Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;625028Answering your question with a question (not that it was directed to me, anyway) - what do you think distinguishes Pathfinder play from 4th Edition D&D play? Why have a majority of groups (by your estimation above) chosen PF over 4E, and would any of those factors also contribute to a rejection of Dungeon World?

There are innumerable differences that distinguish Pathfinder play from 4e play.  I've only played each a handful of times, though, and I'm not connected into larger patterns of play - so I'm not prepared to say why most people do so.  It's quite possible that the dissociated nature of non-magical powers in 4e is important, but I couldn't say for sure.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;625045Now I won't disagree with you that a lot of people play 3e more like a boardgame or wargame.  However I think you're overlooking the very minute detail that the game is not forcing you to play it like a wargame, that is your choice, and YES having a choice and not having one kind of matters.

To answer BSJ's question, that is the difference between 3.x and 4e right there.

OK, I don't see anything I disagree about this.  This is obviously a difference that matters to a lot of players.  I agree completely about that.  Just because there is a difference, though, doesn't necessarily mean that either:

a) 4e is objectively bad, and the people who like it are mistaken or perhaps brain-damaged.  

or

b) 4e is not a role-playing game.  


I don't personally like 4e based on the few games I've played of it, but that doesn't mean that it is an insidious evil to be destroyed and it's fans attacked in an ideological war.

Quote from: jhkim;625159There are innumerable differences that distinguish Pathfinder play from 4e play.  I've only played each a handful of times, though, and I'm not connected into larger patterns of play - so I'm not prepared to say why most people do so.  It's quite possible that the dissociated nature of non-magical powers in 4e is important, but I couldn't say for sure.  

Fair enough.

QuoteOK, I don't see anything I disagree about this.  This is obviously a difference that matters to a lot of players.  I agree completely about that.  Just because there is a difference, though, doesn't necessarily mean that either:

a) 4e is objectively bad, and the people who like it are mistaken or perhaps brain-damaged.  

or

b) 4e is not a role-playing game.  


I don't personally like 4e based on the few games I've played of it, but that doesn't mean that it is an insidious evil to be destroyed and it's fans attacked in an ideological war.

This post gets touchie-feelier that I really want to go, but saying your game sucks and saying you suck aren't the same. I have friends IRL who play 4E (I remain hopeful that re-education is possible); one of them is quite irked that I like Rifts and nonetheless have the gall to rip on 4E. I can see how it could hurtful, but 'that game you like isn't an RPG in my opinion' isn't really an attack on you its an attack on your game.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;625326Fair enough.



This post gets touchie-feelier that I really want to go, but saying your game sucks and saying you suck aren't the same. I have friends IRL who play 4E (I remain hopeful that re-education is possible); one of them is quite irked that I like Rifts and nonetheless have the gall to rip on 4E. I can see how it could hurtful, but 'that game you like isn't an RPG in my opinion' isn't really an attack on you its an attack on your game.

You should just play what you like and not worry about it. I mean, if you are a guy who just thinks hats look good on men, and your pals refuse to wear hats, is it something you'll mention a lot and post about for years on end? No, of course not.  At some point, it IS about attacking the person, because not liking a game just isn't a good justification for going on about it for years.

As much as I don't like 4E I still think its an rpg. It definitely has some board game elements and I do believe they were drawing on wow for a lot of their ideas, but it still is firmly rooted in the hobby as far as I am concerned (though I share CRK's irritation with some of its out of character mechanics----currently involved in a flamewar about come and get it actually!).

Quote from: jhkim;625159b) 4e is not a role-playing game.

Pretty sure I'm on record about 50 times on this site saying 4e is a Tactical RPG.

Quote from: jhkim;625159I don't personally like 4e based on the few games I've played of it, but that doesn't mean that it is an insidious evil to be destroyed and it's fans attacked in an ideological war.

Well, like the narrativists, the 4vengers really started that ideological war, and got plenty of help from WotC themselves.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625364Pretty sure I'm on record about 50 times on this site saying 4e is a Tactical RPG.


Well, like the narrativists, the 4vengers really started that ideological war, and got plenty of help from WotC themselves.

I agree 4e is designed as a tactical wargame. Looks like it to me anyway.

However, I ran a campaign with 4e for two years, and it was definately an rpg.

Quote from: Warthur;623183Hey, Anon Adderlan: I went back and reread the Brain Damage thread at the Forge, the one where John Wick and others tackled Ron about it.

You are correct that not everyone at the Forge went along with Ron.

You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him. Many enthusiastically defended the concept (though admittedly a lot of that defence involved pretending Ron didn't quite say what he actually said). In fact, it's ironic that you brought up John Wick in the discussion because in John's last post on that thread, he specifically takes time out to bemoan the fact that the Forge had become so "cultish" - his word, not mine - that a sizable chunk of the user base would actually defend Ron on this point.

Yeah, its total revisionist history to suggest that the majority of the Forge didn't get onto the Brain Damage bandwagon.  Wick's comment was dead on, and he was unusual BECAUSE he openly condemned Edwards' statement.  Anyone who was actually there (and isn't intentionally lying) would remember how Forge Swine were figuratively stumbling over themselves in the rush to agree with Edwards and thank him profusely for explaining to them how they're like fucked-up child-abuse-victims.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mistwell;623203RPGPundit already declared his victory over Storygames.  Why are you people talking about something already dead?

I declared victory over the Forge, which has indeed ceased to be.  Storygames continue to be made, of course, however reduced their mainstream influence might be in the advent of 4e's disastrous collapse and the OSR's rise.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurYou are correct that not everyone at the Forge went along with Ron.

You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him. Many enthusiastically defended the concept (though admittedly a lot of that defence involved pretending Ron didn't quite say what he actually said). In fact, it's ironic that you brought up John Wick in the discussion because in John's last post on that thread, he specifically takes time out to bemoan the fact that the Forge had become so "cultish" - his word, not mine - that a sizable chunk of the user base would actually defend Ron on this point.

Quote from: RPGPundit;625577Yeah, its total revisionist history to suggest that the majority of the Forge didn't get onto the Brain Damage bandwagon.  Wick's comment was dead on, and he was unusual BECAUSE he openly condemned Edwards' statement.  Anyone who was actually there (and isn't intentionally lying) would remember how Forge Swine were figuratively stumbling over themselves in the rush to agree with Edwards and thank him profusely for explaining to them how they're like fucked-up child-abuse-victims.

I note that the shift from Warthur's "many people defended Ron (often by denying what he said)" to Pundit's "the majority enthusiastically agreed with him".  I was going to try to dispute the "majority" part - but really I don't know.  

In any case, looking back over those threads, it's pointless.  There were indeed many people who stepped up to defend him, and that was just plain stupid regardless of whether they were the majority or not.  I'm not going to defend that.  

I do think that things have improved within the story games community since 2006.  This is actually quite visible in the Story Games thread on the subject - which was resurrected in 2012.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625364Well, like the narrativists, the 4vengers really started that ideological war, and got plenty of help from WotC themselves.

I'm prepared to grant this.  I've certainly had plenty of criticism for narrativists.  

However, "he started it" isn't a good excuse for bad behavior, even on the playground.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625364Pretty sure I'm on record about 50 times on this site saying 4e is a Tactical RPG.

You know, I'd disagree with that.

A tactical RPG IMO should have some simulation value- and no version of D&D does. I' think a better label would be Boardgame RPG.

But whatever one calls it, it's only that when the rules are actually in use. One must be careful to not carry the description of the combat rules over into the rest of the campaign where they do not apply.

Quote from: Mistwell;623508I might believe that.  Or I might just love tweaking Pundit.  I might even like hearing him scream from all the way down there in South America, trying to shove his fist through the screen to choke me out.

I really don't freak out that much when someone's obviously trolling.

RPGPundit

You know, this has been a lot less mean spirited than I thought it would be. It's no longer about Monte Cook's version of Wil Wheaton's law, but hell, I've been inspired, and will try and take it to heart.

Quote from: jedimastert;623156"All that is the foundation for my point: that the routine human capacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "storytelling role-playing" as promulgated through many role-playing games of a specific type. This type is only one game in terms of procedures, but it's represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years, peaking about ten years ago. Think of it as a "way" to role-play rather than any single title."

-Ron Edwards

I especially like this one because it's essentially Ron Edwards complaining about RPGs which claim to be Storygames

As for that citation...

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI do not, and have never, advocated any One True Way of role-playing.

Levi, I have no idea where you have acquired this judgment of my writings and postings. I am the person who did not originate, but has introduced and supported the entire idea of valid different ways to play to the role-playing community.

That's what Creative Agenda is about. That's what the Big Model is about. That's what Forge-supported design is about - writing your game, publishing it, and if you'd like, profiting from it. Not someone else's.

One more time: associating me with the concept of "One True Way" is in error. One more time: my track record in this regard exceeds anyone's currently active in role-playing.

Oh, and how is Sorcerer a Storygame again?

Quote from: Warthur;623183You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him.

I didn't say they all did, I said they pretty much all did.

I confess, I was using hyperbolic language to try and fit in here. It was a dirty trick and I shouldn't have done it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623214Nah, doesn't happen, Brendan.  Not on Enworld, not on awful purple, not on Storygames.  People don't still use it, people don't aggressively push narrative terms and thought trying to expand them into roleplaying.  Haven't you heard?  It Does.Not.Happen.  We've been told.

Well, here's the number of Google results for the search term "GNS"...

17,000 (indie-rpgs.com)
16,700 (rpg.net)
3,680 (therpgsite.com)
2,550 (story-games.com)
1,530 (enworld.org)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623233Apocalypse World is a wargame.

"Address yourself to the characters, not the players."

Yeah, sounds like a wargame to me

Quote from: jibbajibba;623423I like positive statement of intent. So " I pick a wine bottle off the table and use it like a club" or "I grab a little kid out of the crowd to use as a meat shield". Now I never thought that was narativist until Pundit pulled me up on it once on the forum and told me that is was because I was editing the game world and at his table I would have to say "is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a club?" etc .... for me that is less immersive rather than more but it might be a little pedantic to pull it up here.

Quote from: Warthur;623427Personally I'd say it wouldn't be narrative if it were something you could legitimately expect to find in the location in question without too much trouble. If you're in a restaurant which serves wine and it's the right time of the evening you can grab a wine bottle without that much effort at all; if you're in a crowd at a funfair there's going to be small children around. As a GM, I'd say that if I've told you that your character is in a bar, then you don't need to ask me whether there's glassware to hand because dude, it's a bar, you're not inventing new details because the details in question are implicit in the situation I've already described.

Oh no, not again.

Quote from: TristramEvans;623575I don't believe in hybrids. Its either a game that allows you to play in-character or not. All other distinctions are meaningless.

Sorry to hear that, as they're all 'hybrids'.

Quote from: TristramEvans;623582"Simming"? Where are you getting that word from? That term is way to close to Simulationism, which is pretty much the opposite of storygaming.

Quote from: TristramEvans;623584I don't think thats a good term to transpose to referring to our hobby though, because of the aforementioned confusion with Simulationism, which is already a mess.

So we shouldn't discuss 'simming' here because its moniker is too close to a word we already have? The hell... Seriously, think about what you just said here.

Quote from: soviet;623664I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against.

Well, for me it isn't, and I'm willing to sacrifice a little immersion for some communication and coherency.

Quote from: Phillip;623725If we were "pure role-players" . . . we'd be LARPers or something, I guess.

The thing people seem to overlook is that LARPs require every player to essentially run the system in their head. There are no GMs, and calling out damage or spending points from a skill pool is very much immersion breaking.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623841I don't think classifying these as two different hobbies is all that helpful

I agree. Look at board games and LARPs. The only thing that unifies board games is that they're played on a table, and the only thing that unifies LARPs is that they're played through live action. Beyond that, the spectrum of differences within each category are much broader than in Tabletop RPGs.

Yet they do alright, though I will admit that board game players seem to be willing to play a greater variety of games in their category than LARPers.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624344[Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]
Volley
When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex.
✴On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage.
✴On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
•  You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
•  You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
•  You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one
[/Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]

Quote from: CRKrueger;624355Real Archer, presented with decision affecting difficulty, chooses the difficulty before the shot, and it may not take one action to resolve, but several.

DW Archer, shoots, then is presented with a decision determining how he retroactively is going to surpass the difficulty, somehow able to get more movement or more attacks out of a span of time if necessary.

I find it helpful to think of DW as essentially being a diceless game, where dice rolls determine opportunity as opposed to success or taking action (so your intent is to shoot, and the result is what you must do to make it happen). Also all AW based games have a little loss of character control inherent in them (for example I don't get to choose what turns my Monsterheart character on), but I find that only enhances my immersion and allows the character to surprise me.

Regardless, I do understand where you're coming from.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625685Sorry to hear that, as they're all 'hybrids'.

And as such, the distinction has no practical value.

QuoteSo we shouldn't discuss 'simming' here because its moniker is too close to a word we already have? The hell... Seriously, think about what you just said here.

I have. Game theory has gone to shit since the emergence of online gaming culture as we have a morass of terms that are of absolutely no use in a conversation because they are now tied to a bunch of partisan emotional baggage. To port in a word from another hobby that is basically a capsulized form of a word already used in GNS theory that is widely misunderstood by most people who use it doesn't help clarity or establishing communication, which was originally the point.

Quote from: RPGPundit;625644I really don't freak out that much when someone's obviously trolling.

RPGPundit

You sir, are no fun.