Quote from: CRKrueger;800089Noticed you went with that instead of Maid or Poison'd.

Just to make a quick comment on this one, there is a difference between Maid's   underage maids, Posion'd addressing rape, and a game with direct links to the kink community.

Quote from: Certified;800140Just to make a quick comment on this one, there is a difference between Maid's   underage maids, Posion'd addressing rape, and a game with direct links to the kink community.

Yeah, the last one might be distasteful to some, but it's not immoral nor illegal...

Quote from: rawma;799846Sorry to be rude, but untangling just a second sentence of that last post was more work than I was up for.



No, that's not fair.  I am not arguing that anything is easy (including understanding your previous post ).  

If you read through your previous posts, maybe you'll see how you appeared to be doing just that.

QuoteI am arguing against the idea that any fate point or other metagame mechanic must destroy role-playing.  If that's not your contention, then I'm arguing against a strawman and we can quit.  But I think I understood you to endorse that position with your comment about magic fireplugs.

I thought I stated pretty clearly that for some roles it is  role-playing, for others not. Common sense ought I think to suggest as much, just as leaping a tall building in a single bound or crawling the wall like a spider would be out of character for George Washington.

QuoteMy logic is as follows:

In many role-playing games, players play not only their own characters but side characters of simple sorts: pets, familiars, mounts, hirelings, and even henchmen; the player decides actions for these other characters even where it's not meaningful for the player character to have done so (e.g., if the pet reacts to something out of the PC's line of sight).  For some people, this would destroy immersion and ruin the role-playing, but for many people this would still be role-playing.  Do you think this is not role-playing, or that it is ruined role-playing?

Asking is certainly better than taking a proposition for granted when it has not been!

My view is that certainly it is role-playing whenever one plays a role. However, different people have different views on whether a multiplicity of roles (par for the course for a gm) enhances or detracts from their experience as players.

What you should (but seem not to) understand, is that the key issue is  imposition. Along with many other things you have cited, this is not somethng imposed by the structure of early rpgs.

(With computer games such as Wizardry, the designers thought the multi-character party an important part of the paper-and-pencil game they wanted to reflect despite the program's basically single-player orientation).

When it is imposed, clearly immersion in a single role at a time has been devalued. Most of the time (or so it seems) the reason is priority given to story-building. Savage Worlds does not strictly require it, but does encourage it - more in the interest of convenience in a tactical wargaming aspect than an 'authorial' perspective. (SW is perhaps especially rich in bits that facilitate a variety of game forms.)

Not all that can be done with a game system necessarily must be done, and I think you'll find little if any complaint here about rules sets that do not lay on a "new school" with a heavy hand. People may object to text that pushes a philosophy too hard, but I think most are quite able and willing to separate that from actual technical scope. Neither Fate nor Ars Magica nor Prince Valiant, much less Vampire the Masquerade (for all its 'Storyteller' eyewash) seems likely to win many votes for being a proper 'storygame' in this forum.

QuoteThe inclusion of a limited number of metamagic points that modify the world is equivalent to a magical creature capable of a certain number of magical alterations to the game world, which acts according to its own whim; the player plays this creature (that is, decides on the use the metamagic points) without regard to the player character's preferences or knowledge -- the metamagic points create complications, assist the player character, or create greater challenges, as the creature (that is, the player) chooses.  If role-playing this creature alongside the player character destroys role-playing, why doesn't playing any of those other side characters destroy role-playing?  (I'll grant that this argument hinges upon a genre like fantasy where such a creature could exist.)

Is that what is always, or even usually, being done? Have I raised any objection to it? No and definitely no!

Should a hypothetical corner case (some X is not Y) excuse the real majority of cases (therefore no X is Y)? If not - and I say not - then what is the point of the distraction? What motive for such maundering might you sensibly expect to be inferred as a rather likely explanation?

QuoteIf having metamagic points destroys all role-playing, why doesn't having this creature also destroy all role-playing?

So:
1. some people do X without destroying Y
2. Z can be viewed as a particular case of X
3. therefore some people should be able to do Z without destroying Y
where X=playing other independent characters, Y=role-playing, and Z=(relatively modest) metagame point mechanism (consistent with the game genre).

Quote from: Phillip;800190I thought I stated pretty clearly that for some roles it is  role-playing, for others not. Common sense ought I think to suggest as much, just as leaping a tall building in a single bound or crawling the wall like a spider would be out of character for George Washington.

Instead of odd analogies, why don't you directly address the topic?  What games are you concerned about, and what do they do that you object to?

QuoteMy view is that certainly it is role-playing whenever one plays a role. However, different people have different views on whether a multiplicity of roles (par for the course for a gm) enhances or detracts from their experience as players.

OK, so my example is accepted, at least for some players.

QuoteWhat you should (but seem not to) understand, is that the key issue is  imposition. Along with many other things you have cited, this is not somethng imposed by the structure of early rpgs.

When it is imposed, clearly immersion in a single role at a time has been devalued. Most of the time (or so it seems) the reason is priority given to story-building.

Is the devaluing because of the imposition of immersion or because non-immersion is imposed? Why are you letting games impose anything on you? Don't play a game if it's making you unhappy.

QuoteNot all that can be done with a game system necessarily must be done, and I think you'll find little if any complaint here about rules sets that do not lay on a "new school" with a heavy hand. People may object to text that pushes a philosophy too hard, but I think most are quite able and willing to separate that from actual technical scope. Neither Fate nor Ars Magica nor Prince Valiant, much less Vampire the Masquerade (for all its 'Storyteller' eyewash) seems likely to win many votes for being a proper 'storygame' in this forum.

Is that what is always, or even usually, being done? Have I raised any objection to it? No and definitely no!

So what I describe, like metagame points in Monster of the Week, is OK? But something else is not? I don't like games who put "creating a story" ahead of actually playing; do stuff and then you'll have a story about it. And apparently you don't think the sort of rule I describe is unacceptable. Propose another case in between and let's see if we disagree on it.

QuoteShould a hypothetical corner case (some X is not Y) excuse the real majority of cases (therefore no X is Y)? If not - and I say not - then what is the point of the distraction? What motive for such maundering might you sensibly expect to be inferred as a rather likely explanation?

X="metagame mechanics", Y="ruined role playing" -- is this correct? I agree that it is possible to ruin role playing (but you don't need story gaming to do it); I'm just trying to figure out the limits. It is also the case that (some X is not Y) is a counterexample to (X implies Y).