Quote from: JDCorley;498938So many games over so many years have claimed that to me that I've lost track, but I don't think any game that contains a bibliography/game-ography page as big as Dogs' is really claiming to be something that is brand new.



Maybe the person didn't read those kinds of sections before, or didn't play that way before, or they read those sections but it never got across to them before because of different ways of presenting it, or maybe they're stupid or drunk or trolling. But the game can hardly be faulted for that, especially when what the game actually says is "this isn't new, this is something everyone knows".

This is a bit like gun debate - "Guns kill people" "Guns don't kill people", while the problem is really "Morons who use guns wrong" and "Cunts who use debate about guns for their own means".

And I'd say that Edwards' pretty much rides on the latter - as I said, two frigging theories that are basically slapping players who want to just immerse in the game across the face - because they'd fall short of both Gamer (since they do not care for mechanical advantage) and Simulationism (since they do not want to simulate the LotR party - they want to be their own party, which may resemble LotR a bit by composition,but maybe they will act nothing like LotR party did). And he probably knew that those theories'd raise hell, just as first ones did - so he went ahead and still did that.

Not to mention that really, any RPG theory raised controversy. Especially on the rather bullshitious claim that a DM must trade off any of the aspects of the game for the other, as Threefold Model suggested.

RPGs are like Wild West of art - there is no 5000 years of tradition that'd give us guidelines to say what is a good book, painting or RPG, and what is not, in a specified canon.

In a way, that's both terrible, as we have no point of reference, so all the sides of discussion are right in a way, and beautiful as well - as in a way, this gives us great material for another game. I bet back in the days of yore, Egyptians were arguing if Sphinx was a work of art, or some bullshit as well. In  2 -3 hundred years, we will know the answer. Or we would, if we'd be alive by then.

The Birth of Art: Roleplaying Art Critics in Days of Ancient.

Title's Swiny as hell, I know, right?

Quote from: Rincewind1;498954two frigging theories that are basically slapping players who want to just immerse in the game across the face - because they'd fall short of both Gamer (since they do not care for mechanical advantage) and Simulationism (since they do not want to simulate the LotR party - they want to be their own party, which may resemble LotR a bit by composition,but maybe they will act nothing like LotR party did). And he probably knew that those theories'd raise hell, just as first ones did - so he went ahead and still did that.

As I've said, about a billion times, I agree, but that doesn't mean Sorcerer advances those theories.  It doesn't.  It's just a regular old RPG. It has nothing to do with the theories.  Unless they were in an appendix or something and I missed them, the game just plain did not say it was some amazing new advance in RPGs.

(By the way, that's not what he said Simulationism was.  I don't agree with GNS, but isn't what he says.)

QuoteNot to mention that really, any RPG theory raised controversy. Especially on the rather bullshitious claim that a DM must trade off any of the aspects of the game for the other, as Threefold Model suggested.

Meh, GNS/Threefold really didn't identify GMs as a special player or call them out for particular decisions, only summing up numerous actions of a player (of any kind) over time.  You're thinking of GDS, where the special secret thoughts of GMs were the only important thing in gaming - not what they did, but what they thought. It was also a stupid theory, except when applied to campaign design, literally the one area where its proponents said it couldn't be applied.

QuoteAs I've said, about a billion times, I agree, but that doesn't mean Sorcerer advances those theories. It doesn't. It's just a regular old RPG. It has nothing to do with the theories. Unless they were in an appendix or something and I missed them, the game just plain did not say it was some amazing new advance in RPGs.

(By the way, that's not what he said Simulationism was. I don't agree with GNS, but isn't what he says.)

Then again, soon after Sorcerer, he suddenly pens the GNS and The Big Model - which is sort of like saying that Voltaire's Candide has nothing to do with his philosophical theories. Except of course, Voltaire actually put his theories in Candide already, and did not shoehorn them later with commentary.

Of course - Does Edwards shoehorn GNS (I can understand he may not shoehorn The Big Model, as it's later theory) into Sorcerer? I think yes, based on what I read of him.

On the Sumulationism - perhaps you are right. I'll sit down and re - read those theories more carefully again. I actually wanted to somehow shoehorn a place for an immersion - fascinated player into that theory - which is a problem, as it simply does not exist. Unless you put him as a Gamer (which is probably the most derogative part of that theory - and quite often they aren't that neither) or as Simulationist (where the problem is, that they are not this neither, as for example, OD&D pretty much didn't Simulate fantasy works in a way Simulationist suggests).

Immersion operates at a different level of the theory than at the GNS level.  In other words, the player who seeks immersion might or might not be happy in either of the categories other than narrativism, which requires a moral statement from the player through play, depending on their other preferences and interests.

Really, the Forge model is fine at the Social level (everything that happens at your table ultimately happens because of decisions you and your friends make, including when and how to follow the written game), and it's right to identify that there is a thing called Creative Agenda (the sum of all your aesthetic preferences about what you like and don't like about games, what you and your friends are trying to get out of the experience), but in classifying those Agendas it runs into a door, and in trying desperately to define those Agendas and apply them to game designs, it falls down a flight of stairs, and when it tries to apply them to gamers, it lands on an old lady, who dies. I think I lost track of the metaphor somewhere in there.  Anyway, GNS sucks, it's stupid.

If I can't point to a place in Sorcerer that pushes the theories, then I don't say there is such a place. You don't seem to have that level of reticence. Good luck with that, I guess.

You just proved my point.

If you make a theory on RPGs, and your only RPGs does no thing to support such a theory, then...?

It's sort of as it Nietzsche wrote all his life cooking books, then suddenly created the theory of Nihilism. I'd call bullshit on that theory too.

Quote from: JDCorley;498646Really?

The GM is an important part of the mechanics of both games, and the GM advice gave solid information on how to pace games like a story (or movie), how to use movie language and imagery in order to vividly enhance the story of your game, use Themes and Tones to organize the game and characters, and use character traits (Vampire) and stereotypes (both games) to quickly get your story moving, and information on setting up dramatically interesting (Vampire) and exciting (Star Wars) conflicts....

But none of that to you is doing anything to "allow" story to happen.  To me, that's promoting story happening in the game!

Now, if you don't think the GM is important, or what the GM does is important, or if you think telling GMs to do things or not do other things in their game is not important, then I dig what you are saying.  To me, the GM and what the GM does in a game with a GM is a very important part of the mechanics and the play experience.

To me, all that this was doing was promoting Bad GMing. It was telling the GM to specifically work against the actual structure of how an RPG works.  So yes, you could say Vampire et al. gave bad GMing advice.  In what way this is an accomplishment, or proof of anything as far as the actual structure of how RPGs work, is beyond me.

QuoteNobody said they were, at least not in this thread! You are the only one who is making a claim about what RPGs are "meant to do".

Ok then... if you are in agreement that RPGs are not built to "tell stories" as a goal, then I don't know what it is you're arguing with me about.

QuoteWait, what? Didn't you just say Vampire and Star Wars tried to deal with the issue? I mean you say they fail, I say they succeed, but it's not like the Forge (collectively, which is a stupid way to talk about it since the games that came from it were so diverse) was the first to look at it.

None of them suceeded, not WW et al, nor the Forge, because there is no solution. RPGs simply are not made to have "telling a story" as their goal.  What you quoted me saying there is that WW didn't even attempt to "tackle the issue" of how the very structure of RPGs isn't made for "storytelling"; the Forge did, by essentially inventing an entirely new type of game and trying to redefine the very meaning of RPG to mean that new type of game instead. In other words, trying to subvert the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JDCorley;498808I go a lot more into detail in the thread in the Other Games forum as to what exactly is being played, thought about and discussed in the present day by people with an interest in story games. Spoiler alert: not Poison'd or Grey Ranks to any particularly significant degree. An order of magnitude more are in D&D games. (Not a huge surprise, most of the hobby plays D&D most of the time.)

If this is true, it only demonstrates that subverting the RPG hobby is still very much a major goal of the storygames movement, and that even this late in the game, they still want to do that rather than strike out on their own as their own separate hobby, which would of course be the non-cowardly thing to do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;499040If this is true, it only demonstrates that subverting the RPG hobby is still very much a major goal of the storygames movement, and that even this late in the game, they still want to do that rather than strike out on their own as their own separate hobby, which would of course be the non-cowardly thing to do.

RPGPundit

I am not so extreme in such a thing, but I do agree that we could refer to classic RPGs and story RPGs (I'd say storygame RPGs but that'd be stupid as it's storygame role playing game)

Quote from: Rincewind1;499041I am not so extreme in such a thing, but I do agree that we could refer to classic RPGs and story RPGs (I'd say storygame RPGs but that'd be stupid as it's storygame role playing game)

"story rpgs" is as meaningless as calling "memoir '44" or "squad leader" "wargaming RPGs".  Its a pointless term. Storygames are a separate hobby, as related or unrelated to RPGs as the latter are to wargames. A person could theoretically enjoy both of course; I enjoy both RPGs and wargames, but I don't feel the need to pretend that D&D is a wargame.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;499036To me, all that this was doing was promoting Bad GMing. It was telling the GM to specifically work against the actual structure of how an RPG works.  So yes, you could say Vampire et al. gave bad GMing advice.  In what way this is an accomplishment, or proof of anything as far as the actual structure of how RPGs work, is beyond me.

Well, you call it bad advice, but really it's just advice that pushes for a goal you don't want.  For someone who is interested in that goal, it's very good advice.  Right? Of course!  That's why Star Wars d6 and Vampire were such successful games for so many groups.  Because the tools they provided were very effective at reaching the goals of those groups.

QuoteOk then... if you are in agreement that RPGs are not built to "tell stories" as a goal, then I don't know what it is you're arguing with me about.

I don't think there is a single goal for all RPGs, and the extreme diversity of RPGs throughout its history backs me up.  Hell, the extreme diversity of D&D GM advice  throughout its history backs me up.  You are the one pretending, against 30 years of evidence, that all RPGs have one single goal.

Me, I am more modest, a gentle soul, so I've never said anything about "what the goal of RPGs is", because I don't believe there is any one goal.  People play RPGs for many reasons and seeking many experiences.  I know this because sometimes I want different things from RPGs from month to month or week to week!  I want different things from RPGs today than I did when I was 15 and just getting started playing. Don't you?  Haven't you changed as a person since you were but a boy and a beardless youth?  Don't you want your leisure time to be different now than then?  Of course, and isn't it great that we belong to a hobby that can accommodate teenaged morons like I used to be and grownup morons like I am now?  

The diversity of the hobby is one of its great strengths. It has always been thus.

Quote from: RPGPundit;499040If this is true, it only demonstrates that subverting the RPG hobby is still very much a major goal of the storygames movement, and that even this late in the game, they still want to do that rather than strike out on their own as their own separate hobby, which would of course be the non-cowardly thing to do.

They like playing D&D and that makes them cowards? Interesting, please tell me more.

Quote from: Rincewind1;499033If you make a theory on RPGs, and your only RPGs does no thing to support such a theory, then...? It's sort of as it Nietzsche wrote all his life cooking books, then suddenly created the theory of Nihilism. I'd call bullshit on that theory too.

Yes, but you're calling bullshit on the game, accusing the game of having something in it that it doesn't.

Quote from: JDCorley;499047Yes, but you're calling bullshit on the game, accusing the game of having something in it that it doesn't.

Then I retract that, as you called bullshit on me here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;499043"story rpgs" is as meaningless as calling "memoir '44" or "squad leader" "wargaming RPGs".  Its a pointless term. Storygames are a separate hobby, as related or unrelated to RPGs as the latter are to wargames. A person could theoretically enjoy both of course; I enjoy both RPGs and wargames, but I don't feel the need to pretend that D&D is a wargame.

RPGPundit

Out of curiosity then, what's Memoir' 44 shelf according to you - board games? Not that I disagree with that statement, as Memoir is indeed not a wargame compared to some wargames I did play.

Quote from: Rincewind1;499048Then I retract that, as you called bullshit on me here.

Okay, it's cool.  

Sorcerer is a really interesting game. Like, I read it and thought it was neat.  And then I went online and everyone was like "oh, it's incomplete" or "oh, you don't really know how to play from reading it", and I was like "uh, really? Seems pretty straightforward to me".  Turns out there's this whole movement of Sorcerer fans to try to set up a really strictly-focused procedure of play, and I was just like "okay, so you are a dude with demons who give you power in exchange for bits of your soul/service, pretty awesome, yeah? Okay, some monsters are causing trouble with your girlfriend, WHAT NOW?" and we were off and playing.  Maybe I was underthinking it, but I kind of think other people overthink it.  

Maybe in part because of those dumb theories, as you point out, people know the theory more than they know the games, so that can overshadow the game to some degree.

Anyway, back to Vampire.