Quote from: lachekInterestingly (to me), Stuart, is that it was Forge theory speak that allowed me to look past the Role/Roll dichotomy and accept them both as equals.

That's interesting.  I saw strong ties between the Role / Roll and the Narrativist / Gamist dichotomies.  Part of the reason so little effort went into looking at "Simulationist" I think.  It's basically a pseudo-academic gloss overtop of the same Role/Roll bunk we've been hearing for 30 years or so.

Ultimately it's all jargoneering, and won't help you design better games, or enjoy the games you're playing more.  It also serves to artificially divide the community of online gamers and game designers, and make any legitimate analysis of game design theory all but impossible.

I became *much* more productive in designing my own game when I stopped looking at *any* online discussion of RPG theory and just focused on making a fun game.

Quote from: MelinglorBut having now read Vincent's AP, including all the other players' contributions, it looks like there was a lot more going on in there. A savage, brutal story, sure. But one with some pretty powerful themes.

"And just like that we had a pirate marriage; knee deep in blood, but a marriage still." I can see how that might have an impact.

Quote from: GrimGent"And just like that we had a pirate marriage; knee deep in blood, but a marriage still." I can see how that might have an impact.

Yeah, that was my absolute favorite line.

Quote from: StuartThat's interesting.  I saw strong ties between the Role / Roll and the Narrativist / Gamist dichotomies.  Part of the reason so little effort went into looking at "Simulationist" I think.  It's basically a pseudo-academic gloss overtop of the same Role/Roll bunk we've been hearing for 30 years or so.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally took what I thought sounded positive and useful out of GNS and ignored what I considered to be big, gaping holes. Like any model, it is just a model - to be used and discarded when something better comes along. Since something better has come along since then, even its creator has all but discarded it.

Having said that, I think a lot of your initial reaction to GNS has to do with how you approach it. I don't recall a place where Ron Edwards stated that Nar is so much better than Gamist play, just that thinking you play Nar when you're really playing Gamist can lead to trouble. But that's a different thread for a different day, I'm sure.

QuoteUltimately it's all jargoneering, and won't help you design better games, or enjoy the games you're playing more.  It also serves to artificially divide the community of online gamers and game designers, and make any legitimate analysis of game design theory all but impossible.

It certainly helped me enjoy the games I play, both "indie" and "trad". If it will help me design better games is for time to tell, but I've personally enjoyed many games that are in part grounded in those design principles. So to me and the gamers I know in person, your assertion doesn't hold true. Alas, different discussion, etc.

As for division, there are some strong proponents on either side, but those people are only divisive if you let them be. Hey, I'm here, speaking with you as an equal, right? I'm not trying to be divisive, am I? There's no reason we need to follow our respective Messiahs when we should be kicking back and playing a game together. Yet the Messiahs are important because they push the hobby towards new and exciting places.

I do believe that different games tickle different toes, and that is going to mean that some gamers aren't right for each other - but we already knew that. Personally, I like 'em all in different contexts, so to me GNS is unifying rather than divisive since it helps me understand what context I'm in.

QuoteI became *much* more productive in designing my own game when I stopped looking at *any* online discussion of RPG theory and just focused on making a fun game.

Damn, I can sympathize with that - I keep wondering how quickly my games would come together if I'd stop chatting on the Internet and focus on writing something real. On that note...

Change my vote for the last option.

Quote from: lachekLike any model, it is just a model - to be used and discarded when something better comes along. Since something better has come along since then, even its creator has all but discarded it.

If you mean GNS2: Electric Boogaloo it's built on top of GNS, and therefore just as bunk.  The something better is stop pretending it's a science that needs a taxonomy, and look at other games and the things in them that are fun.  Design, of any kind, is an Art not a Science.

Quote from: lachekHaving said that, I think a lot of your initial reaction to GNS has to do with how you approach it. I don't recall a place where Ron Edwards stated that Nar is so much better than Gamist play, just that thinking you play Nar when you're really playing Gamist can lead to trouble. But that's a different thread for a different day, I'm sure.

Like Luke said on the recent Fear the Boot podcast -- it's all the condescension.  And the brain damage.  It's well established that Ron's theories are based around the conceit that his style of play is better than some other people's.

Quote from: lachekIt certainly helped me enjoy the games I play, both "indie" and "trad". If it will help me design better games is for time to tell, but I've personally enjoyed many games that are in part grounded in those design principles. So to me and the gamers I know in person, your assertion doesn't hold true. Alas, different discussion, etc.

Sadly, I believe this is a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes effect.  It's quite telling that people into GNS / Storygames are quick to label themselves and find a sense of identity in being a "hippy" gamer.  Any enjoyable games produced following GNS would be in spite of trying to follow it... not because of it.

Quote from: lachekThere's no reason we need to follow our respective Messiahs when we should be kicking back and playing a game together. Yet the Messiahs are important because they push the hobby towards new and exciting places.

My advice is to not be a follower, and to chart your own course. Play games you think are fun, and don't worry about labeling yourself or the games you like.  As a designer, learn from others, but make the game YOU want to make and don't worry who's taxonomy it fits into (or doesn't).

Interesting commentary by Stephen Colbert

QuoteOn the next campaign we saw merchant caravans crossing the desert, and my character flew down and landed next to a merchant and tore off the guy's head.

QuoteEventually, we started to judge each other based on how our characters behaved. One DM seemed to believe we were too greedy. We wanted too much. We wanted our characters to be too strong. But, you know, within the culture of high school we were the weak puppies and were looking for power, albeit imagined.

QuoteI may remembering wrong, but I think by the end we were using the game to express how we felt about each other.

My thoughts exactly.
If you start judging a person by the kind of fantasies this person enjoys, well there isn't much to discuss with you anymore.

Oh, no. So this is what it feels like when your heroes die.  

I can't believe Stephen Colbert was one of those guys. You know... I can barely type it.

The cross-gender roleplayers.

Your life size cardboard cutout will be missed at our table. Good day, sir.

-- I said "Good day!"

This poll makes me kind of sad.

I thought this was sort of a site where anything goes, and now I find out that it's got a majority of people who moralize about other people's fantasy lives. Poo.

(I mean, the question isn't about our preferences, it's about what is permissible in an RPG. So if you answer anything but the first option, you are saying no human beings for any reason in any social circumstances anywhere ever in human history no matter what their individual psychology or personal needs should ever allow themselves even with consenting adults with similar needs to address any of that stuff in an RPG, even if doing so would improve their lives and make them happier people.)

Quote from: TonyLBThat said, I'm pretty interested in what a broader audience thinks:  Are there stories that should be off limits to RPGs?  If so, where is the line, generally, drawn?

I think you are asking the wrong question, at least for me.  The issue, for me, isn't whether a topic exists in a game but whether the PCs are the ones performing the atrocities and whether the players are enjoying it.

That's an important difference I keep emphasising but few others notice.

I mean, if you were for some crazy reason to want to roleplay through the Holocaust, there's a difference between the Schindler's List rpg and the Triumph of the Will rpg.

I'll leave trying to get into the heads of perpertators of vile crimes to the FBI behavioural profilers who are paid to do it. My guess is those guys don't woop and holler and cheer each-other on as they do it like Vincent Baker's crew does.  That's leaving aside the triviality of Baker's approach.

Quote from: walkerpI don't know if you are familiar with Ken Hite's work and style, but at least on podcasts he has a very dry, wry, lightly sarcastic delivery with a tendency to use rich language.  You know he's a huge Cthulu expert.  So I suspect his use of that phrase was purposefully excessive and meant to imply "not normal people".

OK, would you mind ammending that to the Slate article so that those who have no clue who Ken Hite is get clued in and don't think that gamers are all fucked up people based on what he said?

While we're on the subject of movies: The Passion of the Christ wouldn't be welcome at my table - I just wouldn't be comfortable with it. The brutality overwhelms the message, for me.

Yet I understand there are many who feel the way Mel Gibson portrays that Biblical story is very powerful and true, to them. Obviously, to them, the brutality plays a big role in shaping the message.

I'm not going to call for a film burning because it doesn't work for me.

PS. Hearing that Vincent is trying to create a pirate propaganda game would disturb me greatly - in an oh-my-God-all-that-milk-just-came-out-of-my-nose kind of way.

Quote from: CalithenaThis poll makes me kind of sad.

I thought this was sort of a site where anything goes...

You really thought it was a place that's cool with telling stories about brutal raping and murdering children, decapitating them, and fucking their corpses? Because there's open and tolerant, and then there's nihilism.

Quote from: CalithenaSo if you answer anything but the first option, you are saying no human beings for any reason in any social circumstances anywhere ever in human history no matter what their individual psychology or personal needs should ever allow themselves even with consenting adults with similar needs to address any of that stuff in an RPG, even if doing so would improve their lives and make them happier people.)

It seems most of the people here feel the hobby isn't well served by an association with a subculture of fetishists who use RPGs as vehicles for psychodramas about savage rape, forced sodomy with dildoes, castration, and necrophelia of children.

I mean, if this were an amateur photography site with a tolerance for nudity, that tolerance wouldn't necessarily extend to exhibitions of fisting, or pictures of women being fucked by rottweilers.

Rottweilers???

 DEFinitely not that....


- Ed C.