Quote from: mythusmage;607999If she wants vampires that sparkle, then her vampires sparkle.

No.

She wants vampires that sparkle, but when someone writes vampire fiction with non-sparkly vampires, she locks herself in her room, throws herself lengthwise on her bed, and weeps -- Weeps -- at the waste! Oh! Woe! A book that didn't cater to my preferences!

Woe.

Her heart... she is...

broken.

-E.

Quote from: Haffrung;608206Sorry, I don't see the distinction. They're all the author's personal take on the D&D genre. Unconscious or conscious is irrelevant. One man's homage is another man's retread.

Sounds like an entirely subjective judgement that only bad games that mimic D&D are heartbreakers.

Nope.

Have you read the essays?

Quote from: soviet;608242Nope.

Have you read the essays?

I have.

They start with a list of absurd criteria (already listed above), but then when Edwards actually goes to assess games that broke his heart, he comes up with this:

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

Check it out!

He doesn't apply his framework. Instead, he pretty much throws it away and complains about what he always complains about: mean GMs who deprotagonize their players.

He is heartbroken because these designers neglected to incorporate his theories into their games.

In practice heartbreaker = "didn't care for."

I want to be clear: I fully support not-caring for games.  I don't care for most games. But the idea that there's something called a "heartbreaker" that has any real meaning outside of someone's reaction doesn't hold up.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: soviet;608242Nope.

Have you read the essays?

Yeah, about five years ago. All the talk about intent is just bullshit. It's bullshit when academics use it for other mediums, and it was bullshit when the Forge adopted the jargon of academia to try to make RPG analysis Serious Stuff.

Some RPG designers liked the idea of D&D, but they had some issues with the implementation. So they created their own versions of a D&D-like RPG. Ron Edwards called them heartbreakers. But now that D&D-variants are cool, some people feel the need to draw academic distinctions.

Quote from: Haffrung;608251Some RPG designers liked the idea of D&D, but they had some issues with the implementation. So they created their own versions of a D&D-like RPG. Ron Edwards called them heartbreakers. But now that D&D-variants are cool, some people feel the need to draw academic distinctions.

No, that's bullshit.

There's a difference between innovation (RuneQuest), deliberate reinterpretation (OSRIC), and unconscious imitation (heartbreakers).

Quote from: -E.;608248He is heartbroken because these designers neglected to incorporate his theories into their games.

Yore jib. I like the cut of it.

In fairness though does anyone care about what mad old ron had to say anymore, or his disturbed offspring, the ever shrinking community of oh-so-happy shared narrative gamers?

Quote from: The Traveller;608260Yore jib. I like the cut of it.

In fairness though does anyone care about what mad old ron had to say anymore, or his disturbed offspring, the ever shrinking community of oh-so-happy shared narrative gamers?

No.

But rpg-dialog is still cut through with "your game sucks" "roll-playing v. role-playing" crap.

The stuff that came out of the forge was all good for insulting games they didn't like, and still gets used for that purpose.

It's better than it was: GNS/TBM is pretty much dead-on-arrival... but some remnants still hang on. Heartbreakers is one of them.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: soviet;608256No, that's bullshit.

There's a difference between innovation (RuneQuest), deliberate reinterpretation (OSRIC), and unconscious imitation (heartbreakers).

How in fuck does Ron Edwards, or anyone else, know if a designer is consciously imitating D&D or unconsciously imitating it?

Quote from: GrimGent;608187Say, have you followed what's been going on with Vampire: Undeath?

I tried reading the review, but they do tend to go on and on and on and on. Being a hard core practitioner of stream of consciousness writing, I can say with all confidence the review in question needed a kick-ass copy editor to get it organized.

That said, when you boil it down to the gist of the matter, the message authors send is, "Vampire: Undeath sucks so bad it can get blood from a Venerian* stone."

I must disagree with them regarding defamation suits re online writing. First, the charge would be libel, not slander (slander is spoken defamation), and defamation of character suits are possible if the statement in question can be proven to be libelous in a court of law. The whole "You can't sue someone for what they said online" is an urban legend.

In any case, thanks for the link and the amusement. Nice to learn that there are heartbreakers other than those linked to D&D, and that columnists at the Purple Disappointment retain a talent for unconscious irony and a lack of insight an introspection.

*Venerian: From Venus, where the geology is excessively dry.

Quote from: -E.;608236No.

She wants vampires that sparkle, but when someone writes vampire fiction with non-sparkly vampires, she locks herself in her room, throws herself lengthwise on her bed, and weeps -- Weeps -- at the waste! Oh! Woe! A book that didn't cater to my preferences!

Woe.

Her heart... she is...

broken.

-E.

As a DM once said, referring to a character of mine, "If he wants to 2'8" dwarf, he can have a 2'8" dwarf."

Quote from: soviet;608242Nope.

Have you read the essays?

The impression I get is that only did he read the essays, he comprehended the essays. A distinction I doubt you can credit the author of those essays with.

Quote from: mythusmage;608285As a DM once said, referring to a character of mine, "If he wants to 2'8" dwarf, he can have a 2'8" dwarf."

I think I'm missing the point, but I'm down with a 2'8" dwarf, so we're all good.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;608288I think I'm missing the point, but I'm down with a 2'8" dwarf, so we're all good.

Cheers,
-E.

The player he was responding to was convinced dwarfs had to be at least 4' tall. My 2'8" Hui Ohn (a Buddhist cleric when dwarfs could only be fighters or thieves) harshed his mellow.

BTW, Hui Ohn was a lapsed Buddhist (as if you needed conformation of my oddity ).

Quote from: The Traveller;608260In fairness though does anyone care about what mad old ron had to say anymore, or his disturbed offspring, the ever shrinking community of oh-so-happy shared narrative gamers?

What do you base that on? It seems to me--based on new games being published and podcasts and the like--that the number of narrative gamers is at least holding steady, possibly increasing. Do you have evidence that it is shrinking?

Quote from: mythusmage;608284I tried reading the review, but they do tend to go on and on and on and on. Being a hard core practitioner of stream of consciousness writing, I can say with all confidence the review in question needed a kick-ass copy editor to get it organized.

That said, when you boil it down to the gist of the matter, the message authors send is, "Vampire: Undeath sucks so bad it can get blood from a Venerian* stone."

I must disagree with them regarding defamation suits re online writing. First, the charge would be libel, not slander (slander is spoken defamation), and defamation of character suits are possible if the statement in question can be proven to be libelous in a court of law. The whole "You can't sue someone for what they said online" is an urban legend.

In any case, thanks for the link and the amusement. Nice to learn that there are heartbreakers other than those linked to D&D, and that columnists at the Purple Disappointment retain a talent for unconscious irony and a lack of insight an introspection.

*Venerian: From Venus, where the geology is excessively dry.

We were going to opt for a third or fourth set of eyes, but we decided to just go for the gusto even if it was a bit long-winded. I really, really wanted to make sure that I covered all the bases if only to stop the cries of, "You haven't read it, you can't judge it!"

Regarding the libel/slander thing, I didn't make the point strongly enough that when I said "You can't[...]" I was really saying, "This is not something that usually ends well." It's like saying, "You can't mix chocolate and peanut butter!" or "One does not just walk into Mordor." A good editor probably would have caught that and made me strengthen it up so as not to cause confusion.