisfy immersion in roleplaying a character, and emulation of a living world, and has related game mechanics, then for me it's an rpg even if it has storygaming elements or is arguably a storygame...

Of course there can be degrees, instead of it being a binary yes/no proposition.  However, keep in mind that when reduced to a yes/no proposition, that's short-hand for "did a line get crossed?" 

You can be traveling due North.  You can be traveling mostly North (almost but not quite "due North") but also slightly West (thus no longer truly, actually due North, by definition).  Keep adding more West at the expense of North, eventually you aren't traveling "North" anymore by any reasonable description.  A wag can try to cloud the issue with some sleight of hand about Northwest or North Northwest or West Northwest or Up Down Sideways Northwest or however you want to talk about it. However, all that does when examined clearly is focus on which boundaries are meaningful (or not, as the case may be).

With an RPG, there's a lot more room.  At a bare minimum we have roles, play, and games--which even in their simplest forums are complex by themselves, let alone when they interact in one thing.  Then tack on the actors, audience, the GM, the accounts of what happened, when those accounts are consumed, and any meaning assigned there of.  Oh, and to put the cherry on top, the whole thing is in service to both single person and group imagination.  This is the environment that allows the wag to play semantic games.

You can insert all kinds of things into an RPG at the table that aren't really part of the RPG itself, and it still be (mostly) and RPG.  Heck, they are nearly always social things, with chatter, and food, and generally like a party.  At some point, you put enough of that in, it stops being an RPG and becomes a party.  Same with putting anything else in that isn't about you making a decision as your character or the GM controlling the world's reaction your actions.  That doesn't prove that parties and all that other stuff are RPGs.  It just proves that RPGs are resilient mediums.

So essentially if I read this right, the argument is roughly that storygaming waters down the rpg components of an rpg. To some degree I would concur with that proposition. I do think it can detract from both living world emulation/simulation, and character immersion, for instance. Intuitively, that does make sense to me as something that oftentimes happens.

I guess likewise, though as you say RPGs are a multifaceted experience, and an effective confluence of multiple things each with their own definitions... I think a good rpg doesn't gain much of anything purely rpg related from meta currency mechanics and the like within storygaming, though I guess maybe it could flesh out a particularly weak rpg and make it playable or something.


On the flipside, I feel that as with the North vs West paradigm, unless North has utterly vanished, one is still I guess moving northwards if the northward movement is properly noticeable? I'm not trying to claim that west is north, that is to say, or that storygame is RPG, just that both can coexist within the same medium. Heck, for some folks, a blend may even be the type of rpg they like. (Not as much myself a fanatic of that kind of thing, though to each their own tastes.)

The devil is always in the details:

- Add OOC chatter to a game session, good or bad?  Some people hate it like the plague.  For others, the game itself is no fun if they can't revel such chatter.  Most people are somewhere in between.

- Have music playing in the background?  Likewise, everything from absolute ban from the GM or even the whole group to playing loud, constantly.

- Having the GM portray some interesting NPCs for you to interact with in character?  Is there anyone that dislikes that?

- The player to your left hitting your thumb with a hammer every time you roll poorly?  The only people that like that are sick and/or lying.

Some of these activities are more central to playing an RPG than others.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 18, 2024, 03:14:49 PMThe devil is always in the details:

- Add OOC chatter to a game session, good or bad?  Some people hate it like the plague.  For others, the game itself is no fun if they can't revel such chatter.  Most people are somewhere in between.

- Have music playing in the background?  Likewise, everything from absolute ban from the GM or even the whole group to playing loud, constantly.

- Having the GM portray some interesting NPCs for you to interact with in character?  Is there anyone that dislikes that?

- The player to your left hitting your thumb with a hammer every time you roll poorly?  The only people that like that are sick and/or lying.

Some of these activities are more central to playing an RPG than others.

First, Steven Mitchell, I had never noticed your location until today- Roll Tide Roll.

And I agree that there are certain elements that are more central than others. I also believe it is super easy to tell them apart at the table. Nobody is going to confuse how Basic D&D plays and feels with Cthulhu Dark or Apocalypse World.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 18, 2024, 11:22:37 AM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on April 18, 2024, 10:48:02 AM

Quote from: KindaMeh on April 16, 2024, 12:46:15 PMI do think degrees of success are distinct from storygaming,

It isn't, it's just another thing Pundit is adding to the pile of things they don't like and calling it 'storygaming'.

There have been versions of degrees of success going all the way back to Chainmail, but they had a mechanical difference between the degrees (failure, drive back, success/kill). Those are different from what I was referring to, and I should have said it better. But..

I will use Cthulhu Dark by Graham Walmsley to illustrate what I was driving towards. When investigating, you will ALWAYS be successful. You get the bare minimum of what you are looking for on a 1. You get everything you were looking for on a 4, that and more with a 5 and "more" than you wanted on a 6.

I've never played Cthulhu Dark and it isn't particularly to my taste, but this has nothing to do with degree of success. In the game, you automatically succeed only if failing means that the scenario ends - like failing to find a critical clue pointing the PCs to the rest of the scenario. The rules specify that when rolling the opposed failure die "(They can't do this if you're investigating and you must succeed for the scenario to proceed)."

There's an age-old critique of investigative RPG scenarios that if the PCs fail at some points, then they get stuck and miss most of the scenario. A dungeon parallel would be if the dungeon entrance is hidden and needs a roll to find. If the PCs fail to find the entrance to a dungeon then they have to just walk away and the whole adventure design is wasted.

There are many ways around this, but a lot of them are story based -- even if used in traditional RPGs -- like "Schrodinger's NPC". If the PCs arrive late, they don't miss the grateful NPC delivering them the crucial clue. Instead, whenever the PCs arrive is exactly when the NPC is being attacked so the PCs can save them and get the clue. However, it makes no sense in the game world that the NPC and their attackers would wait around for the PCs to arrive.

As another example, auto-success in investigation is also a big part of Robin Laws' GUMSHOE system. I hated the GUMSHOE system after trying it a few times, but it's had people who did like it.

-----

Quote from: FingerRod on April 18, 2024, 03:36:33 PMAnd I agree that there are certain elements that are more central than others. I also believe it is super easy to tell them apart at the table. Nobody is going to confuse how Basic D&D plays and feels with Cthulhu Dark or Apocalypse World.

I've played both Dungeon World and D&D 5e (along with various other games like Call of Cthulhu and FATE) with the same group. Obviously, there are noticeable differences in the dice mechanics, but it also doesn't feel like a different type of activity. In Dungeon World, the only thing a player does is describe what their PC is trying to do, and the DM calls for rolls to succeed based on that.

There's a huge difference between Dungeon World and a GMless story game like Microscope or Fiasco where players are declaring background or creating scenes.

Back in the 1980s when I played Basic D&D as a kid, my play wasn't very different. Except for combat, most play was freeform - with players saying "I try X" and the DM saying what happened, sometimes calling for ad-hoc roll based on their ruling.

Quote from: jhkim on April 18, 2024, 08:12:42 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 18, 2024, 11:22:37 AM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on April 18, 2024, 10:48:02 AM

Quote from: KindaMeh on April 16, 2024, 12:46:15 PMI do think degrees of success are distinct from storygaming,

It isn't, it's just another thing Pundit is adding to the pile of things they don't like and calling it 'storygaming'.

There have been versions of degrees of success going all the way back to Chainmail, but they had a mechanical difference between the degrees (failure, drive back, success/kill). Those are different from what I was referring to, and I should have said it better. But..

I will use Cthulhu Dark by Graham Walmsley to illustrate what I was driving towards. When investigating, you will ALWAYS be successful. You get the bare minimum of what you are looking for on a 1. You get everything you were looking for on a 4, that and more with a 5 and "more" than you wanted on a 6.

I've never played Cthulhu Dark and it isn't particularly to my taste, but this has nothing to do with degree of success. In the game, you automatically succeed only if failing means that the scenario ends - like failing to find a critical clue pointing the PCs to the rest of the scenario. The rules specify that when rolling the opposed failure die "(They can't do this if you're investigating and you must succeed for the scenario to proceed)."

There's an age-old critique of investigative RPG scenarios that if the PCs fail at some points, then they get stuck and miss most of the scenario. A dungeon parallel would be if the dungeon entrance is hidden and needs a roll to find. If the PCs fail to find the entrance to a dungeon then they have to just walk away and the whole adventure design is wasted.

There are many ways around this, but a lot of them are story based -- even if used in traditional RPGs -- like "Schrodinger's NPC". If the PCs arrive late, they don't miss the grateful NPC delivering them the crucial clue. Instead, whenever the PCs arrive is exactly when the NPC is being attacked so the PCs can save them and get the clue. However, it makes no sense in the game world that the NPC and their attackers would wait around for the PCs to arrive.

As another example, auto-success in investigation is also a big part of Robin Laws' GUMSHOE system. I hated the GUMSHOE system after trying it a few times, but it's had people who did like it.

-----

Quote from: FingerRod on April 18, 2024, 03:36:33 PMAnd I agree that there are certain elements that are more central than others. I also believe it is super easy to tell them apart at the table. Nobody is going to confuse how Basic D&D plays and feels with Cthulhu Dark or Apocalypse World.

I've played both Dungeon World and D&D 5e (along with various other games like Call of Cthulhu and FATE) with the same group. Obviously, there are noticeable differences in the dice mechanics, but it also doesn't feel like a different type of activity. In Dungeon World, the only thing a player does is describe what their PC is trying to do, and the DM calls for rolls to succeed based on that.

There's a huge difference between Dungeon World and a GMless story game like Microscope or Fiasco where players are declaring background or creating scenes.

Back in the 1980s when I played Basic D&D as a kid, my play wasn't very different. Except for combat, most play was freeform - with players saying "I try X" and the DM saying what happened, sometimes calling for ad-hoc roll based on their ruling.

Serious question, why would you argue with me over a game you have never played? They use the same mechanic for "doing other things".

Quote from: Cthulhu Dark, a game Fingerrod has played and jhkim has not...When you do something other than investigating, roll dice as above...Again, your highest die shows how well you do. On a 1, you barely succeed. On a 4, you succeed competently. Blah blah blah.

I have played the game several times. I've even read Graham's book. It is a good read. And it is a fun game when I am in the mood for a STORYGAME and have the right people. But it isn't an RPG.

Dungeon World was designed as a hybrid product, in part, by a world famous robot rapist. Why shift the goal posts? That one was rhetorical, my friend, because you shifted them right into making my earlier point...

Quote from: Robot Rapist's Kickstarter CampaignDungeon World emerged from our love of two things--modern game design and old-school RPG action. We wanted to create a game with the wide-eyed excitement and wonder of your first time playing a fantasy RPG and the rules that draw on a long history of innovation and creativity. The best of both worlds!

So there you have it. Even with a hybrid product, they admit they are different from traditional RPGs because they use rules that have a "long history of innovation and creativity"...AKA storygame bullshit. They also admitted these two things come from different worlds. Credit to them for their honesty.

If you think Basic D&D plays like Apocalypse World or the aforementioned Cthulhu Dark, bro, I cannot do anything for you. Basic D&D + DM fiat does not equal storygames in design or feel at the table.

Thoughts?

Quote from: jhkim on April 18, 2024, 08:12:42 PMThere's an age-old critique of investigative RPG scenarios that if the PCs fail at some points, then they get stuck and miss most of the scenario.

It's a "critique" usually made by someone that doesn't understand how games work: they're not novels, failure must always be an option. This means that in a game based on finding clues adding systems that negate the possibility of not finding clues is a design error.

To clarify my general point -- Cthulhu Dark and Powered-by-the-Apocalypse games have distinctive mechanics influenced by story games, and they have advice and mechanics that prioritize story. However, there are lots of older RPGs that also prioritize story, like the Storyteller System (Vampire: The Masquerade) with its scene mechanics and Demeanor/Nature and such; or Cinematic Unisystem (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) with its drama points and cinematic options.

In both Cthulhu Dark and PbtA, the players only act by saying what their character is trying to do. There isn't even an out-of-character option like spending drama points for a plot twist. They aren't the same as old-school D&D, but loads of games of the 1980s and 1990s have prioritized story. They're much closer to D&D than they are to a GMless story game like Fiasco or Microscope where players regularly take out-of-character actions.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 18, 2024, 09:43:25 PMSerious question, why would you argue with me over a game you have never played? They use the same mechanic for "doing other things".

Quote from: Cthulhu Dark, a game Fingerrod has played and jhkim has not...When you do something other than investigating, roll dice as above...Again, your highest die shows how well you do. On a 1, you barely succeed. On a 4, you succeed competently. Blah blah blah.

I have played the game several times. I've even read Graham's book. It is a good read. And it is a fun game when I am in the mood for a STORYGAME and have the right people. But it isn't an RPG.

I don't care whether you call it an RPG or not. But when you talk about the level of success as if there is no failure, that's dumb. Your supposed quote isn't actually what the book says, and in any case, just below the level of success mechanics, there's a section called "Failing" that says:

Quote from: Cthulhu DarkIf their die rolls higher than your highest die, you fail, in the way they described. If not, you succeed as before, with your highest die showing how well you succeed.

Returning to the example above: you're escaping from the hotel window. This time, someone thinks it would be more interesting if your pursuers caught you. When you both roll, they get the higher die. You are caught.

So a roll of 1 is a minimal success - only if no one (including the GM) suggests a failure. If anyone suggests a failure, then the roll of 1 will most likely fail.

-----

Quote from: FingerRod on April 18, 2024, 09:43:25 PMIf you think Basic D&D plays like Apocalypse World or the aforementioned Cthulhu Dark, bro, I cannot do anything for you. Basic D&D + DM fiat does not equal storygames in design or feel at the table.

Thoughts?

Does Basic D&D have the same design and feel at the table as Storyteller System? Does Basic D&D have the same design and feel at the table as Amber Diceless Roleplaying? Does Basic D&D have same design and feel at the table as Cinematic Unisystem?

I think all of these games have different design and feel. There are limits to what is an RPG, and there are a bunch of edge cases where people can reasonably disagree. But not all RPGs must have the same design and feel as Basic D&D. That's clearly overly limited.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2024, 02:02:34 AMHowever, there are lots of older RPGs that also prioritize story, like the Storyteller System (Vampire: The Masquerade) with its scene mechanics and Demeanor/Nature and such...

Tell me that you've never played the game without actually telling me that you've never played the game.
Nature/Demeanor is practically the WoD version of alignment, nothing more and nothing less, while "scene" is actually a fancy way of saying "we can't assign a numerical value to the duration of this activity, use your judgement to tell when it's finished". Nowhere in the rules you'll find things like "when the scene ends fade to black and start a new one with a different setup in another location", which is what you'll find in actual scripted media.
The WoD games are not storygames, they're actually fairly traditional social sandbox toolkits (which is the reason why Ron Edwards so deeply despised them: they're not storygames).
The published campaigns for WoD are another matter entirely, they're generally massively railroaded shitshows meant to advance the metaplot (an example: Under a blood red moon, the crossover Masquerade/Apocalypse campaign that narrates the siege of Chicago by the Garou. No matter what you do and no matter if you're playing as a vamp or a wolfie, in the end Lodin dies).

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2024, 02:02:34 AMSo a roll of 1 is a minimal success - only if no one (including the GM) suggests a failure. If anyone suggests a failure, then the roll of 1 will most likely fail.

Only if no one suggests a failure? You make it sound like it is a standard part of every action, but it is not.

This is the section heading that discusses the mechanic, btw. Keep reading your rulebook for the game you never played to The Rules in Detail section...

Quote from: Cthulhu DarkIF SOMEONE THINKS THE STORY WOULD BE MORE INTERESTING IF YOU FAILED, THEY DESCRIBE HOW YOU MIGHT FAIL AND ROLL A DIE

I just checked my watch, it is still a story game. And that mechanic is a way for others to participate in the STORY. It 100% is not used as part of standard resolution.

And when 1 is barely a success, 2 is you do it but not well, 3 you do it adequately, etc. those are called DEGREES OF SUCCESS. And again, the failure story mechanic does not change that. It is only used as a way to introduce something "more interesting". The person doing the action can always reroll, using insight, until they get their way. Annnnnd....if the player doing the action doesn't think the failure is interesting for their character or the story, then most of the time people back it out. A table etiquette thing.

I cannot believe you keep digging deeper on this lol.

Quote from: jhkimDoes Basic D&D have the same design and feel at the table as Storyteller System? Does Basic D&D have the same design and feel at the table as Amber Diceless Roleplaying? Does Basic D&D have same design and feel at the table as Cinematic Unisystem?

I think all of these games have different design and feel. There are limits to what is an RPG, and there are a bunch of edge cases where people can reasonably disagree. But not all RPGs must have the same design and feel as Basic D&D. That's clearly overly limited.

Never said that all RPGs must have the same design and feel as Basic D&D. All I said is that it plays different at the table than Apocalypse World and the story game you have never played above. You quoted me and then argued about Dungeon World and 5e playing the same at the table.

I do think we agree that there are limits to what is an RPG, and also agree on there being edge cases where people can reasonably disagree. 100%. And I hope you take the original quotes and the digs about you not playing the game in the spirit they were intended. Just having a bit of fun with you.

If Dungeon World and Basic D&D play the same at the table, you are playing at least one of them wrong.  Maybe both, but I'll admit it's logically possible that it is just one.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2024, 10:21:26 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 17, 2024, 10:09:25 PM

Quote from: Domina on April 17, 2024, 06:55:32 PMdamn that's a hell of a lot of words to say you're mad that other people's preferences aren't the same as yours

Greetings!

This directed at me?

Tell you what, it isn't about "you're being mad that other people's preferences aren't the same as yours." That is frankly, a gross oversimplification, and at the end of the day, missing the larger issue.

If the rainbow degenerates kept their mouth shut, and did their weird fucking games by themselves, that wouldn't be the problem. The problem comes when all of this weak, pussy degenerate BS is then adopted and embraced by others, who then start pumping it into books and adventures that normal people then are faced with, again, and again, and again. That degeneracy starts to corrupt the entire hobby.

If YOU like that BS, great! Knock yourself out, and dive into the cesspool deep!

Many other gamers in the hobby are sick of it, and such corrupting trends pushed by degenerate storygames does nothing but harm the hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Check its posting history.  It's a troll (and not a particularly intelligent or entertaining one).  Just roll your eyes and move on to someone with a semblance of a coherent thought... **roll eyes**

Greetings!

*Laughing* So true, my friend. Thanks for reminding me!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 19, 2024, 02:42:44 AM

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2024, 02:02:34 AMHowever, there are lots of older RPGs that also prioritize story, like the Storyteller System (Vampire: The Masquerade) with its scene mechanics and Demeanor/Nature and such...

Tell me that you've never played the game without actually telling me that you've never played the game.
Nature/Demeanor is practically the WoD version of alignment, nothing more and nothing less, while "scene" is actually a fancy way of saying "we can't assign a numerical value to the duration of this activity, use your judgement to tell when it's finished". Nowhere in the rules you'll find things like "when the scene ends fade to black and start a new one with a different setup in another location", which is what you'll find in actual scripted media.
The WoD games are not storygames, they're actually fairly traditional social sandbox toolkits (which is the reason why Ron Edwards so deeply despised them: they're not storygames).
The published campaigns for WoD are another matter entirely, they're generally massively railroaded shitshows meant to advance the metaplot (an example: Under a blood red moon, the crossover Masquerade/Apocalypse campaign that narrates the siege of Chicago by the Garou. No matter what you do and no matter if you're playing as a vamp or a wolfie, in the end Lodin dies).

I would agree that despite the mechanical framework being named the Storytelling System and the DM being called a Storyteller, WoD games and even the published adventures aren't actually storygames.

Yeah, Nature does mechanically affect willpower regain in some instances, I guess, but that's more like declaring a key intrinsic motivation mechanically and then reaping the results of playing to that (or not) over the course of the adventure I'd say. Likewise, scene lengths are entirely up to DM discretion, sure, as are plot based effects of powerful beings and the like, which does add a fair bit of DM fiat into things, even from a mechanical perspective, yes. Don't even get me started on DM interpretation on powers and stuff like the Mage spellcasting systems. But ultimately... the authority rests in one person's hands, even if that authority does include narrative fiat overlap with mechanics to some degree.

For a long while, I was confused on storygaming as a matter of definition and thought that kind of thing might qualify. I used to think storygaming was a style of gaming that emphasized storytelling and prioritized that over all else, either by turning the game into a democratized storytelling experience or by setting fire to player agency so the DM could tell their own story and all else such as player agency or mechanics be damned. This in turn made me think that the Giovanni Chronicles, for instance, were effectively a "storygaming adventure", in part because of all the railroading and forced monologue grandstanding that didn't really care about mechanics or the like, just about telling the pre-written story, or the story the DM presumably wanted to tell.

But that's not actually correct. I now know that the actual generally accepted definition of storygaming, since story as an emphasis to some degree or another is a part of most ttrpgs by default, tends to be on narrative and scene/circumstantial control that would normally be adjudicated by the DM, going into the hands of the players. Which potentially breaks immersion into your character, emulation/simulation of a living world, and blah... Basically a different setup that is distinct from a standard RPG for different reasons.

Quote from: KindaMeh on April 19, 2024, 02:43:45 PMI would agree that despite the mechanical framework being named the Storytelling System and the DM being called a Storyteller, WoD games and even the published adventures aren't actually storygames.

Of course you'll agree, because the actual "storygame" concept as we know it now came into existence mainly as a reaction to the WoD (the Forge in its main, Edwards led incarnation began in 2001).
Good ol' Ron famous hissy fit about "brain damage" is an oblique jab at WoD players and authors.

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 19, 2024, 04:04:09 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on April 19, 2024, 02:43:45 PMI would agree that despite the mechanical framework being named the Storytelling System and the DM being called a Storyteller, WoD games and even the published adventures aren't actually storygames.

Of course you'll agree, because the actual "storygame" concept as we know it now came into existence mainly as a reaction to the WoD (the Forge in its main, Edwards led incarnation began in 2001).
Good ol' Ron famous hissy fit about "brain damage" is an oblique jab at WoD players and authors.

I'll readily admit to not knowing much about the specifics of the conversational origins of all that. Partly as I wasn't old enough to even read in/access a forum at the time. Interesting to know, I guess. I had oftentimes heard that he hated D&D and simulationism, but didn't know that he hated even WoD, which always struck me either as neotrad or (for the railroaded adventures) trad gameplay.