To Soviet.

I am taking this from page 7 of the Other World Rules, under the title "Frame the Conflict":

" Each player describes what this particular conflict means to their character: what are they trying to do, how are they trying to do it, and what will happen if they lose."

The bold part is the type of thing that makes it go from RPG to Story Game.

The players in story games may have limits on what they are allowed to narrate on their turn, but they get to narrate things beyond the scope of their character.

In D&D a player does not get to say what occurs if their character fails at trying to do what they set out to do.

Quote from: Planet Algol;621604For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!

FUCK

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;621605I have no problem with him, so I have no reason to do that.

I personally love arguing with him.

I just assume he's got issues (don't we all?), that make him scream, "You don't play right! Now fuck off, and suck a BAG OF DICKS!"

I just shrug, assume he's from someplace like Boston or Detroit, where it's ok to say something like that to a friend.

We'd never play together, but I doubt he's a bad guy to have a beer with.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621617Agreed these games all sit on that Wargame/Roleplaygame/Storygame axis and the problem comes when someone wants to impose definitive divsions that everyone else has to adhere to.

Part of the core of GNS was proclaiming this: that storygames are RPG's, and there is no difference (except storygames are better).

People have a grudge against storygamers for this, and part of the fanatical demands for definitions come from a basic and understandable desire to definitively establish that Storygames and RPG's are not the exact same thing. (Because they're not.)

Especially since the very person who claimed that RPG's and storygames are the exact same thing, also claimed that:

Storygames are inherently superior to the incoherent creative agenda of brain damaged roleplayers (who can't actually roleplay because no one can) and that no one ever has fun playing roleplaying games and you edit your own memories to be able to claim you did.

Fine, the demand for clear lines may seem a bit fanatical. But it's an entirely understandable reaction to something far more fanatical and arrogant and ugly.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621593Except that wasn't his point, at all. Even a little bit. If it's yours, I'm willing to discuss it calmly. (As you don't seem to be a stone cold fanatic.)

I do think that point was in there, but I've learned to "read Gleichman".  Anyway, that is my point.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621593Anyone can have Resolve, but great people, heroes and villains, have more: they're more determined, more driven than the norm. Proof case: look at the lives of the greatly successful. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, for example. Such people are, almost to a man, far more driven than the general populace. In Infinity terms, they have a higher Resolve.

Oh I have no problem with saying some people have more Resolve then others.  In your game I assume Resolve allows for extra effort?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621593I would suggest Morale is a perfect IC "mook" rule. It isn't that getting shot drops them dead, it's that getting shot takes them out of combat, because they stop trying to fight.

Couple that with Wound penalties (more damage = less effectiveness) and lower skill levels (meaning, after Wounds, they're pretty ineffective even if they did get up to fight), and you have mooks: people who are defeated in one attack. "Crunch all you want, we'll make more" bad guys.

That seems pretty reasonable, to me.

Hmm, well I'm with you with regards to Morale, conscripted untrained peasants (Persian Front Line Fodder) tend to break easily, Elite Professional Soldiers (Spartans) not so much.

I would prefer to see this done through simple stat comparison ie. a peasant has a 10 Str and an Elite Warrior has an 18 str rather then the Elite Warrior has an "Awesome Pool" he can use.  The most ridiculous Mook rules were 4e, with 1hp Ogres, and 7th Sea, where certain npcs were simply classed as Mooks, Extras, whatever because non-antatgonist.  If Bruce Lee can walk into a bar and wipe the floor with 20 guys without any fear of being hurt then that game fails at anything other then being a beer and pretzels game.

Quote from: jedimastert;621619To Soviet.

I am taking this from page 7 of the Other World Rules, under the title "Frame the Conflict":

" Each player describes what this particular conflict means to their character: what are they trying to do, how are they trying to do it, and what will happen if they lose."

The bold part is the type of thing that makes it go from RPG to Story Game.

The players in story games may have limits on what they are allowed to narrate on their turn, but they get to narrate things beyond the scope of their character.

In D&D a player does not get to say what occurs if their character fails at trying to do what they set out to do.

Yeah this is "setting the stakes", a textbook Conflict Resolution mechanic that is one of the clear defining hallmarks of a Storygame.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621626Anyway, that is my point.

Then I'll touch on it. Your point was:

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".

I'm not sure what your proper mechanic is, or how they work. But Resolve (adapted from ICONS) is:

Characters can exert extra effort on a Challenge (Combat, Skill, or Characteristic). If they do so, they spend a point of Resolve and gain a +3 bonus to the check. If they have an applicable Distinction (something they're very good at) the bonus is +5.

You grit your teeth, focus your will, throw yourself into the act, whatever. Then you do better. But you can't do it all the time, so there's a limited amount.

That seems like a reasonable mechanic, and one perfectly IC (in character).

I'm not sure what a proper mechanic is, but that plausibly models reality as well as any abstract mechanic can.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621626I would prefer to see this done through simple stat comparison

Morale in Infinity. No "awesome pool".

But low Morale soldiers are mooks (in effect). The mechanic was written for a completely different reason, but it serves the same end.

(Just to be clear, I have no problems with a Mook rule. Like, say, Savage Worlds. I just prefer anything like that to be built off a plausible base, not an arbitrary one.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;621626well I'm with you with regards to Morale,

Something about Wound penalties and low-Skill combatants, and how they interact, worries you?

It's certainly realistic, as far as it goes.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621597Truth in labeling would solve most of the problems people see with Storygames.

Truth in labeling would be very difficult to achieve, given how subjective opinions on what is or isn't a storygame can be even on this site. Short of getting Pundit to examine every single rpg before they're released and sticking a warning label on them I'm not sure how this is achievable. You have plenty of people in the industry who genuinely aren't aware of any supposed debate or distinction between trad rpgs or storygames, and thus would not be able to consider their product "not an actual rpg."

And any definition of storygame I've seen is vague and nonspecific. There seems to be a gray area here where a game can have narrative mechanics yet not be a storygame, and the 'just right' amount of narrative stuff seems to vary wildly between individuals. There are plenty of games that I can look at and say "yes Pundit would probably consider this a storygame because it has lots of narrative mechanics and players can decide what happens to their characters in certain capacities..." but there are other times i.e. Tenra Bansho Zero and Apocalypse World where I find myself shrugging. :idunno:

Until there comes a time where it's possible to define something as a storygame or tradgame without having to intuit whether Pundit or whoever would also consider it a storygame or tradgame, the debate is largely frustrating and meaningless to me. There doesn't seem to be any universal line in the sand that says "this is too narrative."

Quote from: Paper Monkey;621635Truth in labeling would be very difficult to achieve, given how subjective opinions on what is or isn't a storygame can be even on this site. Short of getting Pundit to examine every single rpg before they're released and sticking a warning label on them I'm not sure how this is achievable. You have plenty of people in the industry who genuinely aren't aware of any supposed debate or distinction between trad rpgs or storygames, and thus would not be able to consider their product "not an actual rpg."

And any definition of storygame I've seen is vague and nonspecific.

and yet for some reason, on Storygames.com they have absolutely no problem referring people to storygames, games with "storygame sensibilities" or "narrative games".  It's only on other sites that the whole thing becomes a mystery or a grognard witch hunt.

Basically, if you like narrative mechanics, and how much, they'll point you to the right game with laser-like precision.  Remember, SYSTEM MATTERS and they design systems specifically to support narrative play styles.  If you don't like narrative mechanics, however, all of a sudden, there's no difference.

Quote from: Paper Monkey;621635You have plenty of people in the industry who genuinely aren't aware of any supposed debate or distinction between trad rpgs or storygames, and thus would not be able to consider their product "not an actual rpg."

This is due to the victory of the GNS, and why the GNS needs to die. GNS said they were the same, they aren't.

People need to stop bitching about storygames, and start explaining why they're not utterly identical in every single way to RPG's.

Maybe it's not possible. Maybe the assumptions of GNS have become too embedded in the designer community to be completely dislodged. But they can still be countered with accurate information.

Even so, an effective counter-meme requires formulated and formalized knowledge, not just hate-filled rants against Edwards and storygames on a niche site.

Hate the GNS? Organize your thoughts, couple them with actual knowledge and practical applications of the same. Then understand why the GNS was adopted, what needs it fulfilled, and ensure your work fulfills some needs.

Use evinces utility. If you want your counter-theory to be used, ensure it's useful.

The Forge died. GNS lives on. Refocus your passion on today's enemy, not yesterday's. Change your tactics to suit today's enemy, not yesterday's.

The enemy is the theory, not the designers and players of Storygames.

Truth.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621637and yet for some reason, on Storygames.com they have absolutely no problem referring people to storygames, games with "storygame sensibilities" or "narrative games".  It's only on other sites that the whole thing becomes a mystery or a grognard witch hunt.

But I don't always agree with them, either!

I don't think story-games.com considers something a story-game is any more of a valid metric than 'Bob from down the street' thinks something is a story-game.

I'd say, going by the general consensus here, something like Fiasco is a story-game, and both story-games.com and Pundit agree! If I were to say FATE were a story-game, story-games.com would think so and Pundit would say that no, it's not a story-game because the narrative mechanics can be easily excised from play.

Quote from: gleichman;621096I don't know what hideaway Cook was hiding in 15 years ago, but serious disagreements about how RPGs should be designed and played have existed since the 70s.

That he didn't notice only indicates to me that he wasn't paying attention.

What's more amazing is you not paying attention to the article, where he acknowledges that yet explains why it got worse 15 years ago (the internet).  Your laziness is not an excuse for your vapid bash.

Forums are cesspools.

This forum, for all its utter fucked-up-ness, is a paragon of civility and virtue compared to any random Yahoo article's comment section.  

Quote from: David Johansen;621065So yeah, I basically Blame Monty and Ryan for most of the hostility in the gaming community.

I will always praise Ryan Dancey for the D20 license and damn him and the  shortsighted idiots at WotC for the unlimited OGL.

As for Monte, I agree. He is in zero position to talk about any spirit of community among gamers.

Quote from: Endless Flight;621071If Wizards had decided years ago to support all editions of D&D, much of this could have been avoided.

Maybe.

Unfortunately, the post-TSR narrative was that TSR fell because they were supporting different settings and different editions (Basic vs. Advanced).

I am still suspicious of the veracity of this narrative, but the truth will never be known unless the TSR accounting ledgers are made public and an army of geek accountants can tear through the data.

Has there been any RPG company that continues edition support once the new edition is launched? None come to mind. And I don't mean CoC where they don't do editions, just reprints with micro-mods. I mean real editions (WoD to nWoD, 2e to 3e) where there are clear compatibility gaps.

Quote from: Ladybird;621129Internet communities, as a whole, have really got nastier over the past decade; I think it's due to a lot of them essentially collapsing into echo chambers, with the people inside getting more and more worked up about anything outside their community, or that isn't tailored exactly to THEIR desires.

I agree. You certainly see this in politics.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;621157Most gamers I've met in real life, regardless of preferred playstyle, without the veneer of the internet, have been decent, easy going, polite, very cool people. This includes the hundreds if not thousands of people I've met at Cons over the years.

I love con-folk. For each bad gamer I've met at a con, I have met a dozen of great gamers who I'd love to know better and a hundred of okay gamers who I'd game with again.

But I wonder if that goes for forum folk. There are plenty of people on this forum I will be happy to never meet after reading their "thoughts" on various topics.

Quote from: gleichman;621168Because people are both cowards, and subject to legal action. In bygone eras, I'm sure duels would have been accepted and completed.

GleichmanCon would so freaking awesome. I would be bathed in gore striding down hallways with a shotgun and a chainsaw delivering righteous revenge against gamers who disagreed with me on Ascending vs. Descending AC.

Wimpy GenCon may have a Dealer's Room, but mighty GleichmanCon has a Death Dealer's room!

Quote from: estar;621176For players the supplements are about kewl powers as lot of WoD players I knew were into the game to play monsters that kicked ass.

That's why I love Palladium's Nightbane. CJ Carella distilled the best of WoD and built a RPG that catered to people who wanted the kickass without the angst.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Jasyn v. Gleichman - Obviously people can expend more effort in certain things, that goes without saying, however, Gleichman has a point - a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".

Yes and no. Yes in that depending upon how they work, such rules may not be the metagame mechanic that Hero Points are. No, in that I still may not like them for other reasons.

Focus Points? Sounds like another number name for Hero Points but you seem to lump it in with Stamina so perhaps I'm not seeing what you are getting at.

Stamina or Fatigue rules are certainly not metagame when they are well done. But one needs to be careful of death spirals. Indeed due to death spirals and the extra book keeping I'd rather such rules be labeled optional or are by their nature seldom invoked.

As a side note, there are a whole class of rules that might seem simulationist to people that either a) aren't or b) might well be, but they produce bad play experiences. The devil is in the details and I'd have to see those before I sign off on a concept.

Quote from: Mistwell;621642What's more amazing is you not paying attention to the article, where he acknowledges that yet explains why it got worse 15 years ago (the internet).  Your laziness is not an excuse for your vapid bash.

Just because he attempts to explain something doesn't mean he's right. Things were always this bad, all the Internet did was make it easier to find.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621626I do think that point was in there, but I've learned to "read Gleichman".  Anyway, that is my point.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Daddy Warpig uses a Hero Point style mechanic to in his rule design.

Should have known. No wonder he went bat nuts crazy because someone doesn't like them. It's personal.

And to think, he likely included them out of failed sense of Simulation.