Quote from: jibbajibba;621375DUDE... you are the one telling me I am havign badwrongfun.

Who's saying that? You played James Bond like a narrative game for 5 years and had a blast. AWESOME. Fantastic. It's great, and you should totally do that again if it's fun for you!

That does NOT change the fact that James Bond 007 is NOT a narrative game, that it doesn't construe the process of playing as "building a narrative", that the use of Hero Points to modify the environment is therefore NOT "an alteration of the narrative", and that its primary goal is genre emulation, immersion, the creation of a verisimilar world that is close to James Bond's.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621374again i disagree.
If the Hero has a separate rule subsystem the game becomes overly burdened and complex.

I didn't call for a separate rule subsystem for the Hero (although I should point out that's basically what Hero Points are in addition to their meta-game and narrative control qualities).

I called for a system able to model the Hero as part of its core mechanics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621372If your actual intention was to market to people who liked the type of game you were selling, you would welcome classification and labeling to make sure people who were looking for your product could find it.  Just like most products sold on the planet.

If however, your agenda is actually replacing the primary paradigm using a label with your paradigm because you think the primary paradigm is inferior and actually harmful, then you wouldn't want such classification, you would fight it as long and hard as possible.

Replacing the primary "simulationist" paradigm in RPGs with the "narrativist" paradigm was Edward's purpose in the Forge remember.

Now JKim can come on and tell me designer by designer who was a big supporter of Ron and who was not and that's fine, but whether you argued with Ron on the Forge or not, I don't see many narrative games attempting to market their products specifically to people that like them except through specific Forge lingo (like I pointed out with Technoir) that to non-Forgists could just as easily describe a traditional RPG if you don't know what to look for.

If it looks like a memetic war, acts like a memetic war, and had its start on a site defining a memetic war, is it a memetic war?

For some reason, only the people that don't mind narrative mechanics at all are the ones saying "No". Why is that?

but no one is forcing you to buy Technoir any more than they are forcing you to buy MHR or Runquest 6e or D&D Next. You can tell from reading a game review or mooching through the rule book in a shop or an online pdf whether you like it or not.

Quote from: gleichman;621379I didn't call for a separate rule subsystem for the Hero (although I should point out that's basically what Hero Points are in addition to their meta-game and narrative control qualities).

I called for a system able to model the Hero as part of its core mechanics.

I wil yeild some of the hero point being a separate mechanic although its so rules lite that it bearly adds to the complexity, and also in may games they apply to all 'heroic' charaters not just PCs.

The trouble with these genres as i said is that hero is not consistently lucky or tough or strong. Most of the time Indianna Jones is an archeology professor, he can be caught and tied up by a coupel of goons butat teh most dramatic moment he can jump out of an aeroplane with only a inflatable dingy and survive.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621372Replacing the primary "simulationist" paradigm in RPGs with the "narrativist" paradigm was Edward's purpose in the Forge remember.

I wonder if that was true, I don't think so.

At the time the "simulationist" paradigm had already fallen into disfavor and was basically on the way out as a major influence. The Trend was towards Lite Systems or more heavy and  very game focused  designs coupled with heavy handed GM story advice.

Most of the Simulationists were in fact anything but, as they attempted to re-brand their favorite games as Simulationist. We see that still going on today on this very board with some of the the OSR cult.

There were of course still real "Simulationists" around and they would naturally come into conflict with the Forge. But I doubt such was primary in the mind of the Forge. Rather they wanted to replace the heavy handed GM story advice with mechanical systems that would control and justify heavy handed story control. It was in the end, a simple goal.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621383The trouble with these genres as i said is that hero is not consistently lucky or tough or strong. Most of the time Indianna Jones is an archeology professor, he can be caught and tied up by a coupel of goons butat teh most dramatic moment he can jump out of an aeroplane with only a inflatable dingy and survive.

Two thoughts...

First, maybe that's simply bad writing. I groaned through that scene (the airplane dingy) in the theater and ended up disliking that Indiana Jones movie greatly. I wouldn't want it happening in a game I was running.

Second, again- such things can be handled in the core rules without the addition of Hero Points. It's not difficult.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;621371I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting really tired of this debate. Distinctions are certainly useful things but the militancy on this subject is way beyond my taste.and I really think it is starting to do more harm than good.

Same.

Everyone has been pushed into such ridiculous and extreme positions that Gleichman is starting to fit in.

And that's horrible.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;621371I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting really tired of this debate. Distinctions are certainly useful things but the militancy on this subject is way beyond my taste.and I really think it is starting to do more harm than good.

You could always not read the thread.

But really, a thread about Cook complaining that gamers hate each other not showing militancy? You should have double checked your expectations.

Quote from: Benoist;621377Who's saying that? You played James Bond like a narrative game for 5 years and had a blast. AWESOME. Fantastic. It's great, and you should totally do that again if it's fun for you!

That does NOT change the fact that James Bond 007 is NOT a narrative game, that it doesn't construe the process of playing as "building a narrative", that the use of Hero Points to modify the environment is therefore NOT "an alteration of the narrative", and that its primary goal is genre emulation, immersion, the creation of a verisimilar world that is close to James Bond's.

You still don't get it james bond if not a narativist game , its just a game with some narative modification rules so id Dungeon world just with more of em.
that is my point
You have a personal line after which a game becomes narativist and though you will still play it you won't call it a roleplaying game. Although you still sit round a table with your mates eating cheetos drinking beer and rollign dice to see if the elf shoots the goblin.
You must see that that line is maleable and different people will draw it in different places. So why pigeonhole. "Let a thousand flowers blossom and a thousand schools of thought contend" etc .

anyway got to leave you guys to it as tme for bed.

Quote from: Piestrio;621387Same.

Everyone has been pushed into such ridiculous and extreme positions that Gleichman is starting to fit in.

And that's horrible.

I'm dropping it. There's no conversation possible.

Quote from: Benoist;621390I'm dropping it. There's no conversation possible.

I've never seen it otherwise with you. Perhaps we can dare hope you'd drop posting completely now that you've had this epiphany?

Quote from: gleichman;621392I've never seen it otherwise with you. Perhaps we can dare hope you'd drop posting completely now that you've had this epiphany?

Take your miniatures and shove them up your ass.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621355If 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.

Maybe I have to take a look at Dungeon World. I thought it would be able to use the skill chances in a way similar to the OMNI/Talislanta table (7-9 mixed success, 10+ full success) without ever looking at the "pick 2 results out of 3" stuff. (That, plus the GM gets to roll dice as well.)

And back to the start of the thread:

Quote from: Cook in the interviewThe problem was that 3E was this new, very tactical system that practically begged you to put miniatures on a battlemat. As soon as you do that, for many players, that means "fight." In that way, I think 3E unintentionally changed the expected way the game was played. In many ways, at least for some people, it was the game system itself that railroaded the way adventures went. And then 3.5 and 4.0 embraced that tendency rather than eschewed it, and the modules all intentionally became just fight after fight (interesting fights, to be sure, but still combat was clearly the only focus).

Quote from: One Horse Town;621038It's a bit of a strange thing for him to say considering he was front and centre in designing it.

It's not really that strange.
It's the same that happened with Magic The Gathering.

Garfield envisioned the game as a pick-up game for people who had to wait in qeues at conventions. "Have a pack of cards in your pocket? Duel!"

The synergies between card effects were not tested against the case that a particular card would be more often in a deck. Garfield didn't even think that every card would be known to all players - the element of surprise ("whoa, what does this card do?") was to be a part of the MTG experience.
The game was not meant to be bought in display cases.

But human nature is different. Within days of release lists were compiled and one customer of my store designed his first "theoretical" killer deck (using lots of proxies as Black Lotus was not easy to come by...).
And the casual game became a pro-tournament game.

Quote from: gleichman;621341I 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.

I don't think we are in a different hobby. I enjoy games like advanced squad leader and starfleet battles. I also enjoy playing roleplaying games. I have used maps and minis with rpg's extensively for years. I have also played the same rpgs without maps and minis. Both work for me. If I were to join a game you were running, you would not have any idea I ran rpgs without them unless I mentioned it.