Quote from: RPGPunditBut you see, REAL D20, and indeed most real RPGs (as opposed to "story games" or whatever the fuck you want to call "indie rpgs" ;just about anything would be more accurate and appropriate than calling them RPGs), depend on the players actually ROLEPLAYING

Oh I assure you from experience, D&D as it is written (and as it has always been written) has no dependence on roleplaying from the players.  You can play through entire campaigns without ever roleplaying your character to any greater degree than one would roleplay the battleship in Monopoly.  My regular group includes such players, and they affect the smooth operation of the rules not one whit.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolOh I assure you from experience, D&D as it is written (and as it has always been written) has no dependence on roleplaying from the players.  You can play through entire campaigns without ever roleplaying your character to any greater degree than one would roleplay the battleship in Monopoly.  My regular group includes such players, and they affect the smooth operation of the rules not one whit.

KoOS

Definitely, that is in fact the core reason why I think it is one of the best rpgs out there even now for introducing newbies.  You can play without roleplaying at all, and so can introduce roleplaying elements as you become comfortable with them.

In all seriousness, I think it's ability to be played as a glorified board game makes it far more accessible to new players than it is generally given credit for.

Quote from: SettembriniOr as Clinton R. Nixon put it, he`s fighting the self elevation-bullshit that is going on on the internet. You will get dirty when doing this. Especially as you naturally self-elevate yourself above the self-elevators. But he does so only by "right of common sense and mainstream gaming", not by claiming any superiority.

This is perhaps the most spectacularly absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.  ON THE INTERNET!  You are in elite company indeed.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old SchoolThis is perhaps the most spectacularly absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.  ON THE INTERNET!  You are in elite company indeed.

KoOS

I think, in fairness, before condemning Clinton for any apparently absurd statements he may have made one should either look at the original context or give him the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton is a good guy, reported comments routinely lose context or tone.  I don't think we should generally draw much from them.

Quote from: BalbinusI think, in fairness, before condemning Clinton for any apparently absurd statements he may have made one should either look at the original context or give him the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton is a good guy, reported comments routinely lose context or tone.  I don't think we should generally draw much from them.

I'm not condemning Clinton, I'm condemning Settembrini.  I don't think Clinton had much to do with anything past the first sentence or two that I quoted, and the last sentence in particular was indefensible tripe.  Nisarg has more than a few cogent points mixed in with the tinfoil hat-worthy raving, but the suggestion that he doesn't consider himself superior to his opponents (real or imagined) is so nonsensical that I have a hard time imagining that Settembrini was serious.  OTOH, he's Prussian and since Prussians are incapable of humour, I can only assume he meant what he typed.

KoOS

KoOS, thanks for the correction, I couldn't make any sense of the quote to be honest which is probably why I got confused.

Quote from: mattormegThe ranting is why I read Pundit's stuff in the first place. He's like the Lewis Black of gaming.

One of my favourite comedians.

RPGPundit

QuoteThis is perhaps the most spectacularly absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.  ON THE INTERNET!  You are in elite company indeed.

Where is your exact problem with my statement?

It`s totally logical.

There is self-elevation shit.  Whoever fights this, automatically has to self-elevate himself above the self-elevators.

This shall be known henceforth as Pundit`s Paradox.

Quote from: MaddmanI think he can make sense and make some good points when he isn't talking about his deranged conspiracy theories.

    I see that as more an extreme reaction to certain trends he finds damaging to the hobby.  I mean, the Pundit hasn't insinuated that Ron Edwards makes baguettes from the blood of innocent gamers lured into the Forge forums.

    *pause*

     Well, not yet at any rate.

Andrew

Quote from: SamarkandI see that as more an extreme reaction to certain trends he finds damaging to the hobby.  I mean, the Pundit hasn't insinuated that Ron Edwards makes baguettes from the blood of innocent gamers lured into the Forge forums.

    *pause*

     Well, not yet at any rate.

Andrew

Out of curiosity, do you know a good recipe for this? I mean, I've tried a thousand or so times and it always tastes like sawdust.

You guys don't seem to understand. You should be viewing what the Pundit writes like an encounter between Kurtz and Willard in Apocalypse Now -


"Are you a gamer or a d20 supporter ?"

"I'm a gamer"

"You are neither - you are SWINE sent by the Forge to deliver the Kool Aid"

The horror, the horror.......

As to angst. You know the reason why I think it is so pervasive in RPGs esp in certain games and campaigns is because it is the easiest emotion to roleplay. I mean think about it. It takes very little effort. Also creating angst prone characters are a hell of a lot easier than creating credible characters. This is a long thread and in case this point has been offered - sorry for the repeat.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: beejazzOut of curiosity, do you know a good recipe for this? I mean, I've tried a thousand or so times and it always tastes like sawdust.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times: you need to use less sawdust.

And more blood.

And some paprika.

Quote from: Andy KI smell someone who's never played D&D at a convention. Conventions are where "Real D&D", "Pure D&D", "D&D to the Letter of the Law", happens (or should happen). I've played in no fewer than 25 D&D sessions over 7 years at GenCon and other cons (including RPGA, which prides itself on being "really true to the rules"). And what you describe above completely misses the mark of what I've experienced firsthand with the majority of gamers.

I don't believe that deep down gamers are an unhappy lot. But Players Actually Roleplaying... DMs who are Responsible and Powerful? I've only played one of dozens of D&D convention games, at cons far and wide, where I saw both at one table (Some Birthright adventure back at GenCon in 95 or so).

Sure, maybe you and your four friends, and a couple other dudes on the Net, play the game in your own special "Roleplaying matters guys, c'mon! And I'll be responsible, m'kay?" way. But the "Majority of Gamers", which you just love to appeal to authority to, they are NOT playing the way you and your four buddies play. If there's anything I've learned in 20 years of playing the game, You (and me, but that's another story) are in the Minority of D&D players.

There's tens of thousands of enlightened D&Ders between ENWorld, TheRPGSite and RPGNet: Responsible DMs, Players Who Roleplay. But if you think you're playing D&D the way that the majority of the millions of people play, you're fooling yourself.

-Andy

Hm.

I don't think conventions are representative of the way most people roleplay. I'm a bit astonished that you'd reach that conclusion or base your assumptions about what goes on in people's game rooms on what happens on the convention floor.

They're very different animals across a wide variety of dimensions.

That said, no one can be sure what the "majority of gamers" is like -- we all have our subjective experiences. The generalizations we make usually tell us more about the generalizers than about what might or might not be happening in the real world.

You don't see GM's as being both Responsible and Powerful.

You're not alone in that -- a lot of people believe that. A huge portion of Forge theory and alternative-to-traditional gaming style is predicated on the idea that a powerful GM is *bad* for gaming.

But traditional gaming is by far the most popular form of RPG play.

Overwhelmingly popular.

I know you know that -- but a lot of people dismiss that, so I'll say it again:

"Traditional RPG play is overwhelmingly more popular than alternative styles."

Add up all the players, ever, of Sorcerer, DiTV, MLWM, Nicotine Girls, etc. etc. etc. and put them against any edition of D&D and you'll find order-of-magnitude differences.

There's no way to know what that means, but there's really only a couple of possibilities:

1) Traditional gamers are a miserable, unhappy lot, who choose to play a dysfunctional hobby because they don't know any better

2) Most of them, in fact, enjoy their game and are willing to endure a few puds at conventions (or whatever) as minor annoyances in an over-all functional and fun-delivering system

Indie theory overwhelmingly chooses the 1st option: gamers are idiots who choose to flagilate themselves upon the sharp rocks of Traditonally GM games (I'm mixing metaphors or something here).

Anyone who has had *good* experiences with those kinds of games must be an abberation (your theory. I'm one of the 4 guys on the Internet, as well -- and I know the other three... and one of them's not the Pundit...) or delusional (a hugely popular point of view in some circles).

Let me suggest this to you: authority in social settings is not, by its nature, dysfunctional. It's *natural.* The traditional GM role is no more dysfunctional than any other leadership role.

Therefore any *problems* with the GM role are the result of the people involved, not the nature of the system. I think that if you look in detail at examples of problems with Powerful GM's, you'll find that this to be the case.

Cheers,
-E.

You rock, minus E!

Beware though, someone might try to give you kool aid points...