Quote from: gleichman;626668Quote the old books all you want, I content with how Mr. Gygax viewed the concepts I've put forth.

You mean Lejendary Adventures? Because that's his last game, a game that is basically the ultimate fruit of his evolution as a GM and designer over time, and I'd be quite surprised if you endorsed it as a "good game", since it leaves a large part of its practical use and application to GM adjudication, imagination, and is very loose by design, on purpose. Quite the contrary of the style of design you explicitly support. So really, when it comes to twisting dead people's thoughts and intents after the fact, I don't think you're above criticism yourself.

Quote from: Benoist;626831You mean Lejendary Adventures?

No. The last published work of his that I've read or owned is something in the AD&D line purchased in the late 70s.

Quote from: Benoist;626831Because that's his last game, a game that is basically the ultimate fruit of his evolution as a GM and designer over time, and I'd be quite surprised if you endorsed it as a "good game", since it leaves a large part of its practical use and application to GM adjudication, imagination, and is very loose by design, on purpose.

One of the reasons I think so little of you is your inability to grasp the concept that most things are a mix of conflicting concerns that must be dealt with in order to achieve a goal. That I say that the rules (taking into account pre-existing house rules) must be enforced in your eyes means that I must therefore be against GM adjudication and imagination. What a odd concept that is, and one so alien to me.

John Morrow upon reading Age of Heroes told me that he doubts anyone on this site has even a vague understanding of how I play- as he noted all the calls in the rules to GM adjudication and imagination.

I think he's quite right. Strawmen and Knee-Jerks are the only significant reaction by many here.

Quote from: Benoist;626831You mean Lejendary Adventures?

No. The last published work of his that I've read or owned is something in the AD&D line purchased in the late 70s.

Quote from: Benoist;626831Because that's his last game, a game that is basically the ultimate fruit of his evolution as a GM and designer over time, and I'd be quite surprised if you endorsed it as a "good game", since it leaves a large part of its practical use and application to GM adjudication, imagination, and is very loose by design, on purpose.

One of the reasons I think so little of you is your inability to grasp the concept that most things are a mix of conflicting concerns that must be dealt with in order to achieve a goal. That I say that the rules (taking into account pre-existing house rules) must be enforced in your eyes means that I must therefore be against GM adjudication and imagination. What a odd concept that is, and one so alien to me.

John Morrow upon reading Age of Heroes told me that he doubts anyone on this site has even a vague understanding of how I play- as he noted all the calls in the rules to GM adjudication and imagination.

I think he's quite right. Strawmen and Knee-Jerks are the only significant reaction by many here.

Quote from: gleichman;626838No. The last published work of his that I've read or owned is something in the AD&D line purchased in the late 70s.

Okay. So you've basically not read or played a game of Gary Gygax since the late 70s and you bitch at me for talking about a book, Role-Playing Mastery, which you therefore have not read and know nothing about? And from there, you basically intimate I live in the past, whereas your references go farther back, since I read Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures and actually know these games myself?

And you tell me you think Gary would have approved of your stances here on the site, though there is a game, the most recent game of his, mind you, which basically runs against the tenets you're pushing constantly in a variety of threads, like say strict simulation of combat with miniatures and grids, limiting the potential for house ruling in the game to a maximum because if the game leaves gaps it's badly designed, and so on.

And you are totally not using dead people who can't respond to further your agenda. Not at all.

Hm-hm. Sorry. Does not compute, Brian.

Quote from: Benoist;626844whereas your references go farther back, since I read Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures and actually know these games myself?

My understanding does not go futher back. It goes back a few years before his death.

Quote from: Benoist;626844And you tell me you think Gary would have approved of your stances here on the site

I have high confidence that if he was still alive and involved in this thread- he would have sided with me on the subject we were talking about.

I have absolute confidence that if Dave Arnerson was alive and involved in this conversation, he'd side with me.

HG Wells and Tolkien too

Quote from: gleichman;626848I have high confidence that if he was still alive and involved in this thread- he would have sided with me on the subject we were talking about.

QED.

Quote from: Benoist;626851QED.

Believe what you will.

For what it's worth, people like you depressed him. Not that he'd change the way you game- but rather your hatred of those who game differently.

Quote from: gleichman;626853For what it's worth, people like you depressed him.

People like you depressed Napoleon. Hardcore. He would be so pissed off at you right now if he read your posts.

Quote from: gleichman;626853Believe what you will.

For what it's worth, people like you depressed him. Not that he'd change the way you game- but rather your hatred of those who game differently.

Oh, you too can believe what you will, or build whatever misrepresentations making sense of your own delusions, for that matter. It's not going to make much difference in the end. It just creates more grief for you to chew on, and you are the main victim of this self-created state of affairs. Since you seem quite happy with it, or so you say, by all means, keep on trucking, partner.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626811I think the important point is that a premise (or plot if you like) can have a "default path" - a path which events will take absent the PCs' involvement.  And if they waltz in, take stock of events, shrug their shoulders and walk away, that's what will happen.  But if PCs actually take an interest, that's a catalyst that can change everything.  It's when GMs fall in love with their "storylines", and wish to protect them from being befouled by PC action, that you run into trouble.  For me (and, I think, many here) the term "premise" (or "scenario") is clear, where "plot" or "story" is less so.

A premise or a scenario is an initial set of circumstances and variables.

A plot is an order of events.

The former is great for RPGs because it sets the scene, but lets the players roam about as they choose and events unfold organically.  A "plot" will emerge from that, of a sort, but it is an unplanned, organic sort of plot.  

Trying to make a plot happen is, I think, a fool's errand.  You simply cannot plan for what the players will try to do with your plot, so any linear or even branching series of events is going to fall on its face and become irrelevant inside of five minutes, unless you manipulate the game as such that players have to follow your plot.  

Unfortunately, RPG adventures of the last 30 years or so largely took on the structure of plot over premise because it was easier to write in some ways, and it made them of fuck all use for actually gaming, and taught a lot of gamers a very awkward and rubbish way of going about running an RPG.

Quote from: J Arcane;626857Unfortunately, RPG adventures of the last 30 years or so largely took on the structure of plot over premise because it was easier to write in some ways, and it made them of fuck all use for actually gaming, and taught a lot of gamers a very awkward and rubbish way of going about running an RPG.

Paul Mason once said the true test of a good RPG adventure was whether the premise could survive the players ignoring the plot. I'm inclined to agree.

Quote from: Benoist;626856It just creates more grief for you to chew on, and you are the main victim of this self-created state of affairs.

Please.

I'd have to care about the opinions and ideas of such as yourself to have grief, and I'd have to submit to your views to be a victim.

You think too highly of yourself, as usual.

Yes. Of course. My mistake.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626860Paul Mason once said the true test of a good RPG adventure was whether the premise could survive the players ignoring the plot. I'm inclined to agree.

I think it's why the old school dungeon structure still holds up so well compared to later models of play.

Good dungeons are a fundamental expression of premise over plot.  

I also think it's a reason why Shadowrun did so well and is so fondly loved by many despite the actual mechanics being kind of rubbish, because the model of mission-based play adheres to a scenario type.

It's also why I wrote the GM advice in Heaven's Shadow the way I did.