Quote from: jibbajibba;623319See what you have there is a reasonable analogy except we exist in a place where 90% of stuff is a shade of orange

The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it?  If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?

Quote from: Phillip;623323There are not just two kinds of gamers, nor was there a Golden Age inhabited by but one kind.

Whew! It's a good thing no one is saying that huh?  I do remember saying however, that older, original RPGs allowed many different types of playstyles at the same table all at once, something that a newer game constructed under the Forge concept of Coherence, like Dungeon World, does not.

Quote from: jibbajibba;623317I expect its more because 3 million kids write Harry Potter Fanfic than because someone with a pHD in bat penises once pointed out that RPG kids were all brain damaged.

I don't know that Jay Little, the guy who wrote WFRP3 was especially enamored of Harry Potter fanfic.  I do know as a game designer, he was public in his support for Edwards and the Forge, so I guess I'd have to say in that case Ron had a little more impact then online fiction.

Quote from: jhkim;623274Calling yourself "the next evolution in RPGs" or "cutting edge" isn't stealth marketing, it's just plain marketing.  

It's normal for new product marketing to claim to be the Next Big Thing, better than the existing stuff.  That's just the nature of advertising, and doesn't indicate a sinister plan to destroy everything else.

What about what they call themselves here?

Quote from: Dungeon World.comDungeon World is a tabletop roleplaying game. It’s a set of rules that you use, along with your friends, to play out fantasy adventures. You’ll take on the roles of dwarves, elves, and humans in a world of magic. You’ll face dangerous enemies, sweeping plots, and treacherous locations. Are you ready?

BTW, you strike me as a scholar, John, what is your translation of in tenebras arcem? Or anyone else who knows Latin.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623325The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it?  If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?

Sure but you can do that in Dogs in the Vineyard, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic Role Playing and Sorceror right?.....

I am not saying there are no story games (shall we call them red to stretch the analogy to breaking point) merely that the majority of games sit on the spectrum.

QuoteI don't know that Jay Little, the guy who wrote WFRP3 was especially enamored of Harry Potter fanfic.  I do know as a game designer, he was public in his support for Edwards and the Forge, so I guess I'd have to say in that case Ron had a little more impact then online fiction.

I thought WFRP3 was more gamist than narrative (no direct experience sorry) being basically a bog standard RPG but with a few gimicks partly to make it harder to pirate and enable them to sell more bits.

Certainly though from a marketing perspective if there were 3 million kids that loved harry potter and writing fan fic about child wizards that to me would seem like a great target market for an RPG and from a comerical perspective a game with some narative control might well appeal right? Like I said though the vast majority of designers just put out stuff they want to play aor beleive in. It might be different in the handful of truly commercial game companies though. If Jay Little was an Edwards fan then you are right chances are that was an infuence on his work.

I happen to enjoy a lot of things called "old school", just as I enjoyed them in the 1970s.

What I don't enjoy is what used to be called, in Alarums & Excursions, "One True Wayism".

The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.

There was a lot of different FRPing going on back in the day, and there's a lot of different FRPing going on today. To expect everyone to be defined in terms of a conflict internal to the D&D community is overweening.

Philip's fucking right.

I hereby appoint myself as the guardian of old school.

Now, I'll need loyalty oaths from all of you, espeically guys like Philip and TDD, whom I deem premature old schoolers, and whose motives, I think we can all agree, are probably icky.

Quote from: Phillip;623333I happen to enjoy a lot of things called "old school", just as I enjoyed them in the 1970s.

What I don't enjoy is what used to be called, in Alarums & Excursions, "One True Wayism".

The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.

There was a lot of different FRPing going on back in the day, and there's a lot of different FRPing going on today. To expect everyone to be defined in terms of a conflict internal to the D&D community is overweening.

+ 1000

Quote from: jibbajibba;623330Sure but you can do that in Dogs in the Vineyard, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic Role Playing and Sorceror right?.....

Actually, no.  Not most of the time. DitV, DW, and MHR (been forever since I read Sorceror) all have core mechanics that frequently require an OOC POV to make decisions - decisions a character cannot possibly make.  To answer the inevitable follow-up of "which ones", just search this site where I go over the Volley move in DW.  I haven't decided yet if I'm going to do a move-by-move analysis of DW.  I may very well though, because I'm damn certain a lot of it's defenders here have, unlike me, never even glanced at the damn thing.

As far as the gamist view of WFRP3 goes, yeah to an extent, however, there's a whole narrative framework everything else is based around.  If you do have it, see if you can tell me how a Priestess of Shallya by the rules heals when not in combat.  You can search up the answer here, been over that one before.

As to the D&D line, I think problems came to a head partly as a consequence of pursuing too narrow a vision for the brand -- perhaps similar to the design mode advocated by Forge types.

Mike Mearls offered what sound to me like good proposals in his "D&D Next Goals, Part One" article:

QuoteTo start with, here are our two guiding principles. These ideas guide everything we do.

   1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
    2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.

D&D's publication started out as a pretty simple framework mainly adapted to the needs of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns, but -- because of its simplicity -- easily 'hacked' to suit others. Supplements and magazine articles offered a considerable range of variations (as did spin-off games from TSR and others).

With AD&D, the compilation of a selection of this material -- originally drawn from disparate campaigns -- came to define a new 'standard' game in the minds of many players. Nonetheless, supplementary elaborations continued to appear ("official" ones in greater volume in the Second Edition era).

The WotC editions brought tighter game-mechanical integration among sub-systems, which (along with a greater emphasis on a particular kind of designed game balance) discouraged decoupling "standard" rules into "optional" components.

If there really is a return to a simple core, with the expectation and intent that different campaigns should use/add/drop/change material to suit the tastes of the participants, then it should be possible again to accommodate a variety of game styles.

By keeping elaborations 'modular', people can choose different approaches to various subjects.

Quote from: Phillip;623324We all can judge for ourselves; Mr. Magoo is of course free to trust his own eyes.

So no links then to back your generalities then?

Quote from: Phillip;623324So, suit yourself. If you get a kick out of being the gaming equivalent of Archie Bunker, so be it.

when you make this statement you are going off of what list of RPGs I have run or played?

Quote from: Phillip;623333The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.

Show a link where a provincial TSRians as appointed themselves as your guardian?

I will even help you
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/

Except wait! It is a community set up specifically to talk about AD&D and OD&D. I guess this makes the chess forums guilty of one true wayism as well.

It not the days of Dragon magazine or even early Alarums & Excursions where publishing was a major amount of work. In case you don't get it the Internet is about communication not just of general interest but that of specific interests as well.

Criticizing the existence and advocacy of narrow interests as "One true wayism" is well silly. It the point of the the group in the first place! You might as well criticize the chess game for ignoring the existence of Go.

And lets say you are right in all respects? What are the consequences?

Your posts read like you are getting pissy because a new generation are having moderate success publishing, promoting, and playing older editions of D&D.

There was a time in the days of mass media where fighting one true wayism was a good and nessecary thing. But those days are long gone for the things we are talking about. It simply doesn't matter what you say. The only thing that matters is what you do. This means writing useful material for other people to use or organizing games for people to play.

The OSR is what it is because of the collective action of those who do.

I think it's basically easier to complicate a simple game than to simplify a complex one.

Quote from: Phillip;623345If there really is a return to a simple core, with the expectation and intent that different campaigns should use/add/drop/change material to suit the tastes of the participants, then it should be possible again to accommodate a variety of game styles.

By keeping elaborations 'modular', people can choose different approaches to various subjects.

It already happened. Take your pick from a dozen D&D clones and their supplements. From reading actual play accounts on blogs and Google Plus most games seem to be mish mash of whatever D&D variant the referee liked.

Wizards is in a difficult position now in trying to regain leadership of D&D. The all options D&D base has been taken over by Pathfinder. The classic D&D base has dozens of options and now with the PDFs and reprints has the original rules to play with.  The things Wizards has going for them is their presence in the brick and mortar world, ownership of all editions of D&D and control of the D&D trademark.

I do hope they do well as a healthy flagship D&D is a good thing for the industry and hobby. But they have a very difficult. I think at this point what going to matter is that the next edition look like D&D and not be a break like 4e was. Then they can start rebuilding the network and get people to buy new tabletop products from Wizards.

Quote from: Phillip;623333I happen to enjoy a lot of things called "old school", just as I enjoyed them in the 1970s.

What I don't enjoy is what used to be called, in Alarums & Excursions, "One True Wayism".

The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.

There was a lot of different FRPing going on back in the day, and there's a lot of different FRPing going on today. To expect everyone to be defined in terms of a conflict internal to the D&D community is overweening.

I call bullshit.  There is nothing whatsoever stopping you from creating a thread/blog talking about how Runequest or whatever game was played back in the day.  Anybody who is interested in the discussion can damn well join you.

Quote from: estar;623346when you make this statement you are going off of what list of RPGs I have run or played?

No; I don't see how that should impede your freedom to suit yourself.

QuoteI will even help you
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/

Except wait! It is a community set up specifically to talk about AD&D and OD&D. I guess this makes the chess forums guilty of one true wayism as well.

The Alehouse, in my experience, has shown relatively little interest in the kind of The Old Schooltm posturing that bugs me. "specifically...about AD&D and OD&D" is the key!

People there like what they like, and for some that includes T&T, Traveller, and/or RuneQuest (and other Chaosium games), Avalon Hill or SPI wargames, the rock groups Jethro Tull and Rush, etc..

QuoteCriticizing the existence and advocacy of narrow interests as "One true wayism" is well silly.

Indeed, and that is not what I am doing.

QuoteYou might as well criticize the chess game for ignoring the existence of Go.

No; I might as well criticize Chess players for complaining that Go is a "Contract Bridge school game" -- were they addle-headed enough so to imitate the posturing of RPG ideologues.

QuoteYour posts read like you are getting pissy because a new generation are having moderate success publishing, promoting, and playing older editions of D&D.

Where did you learn to read? That is most certainly nothing I wrote!

Quote from: CRKrueger;623328What about what they call themselves here?

From Dungeon World.com

Dungeon World is a tabletop roleplaying game. It's a set of rules that you use, along with your friends, to play out fantasy adventures. You'll take on the roles of dwarves, elves, and humans in a world of magic. You'll face dangerous enemies, sweeping plots, and treacherous locations. Are you ready?

Right.  I don't own Dungeon World, but I've played two one-shots games of it, and this description sounds accurate.  I played an elf cleric and a thief of some race.  

I would note that it sounds pitched at a newbie audience, which I think is fine and indeed approve of.  It doesn't use terms like "d20" or "GM" or "NPC", but rather reads like text for, say, a 11-year-old or parent who maybe knows the genre from computer games and comics, and is interested in trying it.  

By contrast, take the first few lines from the Labyrinth Lord page - The Labyrinth Lord fantasy role-playing game allows you to experience the game play of the retro-editions of the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game! The Labyrinth Lord core rules emulate the rules and game play experience of the 1981 edition of the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game.  The 1981 version reorganized and clarified the rules from the very first version of the game released in 1974, so it is the best version to pick up and play with little prep time.

Nonetheless, a few character options changed from those two editions of the game, and for people who want the "original edition" game experience, we have Original Edition Characters, so you can play the original character options under the clearer Labyrinth Lord rules set.

This version is much more accurate and descriptive of exactly what the mechanics are if you are in the know, but it is complete gobbledygook to anyone who isn't an experienced RPG player.  

I don't have a problem with the Labyrinth Lord marketing, and it is indeed accurate and informative to me - but I like the Dungeon World marketing better, and I'd like it if more games pitched themselves that way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623328BTW, you strike me as a scholar, John, what is your translation of in tenebras arcem? Or anyone else who knows Latin.

I studied Latin in high school but not since.  I wouldn't have known "arcem", but the Internet tells me it means "castle" or "stronghold".  So that's "into the dark castle".

Quote from: CRKrueger;623337Actually, no.  Not most of the time. DitV, DW, and MHR (been forever since I read Sorceror) all have core mechanics that frequently require an OOC POV to make decisions - decisions a character cannot possibly make.  To answer the inevitable follow-up of "which ones", just search this site where I go over the Volley move in DW.  I haven't decided yet if I'm going to do a move-by-move analysis of DW.  I may very well though, because I'm damn certain a lot of it's defenders here have, unlike me, never even glanced at the damn thing.

But you didn't say always puts you in the point of view of a protagonist you said ..

The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it? If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?

And all of those games do allow you to roleplay from an IC pov for the majority of the time you are playing the game. Sure there are mechanics that break immersion or certainly make you step out of character but even D&D does that just less of the time or to do something gamist rather than something narativist.

So they are probably orange right?