Quote from: StuartThere isn't a "one true way" to design, play, or think about RPGs.

Pah!

If you go in to battle against a debate club trained Forgite jihadi fresh out of the secret training camps with that kind off attitude you will quickly find yourself out maneuvered and on the defensive!

No! If you find yourself needing to clear an infestation before they denonate their belt shouting 'EDWARDS ACKBAR!" it's far better to go on the offensive and take control of the conversation with an attack centered around the Illusionism inherent to Forge amdram designs, attempting to shortcut the story process and create fake depth and cheap emotional payoffs!

I mean, those mini-games are fun, but essentially shallow.

Quote from: Erik BoiellePah!

If you go in to battle against a debate club trained Forgite jihadi fresh out of the secret training camps with that kind off attitude you will quickly find yourself out maneuvered and on the defensive!

No! If you find yourself needing to clear an infestation before they denonate their belt shouting 'EDWARDS ACKBAR!" it's far better to go on the offensive and take control of the conversation with an attack centered around the Illusionism inherent to Forge amdram designs, attempting to shortcut the story process and create fake depth and cheap emotional payoffs!

I'm aroused, and I don't know why. That, in itself, is disturbing.

Quote from: BagpussThe flaw I find with most of these theories is most people are most things at one time or another at least to some degree.

You mean the taxonomy? It is a gamer trait. It happens often enough outsite of roleplaying as well, but with concepts like character classes, gamers are sort of pre-disposed to developing a taxonomy like that. Worse, these theories tend to develop a nice, neat taxonomy and then shoehorn stuff into them even when they don't really fit.

QuoteIf you go in to battle against a debate club trained Forgite jihadi fresh out of the secret training camps with that kind off attitude you will quickly find yourself out maneuvered and on the defensive!

I will bend like a reed in the wind.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrYou mean the taxonomy?

Erm..... (opens Google..... "taxonomy", scan the Wiki entry) Yes! I mean the taxonomy.

Well, most thematic games are purposely built as a fast lane to satisfaction, especially as effortless as possible for the DM.

It´s one of the reasons I don´t get any kicks out of them, but there are what they claim to be.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBecause people have been telling stories for a long time you know, and this is just like listening to someone read you a bedtime story, only you get a say in what happens! Obviously a more suitable format with ugly people sitting around a table pretending to be wizards than that nasty forge stuff.

But anyway, the conflict between improve theater style which is all about dialog and acting and story telling style where you can have more narration and digression does sound right to me.

I'm still working on my ideas, but there's something to what you're saying.  

There's also something to the narrative approach the Forgefolk use; they have produced enjoyable games (maybe not for you, but for enough people to be worth considering).

Quote from: Levi Kornelsenthey have produced enjoyable games (maybe not for
you, but for enough people to be worth considering).

This is an interesting assertion, for me, as it makes me want to ask - "What's that number?"

This is something I thought when looking at the criteria used by the author of the Design Patterns book (discussed over in this thread). He defines "successful" with two criteria, only one of which defines a number.  That number is 10 groups who have played a game in the last year – worldwide.

So, purely out of curiosity, what's the number for you –what makes it worth people considering?

Quote from: James J SkachSo, purely out of curiosity, what's the number for you –what makes it worth people considering?

If it includes any people I give half a shit about.

Hey, I'm honest.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, purely out of curiosity, what's the number for you –what makes it worth people considering?

For me the answer is simply enough that I notice.

The whole narrativist thing has plainly worked well for quite a few gamers, a tiny number I think as a proportion of the hobby but still probably several hundred and maybe even a few thousand though I doubt that many.

That's enough to make that bit worthwhile for those guys, and there may be some borrowable concepts for the rest of us.

I think if the narrativism crowd accepted that it's simply another minority interest in rpgs like being into furries or historical gaming - popular with those into it often to the exclusion of other types of gaming but never likely to be widespread, there'd be a lot less angst about theory and a lot more happy gaming.

The furry crowd don't worry that theirs is a niche interest, I'm a historical gamer and it doesn't bother me that not many share that taste, I don't see why the narrativist guys can't relax and accept that they have a minority taste which happily due to the internet is now much easier to indulge than was once the case.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't see why the narrativist guys can't relax and accept that they have a minority taste which happily due to the internet is now much easier to indulge than was once the case.

Well, I for one can and do.  In fact, I'm not sure that I actually know anyone who either (a) thinks that narrativist play is the majority of the hobby or (b) is worked up about the fact that it's not.  We tend to get worked up about other stuff

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I for one can and do.  In fact, I'm not sure that I actually know anyone who either (a) thinks that narrativist play is the majority of the hobby or (b) is worked up about the fact that it's not.  We tend to get worked up about other stuff

It doesn't tend to be the main guys.  To be honest, most of the annoying stuff tied to theory isn't from the main guys, though Chris Lehrich really did fuck me off by suggesting my issue with the Trollbabe setting was that I was sexist.

That has nothing to do with narrativism though, he was just being a dick which for him is uncharacteristic.

Most annoying postage comes from guys who are into the thing but not central to it if you know what I mean, converts in a sense, fellow travellers.  The Vincent Baker's and Chris Kubasik and Joshua Bishop-Roby's of this world mostly just do their thing and unless you go on their blogs or equivalent there's no particular reason their thing should impact you unless you want it to.  I rarely if ever have an issue with any of those guys, Chris and Joshua I've read lots of and they both frankly seem like good people to me and I wish them well.  Vincent I don't know much about, his blog does nothing for me and he is happy to talk to those who're interested and leave guys like me alone which is cool.

I shouldn't have got into the numbers thing actually, the question is not is game x popular but would I enjoy playing game x.  Whether narrativism is a tiny group of people, a growing movement or the silent majority is neither here nor there as long as those who are into it are getting good gaming.

It's a tangent, but I am a bit saddened by all these threads on rpg.net currently asking to be sold narrativism.  Who gives a shit?  Somebody pitching PTA because it's a ton of fun makes sense to me, somebody pitching it because it fits some arbitrary label not so much.

Quote from: BalbinusI shouldn't have got into the numbers thing actually, the question is not is game x popular but would I enjoy playing game x.

Oh, yeah.  That's a whole different kettle of fish.  A ... uh ... more tangled kettle of fish.  Fish-guts, I suppose.  Yech.

Tony, while you're here, have you worked out what in this thread is supposed to justify the title?  I see lots of stuff here, but nothing proving Forge theory wrong as such.

And you know, if anything here did that given I am hardly a fan of Forge theory I think I would have noticed.

Quote from: BalbinusTony, while you're here, have you worked out what in this thread is supposed to justify the title?

Honestly people, its the same thing that justify the Great Satan saying DnD causes brain damage.

One of the reasons the hated forgers are so good at dominating conversations is that they tend to use cheap debate club tactics more interested in winning arguments than discussing things. This is dirty pool, and anyone indulging in it deserves to get it flung right back at them.

Similarly, bullshit bingo:

http://www.bullshitbingo.net/



Forge buzzwords are things like Trad, Indie, Hippy, Nar, Sim.

Actually, if anyone says Trad with a straght face you can almost always just go straight to yelling bullshit. Its a real tell.