About "no game is better than any other, I just like this one more".

Actually you can do a little bit more than fall back on subjectivity: you can recognize your biases and explain how they inform your evaluation of a given game. And when someone says your favorite game is horrible, consider that they may be coming from a different set of biases; this is an opportunity if you wish to learn about their biases, but you're unlikely to prove to them that their opinion is wrong.

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

The problem here I think is you're assuming that what non-trad gaming offers is "being about something" when if you look at experiences of folks, trad gaming offers the same thing.

Regards,
David R

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

Hi Temple!

Quote from: TempleI 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.

That is quite common development acutally, that in reaction to the elitism of one party, the other might became elitist as well...

Quote from: TempleI like Storygames. I like thematic games, games that are about something. Games that make me feel.
(...)
Why is that wrong? Is it wrong?

There is nothing wrong, until... until you will begin to claim, that only (chose several games) are the games, that make people feel. That would create false dichotomy serving only one purpose. The elitism mentioned above.

Quote from: TempleI 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.

No. You can feel that the games are better for you, that's all right. Everybody has his favourite. But thinking that these game are objectively better is not only nonsense (what do any human being alone without some measure know about objectivity anyway), it is elitism nevertheless. The fact, that you might only think it, not say it is just hiding your elitism inside you, that doesn't rid you of it.

Quote from: TempleAm 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.

I don't think that a Swine is defined by designing games. Every other gamer design a game. And they are usually independent, because he owns them unless some publisher wants to print them. So what?

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

Now, you are creating false dichotomy... Roleplaying games are. Period. You might distinguish them by genre, by page count, by ownership, by approach, but they exist and in most cases one has no doubts if it is RPG or not. They can exist in any form an author wish. And as long as author accepts the reality that he stands on the shoulders of his predecesors, that his game is not THE ONLY ONE, that it has its merits and its flaws, that it will suit to few but not everybody, that all the games are in some sense equal, I see no problem.

The problem is, that the above is not usually the case.

(That is my personal opinion, others might have their own...)

Quote from: David RThe problem here I think is you're assuming that what non-trad gaming offers is "being about something" when if you look at experiences of folks, trad gaming offers the same thing.

Regards,
David R

The way I see it, "being about something" is a thing you can put into any roleplaying game. Any game where you take on roles can be used to explore themes in chararacters and events.

Games that "are about something" are games that take this thing, and makes the game about achieving that thing. So its not that traditonal games cant be "about something," its just that games that were designed to "be about something" do it differently. Its all they were designed to do after all!

Quote from: TempleGames that "are about something" are games that take this thing, and makes the game about achieving that thing. So its not that traditonal games cant be "about something," its just that games that were designed to "be about something" do it differently. Its all they were designed to do after all!

Let's say, they claim, that they are "about something". You should probably be more specific, but in my experience several of those (be about something) games are actually about something completely different, than they claim they are about. And even those, that are about the thing, they claim they are about, might do a worse job for some specific group of people wanting that one thing that those so called "traditional games" used for same purpose. But maybe I am talking about something completely different then that your "something". :confused:

Quote from: AlnagNo. You can feel that the games are better for you, that's all right. Everybody has his favourite. But thinking that these game are objectively better is not only nonsense (what do any human being alone without some measure know about objectivity anyway), it is elitism nevertheless. The fact, that you might only think it, not say it is just hiding your elitism inside you, that doesn't rid you of it.

See, I feel you might bemissing my point. OTOH my first language is norwegian and your first language is (I believe) czech,so it might be a language barrier thing.

When I say that I think my favourite game/band/movie is better than some other game/band/movie, Im talking in subjective terms. Tool is, to me, a better band than the Pussycat Dolls, for example. Or Westlife.
Its apreference. I realise that there are people (lots of people) who think Tool is a whining piece-of-shit bandn and that their songs and lyrics are meaningless drivel, and I respect their right to not like Tool. Same goes for other things I like. Just like I see no need to try to convince you that Tool is the bestest band ever,I see no need to preach about Dogs in the Vineyard to you.

Its not about hidden elitism, its about personal preference.

To me, indie games are a lot like modern jazz music.
Its kinda weird, not what most people expect from music and certainly not for everyone.
You cant dance to it (the way you can to a waltz or a polka), it requires some effort on the part of the listener and there are indeed some people who are elitist sons of bitches and claim that jazz is better than any other form of music.
But jazz isnt harmful to the music industry.

Quote from: AlnagLet's say, they claim, that they are "about something". You should probably be more specific, but in my experience several of those (be about something) games are actually about something completely different, than they claim they are about. And even those, that are about the thing, they claim they are about, might do a worse job for some specific group of people wanting that one thing that those so called "traditional games" used for same purpose. But maybe I am talking about something completely different then that your "something". :confused:

Ok, Im talking about theme.
Ill use examples from DitV, if you dont mind.

DItV is "about" how far you are willing to go for your beliefs. Are you willing to cut off the arm to save the body, is one of the phrases I believe the book uses.

Now, it is completelypossible to tella story about this same theme with another game. You could tell it using D&D or Qin: The Warring States for example.

But DitV takes that theme and integrates it into the rules. Through Raises and Sees the rules support the theme. Te game is "about something," and that something is the theme of "how far are you willing to go for what you believe in?"

As I said, any tradtional game can be played about that theme. But the games themselves arent "about something." They can be, but they arent from the beginning.

Did that make sense?

QuoteTemple said: I see no need to preach about Dogs in the Vineyard to you.

Please don't. There are Mormons in my family ....don't feel the need to play fictionalized version of that religion.

Quote"Temple" also said this stuff: To me, indie games are a lot like modern jazz music.
Its kinda weird, not what most people expect from music and certainly not for everyone.
You cant dance to it (the way you can to a waltz or a polka), it requires some effort on the part of the listener and there are indeed some people who are elitist sons of bitches and claim that jazz is better than any other form of music.
But jazz isnt harmful to the music industry.

 I don't see that analogy at all.

 The "Indie" games seem more like really BAD "Goth" or "Emo" bands that got one hit wonders and radio play. While D&D , TRAVELLER and games from that era are more like Big Band music or even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. (Picck your age bracket)

 "Jazz" to me equates more to the RPGs that came after the initial burst of RPGs that were still recognizable as RPGS - games like HERO, GURPS, Shadowrun , Call of Cthulu possibly.

Oh and you CAN dance to Jazz. There are all sorts of JAZZ to choose from . Usually its a slow dance and she and I have quite a few smiles on our faces later in the night.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarI don't see that analogy at all.

 The "Indie" games seem more like really BAD "Goth" or "Emo" bands that got one hit wonders and radio play. While D&D , TRAVELLER and games from that era are more like Big Band music or even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. (Picck your age bracket)

 "Jazz" to me equates more to the RPGs that came after the initial burst of RPGs that were still recognizable as RPGS - games like HERO, GURPS, Shadowrun , Call of Cthulu possibly.

Oh and you CAN dance to Jazz. There are all sorts of JAZZ to choose from . Usually its a slow dance and she and I have quite a few smiles on our faces later in the night.


- Ed C.

This I would call nitpicking.

First of all, the comparison you make to indie games is selected solely for the purpose of making them look juvenile or of poor quality.

Secondly, when I made a comparison to jazz I didnt mean a historical comparison. I didnt mean that you could look at the history of jazz and say "look,this mirrors the evolution of indie games!"
I also specifically said "modern jazz music." By which I mean contemporary jazz, which is its own genre.*

What I ment was that just like contemporary jazz, indie games are not for everyone. And furthermore, that they are not a threat to the hobby as a whole.

*After consulting wikipedia its become apparent to me that the term "contemporary" seems to only be used to classify genre in my own language; Im talking about experimental jazz, sorry for the confusion.

Temple, you are fueling the fire you claim to be fighting.

Thematic Gamewrights == Jazzmusicians?
That´s actually not even one step away from "beat poets".

Quote from: TempleAs I said, any tradtional game can be played about that theme. But the games themselves arent "about something." They can be, but they arent from the beginning.

Did that make sense?

This makes sense, but it runs into a problem (which may be due to language).

DitV is designed to be "about something". But what this means is that the author of the game has an "aboutness" that he wants to convey and which he's tried to embed in the rules-text. It doesn't mean the rules actually succeed in conveying that "aboutness" to a given player, in anything more than a trivial sense (that is, receiving the author's opinion of his own game). For some subset of players, the "aboutness" they find in a traditional game may be perceived more clearly and strongly--more convincingly--than what they get from DitV.

Quote from: TempleGames that "are about something" are games that take this thing, and makes the game about achieving that thing. So its not that traditonal games cant be "about something," its just that games that were designed to "be about something" do it differently. Its all they were designed to do after all!

QuoteTemple wrote:
But DitV takes that theme and integrates it into the rules. Through Raises and Sees the rules support the theme. Te game is "about something," and that something is the theme of "how far are you willing to go for what you believe in?"

(Bolding mine) Two points, Firstly IMO the intergration of rules and theme is not the sole domain of indie games.

Secondly just because a game is designed to "do something" does not mean it actually does it.

Regards,
David R

@Jazzmisicians: Even though they might be elitist jackasses, Jazzmusicians have one thing that sets them apart from Thematic Gamewrights:

Objective virtuosity with their instrument. Even Jazz-haters must acknowlegde that.

Quote from: SettembriniTemple, you are fueling the fire you claim to be fighting.

Thematic Gamewrights == Jazzmusicians?
That´s actually not even one step away from "beat poets".

No. Thats not me fueling the fire, thats you looking for a fight where there is none.

Honestly, youre reading my posts like the devil reads the bible.

Im not comparing indie game designers to brilliant jazz musicians. And if I was, then Id compare traditional gameauthors and designers as classical virtuosos.

Im comparing indie games as a whole to jazz music: Just one genre out of many, albeit a weird one that isnt for everyone.
Anything else you find in that statement Im afraid you have edited in your self.

No, bucky. Jazzmusic is universally accepted as the intellectuals refined music taste and the real outlet for talented and virtuose musicians.

You already subverted the hip/cool image of the label "Indie", now you are aiming for more.

Your sophistry and weaseling will not help. If Jazz music was used by you, "just to make a non-value statement", then let it be heard Jazz music was a wrong choice. Because Jazz music has values attached to it.
If the example was really just an example, you needn´t insist on the Jazz music comparison.

Chose another one. I propose twelve-tone technique.