Quote from: Spinachcat;621666I agree. You certainly see this in politics.

Sigh. Again more lazy "today is different because I live in today" thinking.

Dude, politics has always be a devil's brew. And people *did* and *do* kill each other over them.

If you want high conflict politics I suggest you ask Alexander Hamilton about how tame things were back in the day. He might suggest that you're being a bit tunnel visioned.

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.

I think the issue is perhaps a bit more nuanced than that.

The part of Other Worlds you quote is from the brief rules summary. It's just trying to give the flavour for how the game is run. In the actual conflict chapter I think it's made clearer that what the player describes is a suggestion that the GM can then modify or reject when they describe what happens after the dice roll.

Page 124 'Describe the Results' says that 'The GM describes the final outcome of the conflict and the effect it has on the developing story. She should take into account the margin of victory, the declared goals of the winner, the stakes of failure for the loser, and the types of abilities and circumstance modifiers that were used. Winning a dispute with Terror Tactics and Awesome Firepower will tend to produce very different results from using Diplomacy and Find a Compromise.

It can be fun to get the players involved in this process by asking them to suggest possible outcomes or even narrate the whole thing themselves occasionally. It's their story too!'

Here's an example from my game last night. The PCs have commandeered an unseelie chariot and killed all the troglodytes on board. They're chasing down another chariot full of troglodytes and get right behind them. One of the PCs says that he wants to run across the yoke of his chariot and leap onto the back of the enemy's chariot so he can attack them. I say OK, what is your character risking here if he fails? He says, probably the biggest danger is that if he fails the jump he could land inbetween the two chariots and get run over by the one behind. I thought this would be cool and so agreed that would be the stakes. If he only got a partial failure, or he went all the way to a critical failure, I would modify my description of this event to make it better or worse for him (fall off the chariot but only get winged by the one behind, say, or not only fall off and get run over but also drop and break something valuable).  

Now, OK, stating what your character is risking isn't necessarily an in character decision. To some extent it can be - for example, in the real world I know that when I'm pushy with someone to try to get my way, I risk upsetting them. I know when I run for the bus in icy conditions, I risk falling over. And so on. I think the right way to look at it is not that the character is somehow choosing to slip over but that the character is conscious that this is a possible risk and by saying this out loud the player is agreeing with me that these are the likely consequences of a failure. Which is something that the character already knows.

I can totally get why plenty of people wouldn't like this kind of thing. But I think it is not quite the same as determining narration rights. The player is simply being given an opportunity to say what their expectations are in a way that puts the player and GM on broadly the same page. This statement is being made in advance, so it's a known part of the conflict before the roll and the GM gets to refuse anything he doesn't find plausible. Finally the GM himself is the one who narrates the outcome and can modify the declared stakes as he sees fit. That to me is very different from something like 'I win the roll, OK, I not only kill the troglodyte but the princess falls in love with me and I find Excalibur on the way home. A lovely rainbow appears in the sky above me. Your turn.'

I also want to say that in several different groups (going back many years) I've seen GMs of traditional games let players describe the outcome of their actions. 'Cool critical Bob, the orc's dead, why don't you describe how you did it?'. 'Whoa, bad fumble Bob, hey Paul, why don't you describe what happens to him?'. I've seen that in AD&D, I've seen it in Cybergeneration, I've seen it in Call of Cthulhu. I'm sure that this kind of occasional delegation is even suggested in the GM's guides of several trad games, various Dragon articles, etc. It's not a new thing. Now, clearly, conflict resolution style games pick up this ball and fucking run with it. I'm not saying that AD&D or Vampire does it to anywhere near the same extent as Other Worlds, for example. But I think it's a seed that has been around for a longer time than may be obvious. It's not something wholly alien to RPGs.

Quote from: gleichman;621756Focus 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 and Focus to differentiate between Physical and Mental effort/exhaustion.  Just an example.

Quote from: gleichman;621464If you didn't conceal it, you wouldn't get into the game in the first place.

Not the kind of games I would want to get into, in the first place.

Quote from: Spinachcat;621666FAs for Monte, I agree. He is in zero position to talk about any spirit of community among gamers.

Well, remember he started with RoleMaster, and then went over to D&D right before the end of the TSR era. We was like the noob in the 2nd edition crowd.

Quote from: Spinachcat;621666GleichmanCon 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!

...This, would probably be a better horror movie than more than 80% of what is currently available on Netflix.

Quote from: CRKrueger;622047Stamina and Focus to differentiate between Physical and Mental effort/exhaustion.  Just an example.

Ah.

One would have to see the meahanics, but death spiral and gilding the lily would be my concerns.

Quote from: soviet;621108Wait a sec though. The people making these changes to existing games aren't infamous Forge posters are they? It's not Ron Edwards changing Warhammer to have cards, or Vincent Baker amping up the gamism of D&D for 4th edition. It's the existing owners of these properties that have decided to make these kinds of changes, it's not been pushed on them from outside. You're perfectly entitled to be unhappy about it, but to say that it's a result of lobbying from the forge/storygames community is pretty clearly wrong IMO.

Except of course that it was due to rampant and egregious proselytizing on the part of the Forge/Storygame Swine that they pushed to implement these changes, often by manipulating the owners of these properties, be it by making them think they'd be cool and avant garde and all the cool kids would buy their game if they just made it GNS-compliant, or by selling them on the notion that this was somehow a proven scientific formula for creating a successful RPG.  Of course, you can say that it is still the fault of the property owners for falling for it, the way that its ultimately the fault of Ponzi scheme victims for falling for it, or scientology adherents for buying into the sect....

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;622447Except of course that it was due to rampant and egregious proselytizing on the part of the Forge

What lies did they push?

• Storygames are the same thing as RPG's. (Not true.)
• The GNS is a valid and accurate critical theory of roleplaying. (Not true.)
• By following the GNS, and making "coherent" games, you'd ensure success. (Not true.)

None of these three have been successfully countered, so far as the community of designers is concerned. Efforts to do so have, so far, been lacking.

But the Forgists' most subtle, and effective, maneuver was to make storygamey mechanics the hot new fad in game design.

They're new, they're different, they're intriguing. Geeks love the new, and are as prone to fads as anyone. (Probably more-so.)

Enabled by the first lie above, and driven by the allure of novelty, storygame mechanics are infiltrating RPG's everywhere (creating sim-RPG hybrids), to the detriment of most of these games.

Fads burn out. Marketplace failures will discredit the "coherency" theory (and the GNS as a whole).

But both would be helped along to the dustbin of history by... hell. Said it before. Will again.

People need to step up their game, if they intend to carry a memetic war into the camp of the current crop of game designers. I've proffered some ideas how to wage such a campaign. No need to repeat them.

But such a campaign would be a good idea.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622457What lies did they push?

• Storygames are the same thing as RPG's. (Not true.)
• The GNS is a valid and accurate critical theory of roleplaying. (Not true.)
• By following the GNS, and making "coherent" games, you'd ensure success. (Not true.)

I would add:

• Simulation (and therefore, immersion) isn't a real play style. Its claimed practitioners are people who have not yet realized they have a creative agenda in playing a game. When they do realize this, they become either Gamists, or Narrativists, the "real" play styles.

Right here, in this argument, you have the kryptonite of role playing games, to me.

Quote from: Benoist;622459Simulation (and therefore, immersion) isn't a real play style. Its claimed practitioners are people who have not yet realized they have a creative agenda in playing a game. When they do realize this, they become either Gamists, or Narrativists, the "real" play styles.

That is one of the lies they pushed, but I don't see anyone outside of the hardcore Forgists accepting or promulgating that.

As a valid idea, accepted by people, it's dead on the vine.

I listed three lies (and one accidental victory), not because they constitute the whole of Forgist foolishness, but because they are the most widely accepted and (in the case of the Narrativist mechanic fad) the most currently damaging.

Again, your observation is accurate, and were it commonly accepted it'd kill off roleplaying games for good.

The others are less starkly anti-roleplaying, and the more acceptable for it (among roleplayers). More subtle and more widely accepted, and therefore more threatening.

EDIT: Something that is pretty universally disregarded isn't much of a threat. Something widely accepted, is.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622462Again, your observation is accurate, and were it commonly accepted it'd kill off roleplaying games for good.

I think we can see the reflections of this argument in the way people even wonder what the hell immersion is, or joke about the word "verisimilitude", or any other types of variations where either arguments in favor of some form of simulation and immersion are discarded because it's "just a game" or there's no such thing as immersion, "not really anyway," that is in fact meaningfully different from having the creative agenda to create a story. Therefore, these pesky simulationists might as well "get on with the times" and realize they had a creative agenda all along.

Sounds familiar?

I see variations of that bandied about well, pretty much everywhere where we might discuss about such things, actually.

Quote from: Benoist;622463Sounds familiar?

Honestly? No. Not among most roleplayers.

The notions of "creative agenda" and the like are utterly foreign to most roleplayers. Only those promulgating GNS, and those opposing it, have been so unlucky as to have read those words.

Roleplayers understand that roleplaying involves playing a role, and they enjoy it. "Act in character" and "don't metagame" are, and have been for a long time, the advice players give to each other.

I know no roleplayer who believes that roleplaying is impossible. Primarily because it's so damn insane to claim that. What the hell do actors do, if not play a role?

It's obvious that role players can play roles. Even to non-roleplayers.

I don't think we need an extensive campaign to convince roleplayers that roleplaying is possible, and fun.

OTOH, the biggest threats to RPG's come from the narrativist mechanic fad and (to a lesser extent) the conflation of Storygames with RPG's. This is, in my opinion, undeniable.

We do need a campaign that alters the terms of that debate. We need to popularize the word "simming", and explain what it means. We need to explain the difference between storytelling and playing an RPG.

Most importantly, we need to somehow begin counteracting the influence of the GNS among designers. They are the ones pushing "Narrativist" mechanics, they are the ones pushing "Gamist" coherency, they are the ones who need to be convinced that Storygames are not RPG's.

I don't think we're going to settle this disagreement today. Just think on it.

Look at what games are being produced, what mechanics they have, and what they are being labeled as. I am confident that such a survey will confirm what I've said.

Once the battleground is clear, and the battle being waged is understood, then people can begin acting to affect it. Until then, were' acting blindly. We may do good, but sporadically, accidentally, and ineffectually. More precision and comprehension is needed, IMHO.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474Honestly? No. Not among most roleplayers.

Our experiences vary, then. I'm seeing avatars of this argument I spelled out quite a bit around us.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474Most importantly, we need to somehow begin counteracting the influence of the GNS among designers. They are the ones pushing "Narrativist" mechanics, they are the ones pushing "Gamist" coherency, they are the ones who need to be convinced that Storygames are not RPG's.

You'll find no disagreement on my part, here. One of the problems that plays into this is that viewing game design in those particular terms and endlessly blurring the lines thereof benefits the designers themselves, who can then use whatever they design in the RPG field as a portfolio for the "next big thing", becoming a novel writer, a designer for Blizzard, whatever. So it fundamentally helps to say "hey I designed the storylines on RPG line XXX, so I'm your guy to build the storyline of your new video game, Microsoft!" or "I wrote the Forgotten Realms metaplot, then novels, and now I can write your new Avengers novels after the movie, guys!"

Quote from: Benoist;622475Our experiences vary, then. I'm seeing avatars of this argument I spelled out quite a bit around us.

On the Internet, among people who are not average roleplayers (and not even the majority of Internet posters). Most roleplayers never get near these discussions, and have no idea what the GNS is.

Therefore, they never even question what roleplaying is. It's playing a role, pretending to be a fictional person in a fictional world. The idea of "incoherent creative agenda" never affects them.

What does affect them is the crappy RPG's, RPG/sim hybrids, and "gamist" RPG's being pumped out. They don't know from "creative agenda", they just know that 4e didn't feel right.

The problems that affect most rolegamers, on the Internet and off, are the flawed approaches of game designers. That's where we need to focus our energy.

Educate. Persuade. Sway.

That's how you win a war of ideas.

I have definitely seen a lot of debates against immersion online (not here really but in other forums) And there is often a forge-like angle behind it. In real life I have only seen it once or twice (but that could just be because of who I game with).