Quote from: Benoist;556875Indeed they are.

There are two kinds of people my friend, those with cowboy hats, and those with loaded guns...!

Welcome aboard, Patrick!

Quote from: Black Vulmea;556344It's Pundit's private website; you have exactly as much free speech as he allows, and not an iota more.

You wanna stand on a corner and rant about story games, you have the freedom to do so. But you have no right to demand that the Washington Post give you column inches to rant about it, nor do you have the right to tell the site's owner when or where or how you should be allowed to discuss it.

You know what would be awesome?  If the gaggle of social retards who spent multiple pages in this thread talking about how TheRPGSite is about free speech and no agendas (and I'm pretty sure I saw proposed for-pay banner ads that had the words "Free Speech" and "No Agendas" prominently featured at various points of the conversation) would accept that this is no more or less true of TheRPGSite than it is of RPGnet.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you worthless fucking cuntscabs.  Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.  What a pack of bitches.

Quote from: 1989;556380Of course [Apocalypse World is] a storygame.

Vincent Baker.

Lumpley.

Come on.

Bad trees produce bad fruit.

At least 1989 has the decency to give the honest answer to the question... not that it's any less of a fucking disgrace for being true.  You worthless bottomfeeders should do society a favour and kill yourselves already.

KoOS

Quote from: thedungeondelver;556877There are two kinds of people my friend, those with cowboy hats, and those with loaded guns...!

And those with six demon bags.

Quote from: King of Old School;556885You know what would be awesome?  If the gaggle of social retards who spent multiple pages in this thread talking about how TheRPGSite is about free speech and no agendas (and I'm pretty sure I saw proposed for-pay banner ads that had the words "Free Speech" and "No Agendas" prominently featured at various points of the conversation) would accept that this is no more or less true of TheRPGSite than it is of RPGnet.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you worthless fucking cuntscabs.  Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.  What a pack of bitches.


At least 1989 has the decency to give the honest answer to the question... not that it's any less of a fucking disgrace for being true.  You worthless bottomfeeders should do society a favour and kill yourselves already.

KoOS

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

I was portrayed by a nineteenth century character before it was cool...

Hey guys, am I doing it right?

The funniest thing about Pundit is, he does drive some people to levels of hatred that are amazing for an online forum.  Either that or we have some serious hidden Vince love, or maybe both.

In any case, it's damn entertaining to watch some jackass vent such impotent venomous rage.  It's like a 1 minute version of Fatal Attraction, or maybe grade school.

Regading   http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931

Quote from: John Morrow;556825The point of the initial message is that games that deliberately break the landmarks are not really role-playing games and the vast majority of games that break the landmarks yet call themselves role-playing games are storygames. The dead giveaways are that their sales pitch talks about story or "narrative", their mechanics operate at a metagame rather than character perspective (and are often abstract "conflict resolution" mecanics), and are either one-trick-ponies designed to play only one type of scenario, which is so specific that it would be an adventure for a real role-playing game, or they try to define what the "story" will be about up front and even make that part of character creation.

These "dead giveaways" don't actually match up with the landmarks, though.  The landmarks - which I largely agree with - basically say that any theory needs to accept that D&D is fun and functional for most of its players.  Based on my experience and the studies that I've seen, I agree with this.  

However, this doesn't inherently mean that every RPG needs to be like D&D.  

Some story games are "one trick ponies" - like A Flower For Mara, or Doubt, or Under My Skin.  Given that they are about the same price and page count as published adventures, and generally easy to pick up and play, I don't see any problem with that.  However, some are definitely broader - like Primetime Adventures or Don't Rest Your Head.  These don't define what the story is in advance, and aren't as narrow as a single adventure.  

Whether you call them RPGs or not, the mere existence of games like this isn't opposed to traditional RPGs.  It's perfectly possible to play and enjoy both.

Quote from: Mostlyjoe;556906Hey guys, am I doing it right?

I think so.

OK, fixed. (Now Korean cowboy with hat.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;556907In any case, it's damn entertaining to watch some jackass vent such impotent venomous rage.

Ain't it though? I love it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim;556925Whether you call them RPGs or not, the mere existence of games like this isn't opposed to traditional RPGs.  

The mere existence? No, no more than the existence of Hungry Hungry Hippos doesn't make it "opposed to RPGs".

However, if there's a movement of very dedicated people out to infiltrate RPG forums and influence RPG companies, who have demonstrated a willingness to lie, manipulate, abuse site moderation, and play with definitions in order to hijack the language of any discussion to front-load all their notions so as to force their desired results, all to the end-goal of redefining Hungry Hungry Hippos as not only an RPG but the very definition of the "right" way to do RPGs (and by "right" meaning, the "coherent" way to play RPGs that will not result in brain damage), then that absolutely would be opposed to RPGs, as it is a direct attempt to subvert the RPG hobby to turn it into something it isn't.

RPGPundit

Cartman: [walks over to Scott's end of the table] Yes! Yesss! Oh, let me taste your tears, Scott!
[starts licking Scott's tears off his face]
Cartman: Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!
Kyle: Dude, I think it might be best for us to never piss Cartman off again.
Stan: Good call.
Cartman: Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!
[licks the tears off the table and off Scott's face]
Cartman: Mm-yummy, you guys!
[screen closes to Looney Tunes-style splash]
Cartman: Yuppitibut, that's all, folks!

Quote from: King of Old School;556885You know what would be awesome?  If the gaggle of social retards who spent multiple pages in this thread talking about how TheRPGSite is about free speech and no agendas (and I'm pretty sure I saw proposed for-pay banner ads that had the words "Free Speech" and "No Agendas" prominently featured at various points of the conversation) would accept that this is no more or less true of TheRPGSite than it is of RPGnet.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you worthless fucking cuntscabs.  Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.  What a pack of bitches.


At least 1989 has the decency to give the honest answer to the question... not that it's any less of a fucking disgrace for being true.  You worthless bottomfeeders should do society a favour and kill yourselves already.

KoOS

And right there you show why RPGsite is all about the discussion without an agenda.  The above post would give you a ban if not worse at TBP.  Thanks for clarifying that.

Shaken, not stirred, tears?