TheRPGSite

After the recent discussion of Immersion (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2728), I was looking for any writing on RPGs and Suspension of Disbelief.

This article by John Kim (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html) is one of the best essay's I've read about "RPG Theory".  It explains a lot about the divide between the Forge style games and RPGs that don't fit the Forge (GNS etc) model of gaming.

Some key quotes (with added emphasis on key points):

QuoteCollaborative Storytelling
In this paradigm, play is understood as multiple authors producing a single discourse and a single story. This discourse (the shared play) is seen as the product of play, analogous to a book or movie. The key to role-playing is the forming of the shared discourse. All other parts of the diagram -- including game texts, GM notes, and characters -- are considered only aids for producing the true product of play.

QuoteThere are many consequences of this paradigm, including:

• It discourages secrets between the participants. A secret held by a player or even by the GM and one player is considered not a part of the real product.
• It discourages extensive information in the game texts. Since these are not considered a part of the real product, they are often seen as potentially hindering play.
• It encourages improvisation compare to referring to game texts or notes. For example, in a murder mystery, the players might openly making up the identity of the murderer on the spot, rather than discovering what the GM had planned in her notes.
  
• It encourages an even distribution of authorship among the participants. Play is seen as passing authorship between the participants. If verbal narration is dominated by the GM, that is seen as a flaw.
  
• The connection of player to character is seen as arbitrary and inessential to the experience. Thus, it tends to encourage various non-character actions by the player such as plot point spending or factual declarations.
  
• It considers the rules system to be outside of the meaningful product. Rules are judged on their result for shared play, not on how the participants view the process.

QuoteVirtual Experience
In this paradigm, play is understood as interacting within a virtual environment, where the GM provides the surroundings while the players create their own viewpoint characters. The basic elements of play are the characters and world. These are conceived prior to shared play sessions, including both the physical notes and the mental models of how they work. Through play, the participants explore what the others have created and further develop their own creations.

QuoteThere are many consequences of this paradigm, including:

• The association of player to character is central to the experience. Thus, out-of-character actions and meta-game thinking should be minimized, though they may be useful for other reasons.
  
• It encourages one-to-one player-to-character associations. The tabletop form approaches this in that only one participant (the GM) needs to do otherwise.
  
• It encourages detailed background in game texts, though there is still such a thing as too much detail. The players may refer to those as part of play, but more importantly the background provides a context which colors all of play even if it isn't directly referred to.
• It encourages a player not knowing what her character would not know. An ideal in this sense is a live-action game where the players all perceive different amounts. However, there are major limitations on live-action play which may make it less than ideal for other reasons.
• It encourages the player to personally reflect on what his character is thinking. This gives an inner life to the character which is a part of the player's experience.
• It encourages rules to represent in-game cause and effect -- i.e. to be in-game rather than meta-game. Meta-game mechanics are potentially good devices, like soliloquy or addressing the camera in a movie. However, by default they should be used sparingly.

And perhaps most importantly:

QuoteParadigm Clash
Problems can arise within games due to disagreements over the understanding and construction of narrative. A participant who understands RPGs as Collaborative Storytelling may get into arguments with another participant who understands them as Virtual Experience.

To the storytelling point of view, the experiential view seems to result in an unnecessarily limited set of techniques. Players will pass over opportunities to improve the story (i.e. shared play) just to conform to pre-written rules or background. Since storytellers see these as not being part of the story, this behavior may seem inexplicable -- i.e. deliberately choosing a less interesting story. Experiential play may also seem passive, letting events happen rather than actively controlling them. Of course, a fictional narrative is still created so this is not quite accurate. The difference is over the type of narrative created.

To the experiential point of view, storytelling play seems to be creating a product for a nonexistent reader. That is, the product is a story for someone who sees the shared play but not the surrounding experience. Storytelling may freely revise or ignore pre-written rules and background, which runs counter to the experiential understanding of story. Experiential players faced with storytelling play may complain about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth.

These difference can be difficult to resolve, because it is hard to simultaneously see two different definitions of story. Two people can internalize the same RPG play in different ways -- forming different mental models which they conceive of as the "story". Hopefully this explanation of the distinction will help clarify these differences.

RPGs are not "collaborative storytelling". There's no question of "understanding" or not understanding.  If someone believes RPGs are "collaborative storytelling" they are WRONG.

RPGPundit

QuoteRPGs are not "collaborative storytelling". There's no question of "understanding" or not understanding. If someone believes RPGs are "collaborative storytelling" they are WRONG.

I tend to agree with that.  A Collaborative Storytelling game could be a lot of fun, but it's something different from a Roleplaying Game.  One is about collaboratively telling stories, the other is about roleplaying a character in a "virtual" story world.

Names / Terminology aside, I hope everyone can at least agree that there are (at least) 2 different types of games being discussed here.  The theory, techniques and suggestions to support improving gameplay and creating new games will be different depending on which "paradigm" you're talking about.  Some theories (eg. Forge, GNS, etc) may be very helpful in improving a particular type of game -- but be detrimental to the improvement of another.

Quote from: StuartAfter the recent discussion of Immersion (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2728), I was looking for any writing on RPGs and Suspension of Disbelief.

That's a good essay and, I think, an excellent example of clear and useful thinking.

Theory at its best.

Cheers,
-E.

For what it's worth, I like the term "Story Games" to refer to Collaborative Storytelling type things, since is succinctly points out what the priorities are: a Story Game is about collaborative storytelling, a Roleplaying Game is about playing a role (and thus about virtual experiences).

Yeah, I'm a drama-craving story-whore, but I don't approach what you describe as a collaborative storytelling game.  I'm probably a couple of steps in that direction, with the players having more input into narrative than a lot of folks and a good amount of metagame thinking, but this is the garnish, not the main course.

Quote from: WarthurFor what it's worth, I like the term "Story Games" to refer to Collaborative Storytelling type things, since is succinctly points out what the priorities are: a Story Game is about collaborative storytelling, a Roleplaying Game is about playing a role (and thus about virtual experiences).

The tricky part is that there is overlap of these views.  

People do often enjoy both.  People may play what is nominally a role-playing game, but also enjoy the stories which are generated from it.  However, if enjoyment of the stories becomes an important part of enjoyment as a whole, then you're in the range between paradigms.

In case I didn't state it clearly enough the first time, the problem with this essay is that it considers both models to be on equal footing, with the assumption that both are RPGs. Its an effort to say that both are equally valid as RPGs, are just vastly different "types".

But that's not true. The first one he talks about are NOT RPGs, and the latter are.

I don't get why these guys can't just accept this and create their own hobby rather than trying to keep force the former model on all of us and our hobby.

RPGPundit

I would note that the vast majority of the indie games do not fall under this description either - Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, and even My Life With Master all have far more in common with the second description than the first.  Those that do, well even many of the indie folks wouldn't put up too much of a fight if you said they aren't really RPGs.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't get why these guys can't just accept this and create their own hobby rather than trying to keep force the former model on all of us and our hobby.

Because you're wrong, poop dick.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrBecause you're wrong, poop dick.

Not in the least.

LARPers.
Story gamers.
Computer "RPG" players.

What do they all have in common? They all covet the term "RPG", but they're not part of my hobby and they never will be.

QuoteI would note that the vast majority of the indie games do not fall under this description either

I'm guessing you mean Forge-Indie (limited scope), as opposed to true Indie (broader scope).  

If a game has:
* No GM
* Shared GMing duties
* Players introducing plot points
* Players making factual declarations

It's moving away from a Roleplaying Game and towards a Storytelling Game.  Even if it's only partway, it will offer less "Virtual Experience" (what most of us have been calling Immersion) than a regular RPG that does not move towards being a hybrid.  This means players expecting a roleplaying game "may complain about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth."

Unless I'm mistaken, if DitV isn't a Storytelling game it's still less Roleplaying game than something not drifting across the line.

Once again -- that's not to say that it isn't a great game, lot's of fun, etc.  But it *is* saying that the design patterns for non RPG games, are unlikely to be good models for building new RPGs.  Suggesting that an RPG would be improved by players introducing plot points won't help someone make a better RPG.

EDIT:  I don't really care what the different types of games are called.  What I DO care about is making room to discuss "RPG" design without having to wade through all the "Storygames" design that invariably gets thrown into the mix.  I'd also like to see a bit less evangelizing from the "Storygames" crowd.  Pimp your games, sure, but stop telling people they're "Braindamaged" etc. because they enjoy playing a different type of game...

I mentioned specific games so we wouldn't be arguing over what "indie" means.  If you mean different games, then what are they?

Quote* No GM
* Shared GMing duties
* Players introducing plot points
* Players making factual declarations

Even in indie-land, GMless games are very rare, as are games where GM duties are shared.  And in most of them the players ability to introduce plot points or make factual declaration are still subject to GM veto/adjustment and/or are limited by some resource.  They are still very game-like.

The idea that there's games out there where the players run the show and the GM does nothing and the people who make them want to take over gaming (DUN DUN DUNNN) is a huge strawman.  This does not exist.  The few games that fit your collaborative storytelling definition, as I noted, would likely be argued as not technically RPGs even by their devotees.

Quote from: StuartEDIT:  I don't really care what the different types of games are called.  What I DO care about is making room to discuss "RPG" design without having to wade through all the "Storygames" design that invariably gets thrown into the mix.  I'd also like to see a bit less evangelizing from the "Storygames" crowd.  Pimp your games, sure, but stop telling people they're "Braindamaged" etc. because they enjoy playing a different type of game...

In cases of overlapping usage, it's generally better to include a specifier.  i.e. So rather than beating your head against the millions of MMORPG players that what they're playing isn't really an "RPG" and trying to correct them, it seems more useful to accept this and use the term "tabletop RPG" to distinguish yourself from both MMORPGs and LARPs.  

As for distinguishing narrative-paradigm games from experiential...  Well, the term "Adventure Game" has some momentum.  Does that sit well with you?  So the separatists among narrative-paradigm could use the term "Story Games", while separatists among experiential-paradigm could use the term "Adventure Game".  Those who want to mix ideas could continue to use "RPG".  

P.S.  Agreed about the evangelizing.  I've got a distaste for those who use blanket insults like "brain damaged" or "swine" over a ridiculous thing like what games one likes to play.

QuoteAs for distinguishing narrative-paradigm games from experiential... Well, the term "Adventure Game" has some momentum. Does that sit well with you? So the separatists among narrative-paradigm could use the term "Story Games", while separatists among experiential-paradigm could use the term "Adventure Game". Those who want to mix ideas could continue to use "RPG".

Personally, I think "Adventure Game" would be a good identifier for the game I'm developing.  "RPG" is only useful for people already in the hobby, and carries some unfortunate baggage for people outside the hobby (eg. Social Stigma, etc)... II don't know about non-adventure-game RPGs though...

Edit: I'll add to this...

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't get why these guys can't just accept this and create their own hobby rather than trying to keep force the former model on all of us and our hobby.

I don't see any "forcing" going on; I don't think anyone expects, say, Dogs In the Vineyard to overtake D&D ever. When people start running down games you like, sure, they're being arseholes, but when people are promoting games that they do like/have designed themselves, that's entirely reasonable.

As far as "Why don't they go create their own hobby?" goes: I would say that there is enough overlap between people who are interested in pure Collaborative Storytelling experiences and people who are interested in pure Virtual Experiences (not to mention people interested in a blend of the two) that it's legitimate for one group to promote their products to the other.

Quote from: MaddmanThey are still very game-like.

Could you rephrase this or explain? I do not see how the game-likeness has much to do with the conversation. Candyland is game-like but it's not what most people (including me) would consider a roleplaying game (or indeed Adventure Game or Story Game).

Quote from: jhkimAs for distinguishing narrative-paradigm games from experiential... Well, the term "Adventure Game" has some momentum. Does that sit well with you? So the separatists among narrative-paradigm could use the term "Story Games", while separatists among experiential-paradigm could use the term "Adventure Game". Those who want to mix ideas could continue to use "RPG".

I think that "Adventure" Game wouldn't accurately reflect an RPG with a focus on Immersion / "Virtual Experience" about a non-adventure topic.  Wuthering Heights: the Roleplaying Game, for example.

Quote from: maddmanEven in indie-land, GMless games are very rare, as are games where GM duties are shared. And in most of them the players ability to introduce plot points or make factual declaration are still subject to GM veto/adjustment and/or are limited by some resource. They are still very game-like.

The idea that there's games out there where the players run the show and the GM does nothing and the people who make them want to take over gaming (DUN DUN DUNNN) is a huge strawman. This does not exist. The few games that fit your collaborative storytelling definition, as I noted, would likely be argued as not technically RPGs even by their devotees.

Players introducing plot points or making factual declaration actually is a type of shared GM Duties...

This article isn't making any judgement about things being games, or not games.  I may do that elsewhere, but not in relation to this article. ;)

What it does is identify a set of techniques that support two different types of narrative construction.  In one, the game focuses more on the players collaboratively building the narrative.  In the other, the game has a greater focus on the players experiencing the narrative world.  Is there overlap?  Of course.  Many "Storytelling" games include immersive / virtual experience parts of play.  Traditional / Immersive / Virtual Experience Roleplaying games also create stories.

The key point to take from this article, I believe, is that the techniques that will enhance the Collaborative Storytelling approach will not improve the immersion / "Virtual Experience" players get from a game.  They will decrease it.  You may see that it's a good trade -- players get a bit less Immersion for more control of the narrative.  Less Immersion in a better narrative.  That's not a wrong approach -- but it does assume the collaborative storytelling will lead to a better narrative... which it may not.  

If you goal is to create games for people for who  Immersion / "Virtual Experience"  is the primary appeal of the game -- the Collaborative Storytelling techniques should be considered very carefully, and more than likely avoided.

Since the Forge / GNS theories seem to overwhelmingly support / endorse the Collaborative Storytelling approach ("Narrative") over the Immersion / "Virtual Experience" approach (doesn't exist and/or brain damage, selfish, etc), those theories are not useful when attempting to create a traditional Roleplaying game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenCould you rephrase this or explain? I do not see how the game-likeness has much to do with the conversation. Candyland is game-like but it's not what most people (including me) would consider a roleplaying game (or indeed Adventure Game or Story Game).

The game-likeness means that there's a rules structure that everyone agrees to rather than a freeform kind of play that would go on with a collaborative storytelling.  Metagame mechanics are one such example - the players might be able to introduce plot points or make factual statements, but have to expend a game resource to do so and are subject to GM veto.  The GM is still very much in charge of the game, he just has some extra means of player input.

Ah. You've missed the point.

Quote from: MaddmanThe idea that there's games out there where the players run the show and the GM does nothing and the people who make them want to take over gaming (DUN DUN DUNNN) is a huge strawman.  This does not exist.  The few games that fit your collaborative storytelling definition, as I noted, would likely be argued as not technically RPGs even by their devotees.

Then why do the Forge Crowd get so upset at the mention of GM-empowerment; and why are they constantly trying to chip away at the traditional position of the GM as the final arbitrer of what happens in the game?

I agree that there are few gm-less games, but the strawman here is YOU taking that and turning it into the argument, when the REAL argument is that the Forge are creating games and pushing strongly for GM-disempowerment, wherein players can MAKE DEMANDS about setting on the GM that the GM isn't allowed to say "no" to.

RPGPundit

QuoteThe game-likeness means that there's a rules structure that everyone agrees to rather than a freeform kind of play that would go on with a collaborative storytelling. Metagame mechanics are one such example - the players might be able to introduce plot points or make factual statements, but have to expend a game resource to do so and are subject to GM veto. The GM is still very much in charge of the game, he just has some extra means of player input.

Having a GM has nothing to do with something being a game.  Collaborative storytelling does not preclude structured rules.

You could have a storytelling game with a solid rules structure, like Once Upon A Time (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1234).  You could have a traditional RPG that was heavily railroaded and the player's decisions and dice rolls basically amounted to nothing -- that would not be a game.

Now, Freeform Collaborative Storytelling... that's not a game.  And the extent to which particular RPGs or Storytelling games are, or are not, games is probably best left to another thread. ;)

QuoteI agree that there are few gm-less games, but the strawman here is YOU taking that and turning it into the argument, when the REAL argument is that the Forge are creating games and pushing strongly for GM-disempowerment, wherein players can MAKE DEMANDS about setting on the GM that the GM isn't allowed to say "no" to.

GM Disempowerment will decrease the Immersion / Virtual Experience.  

GM Disempowerment will increase the Collaborative Storytelling.

It's a technique that you can choose to use in your game, but it makes more sense if you're using it with an understanding of what it does.

Because the forge (and indie games in general) are all about experimentation.  Taking the assumptions of traditional RPGs and playing with them to see if something interesting comes out.  The traditional GM/player structure is one of those assumptions.  And from my own experience and talking to people online it is almost never the players trying to wrest power from the GM, it's the GM who wants to try something new and fun.  There's no conspiracy to render GMs impotent, just some games that do things a little differently.

Quote from: StuartGM Disempowerment will decrease the Immersion / Virtual Experience.  

GM Disempowerment will increase the Collaborative Storytelling.

It's a technique that you can choose to use in your game, but it makes more sense if you're using it with an understanding of what it does.

I can agree with this, though I don't consider virtual experience and immerison to be the same thing.  Immersion is the sense of 'being there', and can be just as easily achieved with a cut scene approach as with a virtual world approach.

QuoteI can agree with this, though I don't consider virtual experience and immerison to be the same thing. Immersion is the sense of 'being there', and can be just as easily achieved with a cut scene approach as with a virtual world approach.

I used the "Immersion / Virtual Experience" format because I usually say "Immersion" but it seems to help if I explicitly link that to "Virtual Experience" instead of Narrative Enjoyment, Imaginative, Descriptive, Deep-Focus, Flow, etc. etc. etc. ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditThen why do the Forge Crowd get so upset at the mention of GM-empowerment;

Because for everyone who's had a bad "players running amok" experience, there's someone else who had a bad "asshat GM" experience?

Quoteand why are they constantly trying to chip away at the traditional position of the GM as the final arbitrer of what happens in the game?

Because, erm, there's already plenty of RPGs out there where the GM is the final arbiter? The Forge is all about producing independently-produced games, and there's little point in endlessly replicating what has gone before; they experiment with GMless or GM-light RPGs because that's what's experimental. If the world had been different, if most RPGs were GMless, the Forge would be pumping out GM-heavy games by the truckload.

QuoteBecause, erm, there's already plenty of RPGs out there where the GM is the final arbiter? The Forge is all about producing independently-produced games, and there's little point in endlessly replicating what has gone before; they experiment with GMless or GM-light RPGs because that's what's experimental. If the world had been different, if most RPGs were GMless, the Forge would be pumping out GM-heavy games by the truckload.

Just to be clear -- Independent doesn't mean Experimental.  Not in music, film, theatre, literature, or game design.

Perhaps instead of calling Forge games "Independent" they should be called "Experimental"?  (No snark intended -- I'm serious here)

Quote from: StuartJust to be clear -- Independent doesn't mean Experimental.  Not in music, film, theatre, literature, or game design.

I know, but the Forge people recognise that there's little point designing a non-experimental Indie game in the current market unless you're convinced you are doing a vastly better job than the current major games out there. The Fantasy Heartbreakers all sunk without a trace, for example, because they were trying to out-D&D D&D, and even if some of them were better than D&D they weren't better enough to grab a bit of the market for themselves.

QuoteI know, but the Forge people recognise that there's little point designing a non-experimental Indie game in the current market unless you're convinced you are doing a vastly better job than the current major games out there.

And based on the Forge theories, they would be unable to do so.  Meaning -- Forge theories support the creation of a different type of game.  If you tried to make a non-experimental indie game that was similar to D&D, using the Forge theories, you would almost certainly fail.

QuoteThe Fantasy Heartbreakers all sunk without a trace, for example, because they were trying to out-D&D D&D, and even if some of them were better than D&D they weren't better enough to grab a bit of the market for themselves.

Sure, if they were a "Heartbreaker" (Dream Maker, Love Taker) -- they would be failures by definition.

But there are certainly more Fantasy RPGs than just D&D!

Ars Magica
Blue Rose
The Burning Wheel
Castles and Crusades
Elfquest
HackMaster
Legend of the Five Rings
Rifts / Palladium Fantasy
Shadowrun (D&D + Cyberpunk)
Warhammer Fantasy
...

Just look at all the RPGs in the Fantasy Genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games_by_genre#Fantasy_Genre)  (Whoa!)

I don't think any of those would be described as a "Fantasy Heartbreaker"... and there are LOT'S of Indie games on that list.

Quote from: WarthurBecause for everyone who's had a bad "players running amok" experience, there's someone else who had a bad "asshat GM" experience?

Because, erm, there's already plenty of RPGs out there where the GM is the final arbiter? The Forge is all about producing independently-produced games, and there's little point in endlessly replicating what has gone before; they experiment with GMless or GM-light RPGs because that's what's experimental. If the world had been different, if most RPGs were GMless, the Forge would be pumping out GM-heavy games by the truckload.

So then you are agreeing that the Forge DOES have an agenda, and that agenda involves promoting GM-disempowering gaming?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo then you are agreeing that the Forge DOES have an agenda, and that agenda involves promoting GM-disempowering gaming?

Only to the extent that GM-disempowered gaming is a radical new approach to the hobby, sufficiently so that while mainstream game companies may be reluctant to gamble on a GM-less/GM-lite game an indie publisher can afford to do so.

They are there to write games and publish them, dude, and they are there to experiment with innovative designs. You're acting like they are even trying to topple D&D, which is so not the case it's untrue. (The Forge dislikes the World of Darkness much more than it does D&D, mainly because the World of Darkness games have a bad history of promising one thing and delivering the other.)

Quote from: WarthurBecause, erm, there's already plenty of RPGs out there where the GM is the final arbiter? The Forge is all about producing independently-produced games, and there's little point in endlessly replicating what has gone before

Why are you saying that making traditional RPGs is "endlessly replicating what hsa gone?" There's a lot of room left for doing interesting things without endlessly replicating anything. I don't personally innovate, but other designers I hold in high esteem do, within the confines of a traditional form. Are you claiming that they are not doing anything innovative? That it is no longer possible to do anything interesting or innovative in the traditional form?

Sounds to me like you are just trash-talking.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWhy are you saying that making traditional RPGs is "endlessly replicating what hsa gone?" There's a lot of room left for doing interesting things without endlessly replicating anything. I don't personally innovate, but other designers I hold in high esteem do, within the confines of a traditional form. Are you claiming that they are not doing anything innovative? That it is no longer possible to do anything interesting or innovative in the traditional form?

No, but if you have a game which is a) designed in the traditional form, and b) good and interesting and innovative and fun, I see less reason not to submit it to a mainstream publisher. On the other hand, if your game is highly non-traditional mainstream publishers will be less likely to publish it, simply because publishing a game in the quantities that the mainstream publishers do is a heftier financial risk.

In pretty much every form of entertainment out there, mainstream publishers TEND TO throw stuff out in the traditional form, while independent publishers TEND TO thrive on experimentation. There's exceptions, of course, but that tends to be the rule.

Besides, I am just talking about the attitude the Forge tends to express, and nobody can deny that the Forge tend to get excited about experimental RPGs that push the boundaries. They can talk about designing more traditional games in plenty of other places, after all.

Warthur, you're misrepresenting The Forge's schizophrenia. Ron Edwards has said a number of times that wants to bring "traditional game designers" on board, basically as part of his crusade against the abuses of the three tier distribution system. Unfortunately this conflicts with his other crusade, which is to promote "coherent" design--a contentious concept that not all designers accept (in fact, few outside of self-identified Narrativists).

I understand your point, but the way you originally expressed it is unnecessarily insulting, and evoked mindless automatons shovelling crap into boxes. Even the larger RPG publishers, like Steve Jackson Games or Green Ronin, are tiny, miniscule enterprises - they'd BE indie in any other business. Outside of WotC and possibly WW, they are all indies. Heck, Palladium even fits the Forge definition of "indie." Are they to be included?

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenWarthur, you're misrepresenting The Forge's schizophrenia. Ron Edwards has said a number of times that wants to bring "traditional game designers" on board, basically as part of his crusade against the abuses of the three tier distribution system. Unfortunately this conflicts with his other crusade, which is to promote "coherent" design--a contentious concept that not all designers accept (in fact, few outside of self-identified Narrativists).

I don't hold Ron Edwards' stranger ideas against the rest of the Forge any more than I hold the Pundit's odder concepts against people here. :)

Quote from: WarthurBesides, I am just talking about the attitude the Forge tends to express, and nobody can deny that the Forge tend to get excited about experimental RPGs that push the boundaries. They can talk about designing more traditional games in plenty of other places, after all.

Where?  

My first stop was the Forge, and since then I've been unable to find a place to discuss traditional games that wasn't dominated by Forge Diaspora trying to promote Forge-Brand theories.  If you don't want to talk about designing GNS/Forge games, and you don't want to talk about D&D/D20... where do you go?

I'm really serious.  :(

Quote from: flyingmiceI understand your point, but the way you originally expressed it is unnecessarily insulting, and evoked mindless automatons shovelling crap into boxes.

Er, how so?

QuoteEven the larger RPG publishers, like Steve Jackson Games or Green Ronin, are tiny, miniscule enterprises - they'd BE indie in any other business. Outside of WotC and possibly WW, they are all indies. Heck, Palladium even fits the Forge definition of "indie." Are they to be included?

There's a major difference in scale between the "indie" publishers - or the Niche Press, if you'd prefer it - and the likes of Green Ronin and SJG.

Specifically, the major publishers can rely on getting anything they publish stocked in most Friendly Local Game Shops, and most of what they publish stocked in just about all FLGSs. The Forge crowd can't - they get most of their sales via the internet, and a pretty slim share of the internet trade at that.

Quote from: StuartWhere?  

My first stop was the Forge, and since then I've been unable to find a place to discuss traditional games that wasn't dominated by Forge Diaspora trying to promote Forge-Brand theories.  If you don't want to talk about designing GNS/Forge games, and you don't want to talk about D&D/D20... where do you go?

I'm really serious.  :(

In theory? Here.
But you have to make it so. Know that here, the Forge swine won't have any advantage. They will not be allowed to use moderation against you, or use language against you.

But as for the rest, its up to you. Start your topics, and defend the topics from subversion by demanding that they not get diverted into Forgese.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurEr, how so?

The "endlessly replicating what has gone before" bit.  

Quote from: WarthurThere's a major difference in scale between the "indie" publishers - or the Niche Press, if you'd prefer it - and the likes of Green Ronin and SJG.

Sure there's a difference in scale, but in many - if not most - cases, there is no difference in kind. Creator owned - isn't that the definition of Indie?

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenWarthur, you're misrepresenting The Forge's schizophrenia. Ron Edwards has said a number of times that wants to bring "traditional game designers" on board, basically as part of his crusade against the abuses of the three tier distribution system. Unfortunately this conflicts with his other crusade, which is to promote "coherent" design--a contentious concept that not all designers accept (in fact, few outside of self-identified Narrativists).

I had not heard this - all you ever hear out of the Forge is GNS/Big Model stuff.  Breaking the distribution model would be the best thing to happen to gaming since Pat Pulling.  This is a noble cause, and it's too bad his game design ideas are getting in the way of that.