TheRPGSite

Specifically:
Burning Wheel
Mouse Guard
Dogs In The Vineyard
Riddle of Steel

What I am looking for is a simple sum up. So, for example, my very not Forgie game Iridium would be summed thus:

Uses d20 for combat, plus bonuses for specialization in weapons, pluses for stats. You roll over target based on opponent's ability to dodge.

Skills are percentile on a decreasing returns modified by stats.

Many dice types used for weapon damages, weapons have multiple attacks.

Loose use of classes and levels.

Uses hit locations.

Feel free to add to the list if you think there is ones we should know about. Also, if more detail is needed feel free to expand on that point as well.

Thanks,
Bill

Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard have similar base mechanics.  It is a dice pool system where you roll a number of d6s equal to your skill, and each 4-6 is a success.  You must roll equal to a fixed obstacle, or greater than your opponent's successes.  You may gain an extra die for a related skill, and extra dice for help from an opponent.  Also, there are different types of hero points: Fate Points and Persona Points (plus Deeds Points in BW only).  Fate Points can be spent after a roll to make sixes open-end, while Persona Points add a die before the roll.  

Experience involves a number of checks on each skill, where you mark off checks for each roll that you do.  This works differently in BW and MG.  

Fights and other conflicts use an abstract system where you plot in advance a set of three maneuvers from a fixed list: such as Attack, Defend, Feint, and Maneuver.  BW has two different conflict systems: Fight and Duel of Wits.  MG has a single conflict system.

Dogs in the Vineyard

Basic resolution mechanic is to roll a number of dice based on a combination of two stats. Appropriate stats depend on type of conflict (talking, fighting, shooting).

After rolling dice, play enters a bidding phase. Dice are put forward along with fictional justification. The opponent must see (equal) the dice put forward, and may then raise by putting more dice forward. Dice used range from d4 to d10.

Players may escalate conflicts, thereby bringing more dice into play.

The conflict ends when one person cannot see a raise, or when somebody gives. The winner gets his goal.

After the conflict, players roll on the Fallout table, depending on how the dice battle went. Results vary according to die rolls and how far the battle escalated. This mechanic combines both wounding and experience in traditional terms, as it may result in harm or benefit.

Interesting stuff guys.

John, does BW have a lot of successes built in then? It just seems like you would need to set your obstacles (I assume this is the number of successes needed) fairly high.

Droog, wow. So, is it everyone at the table bidding or just the two involved in the conflict or any and all involved in the conflict?

Also, so, it is a single mechanic for all task resolution;i.e. combat and skills?

Also, also, is there a GM in DitV?

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;288595So, is it everyone at the table bidding or just the two involved in the conflict or any and all involved in the conflict?

Also, so, it is a single mechanic for all task resolution;i.e. combat and skills?

Also, also, is there a GM in DitV?

When you raise, any chr affected by the raise must see it to stay in. Highest best roll goes first.

There are no skills as such in DitV. Characters have traits, which might be Good shot, Wears glasses, I'm a Dog etc. Traits can be called in for more dice, if you can justify it in the fiction.

The same system is used for all conflicts. The rule of thumb for DitV is that if there's something important at stake, you go to the resolution system, and if it's not, you just resolve it by fiat and move on (Say yes or roll the dice).

There certainly is a GM in DitV and he plays a vital role. He must present a town ripe with conflict and play it to the hilt.

I get the feeling that this thread was an attempt at provocation, but as long as it sticks strictly to discussing mechanics, I'll allow it to remain here, even though none of those you mentioned are technically RPGs.  I guess I'm in a generous mood these days, from all the partying I've been doing.

RPGPundit

Wotta prince.

Quote from: droog;288620When you raise, any chr affected by the raise must see it to stay in. Highest best roll goes first.

There are no skills as such in DitV. Characters have traits, which might be Good shot, Wears glasses, I'm a Dog etc. Traits can be called in for more dice, if you can justify it in the fiction.

The same system is used for all conflicts. The rule of thumb for DitV is that if there's something important at stake, you go to the resolution system, and if it's not, you just resolve it by fiat and move on (Say yes or roll the dice).

There certainly is a GM in DitV and he plays a vital role. He must present a town ripe with conflict and play it to the hilt.

Hmm, do you have a link to a character sheet?

Thanks for taking the time to explain how the game works.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288635I get the feeling that this thread was an attempt at provocation, but as long as it sticks strictly to discussing mechanics, I'll allow it to remain here, even though none of those you mentioned are technically RPGs.  I guess I'm in a generous mood these days, from all the partying I've been doing.

RPGPundit

Not at all. It was instigated by the help thread. You have repeatedly claimed these games are not RPGs. I am not terribly familiar with the mechanics. From what John says, BW sounds bog standard and for the life of me I can;t figure out what is not Trad about it. DitV is a bit odd but it has a TR system I can grok. In fact, I use something similar in my games (by definition not implementation). So, I am perfectly happy to discuss mechanics.

As far as that goes, how does Amber work? What is its TR? Personally, from what I have heard, Amber seems less an RPG than either of these games but I am interested in the mechanics of how it works.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288638Thanks for taking the time to explain how the game works.

It's my hobby!

Link to chr sheet: PDF (http://www.lumpley.com/pdfs/pullouts.pdf)

Quote from: droog;288639It's my hobby!

Link to chr sheet: PDF (http://www.lumpley.com/pdfs/pullouts.pdf)

O.k. so the pool of bidding comes from Stats and possibly Traits. The Fallout table is right there on the sheet? And the type of dice are determined by the type of action taken;i.e. Non-Physical d4s, Physical d6...right? So, if it went to "Gunshot" and d10s you could get to dying real fast, yes?

If this is so, it is interesting that action can change the dice and escalate the potential result. I do feel the system seems a bit arcane though. It is difficult to look at the character sheet and have a sense of what does what. Most of the sheet is taken up with reference (not a bad thing).I get the impression this is a system that plays very different from what it reads like.

Thanks for taking the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288635none of those you mentioned are technically RPGs.

Huh?

If a game suggests that its participants play roles, isn't it therefore a roleplaying game? No, no, put away the knives! I wouldn't know a Forge game if I fell on it and died, but it sounds to me like they work the same way as most: players create characters, GM preps some situations or areas, players play the characters they made, GM plays the NPCs, everyone contributes to what unfolds, rolling dice sometimes to help resolve conflict and various other states of uncertainty.

What factors dictate that they are not "technically RPGs"?

Quote from: HinterWelt;288595John, does BW have a lot of successes built in then? It just seems like you would need to set your obstacles (I assume this is the number of successes needed) fairly high.

Obstacles are often in the 3-5 range. Skills usually have a max of 6 or so, and are often 2-4.  

Quote from: HinterWelt;288638From what John says, BW sounds bog standard and for the life of me I can;t figure out what is not Trad about it. DitV is a bit odd but it has a TR system I can grok. In fact, I use something similar in my games (by definition not implementation). So, I am perfectly happy to discuss mechanics.

BW is quite traditional in some sense.  There are a number of distinct aspects to it:

1) Rolls for Circles and Wises:  There is an attribute called "Circles" that represents your ability to find people.  If you succeed in a Circles roll, you can define a new NPC within parameters.  If you succeed in a roll on one of the wise skills (which are player-defined) against a GM-defined difficulty, you can define a fact about the game-world.  i.e. If you are skilled at architecture, you can define facts about the architecture of the world.  

2) Let It Ride:  In BW, there is a particular rule about whether the GM can call for rerolls.  Basically, it disallows repeated checks on a single skill.  So if you have to sneak through a camp, the GM can't make you roll more than once on your Sneak.  

3) Abstract positioning and maneuvers for fights:  Rather than choosing distinct moves at all, you roll a contest to see who gets the position they want.  

4) Duel of Wits: There is a detailed process with maneuvers for non-combat conflicts.  This isn't just a simple contest, but an involved system just like combat where you choose maneuvers like Point, Counter-Point, Incite, Obfuscate, etc.  (This is simplified and generic in Mouse Guard, though.)  

5) Experience: Marking a check with every roll is a prominent feature of the game.  You need a certain number of different checks to advance.  In Burning Wheel, this is complex, amounting to a mix of Routine, Difficult, and Challenging checks -- based on your dice relative to the obstacle of the roll.  As you go up, you need more Difficult and Challenging checks even relative to your skill.  In Mouse Guard, this is simplified and you just require a certain number of failures and successes.  

Whether these make either game non-traditional depends on one's definition of tradition.  I wouldn't call them such per se, but they are distinctive designs with their own unique style.  

Note that Burning Empires, a sci-fi game from the same author, has more non-traditional elements by having broad mechanics that cover the sequence of the game in scenes.  Mouse Guard has some of this, having a "player's turn" after each mission where players are explicitly given free rein to set scenes and try things as they like.  (Though in practice, a lot of the rolls are spent recovering from damage.)

Quote from: HinterWelt;288640O.k. so the pool of bidding comes from Stats and possibly Traits. The Fallout table is right there on the sheet? And the type of dice are determined by the type of action taken;i.e. Non-Physical d4s, Physical d6...right? So, if it went to "Gunshot" and d10s you could get to dying real fast, yes?

That seems all correct as far as I know. And it's possible to win a conflict (i.e. gain your chr's goal) while dying from the Fallout table. That actually happened to my chr in one game.

QuoteIf this is so, it is interesting that action can change the dice and escalate the potential result.

The best thing about DitV in my opinion is how hard it pushes you to go to the gun. Very clever stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288635I get the feeling that this thread was an attempt at provocation...

Poor Pundy, persecuted on his own forum.

The original BW is a fairly traditional game with a few flourishes of player-level meta game, even by Pundit's standards. The later games went somewhat farther in this direction, including the Revised edition of BW. DitV is much less traditional in structure, though not weird for the sake of being weird.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;288638Not at all. It was instigated by the help thread. You have repeatedly claimed these games are not RPGs. I am not terribly familiar with the mechanics. From what John says, BW sounds bog standard and for the life of me I can't figure out what is not Trad about it. DitV is a bit odd but it has a TR system I can grok. In fact, I use something similar in my games (by definition not implementation). So, I am perfectly happy to discuss mechanics.

As far as that goes, how does Amber work? What is its TR? Personally, from what I have heard, Amber seems less an RPG than either of these games but I am interested in the mechanics of how it works.

Pundit doesn't know jack about those games. BW is as traditional as you can get, with maybe one or two rules that are a bit unusual (like Let it Ride and that). There's a GM who does exactly the same things as in any other RPG, including vetoing retarded contributions from munchkins and morons. Yes, he has those responsibilities. That said, the game has some rules that encourage and help get a bit more player input on what the players want to do (Beliefs, Instincts and that). I find strong similarities with Pendragon, actually.

DitV is a bit more arcane, as you said, but you still have a GM who prepares a town with problems for the PCs to solve. He plays NPCs like in any other game, he makes judgements on rules and all that. Difference is that the book encourages an active input on the part of the players, specially when creating a Dog and deciding which was his more important test in life.

Seriously, they have some original mechanics, but they're pretty traditional. Same with Sorcerer.

Hi!
  RE: ditv
  Here is a completed character sheet from a game I ran:
http://casualgamerscorner.pbwiki.com/NatesChar
  It really plays a lot like HQ. The only difference is, you make little narrations as you bid dice, poker-style.
  Here is some AP
http://casualgamerscorner.pbwiki.com/Aug14Logs
http://casualgamerscorner.pbwiki.com/Aug28Logs

  I think it is an RPG, if you play it like one. I think it can be something else if you are into that sort of thing. If you ditch a lot of the "standard pitch" for the game and just say to the players, "do you wanna play a wild west paladin with a six shooter?" You will find a group pretty easy.
  The rules are fairly realistic, the only thing that is hard is: fallout happens after the conflict is over. So, you could be dead and not know it...
  The interesting thing of the rules is, if someone is trying to min/max, it is pretty rewarding. Because the only way to get positive XPs, is to risk fallout. In other words, if you roll fallout dice and get a 1, you get the equivalent of XPs you can spend to improve your character.
  There are a bunch of sexual situations suggested by the rules and what not, but I just ignored that and played the parts I like (kind of like how I ignore encumbrance rules in D&D).

  The ability to Fold in a conflict is interesting too. Because it actually gets used. Unlike in other games where its a fight to the death, players are likely to fold if the fight they are in isn't worth fighting for.

  Now, all that aside, I think its asinine how people try to apply the ditv rules set to every conceivable setting. It just doesn't work. Its not a sand box game like that. The rules both reward and punish escalating conflicts. So, it should only be used in a game where the characters themselves would think twice before escalating a conflict. For instance it would be good for a Jedi campaign. But it would be shit awful for a Dungeon crawl.

  Any ways, I hope that helps, I have played a few times and run a few times, so let me know if you have more specific questions about ditv.

John,
first, thank you for taking the time to explain. I have a few follow ups if you have the time.

Quote from: jhkim;288656Obstacles are often in the 3-5 range. Skills usually have a max of 6 or so, and are often 2-4.  


BW is quite traditional in some sense.  There are a number of distinct aspects to it:

1) Rolls for Circles and Wises:  There is an attribute called "Circles" that represents your ability to find people.  If you succeed in a Circles roll, you can define a new NPC within parameters.  If you succeed in a roll on one of the wise skills (which are player-defined) against a GM-defined difficulty, you can define a fact about the game-world.  i.e. If you are skilled at architecture, you can define facts about the architecture of the world.  

I have heard of this in descriptions about BW. Honestly, I think it is an interesting mechanic and the concept behind it (player definition of the setting) is intriguing but, and I am not trying to deride this, it is like many many games I have played. Read that as "game instances, as in sessions". Informally, me as GM or the GM I was playing with would allow a great deal of definition by the characters. That said, I see this as a common trend in forge inspired games (I know, BW was adopted) that they seem to codify what is unspoken rule of thumb in other games. Not good or bad, just an observation.

Quote from: jhkim;2886562) Let It Ride:  In BW, there is a particular rule about whether the GM can call for rerolls.  Basically, it disallows repeated checks on a single skill.  So if you have to sneak through a camp, the GM can't make you roll more than once on your Sneak.  

Wasn't a form of this in 3.0 D20? Maybe that was "Take a ten". Again, I have done this since the 80s in my game just not had it codified.

Quote from: jhkim;2886563) Abstract positioning and maneuvers for fights:  Rather than choosing distinct moves at all, you roll a contest to see who gets the position they want.  

I don't want to sound like a broken record but I actually wrote a system something like this called Bizaar Tales in the late 80s. I will have aspects of this in my game I am writing now.

So, is it all about the combat skill roll? Are the positions defined like "Throw him to the ground" or is it more like "I want to disable him"?

Quote from: jhkim;2886564) Duel of Wits: There is a detailed process with maneuvers for non-combat conflicts.  This isn't just a simple contest, but an involved system just like combat where you choose maneuvers like Point, Counter-Point, Incite, Obfuscate, etc.  (This is simplified and generic in Mouse Guard, though.)  

Do you declare the moves or is it secret (written and revealed)? Mike Crow was describing BW to me and I thought it was something like this but I could be misremembering.

Quote from: jhkim;2886565) Experience: Marking a check with every roll is a prominent feature of the game.  You need a certain number of different checks to advance.  In Burning Wheel, this is complex, amounting to a mix of Routine, Difficult, and Challenging checks -- based on your dice relative to the obstacle of the roll.  As you go up, you need more Difficult and Challenging checks even relative to your skill.  In Mouse Guard, this is simplified and you just require a certain number of failures and successes.  

I like this a lot. A nice alternative to XP yet with a method of built in pacing for advancement.

Quote from: jhkim;288656Whether these make either game non-traditional depends on one's definition of tradition.  I wouldn't call them such per se, but they are distinctive designs with their own unique style.  

To be brutally honest, I am not sure what is Trad and what is not beyond being told repeatedly that my games are Trad to the Trad power. From that I gauge other games from my designs. This is why I said that BW seems trad. Hell, I could be way off on that but I could see that system coming out of HinterWelt easily.

Quote from: jhkim;288656Note that Burning Empires, a sci-fi game from the same author, has more non-traditional elements by having broad mechanics that cover the sequence of the game in scenes.  Mouse Guard has some of this, having a "player's turn" after each mission where players are explicitly given free rein to set scenes and try things as they like.  (Though in practice, a lot of the rolls are spent recovering from damage.)

Thanks John. I wonder how Mice would fair against Squirrels. ;)

Quote from: flyingmice;288694The original BW is a fairly traditional game with a few flourishes of player-level meta game, even by Pundit's standards. The later games went somewhat farther in this direction, including the Revised edition of BW. DitV is much less traditional in structure, though not weird for the sake of being weird.

-clash

It just seems that they still use similar methods (Dice, checks against challenges and roles) to trad games. It makes me wonder what the "not and RPG" complaint is. I mean, you might hate the designers but the games seem solid. I find DitV a bit arcane (sorry, I can;t think of a better term) but not really out there to the point of questioning if it is a game, or if it includes roles and thus is not an RPG.

Quote from: Imperator;288697Seriously, they have some original mechanics, but they're pretty traditional. Same with Sorcerer.

Imperator, could you give a quick summary of Sorcerer?

Thanks guys.

First, thanks for those links. Very helpful.

Quote from: dindenver;288707Now, all that aside, I think its asinine how people try to apply the ditv rules set to every conceivable setting. It just doesn't work. Its not a sand box game like that. The rules both reward and punish escalating conflicts. So, it should only be used in a game where the characters themselves would think twice before escalating a conflict. For instance it would be good for a Jedi campaign. But it would be shit awful for a Dungeon crawl.

  Any ways, I hope that helps, I have played a few times and run a few times, so let me know if you have more specific questions about ditv.

hmm, see, I can't help it. I am, I guess, a Universalist in my game design and approach to games. I could see this as being applied to any genre. The DitV system has some distinct elements to it that if a group desired those, could apply them anywhere. The problem is, people have different expectations and element requirements depending on the genre they play. Some would express these as absolutes while I tend to say they are subjective. Anime does not require a mechanic to fly thourhg the air in perfect martial form. It requires that the group acknowledge that this is the genre and expected in the genre. Then, when you need to close 30 feet to do combat Yakahiratetsumo you just say "I leap in perfect anime style at the Big Bad Guy and attack" then carry out combat in your preferred system, that you and the group enjoy and are comfortable with. Thus, you get Akira run with D20. Yeah, I know, sacrilege. As a small press guy I am supposed to say every game system is a special snowflake that should be charished for the genre it emulates. Meh. I suck. ;)

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;288718Imperator, could you give a quick summary of Sorcerer?

Thanks guys.

Sure, mate.

Sorcerer uses a dice-pool system. You can use any kind of dice you want as long as everyone uses the same (d10s, d8s, whatever). You get to use one or maybe two of your stats (Will, Stamina, Lore, Cover, and Power if you're a demon), plus any bonus dice you can get through roleplaying, situational bonus, or from previous successful rolls that are directly related to the current one.

The goal is to get the highest die, either against another character's pool, or against a bunch of dice assigned by the GM if no one's opposing you. The more dice you roll, the better. You compare the outcomes, and the highest individual die wins. Each die you have that is higher than the highest of the other guy counts as an additional victory, and probably can be used as a bonus in following rolls on the same situation / conflict. For example, using d10s:

Ramón rolls 6d10 and gets 4,6,2,8,9,0.
Bill rolls 4d10 and gets 7,7,7,3.

Ramón wins (is my example ;)) and as he has 3 dice higher than Bill's best (7), he wins with 3 victories.

That's it. When you're fighting there's a chart with damage: damage is expressed as temporary (only next - action) penalties and permanent (last longer than the fight) penalties. If your penalties go beyond Stamina x2 you're out of combat, unless you're a Sorcerer in which case you get a roll of Will vs the dice you want to use for your next action to get over the pain and keep going. It's almost the only chart in the game, apart from the chart summing up the stats involved in different sorcerous ritual. Right after the fight you halve your permanent penalties, which will last a while, and depending on how much you got you're more or less severely injured.

In this game the GM does exactly the same stuff in any other RPG: he decides when a roll is called for, he frames scenes, plays NPCs and so on. Nothing new over there.

Hope it helps! I'm no expert, but I will do my best to answer any question.

Burning Wheel has a stat for your wealth resources, and as far as I understand it (I've never played the game), you roll dice to see if you can purchase something. I REALLY don't get what the problem is with having a certain amount of silver to spend and keeping track of it, at least approximately - surely if I buy one warship, I'll be less able to afford the next one... There's frankly something that gets me every time I read some Forgie game spouting off about how the game is about the story, not about the characters' equipment. It's very hard to express what it is that bugs me about it, but I think it might be that knowing the important items that your character is carrying is just --- not really a distraction from the game at all!!! I mean, give the players some credit, it doesn't take them ten seconds to glance at their character sheets and double-check what they've got, and most of the time they'll remember the main items anyway.

And I REALLY don't like Let It Ride. The text in the book seems to suggest that there are refs out there who just want the player characters to fail, and make them roll and re-roll until they do. I don't know any refs who can be fairly said to ref that way. Sometimes you want to have multiple rolls to see how things progres in different stages. Things like "Am I going to be able to sneak through the enemy camp" should be unpredictable even at the stage when you're half-way through the camp --- so that you might be tempted to turn back half-way through if you hear a twig snap or something.

It seems to me that these two rules are an example of predictability vs. unpredictability being exactly the wrong way round in Forgie games. I damn well know whether I can afford a warship or not - and if I have to go round my mates getting a loan, well, let's roleplay it, not rollplay it! (OK, a few rolls might help, but you get the point.) And when I've snuck half-way through the enemy camp I damn well don't know if I'm going to sneak out the other side. Why should these things be the other way round???

Let it Ride ruins some of the suspense for me. And having a wealth stat --- I just can't see what the point is.

But maybe I'm being horribly unfair? After all, I've never played this game. Perhaps I should keep an open mind.

Quote from: Omnifray;288728Burning Wheel has a stat for your wealth resources, and as far as I understand it (I've never played the game), you roll dice to see if you can purchase something.

I could be misremembering, but isn't that how wealth works in D20 Modern as well?

Yes, but large purchases reduce your wealth rating, so large purchases like boats permanently reduce your capacity to buy more boats.

Which doesn't mean it's a good idea, I've never bothered with it.  Most modern characters require so little in the way of equipment that wealth tracking at the lower amounts seems sorta unimportant.

No idea. Even more pointless in a modern setting though, don't they have bank accounts???

The goal of having a wealth score is to avoid having to do exact accounting, it doesn't matter whether you're doing it in gold coins or deutschemarks.

Quote from: counterspin;288730Yes, but large purchases reduce your wealth rating, so large purchases like boats permanently reduce your capacity to buy more boats.

Exalted is yet another game which uses a similar mechanic, come to think of it.

I think all 2e WW games had a system where your wealth score had a weekly stipend value and a permanent sell off value.  So a rank of 3 gave you $3000 a week but you could permanently downgrade to a rank of 2 to raise $10000.

Quote from: GrimGent;288729I could be misremembering, but isn't that how wealth works in D20 Modern as well?

Yes, also DC Heroes.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;288756Yes, also DC Heroes.

I thought I recalled playing a superhero game that did this but I couldn't place it. Thanks.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288638Not at all. It was instigated by the help thread. You have repeatedly claimed these games are not RPGs. I am not terribly familiar with the mechanics. From what John says, BW sounds bog standard and for the life of me I can;t figure out what is not Trad about it. DitV is a bit odd but it has a TR system I can grok. In fact, I use something similar in my games (by definition not implementation). So, I am perfectly happy to discuss mechanics.

As far as that goes, how does Amber work? What is its TR? Personally, from what I have heard, Amber seems less an RPG than either of these games but I am interested in the mechanics of how it works.

Riiight.. so you came from the thread where I specifically said "these games cannot be discussed in RPG Main", and you go on to post a thread about them on RPG main, and yet you weren't trying to instigate?

:rolleyesbarf:

You know what? I've changed my mind. This thread goes to Off-topic, and consider yourself warned. Don't pull this shit again. Intentionally posting off-topic subjects in the main page in order to disrupt the site just to engage in a personal dispute against a poster (any poster, but me included in that list) is one of the few things we don't allow around here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: paris80;288653Huh?

If a game suggests that its participants play roles, isn't it therefore a roleplaying game?

A "host your own murder mystery party" or LARP do that; so does online chat room cyber-sex, or harry potter forum-RP, or Ren Faires or SCA, and tons of other things. Even in Heroquest, you play the Wizard or the Barbarian or whatever.
So no, "playing roles" is not, by itself, enough to qualify for the kind of RPG we're talking about here. There are lots of hobbies that involve roleplaying, Tabletop RPGs are a particular kind of hobby and must be defined more specifically than that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CavScout;288692Poor Pundy, persecuted on his own forum.

Sniped at, by mental infants sent here to try to bring this site down, because it represents the failure of their respective movements' ideologies, and the success of mine.

Don't pity me, I seem pretty handy at taking on five or six of you at a time. Seriously, I'm barely breaking a sweat here. You guys are pathetic compared to the kind of opponents I faced in the good old days.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288771Sniped at, by mental infants sent here to try to bring this site down, because it represents the failure of their respective movements' ideologies, and the success of mine.

Don't pity me, I seem pretty handy at taking on five or six of you at a time. Seriously, I'm barely breaking a sweat here. You guys are pathetic compared to the kind of opponents I faced in the good old days.

So you do think you're persecuted on your own forum. Interesting.

Oh, and exercising moderation powers is not exactly "winning" anything. If anything, it reveals when you felt you’ve lost whatever fight you see yourself in. You go nuclear simply because you can and have no other option.

PS: You are getting increasingly paranoid if you think folks who happen to agree in their disagreement of you are part of some large, planned operation to take down web fourm.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288771Sniped at, by mental infants sent here to try to bring this site down, because it represents the failure of their respective movements' ideologies, and the success of mine.

Don't pity me, I seem pretty handy at taking on five or six of you at a time. Seriously, I'm barely breaking a sweat here. You guys are pathetic compared to the kind of opponents I faced in the good old days.

RPGPundit

Hahahahahaha :D

Sent by whom, you say? Please, point to me who's my hidden master, so hidden that I don't even know I have one.

My ideology? What's my ideology, oh genius? :D I'm curious.

You're not taking on no-one here, pal. Actually, you don't even answer the parts of the posts which prove you're lying. No rethoric skills here.

Some of them have been here for some time, from Storygames or other sites, have no interest in this site, and only want to cause trouble.

Others came here from my blog, where they'd regularly express how much they hate me and wanted to do the same on the forum.

And then there are a few, like you, who I suspect are just bitter pathetic loners; you're dedicating your time to attacking me because you can't post about your right-wing politics anymore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;288781Hahahahahaha :D

Sent by whom, you say? Please, point to me who's my hidden master, so hidden that I don't even know I have one.

My ideology? What's my ideology, oh genius? :D I'm curious.

You're not taking on no-one here, pal. Actually, you don't even answer the parts of the posts which prove you're lying. No rethoric skills here.

You'd need to be able to make a point before I could respond to it. Occasionally, you personally have (others who attack me here haven't EVER made appoint, their argument boiling down to "I Hate teh Pundit!! He's a poopyhead!"). Most of the times, though, you're all about "the Pundit is really mean and he thinks he's so cool and people don't think i'm cool so its not fair! Wahh!".

Like Cavscout, you weren't sent by anyone. You're just one of these penis-size comparison obessives, determined to try to prove that I'm not bigger or better than you, because you're very very insecure.

Pobrecito.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288768You know what? I've changed my mind. This thread goes to Off-topic, and consider yourself warned.

This is bullshit.

Burning Wheel not an RPG? That is such a fucked up notion. You are doing exactly what you accuse RPG.net of doing: ruining the website with moderation based on your weird biased views.

Only even RPG.net would not pull something like this.

I just came back to discuss roleplaying games only a few days ago. While this forum was not perfect (what with your useless dedicated vanity sub-forum and your over-the-top rants at times) it's always been at least a community driven by diversity and some freedom for its users.

Now, it is not anymore. And I will look at other options, including RPG.net.

It's useless to suggest but: You should reconsider, man. At least run a poll or something. I'm going to hang around the next few days in hope you come to your senses.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288784Some of them have been here for some time, from Storygames or other sites, have no interest in this site, and only want to cause trouble.

Others came here from my blog, where they'd regularly express how much they hate me and wanted to do the same on the forum.

And then there are a few, like you, who I suspect are just bitter pathetic loners; you're dedicating your time to attacking me because you can't post about your right-wing politics anymore.

RPGPundit

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA

Dude, you always go a step further. I can't speak for anyone but me, so maybe there's a conspiracy and really those sites are actively sending agents here to laugh at your rantings or something, I don't know and I don't care.

Your suspicions are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base, but that's something that only shows that you don't have nothing apart from trying to make people upset with personal attacks :) Like that time when you said that retarded thing about Spanish :D You're not even able to answer to the facts I'm presenting you to prove that your affirmations are false. You conveniently ignore them and try again the attack shit. Sorry, not working.

I spend my time here because I like the place, and many people here :) And fortunately, my work allows for that. Get over it. You're not the only guy who gets to freelance from home, or whatever you do for a living.

PS: On the right - wing ideology, I'm curious :D I'm a card-carrying member of the communist party since I was 16, though I'm more of an anarchist. Dude, just call me catholic and be done being wrong :D

I think he was referring to CavScout...

But you guys don't get it. This is how it's done. You give him fuel. It's like debating anyone who is not really interested in debating. They are not in it to explain a position or enlighten, only to drive more posts or to shill.

Don't feed the troll that owns the site! :teehee:

Quote from: RPGPundit;288787You'd need to be able to make a point before I could respond to it.

I have made it. Several times, quoting the text being discussed to prove you lie. Liar. Care to answer to that?

QuoteOccasionally, you personally have (others who attack me here haven't EVER made appoint, their argument boiling down to "I Hate teh Pundit!! He's a poopyhead!").

You and I agree on many topics, and when I agree with you I say it. And I don't think that the real you behind the Pundit online persona has much to do with the online git you insist on being.

QuoteMost of the times, though, you're all about "the Pundit is really mean and he thinks he's so cool and people don't think i'm cool so its not fair! Wahh!".

Frankly, if I wanted to find appreciation by others I wouldn't look for it in an RPG messageboard. But that assumption of you is really interesting. After all, I'm not obsessed with the number of hits in my blog :)

QuoteLike Cavscout, you weren't sent by anyone. You're just one of these penis-size comparison obessives, determined to try to prove that I'm not bigger or better than you, because you're very very insecure.

Man, that would be less fun if you weren't the one obsessed with how many people visits this place, your blog, and were not constantly wailing on how famous you are and how influential you are and bullshit like that. :D As far as I can remember, the only one here engaged in popularity contests is you.

QuotePobrecito.

Nice touch, I like Spanish. Around Granada we say pobrecico, tough, and here in Barcelona they say pubret, which sounds funny.

I think this should go back to the RPG forum, but only if pundit and his detractors keep their spat out of the thread. If showers of forgie and storygames links appear, then it goes back here. We've seen the viral marketing before, but just to remind Pundit, Hinterwelt (Bill) is pretty far from a forgie.

Not that i get a casting vote, mind.

I must admit I am mystified by this decision.  Bill started this discussion in honest and open inquisitiveness.  Even the story games and forgite games have mechanics that can be objectively discussed.  I found this thread interesting and informative.  I haven't really invested any time in exploring these types of games, and I am intrigued and curious about the mechanics of these types of games.  There were several posters who provided valuable and succinct information concerning the mechanics of several well-known games, information that was new and interesting to me.  I've always been interested in BW for example because it's portrayed as an old-school type of role-playing game, and I'm not going to drop serious cash on an inquisitive whim.

Quote from: One Horse Town;288798I think this should go back to the RPG forum, but only if pundit and his detractors keep their spat out of the thread. If showers of forgie and storygames links appear, then it goes back here. We've seen the viral marketing before, but just to remind Pundit, Hinterwelt (Bill) is pretty far from a forgie.

Not that i get a casting vote, mind.

It's not a question of attacking the Pundit. It's a question of answering what Bill asked, and also a question of demonstrating what those books say and what they don't. If that false claims had been made by any other person, I would have reacted the same way: showing proof for my position.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288638As far as that goes, how does Amber work? What is its TR? Personally, from what I have heard, Amber seems less an RPG than either of these games but I am interested in the mechanics of how it works.

I suppose we aren't going to see a response to this, either, even in the light of those recent Gygax threads.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288768Riiight.. so you came from the thread where I specifically said "these games cannot be discussed in RPG Main", and you go on to post a thread about them on RPG main, and yet you weren't trying to instigate?

Seriously? You are that afraid of discussion about the mechanics of these games. I expected more from you Pundit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288768You know what? I've changed my mind. This thread goes to Off-topic, and consider yourself warned. Don't pull this shit again. Intentionally posting off-topic subjects in the main page in order to disrupt the site just to engage in a personal dispute against a poster (any poster, but me included in that list) is one of the few things we don't allow around here.

RPGPundit

I really do not care where the thread is. It is about role playing games. If you wish to ghettoize a section of games that you have some ideological issues with, that is definitely your prerogative. You wish to "warn" me like you are some RPGNet mod, feel free. If this is just a precursor to get rid of some poster you don't like then cut to the chase because there is nothing I will be able to do one way or another. You will eventually find some reason to ban me no matter how much I toe the line.

That said, the REAL reason I started the thread was partly as I said, because you keep referring to these games as "Not real RPGS". Now, I was trained as an engineer. I look are things in terms of form and function, properties if you will. I don't now these games. People are kind enough to list the properties, form and function of these games so as to make a comparison. No theory. No agenda. Just a list of how the games work (and I appreciate that folks). Which brings me to the second reason I posted this thread.

Ideas. I already have one from BW about experience that I will most likely be implementing for that system. Ideas are golden and can come from all directions. Again, I will probably put a trad spin on it but there it is, that is the type of games I write.

Now, if someone is tweaking you in the help forum and getting you pissed off, I suggest you take it out on them. I am not disrupting anything. I am talking about games. You seem to want to talk about ideology. Please go start your own thread to discuss ideology while the rest of us discuss games. Thanks.

Now, for those of you reading along. No, I am not "flaming out". I am actually pretty calm about the whole thing. If you read the above with, as my 4 year old says, "Angry-Angry Voice"  then you missed the point. Reread with calm dispassion.

Now, if this is my last post here, let me say, I regret I have only one account to give the emperor. ;)

Quote from: HinterWelt;288804Now, if this is my last post here, let me say, I regret I have only one account to give the emperor. ;)

This is, like, the manliest thing I've ever read regarding a messageboard :D Kudos to you, Bill!

Quote from: HinterWelt;288804Reread with calm dispassion.

Why would I read it any other way, Bill? ;)

In a vain attempt to keep the thread from deteriorating further.

Quote from: Imperator;288724Sure, mate.
Sorcerer uses a dice-pool system. You can use any kind of dice you want as long as everyone uses the same (d10s, d8s, whatever). You get to use one or maybe two of your stats (Will, Stamina, Lore, Cover, and Power if you're a demon), plus any bonus dice you can get through roleplaying, situational bonus, or from previous successful rolls that are directly related to the current one.

What is the range of the stats? How are they generated?

Quote from: Imperator;288724The goal is to get the highest die, either against another character's pool, or against a bunch of dice assigned by the GM if no one's opposing you. The more dice you roll, the better. You compare the outcomes, and the highest individual die wins. Each die you have that is higher than the highest of the other guy counts as an additional victory, and probably can be used as a bonus in following rolls on the same situation / conflict. For example, using d10s:

Ramón rolls 6d10 and gets 4,6,2,8,9,0.
Bill rolls 4d10 and gets 7,7,7,3.

Ramón wins (is my example ;)) and as he has 3 dice higher than Bill's best (7), he wins with 3 victories.

Of course. ;)

Seems straight forward so far.

Quote from: Imperator;288724That's it. When you're fighting there's a chart with damage: damage is expressed as temporary (only next - action) penalties and permanent (last longer than the fight) penalties. If your penalties go beyond Stamina x2 you're out of combat, unless you're a Sorcerer in which case you get a roll of Will vs the dice you want to use for your next action to get over the pain and keep going. It's almost the only chart in the game, apart from the chart summing up the stats involved in different sorcerous ritual. Right after the fight you halve your permanent penalties, which will last a while, and depending on how much you got you're more or less severely injured.

Is there specific rules on recovery? I have implemented a stat check recovery system that I think will be quite interesting in recovering from damage.

Quote from: Imperator;288724In this game the GM does exactly the same stuff in any other RPG: he decides when a roll is called for, he frames scenes, plays NPCs and so on. Nothing new over there.

Seems striaght forward. When did Sorcerer come out? I know it was a while back but my memory fades...

Quote from: Imperator;288724Hope it helps! I'm no expert, but I will do my best to answer any question.

It does. Thank you for taking the time.

Quote from: Omnifray;288728Burning Wheel has a stat for your wealth resources, and as far as I understand it (I've never played the game), you roll dice to see if you can purchase something. I REALLY don't get what the problem is with having a certain amount of silver to spend and keeping track of it, at least approximately - surely if I buy one warship, I'll be less able to afford the next one... There's frankly something that gets me every time I read some Forgie game spouting off about how the game is about the story, not about the characters' equipment. It's very hard to express what it is that bugs me about it, but I think it might be that knowing the important items that your character is carrying is just --- not really a distraction from the game at all!!! I mean, give the players some credit, it doesn't take them ten seconds to glance at their character sheets and double-check what they've got, and most of the time they'll remember the main items anyway.

As with others, I have seen this implemented with other games. I am implementing a Rarity scale for equipment in Zombipocalypse. Here, you have no "wealth" assigned to items but how hard they are to find. It is a method to abstract equipment "cost" and can be useful in certain settings.

Quote from: Omnifray;288728And I REALLY don't like Let It Ride. The text in the book seems to suggest that there are refs out there who just want the player characters to fail, and make them roll and re-roll until they do. I don't know any refs who can be fairly said to ref that way. Sometimes you want to have multiple rolls to see how things progres in different stages. Things like "Am I going to be able to sneak through the enemy camp" should be unpredictable even at the stage when you're half-way through the camp --- so that you might be tempted to turn back half-way through if you hear a twig snap or something.

I am with you on the "refs what you to fail thing". I do this, as I mentioned earlier, to speed play and reduce monotony of rerolling against the same skill many times. I have had players who insist on the who "every ten feet" rule and roll with it. Some folks like rolling dice. Either way works for me. I have also broken it up unevenly. So, half why through it might be a series of checks to get into the much more heavily guarded prisoner tent but then one roll to get out of camp. For me, it is more situational and how the group wants to play.

Quote from: Omnifray;288728It seems to me that these two rules are an example of predictability vs. unpredictability being exactly the wrong way round in Forgie games. I damn well know whether I can afford a warship or not - and if I have to go round my mates getting a loan, well, let's roleplay it, not rollplay it! (OK, a few rolls might help, but you get the point.) And when I've snuck half-way through the enemy camp I damn well don't know if I'm going to sneak out the other side. Why should these things be the other way round???

Part of the issue I would see is that I do not believe it is inherent to forgie games. However, the issues you site are definitely problems to your play style. I would argue the wealth issue may even be simply a problem. However, I do not think the idea is without merit. The implementation might be tricky but having abstract costs for equipment can be useful and help support the setting.

As for let it ride, that is really so much about the play style. Personally, I prefer to leave that to the group to decide. If you make it a codified rule, you alienate a segment of gamers from your game.

Quote from: Omnifray;288728Let it Ride ruins some of the suspense for me. And having a wealth stat --- I just can't see what the point is.

But maybe I'm being horribly unfair? After all, I've never played this game. Perhaps I should keep an open mind.

Not at all. You have a preferred play style. Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks guys!

Quote from: James J Skach;288807Why would I read it any other way, Bill? ;)

Because you are blinded with Squine passion? Maybe you had too much coffee? Listening to too much Fat Boy Slim?

Oh, wait, that's me...

D) All of the above...

Why would let us not mercilessly mock these non-systems, Pundit?  

Discussing dice mechanics does not come across to me as pushing any kind of agenda, and I say, "Bad form, moving this to Off-Topic, terrible show, old boy."

Quote from: HinterWelt;288815What is the range of the stats? How are they generated?

You spend 10 points between Stamina, Will and Lore. Cover gets a score equal to stamina or Will, depending if you have a profession - lifestyle more phisically or mentally / socially oriented. Oh, I forgot the most important stat: Humanity (which also is rolled frequently) it's the highest between Stamina or Will.

The stats go from 1 to 10, more or less. There's no hard limits, though, but in page 77 you read that a guy with Stamina 10 could smash through a brick wall and run like a horse. In practice, most people ranges from 1 to 6, with 3 the average.

QuoteSeems straight forward so far.

It has some wonky complications with dice, I'm really simplifying it, but this is the core mechanic. I feel that the game could use a revision to clarify and add some questions that Edwards have been answering in the Forge since day 1.

For example, there's no initiative in combat as usually handled in RPGs. Everyone states intent, and describes their actions so the GM can judge if there's some bonus available. Then everyone rolls their dice, and leave them on the table.

The best roll (i.e., the highest) gets resolved first and may interrupt other actions that go after it. If you're attacked before you've acted, you can abort your action and roll Stamina + mods to avoid damage, or go ahead with your action and roll 1 die to minimize or reduce the incoming hit (if this die beats the other guy's roll, it counts like he won with only 1 victory, so penalties will be lighter).

QuoteIs there specific rules on recovery? I have implemented a stat check recovery system that I think will be quite interesting in recovering from damage.

No, the GM decides on how long penalties last. You halve your permanent penalties right after the combat, to represent that usually wounds can be less severe than they feel. It's up to the GM to describe the exact wounds, and therefore, the estimated recovery.

Note that the penalties system can also be used to model for example, a social combat.

Your goal in this game, dice-rolling-wise is to come up with as much roleplaying bonus as you can, and always try to make every roll a consequence of the previous action, so you can get the victories of the former as bonus into the latter.

QuoteSeems striaght forward. When did Sorcerer come out? I know it was a while back but my memory fades...

The electronic edition came out in 1998, and it's useless. Actually, Edwards asks people to ignore it, because many things have supposedly changed. The book came out in 2001.

QuoteI am with you on the "refs what you to fail thing". I do this, as I mentioned earlier, to speed play and reduce monotony of rerolling against the same skill many times. I have had players who insist on the who "every ten feet" rule and roll with it. Some folks like rolling dice. Either way works for me. I have also broken it up unevenly. So, half why through it might be a series of checks to get into the much more heavily guarded prisoner tent but then one roll to get out of camp. For me, it is more situational and how the group wants to play.

I feel that this rule speeds up play, nothing more. It doesn't add or steals power from the GM: it makes life easier. My players like it. Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you suck.

QuoteI would argue the wealth issue may even be simply a problem. However, I do not think the idea is without merit. The implementation might be tricky but having abstract costs for equipment can be useful and help support the setting.

Again, it simplifies stuff. Counting coins and weight is OK in my book, we do it in our RQ vikings game. But I feel that in many fantasy games the value of currency is better abstracted.

HQ does the wealth thing too. But I'm now uncertain as to whether that can be a roleplaying game.

Burning Wheel is a RPG.  Dogs in the Vineyard is a RPG.  Sorry Pundit but you are wrong here.  Been running games for almost two decades now.  Everything from AD&D to Vampire.  Your notions are making you look less intellegent than ole Professor Bat Wang over at the Forge.  Your threats and moving threads make you look more incapable than the moderators that banned you from rpgnet.

The only reason this thread went anywhere off topic at all is because of YOU.  You just did the ole rpgnet moderator flame bait.  Maybe you ought to change your name to RPGDARREN cause that's what your actions are looking like.

Quote from: Imperator;288827Again, it simplifies stuff. Counting coins and weight is OK in my book, we do it in our RQ vikings game. But I feel that in many fantasy games the value of currency is better abstracted.

Sorry if I'm sidetracking here... Do you have any material online about your Viking campaign ?

Quote from: boulet;288835Sorry if I'm sidetracking here... Do you have any material online about your Viking campaign ?

I've posted an AP here and in RPG.net with the 1st session, and I'm struggling to catch up :) Also, we've begun a blog (in Spanish) about it. What do you need?

Quote from: droog;288832HQ does the wealth thing too. But I'm now uncertain as to whether that can be a roleplaying game.

Well, the objection seems to be based on the role of the GM. So, let's add a dimension to our research.

What is the role of the GM in the games we have listed?

Does the player get to overrule the GM? (Note: My Uber-Trad designs have this aspect in terms of Karma)

Please continue also to list any other game mechanics also.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288843What is the role of the GM in the games we have listed?

Same as in a trad game: create backstory and setting, judging on rules, playing NPCs, prepping challenges to the PCs.

QuoteDoes the player get to overrule the GM? (Note: My Uber-Trad designs have this aspect in terms of Karma)

Sorcerer and DitV haven't any similar currency. BW has Artha and some mechanics like that, but again, that's not unlimited here. But other persons may explain the artha use better than me.

I will go on record as being completely against silly use of Karma and have gotten right up in his face about it, physcially...


...ok...well...really we jsut shot the shit one night after a GameDay...but...ya know, I have an Internet rep to keep up.

Oh wait...my pic is out there...so...nevermind...

Quote from: HinterWelt;288843What is the role of the GM in the games we have listed?

Does the player get to overrule the GM? (Note: My Uber-Trad designs have this aspect in terms of Karma)

The role of the GM in Sorcerer is to play the demons (I personally find this to be great fun) and hit the chr with situations related to his kicker.

The kicker is where people may bridle a bit. A set-up for a game of Sorcerer goes typically like this:

1. GM has idea for game (Sorcerer is customisable to a large extent and there are no canonical settings). This should include colour and so forth but no plot.

2. GM pitches game to players.

3. Players create chrs, preferrably together rather than in isolation.

4. Players write kickers for their chrs. The kicker is basically your own reversed plot hook, which the GM is supposed to use.


Now whether that puts a game into the ranks of shared narration or not, I leave to the reader. The GM can do pretty much what he likes with the kicker, including saying "I don't think I can work with that."

Quote from: Imperator;288793HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA

Dude, you always go a step further. I can't speak for anyone but me, so maybe there's a conspiracy and really those sites are actively sending agents here to laugh at your rantings or something, I don't know and I don't care.

Your suspicions are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base, but that's something that only shows that you don't have nothing apart from trying to make people upset with personal attacks :) Like that time when you said that retarded thing about Spanish :D You're not even able to answer to the facts I'm presenting you to prove that your affirmations are false. You conveniently ignore them and try again the attack shit. Sorry, not working.

I spend my time here because I like the place, and many people here :) And fortunately, my work allows for that. Get over it. You're not the only guy who gets to freelance from home, or whatever you do for a living.

PS: On the right - wing ideology, I'm curious :D I'm a card-carrying member of the communist party since I was 16, though I'm more of an anarchist. Dude, just call me catholic and be done being wrong :D

Um, I that post you are referring to was a response to Cavscout, not you.

Your motive, as I said, is dick-waving.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Drohem;288799I must admit I am mystified by this decision.  Bill started this discussion in honest and open inquisitiveness. .

Let me see if I can clarify the reason: I had just stated, in a thread in the Help forum about this, that Forge-games, due to their not being regular RPGs, and due to the nature of Forgies to engage in active attempts to push their agenda on other forums, would be relegated to Off-topic.
Bill read that thread, and went on to start a thread about ALL the forge games he could think about, in the RPG main forum.

What is that if not an attempt to incite me? I will note that by page 2, you had the regular suspects using the thread to make attacks against me (Cavscout, Imperator) when I had not posted aside from saying I would tenatively allow the thread.

Had the thread been started in good faith, and had it proceeded to talk strictly about mechanics without diverging into either Forge Theory or ideological attacks/propaganda, I was willing to allow it; though I found it highly unlikely that a thread such as this would not go down those routes. I was quickly proven right, and the thread is now in Off-topic, where Forge-selling and Pundit-bashing belongs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;288801It's not a question of attacking the Pundit. It's a question of answering what Bill asked, and also a question of demonstrating what those books say and what they don't. If that false claims had been made by any other person, I would have reacted the same way: showing proof for my position.

Uh huh. You just conveniently happen to follow me to every thread I post to in order to "facts check". :rolleyes:

Dude, unlike say, Droog, who has been here from day one without any purpose other than to try to cause trouble, you have in many occasions been a constructive poster on this forum. But your inability to just move on from this pointless quest to try to show me up is rapidly ruining that, and its really getting to the point where you're not about anything here anymore other than trying to argue with me at every turn. This is not really a productive direction for you to be heading into.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGent;288803I suppose we aren't going to see a response to this, either, even in the light of those recent Gygax threads.

Amber, not being a Forge game, is kind of off-topic to this thread, don't you think?

If someone wants to start a new thread asking about the mechanics of Amber, they are free to do so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;288851Same as in a trad game: create backstory and setting, judging on rules, playing NPCs, prepping challenges to the PCs.

Sorcerer and DitV haven't any similar currency. BW has Artha and some mechanics like that, but again, that's not unlimited here. But other persons may explain the artha use better than me.

hmm, if someone else has more to say on Artha that would be helpful.

Thanks Imperator.

Quote from: James J Skach;288862I will go on record as being completely against silly use of Karma and have gotten right up in his face about it, physcially...


...ok...well...really we jsut shot the shit one night after a GameDay...but...ya know, I have an Internet rep to keep up.

Oh wait...my pic is out there...so...nevermind...

Yeah, except I whipped your ass...ah, figuratively....unless you count that one time but then that was just between us...ah, I mean it never happened. :duh:

Quote from: droog;288882The role of the GM in Sorcerer is to play the demons (I personally find this to be great fun) and hit the chr with situations related to his kicker.

The kicker is where people may bridle a bit. A set-up for a game of Sorcerer goes typically like this:

1. GM has idea for game (Sorcerer is customisable to a large extent and there are no canonical settings). This should include colour and so forth but no plot.

2. GM pitches game to players.

3. Players create chrs, preferrably together rather than in isolation.

4. Players write kickers for their chrs. The kicker is basically your own reversed plot hook, which the GM is supposed to use.


Now whether that puts a game into the ranks of shared narration or not, I leave to the reader. The GM can do pretty much what he likes with the kicker, including saying "I don't think I can work with that."

Again, I think I am being dense or something. How do other folks make there characters? I mean, do you run off and secretly make dozens of characters then come to the table a say, "Here you bitch GM, I made a Dragonborn Lowrider! Deal!". I have always had players make up, at least the concept, at the table. Sometimes that means a lot of interaction and sometimes not but it always means everyone is making characters with the group in mind. Am I missing something here Droog? Is there more to it? I am not trying to say this is a bad thing on Sorcerer but more another example of codification of what other gamers have done in the past, a good practice.

Also, is it presented in the context of advice or is it actual codified rules;i.e. You receive 1 Kicker vs. It is a good idea to have a kicker.

Thanks guys. Very informative thread. Even you Skach. ;) Zombies this Gameday!

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;288804Seriously? You are that afraid of discussion about the mechanics of these games. I expected more from you Pundit.

You're welcome to discuss the mechanics of these games as much as you like. This thread can go to 1000 posts for all I care.
It will just do so in the correct forum, here.

QuoteNow, for those of you reading along. No, I am not "flaming out". I am actually pretty calm about the whole thing. If you read the above with, as my 4 year old says, "Angry-Angry Voice"  then you missed the point. Reread with calm dispassion.

Now, if this is my last post here, let me say, I regret I have only one account to give the emperor. ;)

Yes, clearly you're being very adult about all this, what with having read a thread where I said something you didn't like, setting up a ruling you found questionable, and instead of arguing it in that thread or somewhere appropriate, your first response was to start a new thread in direct violation of the ruling that had been expressed (a rule that isn't new btw, its been here since the start of the forum in its current incarnation).  That, clearly, is the height of maturity.  :rolleyes:

Not to mention the whole setup for the martyr complex this post presents, very mature response.

RPGPundit

Quote from: joewolz;288826Why would let us not mercilessly mock these non-systems, Pundit?  

You can do so, and I gladly encourage you to, all you like. Right here on this thread, which isn't getting closed. Its just been moved to the right place.

QuoteDiscussing dice mechanics does not come across to me as pushing any kind of agenda, and I say, "Bad form, moving this to Off-Topic, terrible show, old boy."

Its the long-standing policy of this forum, both to move threads regarding Forge promotion to Off Topic and to not put up with petulant displays of intentional provocation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: peteramthor;288833Burning Wheel is a RPG.  Dogs in the Vineyard is a RPG.  Sorry Pundit but you are wrong here.  Been running games for almost two decades now.  Everything from AD&D to Vampire.  Your notions are making you look less intellegent than ole Professor Bat Wang over at the Forge.  Your threats and moving threads make you look more incapable than the moderators that banned you from rpgnet.

The only reason this thread went anywhere off topic at all is because of YOU.  You just did the ole rpgnet moderator flame bait.  Maybe you ought to change your name to RPGDARREN cause that's what your actions are looking like.

3/10 at best. A very sub-par attempt at character assassination on your part.

If I was like Ron Edwards, I'd have closed this thread and forbidden any debate on my positions.

If I was like an RPGnet Mod, I'd have banned Hinterwelt for his provocation, and at least a half-dozen other people who have posted to this thread.

Your argument holds no water, and the fact that you are allowed to make it is the very proof of that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288902What is that if not an attempt to incite me?

In all seriousness, I honestly don't believe Bill is that type of person from what I know of his online persona.  I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Quote from: Drohem;288911In all seriousness, I honestly don't believe Bill is that type of person from what I know of his online persona.  I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Then he made a mistake, and should admit it. But given that he basically admitted already that he had read my post on the Help thread about this, and was explicitly posting in reaction to that post, its hard to think that he somehow misunderstood the part where I said "these things should go in off-topic".

RPGPundit

Bill...you are so full of it...

I mean, your zombie game - it's all full. What, am I expected to perform that "special service" to get a "slot" at your "table"....again? ;)



Pundit, the perfect example of maturity, hiding his little identity behind this mask (a farce in and of itself) so he can spew vitriol and call people "poopy", calls Bill immature.

That's rich...

Quote from: RPGPundit;288906You're welcome to discuss the mechanics of these games as much as you like. This thread can go to 1000 posts for all I care.
It will just do so in the correct forum, here.

Are you trying to make a point? I said I am fine with the move. I am interested in discussing mechanics but you seem to want to lecture on ideology. So...stop reading the thread? Just a suggestion.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288906Yes, clearly you're being very adult about all this, what with having read a thread where I said something you didn't like, setting up a ruling you found questionable, and instead of arguing it in that thread or somewhere appropriate, your first response was to start a new thread in direct violation of the ruling that had been expressed (a rule that isn't new btw, its been here since the start of the forum in its current incarnation).  That, clearly, is the height of maturity.  :rolleyes:

You said:
Any real RPG, even if it is influenced by Forge theories, can be discussed on the main RPG forum.

Those are your words. Don't roll me into your delusions of persecution. I am discussion REAL roleplaying games here. If you do not want them discussed in the RPG forum you should post a sticky or such that says they are forbidden and PRECISELY why. You do not want to believe this because your position is weak (essentially, "I don't like the game") but these seem very much to be roleplaying games. That means that either the RPG forum is for discussing RPGs or they are for discussing RPGs you approve of. Now, the former is very different from the latter. The former includes a number of games. The latter includes a subset, one that you have to define.

Now, if your objection, and I am guessing here, is that players can influence the GM calls through rules in the system, then my games are subject and we cannot discuss HinterWelt games in RPGs. I think that is ridiculous as my games have been called more trad than trad. I would argue that Clash's use of Luck is similar. No more Flying Mice Games? Again, I would call that ridiculous. But your objection is not based on logic is it? It is based on your "persona". It is based on your emotional reaction. You have no basis for your argument other than "I said so". This is fine, but then your responses could be shortened to three words.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288906Not to mention the whole setup for the martyr complex this post presents, very mature response.

RPGPundit

Really? You threaten to ban me because, in your world, I have defied you. You then go on to accuse me of being a secret agent of the Forge. All this is reasonable and well thought out to you. Really? And you think I have the persecution complex...

Quote from: James J Skach;288917Bill...you are so full of it...

I mean, your zombie game - it's all full. What, am I expected to perform that "special service" to get a "slot" at your "table"....again? ;)

Seriously dude, if you want to play I will make a spot at the table for you. There are only 5 spots right now but I could easily go to 8. I am making up caharacters left and right. I have on idea where the group is a troupe of Carnies...I don't know where these come from...

Anyway, I will have a bunch of spares and you are welcome to drop in. All the dice you will need will be 3d6s.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288902Let me see if I can clarify the reason: I had just stated, in a thread in the Help forum about this, that Forge-games, due to their not being regular RPGs, and due to the nature of Forgies to engage in active attempts to push their agenda on other forums, would be relegated to Off-topic.
Bill read that thread, and went on to start a thread about ALL the forge games he could think about, in the RPG main forum.

What is that if not an attempt to incite me? I will note that by page 2, you had the regular suspects using the thread to make attacks against me (Cavscout, Imperator) when I had not posted aside from saying I would tenatively allow the thread.

Had the thread been started in good faith, and had it proceeded to talk strictly about mechanics without diverging into either Forge Theory or ideological attacks/propaganda, I was willing to allow it; though I found it highly unlikely that a thread such as this would not go down those routes. I was quickly proven right, and the thread is now in Off-topic, where Forge-selling and Pundit-bashing belongs.

Interpreted what he is saying:

If you had made a thread to attack and heap criticism on those games, I would have allowed it to remain in the RPG section!

Quote from: RPGPundit;288906Not to mention the whole setup for the martyr complex this post presents, very mature response.

Clearly, that is reserved for Pundit... or is it "Defender of the Faith"... I always get confused on what Pundit is trying to claim he is doing.

Quote from: Drohem;288911In all seriousness, I honestly don't believe Bill is that type of person from what I know of his online persona.  I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

[sarcasm]Yeah, because I am all about pissing people off when I post unlike some folks who run this site. [/sarcasm]

Drohem, note the above is not directed at your comment. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I honestly thought I was discussing the mechanics of certain RPGs in the forum that would best draw the most opinions on the subject. Hopefully, we can get back to addressing those points.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288903Dude, unlike say, Droog, who has been here from day one without any purpose other than to try to cause trouble

Aww, dude! You've hurt my feelings, dude!

I guess this thread moving is fallout from my shitstirring on the help thread. Sorry Bill. I think this is an interesting thread and wish I could be a participant instead watching from the sidelines, but my knowledge of rules stuff is so poor that I doubt I'd be doing the games any favours.

Whenever a Forge or Forge-like game has surfaced around these parts, you and James Skach have always asked interesting questions and moved the discussion away from the normal hatefest that the Pundit would like it to be.

That's one of the strenghts of this place and the majority of it's posters.This is supposed to be a place where folks have no holds barred discussions about games. Not the place where we have discussions about what the owner defines as games.
 
I should have just left it alone but AM's recent swinery on the 4E threads got under my skin a little. To not poke the beast would have been criminal negligence on my part. So much for the Wielder of the Flaming Keystrokes of Truth.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: HinterWelt;288905Again, I think I am being dense or something. How do other folks make there characters? I mean, do you run off and secretly make dozens of characters then come to the table a say, "Here you bitch GM, I made a Dragonborn Lowrider! Deal!"

No, but I have done a lot of one-on-one work with people on chrs. And sometimes people make chrs and bring them for approval. There are still types of games I would be happy to use that method with. In Pendragon I'm like "Fuck the other players, this is YOUR CHR!"

It's just that Sorcerer works best if you're all involved from the start. You may well have found that for your games independently. The reason it's good for Sorcerer is that kickers can take people in all sorts of directions, i.e. characters may not stick together or even meet.

So what holds a game of Sorcerer together is all the players being interested and invested in the definition of Humanity used for that game. As if you read a book of short stories about a theme, like "Tales of Weirdness" or something.

On the other hand, what holds a game of Pendragon together is the setting. It's like a medieval tapestry you weave your own thread into. So it doesn't matter if your chrs go off and do different things, but it's for a different reason from Sorcerer, so the chrs don't have to have any unifying theme.

Quote from: David R;288934I guess this thread moving is fallout from my shitstirring on the help thread. Sorry Bill. I think this is an interesting thread and wish I could be a participant instead watching from the sidelines, but my knowledge of rules stuff is so poor that I doubt I'd be doing the games any favours.

Whenever a Forge or Forge-like game has surfaced around these parts, you and James Skach have always asked interesting questions and moved the discussion away from the normal hatefest that the Pundit would like it to be.

That's one of the strenghts of this place and the majority of it's posters.This is supposed to be a place where folks have no holds barred discussions about games. Not the place where we have discussions about what the owner defines as games.
 
I should have just left it alone but AM's recent swinery on the 4E threads got under my skin a little. To not poke the beast would have been criminal negligence on my part. So much for the Wielder of the Flaming Keystrokes of Truth.

Regards,
David R

David, don;t worry man, I am a big boy and can take it (or give it). I do want to say that though the thread in help sparked the idea of the thread I was far more interested in the mechanics it would reveal. I have played some of these games (BW) YEARS ago and only once so you can imagine that I could use a refresher. I would have been equally happy with "Base Mechanics for Diceless Games" but I do not know if there are enough of these to make a thread worth while.

And you know what, if I am ashamed about anything it is that I one of the primary motivations for this thread is mining ideas from other game designers. Yeah, it may be strange, but I am a very self reliant kind of guy. I prefer my own ideas even if they are reinventing (unknowingly) something someone else has done.

Generally, yeah, I have no problems with indie games. I tend to be snubbed by their club but I find that more amusing than hurtful. Just last month IPR told me I am not "avante guard enough" for them and declined to carry my "too trad" products. I could get all in a shitstrom over that and start spouting non-sense about swinery (or Squinery) but I still think that is just this side of non-sense. I do not really play indie games and I knew some folks were knowledgeable on these forums. I could probably have done it over on RPGNet and gotten a lot less grief but I think we (sometimes) can get bgetter dialogue here. Case in point, look at JHKim, Imperator, Droog and a few others with their very informative posts. Personally, if I ran the forum, I would pull some of those out and sticky them in theory or even OT (if that is the place) for a reference. I would put up one about 4e, D20, Iridium, Clash's systems and Brett's. We coudl have something you do not see often on the net, a truly useful reference. If I was into wikis I would start one.

But I ramble... Thanks.

Quote from: droog;288936No, but I have done a lot of one-on-one work with people on chrs. And sometimes people make chrs and bring them for approval. There are still types of games I would be happy to use that method with. In Pendragon I'm like "Fuck the other players, this is YOUR CHR!"

It's just that Sorcerer works best if you're all involved from the start. You may well have found that for your games independently. The reason it's good for Sorcerer is that kickers can take people in all sorts of directions, i.e. characters may not stick together or even meet.

So what holds a game of Sorcerer together is all the players being interested and invested in the definition of Humanity used for that game. As if you read a book of short stories about a theme, like "Tales of Weirdness" or something.

On the other hand, what holds a game of Pendragon together is the setting. It's like a medieval tapestry you weave your own thread into. So it doesn't matter if your chrs go off and do different things, but it's for a different reason from Sorcerer, so the chrs don't have to have any unifying theme.

O.k. I think I see what you are saying. The "setting" is not the glue here. The Concept that the GM brings is just a genre, maybe? For example:
GM: Let's play super heros in the 1930s!
Player 1: Yeah! I will be The Cape! He is a defender of justice with a dark secret!
Player 2: O.k. but I want to play a Amazing Woman. She is an amazon from Teledo, OH with a gingivitis!
Player 1...um, maybe give her an arch enemy like the PMS Avenger who only strikes on 4 days a month?
Player 2: Sounds good.
Player 3: I will be playing the Red Mask. He is secretly the PMS Avenger!
GM: Alright, we are all in New York. There is a  plot afoot by the PMS Avenger. He has somehow gotten Bronzantium, a deadly explosive and plans to destroy the city. I am looking at you "The Cape"!

Something like that?

Thanks.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288958And you know what, if I am ashamed about anything it is that I one of the primary motivations for this thread is mining ideas from other game designers.

This is what I do too. Which is why threads like these and any talk of games even if they are so-called Forgey games are so cool, IMO.

QuoteCase in point, look at JHKim, Imperator, Droog and a few others with their very informative posts.

Agreed.

And droog has always been a kinky fellow. His suggestion of using Sorceror for my biopunk game, SexyBeasts has gone down very well with my crew.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;2889103/10 at best. A very sub-par attempt at character assassination on your part.

If I was like Ron Edwards, I'd have closed this thread and forbidden any debate on my positions.

If I was like an RPGnet Mod, I'd have banned Hinterwelt for his provocation, and at least a half-dozen other people who have posted to this thread.

Your argument holds no water, and the fact that you are allowed to make it is the very proof of that.

RPGPundit

But in this very thread you have proven you are rpgnet moderator material.  The thread was going straight, narrow and right on topic.  Then you jump in here flinging fecal material and cause it to diverge.  Now that it's gone that direction you are using it as support for moving it.  Classic rpg.net moderator baiting right there all done to get what you want.  Which is mainly to point and say 'See, see, I told you so.'

Character assassination is not my goal.  It would be a waste of time since nearly everyone here knows the way you are and your little fits and crybaby outs.  Especially your 'my way is right, your way is wrong LALALALALA' attitude about everything.  There is nothing  to assissinate in the end.  You have done that to yourself many times over.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288768You know what? I've changed my mind. This thread goes to Off-topic, and consider yourself warned. Don't pull this shit again.

I've always felt that derailing threads was something worth being warned for. People were asking about the mechanics behind Forger games. You're derailing it with arguments about whether they're really rpgs, and your personal spats with a few other posters.

As I've said to Forgers: please keep your theory and personal disputes out of our rpg discussions. Don't derail threads. Derailing threads because they're about games you dislike is "trolling". Don't do that, Pundit. It sets a bad example to the kids. We don't come into the Amber threads and derail them because it's diceless deviance, don't you come into threads about Forger games and derail them because they're pretentious and depressing, or fail to follow your self-contradictory Landmarks.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288958Something like that?

Yes, I think that's more or less right, except that the players would be writing kickers in there too. Kickers form the basis of the chr's adventure/story/whatever.

So Player 1 (the Cape) might write a kicker that goes: Today I got a phone call that said "We know who you are."

Player 2 might write: My boyfriend's parents have come to stay.

Player 3 might write: Red Mask has discovered Bronzantium, a deadly explosive.

The GM takes all those kickers and uses them to drive the game. Broadly, a game of Sorcerer is 'over' when your chr's kicker has been resolved.

So the GM's role is pretty crucial.

Quote from: HinterWelt;288920Those are your words.

I went on, in that very same post, to list games that were not regular RPGs, and those happened to be pretty much exactly the ones on your list.  The point of your thread was also to somehow try to argue that the basic mechanics of these games are "the same" as regular RPGs'.

Come on dude, we all know each other here. Do you really think you're fooling anyone about this?

QuoteYou do not want to believe this because your position is weak (essentially, "I don't like the game")

No, the reason they're not discussed in the main RPG forum is because they're not regular RPGs.
The reason they're not discussed in "electronic and other games" is because I don't like them. :pundit:

Quotebut these seem very much to be roleplaying games. That means that either the RPG forum is for discussing RPGs or they are for discussing RPGs you approve of.

Nonsense. I can't stand White Wolf's games, for example, and many other RPGs, that are totally open to be discussed in the main RPG forum.

QuoteYou then go on to accuse me of being a secret agent of the Forge.

Nah, its guys like Droog that are here on behest of the Cult of Ron.

You? You've just disliked me ever since I panned "Roma Imperious" (still not correct Latin, btw).

RPGPundit

Quote from: David R;288934I guess this thread moving is fallout from my shitstirring on the help thread. Sorry Bill. I think this is an interesting thread and wish I could be a participant instead watching from the sidelines, but my knowledge of rules stuff is so poor that I doubt I'd be doing the games any favours.

Whenever a Forge or Forge-like game has surfaced around these parts, you and James Skach have always asked interesting questions and moved the discussion away from the normal hatefest that the Pundit would like it to be.

That's one of the strenghts of this place and the majority of it's posters.This is supposed to be a place where folks have no holds barred discussions about games. Not the place where we have discussions about what the owner defines as games.
 
I should have just left it alone but AM's recent swinery on the 4E threads got under my skin a little. To not poke the beast would have been criminal negligence on my part. So much for the Wielder of the Flaming Keystrokes of Truth.

Regards,
David R

As I said, you're welcome to discuss forge games on this thread till you're blue in the face. Legal concerns excepted, no discussion is banned on this site as long as its done on the right forum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: peteramthor;288967But in this very thread you have proven you are rpgnet moderator material.  The thread was going straight, narrow and right on topic.  Then you jump in here flinging fecal material and cause it to diverge.  Now that it's gone that direction you are using it as support for moving it.  Classic rpg.net moderator baiting right there all done to get what you want.  Which is mainly to point and say 'See, see, I told you so.'

Before I'd done anything other than a single post stating that I was going to allow the thread to continue on a probationary basis in the main forum, the Pundit-hater crowd had come in here and used it as a blunt object.
Sorry, this thread failed on its own.

QuoteCharacter assassination is not my goal.  It would be a waste of time since nearly everyone here knows the way you are and your little fits and crybaby outs.  Especially your 'my way is right, your way is wrong LALALALALA' attitude about everything.  There is nothing  to assissinate in the end.  You have done that to yourself many times over.

And yet, despite all these claims, you felt the need to take the tact of claiming that I was EXACTLY LIKE the guys who ban people at the drop of a hat or the guy who closes any thread he doesn't like in the least.
Now your argument, too, has failed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;289025As I said, you're welcome to discuss forge games on this thread till you're blue in the face. Legal concerns excepted, no discussion is banned on this site as long as its done on the right forum.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Regards,
David R

Against my better judgment I will play along. This thread is still useful to an extent, dispite your best efforts.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289024I went on, in that very same post, to list games that were not regular RPGs, and those happened to be pretty much exactly the ones on your list.  The point of your thread was also to somehow try to argue that the basic mechanics of these games are "the same" as regular RPGs'.

Come on dude, we all know each other here. Do you really think you're fooling anyone about this?

First, I don't read most of your posts. They are not worth it.

No, one of the poitns of this thread, and I have admitted as much, was to familiarize myself with the mechanics so that I could try and see your point of view. So far, I do not see it. They are pretty mundane mechanics. I am not friend of Rons nor am I well liked by forgites either. I am not "sticking it to you". Generally, I avoid anything like this. Was I aware that you would blow a gasket over this? I thought you might but the worst that would happen is you would move it to OT. No, you warn me and precede to derail the thread. You make the thread about you. I wonder who that sounds like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289024No, the reason they're not discussed in the main RPG forum is because they're not regular RPGs.
The reason they're not discussed in "electronic and other games" is because I don't like them. :pundit:

No, it is because you have some ideologue you feel the need to push. These specific games here are most assuredly RPGs. I suspect most any discussed here would be as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289024Nonsense. I can't stand White Wolf's games, for example, and many other RPGs, that are totally open to be discussed in the main RPG forum.

How are these games not RPGs? Seriously. Because they use a board instead of a battle map? No, because they do not use a board. Because you dress up and walk around acting in character? No, because you do not do that.

Look, I am not some ivy league academic. I am an engineer by training and an analytical thinker by profession. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck it is a duck.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289024Nah, its guys like Droog that are here on behest of the Cult of Ron.

You? You've just disliked me ever since I panned "Roma Imperious" (still not correct Latin, btw).

RPGPundit

No, give yourself credit, I had only heard of you by then. I dislike you because you are a coward that hides like the intellectual child you are. You have a "persona" that can only trade in hate and deceit. You do not even have the courage to claim your own work. I dislike the inteelectually weak and cowardly.

And no, as usual, you have it wrong. The Latin is not incorrect.

Now, stop disrupting this thread...or will you warn yourself? I thought not.

Hi Bill,

I thought I'd add a few details on top of what droog and Imperator have already laid out for Sorcerer.

I want to highlight a question you asked droog: "Also, is it presented in the context of advice or is it actual codified rules;i.e. You receive 1 Kicker vs. It is a good idea to have a kicker."

A thing to know about Sorcerer is that lots of things that might be optional or good techniques in some RPG groups are hard wired into the rules of Sorcerer.  Kickers is one of these things. When you play Sorcerer, the players write Kickers.  That's just a rule.  Pretty much everything droog has mentioned are rules of play.

In terms of setting or what the GM brings to the Players, there are couple of setting elements the GM needs to fill out and define for play to proceed.  These setting elements are the definitions of Humanity, Demons, Lore and what happens to a character at Humanity of 0.  These are the elements of "glue" that you referred to in your previous post.

Humanity, by the way, is stat that ranges in value for any character from 0 to 10.  Deeds the Player has the PC do an raise or lower Humanity by one point, so that there's never a "Do this and you lose a Humanity point."  It's die roll (about a 50-50 chance) that it might go up or down for any Humanity threatening or Humanity gaining action.  Also, Humanity does not affect a PC's actions, attitude, or moral range in any way unless it hits 0.  Thus, the Players can "ride" Humanity down for a bit, taking actions that might compromise them morally, but lets them do things that really, really matter to them.  (For example, I don't know if you've seen the show THE SHIELD, but Humanity in the context of that show might be, "Living the Law."  And I don't think any character made it through that show without making some Humanity loss checks.  Half the time it was for a really, really good reason... but still, they broke their code of being cops.)  If Humanity reaches 0, the PC is removed from the Players control.  He's now off the scale of protagonist -- pure bad guy.  (There are rules for rewriting the character and having him returned to the Player.)

Okay, so the GM shows up with setting details.  I GMed last year we called, THE BROTHERHOOD.  Here is what I pitched the Players.

The setting is a state penitentiary located in the middle of nowhere somewhere between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Your character might have been guilty. He might have been innocent.  He might be a guard, a prisoner, a warden, a doctor in the infirmary, but he or she is part of The System.

Your character knew no sorcery before entering The System. But there are a few teachers within the walls of the prison — people who survive by summoning the unnatural powers within the prison walls.

Demons are tattoos, shivs, razor blades, cocaine, cigarettes, money, shadows, pin-ups, fantasies of the world outside and all things prison.

Lore is acts of domination and submission between men.

Humanity is standing up for your own moral code.

At Humanity 0 you are a "thing of the prison" -- a soulless, broken feature of the prison who no longer has a will of your own, only following order or ordering them, but only by habit.

It’s important to remember that the word “demon” in this game doesn’t mean “things from hell.” Think more of the girl from “The Ring” -- where something has gone WRONG with the fabric of reality. We’re building our own specific and self-contained story, with it’s own specific mythology and world.

I mentioned several media references that inspired me to really want to play in this setting: HBO's series Oz and The Wire, The Shield on F/X, and some of the works of Clive Barker.

The Players liked the idea, and came up with characters:

1) VISILI (player: Colin): a Lifer in the prison who's demon is a cell block; he doesn't want to leave because he's very comfortable where he is. He was part of a russian mob, and while he has ties to his family and is loyal to them, he's pretty much cut off from the world in the safety of his cell block.  (He's been up for parole several times and has always managed to screw it up on purpose.)

His Kicker was this his nephew arrived at the penitentiary and is making a move to take control of his cell block.


2) DAVID KING (player Eric): a man who committed a crime and bound a demon to confront the  cult leader who rules a nationwide organization from inside the prison. (The cult killed the man's daughter.) His demons are snakes down his forearm, and a second demon that is the tattoo of a third eye on his forehead that let's him "astrally" project when he mediates on the cot of his cell and learn more about what's happening many places.

His Kicker was that he found out his daughter was still alive.  (His sister-in-law brought his daughter to jail to visit him.  David's wife went mad from the "death" of their daughter and is in an asylum.)


3) ROMAN (player Vasco): a corrupt cop sent to jail for killing a fellow police officer and a drug dealer when his schemes were about to go public.  He summoned and bound a demon to survive a place where cops are the biggest targets short of child molesters. His demon are tattoos that cover his body (he looks just like a criminal now!) that let him to internal damage to people and let him withstand a lot of damage... All while looking like all he did was maybe give you a friendly slap on the shoulder. The tattoos shift and change, showing a collage of all people he beat the hell out of.

His Kicker was someone in his crew ratted him out and set him up to be killed.


The PC creation is a whole session all by itself.  Lots of bouncing around of ideas.  You can see that the Players created a lot of NPCs (the cult leader, the fellow cop Roman killed, the nephew, the gang Roman runs, and so on...)  All this stuff gets written down on the character sheet.  (Here's a link (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/sorcerer_sheet.pdf))  If you go down to the second page you'll see a big box where the Players write down all the NPCs, locations, objects and events that fit under the categories of Lore or Kicker or whatever.  Things that are related are placed near each other on the diagram.  Again, this is procedure, not a suggestion.  It forces the Players to write down all the stuff that got their character to where they got in the Kicker, and makes clear how all these things are related to each other.


Okay, so then I, the GM, go off and make up bunches of stuff.  I take all the material the Players manufactured for their PCs and mix it with what I had already been thinking about.  I've got till the next time we play to create the BACKSTORY and all the relationships between the NPCs and so on.  So, in THE BROTHERHOOD, I suddenly had a cult and a cult leader to work with, which was awesome.

The promise of a Sorcerer GM is that he'll actually make the stuff on the PC sheets the focus of the game.  Also, the GM gets to do anything he wants with what the Players created (NPCs, objects, whatever)  Once play begins, that's his department.

The Players, in turn, get to do with their PCs whatever they want.  The GM has no "plot," no agenda, no climax he's building toward; it's the Players and the choices for their PCs that will create the story.  I might think NPC Such-n-Such is the coolest thing since sliced bread, but if the Players are all fascinated by the fate of the girl who got in that car last session, then by god, that's what the story is going to be about.

So, I create a big matrix of details and we gather again.  And then we start playing, leading up to the Kickers.  And when we get to the first Kicker, you'll notice that they sort of demand action... Like, Roman was betrayed.  What the hell is he going to do about that?   And David's daughter is alive.  What the hell is that about?  (I, as GM know what that means, but the Player does not.)  Is he going to continue his path to revenge?  Neither I, nor the Players know what is going to happen.  I frame the scenes, we reach the Kicker, and the Players start making choices for their Players.

I should say now that I'm not particularly concerned about whether other people play this way.  Or have before.  Of somewhere someone has done this.  Or something like it.  The concern for novelty or pure invention or who got there first really is of little interest to me. What is of interest to me is that Sorcerer puts into play, through its procedures, a system that reliably sets up PCs and Backstory in a way where no one has any idea where things are going and it works.  (To contrast this, I've seen people write, "My players can do anything they want..." but then also discuss "where the campaign is going" as they prep for the game.  Sorcerer is explicitly not that -- and I say that knowing other people have played like Sorcerer before.  The only trick is this is how you play Sorcerer.)

The arc of play, which usually lasts 9 to 12 sessions, but can go longer, is the resolution of the Kicker.  That's a vague notion that, strangely, reliably wraps up with a cool climax without anyone doing a lot of planning or the GM leading to any kind of climax.  Everyone creatively steps up and makes the cool climaxes happen.

So, that's Kickers. But, in my view, all the pieces of Sorcerer inform the other pieces. So that I brought in lots of other procedures and rules to explain how they work.  It's how all these pieces impinge on each other, especially in the creative scene work of everyone working at the table, that makes Sorcerer one of my favorite games.  Again, you used the word "glue" earlier, and I think all these pieces bind the game thematically in ways that make the creative payoff really cool.

tmi, CK.

Quote from: droog;289057tmi, CK.

It was interesting though Droog. The problem is it raises more questions and concerns then it addresses.

First, this seems to be a lot of work for the GM...or none. The GM would seem to need to address all options but then, really, none since he has little control over the elements. In fact, I could see a GMless game come out of this...However, I assume I do not understand something.

Second, it would seem, at the root of it, again, to be nothing new. I know CK said that does not matter but it does in a way. See, I have a theory that the big difference between Trad and Indie games is that the former assumes very little about play style while the latter codifies a great deal. Trad games assume that you will sit down and discuss your characters...or not...or you will discuss the campaign and walk away and make characters with that knowledge...Indie games seem to say "You will do it this way" or within a band of play style. Note, I am not saying this is bad, just not my gig.

Then, it would seem that the kickers could create a great deal of work for a GM but then maybe not. The problem seems to be that I am unsure about the role of the GM. I thought I had a handle on it but it seems to have slipped away. It would seem a difficult thing to do, dare I say, boring with my current understanding. It sounds like it would be much more fun to be a player.

Meh, I will have to think on this more.

Thanks for the info though CK.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289025As I said, you're welcome to discuss forge games on this thread till you're blue in the face. Legal concerns excepted, no discussion is banned on this site as long as its done on the right forum.

RPGPundit

You lie.  Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard meet the standards (however loosely defined or redefined by you or Ron) of what it takes to be a roleplaying game.  So this discussion belonged in the roleplaying forum.  Until you through your tantrum and began threadcrapping.

Quote from: HinterWelt;289064First, this seems to be a lot of work for the GM...or none. The GM would seem to need to address all options but then, really, none since he has little control over the elements. In fact, I could see a GMless game come out of this...However, I assume I do not understand something.

It tends to be lots of work at the beginning, decreasing as players become more proactive.

QuoteSecond, it would seem, at the root of it, again, to be nothing new....Indie games seem to say "You will do it this way" or within a band of play style. Note, I am not saying this is bad, just not my gig.

It's a fair comment. The basic doctrine is that a rules text ought to codify procedures. That grew out of discussions years ago on how much is assumed in RPG texts.

So the Forge philosophy is "This is the game and how it's designed to be played. If you don't think it looks like your bag, please try a different game. If you want to hack this game, go ahead but the designer is not responsible for results."

QuoteThe problem seems to be that I am unsure about the role of the GM. I thought I had a handle on it but it seems to have slipped away. It would seem a difficult thing to do, dare I say, boring with my current understanding. It sounds like it would be much more fun to be a player.

Depends on what you like, really. If you like playing NPCs, the demons are like NPCs turned to 11. If you like throwing things at your players and seeing which way they jump, Sorcerer tells you explicitly to do that.

Droog,

I'll let Bill decide.  But thanks for the input.  I myself find that concrete examples are really helpful.


Bill,

This is one of those moments where I'm forced to step back and say, "You might have to try it."

As far as the GM prep goes, as Droog says, there's a lot of work up front. But it's all fun. You're laying out the back story and who's agendas are what and so on.  You're working off the details on the character sheet and your own details, that are all true up to the point where play would begin... and then you pull the lever and see where it all goes.

And, as droog also stated, there's less work to do out of session as Play continues.  The Players get a better and better idea of what they want and what their PCs are driven to do.

The fun of the GM is simply framing new complications and resistances for the PCs actions.  On the fly.  You're not just making stuff up willy nilly.  It's all based on the fiction created up to that point.  But the Player says, "My guy is doing this..." and then you go, out of the blue, "Luke, I am your father," which you knew was true, but the Player didn't and now he has to figure out what to do with that fact.

The GM's job is to facilitate opportunity and opposition for the Players agendas for their characters, reward cool roleplaying with bonus dice, and run off between sessions and think about new things that might have shifted behind the scenes because of actions that occurred during play.  

The goal isn't to try to anticipate everything the Players might do, right?  Because that is never going to happen. But remember that the character sheets are scribbled with lots details about what the Players have forthrightly said they want play to be about.  So they're not going to be flying off to China on a whim.  They'll be orbiting the key elements they wrote down on their sheet.  The game isn't built off "the plot" -- it's built of relationships between characters and how they interact.  The plot gets built through play.

So, it's never boring. Because the GM has to really be on his toes, facilitating opportunity and opposition.  I find it incredibly fun and incredibly draining -- in a good way.  The stories never stop moving forward.  Most session only last three hours tops because that's when everyone's brain taps out.

The best way to think about it is like a small band riffing jazz, or a game of soccer where the ball keeps moving.  Even the GM is playing kind like the Players -- he just has a lot more characters to track.  So, if you can imagine that the Player would be having fun, imagine the GM kind of doing the same.

The difference is simply this: The GM is supposed to his the Players with Bangs -- moments in game where the Players are confronted with moments that demand decisions.  Bangs are not abstract ethics class dilemmas.  They're based off the fictional details the Players have written on their character sheets, and worked in through the definitions of Humanity, Demons and so on.  Providing Bangs is rule.... It's how the GM plays the game.

It's really fun finding those moments where the Players think their characters are all running off in one direction and you dump a reversal or revelation that really shifts the ground under the PC's feet and the Player gets this look like, "I have no idea what I'm going to do now," and you switch over to another Player's scene to give the first a moment to think it through.

But that's what it is.  You'd either dig it or you wouldn't.  But I'd say it's a blast.  


As for your comments about "trad" and "indie"... I'd say you're right.  That's one of the reasons I like Sorcerer (among many games like BW and others); it's clear about what it is and how to play it and works like a charm.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288903Uh huh. You just conveniently happen to follow me to every thread I post to in order to "facts check". :rolleyes:

Sorry pal, but reality disagrees with you. In my first post in this thread (#16) I'm answering Bill's questions. My only reference to you is "Pundit doesn't know jack about these games" which is been repeatedly proven true. The rest of my post is an answer to the OP's question. Try again.

QuoteDude, unlike say, Droog, who has been here from day one without any purpose other than to try to cause trouble, you have in many occasions been a constructive poster on this forum.

And I intend to keep on that. But frankly, if I read something false, I answer. If I am wrong, I'm glad to be corrected. I thought that Amber was only GM fiat, and driven by your enthusiasm and arguments, I checked and changed my mind. Just after considering facts.

Re: Bill's question. In Sorcerer the PCs are created together, and the GM has veto power over anything that doesn't fit in the concept of game he has. Like any other RPG. You won't find any rule that obliges the GM to accept PCs unfit for his game.

Quote from: David R;289036"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Regards,
David R

Yes, right, I'm a tyrant because I let people talk about anything they want on this site, even things I hate, and don't close the thread or ban them for it.
Shit, I'm like Darth Vader and Doctor Doom combined.

You sorry gang of fuckers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: peteramthor;289065You lie.  Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard meet the standards (however loosely defined or redefined by you or Ron) of what it takes to be a roleplaying game.  So this discussion belonged in the roleplaying forum.  Until you through your tantrum and began threadcrapping.

Any game that includes players being able to impose "stakes" on the GM, or where the GM must "say yes or roll the dice" is not a regular RPG.

Shit, for that matter, any game where the central purpose is "Creating story", and that takes precedent over "emulating characters in a world through a game", is NOT an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;289089Shit, I'm like Darth Vader and Doctor Doom combined.
You sorry gang of fuckers.

Nah, you're not that cool. You just attempt to derail discussions, gettoize games based on your fucked up definition  and threaten bannation just like any good Swine. The only sad fucker here is you.

QuoteHinterwelt wrote:
See, I have a theory that the big difference between Trad and Indie games is that the former assumes very little about play style while the latter codifies a great deal. Trad games assume that you will sit down and discuss your characters...or not...or you will discuss the campaign and walk away and make characters with that knowledge...Indie games seem to say "You will do it this way" or within a band of play style.

Exactly. BW I don't think falls into this category. I can understand why such games don't appeal to everyone. It's kinda of like doing one thing well and that's it. Of course sometimes it does not even do that one thing well.

Edit: Hey, Darth Doom or Doctor Vader...oh, nevermind...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289072Droog,

I'll let Bill decide.  But thanks for the input.  I myself find that concrete examples are really helpful.

With respect, dude, you're kind of spoiling my fun. See, I actually hang out here and engage other posters on a regular basis. I don't get to talk about many of the games I like very often, and I was quite enjoying it. Also, I was taking it easy because I'm a teacher.

Now, you talk a lot on the Forge and Story Games, where I don't. Here the situation is that people know me and they see you as a Forge shill. When you swoop into a thread like this here, you feed some of the more paranoid fantasies. Somebody will probably accuse you of stealth marketing soon.

I know what you're working on and I know that your head's probably full of it. But please have a little consideration in my local pub.

Hi droog,

But over the last couple of years I've "swooped in" to answer questions about Traveller and Pendragon.  (I have a new account because I lost my old password around the time I cancelled my earthlink account and switched to gmail.)

If anyone gets paranoid about this stuff, that's their problem.  Seriously.

If it matters -- and it doesn't -- it doesn't feel like swooping in to me.  I check here regularly and read threads here regularly.  When I see someone ask a question about a game I might know an answer to (Traveller, Pendragon, Sorcerer, for example) I type and answer.  So, to me it's like I've been hanging out here, just not saying much.  And then, when I think I've got something to offer, I pipe up.

But worrying about feeding paranoia or being accused of stealth marketing?  Or, for that matter, worrying about if I'll be spoiling your fun?  What's that got to do with anything?   Bill asked questions.  I answered.  He's the judge of whether or not my answers are helpful.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289089Yes, right, I'm a tyrant because I let people talk about anything they want on this site, even things I hate, and don't close the thread or ban them for it.
Shit, I'm like Darth Vader and Doctor Doom combined.

Dark Helmet... maybe.

Quote from: Imperator;289076Re: Bill's question. In Sorcerer the PCs are created together, and the GM has veto power over anything that doesn't fit in the concept of game he has. Like any other RPG. You won't find any rule that obliges the GM to accept PCs unfit for his game.

See, that is why I end up thinking many of the methods used are similar to what I have seen at cons, in games shops and with groups before and after Sorcerer. I mean, essentially, it sounds like the way a lot of folks make groups for trad games. The difference is, it is advice in my books but codified rules in indie games. Probably a well duh to others but I find it interesting.

Thanks Imperator.

Quote from: David R;289096Exactly. BW I don't think falls into this category. I can understand why such games don't appeal to everyone. It's kinda of like doing one thing well and that's it. Of course sometimes it does not even do that one thing well.

Regards,
David R

I must say, I wonder if that is so. Again, this is not casting aspersions on BW but looking for a common thread. In BW, the codification takes another form, that of Artha. Again, I am not well versed but it looks a lot like a means to allow players codified access to setting (maybe?) via the rules set. Again, my understanding of Artha is weak at best and if anyone wants to give a quick "This is Artha" post it would be appreciated.

Thanks David.

Quote from: droog;289097With respect, dude, you're kind of spoiling my fun. See, I actually hang out here and engage other posters on a regular basis. I don't get to talk about many of the games I like very often, and I was quite enjoying it. Also, I was taking it easy because I'm a teacher.

Now, you talk a lot on the Forge and Story Games, where I don't. Here the situation is that people know me and they see you as a Forge shill. When you swoop into a thread like this here, you feed some of the more paranoid fantasies. Somebody will probably accuse you of stealth marketing soon.

I know what you're working on and I know that your head's probably full of it. But please have a little consideration in my local pub.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289128Hi droog,

But over the last couple of years I've "swooped in" to answer questions about Traveller and Pendragon.  (I have a new account because I lost my old password around the time I cancelled my earthlink account and switched to gmail.)

If anyone gets paranoid about this stuff, that's their problem.  Seriously.

If it matters -- and it doesn't -- it doesn't feel like swooping in to me.  I check here regularly and read threads here regularly.  When I see someone ask a question about a game I might know an answer to (Traveller, Pendragon, Sorcerer, for example) I type and answer.  So, to me it's like I've been hanging out here, just not saying much.  And then, when I think I've got something to offer, I pipe up.

But worrying about feeding paranoia or being accused of stealth marketing?  Or, for that matter, worrying about if I'll be spoiling your fun?  What's that got to do with anything?   Bill asked questions.  I answered.  He's the judge of whether or not my answers are helpful.

This is the thing guys, I find Droog's explanations easier to follow but I found CK's response a useful reference. Now, CK might be stepping on Droogs feet but I will let you two figure that out. I just am hoping for less derailment as I find the thread very interesting.

Another point someone else in the interwebs mentioned was Bangs. Are these part of Sorcerer? If not, never mind. If so, then how are they codified and what are they?

Thanks guys.

This is Artha

Quote from: HinterWelt;289146Another point someone else in the interwebs mentioned was Bangs. Are these part of Sorcerer? If not, never mind. If so, then how are they codified and what are they?

Here's a definition from John Kim's site :

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/glossary/alphabetical/B.html

As for BW, the person who should be posting is blakkie. He's really into the game.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;289150Here's a definition from John Kim's site :

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/glossary/alphabetical/B.html

As for BW, the person who should be posting is blakkie. He's really into the game.

Regards,
David R

So, it is originally a Sorcerer term...and what I would have called a plot point 25 years ago. The case for codification grows...;)

Thanks David.

Quote from: James J Skach;289149This is Artha

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Quote from: HinterWelt;289146See, that is why I end up thinking many of the methods used are similar to what I have seen at cons, in games shops and with groups before and after Sorcerer. I mean, essentially, it sounds like the way a lot of folks make groups for trad games. The difference is, it is advice in my books but codified rules in indie games. Probably a well duh to others but I find it interesting.

Hi Bill,

I think you've summed it up well.  The only thing I'd add is that -- from your own response to what it would be like to GM Sorcerer -- when you codify a specific set of rules and procedures, something new is created.  

What these specific rules and procedures are for any game, and how they interact, is what makes that experience of play that experience.


I can only suggest that if one doesn't look at how all the pieces fit together in a game (whether it be Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, or whatever), the understanding of one piece might seem like, "Okay, got it."  But, in my experience at least, what they actually do in the game and how the Players actually use them is still incomplete.

That's why I introduced how the GM brings definitions of Humanity, Lore and stuff in the long post.  Because they will inform the Player created Kickers.  All the procedures impinge on each other.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289166Hi Bill,

I think you've summed it up well.  The only thing I'd add is that -- from your own response to what it would be like to GM Sorcerer -- when you codify a specific set of rules and procedures, something new is created.  

What these specific rules and procedures are for any game, and how they interact, is what makes that experience of play that experience.


I can only suggest that if one doesn't look at how all the pieces fit together in a game (whether it be Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, or whatever), the understanding of one piece might seem like, "Okay, got it."  But, in my experience at least, what they actually do in the game and how the Players actually use them is still incomplete.

That's why I introduced how the GM brings definitions of Humanity, Lore and stuff in the long post.  Because they will inform the Player created Kickers.  All the procedures impinge on each other.

I agree that a system is often more than the sum of its parts. However, the point of the thread (and you have stayed on topic) is the mechanics and how they work. So, I am hoping to grasp the way a game works AND how it is written. I am a strong believer in the game experience far exceeds the system as written. I think I begin to see, though, how forgie mentality works. If you assume that the game system is the experience then you must insist the group play the system as written. This is reinforced by the codification of what I call meta-game elements. See, from my side of the divide, codification looks like this:
1. Pick up die.
2. Cup hands together
3. Shake hands three times
4. Stop shaking hands
5. Drop dice on table

One could make the argument very easily, that this is a new and interesting element in a game. It ties to the rolling of dice and touches on everything from combat to skill resolution to stat checks. However, to me, it is "well, duh". Also, I do not know that it is a "But you are experienced" thing. In my experience (and I have seen a LOT of new gamers) one of the easiest concepts they grasp is that we need to work as a group to make this fun.

With the definitions you supplied in your write-up, it only reinforced these ideas for me. What you really were talking about were
a) here are the elements that are resources to my character
b) here are the people that affect my character
c) here is the plot device that will drive my character

Note: the point is that not EVERYONE does character creation this way. Some are more comfortable with the GM saying "Here is the setting" and then the make characters to fit. I am not saying Sorcerer does it incorrectly, only that it does it one and only one way. It happens to be pretty close to how I do it in my trad games but not always.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not knocking this. I imagine a lot of folks enjoy the game and the mechanics but they seem, well, like Captain Obvious was at the helm of writing the game. I am more impressed with the mechanics in BW. But still, I can appreciate that this is a means of codifying what I would consider a good way of making a character and setting, but only one way.

Thanks!

Cool.

But let me ask what is the basis of how GMing Sorcerer is still something you don't quite get?  (At least in a pervious post.)

Clearly something is different.  What is producing the difference?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289170Cool.

But let me ask what is the basis of how GMing Sorcerer is still something you don't quite get?  (At least in a pervious post.)

Clearly something is different.  What is producing the difference?

Well, what you seemed to say was mostly about the role of guiding character creation. My confusion is still over the role of the GM once the game begins. Now, if he is running the NPCs and some setting, well, I think you could easily drop the GM and rotate PC duties. Again, I may be missing something but the role of the GM during play seems nominal. He is no there to drive the story, that is the role of the players and their kickers. He is even, to an extent, not really encouraged to bring NPCs in so much as properly portray the ones the players introduced. Again, not bad, just not sure how much fun for the GM that would be. Also, I have not played the game so certainly, take the above as pure conjecture.

Right.

The GM brings in lots of other NPCs.  For example, in THE BROTHERHOOD game, a player created Carver, the NPC the cult leader who was also in the prison.  

But I created Carver's great-great grandfather, Landsfield, the man who built the original prison on the backs of slave labor in the 19th century.  Landsfield roamed the corridors under the prison as a sorcerous lich.

I also took the idea that one player came up with (the nephew arriving to take control of the PCs cell block demon) and built out a turf war, which made sense in a prison environment.  I made up three factions that were at war for control of the prison.  The crux of the war was that Landsfield was coming to kill Caver as a sacrifice for his own magic, and Carver was trying to get complete control of the prison to stay safe.

The Players knew about the surface prison conflicts when play began.  But they only bumped into facts about the secret war as their agendas bumped into the agendas of the NPCs.  As they learned more, more NPCs came to them trying enlist them into helping their factions cause.  Which way they Players had their PCs jump was completely up them, of course.  But their choices could bring down pain from other NPCs -- or NPCs they refused to help.

That's a small part of what was going on.  David King's also turned out to be a sorcerer who had an affair with Carver years earlier, which is why David's daughter was targeted for sacrifice.  The drug dealer that Roman killed was actually alive and well and seeking vengeance... and so on...

This is what I mean by the GM creating the backstory.  And this is why the game, it seems to me, wouldn't work as a GMless game. The GM is carrying lots of secrets and NPC agendas that work best with one person sitting on one side of the game, and everyone else on the other side.

Kubasik is obviously engaging in stealth marketing, and obviously is a Forge Shill. Nice pre-emptive work there, Pvt. Droog, by the way.

But really, I wasn't going to mention it until you did, and it doesn't matter that he's here now, because he's in Off-topic. It certainly does prove that all my suppositions about what would become of this thread have come to pass.

RPGPundit

Weird.

Quote from: HinterWelt;289162So, it is originally a Sorcerer term...and what I would have called a plot point 25 years ago. The case for codification grows...;)

I think you're right. In fact if you read some of my posts here about Forge games, I've more or less said the same thing. I'm not really too enthusiastic about CKubasik's contention that codifying concepts etc creates something new. I mean it's kinda of like what Tarantino does, recyles old stuff but it looks new, esp to those who aren't aware of his specific references.

The interesting thing about CKubasik's examples of play is that it reads like any other roleplaying game.....which has always been my point....a sore one it would seem.

Edit: I think this wanders into Pseudoephedrine's Culture of Play. I think.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289175Right.

The GM brings in lots of other NPCs. For example, in THE BROTHERHOOD game, a player created Carver, the NPC the cult leader who was also in the prison.  

Ah, that was the piece I was missing. That makes the GMs job better IMO.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289175But I created Carver's great-great grandfather, Landsfield, the man who built the original prison on the backs of slave labor in the 19th century.  Landsfield roamed the corridors under the prison as a sorcerous lich.

I also took the idea that one player came up with (the nephew arriving to take control of the PCs cell block demon) and built out a turf war, which made sense in a prison environment.  I made up three factions that were at war for control of the prison.  The crux of the war was that Landsfield was coming to kill Caver as a sacrifice for his own magic, and Carver was trying to get complete control of the prison to stay safe.

I think this was another important point that was missing. The GM does introduce setting elements. My misunderstanding here.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;289175The Players knew about the surface prison conflicts when play began.  But they only bumped into facts about the secret war as their agendas bumped into the agendas of the NPCs.  As they learned more, more NPCs came to them trying enlist them into helping their factions cause.  Which way they Players had their PCs jump was completely up them, of course.  But their choices could bring down pain from other NPCs -- or NPCs they refused to help.

That's a small part of what was going on.  David King's also turned out to be a sorcerer who had an affair with Carver years earlier, which is why David's daughter was targeted for sacrifice.  The drug dealer that Roman killed was actually alive and well and seeking vengeance... and so on...

This is what I mean by the GM creating the backstory.  And this is why the game, it seems to me, wouldn't work as a GMless game. The GM is carrying lots of secrets and NPC agendas that work best with one person sitting on one side of the game, and everyone else on the other side.

I agree now. The role of the GM is alot more traditional than I first understood it to be. This has been very helpful in understanding how the pieces work together, the role of the GM and the contribution of the players.

As a side note to other readers, Sorcerer sure looks like RPG to me.

Thanks CK.

Quote from: David R;289194The interesting thing about CKubasik's examples of play is that it reads like any other roleplaying game.....which has always been my point....a sore one it would seem.

Edit: I think this wanders into Pseudoephedrine's Culture of Play. I think.

Regards,
David R

My point exactly. Can someone point me to that Pseudo's posts, please?

Quote from: HinterWelt;289232As a side note to other readers, Sorcerer sure looks like RPG to me.

If you check Sorcerer & Sword, that impression of yours will probably increased.

Quote from: Imperator;289234My point exactly. Can someone point me to that Pseudo's posts, please?

They are kind of all over the place, Imperator. The last time he mentioned it was when he (Pseudophedrine) and Stormbringer were going at it over 4E. Maybe he'll write it up one day :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;289236They are kind of all over the place, Imperator. The last time he mentioned it was when he (Pseudophedrine) and Stormbringer were going at it over 4E. Maybe he'll write it up one day :D

Regards,
David R

Fuck, I will have to go back and check.

Quote from: David R;289194I think you're right. In fact if you read some of my posts here about Forge games, I've more or less said the same thing. I'm not really too enthusiastic about CKubasik's contention that codifying concepts etc creates something new. I mean it's kinda of like what Tarantino does, recyles old stuff but it looks new, esp to those who aren't aware of his specific references.

The interesting thing about CKubasik's examples of play is that it reads like any other roleplaying game.....which has always been my point....a sore one it would seem.

Edit: I think this wanders into Pseudoephedrine's Culture of Play. I think.

Regards,
David R

I agree with you David, in that the codification does not make something new as much as fix a form. So, I can think of a several character creation methods off the top of my head but say I wanted to go with Setting Driven where I present a setting, known to the player, and they make characters based on that. Now, I think I might be able to get Sorcerer to do that but it is obviously not what the system was designed to support. Another method I use is Genre Driven which might work fine. However, Character Driven, where each player brings their own individual ideas to the table just would not be supported. To me, this is one of the big reasons I am against such codification in the meta game.

Of course, that is just a preference.

Quote from: HinterWelt;289146Now, CK might be stepping on Droogs feet but I will let you two figure that out.

Yes, he is, but I'll step out now and let him blather.

Riddle of Steel was adopted by the Forge, and claimed as a Forge game, but really it has nothing to do with the place.

It's most obvious comparator is Runequest, though the mechanics are pretty different.  It was an attempt to do D&D right, it had a "realistic" combat system and a fairly crappy IMO skills system tagged on to it as an afterthought.  You rolled low for one, high for the other, the magic system was kind of broken and rather oddly mixed in scientific and mystical concepts in a way that I don't think actually made a lot of sense for either.

It also had spiritual attributes, dice related to destiny, luck, or more interstingly emotions or character goals that you could use to add to your dice pool.  It was a purely sim mechanic, if your character was more motivated in a fight, he fought harder, I don't think there was anything narrativist about it in the slightest.

Ron Edwards saw how you could houserule SAs so that they could be used for narrativist purposes, but his interpretation was not remotely supported by the game text (I owned it at the time of the relevant threads, and remember going back to my copy because his APs sounded very odd to me in terms of the game rules as written).  Ton's take was, however, widely accepted (and probably was an improvement on the game as written, Ron Edwards has many faults but he has designed some good stuff in his time) and adopted and with that TRoS became a Forge game by adoption.

I regard it personally as about as Forgey as Gurps (arguably less so), the adoption of TRoS was actually part of what made me give up on the Forge, it made it obvious that narrativist there (and I mean there, not generally) just meant games Ron liked, regardless of how traditional they might be in design.  So, TRoS got in, but that's because the Forge suffers from a distinct cult of personality problem.

Which is why, I wouldn't recommend looking at Forgie games, I think the Forge intellectually is long since a busted flush.  I'd look to Storygames, which is a great forum, to the blogosphere and possibly to fora I don't attend and amn't invited to (is I would knife fight a man still going?  Intensely culturally American, to the point that as a European I actually felt uncomfortable with the idea of registering there) and since these games are only a side interest of mine if there are such other fora that's fine by me and I hope folk enjoy them.

Imperator may still own a copy, if so he can probably answer questions about TRoS.

Oh, and while I'm here, anyone who thinks Sorceror isn't an rpg is a fucking idiot.  You create a character, each player plays one character, the GM runs the world and plays the NPCs, characters have stats, you roll dice to resolve conflicts, it's actually very traditional in its mechanics (unsurprisingly, it is one of the ur-nar games).  Some folk have had really good results with it, my impression is that it's actually quite a good game, but (Jesse's thread on storygames presently notwithstanding) very badly written.

Pundy's insistence on putting these games in off topic is weak ass shit, they're rpgs, if anything he's supporting the case that the indie games are some special snowflake school of game design.  They're not, they're rpgs, some good and some not so good.  The sooner we all assess them on the same basis as any other rpg, the sooner we assess a new game from some forum poster as we would the new White Wolf, the better off we'll be as a hobby.

Quote from: Balbinus;289290Pundy's insistence on putting these games in off topic is weak ass shit, they're rpgs, if anything he's supporting the case that the indie games are some special snowflake school of game design.  They're not, they're rpgs, some good and some not so good.  The sooner we all assess them on the same basis as any other rpg, the sooner we assess a new game from some forum poster as we would the new White Wolf, the better off we'll be as a hobby.

A) that is what I am trying to do here.

B) I actually met the designer at a GenCon (I think I underwhelmed him) and gave him some printing advice that save him some coin over at RPG.Net.

C) Thank you for taking the time to explain TRoS. I will have questions soon. ;)

Quote from: Balbinus;289290It's most obvious comparator is Runequest, though the mechanics are pretty different.  It was an attempt to do D&D right, it had a "realistic" combat system and a fairly crappy IMO skills system tagged on to it as an afterthought.  You rolled low for one, high for the other, the magic system was kind of broken and rather oddly mixed in scientific and mystical concepts in a way that I don't think actually made a lot of sense for either.

No, not much sense. You can get a decent game from it, and the combat system is cool if you want something tough and detailed. We ran a game set in Dark Ages Transylvania with it, and it was cool. Only needed a bit of houseruling for skills.

QuoteImperator may still own a copy, if so he can probably answer questions about TRoS.

Actually it was yours ;), but your description is accurate, generally speaking.

QuotePundy's insistence on putting these games in off topic is weak ass shit, they're rpgs, if anything he's supporting the case that the indie games are some special snowflake school of game design.

Yep. Actually I feel that Pundit's going against his best interest here.

HinterWelt: I'm not terribly familiar with Sorcerer but I think you're a bit off on the GM role there. The kickers is just what gets the game started, its more or less the GM asking the player "what cool shit do you want your character to be involved in at the start of the game" after that things are a good bit more Trad.

And you're perfectly right about how a lot of what Indie games do is codify and make rules for things that happen a lot in more Trad games but which rules don't exist for. Basically Indie games try to hard code "how to play this game in a way that works well" into the mechanics of the game. Basically if you have a really really freaking awesome GM there is often no need to play an Indie game since he can do all of the cool stuff Indie games try to do by just making shit up. But if you have a more mediocre GM (and the vast majority of GMs are mediocre or worse, at least when they start out), Indie game rules codify how to bring the awesome and really make things work well.

For example for me, the best D&D GM I've ever had was my little brother. I don't think he ever read the DMG but he could make up all kinds of bizarre gonzo weirdness on the fly so that as a player it was always exciting and you never had any idea what would happen next. For years after that I played D&D and I never really had that feeling again, most of the time when I played D&D I felt like I was playing a CRPG with bad graphics in slow motion. Then when I played SotC instead of D&D with the same players and the same GM, the bizarre gonzo awesomeness that I hadn't seen in D&D in YEARS came welling up again. It was great :)

Basically, GOOD indie games codify good GMing (and cool playing) into the rules more than Trad games. This makes them less flexible but its a good trade off (especially if your GM needs help bringing the awesome).

One things that makes a lot of people on the story games forum like 4ed D&D (and that makes the RPGPundit get all frothy at the mouth about it) is that it does a lot of the same things. It says "when there's downtime the players pretty much always find a way to heal up one way or another, so why bother with having them track cure light wound wand charges and roll a bunch of d8s every morning, just having them heal up all the way every morning would save everyone a whole lot of time and provide the same result."

Quote from: Daztur;289335HinterWelt: I'm not terribly familiar with Sorcerer but I think you're a bit off on the GM role there. The kickers is just what gets the game started, its more or less the GM asking the player "what cool shit do you want your character to be involved in at the start of the game" after that things are a good bit more Trad.

And you're perfectly right about how a lot of what Indie games do is codify and make rules for things that happen a lot in more Trad games but which rules don't exist for. Basically Indie games try to hard code "how to play this game in a way that works well" into the mechanics of the game. Basically if you have a really really freaking awesome GM there is often no need to play an Indie game since he can do all of the cool stuff Indie games try to do by just making shit up.

Sorry, I feel I have to call youon that one. You do not need an awesome GM. You need a really quite average GM. I have seen literally hundreds of GMs run games and play style set aside (some are playing a wargame style that does not address the style I am currently talking about) they interact with thier group pretty well. I have always doubted the claims of inadequate GMs as a justification here. Now, do not get me wrong, there are GMs that suck. I have bad news for you though, they will suck with these games as well. ;)

Quote from: Daztur;289335But if you have a more mediocre GM (and the vast majority of GMs are mediocre or worse, at least when they start out), Indie game rules codify how to bring the awesome and really make things work well.

I strongly disagree. See above.

Quote from: Daztur;289335For example for me, the best D&D GM I've ever had was my little brother. I don't think he ever read the DMG but he could make up all kinds of bizarre gonzo weirdness on the fly so that as a player it was always exciting and you never had any idea what would happen next. For years after that I played D&D and I never really had that feeling again, most of the time when I played D&D I felt like I was playing a CRPG with bad graphics in slow motion. Then when I played SotC instead of D&D with the same players and the same GM, the bizarre gonzo awesomeness that I hadn't seen in D&D in YEARS came welling up again. It was great :)

Basically, GOOD indie games codify good GMing (and cool playing) into the rules more than Trad games. This makes them less flexible but its a good trade off (especially if your GM needs help bringing the awesome).

This is a discussion I do not wish to have. You wish to discuss forge theory go ahead but I will  not dance. To say the least, I disagree on so many points starting with your very perceptions of your initial "good GM" and why he was so good.

Quote from: Daztur;289335One things that makes a lot of people on the story games forum like 4ed D&D (and that makes the RPGPundit get all frothy at the mouth about it) is that it does a lot of the same things. It says "when there's downtime the players pretty much always find a way to heal up one way or another, so why bother with having them track cure light wound wand charges and roll a bunch of d8s every morning, just having them heal up all the way every morning would save everyone a whole lot of time and provide the same result."

See, and this supports one and only one play style. I just do not agree with that approach. I am far too much a universalist and apparently too trad in my views.

Its great you posted, but it does not address the mechanics and I just really have no use for theory.

I do mean this though, thanks for posting.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288969I've always felt that derailing threads was something worth being warned for.

But that would lead to me getting banned, and who wants that? Wait-

Quote from: HinterWelt;288497Specifically:
Burning Wheel
Mouse Guard
Dogs In The Vineyard
Riddle of Steel

Quote from: RPGPundit;288635even though none of those you mentioned are technically RPGs.

Sorry Pundy, but you're wrong. All of the games mentioned above are RPGs. I admit there are forgie games which are not RPGs, for example Universalis, but the games HinterWelt mentioned are RPGs, all of them.

Dogs in the Vineyard is a very forgie game, but an RPG nonetheless. You play a character, there is a gamemaster, etc etc. I don't like it much, it feels like a gameboard (a vice very common to forgie games), I'd call it a forgierama, as you would say, but it's has more RPG than gameboard.

The Burning Wheel was written as a pretty traditional game, when the revised edition was published some forgism were added, but it is very traditional. Do you remember that review of Conspiracy of Shadows you did? By the way, I pretty much agreed and liked your review, Conspiracy of Shadows pretty much feels like a normal RPG forgisms were added to just to make it "cooler", I do have the original version and it's way more traditional, no mention of "conflict resolution" :rolleyes: whatsoever. Well, I would say Burning Wheel Revised is less forgie than Conspiracy of Shadows Revised. Burning Wheel original and Conspiracy of Shadows original have nothing forgie, if I recall correctly.

And considering The Riddle of Steel a forgie game is a joke (something a lot of forgiewankers are guilty of). As Balbinus said once, "The Riddle of Steel is as indie (you know, forgie) as Rolemaster". It is a very traditional RPG, it even includes GM advice of cheating "you (the GM) must learn to cheat like a weasel behind your book or screen". The only part of it that might be considered forgie are the Spiritual Attributes, and that's because Uncle Ronny says so. For the love of shit, Ars Magica 3rd had almost the same mechanics in the form of Passions. Other than that, The Riddle of Steel feels like Rolemaster or Hârnmaster, it should be no surprise that a lot of Hârn fans like TROS. TROS, Rolemaster and Hârnmaster are the holy trinity of chartmasters, RPGs with complex damage charts.

And before you accuse me of being a Forge advocate, let me tell you that I despise forgiewankers almost as much as you do (I think it's fine that forgie games exist and that some people enjoy them, but I'm sick of the forgiewankers and their contempt for traditional games), but not considering those games as RPGs is a mistake, and moving a thread where they are discussed to Off Topic is petty. Please reconsider it.

Quote from: Balbinus;289290It was an attempt to do D&D right,

Nope. It was an attempt to express the author's obvious and mad love for swords and medieval fencing in an RPG. I don't know where you get that it was an attempt to do D&D right. Just because the author implied he didn't like D&D? As I said hundreds and hundreds of times, D&D was not an influence on TROS (other than D&D being the first RPG ever, you know, D&D, by virtue of being the first RPG ever, has been an influence on all RPGs), the RPGs that inspired Jake to make TROS were Dzikie Pola (a Polish RPG) and Warhammer. Jake even told me once that his first intention was translating Dzikie Pola into English, but he ended up writing TROS instead.

QuoteYou rolled low for one, high for the other,

No. You always roll high. In which cases you roll low?

Quotethe magic system was kind of broken

With this I agree, I don't know if it's broken but I never managed to understand how it works.

As other people have pointed out Pundy calling TRoS "not an RPG" is mind-bogglingly stupid. I wonder what sort of definition of an RPG could exclude TRoS while including most traditional games. For the other ones at least a case can be made, but TRoS isn't even really Forgy at all.

QuoteSorry, I feel I have to call youon that one. You do not need an awesome GM. You need a really quite average GM. I have seen literally hundreds of GMs run games and play style set aside (some are playing a wargame style that does not address the style I am currently talking about) they interact with thier group pretty well. I have always doubted the claims of inadequate GMs as a justification here. Now, do not get me wrong, there are GMs that suck. I have bad news for you though, they will suck with these games as well.

Just referring to my own personal experience. I've had a GM who ran rather boring D&D games but when he ran a SotC campaign it was like flipping a switch, the difference in the quality of the GMing was just incredible. All that I was saying was that a lot of Indie games codify a lot of things that are common sense GMing. If you have a GM who is doing a lot of things that run counter to common sense GMing then often the quality of the game will increase when they run a game in which those things that they've been missing or not doing well are codified.

I think also a disconnect here is that most people who are really into Old School RPGs are people who had a lot of good experiences with Old School RPGs so they have a bit of a hard time understanding why a lot of people complain so much about them. They can see it as insulting that other people seem to be trying to hard to "fix" things that obviously aren't broken and that are providing them with buckets of fun.

On the other hand a lot of people who are really into Indie RPGs are people who had a lot of bad experiences with more Old School games when they first started playing. As a reaction to those bad experiences they became attracted to games that they see as having features that "fix" what they see as things that produce those bad experiences. You can see a LOT of this in how Burning Wheel was written for example.

I think to the extent that there's two "sides" here, I think both talk past each other a lot since they had very different personal experiences with Old School games.

QuoteYou wish to discuss forge theory go ahead but I will not dance.

Huh? What are you talking about? I was just describing my personal experiences. What does that have to do with Forge theory?

QuoteSee, and this supports one and only one play style. I just do not agree with that approach. I am far too much a universalist and apparently too trad in my views.

A perfectly valid criticism. Most Indie games make crap universal games. With Indie games its easier to just run a different game if you want to have a different style of play.

QuoteI do mean this though, thanks for posting.

No need to be condescending.

Quote from: Daztur;289643Just referring to my own personal experience. I've had a GM who ran rather boring D&D games but when he ran a SotC campaign it was like flipping a switch, the difference in the quality of the GMing was just incredible. All that I was saying was that a lot of Indie games codify a lot of things that are common sense GMing. If you have a GM who is doing a lot of things that run counter to common sense GMing then often the quality of the game will increase when they run a game in which those things that they've been missing or not doing well are codified.

The "good" part is what I would disagree with.

Quote from: Daztur;289643I think also a disconnect here is that most people who are really into Old School RPGs are people who had a lot of good experiences with Old School RPGs so they have a bit of a hard time understanding why a lot of people complain so much about them. They can see it as insulting that other people seem to be trying to hard to "fix" things that obviously aren't broken and that are providing them with buckets of fun.

I don't see it this way. I will agree there are people who do.

Quote from: Daztur;289643Huh? What are you talking about? I was just describing my personal experiences. What does that have to do with Forge theory?

Perhaps I used to broad a definition. You are talking about abstract qualifiers and personal experience not base mechanics.

Quote from: Daztur;289643A perfectly valid criticism. Most Indie games make crap universal games. With Indie games its easier to just run a different game if you want to have a different style of play.

And to me, that is a terrible weakness. As close as I would come to saying a game is broken (although I would not say that). To me, a game should never tell the group how to play but merely give them the mechanisms to play.

Again, I feel we have wandered far outside even a derailed interpretation of the original point of this thread. We are discussing personal preferences.

Quote from: Daztur;289643No need to be condescending.

I did not mean it to be condescending in the least. Look at my other posts in this thread. If you believe my honest thanks for taking the time to try and explain base mechanics of a game is somehow condescending to you, well, I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise.

I am sorry you were offended.

Quote from: Claudius;289377Sorry Pundy, but you're wrong. All of the games mentioned above are RPGs.

As I've written elsewhere, I say we call "it's not a real rpg" the Gamer's Godwin - if a discussion goes on long enough, someone's bound to say it, and it's usually a sign they no longer have anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

I mean, in response to my saying,

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe GM is there to master the game, to ensure the fun of the group as a whole.

I got (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=289624&postcount=78),

Quote from: howandwhy99Seriously, I am so far in total opposition to what you say, I'm not seeing how you can honestly claim you are playing a roleplaying game.

and then followed it up with,

Quote from: howandwhy99Roleplaying has nothing to do with playing characters.

So plainly there are very different ideas out there about what roleplaying is or isn't. To avoid the nonsense of the Gamer's Godwin, I propose an inclusive rather than exclusive definition. We can still say that other people's roleplaying style suxxorz without saying that "it's not roleplaying", or coming up with our own bizarro loopy definitions, like saying that roleplaying has nothing to do with playing characters. (Yeah, and wargaming has nothing to do with fighting battles.)

Quote from: HinterWelt;289646To me, a game should never tell the group how to play but merely give them the mechanisms to play.

Still, if the mechanics end up, say, making melee lethal 99% of the time since the setting is supposed to be just that deadly, obviously it's not a game for exchanging cheerful quips while hacking hordes of enemies to pieces and the players shouldn't anticipate anything like that either. And at the other end of the scale, if the mechanics render every single character who really matters practically invulnerable to physical damage, the game's probably not going to be the ideal choice for kung-fu tournaments in the style of Mortal Kombat. It'd be rather unreasonable to expect all systems to be generic and equally suitable for any playstyle.

Quote from: Imperator;289316No, not much sense. You can get a decent game from it, and the combat system is cool if you want something tough and detailed. We ran a game set in Dark Ages Transylvania with it, and it was cool. Only needed a bit of houseruling for skills.
QUOTE]

Fair enough, certainly the system's USP is the combat system.

Quote from: Imperator;289316Actually it was yours ;), but your description is accurate, generally speaking.

I remember, that's how I knew you had a copy.  I'm glad you had fun with it actually, the best outcome when you get a game you don't take to is to give it to someone else who will play and enjoy it.

Quote from: Claudius;289385Nope. It was an attempt to express the author's obvious and mad love for swords and medieval fencing in an RPG. I don't know where you get that it was an attempt to do D&D right. Just because the author implied he didn't like D&D? As I said hundreds and hundreds of times, D&D was not an influence on TROS (other than D&D being the first RPG ever, you know, D&D, by virtue of being the first RPG ever, has been an influence on all RPGs), the RPGs that inspired Jake to make TROS were Dzikie Pola (a Polish RPG) and Warhammer. Jake even told me once that his first intention was translating Dzikie Pola into English, but he ended up writing TROS instead.

The edition I had, first I think, had this big rant about how unrealistic D&D was and how TRoS fixed that.  He went on for ages about D&D, to the point I recall thinking "dude, tell me about your game, stop telling me about some other guy's game".

Quote from: Balbinus;290055The edition I had, first I think, had this big rant about how unrealistic D&D was and how TRoS fixed that.  He went on for ages about D&D, to the point I recall thinking "dude, tell me about your game, stop telling me about some other guy's game".

Yep. That was indeed tiresome.

Bill,
 

QuoteI am, I guess, a Universalist in my game design and approach to games.

Well, I think most games can be applied to most genres. But, I think there is an oddity in the ditv mechanics that make it less suitable for some genres over others.
  Fallout is the only way your character can killed.
  The game encourages you to risk Fallout, because it is only by rolling Fallout dice (and getting a 1) that your character can improve.
  There are 4 levels of conflict, Talking, Physical, but not fighting, Fighting, but not shooting and Shooting. If you get Fallout from a conflict where shooting was involved and your 2 highest Fallout dice add up to 20, you character is dead.

  That makes this game arbitrarily lethal, You can only get a 20 by escalating to Shooting, but if you do, your character could die. Even if you use good tactics, use your character's strengths, leverage your opponent's weaknesses, etc. So, it is not highly-lethal like GURPS or others. It is not tactical like D&D or others. It is arbitrarily lethal. With no concern towards character build efficiency or other tactical concerns.

  And this is on purpose, The idea is, you should not escalate to guns, unless you are fighting for something you are willing to die for. And that can easily apply to other genres (my example of Jedi for instance). But, I don't think this would work for say, a mercenary campaign. I mean, what are mercenaries willing to die for?

  Don't get me wrong, that campaign could be fun, but it would take extra work. Work that can be avoided by using another system. Does that make sense?

  I guess I brought it up because some of the ditv fanboys go gaga and try and apply this rules to every conceivable setting (like Firefly, I love firefly, but those characters aren't willing to die for much and none of them could agree what that thing is that they are willing to die for, you know?). And while some of the alternate settings have merit, a lot of them are just a clever play on words with no real campaign idea behind them.

  Anyways, if you have other mechanical questions about ditv, please feel free to let me know.

I should have said earlier, Pundy or whoever was responsible, thank you for taking this thread back out of Off Topic.

Quote from: dindenver;290106I guess I brought it up because some of the ditv fanboys go gaga and try and apply this rules to every conceivable setting

Personally, I've got no interest at all in hacking DitV. I like the setting just fine.

Quote from: droog;290168Personally, I've got no interest at all in hacking DitV. I like the setting just fine.

He is right though, some fans do immediately start moving it to new settings.

Personally, I think it's an error.  The setting fits the game's themes very well.

That said, there is a certain comic irony in members of the system matters crowd trying to run Traveller using Sorceror or Star Wars using Dogs...

Quote from: Balbinus;290171That said, there is a certain comic irony in members of the system matters crowd trying to run Traveller using Sorceror or Star Wars using Dogs...

Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

Quote from: Balbinus;290154I should have said earlier, Pundy or whoever was responsible, thank you for taking this thread back out of Off Topic.

Thanks go to Brett.

Quote from: droog;290176Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

I will say conditionally I disagree. System matters only to the group and what their prejudices are. Someone who enjoys the elements of DitV could easily play it in a Saturday cartoon setting...or DND in a sci-fi setting if that is what matters to them. It is these elements of the game that matter to the specific group and their playstyle, not to the setting.

Of course, that is all in a great big IMHO.

Quote from: droog;290176Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

I'm afraid I agree with every word.  Sorry to let the forum down.

Quote from: HinterWelt;290195I will say conditionally I disagree. System matters only to the group and what their prejudices are. Someone who enjoys the elements of DitV could easily play it in a Saturday cartoon setting...or DND in a sci-fi setting if that is what matters to them. It is these elements of the game that matter to the specific group and their playstyle, not to the setting.

Of course, that is all in a great big IMHO.

System matters means different things to different folks of course, like all theory terms really.

If by system matters one means that by examining system we can see what will be expressed at the table, ie that d&d is about killing things and taking stuff because that's what the rules cover (which isn't actually quite correct, but I digress), then decades of actual play experience have long since refuted that concept.

If it's simply that the choice of system can aid or hinder the actual play of a particular game idea, then I think that's true, but sufficiently obvious as to barely merit discussion.  I also think that while it matters, other things such as the people at the table, the venue and various other extraneous factors all matter more.  It's just of those things that matter, system is often the easiest to change.

You guys keep this up and Puckernuts is going to throw a spaz and shift the thread again.

Quote from: Balbinus;290209System matters means different things to different folks of course, like all theory terms really.

That was not my understanding. It was my understanding, and I was told this on the forge some time ago, that "System Matters" is about the system defining the setting through mechanical means. This was later expanded on to say that systems shoudl be played RAW or you play a different game. I am not saying this to be contentious but only to explain where my definition came from. If modern evolution of their System Matters theory has changed then I may well be more in line.

Quote from: Balbinus;290209If by system matters one means that by examining system we can see what will be expressed at the table, ie that d&d is about killing things and taking stuff because that's what the rules cover (which isn't actually quite correct, but I digress), then decades of actual play experience have long since refuted that concept.

If it's simply that the choice of system can aid or hinder the actual play of a particular game idea, then I think that's true, but sufficiently obvious as to barely merit discussion.  I also think that while it matters, other things such as the people at the table, the venue and various other extraneous factors all matter more.  It's just of those things that matter, system is often the easiest to change.

I would disagree, I think. A system can enable the a person or groups prejudices. For instance, "An anime game must have a means to fly through the air" is  a prejudice. The person who hold sit will look at the system as broken if it does not allow flight. This is what I have seen game designers and a segment of gamers who read rules make comments on.

My counter is to say that there are far more people IME, that have a "I love hit points! Let's play space DND!" because they enjoy the DND system. It is not the best fit by arcane and imperical measure and may require modification (adding space armor and weapons, etc.) but it supports the preferred style of the game.

This all said, I do agree with the later half of you post especially that system is the easiest target. Low hanging fruit and all that.

Quote from: droog;290214You guys keep this up and Puckernuts is going to throw a spaz and shift the thread again.

Good point although I do think we are talking regular game theory at this point;i.e. theory as applied to "regular" games. Also...we are int he theory subforum if that counts...or is this Forge theory and I don't know it...Oh, my, its full of Artha...

Edit: I reread the description. We're boned.

Quote from: droog;290176Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

Agree. But this has always been one of the criticisms of Forge games, right? That it's focus is too narrow. Personally I have never understood this. The game works on it's own terms, why do all games have to a utilitarian function (as far as hacking goes) ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;290224Agree. But this has always been one of the criticisms of Forge games, right? That it's focus is too narrow. Personally I have never understood this. The game works on it's own terms, why do all games have to a utilitarian function (as far as hacking goes) ?

My take is that I'm perfectly happy to play different games for different experiences. I don't expect all films or all books to be the same, after all.

One of my favourite REGLAR games is Pendragon. I hacked it for a Gloranthan game once and found we were still playing Pendragon with a new skin. That's fine, it was a good game on its own terms. but it was a distinctly different experience from playing Gloranthan RQ, and using HQ is different again. So my conclusion, several years before I got online, was that system matters.

Quote from: droog;290227My take is that I'm perfectly happy to play different games for different experiences. I don't expect all films or all books to be the same, after all.

Well you know I'm hip to this.

I'm trying to get a feel for Sorceror so I'm running a brief campaign using the Ravenloft setting. I kinda of got inspired when another friend used Dogs with Midnight. But Dogs is tricky as you mentioned, another crew liked the game but for very specific reasons.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: HinterWelt;290218Good point although I do think we are talking regular game theory at this point;i.e. theory as applied to "regular" games. Also...we are int he theory subforum if that counts...or is this Forge theory and I don't know it...Oh, my, its full of Artha...

Edit: I reread the description. We're boned.

Quick, which do you prefer, Gurps 3e or 4e?

Quote from: Balbinus;290233Quick, which do you prefer, Gurps 3e or 4e?

ahhh...oooh....GURPS Traveller...Ohcrap, thatwasthewronganswer...AHHHHH@@@!!!!

Quote from: Balbinus;290055The edition I had, first I think, had this big rant about how unrealistic D&D was and how TRoS fixed that.  He went on for ages about D&D, to the point I recall thinking "dude, tell me about your game, stop telling me about some other guy's game".

There are two versions of TROS, let's call the first one the, well, first one, and the second one, the revised one. Well, the infamous rant was in the revised one, not the first one. Nowadays I own both versions, but once I owned the first one only, so when people ranted about it I often thought to myself "what the fuck are they talking about" :confused:. Could I (or you) have inferred that he was trying to do D&D right, just reading the first edition? I couldn't, and I doubt you could have. What did I infer?

1) In chargen you have several priorities to assign. Where have I seen this before? Ah yes, Shadowrun!

2) In combat, you have a pool to divide into attack and defense. Where have I seen this before? Rolemaster, and Dzikie Pola. Bingo!

3) This game suffers from the naked dwarf syndrome. Where have I seen this before? In the game that made the naked dwarf syndrome famous, Warhammer.

4) Spiritual attributes the idea of a bonus which applies in certain circumstances. Where have I seen this before? In Ars Magica 3rd, and Pendragon.

Jake once said (sorry, I haven't got the link) that the main influences he had were Dzikie Pola, Warhammer, and a little bit of Shadowrun.

And I think you're exaggerating with that "He went on for ages about D&D,". It's just an afterword in which he relates how his immersion was broken by the way hit points work in (I guess it was, he doesn't mention it) AD&D, and how he wanted something more dangerous, something which worked more similarly to which he had learnt studying medieval fencing.