Quote from: rgrove0172;982887The potential to recycle unused campaign material is mentioned. I assume that means moving a temple or something from an area not visited in the game to one that will be. Am I wrong?

Probably. I read the comments on reusing to mean using it in some other context not throwing it at the same characters next week. A different context like a different campaign or adapting to an entirely different setting, e.g. the fantasy Black Goat tavern becomes Auberge de la chèvre noire in a Three Musketeers swashbuckling setting for Flashing Blades or Honor+Intrigue or it is the Black Nerf tavern in Star Wars. You keep the same floor plan, but for Star Wars the talkative bartender is a droid and the gruff dwarf in the corner is a Wookiee.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937The Railroad/Cheating portion of re-using comes in usually in the form of "Schrodinger's Ogre" or in this case Schrodinger's Sea Cave.  In the Railroading version, they can't miss the Sea Cave, because no matter what passage they take, they encounter the Sea Cave.  Technically not re-using, because everything gets used. (Note: This is why that guy stomped out of your Star Wars game, Grove. This what he thought you were doing).

A milder version of Schrodinger's Sea Cave is simply re-using as is.  Next time the characters need a Sea Cave, you dust off one they haven't seen yet, even if it is one that's supposed to be a hundred miles down the coast, and slap it down.  Now, this isn't necessarily railroading, there's a decent chance they'll miss this Sea Cave just like they did last time.  If you're not forcing them to see it, it isn't Railroading.  Is it cheating?  Well depends on the players I guess.  It's definitely cheating Setting Consistency, but unless you use it a second time, the players will never know (cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map ).  If it saves you time, you're the one that has to look in that mirror.

I think the more standard form of re-using is doing what you would do if you bought a module and wanted to grab a map and encounters from it.  Do a tweak and reskin as Brand55 and Lunamancer are saying.   The original location is still there, the new one is ready to go and can'y be mistaken for the original.  No Harm, No Foul.

Quoted because it is one of the better explanations of this phenomena. And I'm so glad my players don't care about any of that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;983011Im probably an oddity but I "prep" areas of personal interest as a sort of hobby on its own, regardless if the players are closeby, have a hope of ever traveling there or if they are even in that setting! I have fleshed out areas of setting maps and never run a game there!

People take pleasure in different steps of the process. As long as it working for you, its all good.  There probably some people that feel I'm a railroading illusionist asshole now on top of being Hippie Storygamer scum. But my groups enjoy themselves.

Quote from: Nexus;983061There probably some people that feel I'm a railroading illusionist asshole now on top of being Hippie Storygamer scum.

Nah, we figured that out long before now. It kinda all flows together.

If people ever classify Ron Edwards as a Hippy, I won't be tripping anymore.

Quote from: rgrove0172;983011Im probably an oddity but I "prep" areas of personal interest as a sort of hobby on its own,

That's how this hobby started.  Dave Arneson had things his players never encountered, and Phil Barker worked on Tekumel for somewhere around 30 years before I introduced him to D&D.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982985That's literally the opposite of what he said, though: The Fantasy Heartbreaker essay is literally telling people they should go out and play these games and see what cool ideas they have that people can build on.

I'm all for a good hate-on when it comes to Edwards' theory, but I dunno that just pretending he said stuff he didn't actually say is the best way to do that.

Let me apologize in advance: I'm going to quote what he actually said
You may not know this, but your post is one in a long line of posts about this stuff, in which people claim to tell readers what Edwards is "literally telling people" while ignoring all the risible, horrible advice and theories about games being "timebombs" that's actually in his actual (literal) stuff.

Since most people can't or won't read what he's actually written (he's an awful writer) claiming he didn't say what he actually said has (historically) been surprisingly effective.

The best way to address it, in my experience, is to let the man speak for himself. Usually quoting what he's written is plenty. I'm going to do it here.

First: What I said he said
I claim he has his "heart broken" which is -- literally -- the title of his essay. I also say he expresses frustration; which he does. I'll quote what he -- literally -- says here. I'm going to bold relevant passages

What he (literally) said:

Quote from: literallyany fantasy role-playing game is subject to dark, personal, and not especially friendly scrutiny from me. Frankly, they usually induce teeth-gnashing, cries of rage, and pages of scrawling, in very tiny letters, in a spiral-bound notebook.

There's more.

Quote from: I'm being literalI'm in agony when faced with another elfy-dwarfy deal"

A little more...

Quote from: This is a direct quote. Like, a [I]literal[/I]...yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating

I could keep going. The whole essay is full of this stuff.


WAIT! BUT! He says to play them!
So yes, before you break out the BBCode for quote, I've not quoted the parts where he says positive things, or where he suggests people go play them (at the end). Anyone who's interested can go find those passages -- they're in there; he does. But only after lavishing his frustration on these poor, benighted games and calling them "timebombs".

Timebombs?

This isn't the Brain Damage... surely he didn't call games he's going to recommend people play "time bombs"...  turns out he did. But first.

Why Is He So Frustrated?

It helps to understand the specifics around why he finds these games so "teeth-grindingly frustrating?" (note--a direct quote). Fortunately he's explicit. He's frustrated (to the point of (literally?) grinding his teeth) because they use the model of AD&D.

Don't take my word for it.

Quote from: The Heartbreaker's EssayAD&D, vintage Numero Uno, provided not only the model, but the only model for these games' design - to the extent of defining the very act of role-playing. Metagame mechanics are conspicuously absent, with the exceptions noted later. In Hahlmabrea and in Fifth Cycle the status of "adventurer" is an in-game licensed social role. NeverWorld provides a painfully complex, self-help-group-like personality system which fundamentally becomes the same-old alignment system. In Forge: Out of Chaos, the very notion of doing anything that isn't treasure-seeking in a dungeon is completely foreign - its section "Breaking Open Portals" is predicated on (a) finding treasure (b) in a dungeon, with no reference to the concept that doors might exist for any other reason or play any other sort of role in an imaginary situation. The list of such things goes on and on.

So to summarize, these games are modeled on D&D and
* Lack metagame mechanics
* Have analogs to the alignment system
* Assume you're an adventurer

... just like a huge variety of other games that are both commercial and artistic successes.

So, what does he think about this? Why is this a problem?

He's explicit:

Quote from: The EssayConsider: each of these games is alike regarding the act of role-playing itself. The point of play is being an adventurer who grows very powerful and might die at any time, and all context and judgment and outcomes are the exclusive province of this guy called the GM (or whatever), case closed. They precisely parallel what AD&D role-playing evolved into during the early 1980s. Each of these games is clearly written by a GM who would very much like all the players simply to shut up and play their characters without interfering with "what's really happening." They are Social Contract time bombs.

This is terrible advice to a would-be game designer. It's also breathtakingly stupid. One of the worst analysis of RPG's I've ever seen committed to print. For a guy who wants to think deeply about this stuff, it's amazingly shallow and misguided.

Fortunately we've largely moved past it and now celebrate games based on D&D and its predecessors without anyone needing to get their tender heart broken!

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Voros;982990You need me to quote yourself back at you?

"He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs."

You continually claim he is 'frustrated' and 'heart broken' that his design failed to be as popular as D&D heartbreakers and his ideas are a 'failure.' There is no reason to think he feels anything you claim and the negative connoatations are clear, you continue to be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

In terms of the 'failure' of his ideas the terms fantasy heartbreaker, pink slime fantasy and even brain damage have entered into everyday RPG nomenclature. We'd be all so lucky to have our ideas 'fail' in such a way.

And what exactly are these successful heartbreakers you claim he is discussing? The ones he mentions in the actual essay were clearly not commercially successful as they are incredibly obscure.

And to claim modern OSR games as heartbreakers is faulty in the extreme, they are at best house ruled editions with only The Black and White Hacks being significant revisions. And both of those are really simplifications of the rules whereas the heartbreakers he discusses usually went the other direction and piled on even more rules.

You also seem to be assuming a level of 'success' to OSR games all out of whack with reality. From what Zak and Raggi say an out of control best seller in the OSR moves something like 2000 units. More often they seem to be in the 200-500 range and that is only if they are 'successful.'

Hardly world destroying numbers and I would be willing to bet the 'Children of Ron' like AW and Monsterhearts are moving comparable numbers.

Some elements of the OSR seem to have delusions of grandeur regarding their 'success.' I've read people on OSR forums and blogs suggest that D&D should imitate the OSR because of how successful it is! The OSR's success commercially is laughable, the OSR did influence 5e but it did so through the quality and persuasiveness of the ideas and content, not sale numbers.

I'm still unclear where I said anything about "replacing" D&D. Did you mean to quote a post that mentions that? When I search this thread I can't find any reference to replacing D&D at all (except yours and my response).

Where are you getting this?

I also can't find any post where I claim that his frustrated and heart-broken reaction (explicit quotes from his essay) are about his game's failure to be as popular as D&D. I... don't recall writing that, or thinking it.

I'm just... not saying the things you think I'm saying.

If this is like an English-As-A-Second-Language thing or something? Let me know -- I'd be happy to try to reword my posts, but as it stands I'm not sure if you're responding to me or someone else, or just getting confused.

I'd be happy to address some of the notes in your post -- the failure of his games (Spione) or the success of D&D-alikes, past (Hackmaster, which won Origins Game Of The Year Award a year before the Heartbreaker essay) and present... but I'm afraid of getting started when we seem to have so many basic communication issues still unresolved.

A Little Help?
-E.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;983084If people ever classify Ron Edwards as a Hippy, I won't be tripping anymore.

Nothing to worry about - self-proclaimed story gamers are hipsters, not hippies.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982985:rolleyes:

Here's that link to Edwards' original brain damage comment again, BTW.

You really DO have Altzheimer's!

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

As far as I know and remember from my Interview with RE, he has never played any meaningful amount of D&D back in the 70-90s. He lived in a RuneQuest area and really wanted to get into the cool kids RQ games, later played Champions heavily. In fact, from the way he talked, it sounded like Champions is the only game he played in a way that I would recognize as really playing.
I faintly remember he did play some D&D during the later Forge period and posted about that on their Forum, These actual play reports also indicated to me that RE indeed might be many things: first-hand knowledgable about the fun in D&D he is utterly not.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983205:rolleyes:

(It's the spelling error that really makes this post intellectually consistent with your other contributions to this discussion.)

Aww! Too bad you've forgotten what the conversation was about. Still at least you may remember to get your crappy game out on time! Oh, wait....

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983150You. Are. Lying.

Transparently so, in fact.

I mean, yes, I could go on and do the step-by-step demonstration of the selective quoting you attempted to perform in the latter portions of your post. But since (a) you've already admitted that's what you did and (b) you don't even have the integrity to stand by what you actually said (and instead choose to lie about it in the hope that no one would notice), there's really no point, right? You've already tacitly admitted that you were wrong.

As a reminder, here's the conclusion of the Heartbreaker essay:

You claim that he's "heart broken" that these people are creating games "built on the foundation of the most popular RPGs of all time, instead of his ideas". If that's the case, why is he specifically telling people to play those games, study them, and then create new games built on them? Why is he specifically telling people to do the thing you claim he doesn't want people to do?

Voros has made the mistake of thinking that you're actually discussing Edwards' Heartbreaker essay and is reading your comments as if they were in the context of what Edwards actually said. This is causing confusion because this is not, of course, what you are doing.

I'm not lying
I'm not lying -- really. Take it easy.

I'm saying exactly what I said:

1) he had his heart broken (it's -- literally -- in the title) because
2) the games are based on D&D and not his ideas (which he enumerates -- metagame mechanics, traditional GM, etc).

I didn't address what he said people should do, or claim to summarize every point he makes in the essay. The things you think I'm lying about aren't anywhere in what I've posted.

If were lying, I wouldn't have a long list of quotes for both claims
Obviously, if I were lying about what he said, I wouldn't be able to quote him at length saying it.

So no, I'm not lying.

So why does it feel like I'm lying?
I'm not exactly sure why you feel so strongly that I'm lying.

One possibility: Maybe you find his recommendation at the end so powerful and so important that (for you) it seems to overshadow any other salient points in the essay? And maybe you found it so striking that to talk about the essay, but not talk about the recommendation feels like a lie of omission?

I admit that sounds weird, but it's how I read your accusation of lying.

In my defense, I wrote about the essay with respect to it's title. It's not called "Games we should play" or "Games we should learn from" -- it's called "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and it's about him having his heart-broken and being frustrated by these games.

Another possibility: You're mistaken about the claims I'm making. I'm not making a huge number of claims -- I didn't write a long, analytical paper that tried to address every point in the paper.

The claims I did make are well-backed up from the actual text (where I quoted it), but in your post, you accuse me of lying based on claims I didn't make.

Your question / confusion (which I'll quote below) mistakes me for thinking he doesn't want people playing these games.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983150You claim that he's "heart broken" that these people are creating games "built on the foundation of the most popular RPGs of all time, instead of his ideas". If that's the case, why is he specifically telling people to play those games, study them, and then create new games built on them? Why is he specifically telling people to do the thing you claim he doesn't want people to do?

I never claim he doesn't want people to play the games. I never claimed he wanted to "replace D&D" -- whatever that means.

I think you're either confusing me with someone else or you're reading a whole bunch of stuff I'm not saying into my posts and then attacking claims I didn't make.

Just to be clear: he wants people to play those games because they're indie games and he supports them and he thinks the "nuggets" of what he considers good ideas (typically metagamy mechanics in the magic systems) might be inspiring. None of that walks back him having his heart-broken or suggests he finds using D&D as a model a viable artistic or commercial strategy.

TL;DR
In case this is a bit long, let me summarize:

1) No, I didn't lie -- I just wrote a post that didn't comment on parts of the essay you felt were important
2) No, I didn't claim he didn't want people to play the heartbreakers. You just assumed that because I didn't write about it
3) No, I never claimed he wanted to "replace D&D" or anything like that -- that's another thing Voros (and now you) are inventing for me to have said.
4) The claims I did make are heavily backed up with direct, explicit quotes from the text
5) The claims you're arguing against -- that I didn't make --are weird and although I'm trying to see where they're coming from, I'm having trouble figuring it out

Cheers,
-E.