Quote from: RPGPunditYour example isn't bad; but it is presented in a way that misses one very significant point: you make it seem that the result will be the same ("He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth").

The big difference is that in the Regular RPG structure, its the GM that decides what happens, in Forgist games its usually the players (or some kind of collective, or a jenga block, or randomly choosing keywords from james joyce novels, or whatever other fucking gimmick they come up with, but anything BUT the GM).

So a more likely result is that in the Regular RPG game the player rolls the dice and the GM says: "He goes red in the face and the queen titters, holding her hand to her mouth"; whereas in the Forgist game the Player decides that the Prince is so astounded that he gives the player a peerage, or lets him have kinky sex with the queen, or does any other thing that the narcissistic player thinks will give him the most short-term satisfaction.

RPGPundit

The point for me is that the GM has no chance of creating a coherent world when the Players are able to throw Backstory into the game.   What if the GM knows, at that point, that the queen would NEVER titter because it would give away the fact that she's secretly having an affair with the Knight of the Green Blazon, and that for her to twitter would give away everything to the court and the king?   But in the Indie game the queen twitters because the Player thinks that would be fine, and kind of funny, maybe, and a little artsy, with little flourish.   Meanwhile scrap the Backstory because it's just gotten blown out of the water.   Again.   And again.  And again.  I'm not in favor of this.   Call it GM Fiat if you like but I think it's important to the overall structure of the game World for the GM to have ultimate control over the BackStory.   I could see adding elements to the BackStory maybe offline, outside the game setting, with people who are not directly playing Characters in the Campaign, but in-game?  With the Players?  Um... I just don't see it.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat about GURPS?

In the last Fnordcast from sjgames the question of wether GURPS is an indie game was put right to Kenneth Hite. His answer seemed... pained and noncommittal. The interviewer almost seemed embarrassed that he asked the question.

Yea, maybe I was reading a whole lot into the audio that just wasn't there... but I don't think so.

GURPS is a traditional RPG.

 End of story.


- Ed C.

Quote from: darIn the last Fnordcast from sjgames the question of wether GURPS is an indie game was put right to Kenneth Hite. His answer seemed... pained and noncommittal. The interviewer almost seemed embarrassed that he asked the question.

Yea, maybe I was reading a whole lot into the audio that just wasn't there... but I don't think so.

As I see it, if we were back in 1985, then I think that there would be no question about GURPS being indie.  The indie community is willing to support name designers who go indie on some games, like Greg Stolze.  However, at this point, I'm pretty sure the percentage of words of current GURPS material actually written by Steve Jackson is miniscule.  

On the other hand, I've got no issue with calling Kevin Siembieda Palladium books indie any more than I've got a problem calling Greg Porter games indie.

Quote from: RPGPunditI fail to see anything in Pendragon that disempowers GMs.  I think this is a clear case of a game that a lot of pretentious storygamers think is cool being given the status of "storygame" when it in no way resembles it.

I didn't call PD a 'story game', Punani. And I don't buy into your stupid generalisation about 'disempowerment' for the GM, either (you've got some issues; I suggest therapy). I'm talking about how PD has very clear structure and purpose, and how it very cleverly channels play along the lines its author intended.

As for GURPS etc, to see whether it's indie' in the economic sense (rather than the extended aesthetic sense), one would need to find out who wrote most of it and who owns the IP. Note also that HQ no longer has an active forum at the Forge.

But go right ahead with your polemics. They're entertaining, at least.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe point for me is that the GM has no chance of creating a coherent world when the Players are able to throw Backstory into the game.   What if the GM knows, at that point, that the queen would NEVER titter because it would give away the fact that she's secretly having an affair with the Knight of the Green Blazon, and that for her to twitter would give away everything to the court and the king?   But in the Indie game the queen twitters because the Player thinks that would be fine, and kind of funny, maybe, and a little artsy, with little flourish.

Could we have some specific references to rules here? There's no such thing as 'the Indie game.' There are many different games with different approaches to authority.

How about this an "Indie"/Forge/Story game as the term is actually used is one that creates new terms for things we already know by another word just to prove that"Hey, the designer went to college for awhile."  They also have an artsy-fartsy, overly-pretentious feel to them and an overboard effort to be "edgy" and hip in some way.  Usually an alternative to dice is attempted as a randomizer , or when dice atre used its in ungodly mechanisms involving dicepools.


 A Traditional game is one that doeasn't take much time to explain to new players. You play for at least 3 or 4 hours, have fun with friends and the game and nobody needs to see a therapost or go to confessional aftwards to feel better about themselves.  Dice are most often used..NORMAL handfuls of dice.


- Ed C.

Quote from: droogThere wasn't that much to explain, I found. For myself (since I ran the game), I found InSpectres pretty simple to understand from a quick read-through.  

To be honest I am surprised. I am not talking about the setting but the idea of players contributing to the story to an extent that the GM duties are spread to the players. Again, I probably am not understanding the particulars of Inspectres as I have no personal knowledge of it.

Quote from: droogNow, that's not always the case, obviously. Like other RPGs, the Forge-style games vary in presentation and complexity. And it's true that they're all quite different games and therefore cannot necessarily be understood through prior experience. Playing InSpectres doesn't equip you with any knowledge of Dogs in the Vineyard, though it may give you a conceptual framework.

Hmm, another try at my point. Playing traditional games gives you an idea of the role a player has in the game system. You may change dice but you get a basic idea of what you need to do, you are an "actor" if you will. It has analogs beyond RPGs.

For Story/forgey games you seem to have a muddled role. You are part the story teller but also you have direct control of the character. It would seem a difficult concept to communicate. However, if an experienced trad gamer came into such a game and did not understand it, could they then just play in their traditional mode? That would solve a number of issues.

Quote from: droogI'm not sure whether I agree with you or not about traditional games. In so far as one takes a game as a resolution mechanic and not much else, yes, it's just a matter of different dice and probabilities (and the structure of chr creation). But those can be pretty huge differences. On the other hand, I do think that eg GURPS and RQ differ from each other less than do eg InSpectres and DitV. That's all part of the Forgey design approach, where you start by throwing out assumptions.

See, and as a business man, I would see this as a fault. You rely on the gamer who is willing to try new games. You want to make it easy to pick up your game but if the concepts have little common ground then you will most likely create barriers to entry. On the other hand, I guess there is a chance you would be building brand loyalty by not sharing common concepts but I do not think it would balance against the need to attract players.

Quote from: droogHave you ever played Pendragon? It's my opinion that PD is a great deal different from many other 'traditional' games. I ran it for several years, so I had a sort of conceptual basis for approaching the Forge games. Also, I share your experience with trying different ways of informally sharing narrative control etc, but in my case I found it fairly easy to make the step to formalising that.

I played once a long time ago. As I remember it (it was probably firs ed. I think I have a copy in the library) it was pretty trad except for bits tacked on. Like I said though, this was a while ago.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltTo be honest I am surprised. I am not talking about the setting but the idea of players contributing to the story to an extent that the GM duties are spread to the players. Again, I probably am not understanding the particulars of Inspectres as I have no personal knowledge of it.

Easy as pie in IS. You can find the startup rules [url="http://www.memento-mori.com/inspectres/]here[/url]. As I said, the guys jumped right in. I did an AP report here in the AP forum.

QuoteHmm, another try at my point. Playing traditional games gives you an idea of the role a player has in the game system. You may change dice but you get a basic idea of what you need to do, you are an "actor" if you will. It has analogs beyond RPGs.

For Story/forgey games you seem to have a muddled role. You are part the story teller but also you have direct control of the character. It would seem a difficult concept to communicate. However, if an experienced trad gamer came into such a game and did not understand it, could they then just play in their traditional mode? That would solve a number of issues.

That's very much a function of the particular game. But this is also, in my opinion, a case of needing to unlearn what you think you already know. I've tried these sorts of things on new players: without preconceptions as to how the game was supposed to work, they did just fine. It's not difficult at all; it's just different. Some of them aren't even so different (eg Sorcerer or Burning Wheel).

QuoteSee, and as a business man, I would see this as a fault. You rely on the gamer who is willing to try new games. You want to make it easy to pick up your game but if the concepts have little common ground then you will most likely create barriers to entry.

I think that is quite possible, and may be why the games haven't done so well in this market. On the other hand, nobody expects all board games to use the same rules. And again, my own experience is that quite a few people have no trouble in making the conceptual leap.

Quote from: droogI think that is quite possible, and may be why the games haven't done so well in this market. On the other hand, nobody expects all board games to use the same rules. And again, my own experience is that quite a few people have no trouble in making the conceptual leap.

Oh, not the same rules but board games that are successful tend to use the similar ideas. So, the indie/forgey market may be their own worst enemies. Still, I agree that I may be over estimated the difficulty of introducing trad players to non-trad games.

Thanks for the info,
Bill

Quote from: VBWyrdeI could see adding elements to the BackStory maybe offline, outside the game setting, with people who are not directly playing Characters in the Campaign, but in-game?  With the Players?  Um... I just don't see it.

If you were to ever enjoy most indie RPGs you'd have to let go of the concept of the GM as the Great Artiste. Or at least let go of the concept of GMing artistry that you now hold.

There is no sacred "BackStory" in many of these games. Typically, as GM, you have a stable of NPCs with their own desires and wants. That's where a lot of your control over the course of the game and ability to push your agenda is. I would never go into an indie RPG with an elaborate set-piece world that I was scared to have mucked about with in play (I wouldn't go into a traditional RPG with one, either, but that's beside the point).

The world/environment is very much more about broad color and the initial situation than about simulating an imaginary universe. I believe the concept is that the world only matters where it contacts the characters...anything else is irrelevant or quite fluid.

Of course, there are about a bajillion different variations/refutations of these concepts within indie RPGs. Burning Wheel is not Dogs in the Vineyard is not Sorcerer is not Agon is not The Shadow of Yesterday, etc.

Quote from: KoltarHow about this an "Indie"/Forge/Story game as the term is actually used is one that creates new terms for things we already know by another word just to prove that"Hey, the designer went to college for awhile."  They also have an artsy-fartsy, overly-pretentious feel to them and an overboard effort to be "edgy" and hip in some way.  Usually an alternative to dice is attempted as a randomizer , or when dice atre used its in ungodly mechanisms involving dicepools.

Wow, Koltar. You REALLY nailed it! Great job, man. If you ever marry a vulture, you'll have great success in feeding your offspring.

QuoteA Traditional game is one that doeasn't take much time to explain tro new players.

Like GURPS character generation, you mean?

Quote from: TimLike GURPS character generation, you mean?

Can you count to 100?? (3rd edition GURPS)

 Good.

 Can you count to 150 ? (4th edition GURPS)
 Add and subtract your way there? To that number?

 Good - I just explained GURPS character creation in less than 6 sentences.

If you need a calculator - I'm pretty sure someone at the table can lend you one.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarCan you count to 100?? (3rd edition GURPS)

 Good.

 Can you count to 150 ? (4th edition GURPS)
 Add and subtract your way there? To that number?

 Good - I just explained GURPS character creation in less than 6 sentences.

If you need a calculator - I'm pretty sure someone at the table can lend you one.


- Ed C.

Yup, I agree. GURPS character creation is boring and tedious and lends itself to minmaxers, but its hardly difficult to grasp assuming you aren't someone's Retarded Brother Bilo.

RPGPundit

Quote from: KoltarGood - I just explained GURPS character creation in less than 6 sentences.

Right. Now explain how all those advantages and disadvantages impact your character. Oh, and how not to nerf your character for combat by making poor choices in character generation. Are we over six sentences, yet?

Let's not forget that we'll be passing the book around the table for the next three to four hours (although I admit that's not technically explaining character generation) while everyone works on their character builds.

Point is there's a LOT more to GURPS character generation than adding and subtracting until you get to whatever point level the GM has set. I could just as easily make a disingenuous and grossly oversimplified summary of character generation for a number of indie RPGs in as few sentences.