Quote from: John MorrowFor those GMs out there, when I ask you if something is in the room, I don't expect you to "Say yes or roll the dice".  I expect you to tell me if that thing exists in the room or not and "No" is a perfectly valid response.

What strikes me about this is the feeling I get whenever I read "Say yes or roll the dice." that there's a hidden tag at the end:  ", dickweed."   In other words it always gives me the feeling that it's telling me that my traditional mode of GMing makes me an tyrannical monster who is only GMing so that I can have a chance of abusing poor miserable players.   That underlying assumption and implication is what I find disagreeable.   But I'm not sure if I'm just over-reacting, and imagining the implication, or if its really part and parcel of that form of game instruction.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWhat strikes me about this is the feeling I get whenever I read "Say yes or roll the dice." that there's a hidden tag at the end:  ", dickweed."   In other words it always gives me the feeling that it's telling me that my traditional mode of GMing makes me an tyrannical monster who is only GMing so that I can have a chance of abusing poor miserable players.   That underlying assumption and implication is what I find disagreeable.   But I'm not sure if I'm just over-reacting, and imagining the implication, or if its really part and parcel of that form of game instruction.

I get the feeling that the Dogs GMing philosophy is based on Vincent's own tendencies which were unfun for him (See the excerpt that Droog posted, "Actively Reveal the Town in Play"). So if there's a pointing finger, it's aimed squarely at himself.

He also doesn't claim that any particular habit or procedure or mindset is sucky without explaining why he thinks it's sucky, usually by way of example. If you're reading it thinking, "well, I've done that thing, and it didn't suck the way he describes," then hey, awesome! But I'm not sure how that equates to  "Vincent's calling me a dickweed."

So yeah, I guess the short answer is, I'd say you're probably imagining the implication, or at least a lot of it.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorI get the feeling that the Dogs GMing philosophy is based on Vincent's own tendencies which were unfun for him (See the excerpt that Droog posted, "Actively Reveal the Town in Play"). So if there's a pointing finger, it's aimed squarely at himself.

So the Indie storytelling folks are spotlight hogs who couldn't resist railroading and abuse of GM fiat when they played traditional games. So now they devise systems where nobody is trusted with that authority. It's all making more sense now; the assumption is everybody has a story they desperately want to tell, and so rules are put in place to structure how and how much everyone gets to add to the 'shared' story.

I still don't get why these folks think their own dysfunctional experiences with traditional games are so widespread that narrative games will ever be more than an exotic offshoot of the hobby. I suppose it's difficult to admit that most of the mouthbreathers who play games like D&D are sufficiently socialized and flexible to work through authority issues, while the clever chaps at the forge can't handle assymetrical roles without abusing them.

Quote from: HaffrungSo the Indie storytelling folks are spotlight hogs who couldn't resist railroading and abuse of GM fiat when they played traditional games. So now they devise systems where nobody is trusted with that authority. It's all making more sense now; the assumption is everybody has a story they desperately want to tell, and so rules are put in place to structure how and how much everyone gets to add to the 'shared' story.

I still don't get why these folks think their own dysfunctional experiences with traditional games are so widespread that narrative games will ever be more than an exotic offshoot of the hobby. I suppose it's difficult to admit that most of the mouthbreathers who play games like D&D are sufficiently socialized and flexible to work through authority issues, while the clever chaps at the forge can't handle assymetrical roles without abusing them.

But Haff--you've got direct testimony in this very thread that people found that explicit direction useful. From Balbinus, for example. From Warthur, implicitly; because he did approach the game as investigative. It's not that it's inherently dysfunctional, it's that it's a long-established way of approaching GMing. 'Revealing the secrets' is not even an issue of authority.

Quote from: signoftheserpentwelcome to my world!

i personally don't udnerstand why, if it's ok for the gm to do ALL the work, the player's can't get off their arses and make some kind of effort regarding their characters.

yet every time i have asked about this people just complain because it seems like 'homework' or they automatically infer that i want them to go away and write something to rival the lord of the rings in depth!

What kind of effort do you want the players to put in?

I ask because I've discovered that working out any sort of background for my characters before play really doesn't work for me. The characters end up incorporating assumptions that don't jell with the assumptions about the world the GM brings to the table. That means the character just doesn't feel right to me. Whereas if I work out the details of the character during play, they always seem to fit better and to feel like they're a part of the world they exist in.

I remember back in 2001, after about a decade of playing games with point-build character creation systems, we pulled Call of Cthulhu off the shelf and I rolled up a character for the first time in ages. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. "Let's see... he's pretty strong... not that lucky... kind of average looking..." It was the beginning of a process of discovery about the character -- and the world he was a part of -- that continued on into play.

The message from rec.games.frp.advocacy John Morrow linked to back in post #33 starts off with a description of DAS and DIP characters. That stands for Design At Start and Develop In Play (or Design In Play, it's been a while and I may be misremembering). Some people like to design characters ahead of time. Others like to let them grow during play. There are some who like to do bits of each, depending on the aspect of the character. I happen to fall into the DIP category. I recall someone compared the two approaches to baking bread as opposed to making piecrust -- though I'm not sure exactly how that analogy worked, not being much of a cook myself.

Anyway, the point is both approaches are valid and can result in equally well developed characters. Alternately, either approach can also result in poorly thought-out characters who add little to a game.

Well fucking said.

Quote from: droogBut Haff--you've got direct testimony in this very thread that people found that explicit direction useful. From Balbinus, for example. From Warthur, implicitly; because he did approach the game as investigative. It's not that it's inherently dysfunctional, it's that it's a long-established way of approaching GMing. 'Revealing the secrets' is not even an issue of authority.

I didn't read Haffrung as claiming that none of the techniques or approaches he'd read were of any value to anyone; I think your reply is missing his point (or maybe just missing the bullseye): that a lot of the structure of indie games seems to be driven by dysfunctional experience and hostility toward traditional-model play.

And I think he's got a point: there *are* a lot of games and game designers that want to 'heal roleplaying' -- I'm thinking of the beginning of the GNS essay talking about tired, disheartened, gamers. I'm thinking of the testimony from other designers talking about how they, themselves, used to abuse their players before they reformed.

And I'm thinking of the tendency to take a generally good idea ('Say Yes' or 'Let it Ride') and turn it into an absolute rule wrapped in editorial manifesto.

The idea that these games are meant, in some part, to prevent social dysfunction isn't a misinterpretation: it's part of the indie movement (and the source of the empowerment language -- there's a vocal portion of the indie community that's bought into the tyrannical GM stuff).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.The idea that these games are meant, in some part, to prevent social dysfunction isn't a misinterpretation: it's part of the indie movement (and the source of the empowerment language -- there's a vocal portion of the indie community that's bought into the tyrannical GM stuff).

Again, and tiredly, people get things wrong, they vulgarise, they get excited, they repeat what they're told. But it's my understanding that I can't discuss this point without having the whole thread moved to OT. Sorry!

Quote from: -E.And I think he's got a point: there *are* a lot of games and game designers that want to 'heal roleplaying' -- I'm thinking of the beginning of the GNS essay talking about tired, disheartened, gamers. I'm thinking of the testimony from other designers talking about how they, themselves, used to abuse their players before they reformed.

I really don't see why this is a problem.  Innovation starts with people that are dissatisfied with the current way of doing things.  And the very fact that any kind of indie movement exists suggests that they are not alone.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI really don't see why this is a problem.  Innovation starts with people that are dissatisfied with the current way of doing things.  And the very fact that any kind of indie movement exists suggests that they are not alone.

No, they're not alone. But neither are their experiences indicative of roleplaying as a whole. The traditional model is not in need of salvation from brave theorists. Nor is storytelling a more sophisticated way to play RPGs. If the folks in the indie movement didn't espouse their approach as the cool way to play RPGs  (and if the movement wasn't dominated by pretentious wankers obsessed with power relationships and sexual transgression), they wouldn't get so much flak from traditional gamers.

Quote from: HaffrungNo, they're not alone. But neither are their experiences indicative of roleplaying as a whole. The traditional model is not in need of salvation from brave theorists. Nor is storytelling a more sophisticated way to play RPGs. If the folks in the indie movement didn't espouse their approach as the cool way to play RPGs   they wouldn't get so much flak from traditional gamers.

Ding!  Winner.

Play your games any way you like, and good luck to you.

Just grant me the same.  Telling me my style of gaming is 'obsolete' or 'adolescent' or 'childish' will result in me telling you to kiss my fat old hairy white ass.

Quote from: HaffrungNo, they're not alone. But neither are their experiences indicative of roleplaying as a whole. The traditional model is not in need of salvation from brave theorists. Nor is storytelling a more sophisticated way to play RPGs. If the folks in the indie movement didn't espouse their approach as the cool way to play RPGs  (and if the movement wasn't dominated by pretentious wankers obsessed with power relationships and sexual transgression), they wouldn't get so much flak from traditional gamers.

Everyone who is enjoying their roleplaying experiences will espouse their approach as the cool way to play.  If you don't truly believe your method is best, why do you continue to do it that way?  The Forge is just a different slant on the drooling d20 fanboys on, say, Enworld that get off on +5 vorpal swords, feat chains and other kewl shitz.

It's normal human behaviour.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkEveryone who is enjoying their roleplaying experiences will espouse their approach as the cool way to play.  If you don't truly believe your method is best, why do you continue to do it that way?  The Forge is just a different slant on the drooling d20 fanboys on, say, Enworld that get off on +5 vorpal swords, feat chains and other kewl shitz.

It's normal human behaviour.

I disagree. I will espouse that it's the cool way for me. And I can think of a thousand reasons why I might believe my method isn't the best, in some strange objective way if that is ever possible for RPG's. What I believe, however, is that my method is best for me.

And I think this becomes the root of many issues. Too much has been said that either implies or explicitly states that other ways (in these examples, non-Forge/GNS/TBM) are inherently, objectively, lesser methods.

If Theory Fanboys came out and said "Yeah, we're just geeks who drool over emotourism instead of vorpal swords," things might just have gone differently.

Quote from: James J SkachI disagree. I will espouse that it's the cool way for me. And I can think of a thousand reasons why I might believe my method isn't the best, in some strange objective way if that is ever possible for RPG's. What I believe, however, is that my method is best for me.

As far as I've seen, you do do this (with RPGs). But it's actually quite rare. Lots of people pay lip service to the idea, but don't really follow through.

Personally, I'd like to talk about games analytically without the emotional drama. I think that when you start discussing something, it's all up for grabs.

Quote from: droogAs far as I've seen, you do do this (with RPGs). But it's actually quite rare. Lots of people pay lip service to the idea, but don't really follow through.

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that I espouse a One True Way of RPG's that is objectively the best way? Or that I do it but it's rare? Or that it's rare I talk about RPG's?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I truly am not getting what you're saying.

Quote from: droogPersonally, I'd like to talk about games analytically without the emotional drama. I think that when you start discussing something, it's all up for grabs.

The problem is how to do that in as objective way as possible in a medium that is laden with subjectivity. One way is to try to set up some objective criteria. Another is to talk about it in a personal way, emphasizing that the approach discussed is merely one perspective. It seems that trying to mix both is a bitter recipe. Mix in marketing, and it goes from bitter to poison.