Hi, sometime lurker, first time poster.

Ive read around the site, and attempted to form an opinion on the community here. Thats proved quite difficult, possibly because the community is so diverse. On one hand I can hardly say I agree with the Pundit. I think that elitism is a problem (admittedly I see it as a problem in both the "indie camp" and the "mainstream camp" of the supposed conflict, but hey!), but thats about where the agreement ends.
On the other hand, I do like the unmoderated nature of theRPGsite,which is what drew me to register here.

I like Storygames. I like thematic games, games that are about something. Games that make me feel.
In the same vein, I cant bring myself to listen to musicI feel is without artistic content or watch movies that dont give me anything on an emotional level.
So I listen to Tool, watch Pans Labyrinth and play Dogs in the Vineyard.

Why is that wrong? Is it wrong?

I get that it is wrong to present some rpgs as objectively "better" than others because of content like this. I can think that Tool, Pans Labyrinth and Dogs in the Vineyard are better, but claiming that they are better in an objective sense can never be anything other than wrong.

That is the essence I am able to draw from the Pundits rants.

Am I "Swine?" Im an aspiring game designer, and I design indie games together with the (rather small) norwegian community. I want people to play these games, both mine and others, and to enjoy them and what they offer.

So, why cant roeplaying games be anything other than the traditional model, according to you?* Why cant they be about something?

*The "you" I am adressing here are the Pundit and anyone else who feel like this is adressed to them.

This might not be aimed at me, but i have a simple rule of thumb for you.

Write what you want.

Play what you want.

Like what you want.

Do not denegrate others in doing so.

Simple.

Only the notion that every game should be RLY ABOUT SOMEHTING, is what let´s us raise the war-banners.

This, to me, is a bit like the question chaosvoyager asked in another thread "do you think desigining new games is bad for the hobby?"

I mean, who really thinks there's anything objectively wrong with "wanting a role-playing game to be about something," anyway?

I think it has to do with a set of folks who want to define that as the "right" way to think about gaming. Or the underlying assumption that to play DnD,for example, means that you don't want your game to "mean anything."

It's all a reaction to that, IMHO...

What the fuck is it with these newbie posters lately and their introspective posts?

Mate, get your nose out of your navel, and let's talk about rpgs. Maybe some people will like what you like, maybe some will hate it, maybe some of either group will be moderators, or what you perceive be "therpgsite as a whole". Doesn't matter.

Just talk about rpgs. That's what therpgsite is for, believe it or not.

Now, your one question - who said it's wrong for an rpg to be about something? I don't see anyone here saying rpgs have to all be setting-less universal systems...

Pardon?

Trad or indie: ALL games are about something.

5 out of 10.

IMO, the key point is saying certain games are objectively better. You can say "these are subjectively better for me and/or my gaming group" but saying a game is objectively better leads to bizarre results like the infamous "brain damage" quote.

If you and your buddies like playing forge-style games, and you like designing them, that's no skin off anyone's nose. You want to talk about them, you're welcome here. But claiming them - or any game or game-type- to be objectively better is insulting to those who prefer the other games and game-types. In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my jaw. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and such value judgements are always subjective.

Other people may have different feelings, but that's mine.

-clash

Quote from: TempleHi, sometime lurker, first time poster.

Ive read around the site, and attempted to form an opinion on the community here. Thats proved quite difficult, possibly because the community is so diverse. On one hand I can hardly say I agree with the Pundit. I think that elitism is a problem (admittedly I see it as a problem in both the "indie camp" and the "mainstream camp" of the supposed conflict, but hey!), but thats about where the agreement ends.
On the other hand, I do like the unmoderated nature of theRPGsite,which is what drew me to register here.

I like Storygames. I like thematic games, games that are about something. Games that make me feel.
In the same vein, I cant bring myself to listen to musicI feel is without artistic content or watch movies that dont give me anything on an emotional level.
So I listen to Tool, watch Pans Labyrinth and play Dogs in the Vineyard.

Why is that wrong? Is it wrong?

I get that it is wrong to present some rpgs as objectively "better" than others because of content like this. I can think that Tool, Pans Labyrinth and Dogs in the Vineyard are better, but claiming that they are better in an objective sense can never be anything other than wrong.

That is the essence I am able to draw from the Pundits rants.

Am I "Swine?" Im an aspiring game designer, and I design indie games together with the (rather small) norwegian community. I want people to play these games, both mine and others, and to enjoy them and what they offer.

So, why cant roeplaying games be anything other than the traditional model, according to you?* Why cant they be about something?

*The "you" I am adressing here are the Pundit and anyone else who feel like this is adressed to them.

I think it's wrong to think that any game can't be "about" something if the players choose to make it so. Traditional RPG's can be "about" anything the folks playing them want them to be, right?

Thinking otherwise -- that games that make you 'feel' need special mechanics or non-traditional GM's, or whatever -- is elitist. And wrong.

When you ask "why can't roleplaying gmaes be anything other than the traditional model" I would say there's no problem with that so long as

• You're not saying the traditional model is broken, or causes damage, or is full of tyrany
• You're not saying that other games are somehow "better" in any objective way at evoking feeling or depth or making statements about human nature

Enjoying non-traditional games is fine; looking down on mainstream games or gamers isn't likely to get a positive reaction.

I think what I've said above might be confusing to some folks; some people in the indie community don't see the indie perspective as being hostile to mainstream gamers. If I've just described you, then you should be especially wary about

• Using terms or core concepts from RPG theories that claim games cause on-going power struggle or brain damage
• Any point of view that believes game systems are objectively better if they're narrowly trying to do one thing
• Any point of view that believes traditional GMing is problematic or believes Rule 0 is somehow indicative of objectively "bad design"

There's others as well, but those are perspectives that come up often in the indie dialog and are pretty insulting to people who enjoy traditional, broadly focused game systems like D20 or White Wolf.

Cheers,
-E.

What Clash said!

Well, with a successful game, if you ask eight people what its about you'll get twelve answers.

Games that last are all about situation and whatnot - where it goes from there is left as an exercise for the reader.

Dogs in the Vineyard, for instance, sets up characters with a mission - how that mission plays out, and what happens and what the story is about is more or less up to the people playing it.

I love the black powder firearms for instance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPMr8ix3aZ0

and the funky feel of the world and theres certainly room for that in there, which is what makes it good.

Another example is Delta Green - on Yog Radio one of the guys who wrote it was saying 'I often run in to people who say 'Dude! I love Delta Green! Its like Ghostbusters and we all have proton packs!' and I thinking 'er, thats not what I had in mind at all' ' and he then goes on to say that so long as people are enjoying it what does it matter what they do with it but that learning that is sometimes hard.

So, you can make your game about something, but if you succeed only half a dozen people are gonna like it.

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you and your buddies like playing forge-style games, and you like designing them, that's no skin off anyone's nose. You want to talk about them, you're welcome here. But claiming them - or any game or game-type- to be objectively better is insulting to those who prefer the other games and game-types. In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my jaw. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and such value judgements are always subjective.

What he said. Just don't pass these games off as being something that ascends traditional RPGs or that those who play them have ascended. Just play and be happy - just don't tell anyone else how to play.

You know, sometimes I like games I play to be about--nothing.

Not in a big dramatic, tense, plot and character driven way.

Sometimes, "nothing", is about spending 4 hours sitting at a table having players  "play" the personality of the character while the character shops, or drinks or woos the girl that the character likes. There isn't in essence a moral, a power play, a world shaping event. Just a little being and doing.


Now I like plots going on around PC's, I like terse dramatic moments that build from the things PC's do (or don't do.), but I also like the characters to have emotional weight. Which comes from sometimes, nothing, that is game sessions where the character is just being that person. Not making world shaking proclamations, not struggling with inner conflicts and demons, just you know futzing about.


Maybe I'm strange.

It's all in the definition, I guess. The thing that rubs me, for instance, the wrong way is -as other have already said- trying to hold up one style of game over another, just because it' "about" something.

Technically, even the most blood-soaked rough-and-tumble dungeon crawl is "about" something:

Kicking ass and taking stuff.

I don't care if your task resolution in involves handfuls of dice or picking flowers.  Have fun doing it but don't get uppity, because you are wrong, wrong wrong.

That said -- welcome, Temple!

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I don't care if your task resolution in involves handfuls of dice or picking flowers.

It just so happens that in one of my little works-in-progress all actions are resolved with exactly those: flowers, that is, not dice...

And 'ello, Temple.

Well this post was, more than anything, a test. I wanted to see what kinds of responses I got (not that it wasnt a question I didnt want an answer to from theRPGsites forumites), to see if this was a forum I could post in regularly.

Im satisfied, and I like the replies so far, which for me amount to:

Objective= Bad.
Subjective = Good.

So thats cool then!
Now that the waters are tested, I can get to posting about actual roleplaying games!