Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621218So, just to be clear... you, as a person, are utterly incapable of deciding where to put your best effort.

Traditional skills are more than capable of determining if your character made a poor, average or best effort- and they do so without putting that choice in the *players* hands. In short, that was what the dice were for. Hero Point in *any* form are used to override this simple fact to suit the desire of the player.

Originally people were honest, and called these things what they were. The passage of time from things like the James Bond RPG doesn't change the reality of what the mechanics do. No does you claiming otherwise.

I'm very sorry that you so hate story-games that you have to make up excuses for using story based mechanics. Such self-deception is a painful thing to see in another person although very common in gaming.

Gamers as whole are very stupid people, as this site so well shows.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621252That doesn't really bear on his claim: Hero points are always, in every single case, a Storygame mechanic and any game that explains them in another way is doing violence to the concept of reality itself.

I described how they didn't have to be. He repeated his claim. I expanded with evidence and reason. He repeated his claim. etc.

The central point was this: Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)

What James Bond 007 did or didn't do is irrelevant to that point.


Well put. Also has the virtue of being accurate.

Yeah but my point is Hero points were used in james bond to make narative alterations. James bond remained an RPG as Dr Jest points out you play the role of an agent narative stuff layers on top of that central premise.
However in Ars Magica you have troupe play, likewise with some of Clash's games. So here you are no longer playing a single role. still an RPG though.

So like I say you have numerous different takes on the balance between these different elements call then GNS or call them immersion, story and game I don't care but different games have a different fingerprint. Now I have no problem calling them all roleplaying games although I prefer immersive games with single characters a sprinkle of story mechanics and a games engine that mostly gets out of the way, that doesn't mean I want to exclude your games with complex combat rules like 4e and troupe play or his game with multiple players controling a troupe of PCs with no direct player to PC mapping and lots of narative.
the lines different people draw are different but that is taste and not really a precise definition

Quote from: jibbajibba;621297Yeah but my point is Hero points were used in james bond to make narative alterations.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying you've got the wrong guy.

Your point about James Bond is pertinent to what someone else was saying, not me. Doctor Jest, I think, though I could be mistaken.

Sorry, not trying to argue. Just pointing out that you should be addressing your comments to other people.

Wow, complete disconnect to Cook's point quoted in the OP re: internet boards killing 'the hobby' ('to the point where only the a-holes remain').

He doesn't seem to have realized that being on RPG fora (contributing or lurking) and playing RPGs are two entirely different hobbies, and that mutual repercussions are A) evasive and B) not material, possibly C) non-existent. Sorry if claiming we're dealing with different hobbies borders on banailty (I'd agree it certainly does), but the immediate implications of that make Cook's grandiose future diagnosis risible.

I've never contributed or even read about the Forge, except maybe on Gleichman's blog (in that history entry of his), but it seems to me the prime exhibit to drive home how discussions on RPGs, especially at their most ideological, have not contributed widely to the state of the hobby, i.e. to which games get played or how much (of) RPGs get played; and how these discussions are anyway off most gamers' radar. I'd grant Cook one exception to this claim, which is that Open Playtests try to blend the two, but neither of these abounds in the characteristics Cook finds so pronounced (E.g. witness Joshua Frost kicking off harsh voices from TheGamingDen from the Paizo playtest threads to precisely prevent this from happening).

Like other posters I also get the sense that Cook has not been following this closely, or he'd have a different sense. My own, which is WAY more recent and thus uninformed than most others' here, is that internet discussion of RPGs has become a lot more tame (if also less interesting, with far less innovative points) in the past two years. The trenches are pretty much set, and most people don't even care about them anymore, except for a couple of guys (on here and elsewhere) who can still be bothered to re-draw battlelines at the flimsiest excuse of an 'opportunity' to do so.

Further, there are TONS of RPG-relevant material available online, freely, which DOES contribute to the playing of RPGs to those who can be bothered to google for them (and to all appearances, Cook ran a website of such a nature, if briefly and if also view-by-pay, Dungeon-a-Day). Any system you play, you'll find GMs who've put out custom material out there for free. Unsurprisingly, it's not to be found on discussion boards, which I would agree is a lot about scoring points in the aforementioned game over right ideology.

In summary, RPG fora are not the hobby, and they are not even the entirety (or most relevant thing) to RPG's internet presence.

Quote from: 1989;621021I like the part where he said that 3e basically made people play with miniatures, and 3.5/4e taking that and making it moreso.

3e killed RPGs.

2e was the last great D&D.

I agree with the effect stated, but.....

I don't blame the rules or the miniatures. I blame dm's and players.

I had lead minis back when I first played 1E dnd 30+ years ago. I drew maps to keep track of stuff.

Sure, 3X had more rules directly friendly to grids and minis, but it does not force anyone to use them.

I have run 4E with no maps and minis, and people think 4E requires a grid even more than peple think 3X does.

I am comfortable with or without minis and maps; I just don't get why anyone feels compelled to use them.

As I've stated I really like minis but try to keep them abstracted...I don't count squares, I use common sense.  No "Oh sorry you're five feet too far back to do anything this round, you'll have to spend the entire round running up then get attacked then next round you can do something" or anything like that.

It's not Chainmail, it's D&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621297Yeah but my point is Hero points were used in james bond to make narrative alterations.

No, they are not used to make "narrative alterations", because the game isn't construed as a narrative to begin with. Hero Points in 007 are first and foremost used to change degrees of successes to emulate the occasional impossible feats Bond himself seems capable of at times. This is the basic use, which doesn't require GM approval.

With GM approval, however, you have a secondary use which is to basically modify the world so that your character, like Bond, finds just the right stuff to perform a feat at the right time. This IS a metagame mechanic modifying the world outside of the character, and as such it could be problematic for some people trying to immerse in the game, though the goal of the mechanic itself is not narrative, it is genre emulation, allowing you to act like Bond does, which might ease immersion for other people.

So Hero Points in James Bond are basically not problematic in their straightforward usage. It's when you use them to modify the environment so that the situation lines up "just so" to get you out of problematic situations or perform Bondesque feats of heroism that they become a clear metagame mechanic. At no point is there aim to "modify the narrative", because the game isn't about building a narrative in the first place. It's about genre emulation. It's about being Bond.

Quote from: Bill;621314I am comfortable with or without minis and maps; I just don't get why anyone feels compelled to use them.

I have a list of requirements for anyone I'd invite to my games, or for any games that I'd consider going to. One of these is if the person uses maps or minis to resolve combat.

A "no" answer, or your "sometimes" tells me that we're effectively in a different hobby. As a result I won't game with the person.

To be honest, the use of a map and mini are so universal in my experience that this red line has never been triggered. The only reason I've even thought of asking the question is because of people online.

The most common ones I have to reject are D&D players who actually think the game is realistic (not just no, hell no), WoD players (or others who want to play evil or amoral characters), and Lite System fans.

Quote from: Benoist;621333It's about genre emulation. It's about being Bond.

Hero Points used as genre emulation means only one thing- the core rules were badly designed and are unable to emulate the genre themselves. Thus they are a patch for poor designer, used by bad players who can't tell the difference.

I should also note at this time, that IMO the only thing about a genre that Hero Points mirror are without exception the *bad* and stupid things about the genre. Those I can do without.

Quote from: Benoist;621333No, they are not used to make "narrative alterations", because the game isn't construed as a narrative to begin with. Hero Points in 007 are first and foremost used to change degrees of successes to emulate the occasional impossible feats Bond himself seems capable of at times. This is the basic use, which doesn't require GM approval.

With GM approval, however, you have a secondary use which is to basically modify the world so that your character, like Bond, finds just the right stuff to perform a feat at the right time. This IS a metagame mechanic modifying the world outside of the character, and as such it could be problematic for some people trying to immerse in the game, though the goal of the mechanic itself is not narrative, it is genre emulation, allowing you to act like Bond does, which might ease immersion for other people.

So Hero Points in James Bond are basically not problematic in their straightforward usage. It's when you use them to modify the environment so that the situation lines up "just so" to get you out of problematic situations or perform Bondesque feats of heroism that they become a clear metagame mechanic. At no point is there aim to "modify the narrative", because the game isn't about building a narrative in the first place. It's about genre emulation. It's about being Bond.

But you are focusing on the minutia of the argument rather than the main point.
There are games where 'hero point' like mechanics can have narative like effects. It doesn't matter if you call them meta-game (which I actually prefer to use for gamey stuff like having understand what feat 'A' does but no matter) or narative. the game doesn't have to be narativist for a rule to be a 'story' rule. The intent of the rule doesn't matter its the implementation that matters.
The point is that all games sit on a matrix of these elements. What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?

Quote from: jibbajibba;621350What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?

It determines who I should or should not game with. What rules I should or should not consider buying. And who's advice I should or should not pay addition to.

Quote from: gleichman;621346Hero Points used as genre emulation means only one thing- the core rules were badly designed and are unable to emulate the genre themselves. Thus they are a patch for poor designer, used by bad players who can't tell the difference.

I should also note at this time, that IMO the only thing about a genre that Hero Points mirror are without exception the *bad* and stupid things about the genre. Those I can do without.

Disagree with this.
Hero points , bennies etc etc are a fine mechanic that have exactly the specified intent. They enable a 'hero' to sit inside a realistic physics driven game engine and on occassion step out of that engine to do heroic 'unrealistic' things. Because they are exception driven they don't subvert the entire rules engine or require aditiona PC centric mechanics.
They also enable players to make narative changes that further the emulation of the specific genre by simulating the 'luck' or 'coincidence' prevelant in these genres. Now you might call that luck or coincidence bad writing but its present in the genres for sure.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621350But you are focusing on the minutia of the argument rather than the main point.

No. Enough with the evasion. Enough with the mixing up everything trying to wiggle your way out of you being fucking wrong. I addressed your main point, which is why I quoted EXACTLY and JUST what you said was your ACTUAL point, that hero points "were used in james bond to make narrative alterations." So shut the fuck up and listen: these mechanics are NOT making "narrative alterations" because there's no narrative to modify. 007 is not a narrative game.

It's a role playing game, and the goal of the mechanic is genre emulation. Period.

Got it? Stop evading the subject.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621350What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?

If I wanted to, I could play WFRP1 without Fate points or James Bond without Hero points, or Savage World without Bennies or Fate without Aspects.  The core mechanics of task resolution can be completely non-metagame.

I cannot do that with, for example, Technoir or Dungeon World.  The core mechanics are designed in such a way that I must engage the OOC systems.  Remember, "System Matters" for these designers, their systems are specifically designed to deliver a metagame experience for the purposes of narrative control.

When the core mechanics of resolution force an OOC point of view, it's very hard to classify it in the same category as a game that allows the core mechanics to be engaged from an IC point of view.

Why do you need to classify it?  Because for 30 years when I buy an RPG I can assume I get a game that allows me to roleplay IC.  A new type of game that requires me to be OOC for reasons other then roleplaying should at least be marketed as a different form of RPG.

Quote from: gleichman;621351It determines who I should or should not game with. What rules I should or should not consider buying. And who's advice I should or should not pay addition to.

But because those lines are at best formulaic at at worst arbitary they really don't tell us exactly what a game is like. A review of the game itself is far better.
Though I do see some merit to fingerprinting games.I just feel that focusing on one aspect of a game and eliminating other aspects so that it fits into a nicely labelled pigeonhole is counter productive to creating or indeed playing good games.