Quote from: TimIf 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.

See, I am usually put off by this kind of thing. It assumes I am some sort of narrow minded mouth breather for not abandoning my preconceptions that I obviously must have if I do not enjoy story/forgey games. It is a bit insulting and really not very helpful in a much larger sense than just this thread.

Quote from: TimThere 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).

You know, I am serious here and not snarking, did you have a bad experience with trad gaming? I see this sort of base resentment in a lot of story/forgey gamers. Is it that these gamers often get poinded on in forums so you get gunshy? I can appreciate that.

I have played with a lot of game groups, gone to cons (10 to 20 a year) and GMed for a lot of players and I have to say, this railroading thing is over played. I don't create monolithic masterpieces of setting expecting the players to treat them with kit gloves. I expect change. I also have found a lot of players like structure. If magic is part of the setting then they want it to work consistently. They do not want a mechanism in the game to allow a player to change some element so they can meet a cool cyber chick.

Quote from: TimThe 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.

This is more play style, to me, than anything. I have run games where the world was no more defined than the rooms the characters went through. It is a matter of preference and what the group desires.

Quote from: TimOf 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.

Variety is the spice of life. I personally find no problem with the story/forgey game style. If folks have fun with it, then all the better.

Bill

Three to four hours??

 Damn man ...you must have some slow thinking people that you game with.

 Shit.
 The first session of this campaign back in 2004  - we had 45 minutes to an hour to create characters.  Maybe less than that if you subtract the bad puns part of the conversation.
 Anything that needed adjusting I did in conjuction with the player 5 or 6 sessions later.  (as thats when 4th edition was released. )

 I really think people make it out to be more complicated than it really is.

- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkimThe indie community is willing to support name designers who go indie on some games, like Greg Stolze.

John, what the heck is the indie community? And how do they support games? I mean, I get that you're trying very hard to use a technical definition of "indie" in terms of games, but how does that translate into a community, let alone support within or in the name of the community?

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I am usually put off by this kind of thing. It assumes I am some sort of narrow minded mouth breather for not abandoning my preconceptions that I obviously must have if I do not enjoy story/forgey games. It is a bit insulting and really not very helpful in a much larger sense than just this thread.

It was not my intention to appear snobbish. The thing is that these games ARE different. They're not going to work properly and are going to seem utterly broken if you go into them with VBWyrde's preconceptions. Trying to use most of these games to run the sort of campaign that he's talking about would be the equivalent of trying to chop down trees with a hacksaw. You can get there, but it's going to be a serious pain in the ass.

QuoteYou know, I am serious here and not snarking, did you have a bad experience with trad gaming? I see this sort of base resentment in a lot of story/forgey gamers. Is it that these gamers often get poinded on in forums so you get gunshy? I can appreciate that.

Sure, I've had some bad experiences with trad gaming. I've had some bad experiences with indie gaming, too. My resentment is largely forum-specific. There's an awful lot of very strong opinions about indie games expressed here that are coming from places of misconception or plain old ignorance. I've played trad games. I still play trad games. I will continue to play trad games. Many people who are telling me everything that's wrong with indie games have never played and have no intention of playing said games. Some have never even READ a single freaking indie game (Senor Koltar, for example).

QuoteThis is more play style, to me, than anything. I have run games where the world was no more defined than the rooms the characters went through. It is a matter of preference and what the group desires.

Well, sure. That's great! Indie games are, in general, not intended to be flexible enough to support all styles of gaming. As I said earlier, if you try to make them do something they're not designed to do they're going to suck. If everyone's on board with the style of play expressed in the game (just like the players in your games have been on board with they style of those games) then they are most likely going to work quite well.

Quote from: KoltarThe first session of this campaign back in 2004  - we had 45 minutes to an hour to create characters.  Maybe less than that if you subtract the bad puns part of the conversation.
 Anything that needed adjusting I did in conjuction with the player 5 or 6 sessions later.  (as thats when 4th edition was released. )

You fully created GURPS characters in 45 minutes with total newbie players and one or two books? My hat's off to you, then.

Sure, when I was GMing GURPS I could create a character in 30-45 minutes, but then I was the GM and had quite a lot of practice while I was learning the system well enough to run it.

Not "newbies" - but not gaming veterans either.


All of us were kind of rusty and hadn't been in any kind of campaign or serious game in over 2 to 3 years. (*)

 They were all familiar with basioc concepts of RPGs ...except for 1 guy who was a co-worker at the game store at the time. He was the only true "Newbie" there. He had read through the basic GURPS book at work and declared it : "Pretty easy to figure out". (His words)


- Ed C.




* = Working in a game store got me back into running RPGs.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I am usually put off by this kind of thing. It assumes I am some sort of narrow minded mouth breather for not abandoning my preconceptions that I obviously must have if I do not enjoy story/forgey games. It is a bit insulting and really not very helpful in a much larger sense than just this thread.

You know, I am serious here and not snarking, did you have a bad experience with trad gaming? I see this sort of base resentment in a lot of story/forgey gamers. Is it that these gamers often get poinded on in forums so you get gunshy? I can appreciate that.

I really don't see where you make this leap.  Now I have gone and tasted the kool-aid and I found it isn't really to my liking.  I was motivated by my own wide range of interest and curiousity.  I listen to a lot of gaming podcasts and heard a lot of indie talk and enthusiasm.  Nowhere in there did I ever feel that someone was looking down on me or arguing that traditional play is wrong.

There are some pretentious people and there are some overly critical people, but no more than there are in any sub-sub-genre (I mean look around you! .  

I really think most of the people in the indie community (and I mean forgie pretentious types here, not all independent game designers, of which I count you) are just looking for other avenues and techniques of gaming.  Some of them might not be satisfied with tradtional gaming, some of them might just have voracious gaming appetites and a range of tastes.

I really don't see anywhere in the suggestion that in order to appreciate another style of play, you may have to let go of some other ways of playing is a condemnation of those other ways of playing. It's like saying to someone who really doesn't like bitter things, but has never had a really good chinese bitter melon, you know you may have to let go of the idea that bitter is gross.  They try it and it's still gross, that's fine.  But maybe they'll like it.  That doesn't mean that their desire for sweet things is lame or unsophisticated.

Quote from: KoltarThey were all familiar with basioc concepts of RPGs ...except for 1 guy who was a co-worker at the game store at the time. He was the only true "Newbie" there. He had read through the basic GURPS book at work and declared it : "Pretty easy to figure out". (His words)

So...you were explaining GURPS character generation to people who had played it before or had at least read the book? Color me confused on how that supports your case.

Look, GURPS is totally logical. The basic concept is easy to understand. I'm not even turned off by long character generations sessions (I play Burning Wheel, for God's sake), but I really don't think your assertion that traditional RPG character generation is easy-peasy bears up. Especially modern traditional RPGs.

If we were talking about creating an AD&D fighter, or something, I'd be right there with you, but there are a tremendous number of exceptions to that level of simplicity in the realm of traditional RPGs.

Koltar, for god's sake, are you really trying to argue here that GURPS chargen is simple?  Everyone, even Dr. Kromm himself will tell you that the work is all front-loaded, so that you don't have to do any calculations during combat.  And it is a crunchy system.  I love GURPS, but chargen is not quick.  It's not even worth arguing about.  

Why don't you actually pick up and read an indie game from cover to cover before you just jump in with totally baseless opinions (by your definition, Savage Worlds is indie).  Better yet, play one.  What's to lose besides a few hours of your time?  You'll still be gaming.

I'm not trying to convert you, just anything to give you some actual evidence for your ridiculous positions.

Nope...In My opinion, SAVAGE WORLDS is a Traditional.

Its based originally on a set of miniatures combat rules. Definately NOT an "Indie"/Forge/Story-type of game.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarNope...In My opinion, SAVAGE WORLDS is a Traditional.

Quote from: KoltarUsually an alternative to dice is attempted as a randomizer

So the playing cards for initiative (and combat in Deadlands: Reloaded) doesn't make it indie?

Koltar, read and play, then talk.

Quote from: walkerpSo the playing cards for initiative (and combat in Deadlands: Reloaded) doesn't make it indie?

Koltar, read and play, then talk.

The primary mechanic is dice.

 SAVAGE WORLDS is a traditional.

I own TWO copies of it. The big hardback from 2 years ago and the recent Explorer's edition.

Its a traditional.


- Ed C.

I am seriously bored by systematic using of the world "indie" in the newspeak sense. Remove all shades of meaning and left just simple dichotomies - indie vs. traditional. Innovative vs. conservative. Improving vs. degenerating. Hell yeah... George Orwell in RPGs today...

Quote from: AlnagI am seriously bored by systematic using of the world "indie" in the newspeak sense. Remove all shades of meaning and left just simple dichotomies - indie vs. traditional. Innovative vs. conservative. Improving vs. degenerating. Hell yeah... George Orwell in RPGs today...

Agreed.  But HinterWelt asked a question based on a certain understanding of those words. As I said at the beginning, it leaves out a thousand shades of grey, but at least for this thread, I'll follow a simplistic naming convention rather than re-explain what I mean each time.

Quote from: TimIf 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.

Well, I don't know why this sounds so very unappealing to me, but it does.  I read it and think, "Yuck".  As GM, quite a lot of the fun of the game for me is creating a World and filling it in with BackStory that creates something fascinating and worth exploring.   The other half of the fun is having Players play Characters in that World exploring, battling, and creating the FrontStory (if I might use that term for "the Plot as driven by the Players").   I've had so much fun doing that in the past, I really just don't see any draw towards what you're describing.   It sounds like a romp through mishmoshing chaos, and not a very fun one for someone who is actually interested in story.   What strikes me as completely ironic is that these are then called Story-Games... but how in God's name can you actually ever get a coherent STORY out of them, if there's no BackStory in the game and the World only matters the moment the Characters touch it, and then (presumably) can be forgotten or transmuted according to whatever whim comes along?   Wow.  Compared with what I think of as Story, my feeling now is that Traditional games have a *much* better chance of producing actual Story than what you just described!   But someone called it "Story-Games" and so now there's another point of confusion.   These don't sound like Story-Games at all, since I can't see any real Story coming out of them.   I think someone said it right earlier:  This sounds like it might have some entertainment value, but most assuredly does not scratch the itch.   Doesn't even scratch the surface of scratching the itch for me.  

So no, I do not think I would ever truly enjoy the kind of game you describe because it removes the elements I actually enjoy from the game and makes it the opposite.   In fact, I think, from your description, I'd I'd really not enjoy tis at all because its not merely different - it's utterly antithetical.   It seems a doppleganger of what I truly do enjoy.  

The other side of the coin is to consider this as a Player, rather than GM.  Again, I come to ... Yuck.   It sounds like it drains out all of what I really like about Playing RPGs... the exploration of someone elses Amazing World and BackStory with the ability to create new history and effect the World in the FrontStory.   So again this really just has no discernable appeal to me either as a Player or Gamesmaster.    I like the Traditional RPG style because of the BackStory.  I don't think that the concept of BackStory is "out moded" or "old fashioned", or double plus bad in anyway, sorry.   To me it's awesome and energizing and fabulous.   I like that aspect of RPG the way it is.