TheRPGSite

Other Games, Development, & Campaigns => Design, Development, and Gameplay => Topic started by: Levi Kornelsen on April 17, 2006, 12:33:04 PM

Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 17, 2006, 12:33:04 PM
Okay, Pundit, I'll take you on, seriously, if you're interested.  I propose these terms.

1) Grit out front.  I'll front up the things I think about gaming that I think you'll find objectionable, straight-up, upon your acceptance of these terms; there's enough for a good fight.  If you have thoughts you think I'll find objectionable, you'll do the same.

2) No holds barred, no shirking.  I'll answer every question about gaming that you put to me honestly.  I'll expect the same courtesy.  No other courtesies are expected by either party, but may be given as seen fit.

3) Just you and me.  You'll delete all posts to this thread except your and mine.

4) No crying to momma.  Neither of us posts about this anywhere but here until we get to ten pages or one of us is convinced.  Others may do so as desired.

5) Turns in order.  You post, I post, you post, and so on.

6) Ten rounds only.  At 100 posts exactly, the thread ends and is locked for good.  Yes, that means you get the last go.

Agreeable?
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 17, 2006, 12:49:35 PM
Besides the fact that I'm not entirely clear what you're proposing here, (that we tell each other what we think the other one will dislike about our views on gaming? Is that it??), I'm not convinced that this is a good place to do this, since the Moderation have made it crystal clear that this forum is nothing more than a joke forum.

RPGPundit

PS: Especially considering that they will apparently shut this forum down at their whimsy, meaning that the thread will probably be lost.

PPS: I'm not saying I won't have some kind of debate with you, if that's what you're looking for. I'm just saying that this place, being a joke, doesn't strike me as the place to do it.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 17, 2006, 12:56:14 PM
I'll tell you all my 'Swinish' opinions.  You can take a shot at knocking them down for all to see, and I have to respond or look stupid.  If you have any opinions I want to knock down, I can attempt the same.

The Moderators here want to be entertained.  It'll be bloody enough for them, I expect, and, at the same time, I believe that you can trust me just far enough to believe that I'm not playing some kind of elaborate joke at your expense.  If they like, someone can start a "popcorn" thread on the side to make comments, and they can get their kicks that way, too.

I find that a worthy opponent is worth the trip.  You?
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Hreidmar on April 17, 2006, 12:56:29 PM
An actually serious conversation with give and take would be a wonderful thing.  And perhaps could act as a lesson for the swine and pundits.  A good thread can always be moved to a different forum and saved.

Trust me unless these forums get really, really bad their going to stick around for at least a week or two.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 17, 2006, 04:03:16 PM
I'll do it, since it'll be interesting to me, and will set a good example. The problem with having a humourous thematic to a webforum is that it can easily slip into "pointless joking for its own sake", where you just mock everything and anything openly without allowing any discussion or debate free of mockery.

That'd be a TERRIBLE waste of a site like this, and I fear that this is what I see it de-evolving into right now.  A place where the censorship isn't in the form of fanatic mods banning people like you guys do over at RPG.net, but rather a place where nothing productive can be done because any discussion is met with  non-productive mockery (ie. mockery that presents no counterpoint other than "don't be so serious, man"!), often goaded on by the mods themselves.

So yea, I'll do it. You may begin, since you're the challenger.

RPGPundit

EDITed PS NOTE TO EVERYONE READING THIS: Since this thread has just been moved to the main Roleplaying forum frmo the "pundit's parlour" I will ask that you please be considerate and abstain from writing entries in this thread until we've completed the Disputation. The Nutkins already said that they'd delete them if you did, so you'd only be making them work more, and disrupting the flow of the debate. There are a number of threads that have been started by others to discuss this thread, usually with the header [popcorn] in front of it. Please put comments on those threads or start a new [popcorn] thread. Thank you.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 17, 2006, 04:35:50 PM
Excellent.  My starting positions, for the purposes of this debate.

Self-Respect is better than vitriol.
What you spread in your rants and diatribes is vitriol.  Certainly, outrage has it's place, but if you believe that what you're creating is a stable center for any kind of movement, you're fooling yourself.  I say this as one Egomaniac to another - the only thing you'll create in this way is a cult of personality, and that's not even close to being the same as a movement.
If you want to bring gaming closer to being attractive to the majority of people, then what you need to do is teach self-respect to the gamers who don't have it, and encourage them to teach it, in turn to others around them.  Not everyone that needs to learn it will be willing to, instead choosing to bask in whatever miasma they've chosen - and by doing so, they'll "out" themselves far more effectively that you could ever do by getting your hate on.

Roleplaying Games are art.
Yeah, that's right.  When we play these games, we are taking part in the performance of art.  Art isn't some kind of elite title - If I draw two squiggly lines on a page, and manage to convey something by it, I've made art.  The problem isn't with people trying to make games into art, which has been your standpoint for a long time.  The problem is the idiotic pretensions that often surround and have grown over the process of making art itself, and that problem is in now way one that comes from RPGs or the players of them - it may have infected a few players, but it's not part of some "greater complex" of shit that deserves to be classed with all the other things you lump into your category of "swine".

Roleplaying Games create stories.
Stories.  You bet.  If I write a piece of fanfiction about how Harry Potter grows a set of wings and his rival Malfoy finds them irresistably sexy, that's a story.  If I write something kin to Huckleberry Finn, that's a story.  Most jokes are stories.  Movies are stories, most histories are even stories.  Story, story, story.  And, hey, people like stories, even crave them to some extent.  Stories that speak to their lives, stories that help them escape their lives and catch a glimpse of something else, stories that let them walk along with someone else for a time, real of imagined.  Journeys of wonder.

These stories *can* contain meaning.
Not *do*.  But *can*.  Sometimes, where a character in a story makes a choice that has meaning, morally, socially, politically, or in whatever other way, we notice.  We pay attention.  And sometimes it speaks to us.  We aren't necessarily converted by it; we may find their choices interesting, or loathsome, or any number of other reactions.  And when we are, for however short a time, cast into the place of that other person, the impact is potentially even greater.  From these choices, and our reactions, stories can take on meaning; they help us define who we are.  This isn't to say that games "need to teach".  Fuck that.  On those occasions where I'm interested in engaging with a roleplaying game at this level, it had better not be trying to force me around or control my reactions; games are *not* parables.

...Enough to get started?
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 17, 2006, 06:03:29 PM
My main argument:

Roleplaying Games are GAMES
the most basic and inherent quality of an RPG is that it can be defined as a "game". It is primarily meant to serve the purpose of a game: a set of rules for play in a group for entertainment. Any other values one might derive from an RPG are purely secondary to that, and trying to make one of those secondary values have too great of an emphasis in the hobby of RPGs will only harm RPG's popularity and viability; since the MAJORITY of gamers are interested in RPGs as games, and the majority of those who would join the RPG hobby would be interested in RPGs at the level of "games".

My Rebuttal:

Pragmatism must be the first order in improving the gaming hobby
Its perfectly nice to say that the best thing to do would be to help the social rejects to feel self-respect. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases that ship has long since passed. Likewise, saying that "vitriol is counterproductive" can really be code for "we're going to talk a bunch of sweet words about understanding and self-respect and do fuck all".
If the goal is to help the gaming hobby, taking an aggresive stance is the fastest and most practical way of brining about change. To suggest that what you call "vitriol" is not effective is ludicrous, aggresiveness has been an important part of countless movements for change. Saying "we're not taking this shit from you" is a significant and useful way to efficate change; certainly more effective than saying "I could help you do things differently" when the person in question has no interest in doing things differently, or saying "please stop your naughty ways or I'll.. I'll... ask you to stop a second time! So there!".
Likewise, this pragmatism also applies to the question of "expanding the hobby". There is a simple and common-sense approach to expanding the hobby, which would be to market to teenagers with books that are aimed to them, with straightforward rules that are not too light, "artistic", or pseudointellectual to appeal to them; in forms that would be afforable and artistically appealing to them; rather than having companies try to continue to cater and pander to an ever-diminishing group of obsessive, often non-playing "collectors"; or trying to appeal to "non-traditional" groups of demographics when the obvious demographic and the one most likely to succeed has not been effectively tapped yet. There's nothing inherently wrong in making products for collectors or non-traditional demographics but neither of these have the potential to actually "revitalize" the industry in the long term.
Gaming does not need to change into something other than gaming in order to be "saved"; it just needs to do what it already does, but better.

If You define everything as "art", then Roleplaying Games are "art", but so what?
There are several ways, by stretching the more traditional definitions of Art, that you could end up defining RPGs as "art". But so what? What good does it accomplish? Likewise, its all well and good to say "we need to get rid of artistic pretentions", but how the hell do you expect to accomplish that?
Its much more useful to say "RPGs are NOT art", so that those who have those artistic pretentions will not be drawn to be pretentious about RPGs. The more we present RPGs as a GAME which is what they primarily are, the less likely that the pretentious (the Swine) will seek to subvert gaming to create a "culture of pretentiousness" like what you see in the modern art scene.

Roleplaying Games Create Stories, But That's Only a Means to an End
Creating "story" is not the goal of the RPG. The RPG's "goal" is to be entertained by creating adventures for characters to experience.  The story is not the goal, the play and conflict (physical or not) is the goal.  The more a game is based on the concept of "story" as a goal, the more likely that the DM will be drawn to railroading and removing player agency in order to create a superior story.  RPGs are NOT stories like novels, or even like plays, because the story is secondary to the Character's ability to make choices. Unlike a novel or a play, the player of the character will base his choices (and should have the freedom to base his choices) on what his character would really consider priorities, and not on following conventional or even unconventional styles of drama or literary structure. At their core, RPGs are emulation (in the form of a game that simulates a genre, or a world, or a place or time), not literature or drama.
The stories these games create can end up having a beginning, middle and end; clear protagonists, or some kind of meaning or theme; but it will not necessarily have any of these. In particular, the existence of multiple players almost always guarantees that trying to follow any kind of typical literary model of a single lead protagonist will lessen RPG's values as a game, and therefore be counterproductive to the purpose of RPGs.  Having meaning or themes in these stories should emerge only in the context of either the emulation of genre (that is, if a particular "theme" is so absolutely essential to a genre that an RPG in that genre will inevitably touch on that theme), or it should emerge organically as a result of the players or the GM's adventure plot.  But games where the "purpose" of the game is either to teach this "message" or to intentionally "collectively explore" a theme will end up suffering in their quality as a game. Just as games are not parables, both parables and roundtable-study-groups make for crappy games.

Your turn.

RPGPundit


Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Excellent.  My starting positions, for the purposes of this debate.

Self-Respect is better than vitriol.
What you spread in your rants and diatribes is vitriol.  Certainly, outrage has it's place, but if you believe that what you're creating is a stable center for any kind of movement, you're fooling yourself.  I say this as one Egomaniac to another - the only thing you'll create in this way is a cult of personality, and that's not even close to being the same as a movement.
If you want to bring gaming closer to being attractive to the majority of people, then what you need to do is teach self-respect to the gamers who don't have it, and encourage them to teach it, in turn to others around them.  Not everyone that needs to learn it will be willing to, instead choosing to bask in whatever miasma they've chosen - and by doing so, they'll "out" themselves far more effectively that you could ever do by getting your hate on.

Roleplaying Games are art.
Yeah, that's right.  When we play these games, we are taking part in the performance of art.  Art isn't some kind of elite title - If I draw two squiggly lines on a page, and manage to convey something by it, I've made art.  The problem isn't with people trying to make games into art, which has been your standpoint for a long time.  The problem is the idiotic pretensions that often surround and have grown over the process of making art itself, and that problem is in now way one that comes from RPGs or the players of them - it may have infected a few players, but it's not part of some "greater complex" of shit that deserves to be classed with all the other things you lump into your category of "swine".

Roleplaying Games create stories.
Stories.  You bet.  If I write a piece of fanfiction about how Harry Potter grows a set of wings and his rival Malfoy finds them irresistably sexy, that's a story.  If I write something kin to Huckleberry Finn, that's a story.  Most jokes are stories.  Movies are stories, most histories are even stories.  Story, story, story.  And, hey, people like stories, even crave them to some extent.  Stories that speak to their lives, stories that help them escape their lives and catch a glimpse of something else, stories that let them walk along with someone else for a time, real of imagined.  Journeys of wonder.

These stories *can* contain meaning.
Not *do*.  But *can*.  Sometimes, where a character in a story makes a choice that has meaning, morally, socially, politically, or in whatever other way, we notice.  We pay attention.  And sometimes it speaks to us.  We aren't necessarily converted by it; we may find their choices interesting, or loathsome, or any number of other reactions.  And when we are, for however short a time, cast into the place of that other person, the impact is potentially even greater.  From these choices, and our reactions, stories can take on meaning; they help us define who we are.  This isn't to say that games "need to teach".  Fuck that.  On those occasions where I'm interested in engaging with a roleplaying game at this level, it had better not be trying to force me around or control my reactions; games are *not* parables.

...Enough to get started?
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 17, 2006, 07:16:24 PM
Okay.

Roleplaying games are a fusion.

Roleplaying game do, absolutely,  serve the purpose of a game as you define it.  "A set of rules for play in a group for entertainment".  Completely so.  But what particular flavour of entertainment?  What kind of play?  You argue, and correctly, that the majority of gamers seek entertainment through games that are played as games.

Let's skip the idiot session of trying to play with the word "game", and get down to some cases.

Playing the card game Once Upon A Time yields a different kind of entertainment that playing the card game Munchkin.  They are both unquestionably games, yet the first yields stories as a direct and intended result of play.  In the first game, the creation of story is in many ways the entertainment - they act in synthesis, supporting each other.  In the second game, it's the humor and the light-hearted cut-throat nature of the game, among other factors, that provide the entertainment.

Playing the board game Junta provides a different experience of play than playing Chess.  The first is lighter in flavour, and creates a kind of very light roleplaying - as a player, I find the Junta is written well enough, and the details of the game support play well enough, that I as a player have some slight sense of "being there" as the cartoonishly-exaggerated leader of a corrupt banana republic.  And, again, these things support and create the fun.  Personally, I find chess dull, since truly good play requires a level of rote study I'd never put in given the potential rewards.

So.  I posit that roleplaying games can and do manage the same trick; entertainment can come from game elements in the forms I've stated.

Talk changes things

I don't think that the 'ship has passed' for the greater numbers of those under-socialised gamers you pick at; in plain fact, I think you state that because you'd rather spit from a distance than step up and say hello.

To say that making a call for teaching self-respect usually amounts to no more than talking sweet words strikes me as a touch odd; both what I was objecting to and what you're objecting to are talk.  Talking can, and does, change things.

As for an aggressive stance, I don't agree that it's the fastest and most practical means to effect change.  It's certainly one means, and it's the one you've chosen to generally put first.  Myself, I put the other foot first, and I profit by it not only regularly, but in almost every circle.  Can you say the same?

As to the expansion of the hobby

I hadn't actually put forward a thought on this yet, but I'll do it now.  I believe that the fastest way for gamer to expand on the hobby is for them to stop being ashamed of what they do.  Full stop.  A confident presentation is enough to get people interested; some will like it, some won't.

As to broadening the methods of play and the effect that this has on expansion, I believe that's neither here nor there.  More diverse kinds of people are playing, and they're playing more diverse games.  They like these games.  Rock on.

The Art Debate.

This point is on the verge of dissolving into pure semantics, which is as much my fault as yours; it's always close to that point, and we're not making any new progress on it.  I'm going to skip the "let's start posting bits of the dictionary" crap.  You know what I mean; I know what you mean, let's move on to the real and more interesting point you made there.

The possibility of a "culture of pretension".

I love this one, because it's one of the places where I've lived through exactly the kind of thing you're talking about.  That is to say, I play in several World of Darkness LARP games, and have for years.  In the specific case of those games, where I live, there were the beginnings of motions made on such a culture, and it died.  It didn't die because people railed against it.  It died because the people supporting it had aspirations to make games more like some false image of "theatre" that they had set up - and then people actually, professionally involved in the theatre started attending games.  It died of shock; exposure to real theatre killed the pretense, and we instead started seeing things that really were from theatre, and which have no pretense at all, coming in.  The fastest way to kill pretense is to demand that it give you exactly what it promises.

The story argument and player agency

See my points under "roleplaying games are a fusion"; I think I answered most of this here.

As to the argument regarding player agency, I completely agree that many games - especially those inspired or run by the White Wolf "Storyteller" advice from their older books - strip players of their agency in order to pursue story, and that doing so is contrary to the enjoyment of most, if not all, players.

But that's not the only way to pursue story in a game.

A game can just as easily pursue story, without conforming to a pre-set story arc or GM plot, by making the issues of the game relevant issues to the player characters.  

If a character has something about them, a flaw, a motive, an issue, and you put that character into a situation where they need to make real decisions regarding that thing, stories result naturally.  And for many people, that's entertaining.

Over to you.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 18, 2006, 02:09:56 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Okay.

Roleplaying games are a fusion.

So.  I posit that roleplaying games can and do manage the same trick; entertainment can come from game elements in the forms I've stated.


I will not question the specific points you make in this section; however, I will suggest that even conceding the various arguments you make it fails to fulfill the apparent suggestion of your title "Roleplaying games are a fusion".
Suggesting that Junta is different from Chess does not in any way prove that RPGs are in some way a combination of different games to create one kind of "uber game" that must be appreciated at different levels.
Indeed, your title raises several questions that you fail to answer: A fusion of what, exactly, are you arguing?

It is my position that RPGs are not a fusion of any kind of other games or play, they are their own entity; so any conflict or combination you see as inherent to them is in fact non-existent.

Quote

Talk changes things

I don't think that the 'ship has passed' for the greater numbers of those under-socialised gamers you pick at; in plain fact, I think you state that because you'd rather spit from a distance than step up and say hello.

To say that making a call for teaching self-respect usually amounts to no more than talking sweet words strikes me as a touch odd; both what I was objecting to and what you're objecting to are talk.  Talking can, and does, change things.


I disagree. I would suggest that for most of the anti-social gamers, the ship indeed "passed" long before they ever became gamers. Most of the "lawn crappers", the anti-social gamers, have entered the hobby specifically motivated by the fact that the hobby has a reputation for tolerating their kinds of social retardation. They are not interested in changing, and have gravitated to RPGs as a hobby because they know or expect that its adherents will not ask them to change.

Can this have exceptions at the level of the individual? Of course. But then, those who are really interested in participating in the RPG hobby will be willing to change their odious personal habits for the sake of having that privilege. While these people who are trying to change should be encouraged to do so, the onus should not be on the hobby to help "repair" these dysfunctional gamers; the priority of the hobby should be to reposition itself as a group that does not tolerate these behaviours and does not wish to continue attracting the kind of people who participate in them.


Just like the RPG hobby should not be depositaries for social rejects, the membership of the RPG hobby is not a therapy group and should neither attempt to nor be expected to act like one.


Quote

As to the expansion of the hobby

I hadn't actually put forward a thought on this yet, but I'll do it now.  I believe that the fastest way for gamer to expand on the hobby is for them to stop being ashamed of what they do.  Full stop.  A confident presentation is enough to get people interested; some will like it, some won't.


I agree that genuine gamers have nothing to be ashamed about. However, to me this issue is tied into the current dysfunctionality of the hobby; the fact that it has turned into a cesspool for the socially inept.  And the reservations normal gamers might have of revealing their participation in the hobby stem from fear of being mentally associated with these social retards.
Restoring "gamer pride" is an issue that is inextricably tied into cleansing the hobby of the terminally socially retarded and the hopelessly pretentious.

Quote

The possibility of a "culture of pretension".

I love this one, because it's one of the places where I've lived through exactly the kind of thing you're talking about.  That is to say, I play in several World of Darkness LARP games, and have for years.  In the specific case of those games, where I live, there were the beginnings of motions made on such a culture, and it died.  It didn't die because people railed against it.  It died because the people supporting it had aspirations to make games more like some false image of "theatre" that they had set up - and then people actually, professionally involved in the theatre started attending games.  It died of shock; exposure to real theatre killed the pretense, and we instead started seeing things that really were from theatre, and which have no pretense at all, coming in.  The fastest way to kill pretense is to demand that it give you exactly what it promises.


I agree with this; "pretense" is, after all, making claims to that which you are not. The Swine are "pretending" to be artists, pretending to be intellectuals, and for them creating a visage of intellect or art is far more important than actual intellect or art. The games that are "darlings" to them are games that are not revolutionary in mechanics or concepts, but that put on a show about being revolutionary.  When they encounter games (like the Amber Diceless RPG) that are genuinely revolutionary in structure without putting on the pretentious face-makeup, the Swine are not able to react and generally try to be dismissive because they recognize that it shows up their falsehood; the way fake modern "artistes" will react negatively against art that requires real skill or creativity, because it demonstrates how shallow and unartistic they really are.

I am in no way against creating intelligent games, or beautiful games. I am against the promotion of gaming as something pretentiously "intellectual" or "artistic", and the suggestion that those who play certain games are more artistic or more intellectual by the mere fact of claiming to like those games.

Quote

The story argument and player agency

See my points under "roleplaying games are a fusion"; I think I answered most of this here.

As to the argument regarding player agency, I completely agree that many games - especially those inspired or run by the White Wolf "Storyteller" advice from their older books - strip players of their agency in order to pursue story, and that doing so is contrary to the enjoyment of most, if not all, players.

But that's not the only way to pursue story in a game.

A game can just as easily pursue story, without conforming to a pre-set story arc or GM plot, by making the issues of the game relevant issues to the player characters.  

If a character has something about them, a flaw, a motive, an issue, and you put that character into a situation where they need to make real decisions regarding that thing, stories result naturally.  And for many people, that's entertaining.

Over to you.


Your point fails to address the central issue of my point: that any effort to artificially "produce" story in RPGs will naturally result in a loss of agency (player and GM, but especially Player) and an artificial and sub-optimal play experience.
The only context in which the GAME of roleplaying contains "story" is as a set-up for the play. So if you can say you create "story" in RPG, it is in fact only the "beginning" you can create consciously. If either players or GMs collectively and intentionally try to direct "middle" or "end", they damage the game experience.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 18, 2006, 03:30:59 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
I will not question the specific points you make in this section; however, I will suggest that even conceding the various arguments you make it fails to fulfill the apparent suggestion of your title "Roleplaying games are a fusion".


Hm.  Reading back, that's a fair enough criticism.

The fusion is between the game and roleplaying elements, and of any other elements that are successfully brought in with those two without replacing either.  It's the actual combination of those things that creates, for many, the appeal.

Speaking honestly, it's my belief that many of the games that claim to be innovative roleplaying games are, in plain fact, not.  They are story games, or some other combination - sometimes a successful fusion, sometimes not.  And they stand or fall on their own merits.  But that's pure opinion, as with so much else.

Now, I'll also answer here to your later assertion that deliberate creation of story through play is always artificial and damaging to the experience of play, just to keep this stuff together.

Story-making is an element that can be brought in to roleplaying games while still having them remain roleplaying games.  It is brought in generally through three possible means:

1) By having the GM artifically structure a plot, with a beginning, middle, and end.  This removes player agency, as you've described.

2) By having both players and GM make decisions "on the fly", on the basis of "what makes a good story".  This alters the game experience in ways that some people enjoy and might defend.  I don't enjoy it and won't defend it; it does, in fact, damage my own gaming experience.

3) Through creation of situations, which is a normal part of roleplaying.  The only difference being that these specific situations are created to focus on and put to the test elements of the characters engaged in them, be those character elements physical, mental, social, or emotional.  By doing this, and making it possible for the situation to resolve itself however it plays out, stories are created naturally through play.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
I disagree. I would suggest that for most of the anti-social gamers, the ship indeed "passed" long before they ever became gamers. Most of the "lawn crappers", the anti-social gamers, have entered the hobby specifically motivated by the fact that the hobby has a reputation for tolerating their kinds of social retardation. They are not interested in changing, and have gravitated to RPGs as a hobby because they know or expect that its adherents will not ask them to change.

Can this have exceptions at the level of the individual? Of course. But then, those who are really interested in participating in the RPG hobby will be willing to change their odious personal habits for the sake of having that privilege. While these people who are trying to change should be encouraged to do so, the onus should not be on the hobby to help "repair" these dysfunctional gamers; the priority of the hobby should be to reposition itself as a group that does not tolerate these behaviours and does not wish to continue attracting the kind of people who participate in them.


Just like the RPG hobby should not be depositaries for social rejects, the membership of the RPG hobby is not a therapy group and should neither attempt to nor be expected to act like one.


I disagree entirely regarding the motives you attach to what you call "lawncrappers", but have few specifics to argue from; it's very difficult to prove a negative.  Do you have a specific set of experiences that support you on that point?  If so, I'd ask you to share a couple of those.

Continuing, in order to encourage people to change their habits or opinions effectively, you must accept them.  It's impossible for the hobby to both "not tolerate" people and "encourage" them simultaneously; that kind of behaviour is more commonly, and simply, known as bullying.  

In addition, any hobby that chose not to tolerate certain of those that come to it seeking social acceptance and contact, would by it's nature require a clear means of judgement, whether a body of common and easily-referenced practice or a manifesto - a statement of intented practice - which can rationally and capably be carried out by those in agreement with it.  You've provided the hobby with neither, to this date.  Nor can I imagine either as being more than a series of stories of abuse or a statement of such elitism as to make almost everyone turn up their nose.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I agree that genuine gamers have nothing to be ashamed about. However, to me this issue is tied into the current dysfunctionality of the hobby; the fact that it has turned into a cesspool for the socially inept.  And the reservations normal gamers might have of revealing their participation in the hobby stem from fear of being mentally associated with these social retards.
Restoring "gamer pride" is an issue that is inextricably tied into cleansing the hobby of the terminally socially retarded and the hopelessly pretentious.


I think the number of people I'd consider terminally socially inept or hopelessly pretentious is so miniscule as to not even warrant considering.  In your estimation, I believe that you consider them as a small, but socially pungent, minority.

I'm not afraid to be associated with gamers.  There are football fans, science fiction fans, and fans of almost any continuing work of popular fiction that are at least as socially impoverished as the very least among us.  And yet the people of those groups discuss their fandom with confidence.  The difference between us and them in these terms is not the presence of such folk as you denigrate.  

I'll skip the point of agreement; neither of us has much use for pretense, we simply differ on how we'd like to address it, and we're already covering that ground above.  Good enough for me.  If you'd like to return to it, feel free.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Your point fails to address the central issue of my point: that any effort to artificially "produce" story in RPGs will naturally result in a loss of agency (player and GM, but especially Player) and an artificial and sub-optimal play experience.
The only context in which the GAME of roleplaying contains "story" is as a set-up for the play. So if you can say you create "story" in RPG, it is in fact only the "beginning" you can create consciously. If either players or GMs collectively and intentionally try to direct "middle" or "end", they damage the game experience.


As answered above.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 18, 2006, 02:03:45 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Hm.  Reading back, that's a fair enough criticism.

The fusion is between the game and roleplaying elements, and of any other elements that are successfully brought in with those two without replacing either.  It's the actual combination of those things that creates, for many, the appeal.

You see, I think that Roleplaying is the game, and that there isn't some mysterious "game that excludes the roleplaying" nor is there a "roleplaying without game".

Certainly, I can see where this opinion comes about. You look at, say, wargames; and then you look at interactive theatre-games, and you say "well roleplaying is a fusion between those two"!

However, my position is that this is not the case. Roleplaying is not a combination of the two, its a totally individual game that happens to find itself positioned somewhere in the spectrum between those those if you put all three together on a spectrum (and if you did, RPGs would be a hell of a lot closer to the wargames than the "theatresports").

While RPGs do have a small "spectrum" of their own where you can have slightly more or slightly less emphasis on mechanics; in reality if you veer very much in either direction what you create stops being a roleplaying game in any form.  Some of the games hailed by the Forge and others as "truly innovative" RPGs are games that have simply chosen not to be RPGs at all.

Quote
Speaking honestly, it's my belief that many of the games that claim to be innovative roleplaying games are, in plain fact, not.  They are story games, or some other combination - sometimes a successful fusion, sometimes not.  And they stand or fall on their own merits.  But that's pure opinion, as with so much else.

If you hold this position, which is pretty much identical to my own; you may want to rethink that idea of defining RPGs themselves as a "fusion".

Quote
Story-making is an element that can be brought in to roleplaying games while still having them remain roleplaying games.  It is brought in generally through three possible means:

1) By having the GM artifically structure a plot, with a beginning, middle, and end.  This removes player agency, as you've described.

2) By having both players and GM make decisions "on the fly", on the basis of "what makes a good story".  This alters the game experience in ways that some people enjoy and might defend.  I don't enjoy it and won't defend it; it does, in fact, damage my own gaming experience.

3) Through creation of situations, which is a normal part of roleplaying.  The only difference being that these specific situations are created to focus on and put to the test elements of the characters engaged in them, be those character elements physical, mental, social, or emotional.  By doing this, and making it possible for the situation to resolve itself however it plays out, stories are created naturally through play.  

I basically agree with your descriptions. To me, however, the third way you mentioned is the only acceptable way that "story" enters into RPGs.  This means that anyone looking for "story" in their RPGs had better be willing to deal with disappointment; because while occasionally this kind of crapshooting will result in spectacular stories spontaneously manifesting, in many cases creating the "setup" will result in something that is not "dramatically appealing" but is good gameplay.

So, my position is that since the only acceptable part of story that one can impose in an RPG is the "beginning of story", that means that RPGs:
1. Are NOT vehicles for the creation of story as some would wish them to be.
2. Will create disappointment in people who are really looking for some kind of mutual storytelling experience.  These individuals have the choice to leave RPGs and look elsewhere for their "shared storytelling"; unfortunately instead they often tend to try to subvert RPGs to try to awkwardly force them to satisfy their much more controlled story-making needs.

Quote
I disagree entirely regarding the motives you attach to what you call "lawncrappers", but have few specifics to argue from; it's very difficult to prove a negative.  Do you have a specific set of experiences that support you on that point?  If so, I'd ask you to share a couple of those.

Its common sense. And yes, I've seen it. Starting in high school where you get the freak kids, seeing that the more normal nerds play D&D, and try to worm their way in (and the normal nerdy kids usually let them on account that they have both been picked on by the same bullies and have a false sense of camaraderie).  By University, you have the total freak engineering students (often those who will never actually complete the program; and I'm certainly not implying that all lawncrappers are engineering students or that all engineering students are lawncrappers), who spend all their time in the student union lounge glommed onto the U of Whatever Gaming Club; trying to force their way into the gaming groups that operate out of there. After dropping out, these are the guys in their late 20s you'll see hanging out at the local gaming store making the place generally unpleasant. Apparently unable to control the volume of their voice, rarely if ever bathing, hitting on pre-adolescent girls (or occasionally boys); when these prime examples of humanity aren't living at home with their mom they're hanging out at the FLGS, because they certainly don't have mortal concerns like a job or showering to worry about.

Now, there's really only two ways you can look at these human losers in their relation to RPGs.  Either RPGs made them this way, or they were already like this before RPGs.
The former is an absurd assumption to discuss, given that there are countless of us who have played RPGs and end up being normal healthy members of society, given that there are plenty of lawn crappers who aren't in the RPG hobby, and simply recognizing that in most of these cases their social dysfunction is already painfully evident before they get involved with RPGs.
So if the latter is the case, you can assume that RPGs as a hobby are appealing to them because they see it as something that fits with their chosen lifestyle of dysfunction.

Now, we also see "lawncrappers" in various other "hobbies": Star Trek, Comic books, Anime, model trains, etc etc. Their attitudes and behaviours are the same as our lawn-crappers, and indeed in some cases they are the very same lawncrappers who are aggresive parts of more than one hobby. What they have in common is that all of these groups suffer from the Geek Social Fallacy: They do not believe in forcing people to change in order to be allowed to participate. They say "come as you are".

Our lawncrappers may choose RPGs over, say, model trains, because they happen to like RPGs more. In a few cases it might also be pure coincidence; it might be that there were more nerdy kids back in junior high playing D&D than playing with model trains, so that was the particular hobby he ran into. I'm willing to concede though, that in most cases there will be some interest in the particulars of the hobby; which may visibly manifest as an extreme obsession in the hobby, in fact. Just like if his hobby of choice was Anime he might have hundreds of minmei models in his basement bedroom, or if his hobby was Star Wars he might demonstrate an unhealthy amount of paraphanelia related to "the kid who played Anakin in EP.1", if his hobby is RPGs then he might have maps from all the old D&D boxed sets splayed all over his room and know every last detail about the Dalelands.

But in reality, all of this obsessive behaviour is purely a secondary effect of his particular social illness. The key reason why he's into RPGs is because he can have social interaction there without being expected to be socially presentable.

When I was younger, there were some lawncrappers who'd try to gravitate into my gaming groups.  At the time, being young and stupid, I was a victim of the Social Fallacy and tried to be "inclusive", and I figured that having a guy who was a "good roleplayer" was more important than whether the guy was otherwise pleasant.  But in a short time I came to realize something; most of the lawncrappers are also terrible roleplayers. Mainly because their interaction with gaming groups are really all about them being fulfilled, and not about playing the game. They want to feel accepted, important, even popular; and often bizzarely think that loudly showing off their own particular dementias are the way to get this.
In any case, I tried in some cases to be friendly to these guys, to socialize them, to tell them that they needed to learn not to shout, that it wasn't ok to hit on the female player, that no one wanted to roleplay their wierd sexual fetish in the game, that when you are in someone else's house you shouldn't go rooting through his room, or his sister's panty drawer, or fail to adequately use the bathroom and leave a mess.

But its no good. Under pressure, these guys will leave your group. They'll go to another group, one where they will be accepted as they are. They don't want to change. If they wanted to change, they'd be doing all kinds of other things beside RPGs.  And the process of "changing" them would need far more than just some friendly gaming buddies; they'd need years of therapy, better education, a job, help getting a woman, moving out of mommy's loving arms, whatever. But first and foremost they'd need the willpower.
Its far beyond what RPGs as a hobby or us as individuals can do. So all we can do, in fact, is to tell them "either change these things about yourself, or leave".

Quote
Continuing, in order to encourage people to change their habits or opinions effectively, you must accept them.  It's impossible for the hobby to both "not tolerate" people and "encourage" them simultaneously; that kind of behaviour is more commonly, and simply, known as bullying.  

No, its known as a code of conduct. I don't consider saying "You must demonstrate proper hygene to play in my gaming group", or "if you want to
run my company's demo game at the con, you must not hit on the teenage girls", or a simple "Shouting obscenities at random intervals means you don't get to play with us" to be "bullying". I'd call it Civilization.

Quote
In addition, any hobby that chose not to tolerate certain of those that come to it seeking social acceptance and contact, would by it's nature require a clear means of judgement, whether a body of common and easily-referenced practice or a manifesto - a statement of intented practice - which can rationally and capably be carried out by those in agreement with it.  You've provided the hobby with neither, to this date.  Nor can I imagine either as being more than a series of stories of abuse or a statement of such elitism as to make almost everyone turn up their nose.

I'd say its very simple; and doesn't require a code of conduct. It just requires saying that we, as gamers, agree that we will not allow anyone to participate in our games at home, activities at the FLGS or activities at Cons who would not be considered acceptable people to invite with you to your best friend's dinner party or who you would not feel happy about exposing to a young niece or a nephew.

We don't need to get into legalisms here, we all know how to spot one of the lawn-crappers. They make themselves very easy to identify.

Quote
I think the number of people I'd consider terminally socially inept or hopelessly pretentious is so miniscule as to not even warrant considering.  In your estimation, I believe that you consider them as a small, but socially pungent, minority.

I do, though I would say "socially poisonous". They are causing incredible harm to the hobby.

Quote
I'm not afraid to be associated with gamers.  There are football fans, science fiction fans, and fans of almost any continuing work of popular fiction that are at least as socially impoverished as the very least among us.  And yet the people of those groups discuss their fandom with confidence.  The difference between us and them in these terms is not the presence of such folk as you denigrate.  

Please give an example of a group with a percentage of lawn crappers equal or greater than our hobby's, where the normal members of that hobby openly proclaim their fandom to all and sundry.  I would suggest that these days the "Normal" Star Trek fan (the few that are left) would be very cautious about showing anything more than a mild appreciation of that show to the public at large, for fear of being mistaken for one of those who dress up as klingons to go to jury duty or ask for religious holidays at work for their "Vulcan Pon Farr Ceremony".
As for football; the sheer numbers of football fans in the united states make it so that the relative per capita percentage of lawn crappers is so miniscule that they are not associated with that hobby as a whole.

On the other end of the scale, look at Furries. That's a good example of a group that was completely subverted by lawn crappers who were not particularly interested in the hobby, but were only drawn to a social group where their sexual fetishes were permissible to expose in public, no matter how vile. Who in their right mind would cop to being a furry fan these days; at least without making some very serious apologetics and condemnations ("but not like THOSE kind") first?

The socially dysfunctional gravitate toward "nerdy" hobbies, they also tend to be capable of destroying these hobbies, in terms of reputation first, and then by atrophy in terms of membership, until there's practically nothing but the socially retarded left in the hobby.  We can't fix them, and our priority must be to act against this tide before we too reach a point of irreparable harm.


RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 18, 2006, 03:20:20 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
You see, I think that Roleplaying is the game, and that there isn't some mysterious "game that excludes the roleplaying" nor is there a "roleplaying without game".


Mysterious, no.  Dead, yes.

I refer you to the no-longer-produced Warhammer Quest for the first instance - a pure adventure game that fails if you try to consider it a roleplaying experience.

And for the second instance, I refer you to the equally-no-longer-produced Theatrix - a set of roleplaying guidelines that fails utterly as a game.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Certainly, I can see where this opinion comes about. You look at, say, wargames; and then you look at interactive theatre-games, and you say "well roleplaying is a fusion between those two"!

However, my position is that this is not the case. Roleplaying is not a combination of the two, its a totally individual game that happens to find itself positioned somewhere in the spectrum between those those if you put all three together on a spectrum (and if you did, RPGs would be a hell of a lot closer to the wargames than the "theatresports").


I've called it a combination of elements from both - which differs from a direct combination.  But this grows perilously close to being no more than a matter of expression without some clarifying.

I don't disagree that most published, and certainly the most popular, roleplaying games, are closer to wargaming than to theatresports.  But I think they can wander a fair bit inside of that middle ground before they break off and truly become something else.

Quote from: RPGPundit
While RPGs do have a small "spectrum" of their own where you can have slightly more or slightly less emphasis on mechanics; in reality if you veer very much in either direction what you create stops being a roleplaying game in any form.  Some of the games hailed by the Forge and others as "truly innovative" RPGs are games that have simply chosen not to be RPGs at all.

If you hold this position, which is pretty much identical to my own; you may want to rethink that idea of defining RPGs themselves as a "fusion".


I suspect that I consider this spectrum to be significantly wider than you would, and I expect that's an issue of some relevance here.  Shall we get down to specific cases?  I can provide them with a little looking around, or you can, if you'd prefer.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I basically agree with your descriptions. To me, however, the third way you mentioned is the only acceptable way that "story" enters into RPGs.  This means that anyone looking for "story" in their RPGs had better be willing to deal with disappointment; because while occasionally this kind of crapshooting will result in spectacular stories spontaneously manifesting, in many cases creating the "setup" will result in something that is not "dramatically appealing" but is good gameplay.


That's close enough in my experience, though I'd say that it produces spectacular stories sometimes, good ones with solid gameplay usually, and excellent but not particularly story-like play occasionally.  I'm in favor of all three outcomes.

It may interest you, and may be worth some debate, to know that the third method I described there is one of the core ideas used by many of those Small-press, Indie, and Forge-influenced games that you find so unappealing - the other ideas, which may be where your objection lies, often include:

1) Having mechanics more related to emulating a 'feel' than to emulating reality.  I enjoy some games that follow this practice, so I'd be willing to expand on this and defend it, if you're interested.

2) Granting more creative control to the players in specific forms.  Again, this is something that works well for me, so I'd be willing to expand on and defend this as well.

3) Including game rules that compell decisions pushing towards plot structure without requiring it.  I'm a bit iffy on many of these; I can expand on them, but my defense is likely to be somewhat lacking.

Quote from: RPGPundit
So, my position is that since the only acceptable part of story that one can impose in an RPG is the "beginning of story", that means that RPGs:
1. Are NOT vehicles for the creation of story as some would wish them to be.
2. Will create disappointment in people who are really looking for some kind of mutual storytelling experience.  These individuals have the choice to leave RPGs and look elsewhere for their "shared storytelling"; unfortunately instead they often tend to try to subvert RPGs to try to awkwardly force them to satisfy their much more controlled story-making needs.


As some would wish them to be?

Maybe - but maybe not.  Let me speak further from my own experience.

I was actually one of those people that tried to follow the White Wolf advice on what plainly amounts to building a happy little railroad, because I wanted story in my games.  Integrating the first few bits of advice worked well.  The next few bits made things even more storylike, but began to rob players of their agency.

The three numbered items a few posts back - Methods #1, 2, and 3 of getting story in games?  That's the progression I followed, moving from 1 to 2 to 3.  It wasn't until I got to the third one that I had to drive my head into my desk, because it was what I'd been trying to get all along.

I'm completely certain that I'm not alone in this regard.  No "subversion" was attempted on my part, nor on the part of any others I know that made the same trip.

But despite all that; yes, absolutely, there are limits to how storylike a game can become and remain an RPG.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
*Snip*


Here, I see two major points of argument; if I've skipped important items, bring them back up.

First, that they people you're referring to have chosen a socially dysfunctional lifestyle.  I don't think that's true.  I think that many of them want desperately to escape that dysfunction, and simply don't know how.  It's not hard for a few friends to give them a hand.  Now, certainly, a puny number are intractable and set in their way; I don't associate with them, but neither do I see why others that are willing to do so shouldn't be outright encouraged.

Second, when you refer to the social fallacy, you speak as if were either "on" or "off".  I don't agree.  I'll borrowing from a different statement of mine here.

Gamers tend to be inclusive; it's a virtue. We don’t spend as much time playing ego games over popularity as many others do, though we do play some. Further, we’re often willing to go an extra step to include a friend, helping them along and getting them up to speed. That’s a good thing, all told, and I love that about us. Gamers that don’t practice this virtue (and, like all virtues, it does require practice) are the ones that most often call for the “exile” of the least socially adept among us. Gamers that practice it in excess are the ones that feel that everyone, no matter how unwilling to take part in such basic necessities as regular bathing or refraining from being truly noxious, should always be included, without criticism. Moderate gamers, however, will give pretty much anyone a chance, maybe even a few chances and a chunk of healthy advice along the way, but are willing to send the truly hopeless packing when it’s obvious that including them is more trouble than it’s worth.

In excess, inclusiveness is the problem you describe.  In absence, it's what you seem to be calling for.  I'm not calling for excess; I'm calling for moderate amounts.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Please give an example of a group with a percentage of lawn crappers equal or greater than our hobby's, where the normal members of that hobby openly proclaim their fandom to all and sundry.


In my experience?

MMORPG players.  

Fan-Fiction writers.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 18, 2006, 08:00:37 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Mysterious, no.  Dead, yes.

I refer you to the no-longer-produced Warhammer Quest for the first instance - a pure adventure game that fails if you try to consider it a roleplaying experience.


Well of course it does! That sort of supports my point, doesn't it?

Quote

And for the second instance, I refer you to the equally-no-longer-produced Theatrix - a set of roleplaying guidelines that fails utterly as a game.


Yup, which fits with my point about games that define themselves away from being real RPGs.

Quote

I don't disagree that most published, and certainly the most popular, roleplaying games, are closer to wargaming than to theatresports.  But I think they can wander a fair bit inside of that middle ground before they break off and truly become something else.

I suspect that I consider this spectrum to be significantly wider than you would, and I expect that's an issue of some relevance here.  Shall we get down to specific cases?  I can provide them with a little looking around, or you can, if you'd prefer.


If you would like to give some specific cases, please do.
For my part, I'll explain that I DO consider games like Nobilis and Weapons of the Gods to be RPGs, albeit rather poor ones.
I agree with you that Theatrix really wasn't an RPG. My feeling is that My Life With Master is a good example of a game that really isn't an RPG either.

Quote

That's close enough in my experience, though I'd say that it produces spectacular stories sometimes, good ones with solid gameplay usually, and excellent but not particularly story-like play occasionally.  I'm in favor of all three outcomes.


I have no problem with a game play that ends up creating a novel or tv-like story, when it happens organically. That's quite cool. But wanting the game to be like a TV show or a novel is where things get fucked up.

Quote

It may interest you, and may be worth some debate, to know that the third method I described there is one of the core ideas used by many of those Small-press, Indie, and Forge-influenced games that you find so unappealing -


Could you give me some examples? It seems to me that most of the Forge games I'm familiar with seek to impose story in one form or another.

Quote

the other ideas, which may be where your objection lies, often include:

1) Having mechanics more related to emulating a 'feel' than to emulating reality.  I enjoy some games that follow this practice, so I'd be willing to expand on this and defend it, if you're interested.


It depends what you mean by "emulating a feel".  Many RPGs seek to emulate a Genre. To me this is exactly what RPGs are SUPPOSED to be doing. A Star Wars RPG should create the feeling of the Star Wars universe when its played, for example. One of my criticisms of virtually every "supers" RPG is that they in no way effectively emulate the unwritten rules of comic books, where how badass a hero is depends not on his power level but on his level of protagonism.  Even otherwise good games like Mutants & Masterminds fail to do this; they can't really simulate the "Superman Vs. Batman" effect.
So if that's what you're talking about we're actually in agreement there. But given that you're talking about something coming out of the Forge, I wouldn't be surprised if their definition of "emulating a feel" has fuck all to do with what it sounds like.

Quote

2) Granting more creative control to the players in specific forms.  Again, this is something that works well for me, so I'd be willing to expand on and defend this as well.


Please do; because I've found that almost always this makes for an irreconcileable power struggle in gaming groups and a shitty game. The Players should have control over their characters, the GM control over the world. That's one of the things that, to me, define RPG. And those games where the players can influence the world beyond the actions of their characters are to me games that can't really be defined as RPGs anymore.

Quote

3) Including game rules that compell decisions pushing towards plot structure without requiring it.  I'm a bit iffy on many of these; I can expand on them, but my defense is likely to be somewhat lacking.


Could you give an example of what you mean here, because I'm not clear on that?

Quote

I was actually one of those people that tried to follow the White Wolf advice on what plainly amounts to building a happy little railroad, because I wanted story in my games.  Integrating the first few bits of advice worked well.  The next few bits made things even more storylike, but began to rob players of their agency.

The three numbered items a few posts back - Methods #1, 2, and 3 of getting story in games?  That's the progression I followed, moving from 1 to 2 to 3.  It wasn't until I got to the third one that I had to drive my head into my desk, because it was what I'd been trying to get all along.


You see this is what strikes me as odd; something that continually vexes me about you game theorists; given that it seems that the few of you that get beyond pointless semantics and pseudo-intellectual bullshit posturing will instead talk about what I would DEFINE as "roleplaying", as in what I've been doing since day one and age 11, as though it was some holy grail that you had to discover. It makes me wonder if you guys weren't seriously fucked around by someone; I blame it on White Wolf, as I note most of you are part of what I termed that "lost generation". You never had a chance to see how normal people roleplay, and now you had to go through this whole unbelievably ridiculous process to get to the point where you do what the rest of us just learnt to pick up and do naturally.

Quote

I'm completely certain that I'm not alone in this regard.  No "subversion" was attempted on my part, nor on the part of any others I know that made the same trip.


I'd suggest the "subversion" was on the part of the people who's products fucked you up so badly that it took you this long to figure out how to just roleplay. Your little life story up there serves to make my point about the story-based Swine and their effect on the hobby.

Quote

First, that they people you're referring to have chosen a socially dysfunctional lifestyle.  I don't think that's true.  I think that many of them want desperately to escape that dysfunction, and simply don't know how.  It's not hard for a few friends to give them a hand.  Now, certainly, a puny number are intractable and set in their way; I don't associate with them, but neither do I see why others that are willing to do so shouldn't be outright encouraged.


Oh, I suppose most of them didn't just wake up one day and say "well, I think I'm going to decide to be a hopeless mouth-breathing social deviant forever". But I also know that for any of us there are moments where we can choose to make efforts to do things or not to do things. We are not the helpless products of our environments.  And in the end of the day, they are still fucked up there because they choose to be.
Certainly, if one of these guys comes up to me and says "I really want to change, I really do", I'd try to give him a hand, but most of the times these guys come into the game with the expectation that their lawn-crappery will be and must be tolerated and will see your criticism of them, or even well-intentioned efforts to help them change as "intolerance".

Quote

Gamers tend to be inclusive; it's a virtue. We don’t spend as much time playing ego games over popularity as many others do, though we do play some. Further, we’re often willing to go an extra step to include a friend, helping them along and getting them up to speed. That’s a good thing, all told, and I love that about us. Gamers that don’t practice this virtue (and, like all virtues, it does require practice) are the ones that most often call for the “exile” of the least socially adept among us. Gamers that practice it in excess are the ones that feel that everyone, no matter how unwilling to take part in such basic necessities as regular bathing or refraining from being truly noxious, should always be included, without criticism. Moderate gamers, however, will give pretty much anyone a chance, maybe even a few chances and a chunk of healthy advice along the way, but are willing to send the truly hopeless packing when it’s obvious that including them is more trouble than it’s worth.


Well, you can accuse me of being "uninclusive" if you like, but I'm actually a fairly broad and open-minded individual. Lots of people have quircks or even bad habits, and I can take those. Some people may be going through difficult periods, and I can accept that too. But again, to me it is not "extremism" or "intolerance" (or "uninclusiveness" if you like) to suggest that a Game Store owner kick out someone who hangs out in his store and smells of cat piss, rather than expect that store owner to have to try to make the guy his social project.

Because, at the end of the day, gaming might be a "Hobby" and it may be a "business" (even an "industry"), but its not a "family" or a religion or a therapy group. We can place expectations of behaviour, cleanliness, etc on people in our hobby. And we have to.

I understand that you value that Gamers are tolerant. And its good that we are; but I think that your concerns that we could somehow turn from where we are into some group that unfairly excludes is unfounded. You are worried that we might run out of water when we are drowning.

Quote

In excess, inclusiveness is the problem you describe.  In absence, it's what you seem to be calling for.  I'm not calling for excess; I'm calling for moderate amounts.


And you honestly don't believe we are currently in a state of "excess" of inclusiveness? How many more lawn-crappers do we need to have before you think that there might be too many in the neighbourhood?


Quote

In my experience?

MMORPG players.  

Fan-Fiction writers.


I haven't had any experience with anyone telling me out of the blue that they are fan-fiction writers, much less with pride, so I can't really comment on that. Perhaps its just not the circles I run in, or perhaps its for other reasons.

You may have something of a point with MMORPG players, in that people have no problem with admitting that they're hooked on WoW or what have you; but again, the "freaks" in the world of WoW are like all internet freaks, anonymous. They don't affect the view of computer game players in society at large because they don't create a visible fandom that brings shame to the hobby, they're just characters on a screen (ill-mannered cheating pking characters, but just characters); there are no public "stereotypes" about them.

That is another problem with the lawn-crappers of our hobby (and others, aside from purely online hobbies like MMORPGs): the lawn-crappers tend to wear not only their sociopathy but also their fandom as badges of pride, creating the negative public image that damages the hobby, in the case of some hobbies to a terminal extent.  The grotesquely overweight unemployed unbathed 28 year old trying to convince a 14 year old girl to come back to his mom's basement with him by saying he's a "14th level Ranger" is the only place you need to look for an answer as to why gamers "lack self confidence about admitting their hobby to the public". Because we are already at the point that if a perfectly normal guy tells Joe Public that he's an RPG gamer, that image of "14th level ranger" guy is what will come into Joe Public's head.

The prosecution pretty much rests its case with that, as to whether we need to be less tolerant or more tolerant of those with social dysfunctions in this hobby.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 18, 2006, 09:24:07 PM
I'm going to hit just a couple of specific responses here, and then state my positions on the new things we've recently opened up for debate.

Quote from: RPGPundit
You see this is what strikes me as odd; something that continually vexes me about you game theorists; given that it seems that the few of you that get beyond pointless semantics and pseudo-intellectual bullshit posturing will instead talk about what I would DEFINE as "roleplaying", as in what I've been doing since day one and age 11, as though it was some holy grail that you had to discover. It makes me wonder if you guys weren't seriously fucked around by someone; I blame it on White Wolf, as I note most of you are part of what I termed that "lost generation". You never had a chance to see how normal people roleplay, and now you had to go through this whole unbelievably ridiculous process to get to the point where you do what the rest of us just learnt to pick up and do naturally.


I find this pretty funny, myself.  Specifically, I find it funny because when people come to play with me, and I tell them about what I do in games I run, they say "Oh, yeah, I do that."

And then we play, and they say "yeah, I do that - but not the same way, or to the same degree".

So, I'd say that by means of an admittedly circuitous process, a lot of theory people have managed to dig out what are, ultimately, completely simple and dirt-common ideas that people did without even realizing it, and put them right at the forefront of their games.  It doesn't necessarily make the games better or worse; it just makes them different - more to one set of tastes and less to another.

And, of course, there's also some theory stuff that is pure drivel, or helpful only to the barest few.  That's hardly news, though.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I understand that you value that Gamers are tolerant. And its good that we are; but I think that your concerns that we could somehow turn from where we are into some group that unfairly excludes is unfounded. You are worried that we might run out of water when we are drowning.


Let me tell you a bit about my extended gaming circle and FLGS....

I LARP and tabletop both; in the last month, more LARP than tabletop because some of my regular players have University finals.  Our extended group of some fifty people over a good three LARPs and ten or so tabletops contains, so far as social outcasts are concerned, about three people that the majority of the people in the extended group roll their eyes at regularly, but that are regular attendees at events.

In the last three years, we've had contact with exactly one person that needed to be simply exiled.  In this case, well-bathed, well-groomed, but apparently a compulsive bullshitter that got caught out repeatedly inside the first night he appeared, and departed within a week because a few of our members called him on his crap every single time they caught him.

We have an FLGS we visit.  It has two or three regulars that aren't exactly socially adept, and the managers of the store have enough balls and enough sense that if there's a problem, they simply walk up and say "Hey. See you next week, earliest, or never again."

I've heard plenty of stories about places where it was worse, and I have  seen gamers in stores and at events that made me shudder - but I always need to wonder if those gamers haven't already been exiled to the degree you're talking about, and judging from the way they often can't seem to find a group and need to bitch about it, I suspect that many of them have.

Quote from: RPGPundit
The grotesquely overweight unemployed unbathed 28 year old trying to convince a 14 year old girl to come back to his mom's basement with him by saying he's a "14th level Ranger" is the only place you need to look for an answer as to why gamers "lack self confidence about admitting their hobby to the public". Because we are already at the point that if a perfectly normal guy tells Joe Public that he's an RPG gamer, that image of "14th level ranger" guy is what will come into Joe Public's head.

The prosecution pretty much rests its case with that, as to whether we need to be less tolerant or more tolerant of those with social dysfunctions in this hobby.


You know, I won't even deny the possible existence of such a repulsive figure.

I'll, instead, say this...

The public knows what they see.  If Joe Public only sees that one guy being gross, and never learns that five or six other perfectly cool people he knows are gamers, then Mr. "14th level ranger" has already won - even if he's been exiled from the hobby at large.

No confidence means no recovery of reputation.  

If, just for the sake of example, the hobby is 1% made up of people that cast an image just as poor as Mr. "14th level ranger", and 98% composed of people that keep their gaming habits quiet, awaiting the day when the stigma of gamers vanishes, then half of all visisble gamers are repellent, and the stigma won't vanish.

I'm not saying those numbers are correct by any means, mind you; I'm saying that if the majority (whatever their numbers) stand up, then Mr. Ranger suddenly dwindles in the public eye.

...

On to the new stuff.

RPG Boundaries
By my standards, a Roleplaying Game is what it is because it combines elements of both named things - roleplaying and games - into, as you've said, a singular experience available in neither.  Putting those on an axis, we get a range.

1. Just outside of RPGs, in "pure game" territory, we have, for example, Warhammer Quest.

2. Towards the game end of the axis, but firmly in the territory, we find Iron Heroes, D&D, WFRP and the majority of both the older and the more popular games.

3. Towards the roleplaying end of the axis, but still firmly inside the line, we get games that have fuzzier mechanics, or ones that govern only certain kinds of situations - Castle Falkenstein, for example, which can abruptly cease to be a game if you drop about two pages of rules, or can move suddenly to near the center if you add in the optional rules from it's supplements.

4. Just outside the area, we get Theatrix.


The Story Boundary
Again, by my own standards, spotting the boundary of what is and isn't an RPG in terms of "story inclusion" is a matter of cases.  Dogs in the Vineyard, with clear characterisation, speaking in-character, and a diced resolution system that includes tactics (though different ones than usual) remains an RPG.  Polaris, which is based off an extended negotiation as a dramatic device for playing and story-building around the character, goes outside; it's a Story Game (this isn't meant as any kind of statement on the quality of it, mind you, just where I think it goes).

On emulating a feel

Okay, on reflection, I meant two seperate things by this, and I'm going to seperate them for clarity.  

First, rules that emulate the feel of a genre; if a villlian get "evil points" they can spend to do villainous things, that's a mechanic that emulates something, and one I expect you'd enjoy if it was done well.  Many small games have those, but they also have...

Rules that are meant to emulate narrative pacing.  For example, one rule or piece of advice - it amounts in this case to the same basic thing - from Dogs In The Vineyard (and the only rule from that game that I somewhat mislike), is that the GM should constantly push for escalation in the game.  After the situation is constructed, they are to keep going harder.  Naturally, this emulates the feel of "rising action" - the middle of most stories - in a game.

Player empowerment without power struggle

This one is possibly the strangest case of deliberately missing rules I've run into.  In a few of the small-press and independent games, limits to player authority are handled by not handling them in a very specific way.  That is, when the text of a game makes it abundantly obvious that power struggles will ruin the game if you have them, and therefore you had damn well better sort out your shit together, people do.  Yes, I'm aware that it doesn't sound like hardly any answer at all, but I've seen it work - sitting down with my players and saying "you're free to narrate this and that and the other, and if you screw up the game, then you screwed it up."; and they blink, and then we play, and they pause every so often and we sort out a detail for a second, and we keep going.

...

Okay, I'm not sure I covered everything you wanted, but I'm out of cigarettes, so I'm going to stop there and go get some.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 18, 2006, 10:45:52 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

I find this pretty funny, myself.  Specifically, I find it funny because when people come to play with me, and I tell them about what I do in games I run, they say "Oh, yeah, I do that."

And then we play, and they say "yeah, I do that - but not the same way, or to the same degree".

So, I'd say that by means of an admittedly circuitous process, a lot of theory people have managed to dig out what are, ultimately, completely simple and dirt-common ideas that people did without even realizing it, and put them right at the forefront of their games.  It doesn't necessarily make the games better or worse; it just makes them different - more to one set of tastes and less to another.


You're basically saying here that "no really, its different from just roleplaying it" and asking me to just believe that.
Can you give some examples of HOW whatever you do is different from what I and most other gamers just do intuitively? Because I have to say, from just reading what you've said thus far, it strikes me as pretty much just roleplaying...

Quote

And, of course, there's also some theory stuff that is pure drivel, or helpful only to the barest few.  That's hardly news, though.


No, it isn't news. But it is sort of news to hear an admitted game theorist admit that.

Quote

We have an FLGS we visit.  It has two or three regulars that aren't exactly socially adept, and the managers of the store have enough balls and enough sense that if there's a problem, they simply walk up and say "Hey. See you next week, earliest, or never again."


At this point I'll remind you that you and me are from the same 'hood, though I don't live there anymore. And this statement has got me asking "what the fuck FLGS does he go to?"

Because if you're talking Edmonton, there's basically WARP 1 and Whyte Knight.  WARP 1 is run by one of those sharklike profiteering assholes who vacuum-seals all the books and charges $5 extra on the cover price. You don't have people actually gaming in there, but the regulars that hang out there (and many of the staff members) tend to be of a somewhat questionable character (though, other than the owner, the staff tends to have a rapid turnover, so its always a different set of questions).

Whyte Knight, on the other hand, is the FLGS I tend to think of when I bring up a lot of my "Lawn Crapper" stories. The gang of fuckwits who regularly hang out at the gaming tables there are pretty much living breathing examples of the sort of extreme social dysfunction that I'm talking about here.  So unless there's some new FLGS in town or the situation has changed radically since the last time I was there,  I don't know where you're getting this from.

Quote

The public knows what they see.  If Joe Public only sees that one guy being gross, and never learns that five or six other perfectly cool people he knows are gamers, then Mr. "14th level ranger" has already won - even if he's been exiled from the hobby at large.

No confidence means no recovery of reputation.  


I will concede this point to you. To me, both elements have to be part of the solution. You need normal gamers being open about their gaming, so that the public at large sees that in fact most gamers are normal productive members of society, and you need those same normal gamers making it clear that not only do the lawn crappers not represent them, the lawn crappers are unwelcome in the hobby's activities.

Quote

RPG Boundaries
By my standards, a Roleplaying Game is what it is because it combines elements of both named things - roleplaying and games - into, as you've said, a singular experience available in neither.  Putting those on an axis, we get a range.
1. Just outside of RPGs, in "pure game" territory, we have, for example, Warhammer Quest.
2. Towards the game end of the axis, but firmly in the territory, we find Iron Heroes, D&D, WFRP and the majority of both the older and the more popular games.
3. Towards the roleplaying end of the axis, but still firmly inside the line, we get games that have fuzzier mechanics, or ones that govern only certain kinds of situations - Castle Falkenstein, for example, which can abruptly cease to be a game if you drop about two pages of rules, or can move suddenly to near the center if you add in the optional rules from it's supplements.


To me it seems that the real "axis" you're talking about is not "roleplaying vs. game"; its "rules heavy vs. rules lite".  Please explain to me how the fact that D&D has more rules than Castle Falkenstein (or, say, Amber) means that it will in some way be played more as a game and less as roleplaying?

Its there where your argument breaks down, and where most arguments of theorists, who tend to be biased against D&D in subtle ways, breaks down. As well as the old "roll playing vs. role playing" arguments which are really veiled attacks against D&D.  I or any other average gamemaster could run a D&D campaign with just as much emphasis on plot, characters, and overall "roleplaying" as any "rules lite" game.

Rules lite does not equal more roleplay. It just equals less rules.

Quote

The Story Boundary
Again, by my own standards, spotting the boundary of what is and isn't an RPG in terms of "story inclusion" is a matter of cases.  Dogs in the Vineyard, with clear characterisation, speaking in-character, and a diced resolution system that includes tactics (though different ones than usual) remains an RPG.  Polaris, which is based off an extended negotiation as a dramatic device for playing and story-building around the character, goes outside; it's a Story Game (this isn't meant as any kind of statement on the quality of it, mind you, just where I think it goes).


To me, DiTV pushes the boundaries of the definition of Roleplaying game. Whereas Polaris or Universalis or Capes are just plain not-roleplaying-games.

Quote

On emulating a feel
Okay, on reflection, I meant two seperate things by this, and I'm going to seperate them for clarity.  
First, rules that emulate the feel of a genre; if a villlian get "evil points" they can spend to do villainous things, that's a mechanic that emulates something, and one I expect you'd enjoy if it was done well.  Many small games have those, but they also have...


Done well, these things can be positive. I'll never forget the example of D20 Pulp Heroes, where an "Evil Mastermind" gets bonuses to his Leadership if he provides all of his henchmen with uniforms and has a secret base.

Quote

Rules that are meant to emulate narrative pacing.  For example, one rule or piece of advice - it amounts in this case to the same basic thing - from Dogs In The Vineyard (and the only rule from that game that I somewhat mislike), is that the GM should constantly push for escalation in the game.  After the situation is constructed, they are to keep going harder.  Naturally, this emulates the feel of "rising action" - the middle of most stories - in a game.


This to me is an example of an effect that can create artificiality in the game, when turned into a mechanic instead of being left to the organic interplay between DM and players.  There's a big difference from it being "advice" (which is good) to it being a "rule" (where it can end up creating railroading or other problems).

But besides that, I question how this equates to "creating story". It affects play, there's no doubt about that. But basically, if you aren't forcing the results on the players (or the players forcing results on the master), you aren't going to follow the traditional formats of stories.
Your point here neither demonstrates that RPGs are good at creating conventional stories, nor that indeed it is a worthwhile goal for RPGs to create stories in the first place.

Quote

Player empowerment without power struggle
This one is possibly the strangest case of deliberately missing rules I've run into.  In a few of the small-press and independent games, limits to player authority are handled by not handling them in a very specific way.  That is, when the text of a game makes it abundantly obvious that power struggles will ruin the game if you have them, and therefore you had damn well better sort out your shit together, people do.  Yes, I'm aware that it doesn't sound like hardly any answer at all, but I've seen it work - sitting down with my players and saying "you're free to narrate this and that and the other, and if you screw up the game, then you screwed it up."; and they blink, and then we play, and they pause every so often and we sort out a detail for a second, and we keep going.


So your argument amounts to "the absence of clear structure between DM and players will miraculously lead to players being responsible"?? That kind of the "Trickle down Economics" or "Clean Air Act" of the RPG theory world you got going there. Its the equivalent of saying that its better not to quality controls on products because that will somehow force corporations to maintain quality controls themselves...

And in any case, the moment a player can impose his will on the game outside of the character, you've created something other than an RPG. You might have a collective collaborative storymaking game there, but you don't have an RPG.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 18, 2006, 11:52:04 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
You're basically saying here that "no really, its different from just roleplaying it" and asking me to just believe that.
Can you give some examples of HOW whatever you do is different from what I and most other gamers just do intuitively? Because I have to say, from just reading what you've said thus far, it strikes me as pretty much just roleplaying...

Yep, it's just roleplaying; the difference is simply one of emphasis. I'll dredge up a few example from actual play for you for my next post, though.


Quote from: RPGPundit
No, it isn't news. But it is sort of news to hear an admitted game theorist admit that.

Hey, personally, I throw a lot of darts at the board.  Some score higher than others; sometimes I miss the board entirely.  I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of; I've gotten my ass handed to me a few times theorizing in public, and my ideas evolve faster as a result.

On game stores, yep, there's a two new ones in the last few years - GZ Games and Happy Harbour.  My group tends to go to GZ.

Whyte Knight has filtered down the crowd by a vast margin from previous years.  Same basic people, but they talk more often about how they can't get a game these days.

WARP 1 has a WARP 2 and a WARP 3, and gotten much more heavily into comics and movie-based toys, their stock in games has been somewhat reduced.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I will concede this point to you. To me, both elements have to be part of the solution. You need normal gamers being open about their gaming, so that the public at large sees that in fact most gamers are normal productive members of society, and you need those same normal gamers making it clear that not only do the lawn crappers not represent them, the lawn crappers are unwelcome in the hobby's activities.

Okay.  I'm going to borrow what you said here, go one step further in my own direction, and see if we can actually reach a consensus on the point.  a quick essay for you:

Representing the Hobby
In order to keep, or make, the hobby healthy in your area, gaming needs one thing above all else - to maintain a healthy image.  The image that we have now in many places is pretty crappy, and making it healthy again isn't that hard.  We have three basic image problems, and each one is a kind of person. They are, from most to least common:

The first, and most common, is "silent" but otherwise perfectly great.  There are loads of gamers out there that are great people, but the more they keep quiet, the more that regular hear about roleplaying by means of people that aren't them.  This isn't a good thing, people.  Don't be ashamed - the majority of gamers are totally cool people.  Be confident.

The second is the basically thoughtless.  These are the gamers that babble on about roleplaying in earshot of non-gamers in ways that freak them out.  The group of Vampire LARPers that wear their costumes home on public transit and talk loadly.  The guy that talks about his character to people at his work that really don't want to hear it.  If you're guilty of this, knock it off.

The third is the slightly unwashed.  These are gamers that have taken the idea that they'll be accepted as they are just a few steps too far.  Folks, we need to tell these people that they can't be this way.  A lot of these people are great folks, and may be friends of yours - and if they are, give them a hand if you can.  Sometimes giving them a hand means you'll need to tell them that specific form of behaviour won't stand.  Sometimes it's easier than that.  Sometimes it's harder.  And if it simply doesn't happen, maybe you can't help them - maybe they're just not willing to put in the energy; if that's the case, you decide if you want to keep on playing with them.

The fourth, and the rarest by far, is the unrepentant.  These are the few that have irredemable habits, utterly inexcusable behaviour, and no intention of changing it.  The best thing we can do as gamers for these people is put as much distance as possible between us and them, and make that completely clear.  We're not camoflage for them; we shouldn't act like it.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Please explain to me how the fact that D&D has more rules than Castle Falkenstein (or, say, Amber) means that it will in some way be played more as a game and less as roleplaying?

It's not the number of rules I'm actually talking about.  It's how fuzzy they are.

As a further example, the game In Spaaaace! has even less rules than the basic Castle Falkenstein, and is at the same time more gamelike.

Quote from: RPGPundit
To me, DiTV pushes the boundaries of the definition of Roleplaying game. Whereas Polaris or Universalis or Capes are just plain not-roleplaying-games.

Agreed, with the caveat that I've never read Capes, so I can't say.  Though from what I hear, I'd likely consider it a story-game, too, and it sounds like a really fun one.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Done well, these things can be positive. I'll never forget the example of D20 Pulp Heroes, where an "Evil Mastermind" gets bonuses to his Leadership if he provides all of his henchmen with uniforms and has a secret base.

Yep.  Good stuff, that.

Quote from: RPGPundit
This to me is an example of an effect that can create artificiality in the game, when turned into a mechanic instead of being left to the organic interplay between DM and players.  There's a big difference from it being "advice" (which is good) to it being a "rule" (where it can end up creating railroading or other problems).

To a degree, that's correct.  And that's why I'm not a huge fan of that specific rule.  But I feel it does give the desired effect.

Quote from: RPGPundit
But besides that, I question how this equates to "creating story". It affects play, there's no doubt about that. But basically, if you aren't forcing the results on the players (or the players forcing results on the master), you aren't going to follow the traditional formats of stories.

The traditional format of stories is, more or less:

Beginning -> Rising action -> Climax -> Falling action -> Denoument.

Preparing a meaningful conflict is a beginning.

Continued escalation gives a form of rising action.

Continued escalation eventually hits a climactic point.

After such a point, wrap-up of side parts of the conflict provides falling action and denoument.

That's a story.  Whether the story is any good or not often depends on the raw ingredients of the beginning, and how they're brought on throughout.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Your point here neither demonstrates that RPGs are good at creating conventional stories, nor that indeed it is a worthwhile goal for RPGs to create stories in the first place.

Worthwhile?

Many people like it.  That's all that's really required to be worthwhile in a form of entertainment.

Or were you going back to my original statement about "meaningful"?

Quote from: RPGPundit
So your argument amounts to "the absence of clear structure between DM and players will miraculously lead to players being responsible"??

Not quite.

Specifically stating that the structure is what everyone at the table chooses to make it and that this makes people fully responsible for whatever they do to the game as a result is a clear structure.

Any and every time you increase the ability of the player to say "what happens next", whether in terms of their immediate character (the guy they play), their extended character (their backstory, for example), or the things outside of their character, the way to avoid power struggles is simply to make them fully answerable to the group for anything they do.

Someone says "Oh, I've decided I'm from this town", and another player goes "That's kind of lame", and you work it out.  Like adults.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 18, 2006, 11:54:47 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
XXXXXXXXX


Ah, bloody hell.  Missed a line.  Where the X's are, should be:

Yep, it's just roleplaying; the difference is simply one of emphasis.  I'll dredge up a few example from actual play for you for my next post, though.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 19, 2006, 01:48:59 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Yep, it's just roleplaying; the difference is simply one of emphasis. I'll dredge up a few example from actual play for you for my next post, though.


Ok.

Quote

On game stores, yep, there's a two new ones in the last few years - GZ Games and Happy Harbour.  My group tends to go to GZ.


Really? Where are they in the city? I'll probably be visiting some time next year and it'd be great to get gaming stuff from somewhere other than WARP. How is the shelf-selection in these places?

Quote

Representing the Hobby


I agree with your essay, basically. It might be gentler than I'd put it, but its a step in the right direction.


Quote

It's not the number of rules I'm actually talking about.  It's how fuzzy they are.

As a further example, the game In Spaaaace! has even less rules than the basic Castle Falkenstein, and is at the same time more gamelike.


Ok. I'm not even going to bother to ask how you define "fuzzy", nor do I wish you to do so for me; unless you really want to first make the claim that "fuzzy" games will have more roleplaying than D&D.
Remember, your claimed Axis here, unless you wish to retract it, is:
roleplaying<------------------------------------------------>game

You're now claiming that "fuzzy" games have more roleplaying than, for example, D&D. Is that right? If it is, define "fuzzy". If not, retract or rephrase your statement.

Quote

To a degree, that's correct.  And that's why I'm not a huge fan of that specific rule.  But I feel it does give the desired effect.


See, to me if it denies player agency, its an "effect" that isn't "desired".
Its funny, you theory types always seem to want to give players influence in places they shouldn't have it, and take away their freedom in places where they should.

Quote

The traditional format of stories is, more or less:

Beginning -> Rising action -> Climax -> Falling action -> Denoument.

Preparing a meaningful conflict is a beginning.
Continued escalation gives a form of rising action.
Continued escalation eventually hits a climactic point.
After such a point, wrap-up of side parts of the conflict provides falling action and denoument.
That's a story.  Whether the story is any good or not often depends on the raw ingredients of the beginning, and how they're brought on throughout.


But the problem is, as soon as you create a GOAL of "making story" you are assuming you want your story to be something like a short story, novel, literature, movie, tv show, drama, something along those lines, that follow the conventional structure you detailed above.

RPGs aren't made to do that. If you play RPGs to try to do that you will be as disappointed as if you try to run Monopoly as a simulator of the real estate market, or try to recreate the battle of Agincourt using the rules of Chess.

You see, what you wrote above looks good and sexy in theory. But in practice, your player will find the big bad in the first five minutes and cut off his head.
Or the other player gets the treasure, before he was supposed to.
Or the whole party gets whacked by a lucky hobgoblin.
Or Player #3 decides its more fun to try to run a tavern.
Or the whole party decides they're going to go on a quest to Corunglain instead.

Real stories do not have characters with their own agency, and real stories do not suffer from the possibilities of abrupt endings. RPGs are not story-makers because you cannot control the course of the adventure to be sure a full story will be told, at least not without either forcing the players or forcing the world. Doing this is something that creates a less enjoyable play experience, and is still a sub-optimal way of creating story. That's what I meant by "worthwhile".

If you want to create a story, do a shared-world fan-fiction exercise, not an RPG.

Quote

Specifically stating that the structure is what everyone at the table chooses to make it and that this makes people fully responsible for whatever they do to the game as a result is a clear structure.

Any and every time you increase the ability of the player to say "what happens next", whether in terms of their immediate character (the guy they play), their extended character (their backstory, for example), or the things outside of their character, the way to avoid power struggles is simply to make them fully answerable to the group for anything they do.

Someone says "Oh, I've decided I'm from this town", and another player goes "That's kind of lame", and you work it out.  Like adults.


Um, that's well and good, but it depends on people acting like adults when playing a game. Sometimes the best of adults have trouble with that.  When you create set limits on what the player does and what the GM does, it helps make certain that there will be no ambiguity, no power struggles; you won't get player x wanting the orc king to surrender his sword to him and player y thinking that's lame and having to stop the game for three hours to figure out how to give everyone what they want. Because players x and y will both know that the DM is the one in charge of what the orc king does. They accept those rules of the game, and can focus instead on running their characters effectively.

Not to mention that in an RPG, a lot of the time the entertainment is derived from NOT getting what you want as a player. And often players will have trouble accepting that denied short-term enjoyment for the sake of more long-term enjoyment.

In my experience any game where the DM is forced (by the rules or by his own stupid choice) to say "YES" to the players under any circumstance is a game that will go downhill fast, and one that will be more limited in lifespan than one where the DM can fit the world to his vision.

Saying "players get to do x, the GM gets to decide y" is not the opposite of being adults. Adults set rules from the start, specifically because adults know better than to be making the shit up as they go along. Hierarchy and structure are the friends of the smooth-running gaming group.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 19, 2006, 02:52:14 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Really? Where are they in the city? I'll probably be visiting some time next year and it'd be great to get gaming stuff from somewhere other than WARP. How is the shelf-selection in these places?


Happy Harbour is about two bookcases of selection - if you go west down Jasper avenue to where it actually corners, it's on the second floor of one of the buildings at the corner there.

GZ is in a strip mall right by Kingsway Mall.  It's a full-on games store; shelf selection is pretty good, and the focus is RPGs, minis, and solid board games like Settlers, Civilization, and so on.

And, hey, if you're visiting, drop me a line.  I'll buy you a beer, you can pack my rarely-used pipe, and we can sit down and do something like this in person.

Quote
I agree with your essay, basically. It might be gentler than I'd put it, but its a step in the right direction.


I'll work on polishing it up a bit - it needs to be more "punchy" to properly stick in the head.

Quote
Ok. I'm not even going to bother to ask how you define "fuzzy", nor do I wish you to do so for me; unless you really want to first make the claim that "fuzzy" games will have more roleplaying than D&D.
Remember, your claimed Axis here, unless you wish to retract it, is:
roleplaying<------------------------------------------------>game

You're now claiming that "fuzzy" games have more roleplaying than, for example, D&D. Is that right? If it is, define "fuzzy". If not, retract or rephrase your statement.


Fuzzy rules: Rules deliberate left open to broad situational interpretation, as a feature of gameplay.  This opposes rules left open to such interpretation simply because the designer didn't think of it - that's just a bug.

Game with fuzzy rules are less strictly gamelike, meaning that the tactical elements of the game draw less player attention and time.  If less player decisions revolve around considering gamelike maneuvers (how to win challenges effectively), then more of those decisions revolve around characterization.  Hence, more roleplaying.

The same can also be said of many minimal sets of rules, but not all - WUSHU is pretty light on rules, but directs the player to description rather than characterisation.

Quote
See, to me if it denies player agency, its an "effect" that isn't "desired".
Its funny, you theory types always seem to want to give players influence in places they shouldn't have it, and take away their freedom in places where they should.


"Desired" in the sense of "does what it's supposed to".  And in this case, it limits almost strictly the agency of the the GM.  Which is why I find it acceptable.

Quote
But the problem is, as soon as you create a GOAL of "making story" you are assuming you want your story to be something like a short story, novel, literature, movie, tv show, drama, something along those lines, that follow the conventional structure you detailed above.


The best stories to emerge from roleplaying games aren't quite the same as other stories; they aren't novels, or movies, or what-have-you; they're stories of play.  I want it to be like what it fairly often is; I just want it to be that thing more often.

Quote
RPGs are not story-makers because you cannot control the course of the adventure to be sure a full story will be told, at least not without either forcing the players or forcing the world. Doing this is something that creates a less enjoyable play experience, and is still a sub-optimal way of creating story. That's what I meant by "worthwhile".


Aha!

"Forcing the world" doesn't actually bother me in the slightest, and is in large part what I do.  The world doesn't have, and does not need, agency.  All it needs is consistency inside of the game; nothing else.  I couldn't care less what a book says about the setting, unless we agreed to use the book or it's actually come up in play.

Quote
Um, that's well and good, but it depends on people acting like adults when playing a game. Sometimes the best of adults have trouble with that.  When you create set limits on what the player does and what the GM does, it helps make certain that there will be no ambiguity, no power struggles; you won't get player x wanting the orc king to surrender his sword to him and player y thinking that's lame and having to stop the game for three hours to figure out how to give everyone what they want. Because players x and y will both know that the DM is the one in charge of what the orc king does. They accept those rules of the game, and can focus instead on running their characters effectively.

Not to mention that in an RPG, a lot of the time the entertainment is derived from NOT getting what you want as a player. And often players will have trouble accepting that denied short-term enjoyment for the sake of more long-term enjoyment.

In my experience any game where the DM is forced (by the rules or by his own stupid choice) to say "YES" to the players under any circumstance is a game that will go downhill fast, and one that will be more limited in lifespan than one where the DM can fit the world to his vision.

Saying "players get to do x, the GM gets to decide y" is not the opposite of being adults. Adults set rules from the start, specifically because adults know better than to be making the shit up as they go along. Hierarchy and structure are the friends of the smooth-running gaming group.


I expect my players to get by in such a fashion when playing games like this, and they do.

Yes, adults set rules.  And in such an exercise as roleplaying, they can quite easily set them all on their own, through precedent and by trying things out, without needing a book to tell them.

As for the GM being required to say yes in any circumstance, players having narrative rights over things doesn't mean the GM is unable to disapprove, cock an eyebrow at them, call their actions lame just like anyone else.  And it's only in a very few games that the GM is actually limited where the players are empowered; that a relatively tiny handful of games.

...

And onwards, here’s one of those actual play examples; I’m still looking for where I wrote up the other one.  To illustrate the whole “hitting a character theme” thing.  

The game is Dogs in the Vineyard; the characters are wandering religious judges with guns, going town-to-town.  I set up a town for them to visit that hit on a lot of things about their characters, but that was specifically charged with serious violence – one of the characters, Tryphena, had a problem with being “wrathful”, to the point where this was something actually on the sheet.  I wanted to hit that, so I put in plenty of places where she’d likely be tempted to violence.

And, playing Tryphena, she “went off” in a pretty good spot, blowing away someone they already knew they’d need to deal with, and exposing her uncontrolled anger in front of the group in a way they just couldn’t ignore, being all faithful in the way they were.

Tryphena got pretty screwed up in that fight herself, as it happens, and was laid out on a stretcher to be hauled back to camp.  Mary, one of the other characters, stepped up and laid into Tryphena verbal, and they decide to grab the dice and make a conflict out of it.

The stakes on the conflict were – if Mary wins, Tryphena repents of her wrath.  If Tryphena wins, Mary agrees that Tryphena’s anger is righteous and keeps her safe.  They go back and forth a bit, working things out the way conflicts go in that game, and Mary wins.  Tryphena breaks, and repents, crying; both are changed by the experience.

Now, that’s a really fast summary of what happened, but in the end, it followed the model – Beginning (Tryphena has an anger problem and is trying to hide it), rising action (her anger gets more and more obvious until it’s apparent), Climax (her companion confronts her regarding the problem), falling action and denoument (both of them are changed by the argument, and learn from it).  And, in play, it was satisfying as all hell, in terms of story.

I had no idea going in that the story would come out like that.  None.  I had a beginning, and a way to keep it rising, neither of which took away player agency.  And that’s all I had.

If you have any questions about that, ask away.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 19, 2006, 03:45:43 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Happy Harbour is about two bookcases of selection - if you go west down Jasper avenue to where it actually corners, it's on the second floor of one of the buildings at the corner there.
GZ is in a strip mall right by Kingsway Mall.  It's a full-on games store; shelf selection is pretty good, and the focus is RPGs, minis, and solid board games like Settlers, Civilization, and so on.
And, hey, if you're visiting, drop me a line.  I'll buy you a beer, you can pack my rarely-used pipe, and we can sit down and do something like this in person.


Great. Sounds good to me.


Quote

Fuzzy rules: Rules deliberate left open to broad situational interpretation, as a feature of gameplay.  This opposes rules left open to such interpretation simply because the designer didn't think of it - that's just a bug.


And again, games that are deliberately "Fuzzy"? Because I'm guessing most of the games I think you're thinking of as deliberately so, would to me be badly made rules by lazy designers.

Quote

Game with fuzzy rules are less strictly gamelike, meaning that the tactical elements of the game draw less player attention and time.  If less player decisions revolve around considering gamelike maneuvers (how to win challenges effectively), then more of those decisions revolve around characterization.  Hence, more roleplaying.

The same can also be said of many minimal sets of rules, but not all - WUSHU is pretty light on rules, but directs the player to description rather than characterisation.


I really don't agree with this. Fuzzier rules makes for fuzzier roleplaying, not "more" roleplaying.

Quote

"Desired" in the sense of "does what it's supposed to".  And in this case, it limits almost strictly the agency of the the GM.  Which is why I find it acceptable.


I certainly don't. To me something that limits the agency of the GM is as bad or worse as something that limits the agency of the players.

Quote

The best stories to emerge from roleplaying games aren't quite the same as other stories; they aren't novels, or movies, or what-have-you; they're stories of play.  I want it to be like what it fairly often is; I just want it to be that thing more often.


I think that happens more effectively by working with creating a tightly-knit gaming group that works well with the GM and comes to understand each other's play styles; trying to create these situations artificially will be a poor substitute.

Quote

"Forcing the world" doesn't actually bother me in the slightest, and is in large part what I do.  The world doesn't have, and does not need, agency.  All it needs is consistency inside of the game; nothing else.  I couldn't care less what a book says about the setting, unless we agreed to use the book or it's actually come up in play.


"forcing the world" to me isn't "forcing the setting"; its "forcing the DM". If the GM wants to change the setting, that's no big deal. But if a game system creates an inherent situation where the GM has his hands tied as to either the setting, the system, or the player's whims, its a very serious problem.

I mean, your side seems to get and laugh at the idea that games like Synnabar (seriously) or Hackmaster (jokingly) propose, where players can chastize the GM for incorrectly following the rules or applying the wrong rules.  Why don't you get that a system that says that players can manipulate the DM's setting or change entire plot elements are basically the same thing?

Quote

I expect my players to get by in such a fashion when playing games like this, and they do.
Yes, adults set rules.  And in such an exercise as roleplaying, they can quite easily set them all on their own, through precedent and by trying things out, without needing a book to tell them.


And how is the limits set by the RPG system anything other than a pretedermined set of "precedents" that skip out the drawn out and overcomplicated conflict-inducing process of determining what everyone's powers and limits are?

Quote

As for the GM being required to say yes in any circumstance, players having narrative rights over things doesn't mean the GM is unable to disapprove, cock an eyebrow at them, call their actions lame just like anyone else.  And it's only in a very few games that the GM is actually limited where the players are empowered; that a relatively tiny handful of games.


But your position seems to be that it would be ok for the GM's authority over the setting, the NPCs, or the physical reality of the world to be no greater than that of the PCs.  This would be a little like a soccer game referee's judgement not actually being worth more than the players. It invalidates the role and purpose of the GM and sets up the conditions for chaos on the playing field.

You're essentially reducing RPGs back to the level of childhood "cops and robbers" where one player can say "bang! you're dead" and the other can say "am not!", starting an incessant conflict.  I mean, that's the whole point of the GM's role, to prevent that sort of nonsense.

Quote

And onwards, here’s one of those actual play examples; I’m still looking for where I wrote up the other one.  To illustrate the whole “hitting a character theme” thing.  


Its an interesting story. But ignoring the disgusting qualities of the DiTV game where you can change another player's character by rolling better dice than he does (that, to me, takes away player agency), I really see nothing about that example of actual play that makes it better than my own, non-theory-based play.

What you call "hitting a character theme" is pretty well just what happens naturally to most of us; that is, crafting the campaign around the characters that have been created for it.

I'm sorry. I think your whole trip through theory has perhaps been a kind of rehab therapy for you, getting you to the point where you can roleplay like a normal person.  And I'm glad you've managed to escape the story-based swinery of WW-style play, and the wierd-ass cultlike Swinery of Forgeite play, but at the end of the journey I really don't think you've ended up gaining on those of us who just roleplayed from the beginning and spent the same amount of time working on perfecting our play/GMing styles.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 19, 2006, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
And again, games that are deliberately "Fuzzy"? Because I'm guessing most of the games I think you're thinking of as deliberately so, would to me be badly made rules by lazy designers.

I really don't agree with this. Fuzzier rules makes for fuzzier roleplaying, not "more" roleplaying.


How so?

You're sitting at the table at any given moment, making decisions.  You base those decisions, generally, on how your character operates, and on the tactics of the situation.

Good rules let you do this more clearly - you can say "Jumping over that crevasse is easy", because you know how far you can jump.  Bad rules don't; they make you ask, "uh, how do I do this?"

Gamelike rules push you to think in terms of the tactics of the game.  You don't give ground back and forth, making witticisms, as in a fencing match, in standard d20, when bothe characters are armed with a rapier - that might be great characterisation, but you skip it because you're thinking tactically; you don't want those attacks of opportunity and such.  This in no way makes standard d20 "better" or "worse"; the tactics of the moment are awesome things to concentrate on.

What I call "fuzzy" rules are ones that balance the confrontation mechanically and tactically, but which don't push you to think in terms of the tactical limits of the game.  Instead, they push you to draw on your character.

Stunts in Iron Heroes are gamelike.  Stunting in Exalted is fuzzier (though, again, it pushes just as much towards clever description as good characterisation).

Every decision you make is based on something.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
I certainly don't. To me something that limits the agency of the GM is as bad or worse as something that limits the agency of the players.

I think that happens more effectively by working with creating a tightly-knit gaming group that works well with the GM and comes to understand each other's play styles; trying to create these situations artificially will be a poor substitute.

"forcing the world" to me isn't "forcing the setting"; its "forcing the DM". If the GM wants to change the setting, that's no big deal. But if a game system creates an inherent situation where the GM has his hands tied as to either the setting, the system, or the player's whims, its a very serious problem.

I mean, your side seems to get and laugh at the idea that games like Synnabar (seriously) or Hackmaster (jokingly) propose, where players can chastize the GM for incorrectly following the rules or applying the wrong rules.  Why don't you get that a system that says that players can manipulate the DM's setting or change entire plot elements are basically the same thing?


Actually, I like Hackmaster, and I like that specific thing about it, too - it encourages players to speak up in a way that isn't offensive.  I've never read Synnabar.

I'll make a nice singular argument out of this, rather than respoding point by point.

The GM is a specialized player role.
Where the majority of the players are concerned with affairs relating to their characters, the GM is concerned with using the setting and affairs relating to it.  Just as the GM has some authority to affect the players with description regarding their characters in order to make the game run more smoothly, the players in turn have descriptive authority in the setting.  Neither should challenge the other's primary authority over "their thing" - a player can't just alter large parts of the setting at will, nor can a GM change a character's basic person whenever they like.

If a player is in a gunfight on a street that's described as "Main Street" in an old west game (no further description), and they're in the middle of a gunfight (no map), they shouldn't need to ask the GM about details of cover, blah, blah, unless they're hoping for something really special.  They should be able to simply declare "I run a few steps and skid into cover behind some rain-barrels at the corner of a nearby building" - and they should be completely comfortable doing that.  Now, if that same player said "I shoot him dead", and put down their dice, simply assuming that was a win, they're reaching into the stuff the GM controls without using the normal methods of play to do it, which is too far.

Likewise, if the GM is running that gunfight, they should be able to happily say that the character's coat (blowing in the wind), is giving them some penalties; they don't need player permission.  But the GM doesn't get to say "Oh, you forgot your gun"; that's pushing too far into player stuff.

Now in terms of settling disputes on "who get to describe that thing?" - Let's say a player says he jumps on a horse starled by the gunfire of the fight and uses it to escape the gunfight completely.  Here's the rule I use - anyone can shut it down.  Another player, including the GM; they simply need to call it "lame".  And the person that described it gets one sentence to make a case for it and convince the person that called them on it.  If they can't, it doesn't happen.  

People can call out the GM on such stuff, too - and if it's related to things that the GM has set up that he doesn't think are good to go into right now, he can just say "It makes sense; you'll see." - and at the end of the game, if the players haven't seen why it makes sense, the GM explains.

Quote from: RPGPundit
And how is the limits set by the RPG system anything other than a pretedermined set of "precedents" that skip out the drawn out and overcomplicated conflict-inducing process of determining what everyone's powers and limits are?


It is a series of pre-set precedents, you bet.  It may or may not be one that fits the group.  And the process of setting limits yourself need not be drawn-out or complicated; it can be really, really easy.

The controls that a system places on the authority of individual players in a group may or may not fit the group - because the rules weren't written for that specific group.

Authority at my table is divided between myself and my players as we see fit - the game book does not have authority.  I don't answer questions with "hey, it says so in the book".  Me, my players.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Its an interesting story. But ignoring the disgusting qualities of the DiTV game where you can change another player's character by rolling better dice than he does (that, to me, takes away player agency), I really see nothing about that example of actual play that makes it better than my own, non-theory-based play.


I never said better.  I said, more suited to some players.  Like, say, me.

And, so you know, the players actually broke the rules of DitV when playing out that conflict.  By the rules of that game, you actually can't force a specific change in a character through conflict - you can force them to stop what they're doing right now, and if they push hard to keep doing it regardless,  they may need to "spend" the fallout (points of bad crap) to alter their character in the long run - but they decide how they spend it.

Quote from: RPGPundit
What you call "hitting a character theme" is pretty well just what happens naturally to most of us; that is, crafting the campaign around the characters that have been created for it.


It's possible that you're close.  I certainly don't claim to do things that are "revolutionary!" or "unique!", just differently focused.

As to crafting the campaign around the characters, absolutely, I see a lot of gamers doing it.  I also see a lot of them sending the characters on missions that in no way engage what is unique or interesting about those characters to the players.  

I find that it's a small number of games that are about the player characters and consider everything else a tool for interacting with them, and nothing more.  And that's a big part of what I'm talking about.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 20, 2006, 12:57:11 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

Gamelike rules push you to think in terms of the tactics of the game.  You don't give ground back and forth, making witticisms, as in a fencing match, in standard d20, when bothe characters are armed with a rapier - that might be great characterisation, but you skip it because you're thinking tactically; you don't want those attacks of opportunity and such.  This in no way makes standard d20 "better" or "worse"; the tactics of the moment are awesome things to concentrate on.
What I call "fuzzy" rules are ones that balance the confrontation mechanically and tactically, but which don't push you to think in terms of the tactical limits of the game.  Instead, they push you to draw on your character.


I really don't think this is a question of system. On the contrary, a system where mechanical aspects are clearly defined just means that those technical systems are easily resolved and "creativity" comes in the roleplaying aspect.

I am firmly of the position that a system that does not have mechanics to govern what your character feels or thinks are systems where you can then focus on ROLEPLAYING those aspects.  The "fuzzyness" of failing to clearly define the physical aspects of the game, or the "fuzzyness" of trying to regulate the roleplaying aspect mechanically make for both a poorer game overall and a poorer roleplaying experience.

Quote

Stunts in Iron Heroes are gamelike.  Stunting in Exalted is fuzzier (though, again, it pushes just as much towards clever description as good characterisation).


What I take this to mean is that stunts in Iron Heroes is better designed than stunts in Exalted.

Quote

Actually, I like Hackmaster, and I like that specific thing about it, too - it encourages players to speak up in a way that isn't offensive.  


Um, you realize that this element of Hackmaster is a joke on rules-lawyers and the ultra-oldschool absolutists "the rules are the rules" idea of gaming, right? That it isn't meant to be taken seriously...

Quote

I've never read Synnabar.


Consider yourself lucky.

Quote

The GM is a specialized player role.


I will create a counterpoint, then:

The GM is Not a Player, but a Referee
The GM is not meant to be just another player with a slightly different role. The GM is the one who sets the board, creates the adventure; in a role akin to the judge/ref in a sporting match. His relationship toward the players should not be antagonistic, and his actions should be designed to maximize the player's enjoyment, and derive his enjoyment from that perspective.
The other side of this understanding is that the players do not have the authority to overrule or make demands on the GM. Their agreement upon entering the game is that the GM makes the world.
This hierarchical structure, and this contract between players and GM, create the optimal play situation.
Ironically, game theorists' efforts to put the GM on equal footing to the players is one that will foster an antagonistic play environment. If the GM is just another player, then it is for his own enjoyment that he plays, and then a power struggle ensues.
The situation is further complicated when you consider that part of the GM's job as a "ref" is to try to maintain a balance between the influence and authority of the players; the players should all be equally influential, in a secondary position to the GM. It is part of the GM's responsibility in a gaming group to make sure that no one player ends up dominating the group through primma donna attitudes, social bullying, or other such qualities.
If the GM is just one more player, part of the power struggle that ensues can also result in one player ending up dominating the GM, influencing him and the other players to create a dysfunctional group that becomes all about that player.

Game theorists attempt these radical changes to traditional RPGs because they are dissatisfied with instances in their own play where the GM has railroaded them, created "mary sue" characters, or otherwise made their gaming unpalatable. These problems are NOT caused by the fact that the DM has more power than the players; they are caused by poor GMing, as the GM in those instances has abdicated the responsibility of making the game player-centered (rather than story-centered, or NPC-centered).  Its like if the Ref starts kicking the ball and trying to score goals.  The solution is not to disempower the GM, but to emphasize good GMing skills and the proper place of the GM in the group.

Quote

It is a series of pre-set precedents, you bet.  It may or may not be one that fits the group.  And the process of setting limits yourself need not be drawn-out or complicated; it can be really, really easy.


But why re-invent the wheel? what you're doing in these situations is creating something different, that will not really be an orthodox RPG, that will probably have all kinds of unexpected consequences to long-term group cohesion, and require unnecessary tinkering; rather than just put the emphasis on playing RPGs, as they were designed to be played, as effectively as possible.

Quote

The controls that a system places on the authority of individual players in a group may or may not fit the group - because the rules weren't written for that specific group.


Well, I suppose you could say that about Soccer or Chess too. But changing those things means you're no longer really playing soccer or chess anymore. If RPGs are a "craft", then the craft comes in doing the best work possible within the boundaries of the "rules" of the game.

Quote

As to crafting the campaign around the characters, absolutely, I see a lot of gamers doing it.  I also see a lot of them sending the characters on missions that in no way engage what is unique or interesting about those characters to the players.  


This doesn't require gaming theory or disempowering the GM. It just requires effective communication between the players and the GM.

Quote

I find that it's a small number of games that are about the player characters and consider everything else a tool for interacting with them, and nothing more.  And that's a big part of what I'm talking about.


I see that as a pretty blinkered vision. I'm one of the biggest proponents of RPGs being character-centered. That's essential. But that doesn't mean that it has to:
a) exclude the emulation of genre; which often goes directly against a player's wishes for his character.
or
b) mean that players must receive constant and instant wish-fulfillment or gratification for their characters.

Its one of my big problems with gaming theorists: they seem to be all about spoiled players and dysfunctional gaming groups and some how calling that more "mature" or "egalitarian" gaming than traditional RPG groups, even though to me it just seems like a bizzare sort of anarchic "law of the jungle" school of gaming.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 20, 2006, 01:58:11 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
I really don't think this is a question of system. On the contrary, a system where mechanical aspects are clearly defined just means that those technical systems are easily resolved and "creativity" comes in the roleplaying aspect.

I am firmly of the position that a system that does not have mechanics to govern what your character feels or thinks are systems where you can then focus on ROLEPLAYING those aspects.  The "fuzzyness" of failing to clearly define the physical aspects of the game, or the "fuzzyness" of trying to regulate the roleplaying aspect mechanically make for both a poorer game overall and a poorer roleplaying experience.


Tell me, how much can a STR 17 D&D character arm-curl?  Bench press?  Leg lift?  Do you know these things?  Do you care?  I surely don't.  

Has D&D thus failed to define the physical aspects of the game?  I certainly don't think so - it has, instead, clearly defined the physical aspects of the game as they apply to that system, in terms of what kind of action the game leads you to.  If a game leads me to a different and equally specific kind of action, I want different but equally specific rules.  If it leads me to a different but broader variety of activities, then I want broader rules, in the sense of being able to be applied to situations more flexibly, with a range of description that suits - fuzzy.

Now, as to rules that govern feelings or thoughts of your character, can you give me an example or two?  I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to be sure.

Quote
What I take this to mean is that stunts in Iron Heroes is better designed than stunts in Exalted.


Depends what you like.  To "stunt" in Exalted, you describe what you're doing in terms of cool kung-fu badasserry - which means the rule pushes emulation of that feel - and the GM gives you a bonus based on the coolness of the description.  There are guidelines for the bonus wihich are pretty clear, and the reactions of other players are considered.  But the rule is open to broad interpretation.  It's fuzzy, in my terms.

(As a side note; I'm aware that the person running the game in Exalted isn't called the GM, but I will be damned before I call them a "Storyteller".)

Quote
Um, you realize that this element of Hackmaster is a joke on rules-lawyers and the ultra-oldschool absolutists "the rules are the rules" idea of gaming, right? That it isn't meant to be taken seriously...


Yes, exactly.  And in play, I've seen players act on that "rule", jokingly, and their GM listened in amusement, sometimes actually shifted back to a rule where it was appropriate to do so, and they went on.  The rule made the dialogue into "no big deal" - which was perfect.

Quote
Consider yourself lucky.


Is it, in your terms, theory-bad, or just plain bad-bad?

The first kind, I might like.  As to the the second kind, I think I agree with your tastes enough (certainly, in terms of board and d20 games, that's true) to listen.

Quote
I will create a counterpoint, then:

The GM is Not a Player, but a Referee
The GM is not meant to be just another player with a slightly different role. The GM is the one who sets the board, creates the adventure; in a role akin to the judge/ref in a sporting match. His relationship toward the players should not be antagonistic, and his actions should be designed to maximize the player's enjoyment, and derive his enjoyment from that perspective.
The other side of this understanding is that the players do not have the authority to overrule or make demands on the GM. Their agreement upon entering the game is that the GM makes the world.
This hierarchical structure, and this contract between players and GM, create the optimal play situation.


So far, sure, that's pretty standard, and I could play in this game.  It's not what I'd run, mind, but I could play it.

Quote
Ironically, game theorists' efforts to put the GM on equal footing to the players is one that will foster an antagonistic play environment. If the GM is just another player, then it is for his own enjoyment that he plays, and then a power struggle ensues.


Why is that?  My enjoyment as GM comes from the players, and not from beating them down, but from challenging them in ways that suit both player and character.  Where's the power struggle?

Quote
The situation is further complicated when you consider that part of the GM's job as a "ref" is to try to maintain a balance between the influence and authority of the players; the players should all be equally influential, in a secondary position to the GM. It is part of the GM's responsibility in a gaming group to make sure that no one player ends up dominating the group through primma donna attitudes, social bullying, or other such qualities.


I'd say that this part is everyone's job.

Quote
If the GM is just one more player, part of the power struggle that ensues can also result in one player ending up dominating the GM, influencing him and the other players to create a dysfunctional group that becomes all about that player.


This can happen in any kind of game.

Quote
Game theorists attempt these radical changes to traditional RPGs because they are dissatisfied with instances in their own play where the GM has railroaded them, created "mary sue" characters, or otherwise made their gaming unpalatable. These problems are NOT caused by the fact that the DM has more power than the players; they are caused by poor GMing, as the GM in those instances has abdicated the responsibility of making the game player-centered (rather than story-centered, or NPC-centered).  Its like if the Ref starts kicking the ball and trying to score goals.  The solution is not to disempower the GM, but to emphasize good GMing skills and the proper place of the GM in the group.


I'll defend only myself on this score, for the moment.  While I've been a crappy GM, I've only twice had to endure playing under one - I taught myself gaming out of GURPS and ran games for six years before I got to play in one; I had been running games for three years before I actually talked at any length with a  gamer that hadn't taught how to play by me.

And, you know what?  I can see your method working.  I've run games by it; did so for a long time.  

Your method works; it simply doesn't give me what I want, and - speaking only for myself, here - it can be a recipe for GM burnout.

The fact that your method works does not in any way make my method unsound.

Quote
But why re-invent the wheel? what you're doing in these situations is creating something different, that will not really be an orthodox RPG, that will probably have all kinds of unexpected consequences to long-term group cohesion, and require unnecessary tinkering; rather than just put the emphasis on playing RPGs, as they were designed to be played, as effectively as possible.

Well, I suppose you could say that about Soccer or Chess too. But changing those things means you're no longer really playing soccer or chess anymore. If RPGs are a "craft", then the craft comes in doing the best work possible within the boundaries of the "rules" of the game.


As for "why", simply to fit the group better.

And I'd happily say that about soccer or chess.  If someone looked at me in a game of D&D I was running, and said "You know, we're not really playing D&D anymore, by some standards", my responses would be, in order "Are you having fun?" and "Are we still playing an RPG, by your standards?" - and in my experience, I'd get a yes to both.  At which point, I couldn't care less if we've gone off into territory that "isn't D&D" anymore.

Quote
This doesn't require gaming theory or disempowering the GM. It just requires effective communication between the players and the GM.


This point I concede; it's true.

Quote
I'm one of the biggest proponents of RPGs being character-centered. That's essential. But that doesn't mean that it has to:
a) exclude the emulation of genre; which often goes directly against a player's wishes for his character.
or
b) mean that players must receive constant and instant wish-fulfillment or gratification for their characters.


I completely agree.  And I haven't argued in favor of either.  

If it's the nature of the characters to fit themselves to a genre, and the desire of players to keep to that, then that's what you do, with the backing of all the other players at the table.  

As for immediate gratification, what on earth are you talking about?  

Quote from: RPGPundit
Its one of my big problems with gaming theorists: they seem to be all about spoiled players and dysfunctional gaming groups and some how calling that more "mature" or "egalitarian" gaming than traditional RPG groups, even though to me it just seems like a bizzare sort of anarchic "law of the jungle" school of gaming.


I've never claimed that my style of play was more "egalitarian", and it's only more mature in the sense that it has developed from what I was doing before.  

...Or would you actually like to add "the micro-culture of RPG theory" to the subjects up for debate?  Because, hey, I'm up for it.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 20, 2006, 02:36:39 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Tell me, how much can a STR 17 D&D character arm-curl?  Bench press?  Leg lift?  Do you know these things?  Do you care?  I surely don't.  
Has D&D thus failed to define the physical aspects of the game?  I certainly don't think so - it has, instead, clearly defined the physical aspects of the game as they apply to that system, in terms of what kind of action the game leads you to.  If a game leads me to a different and equally specific kind of action, I want different but equally specific rules.  If it leads me to a different but broader variety of activities, then I want broader rules, in the sense of being able to be applied to situations more flexibly, with a range of description that suits - fuzzy.

What you're saying, if I've grokked you correctly, is that if you're writing a game that's mostly supposed to be about political intrigue in early renaissance europe you do not need or want complex firearm rules; and if you are playing a modern-day espionage game that isn't supposed to include elements of the supernatural, you don't want to include a huge set of rules about magic-use.

This is pretty self-evident. But what I assumed you meant as "fuzzy" were those games where the aspects of the rules that one could safely assume would be regularly used in the game are the very rules that are left intentionally vague as some kind of misguided effort to "force creativity instead of reliance on mechanics".

This is inded different than Rules-lite, since many rules-lite games can be simple but very consistent. I have nothing against rules-lite; i have a lot against rules-fuzzy. Because I think that having crippled mechanics does nothing to encourage roleplay.

As for a "broader variety of activities", I don't see how a broader variety of activities requires fuzzier rules. It requires a broader variety of rules.

Quote
Now, as to rules that govern feelings or thoughts of your character, can you give me an example or two?  I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to be sure.

Well, besides this I also meant to talk about so-called "social mechanics", that supplant actual roleplay with a set of roles that are somehow supposed to "encourage roleplay" when in fact they reduce roleplay to a series of rolls.
But what I meant by rules that govern feelings or thoughts I mean those "personality rules"; either mechanics of character creation that buy "personality traits" that IMO are best left to roleplay, or mechanics that govern how you will react to a specific situation (with the exception of appropriate-to-genre rules, like sanity in CoC).

Quote
Depends what you like.  To "stunt" in Exalted, you describe what you're doing in terms of cool kung-fu badasserry - which means the rule pushes emulation of that feel - and the GM gives you a bonus based on the coolness of the description.  There are guidelines for the bonus wihich are pretty clear, and the reactions of other players are considered.  But the rule is open to broad interpretation.  It's fuzzy, in my terms.

But Feng Shui does the same as exalted, only with clear guidelines that require no "fuzzyness", making for a superior mechanic.

Quote
Yes, exactly.  And in play, I've seen players act on that "rule", jokingly, and their GM listened in amusement, sometimes actually shifted back to a rule where it was appropriate to do so, and they went on.  The rule made the dialogue into "no big deal" - which was perfect.

I really really think that you (and your gaming group, apparently) are reading too much into that rule.

Quote
Is it, in your terms, theory-bad, or just plain bad-bad?

The first kind, I might like.  As to the the second kind, I think I agree with your tastes enough (certainly, in terms of board and d20 games, that's true) to listen.

Synnibar is consistenly ranked among the top 5 worst RPGs of all time. It merited one of the "Darren reviews" of the game on RPG.net (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_4762.html). Its one of those kind of games.

Quote
Why is that?  My enjoyment as GM comes from the players, and not from beating them down, but from challenging them in ways that suit both player and character.  Where's the power struggle?

If you're put into a position as GM where a player decides that your "challenge" isn't what he wants, then the solutions are to "give in", which very quickly degenerates the game into a monty haul; to "talk it through with the whole group", which leads to a quagmire of touchy-feely negotiation with your players where certain players will have more pull with you then others.  Or you can just step up and be the GM and do the job the GM is supposed to do. You can listen to your players, you SHOULD listen to your players, especially if they are repeatedly demonstrating a lack of satisfaction. But its a  situation where the structure and orientation of the gaming group works better if it is taken as a given that the final word is the GMs.  RPGs aren't supposed to be a democracy. They are supposed to be a benign dictatorship, where the GM's goal is to make all of his players have an entertaining enjoyable time, and they concede the "GM powers" to him with the understanding that he's not there to power trip or fuck them over; but specifically he needs that power to make sure other PCs don't power trip or fuck the rest of the party over.

Quote
I'd say that this part is everyone's job.

I'd say that having everyone working with the frame of mind of creating a positive environment is condusive to a good game. But "everyone's" job is to support the GM in maintaining this kind of environment. Not taking it upon themselves to do the GM's job for him.

Quote
This can happen in any kind of game.

Except in a game where the GM does not abdicate his power and does not shrug off his responsibilities.

Quote
As for "why", simply to fit the group better.
And I'd happily say that about soccer or chess.  If someone looked at me in a game of D&D I was running, and said "You know, we're not really playing D&D anymore, by some standards", my responses would be, in order "Are you having fun?" and "Are we still playing an RPG, by your standards?" - and in my experience, I'd get a yes to both.  At which point, I couldn't care less if we've gone off into territory that "isn't D&D" anymore.

And that's a fair enough point, for your group.  It is another thing altogether to suggest that games should be designed or gaming as a hobby should be changed to fit that kind of mentality; when the tried and tested standard of how gaming hierarchy works is what has functioned well for the vast majority of gamers throughout gaming history; and especially when your method, applied to groups other than yours, is far more prone to create power struggles and conflicts, or at the very least a great deal of unnecessary "negotiation" and "discussion" that interferes with getting to the gaming.

Quote
As for immediate gratification, what on earth are you talking about?  

In my experience, a lot of the "gaming theory" discussion seems to be about giving players exactly what they want for their characters and for the setting, RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Its the policy of immediate gratification under the veneer of "narrative control" or "story now" or "player empowerment" or any other number of catchphrases that are just the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of monty haul.

Many of the best campaigns I've ever run have centered around players not getting what they wanted for their characters, and the struggle that ensues to turn defeat into victory. Most players, even the ones who claim otherwise, will mostly choose easily-surmountable challenges to their character and the opportunity to look cool if they have the power to do so. But when you up the ante for them and put their characters in situations where things are much tougher than they would have thought they liked, that's when you get them pushed into truly excellent roleplaying and truly exciting play.

Amber taught me that; that real character growth comes from character suffering.
And years of GMing have taught me that games where the players have it easy and get what they think they want will be short-lived games. If players can set their own limits, then they will never be pushed past those limits.

Quote
...Or would you actually like to add "the micro-culture of RPG theory" to the subjects up for debate?  Because, hey, I'm up for it.

You mean the Forge-style theory subculture? The cult of Ron? Do you really honestly think you can or want to be defending that?

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 20, 2006, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
What you're saying, if I've grokked you correctly, is that if you're writing a game that's mostly supposed to be about political intrigue in early renaissance europe you do not need or want complex firearm rules; and if you are playing a modern-day espionage game that isn't supposed to include elements of the supernatural, you don't want to include a huge set of rules about magic-use.

This is pretty self-evident. But what I assumed you meant as "fuzzy" were those games where the aspects of the rules that one could safely assume would be regularly used in the game are the very rules that are left intentionally vague as some kind of misguided effort to "force creativity instead of reliance on mechanics".

This is inded different than Rules-lite, since many rules-lite games can be simple but very consistent. I have nothing against rules-lite; i have a lot against rules-fuzzy. Because I think that having crippled mechanics does nothing to encourage roleplay.

As for a "broader variety of activities", I don't see how a broader variety of activities requires fuzzier rules. It requires a broader variety of rules.


Okay, we're getting much, much closer.

Now, if it seems as if my point here has been a little hazy and ill-described thus far, I'll apologize for that - I've never argued this particular point rigorously before, despite being convinced that it's true, and you've forced me to clean up my thinking on it to a degree.

So, this is a recampment.  My rephrased position:

1. At any given moment of play, a player is making decisions regarding the actions of their character.  They are guided in their decision-making by the rules the group is playing by, whether those rules are formal or informal, group-built or by-the-book.

2. Rules are, by their nature, limits, and in a good game, that's a positive thing.  A well-developed and well-explained set of rules leads by it's very nature to play of characters that are appropriate to those rules, in ways that that fit what the rules are trying to do.

3. Some rules promote characterisation and genre, often by prompting description or character action tied to effects.  These rules can be helpful in one of two ways; either they put forward a specific kind of characterisation, and support it, or they encourage the player to 'dress' the mechanic in description suitable to their character.

Now, let me give some examples on that third one, just to make this nice and clear.  

In D&D, the ability of a Cleric to turn the Undead promotes characterisation of clerics as people that fight the undead.  Likewise, the pulp rule mentioned quite a while back where one gains bonuses outfittign henchmen the "right way" for genre pushes characterisation of a villian's extended stuff.  Those are specific.

On the other side, while the mathematics on the Power Attack feat are quite clear, and there are boundaries to the ways it could be described, it is open to more than one form of characterisation.  I could happily take it for my barbarian, and descibe the use of it as powerful, uncontrolled swipes.  I could equally take it with a fencing bard and describe the use of it as taking a reckless lunge; it prompts description that fits my character to a degree, but can be described in multiple ways.

Now, I can go a whole lot further down the road than the power attack example, here, but several of the best examples would bog down a bit in this specific debate because they're from games that have other baggage as well.  The confict systems as found in games such as the Shadow of Yesterday, Heroquest, and so on are a natural extension of this principle, though the execution of those systems specifically brings up other issues.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, besides this I also meant to talk about so-called "social mechanics", that supplant actual roleplay with a set of roles that are somehow supposed to "encourage roleplay" when in fact they reduce roleplay to a series of rolls.
But what I meant by rules that govern feelings or thoughts I mean those "personality rules"; either mechanics of character creation that buy "personality traits" that IMO are best left to roleplay, or mechanics that govern how you will react to a specific situation (with the exception of appropriate-to-genre rules, like sanity in CoC).


I can't exactly lead a rousing defense of such rules, since I'm pretty cool on most of them myself.  If they lead naturally to meaningful emulation of genre or good conflict, I dig 'em.  If they put boundaries on character behavious to no evident goal, I don't use them.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I really really think that you (and your gaming group, apparently) are reading too much into that rule.


Could be - but it just me though; this was a small-convention game, not my regular group (who would look at me like a martian if I tried to hook them into a game of Hackmaster, but some of whom would happily play Munchkin d20).

Quote from: RPGPundit
Synnibar is consistenly ranked among the top 5 worst RPGs of all time. It merited one of the "Darren reviews" of the game on RPG.net (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_4762.html). Its one of those kind of games.


Having read that...

....Ugh.

Quote from: RPGPundit
If you're put into a position as GM where a player decides that your "challenge" isn't what he wants, then the solutions are to "give in", which very quickly degenerates the game into a monty haul; to "talk it through with the whole group", which leads to a quagmire of touchy-feely negotiation with your players where certain players will have more pull with you then others.


If I challenge one of my players in a way they don't want, and that becomes clear, dropping the challenge is not the same thing as giving out goodies; I'm not sure why you think it is.  Actually, I'd say it's generally the opposite; going through conflicts of different kinds is how players get the goodies in the first place - if they balk, fine, but they get nothing.

Equally, "Dude, that's lame.", followed by "Yeah, screw it, let me try something else" is hardly a touchy-feely quagmire of anything.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Or you can just step up and be the GM and do the job the GM is supposed to do. You can listen to your players, you SHOULD listen to your players, especially if they are repeatedly demonstrating a lack of satisfaction. But its a  situation where the structure and orientation of the gaming group works better if it is taken as a given that the final word is the GMs.  RPGs aren't supposed to be a democracy. They are supposed to be a benign dictatorship, where the GM's goal is to make all of his players have an entertaining enjoyable time, and they concede the "GM powers" to him with the understanding that he's not there to power trip or fuck them over; but specifically he needs that power to make sure other PCs don't power trip or fuck the rest of the party over.


I find it easier to simply tell my players that if they go power tripping or fuck the rest of the players over, then everyone will simply hold them accountable for it; if they keep trying it, after the group has told them to knock that shit off, they won't be playing with us anymore.

As for conflict between characters in the game, so long as both the players are into it, cool.  It's their play to make.  If they aren't both into it, then one of them is likely being a dick, and I - and the whole group with me - will step in and tell them not to be a dick.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I'd say that having everyone working with the frame of mind of creating a positive environment is condusive to a good game. But "everyone's" job is to support the GM in maintaining this kind of environment. Not taking it upon themselves to do the GM's job for him.


I don't make sure people have rides home, or cook for the group, any more than any other member.

What makes this any different?

Quote from: RPGPundit
And that's a fair enough point, for your group.  It is another thing altogether to suggest that games should be designed or gaming as a hobby should be changed to fit that kind of mentality; when the tried and tested standard of how gaming hierarchy works is what has functioned well for the vast majority of gamers throughout gaming history; and especially when your method, applied to groups other than yours, is far more prone to create power struggles and conflicts, or at the very least a great deal of unnecessary "negotiation" and "discussion" that interferes with getting to the gaming.


I'm pleased to buy games that fit my group.  I'll happily talk about what works for my group, and sometimes it helps other people find things that work for them.  That's not a call to change the hobby at large or an attempt at "subversion"; that's just what gamers do.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
In my experience, a lot of the "gaming theory" discussion seems to be about giving players exactly what they want for their characters and for the setting, RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Its the policy of immediate gratification under the veneer of "narrative control" or "story now" or "player empowerment" or any other number of catchphrases that are just the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of monty haul.

Many of the best campaigns I've ever run have centered around players not getting what they wanted for their characters, and the struggle that ensues to turn defeat into victory. Most players, even the ones who claim otherwise, will mostly choose easily-surmountable challenges to their character and the opportunity to look cool if they have the power to do so. But when you up the ante for them and put their characters in situations where things are much tougher than they would have thought they liked, that's when you get them pushed into truly excellent roleplaying and truly exciting play.

Amber taught me that; that real character growth comes from character suffering.
And years of GMing have taught me that games where the players have it easy and get what they think they want will be short-lived games. If players can set their own limits, then they will never be pushed past those limits.


Holy shit, man.

That quote there?  What you just said?  I've heard many, many theorists say almost exactly the same thing, but usually they were railing against specific games and bits of advice in them, rather than against other theorists (though I've heard that one, too).

The only thing that differs substantially is the very last sentence; that one usually comes across as "by setting group limits, we find the trust for each other required to push those limits slowly further".

The argument isn't for immediate gratification.  It's to "cut out the shopping for armor for two fucking hours and get me to the real struggle; yes, I went shopping, who the fuck cares?"

In my experience, players don't want to cut the challenge.  They might want a different challenge, but they do want one.  And they want to fight it, bleed for it, care about it, and win it.

Quote from: RPGPundit
You mean the Forge-style theory subculture? The cult of Ron? Do you really honestly think you can or want to be defending that?


Oh, I can.  But, as a warning of sorts, my primary line of defense would be a comparison of the misperceptions about yourself that you generate and those about them that they have generated, and things you object to about them and things you do yourself.  I don't know if you want to go there.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 21, 2006, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

So, this is a recampment.  My rephrased position:
1. At any given moment of play, a player is making decisions regarding the actions of their character.  They are guided in their decision-making by the rules the group is playing by, whether those rules are formal or informal, group-built or by-the-book.


Assuming the group is using rules clearly, this is true.

Quote

On the other side, while the mathematics on the Power Attack feat are quite clear, and there are boundaries to the ways it could be described, it is open to more than one form of characterisation.  I could happily take it for my barbarian, and descibe the use of it as powerful, uncontrolled swipes.  I could equally take it with a fencing bard and describe the use of it as taking a reckless lunge; it prompts description that fits my character to a degree, but can be described in multiple ways.
Now, I can go a whole lot further down the road than the power attack example, here, but several of the best examples would bog down a bit in this specific debate because they're from games that have other baggage as well.  The confict systems as found in games such as the Shadow of Yesterday, Heroquest, and so on are a natural extension of this principle, though the execution of those systems specifically brings up other issues. ]


Ok, and your point is? Which of these are the "fuzzy" rules? The Cleric's turn undead? The power attack? Heroquest? How do any of these encourage more roleplaying than the other?

I mean, if you have a game where a particular "stunt" mechanic depends on a particular quality of yours (ie. "You can only do the power bagel attack by including a description of how your love of bagels assists you to hit"), its relatively easy for a player to incorporate cheep veneers of these descriptors without making a real effort to roleplay the character.
Likewise, feats that don't require a specific character descriptor element to function can be done with a great deal of roleplay if the player is so inclined.

So I still don't see how one set of rules does a better job of "encouraging roleplay" than the other. Its really more up to the group and the individual player's dedication to including roleplay in the actual play.


Quote

If I challenge one of my players in a way they don't want, and that becomes clear, dropping the challenge is not the same thing as giving out goodies; I'm not sure why you think it is.  Actually, I'd say it's generally the opposite; going through conflicts of different kinds is how players get the goodies in the first place - if they balk, fine, but they get nothing.


Depends what you mean. I'm not talking about a situation where you give the characters a difficult mission to retrieve the sacred fungus to save the kingdom and they say "fuck that shit". That's their perogative, playing out their characters.
I'm talking about a situation where they want to be the General of the Paladin Army, without having to retrieve the sacred fungus in the first place, and all the players agree that it'd be really cool for them to be the High General and the Being of Dark Power and the Merchant Prince; rather than actually have to go through the motions of obtaining that.
Its human nature: given the choice between starting with a +5 Sword and going on a quest to get a +5 Sword, the player will usually choose to start with the +5 Sword rather than have to go through all the rigamarole of seeking it out, if given the choice: That way they can Be Cool.
And it seems to me that a lot of Gaming Theory seems based on the Players getting to Be Cool with zero effort. Unfortunately, being cool is often followed by Being Bored.
If they are not given that choice or do not believe they have the authority to demand a +5 Sword of the GM, however, then they will be quite pleased with having to go through hell to get the Sword, and then the Sword will be that much Cooler for having it.

Quote

I don't make sure people have rides home, or cook for the group, any more than any other member.
What makes this any different?


Because the GM isn't supposed to be in charge of cooking or arranging rides by default. He is supposed to be in charge of running the game.


Quote

I'm pleased to buy games that fit my group.  I'll happily talk about what works for my group, and sometimes it helps other people find things that work for them.  That's not a call to change the hobby at large or an attempt at "subversion"; that's just what gamers do.  


Except here we're talking about what's good for gaming at large.  

Quote

Holy shit, man.
That quote there?  What you just said?  I've heard many, many theorists say almost exactly the same thing, but usually they were railing against specific games and bits of advice in them, rather than against other theorists (though I've heard that one, too).


I must be reading all the stuff by those "other theorists" then, because I rarely hear them talking about anything that supports orthodox gaming over new-age GM-disempowering crap gaming.

Quote

The only thing that differs substantially is the very last sentence; that one usually comes across as "by setting group limits, we find the trust for each other required to push those limits slowly further".


Then that last sentence is where they get stupid. You don't push limits by chit-chatting with your PCs so they can give you their wish list of power-mongering and prima-donna angst-acting. You push limits by creating e vocative adventures where the characters feel real challenge, real menace, usually by killing one or two of them off or occasionally screwing them over big time, but always with the chance of taking a highly lethal or screwed up situation and turning it into victory.

Quote

The argument isn't for immediate gratification.  It's to "cut out the shopping for armor for two fucking hours and get me to the real struggle; yes, I went shopping, who the fuck cares?"


A lot of people care. To a lot of people, the shopping is an essential part of SOME games. To others it isn't; it usually depends on what the DM is trying to emulate.

Quote

Oh, I can.  But, as a warning of sorts, my primary line of defense would be a comparison of the misperceptions about yourself that you generate and those about them that they have generated, and things you object to about them and things you do yourself.  I don't know if you want to go there.


Try me. Only, I would challenge you to show me that the misconceptions I have about them are genuine misconceptions, and not unfortunate truths. I mean, I have been to the Forge and seen the Cult of Ron firsthand, I have read some (not all, of course) of the Forgey-games, and I have read the theory threads on RPG.net.
Like Patton, I've read their books. And I know what these not-very-magnificent bastards would want to change RPGs to be like.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 21, 2006, 01:09:24 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Ok, and your point is? Which of these are the "fuzzy" rules? The Cleric's turn undead? The power attack? Heroquest? How do any of these encourage more roleplaying than the other?

I mean, if you have a game where a particular "stunt" mechanic depends on a particular quality of yours (ie. "You can only do the power bagel attack by including a description of how your love of bagels assists you to hit"), its relatively easy for a player to incorporate cheep veneers of these descriptors without making a real effort to roleplay the character.
Likewise, feats that don't require a specific character descriptor element to function can be done with a great deal of roleplay if the player is so inclined.

So I still don't see how one set of rules does a better job of "encouraging roleplay" than the other. Its really more up to the group and the individual player's dedication to including roleplay in the actual play.


Again, you seem to expect that what many players want is to be lazy.

I assume the exact opposite; what they want is to play a character that they think is totally awesome.  That means, for some, rules elements that let them show off their stuff regularly and reliably, in a predictable way - good rules.  It also means, for others, rules that don't block them from showing things off their own way.  Including one doesn't mean excluding the other.

In those terms, True 20 does better than D&D; it doesn't get in the way of that kind of player action as often.  Perfect 20 (http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Perfect20_2006.pdf) goes even further, and systems like heroquest and the Exchange (http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange.pdf) go the full distance.

Going the other direction, some players (very likely the majority, really) want solid archetypes and recognizable, consistent tactics that they will play to in new ways, rather than tools to create ones.  They want to go the other direction, and the market leader or something similar generally suits them fine.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Depends what you mean. I'm not talking about a situation where you give the characters a difficult mission to retrieve the sacred fungus to save the kingdom and they say "fuck that shit". That's their perogative, playing out their characters.
I'm talking about a situation where they want to be the General of the Paladin Army, without having to retrieve the sacred fungus in the first place, and all the players agree that it'd be really cool for them to be the High General and the Being of Dark Power and the Merchant Prince; rather than actually have to go through the motions of obtaining that.
Its human nature: given the choice between starting with a +5 Sword and going on a quest to get a +5 Sword, the player will usually choose to start with the +5 Sword rather than have to go through all the rigamarole of seeking it out, if given the choice: That way they can Be Cool.
And it seems to me that a lot of Gaming Theory seems based on the Players getting to Be Cool with zero effort. Unfortunately, being cool is often followed by Being Bored.
If they are not given that choice or do not believe they have the authority to demand a +5 Sword of the GM, however, then they will be quite pleased with having to go through hell to get the Sword, and then the Sword will be that much Cooler for having it.


There's some truth in what you're saying, to be sure.  Characters in theory-formed games are often given much more freedom, ability, and the like.  They tend to start off Being Cool.

So, my players want to play the High General and the Being of Dark Power and the Merchant Prince.  Nice.  I got no problem with that - actually, that sounds like a pretty fun starting cast to me.  But they aren't done setting up, yet.  They must have a struggle built-in to them that is meaningful to those characters, just like any other character, or we will be bored.

The struggle of "obtain power and wealth and glory" is nice, but it's not the only one around.  "Obtain redemption" is actually the kind of struggle I'd be most likely to put in front of the players that handed me those three characters you've named; and if the players thought that was great, that's what we'd go for.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Because the GM isn't supposed to be in charge of cooking or arranging rides by default. He is supposed to be in charge of running the game.


He's supposed to be in charge of playing the setting and challenging the players.  To me, the rest is negotiable.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Except here we're talking about what's good for gaming at large.


You bet.  And what's not good about having a whole variety of different styles of play competing, mingling, under constant discussion?  That strikes me as far better than everyone trying to play the same way, buying the same games.  

I mean, there's no question that the market has a single absolute leader; d20 is king, unmatched.  And the people that write it read a lot of different opinions, even some as flaky as mine.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I must be reading all the stuff by those "other theorists" then, because I rarely hear them talking about anything that supports orthodox gaming over new-age GM-disempowering crap gaming.


And that shocks you?

Orthodox gaming doesn't need fresh support from them; it has plenty rolling out as it is - also, you also see more people talking about how they want to house-rule their game of choice than you see celebrating just how amazing those rules are.  That's the nature of the beast.

I note that your invective has started to get cleaner; "new-age GM-disempowering crap" is much better insult.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Then that last sentence is where they get stupid. You don't push limits by chit-chatting with your PCs so they can give you their wish list of power-mongering and prima-donna angst-acting. You push limits by creating evocative adventures where the characters feel real challenge, real menace, usually by killing one or two of them off or occasionally screwing them over big time, but always with the chance of taking a highly lethal or screwed up situation and turning it into victory.


...Or you push limits by having situations that involve things that any person in their right mind would get keyed up over, whatever their position, and where the characters need to make hard choices.  

...Or any number of other methods.  Why limit it?

Quote from: RPGPundit
A lot of people care. To a lot of people, the shopping is an essential part of SOME games. To others it isn't; it usually depends on what the DM is trying to emulate.


What is served by spending time shopping?  Seriously, what's the gain?

Quote from: RPGPundit
Try me. Only, I would challenge you to show me that the misconceptions I have about them are genuine misconceptions, and not unfortunate truths. I mean, I have been to the Forge and seen the Cult of Ron firsthand, I have read some (not all, of course) of the Forgey-games, and I have read the theory threads on RPG.net.
Like Patton, I've read their books. And I know what these not-very-magnificent bastards would want to change RPGs to be like.


Okay.

Here's a simple comparison.  Take a look at your journal.  Some of it is discussion about things, some of it is you giving your thoughts on this and that, and some of it is you railing against the things that piss you off.  It's not professional, it's personal.  And to the eye of a casual reader, it's looks like there's a lot of groupthink going on there; you even make references to your "proxy army".

But many people wouldn't note that there are plenty of people there that see you making some points they nod along with, and others that just make them wince.  I post there, and we hardly see eye-to-eye on everything - some things, sure, but not all.  Hell, Clinton R. Nixon has popped for a look now and again, and he's the guy that actually does the day-to-day running of the Forge site.  It's not a big "everyone thinks the same stuff as the Pundit" session.

But there's obviously one voice that dominates.  A big, cranky voice given over to making big, sweeping statements that catch the eye in a weird tone, but once assimilated, actually have something to say.

And there are plenty of terms used that offend.  Brain Damage.  Swine.  Incoherent.  Lawncrappers.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 21, 2006, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Again, you seem to expect that what many players want is to be lazy.
I assume the exact opposite; what they want is to play a character that they think is totally awesome.  That means, for some, rules elements that let them show off their stuff regularly and reliably, in a predictable way - good rules.  It also means, for others, rules that don't block them from showing things off their own way.  Including one doesn't mean excluding the other.


Its not about laziness. Its about what the players want from the game.

Some players want to be "always on". They want every little Cleave and Power attack and every trip to the bathroom to be roleplayed. And systems that don't mandate that descriptiveness be included in every attack can still do that, just as well as the descriptive ones. If the player wants to roleplay, he can roleplay it. Believe me, I know; I had one player in my BlueRose/PortBlacksand campaign that enjoyed roleplaying his every swordthrust in combat and explaining how it related to his training and study in the philosophy of the Balance; and how his success or peril in combat affected his confidence in his chosen philosophy etc etc.

Meanwhile, making games REQUIRE descriptiveness for every mechanic means that the players that want to do that sort of thing (which are to me the minority) will do it happy anyways, though probably no better than the would at D&D. But the ones who don't really need to describe every little act and grok that good roleplaying isn't really about that anyways, they will probably just slip by with the minimal possible description required by the rule to allow the bonus or whatever and move on. The difference is that doing that with no real effort is a fuckload of a lot worse than just saying "i attack" and rolling the D20 without effort; because the systems that try to MANDATE descriptiveness will stink much worse if that "descriptiveness" is half-hearted.

Its not about lazyness, its about having a different idea of how roleplaying is done. I don't think that putting descriptors into every action is "roleplaying", not real roleplaying anyways.

Quote

Going the other direction, some players (very likely the majority, really) want solid archetypes and recognizable, consistent tactics that they will play to in new ways, rather than tools to create ones.  They want to go the other direction, and the market leader or something similar generally suits them fine.


Ok but you still seem to be arguing that there's a difference between those "fuzzy" games and D&D and that the "fuzzy" games somehow are "more" roleplaying than D&D is. And I continue to insist that the difference in these things never lie in the game played but in the party playing; and that games which try to push "more roleplaying" usually just create "fake roleplaying".

Quote

There's some truth in what you're saying, to be sure.  Characters in theory-formed games are often given much more freedom, ability, and the like.  They tend to start off Being Cool.


Note that I was using "Being Cool" in a deeply sarcastic way; since I don't think that the coolness of the character depends on whether he can level cities or has the +25 sword of System-breaking.

Quote

So, my players want to play the High General and the Being of Dark Power and the Merchant Prince.  Nice.  I got no problem with that - actually, that sounds like a pretty fun starting cast to me.  But they aren't done setting up, yet.  They must have a struggle built-in to them that is meaningful to those characters, just like any other character, or we will be bored.
The struggle of "obtain power and wealth and glory" is nice, but it's not the only one around.  


Certainly not, but i think you got sucked into my example and are missing my fundamental point. If a game is supposed to be ABOUT something, and the players decide that they want to start with that something already resolved or easily resolved in their favour, then the game is going to go downhill fast.

I also don't believe that the "struggle" of an adventure or campaign needs to be "built into" the characters. I think it can be provided externally from the GM. That idea of the struggle having to come from the characters is usually an excuse to create pretentious angsty games where the characters are already of great power and really do whatever the fuck they want, but the players give a bit of lip service to how depressed and angsty they are.

Characters can just as easily start with no inherent struggle and be thrust into a situation where they must struggle; "save the kingdom", "stop the world from ending", "you've ended up getting this funky Ring...", etc etc.

Quote

"Obtain redemption" is actually the kind of struggle I'd be most likely to put in front of the players that handed me those three characters you've named; and if the players thought that was great, that's what we'd go for.


Really? "Obtain Redemption"? You'd go with that?
I mean, really? The most angsty pretentious pseudo-artsy "i'm going to pretend to be upset about my great power" excuse of all?


Quote

You bet.  And what's not good about having a whole variety of different styles of play competing, mingling, under constant discussion?  That strikes me as far better than everyone trying to play the same way, buying the same games.  
I mean, there's no question that the market has a single absolute leader; d20 is king, unmatched.  And the people that write it read a lot of different opinions, even some as flaky as mine.


I'm saying that because of the nature of most gaming groups, the kind of egalitarian "everyone is equally special" "the DM is just another player" thing written into the rules of a game would make that game unappealing, broken, and unplayable to the vast majority of gaming groups.
Whereas, if you create the game from the point of view of orthodox gaming groups and conventions, individual groups can always choose to go all touchy feeling.

I mean, shit, for SOME groups the game might run better if the entire gaming group is stark naked while they play. I am absolutely sure that my gaming group is not one of them, and would give a hearty "fuck you" to any game that tried to tell me that this is the optimal way to play.

The Nudist gamers can still play D&D, you see, they just privately and personally get naked to do it.
But make "The Naked RPG", and anyone who isn't a Nudist gamer certainly won't be able to play it well. Worse, if you have a whole movement running around claiming that the "SUPERIOR" way to play is Naked, then you'll get groups becoming totally fucked up and then wondering why they're so inferior that they can't manage playing Naked well; when in fact there was absolutely nothing wrong with their groups until some shitheads managed to convince them that they needed to be Naked to roleplay.

Quote

What is served by spending time shopping?  Seriously, what's the gain?


Many games are based on scarcity of equiptment. If I take my players deep into the Wilderlands of High Fantasy I don't WANT them to be able to say "well i'm sure I shopped for a rope somewhere", or "I have a Grappling Hook because its DRAMATICALLY CONVENIENT" *insert rainbow and flowers here*.
Fuck that shit. You didn't buy it when you had the chance, now you have to make due without it.

In some other games, that might not be necessary. Its ok for me to use the wealth system in my Roman game or in Port Blacksand because those games weren't about acquiring treasure.  But in my wilderlands game every last food ration is important because whether or not you bought it or got it somewhere can mean the diff between living and starving to death.

Quote

Here's a simple comparison.  Take a look at your journal.  Some of it is discussion about things, some of it is you giving your thoughts on this and that, and some of it is you railing against the things that piss you off.  It's not professional, it's personal.  


Actually, its Gonzo. Which is all about making the personal professional.

Quote

And to the eye of a casual reader, it's looks like there's a lot of groupthink going on there; you even make references to your "proxy army".


A term that comes from the Swine's claim that anyone who reads my website and later writes on RPG.net is just writing as my "proxy", not writing their own opinions.

Quote

But many people wouldn't note that there are plenty of people there that see you making some points they nod along with, and others that just make them wince.  I post there, and we hardly see eye-to-eye on everything - some things, sure, but not all.  Hell, Clinton R. Nixon has popped for a look now and again, and he's the guy that actually does the day-to-day running of the Forge site.  It's not a big "everyone thinks the same stuff as the Pundit" session.
But there's obviously one voice that dominates.  A big, cranky voice given over to making big, sweeping statements that catch the eye in a weird tone, but once assimilated, actually have something to say.


Right, and now you're suggesting that Gaming theory is the same.
I have two responses to that.
First; specifically, the Forge: the difference between MY BLOG and "the Forge" is that my blog is very clearly, obviously, focused on the writing of one man. Its a BLOG for fuck's sake.
Whereas the Forge claims to be THE forum for discussion of "Indie RPGs". That means it should be a place someone could go to without ever having read Ron Edwards or GNS, and write about gaming theory or indie RPGs from HIS point of view. But this is not the case. On the Forge, it is taken for granted that Ron Edwards is the Leader.

Second; gaming theory as a whole. Gaming Theory as a whole is based on a subculture that, at its core, is driven by nothing more than an elitist hatred for D&D as an "inferior game". All its claims about wanting to "understand how RPGs work better" is just so much bullshit, because virtually all gaming theory starts from the point of view that the SINGLE MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PLAYED RPG OF ALL TIME is "broken" or wrongly done.
They do not want to understand how Gamers play or how to play better; they want to argue that people who play and enjoy Orthodox RPGs (not just D&D, but with D&D as the number one villain) are playing out of ignorance or bad choices and want to impose a concept of gaming that defines RPGs as something different than what they are. Their real agenda is to use pseudo-intellectual claptrap to try to turn people away from playing conventional RPGs and make them feel stupid or inferior for playing them.
They are hypocrites, and thus I despise them.

Quote

And there are plenty of terms used that offend.  Brain Damage.  Swine.  Incoherent.  Lawncrappers.


Brain Damage is YOUR side's term. Not mine. And the proof that the Forge is nothing more than a cult is how the vast majority of people stepped up directly behind Ron Edwards and backed him up completely; coupled with a small minority who criticized him but fundamentally argued "well that's just Ron's way" or "its his site, who are we to argue with him?".

You want to argue that I'm an asshole? That's fine. I AM an asshole.
But then you have to argue that he's an asshole too.
But the difference is that I'm an asshole who's out to defend mainstream Roleplay.
Whereas Ron is just an asshole out to be seen as the brilliant cult-leader of the "real intellectuals" of the game.

I regularly mock those who claim that my readers are just yes-men.
Ron Edwards regularly expects his readers to be Yes-men.

I encourage people to argue against me in my own Blog.
Ron Edwards closes the gaming theory forum because his theory is now Perfect and needs no further corrections.

The difference is that I don't want a cult-leader status, and he does. I don't take mine seriously, and he does.

And all of gaming theory is the poorer for it. Ron Edwards has permanently poisoned the well. Any attempt at doing real gaming theory from a sincere perspective without the hidden agenda of forgeites that  I've detailed above is now impossible because of the weight of all the utter shit that has been dumped on theory and how theory is done, thanks to Mr.Edwards.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you in particular don't want the fucker drawn and quartered for what he's done.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 21, 2006, 04:41:58 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Its not about laziness. Its about what the players want from the game.

Some players want to be "always on". They want every little Cleave and Power attack and every trip to the bathroom to be roleplayed. And systems that don't mandate that descriptiveness be included in every attack can still do that, just as well as the descriptive ones. If the player wants to roleplay, he can roleplay it. Believe me, I know; I had one player in my BlueRose/PortBlacksand campaign that enjoyed roleplaying his every swordthrust in combat and explaining how it related to his training and study in the philosophy of the Balance; and how his success or peril in combat affected his confidence in his chosen philosophy etc etc.

Meanwhile, making games REQUIRE descriptiveness for every mechanic means that the players that want to do that sort of thing (which are to me the minority) will do it happy anyways, though probably no better than the would at D&D. But the ones who don't really need to describe every little act and grok that good roleplaying isn't really about that anyways, they will probably just slip by with the minimal possible description required by the rule to allow the bonus or whatever and move on. The difference is that doing that with no real effort is a fuckload of a lot worse than just saying "i attack" and rolling the D20 without effort; because the systems that try to MANDATE descriptiveness will stink much worse if that "descriptiveness" is half-hearted.


You know, I actually agree with most of this.

I even agree that this puts my group in the minority.

The only point I'd argue here is that the players wanting to do this will, in my experience, do a better job when it is mandated, and enjoy it more because it's been made central.  The thing that they want and like has been put closer to the forefront of the game; that's a good thing for them.

This means that games written to this style may well have a smaller audience.  So be it.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Its not about lazyness, its about having a different idea of how roleplaying is done. I don't think that putting descriptors into every action is "roleplaying", not real roleplaying anyways.


The bare act of description isn't.  Characterisation is; and it is expressed through action and description.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Ok but you still seem to be arguing that there's a difference between those "fuzzy" games and D&D and that the "fuzzy" games somehow are "more" roleplaying than D&D is. And I continue to insist that the difference in these things never lie in the game played but in the party playing; and that games which try to push "more roleplaying" usually just create "fake roleplaying".


A roleplaying game that blocks me from any kind of characterisation by spurring me to look for "the optimal choice" rather than "the most interesting one for my character" is pushing me to think of it more as a game instead of a roleplaying experience.  I prefer to think of it as both.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Note that I was using "Being Cool" in a deeply sarcastic way; since I don't think that the coolness of the character depends on whether he can level cities or has the +25 sword of System-breaking.


I actually didn't catch it.  I don't think coolness is entirely dependent on character power; but it can be a factor.  Characters need to be strong enough to make a difference to the parts of the setting that they actually interact with.  And the three sample characters that you provided actually strike me as pretty cool.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Certainly not, but i think you got sucked into my example and are missing my fundamental point. If a game is supposed to be ABOUT something, and the players decide that they want to start with that something already resolved or easily resolved in their favour, then the game is going to go downhill fast.


Again, you find yourself in total agreement with me and the main body of theory.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
I also don't believe that the "struggle" of an adventure or campaign needs to be "built into" the characters. I think it can be provided externally from the GM. That idea of the struggle having to come from the characters is usually an excuse to create pretentious angsty games where the characters are already of great power and really do whatever the fuck they want, but the players give a bit of lip service to how depressed and angsty they are.

Characters can just as easily start with no inherent struggle and be thrust into a situation where they must struggle; "save the kingdom", "stop the world from ending", "you've ended up getting this funky Ring...", etc etc.


To me, the game hasn't really started until the struggle is known, and the characters have commited to it.  Everything before that is a prelude; it might be interesting, but it's not what I go to the table for.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Really? "Obtain Redemption"? You'd go with that?
I mean, really? The most angsty pretentious pseudo-artsy "i'm going to pretend to be upset about my great power" excuse of all?


"Pretend to be upset?" Hell, no.  That's ass.

"Escape the wrath of a powerful and righteous God by putting right the wrongs I commited to obtain my power, and struggle with the fact that I really like my great power and don't want to give it up, but don't want to get struck down, either." - that's a quest for redemption.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I'm saying that because of the nature of most gaming groups, the kind of egalitarian "everyone is equally special" "the DM is just another player" thing written into the rules of a game would make that game unappealing, broken, and unplayable to the vast majority of gaming groups.
Whereas, if you create the game from the point of view of orthodox gaming groups and conventions, individual groups can always choose to go all touchy feeling.

I mean, shit, for SOME groups the game might run better if the entire gaming group is stark naked while they play. I am absolutely sure that my gaming group is not one of them, and would give a hearty "fuck you" to any game that tried to tell me that this is the optimal way to play.

The Nudist gamers can still play D&D, you see, they just privately and personally get naked to do it.
But make "The Naked RPG", and anyone who isn't a Nudist gamer certainly won't be able to play it well. Worse, if you have a whole movement running around claiming that the "SUPERIOR" way to play is Naked, then you'll get groups becoming totally fucked up and then wondering why they're so inferior that they can't manage playing Naked well; when in fact there was absolutely nothing wrong with their groups until some shitheads managed to convince them that they needed to be Naked to roleplay.


You honestly believe that every game should try to appeal to all kinds of players equally?  I don't.  We have a game for that.  What we have less of are games that appeal to the people that want a narrower focus.

I've never played naked, for the record.  But considering that somewhat over half of my players are female, and in their mid-20s...

*Ahem*

The whole "my way is superior to yours" thing doesn't really make me hot, either; it's just another form of pretension.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Many games are based on scarcity of equiptment. If I take my players deep into the Wilderlands of High Fantasy I don't WANT them to be able to say "well i'm sure I shopped for a rope somewhere", or "I have a Grappling Hook because its DRAMATICALLY CONVENIENT" *insert rainbow and flowers here*.
Fuck that shit. You didn't buy it when you had the chance, now you have to make due without it.

In some other games, that might not be necessary. Its ok for me to use the wealth system in my Roman game or in Port Blacksand because those games weren't about acquiring treasure.  But in my wilderlands game every last food ration is important because whether or not you bought it or got it somewhere can mean the diff between living and starving to death.


Okay.  This, I can agree with.  Makes sense.

Quote
Actually, its Gonzo. Which is all about making the personal professional.


Which most people can't tell; most people think of "Gonzo" as the guy from the Muppet show.

Quote
A term that comes from the Swine's claim that anyone who reads my website and later writes on RPG.net is just writing as my "proxy", not writing their own opinions.


Again, true.  But I'm talking perception here, not reality.

Quote
Right, and now you're suggesting that Gaming theory is the same.
I have two responses to that.
First; specifically, the Forge: the difference between MY BLOG and "the Forge" is that my blog is very clearly, obviously, focused on the writing of one man. Its a BLOG for fuck's sake.
Whereas the Forge claims to be THE forum for discussion of "Indie RPGs". That means it should be a place someone could go to without ever having read Ron Edwards or GNS, and write about gaming theory or indie RPGs from HIS point of view. But this is not the case. On the Forge, it is taken for granted that Ron Edwards is the Leader.


The Forge is the center of the Indie game movement.  Which is distinct from the small-press game movement, or even the yet smaller and stranger Ransom game movement.

And Ron Edwards isn't the only leader.  There are quite a few.  He just gets the most press, because he's the most inflammatory.

Quote
Second; gaming theory as a whole. Gaming Theory as a whole is based on a subculture that, at its core, is driven by nothing more than an elitist hatred for D&D as an "inferior game". All its claims about wanting to "understand how RPGs work better" is just so much bullshit, because virtually all gaming theory starts from the point of view that the SINGLE MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PLAYED RPG OF ALL TIME is "broken" or wrongly done.

They do not want to understand how Gamers play or how to play better; they want to argue that people who play and enjoy Orthodox RPGs (not just D&D, but with D&D as the number one villain) are playing out of ignorance or bad choices and want to impose a concept of gaming that defines RPGs as something different than what they are. Their real agenda is to use pseudo-intellectual claptrap to try to turn people away from playing conventional RPGs and make them feel stupid or inferior for playing them.
They are hypocrites, and thus I despise them.


Uh, nope.

If you want to criticize theorists on the basis of their hidden agenda, go with "They had really shitty gaming experiences, and wanted to remake their gaming so they wouldn't have to put up with that crap." - it's close enough to almost be true in many cases.

Back in the day, before the Forge, most theorists didn't give a damn about the whole of the hobby.  They cared about their play experiences,  not those of anyone else.  They were basically thinking out loud, and then hooking up with people that had similar thoughts.  And when they got play experiences that they really like, most of them thought "Hey, this is really cool.  I should tell these other guys that think like me about this, so they can see just how cool it is."  and by sharing with each other, they found people that they're interested in sharing ideas with individually.  

Later, around the same time the Forge was developing, a lot of theorists got questioned on how to do X and Y and Z, and they started saying "Look, your gaming is your concern.  If you want to know what I think, I already wrote it down.  Go read it; but understand that like you, I'm here to get the gaming I want first and foremost." - they were even good enough to provide links, which was pretty nice of them, considering that they weren't doing it to change the hobby, just their own gaming.

The whole idea of taking theory out of those groups and making games for sale based on it is actually pretty recent.  The idea of making it "friendly" to outsiders is also pretty recent.  And there are plenty of people still in the theory community that think in terms of "I'm here to work on my own play; what you get out of this is totally incidental to me." - these people contrast pretty readily with the people making games and selling them and getting excited about how this is creating a whole new "kind" of gaming.  But they all know each other, and hang out in the same places, so it looks really confusing from the outside.  That's just how it is, and I don't see any evil agenda there.

Quote
Brain Damage is YOUR side's term. Not mine. And the proof that the Forge is nothing more than a cult is how the vast majority of people stepped up directly behind Ron Edwards and backed him up completely; coupled with a small minority who criticized him but fundamentally argued "well that's just Ron's way" or "its his site, who are we to argue with him?".


I did neither.  I was not alone.

Quote
You want to argue that I'm an asshole? That's fine. I AM an asshole.
But then you have to argue that he's an asshole too.
But the difference is that I'm an asshole who's out to defend mainstream Roleplay.
Whereas Ron is just an asshole out to be seen as the brilliant cult-leader of the "real intellectuals" of the game.


You're both cantakerous bastards.  I like cantankerous bastards; they think things I would never have come up with on my own.  And I don't see him trying to be a "cult leader" at all.

Really, you both remind me of Dennis Leary's character in the film Demolition Man, who I enjoyed immensely.

Quote
I regularly mock those who claim that my readers are just yes-men.
Ron Edwards regularly expects his readers to be Yes-men.

I encourage people to argue against me in my own Blog.
Ron Edwards closes the gaming theory forum because his theory is now Perfect and needs no further corrections.


Actually, he was quite willing to argue with me on any point I chose, and so far as I know, closed the forum because it was going in circles.  

I've been really tempted to challenge him to a debate of this kind sometime in the future, though.

Quote
And all of gaming theory is the poorer for it. Ron Edwards has permanently poisoned the well. Any attempt at doing real gaming theory from a sincere perspective without the hidden agenda of forgeites that  I've detailed above is now impossible because of the weight of all the utter shit that has been dumped on theory and how theory is done, thanks to Mr.Edwards.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you in particular don't want the fucker drawn and quartered for what he's done.


I welcome opposing viewpoints to mine.  Always.  I prefer that they aim for my thinking rather than for my dignity, but I'm willing to take some indignity so long as my thinking is also challenged.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 21, 2006, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

The only point I'd argue here is that the players wanting to do this will, in my experience, do a better job when it is mandated, and enjoy it more because it's been made central.  The thing that they want and like has been put closer to the forefront of the game; that's a good thing for them.


But to me, its the case of the "one sour apple spoils the bunch" scenario.  When you're using a system that doesn't make this MANDATORY, then the characters who do use descriptiveness in combat don't ruin it for the rest of the group.
But when it is MANDATORY, then the players who have no interest in this will end up either doing it half-heartedly or will do it as an excuse for munchkin behaviour (always using the most "Powerful" description they can to get the best advantage), and this WILL ruin the game for everyone.


Quote

A roleplaying game that blocks me from any kind of characterisation by spurring me to look for "the optimal choice" rather than "the most interesting one for my character" is pushing me to think of it more as a game instead of a roleplaying experience.  I prefer to think of it as both.


See, the point is that if you have a group of people, some of whom like to smoke and others don't, then its pretty fucking shitheaded to forbid smoking in this group and screw the people that like to smoke; I get that, obviously.

But its FAR more shitheaded to REQUIRE the non-smokers to start smoking just because the smokers really like it.
Wouldn't you agree the ideal would be a situation where the smokers can smoke and the non-smokers can choose not to?

There isn't a game alive that doesn't push players toward the "Optimal choice": If finding away to depict your Love of Bagels as a characteristic into an attack will give you a +5 bonus, then you can bet that a player who wants to be "Optimal" will find a way to "roleplay" (used with high sarcasm) their love of Bagels. Not because they want to be better roleplayers, but because they want their +5.  Just as surely as if Kicks do 1d8 and punches do 1d6, you'll get certain players using nothing but kicks, and sense and roleplaying be damned.

You are talking, really, about two different situations. One is encouraging Roleplaying, the other is making sure players aren't just powergaming/minmaxing their tactical choices rather than doing what makes the most sense for their character.

The former can't be encouraged by rules. That is my position. There is no such thing as a system that "encourages roleplaying": There may be a system that "encourages fake descriptiveness and pretense of roleplay"; but ironically in my experience these systems tend to hamstring real roleplaying (because then the characters are faced with a choice between "real" roleplaying with no reward in the system or "pretense of roleplay" with a reward, and they'll choose the pretense instead of the real immersion).

The latter has to be dealt with by the rules, but it doesn't fundamentally have to do with trying to convince the character that he "really ought to roleplay instead of just always doing kicks because they do a d8", it has to do with finding ways to make those D8 kicks less appealing.

Quote

I actually didn't catch it.  I don't think coolness is entirely dependent on character power; but it can be a factor.  Characters need to be strong enough to make a difference to the parts of the setting that they actually interact with.  And the three sample characters that you provided actually strike me as pretty cool.


I have run campaigns of Amber where the characters are literally godlings, and campaigns of Call of Cthulhu where the characters were essentially totally normal, and both have been cool.

But my point is you can't just be "given" cool. Its like: you can premake a character to 10th level in D&D, or you can make a 1st level character and roleplay him up to 10th. The pre-made 10th level character will NEVER seem like the character that's been roleplayed up to 10th. Why? because he will be created from scratch; he won't have any of the wierd advantages or disadvantages the other char might have amassed over weeks of play; he won't have the less than optimal advancement choices that a character might have been forced to make (taking a feat at lv 3 that's really good for lv.3 but close to useless at level 10); he'll always be ideal because he's sprung from the forehead of the player with no prior history. Likewise, the character that has been played through will be much deeper and much more profound.
Now, they both might start as Merchant Princes. But the premade one will be a kind of Jerry Bruckheimer Merchant Prince, created by commitee to fit the unidimensional stereotype of cool; while the one that has been played up to 10th level will be cool in ways the "jerry" character could never possibly be, because I as a DM will have made the player sweat blood from his testicles to get that character to being a Merchant Prince.

Quote

Again, you find yourself in total agreement with me and the main body of theory.  


You keep saying that but everything I've seen about game theory tells me the opposite. If they really had these views, then I wouldn't have such issues with them.

Quote

To me, the game hasn't really started until the struggle is known, and the characters have commited to it.  Everything before that is a prelude; it might be interesting, but it's not what I go to the table for.


I agree that the struggle or struggles usually should be defined early in any campaign; but I still don't feel that they have to come from the characters themselves. It can come from the GM and where he wants to take the campaign, assuming the characters choose to go with it. If they don't, then they can find other struggles.

Also, there's nothing wrong at all with pastiche, no matter how much theorists hate "simulationism"; some of the best games have no inherent struggle as a theme but rather the "struggle" of wanderlust, travelling through a world to discover it and grow and learn.

Quote

"Pretend to be upset?" Hell, no.  That's ass.
"Escape the wrath of a powerful and righteous God by putting right the wrongs I commited to obtain my power, and struggle with the fact that I really like my great power and don't want to give it up, but don't want to get struck down, either." - that's a quest for redemption.  


My players, at least, wouldn't care for that sort of thing.  Why give them great power for nothing only to take it away? Why not start them without power and give them the much more entertaining struggle to obtain it, and then let them use it with the knowledge and satisfaction that they worked hard to get it?

Quote

You honestly believe that every game should try to appeal to all kinds of players equally?  I don't.  We have a game for that.  What we have less of are games that appeal to the people that want a narrower focus.


I don't believe that every game should have to appeal to all kinds of gamers equally. I do believe that the most successful games are those that will have appeal to the largest varieties of gamers. Not many gamers are going to be drawn to Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, and to suggest that we must change the industry to focus on those kinds of games is irresponsible.

Quote

The whole "my way is superior to yours" thing doesn't really make me hot, either; it's just another form of pretension.


Bully for you. But you must admit that it is something that is endemic in Gaming Theory. The vast majority of gaming theorists believe their style of roleplay is superior because of how much time they spend inventing made-up terms for it. They convince the stupid, young, and innocent that they too must use stupid made-up terms and try to "optimize their group" and "discuss narrative" in order to have the "superior" gaming experience, and in so doing fuck up these poor kids for life.

Quote

Which most people can't tell; most people think of "Gonzo" as the guy from the Muppet show.


Well, people who know anything about journalism, or Hunter S. Thompson or whatever will grok what I'm doing. For the ones who don't, that just makes it all the more amusing.

Quote

The Forge is the center of the Indie game movement.  Which is distinct from the small-press game movement, or even the yet smaller and stranger Ransom game movement.
And Ron Edwards isn't the only leader.  There are quite a few.  He just gets the most press, because he's the most inflammatory.


From what I've seen of how the rest of the Forge slowly orbits around Ron Edward's rectum, I would have to say he is "the Leader".

Quote

If you want to criticize theorists on the basis of their hidden agenda, go with "They had really shitty gaming experiences, and wanted to remake their gaming so they wouldn't have to put up with that crap." - it's close enough to almost be true in many cases.


But its also "my shitty gaming experiences must be solved by my intellectual diarrhea and the same is what will help others; I am so smart"!

Quote

Back in the day, before the Forge, most theorists didn't give a damn about the whole of the hobby.  They cared about their play experiences,  not those of anyone else.  They were basically thinking out loud, and then hooking up with people that had similar thoughts.  And when they got play experiences that they really like, most of them thought "Hey, this is really cool.  I should tell these other guys that think like me about this, so they can see just how cool it is."  and by sharing with each other, they found people that they're interested in sharing ideas with individually.  

Later, around the same time the Forge was developing, a lot of theorists got questioned on how to do X and Y and Z, and they started saying "Look, your gaming is your concern.  If you want to know what I think, I already wrote it down.  Go read it; but understand that like you, I'm here to get the gaming I want first and foremost." - they were even good enough to provide links, which was pretty nice of them, considering that they weren't doing it to change the hobby, just their own gaming.

The whole idea of taking theory out of those groups and making games for sale based on it is actually pretty recent.  The idea of making it "friendly" to outsiders is also pretty recent.  And there are plenty of people still in the theory community that think in terms of "I'm here to work on my own play; what you get out of this is totally incidental to me." - these people contrast pretty readily with the people making games and selling them and getting excited about how this is creating a whole new "kind" of gaming.  But they all know each other, and hang out in the same places, so it looks really confusing from the outside.  That's just how it is, and I don't see any evil agenda there.  


With all due respect, Bullshit. GNS wasn't created as one guy's solution to his own little problems, It was created, marketed and promoted as "the solution to all Gaming's problems", and what would supposedly be used to create (at different times and based on different twisted interpretations of same) the best gamers, the best gaming groups and the best games EVAR.  And all gaming theory, thanks to the pressure and omnipresence of the forge, will sooner or later be FORCED to be interpreted through GNS, whether the original theorist wants it to or not, because of the Cult of Ron.
They created their Forge games on the basis that these are "better designed" games than normal RPGs, which are supposedly sub-optimal by virtue of not knowing which category they are supposed to be in and thus having "confused goals". Of course, the fact that not a single Forge game has ever outsold D&D or even made anything more of a splash than a 5 year old's roadside tinkle in the industry as a whole pretty much proves that their theories are all a crock of shit; though of course they will choose to blame the evils of the capitalist system and the "ignorance" of the common gamer and blather about how their games are meant for the elite anyways.

There may be many people who use gaming theory for nothing more than the utterly misguided goal of trying to improve their own individual groups through theorizing; but the culture as a whole is one of elitism and a desire to force change in the industry that would move it away from broadly popular GAMES into pretentious microgames that appeal to a tiny group of fake intellectuals.

Quote

I did neither.  I was not alone.


You were drowned out by the vast chorus of Forgeites literally posting "YOU'RE RIGHT RON; IM BRAIN DAMAGED!"

Quote

You're both cantakerous bastards.  I like cantankerous bastards; they think things I would never have come up with on my own.  And I don't see him trying to be a "cult leader" at all.
Really, you both remind me of Dennis Leary's character in the film Demolition Man, who I enjoyed immensely.


Jesus Christ on a stick why don't you skewer me with a butter knife while you're at it. You couldn't think of any other character to compare me to from an even slightly better movie? You bastard.

Quote

Actually, he was quite willing to argue with me on any point I chose, and so far as I know, closed the forum because it was going in circles.  


Ah yes, the circles of him not giving a shit what anyone thinks about his theory. I guess that makes sense.

Quote

I've been really tempted to challenge him to a debate of this kind sometime in the future, though.


His response would be interesting to me.

Quote

I welcome opposing viewpoints to mine.  Always.  I prefer that they aim for my thinking rather than for my dignity, but I'm willing to take some indignity so long as my thinking is also challenged.


But Mr.Edwards has destroyed any possibility of Gaming Theory ever doing anything productive ever. It is co-opted beyond salvation by the Intellectualoids, who are more interested with showing off their own fashion sense and alleged cleverness than actually doing anything productive.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 21, 2006, 07:09:01 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
But to me, its the case of the "one sour apple spoils the bunch" scenario.  When you're using a system that doesn't make this MANDATORY, then the characters who do use descriptiveness in combat don't ruin it for the rest of the group.
But when it is MANDATORY, then the players who have no interest in this will end up either doing it half-heartedly or will do it as an excuse for munchkin behaviour (always using the most "Powerful" description they can to get the best advantage), and this WILL ruin the game for everyone.


So you don't play such a game unless everyone is in for it.  Simple.

Quote from: RPGPundit
See, the point is that if you have a group of people, some of whom like to smoke and others don't, then its pretty fucking shitheaded to forbid smoking in this group and screw the people that like to smoke; I get that, obviously.

But its FAR more shitheaded to REQUIRE the non-smokers to start smoking just because the smokers really like it.
Wouldn't you agree the ideal would be a situation where the smokers can smoke and the non-smokers can choose not to?


Certainly.  But there are plenty of non-smokers that don't want to be around smoke, and I want to smoke all game long.  So I built a smoking lounge.

Quote from: RPGPundit
There isn't a game alive that doesn't push players toward the "Optimal choice": If finding away to depict your Love of Bagels as a characteristic into an attack will give you a +5 bonus, then you can bet that a player who wants to be "Optimal" will find a way to "roleplay" (used with high sarcasm) their love of Bagels. Not because they want to be better roleplayers, but because they want their +5.  Just as surely as if Kicks do 1d8 and punches do 1d6, you'll get certain players using nothing but kicks, and sense and roleplaying be damned.

You are talking, really, about two different situations. One is encouraging Roleplaying, the other is making sure players aren't just powergaming/minmaxing their tactical choices rather than doing what makes the most sense for their character.

The former can't be encouraged by rules. That is my position. There is no such thing as a system that "encourages roleplaying": There may be a system that "encourages fake descriptiveness and pretense of roleplay"; but ironically in my experience these systems tend to hamstring real roleplaying (because then the characters are faced with a choice between "real" roleplaying with no reward in the system or "pretense of roleplay" with a reward, and they'll choose the pretense instead of the real immersion).

The latter has to be dealt with by the rules, but it doesn't fundamentally have to do with trying to convince the character that he "really ought to roleplay instead of just always doing kicks because they do a d8", it has to do with finding ways to make those D8 kicks less appealing.


My experience flatly differs.  Could you give me an example of "faking it"  occurring?

Description and characterisation can be blocked by rules; there are character concepts in D&D that the rules simply don't support.  If I'm a Bard, I can't really threaten to destroy your reputation and have it mean a damn thing; so if I have the concept of a Satirist in those rules, it wouldn't work.  

But removing all the rules that can get in the way and finding replacements for them to keep mechanical balance can lead to very strange sets of rules.  I'm willing to pay money for those sets of rules.  Others are willing to write them.  Sounds good to me.

Quote
I have run campaigns of Amber where the characters are literally godlings, and campaigns of Call of Cthulhu where the characters were essentially totally normal, and both have been cool.

But my point is you can't just be "given" cool. Its like: you can premake a character to 10th level in D&D, or you can make a 1st level character and roleplay him up to 10th. The pre-made 10th level character will NEVER seem like the character that's been roleplayed up to 10th. Why? because he will be created from scratch; he won't have any of the wierd advantages or disadvantages the other char might have amassed over weeks of play; he won't have the less than optimal advancement choices that a character might have been forced to make (taking a feat at lv 3 that's really good for lv.3 but close to useless at level 10); he'll always be ideal because he's sprung from the forehead of the player with no prior history. Likewise, the character that has been played through will be much deeper and much more profound.
Now, they both might start as Merchant Princes. But the premade one will be a kind of Jerry Bruckheimer Merchant Prince, created by commitee to fit the unidimensional stereotype of cool; while the one that has been played up to 10th level will be cool in ways the "jerry" character could never possibly be, because I as a DM will have made the player sweat blood from his testicles to get that character to being a Merchant Prince.


You’re talking about character depth as a main measurement of coolness, then.  And, yes, character depth is, indeed, good stuff.

I’d say that players can’t simply grant their character depth at creation – I’ve seen some attempts, with long backstories, highly detailed equipment, art, and many other media.  They all fall flat for me.  A character has depth the moment they enter a struggle that is hard for them and start making tough decisions.

Which means that a player can never “grab the +5 sword” and have it make them interesting.  Their power level is not related to their depth of character, to me, excepting that both contribute to the coolness of the character.

Quote
You keep saying that but everything I've seen about game theory tells me the opposite. If they really had these views, then I wouldn't have such issues with them.


From Ron Edwards, a character in Sorcerer often starts play with what is called “a Kicker”, which is a player-created situation that must be addressed, involves struggle, and which nobody at the table knows how it will be resolved including the person that came up with it.  When the kicker is resolved, the character is done unless a new one is introduced.

From Vincent Baker, a character in Dogs in the Vineyard faces the basic struggle of asking “what do you think is right, and how far are you willing to go to enforce it?” – the question is rarely if the character can win, but how much of who and what they are they are willing, and will neeed, to put on the line in order to do so.

So, uh, what?  It’s always about the struggle, even if it isn’t about physical conflict.

Quote
I agree that the struggle or struggles usually should be defined early in any campaign; but I still don't feel that they have to come from the characters themselves. It can come from the GM and where he wants to take the campaign, assuming the characters choose to go with it. If they don't, then they can find other struggles.

Also, there's nothing wrong at all with pastiche, no matter how much theorists hate "simulationism"; some of the best games have no inherent struggle as a theme but rather the "struggle" of wanderlust, travelling through a world to discover it and grow and learn.


A struggle, a conflict, that is actually about the same things that the character is about, that taps into who that character is…   that’s stronger stuff than one that they don’t care about.  If I’m playing Dungeons and Dragons, old-school style, then the character I build at the start of the game will be someone I’ve deliberately built to say “I want to become powerful and rich, or die trying.” – because then, the game and my character fit each other just right.

Quote
My players, at least, wouldn't care for that sort of thing.  Why give them great power for nothing only to take it away? Why not start them without power and give them the much more entertaining struggle to obtain it, and then let them use it with the knowledge and satisfaction that they worked hard to get it?


Because it’s interesting.  It’s a challenge.  It’s evocative of things that most games I play aren’t, and that makes it worth trying.

Quote
I don't believe that every game should have to appeal to all kinds of gamers equally. I do believe that the most successful games are those that will have appeal to the largest varieties of gamers. Not many gamers are going to be drawn to Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, and to suggest that we must change the industry to focus on those kinds of games is irresponsible.


In industry terms, we need at least one truly strong and well-supported game that acts as an entry point and supports the most common playstyles.  We have it.  It’s D&D.  It’s also good to have other games, branching off in all directions and doing all sorts of different things; the ones ‘closest’ to D&D that are solid, but clearly different, are the biggest, the real weird stuff is the smallest.  And we have all of those, too.  That’s awesome – it’s something to I’m pleased by, not something I dislike.

Quote
Bully for you. But you must admit that it is something that is endemic in Gaming Theory. The vast majority of gaming theorists believe their style of roleplay is superior because of how much time they spend inventing made-up terms for it. They convince the stupid, young, and innocent that they too must use stupid made-up terms and try to "optimize their group" and "discuss narrative" in order to have the "superior" gaming experience, and in so doing fuck up these poor kids for life.


One True Ways are endemic to gaming, funny jargon or not.  And as far as fucking people’s games up goes, the worst I’ve seen is people that get stuck in the jargon, but seem to play perfectly fine games.  I saw much worse in the 90’s, on all sides.

Quote
From what I've seen of how the rest of the Forge slowly orbits around Ron Edward's rectum, I would have to say he is "the Leader".


Hyperbole and terms aside, Clinton R. Nixon and Vincent Baker come to mind.

Quote
But its also "my shitty gaming experiences must be solved by my intellectual diarrhea and the same is what will help others; I am so smart"!


*Snerk*

Okay, that was pretty funny.  

A lot of theorists are academics.  It spills over.  I’m not in favor of the intellectualization of thinking about games either, so I can’t raise a defense on that score.

Quote
With all due respect, Bullshit. GNS wasn't created as one guy's solution to his own little problems, It was created, marketed and promoted as "the solution to all Gaming's problems", and what would supposedly be used to create (at different times and based on different twisted interpretations of same) the best gamers, the best gaming groups and the best games EVAR.  And all gaming theory, thanks to the pressure and omnipresence of the forge, will sooner or later be FORCED to be interpreted through GNS, whether the original theorist wants it to or not, because of the Cult of Ron.
They created their Forge games on the basis that these are "better designed" games than normal RPGs, which are supposedly sub-optimal by virtue of not knowing which category they are supposed to be in and thus having "confused goals". Of course, the fact that not a single Forge game has ever outsold D&D or even made anything more of a splash than a 5 year old's roadside tinkle in the industry as a whole pretty much proves that their theories are all a crock of shit; though of course they will choose to blame the evils of the capitalist system and the "ignorance" of the common gamer and blather about how their games are meant for the elite anyways.


GNS was developed on a private mailing list of people discussing their own gaming.  It sprang in many ways from G/D/S, which was developed on rec.games.frp.advocacy; I wasn’t on the mailing list, but I was on Advocacy.

This was my original, and fairly crummy, response to early G/D/S, currently stored on RPGnet, but written more than two years before the Forge even existed: http://www.rpg.net/realm/critique/7rpgtypes.html

Neither I nor anyone else back then was looking to change everyone else’s gaming.  If you’d like me to prove my presence in the history beyond that point, I can do so easily.  I don’t claim to be some kind of “ur-theorist”, though; in those days, John H. Kim was my god (and he’s still pretty high on my respect list).  If you don’t know who John Kim,  Mary Kuhner, and the Ennead are, and what they said then, you simply don’t know enough about the origins and background of RPG theory to talk that particular line of shit.

As to the sale of the games, they’re niche products. The majority of the writers simply understand that they’re niche games.

The one point of agreement I have with you here is that those few that pretend that Indie games aren’t a niche product, really, and that “they’ll revolutionize the mainstream of gaming any day now” - and yes, I’ve seen that one - are either bullshitting or right off their nut.  I don’t know which.

Quote
There may be many people who use gaming theory for nothing more than the utterly misguided goal of trying to improve their own individual groups through theorizing; but the culture as a whole is one of elitism and a desire to force change in the industry that would move it away from broadly popular GAMES into pretentious microgames that appeal to a tiny group of fake intellectuals.


Tell me then, exactly what are they doing in order to force this change?  Give me some examples of actions they’ve taken to accomplish this.

Quote
You were drowned out by the vast chorus of Forgeites literally posting "YOU'RE RIGHT RON; IM BRAIN DAMAGED!"


I’m not saying I was impressed by the general response.  I wasn’t.

Quote
Jesus Christ on a stick why don't you skewer me with a butter knife while you're at it. You couldn't think of any other character to compare me to from an even slightly better movie? You bastard.


Okay, it was a bad movie.  But I liked that character.  Specifically, in your case, the line which I’m probably misquoting: “I just want to bury him up to his neck in shit, and leave him there to think happy-happy thoughts all day.” Comes to mind.

Quote
Ah yes, the circles of him not giving a shit what anyone thinks about his theory. I guess that makes sense.


More the circles “Nobody can connect half of these fucking discussions to what actually happens at a game table.  We need to focus on actual play.” – and that disconnect is one of the real traps of theory I’ve seen people fall into; neat ideas that have nothing to do with actual play.

Quote
His response would be interesting to me.


Me, too.

Quote
But Mr.Edwards has destroyed any possibility of Gaming Theory ever doing anything productive ever. It is co-opted beyond salvation by the Intellectualoids, who are more interested with showing off their own fashion sense and alleged cleverness than actually doing anything productive.


I refer you to Ben Lehman’s posts on these very boards.  He’s also on my to-challenge list, but he’s pretty cool.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 22, 2006, 02:34:31 AM
Warning; I am drunk while I write this. Unlike you, I will dive right in while heavily intoxicated to do my work, and my worst. No waiting till the hangover for me.
As for WHY I'm drunk, there'll be some details about that in tomorrow's blog.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
So you don't play such a game unless everyone is in for it.  Simple.

But this does even more to limit the usefulness of these games. If you need every player to be only of a very particular mindset to run a game, then that game is going to be very difficult to get a group together for. Micro-design is not a practical form of design.

I'm not saying that these things shouldn't exist at all, mind you, but I do think its more practical to design a game for a broad band of groups and then create options through which a system can be played in different ways to suit individual groups.

Quote
My experience flatly differs.  Could you give me an example of "faking it"  occurring?

The simplest example I can think of is from a game that more or less bases itself on the "descriptive action" principle, and that I'll note is a game I love with a passion: Over the Edge.

I've seen gamers try to create OtE characters where they pick a trait that is so broad it can apply to everything ("I have 4D in martial arts master/acrobat/strategist"), or take supposedly narrow traits and try to make them fit any situation ("I can use my 5D Football Champ trait to attack the thugs, right? Using my football training... oh, AND i can use my 5D football champ trait to beat the Chessmaster, because football has strategy that can also apply to chess").

To me, this is "Faking it". It creates situations where, by trying to encourage "roleplay" by giving positive bonuses to those who use their descriptors, it encourages people to try to stretch those descriptors to ridiculous limits.

Ditto with games that give bonuses for "descriptive stunting"; at that point every fucking action turns into a descriptive stunt ("I do a double backflip before sitting on the toilet to give me a +2D to taking a dump"; "I make an exaggerated courtsey when I meet Unimportant NPC x in case I have to get a bonus to my diplomacy check").

That's why Feng Shui has got it going on: there, you are ALLOWED to do any normal attack/action as a stunt, in a cool way and without penalty, as long as the end result not have a greater positive result than if you did it the normal way. For ex, instead of just saying "I run toward the guy and shoot him" you can say "I run three steps, jump onto the table sliding down off it shooting at the guy". Since the end result mechanically is the same ("Ok, roll to hit") there's no penalty for doing it acrobatically. Its "encouragement" in the sense of not fucking you over for giving your character a personal touch; rather than giving you a bonus for thinking up ways of dragging your personality into every little act.

Quote
You’re talking about character depth as a main measurement of coolness, then.  And, yes, character depth is, indeed, good stuff.
I’d say that players can’t simply grant their character depth at creation – I’ve seen some attempts, with long backstories, highly detailed equipment, art, and many other media.  They all fall flat for me.  A character has depth the moment they enter a struggle that is hard for them and start making tough decisions.
Which means that a player can never “grab the +5 sword” and have it make them interesting.  Their power level is not related to their depth of character, to me, excepting that both contribute to the coolness of the character.

I agree, that's pretty much what I've been saying.

Quote
From Ron Edwards, a character in Sorcerer often starts play with what is called “a Kicker”, which is a player-created situation that must be addressed, involves struggle, and which nobody at the table knows how it will be resolved including the person that came up with it.  When the kicker is resolved, the character is done unless a new one is introduced.

Lame. Why create an onus for characters to be purely unidimensional? Why do characters have to have a set starting point and set ending point, other than a foolish attempt to try to force "story" to happen?

Quote
From Vincent Baker, a character in Dogs in the Vineyard faces the basic struggle of asking “what do you think is right, and how far are you willing to go to enforce it?” – the question is rarely if the character can win, but how much of who and what they are they are willing, and will neeed, to put on the line in order to do so.

Even lamer. Its like Edward's idea except that you don't even get to pick the conflict.

Quote
A struggle, a conflict, that is actually about the same things that the character is about, that taps into who that character is…   that’s stronger stuff than one that they don’t care about.  If I’m playing Dungeons and Dragons, old-school style, then the character I build at the start of the game will be someone I’ve deliberately built to say “I want to become powerful and rich, or die trying.” – because then, the game and my character fit each other just right.

I've played a lot of D&D campaigns where the gaining of power and wealth were purely incidental to the goals of the campaign. The fact that D&D as a game has it built in that your characters will become incrementally more powerful as time goes by doesn't mean that this is ALL the game has to be about.

And you skipped my comment about Pastiche.

Quote
One True Ways are endemic to gaming, funny jargon or not.  And as far as fucking people’s games up goes, the worst I’ve seen is people that get stuck in the jargon, but seem to play perfectly fine games.  I saw much worse in the 90’s, on all sides.

I think you know by now that I'll agree things were far worse in the 90's, but I think this is only because now D20 has secured a solid victory for the side of reason, if you will. I think that if the Swine (be they the WW swine or their opposing Forge Swine) had more influence in the industry today they'd still be trying to pull the same subversive shit that almost destroyed the hobby in the mid-late 90s. Thats the whole basis for my forceful opposition to these ideologies; I really don't think they've learnt their lesson or "Know their place"; they really belive that games like DiTV SHOULD be the main games produced and marketed to the hobby base, and would gladly destroy the hobby with their theories if they are once again given the chance to.

Quote
Hyperbole and terms aside, Clinton R. Nixon and Vincent Baker come to mind.

The latter I see as worse alternative to Edwards, the former is a better choice but neither of them have the central influence Edwards still has.

Its like, shit, I think the mainstream industry would be better off if they respected Jonathan Tweet and Erick Wujcik more than Monte Cook, but they don't. My wishing won't make it so.

Quote
*Snerk*
Okay, that was pretty funny.  
A lot of theorists are academics.  It spills over.  I’m not in favor of the intellectualization of thinking about games either, so I can’t raise a defense on that score.

Thank you. And I think the correct statement would be "a lot of theorists want to pretend they're academics". What I like to call "intellectualoids"; they are to real intellectuals what D&D "humanoids" are to real humans.  Real academics wouldn't waste their time dedicating their academia to RPGs. Fuck, what you and I are doing here is closer to REAL academia than the intellectualoid circle-jerks that go on in "gaming theory" threads.

Quote
Neither I nor anyone else back then was looking to change everyone else’s gaming.  If you’d like me to prove my presence in the history beyond that point, I can do so easily.  

I'll take your word for it. I still think that many of the people involved, and especially Ron Edwards, believed that their theories were meant to be applied to a global scale and would revolutionize how gaming was done.

Quote
I don’t claim to be some kind of “ur-theorist”, though; in those days, John H. Kim was my god (and he’s still pretty high on my respect list).  If you don’t know who John Kim,  Mary Kuhner, and the Ennead are, and what they said then, you simply don’t know enough about the origins and background of RPG theory to talk that particular line of shit.

I'm more or less familiar with these people. I think if John Kim had been seen as the model to follow rather than Edwards things will have turned out better for gaming theory.

Quote
As to the sale of the games, they’re niche products. The majority of the writers simply understand that they’re niche games.

The ones that do only seem to do so in the context of the belief that their games are meant to be a "niche" for the special elite that are truly above the common masses of D&D players.

Quote
The one point of agreement I have with you here is that those few that pretend that Indie games aren’t a niche product, really, and that “they’ll revolutionize the mainstream of gaming any day now” - and yes, I’ve seen that one - are either bullshitting or right off their nut.  I don’t know which.

There are two types of people that are involved in gaming theory that make me despise gaming theory as a whole: the ones who think that the theory needs to become the mainstream of gaming, and the ones who think that the theory puts them above the mainstream of gaming.

Quote
Tell me then, exactly what are they doing in order to force this change?  Give me some examples of actions they’ve taken to accomplish this.

Fortunately, they aren't in a position to be able to do very much; but intellectually subverting the largest independent gaming website on the internet and generally creating the delusion that games like DiTV are not just superior but are the truly innovative and "hot" games out there; people on RPG.net talking about Weapons of the Gods as though anyone in the real world is actually playing it, or people on the GoO forum trying to convince the GoO staff to make Amber 2nd edition run on Nobilis because its "clearly superior" to the Amber system, these are all things that have personally affected me, and have affected (or in the case of Amber have the potential to affect) the entire gaming hobby negatively.

Quote
I’m not saying I was impressed by the general response.  I wasn’t.

Fair enough.

Quote
More the circles “Nobody can connect half of these fucking discussions to what actually happens at a game table.  We need to focus on actual play.” – and that disconnect is one of the real traps of theory I’ve seen people fall into; neat ideas that have nothing to do with actual play.

I agree that Gaming Theory could have actually been useful had the focus been on actual play at the start. Not "theoretical actual play" which is what it was based on. It wasn't based on improving actual play, it was based on changing actual play to fit the delusionary pet theories of guys like Ron Edwards.

I know that some of you guys keep trying to shift the focus back to "how to improve actual play" and that's a step toward the right direction, but I fear that this ship has already sailed, since any thread where you attempt to do this tends to be subverted by the GNS crowd by the second or third post.

I think the only way to do this effectively is to create an "anti-theory" movement; one that is based on intelligently examining how to improve gaming and game play (and yes, even game design) while intentionally and aggresively positioning one's self against the terminology and mentality of what has gone before, rather than trying to reform it.

Quote
I refer you to Ben Lehman’s posts on these very boards.  He’s also on my to-challenge list, but he’s pretty cool.

What exactly has Mr.Lehman said on these boards or elsewhere that would be of interest in this conversation? I ask sincerely because I wouldn't know where to begin to look. Also, as I believe I hinted at in the beginning of this thread, I'm pretty fucked up on a combination of cigars, pipes, beer, Teacher's Scottish Cream Whiskey, and heavy-duty Grappa.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 22, 2006, 03:22:20 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Warning; I am drunk while I write this. Unlike you, I will dive right in while heavily intoxicated to do my work, and my worst. No waiting till the hangover for me.
As for WHY I'm drunk, there'll be some details about that in tomorrow's blog.


I hope that it's celebratory.  If not, well, crappy.

Quote from: RPGPundit
But this does even more to limit the usefulness of these games. If you need every player to be only of a very particular mindset to run a game, then that game is going to be very difficult to get a group together for. Micro-design is not a practical form of design.

I'm not saying that these things shouldn't exist at all, mind you, but I do think its more practical to design a game for a broad band of groups and then create options through which a system can be played in different ways to suit individual groups.


In practical terms of sales, you're correct.

In terms of "writing what you love and what you want to play", that's not necessarily so.

Quote from: RPGPundit
The simplest example I can think of is from a game that more or less bases itself on the "descriptive action" principle, and that I'll note is a game I love with a passion: Over the Edge.

I've seen gamers try to create OtE characters where they pick a trait that is so broad it can apply to everything ("I have 4D in martial arts master/acrobat/strategist"), or take supposedly narrow traits and try to make them fit any situation ("I can use my 5D Football Champ trait to attack the thugs, right? Using my football training... oh, AND i can use my 5D football champ trait to beat the Chessmaster, because football has strategy that can also apply to chess").

To me, this is "Faking it". It creates situations where, by trying to encourage "roleplay" by giving positive bonuses to those who use their descriptors, it encourages people to try to stretch those descriptors to ridiculous limits.


Ah.  Okay, I see it.

Yech.

Now, form my perspective, this kind of thing comes from two possible places.  Either the player doesn't really want to play that kind of game, or the player wants to be Uber.  To me, both problems are player issues; I wouldn't try to fix them through the game, but through actually talking with the real people at my table.  

The solution might well be "let's play a different kind of RPG, one that doesn't focus on this." - or it might not be.  Depends on the player.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Ditto with games that give bonuses for "descriptive stunting"; at that point every fucking action turns into a descriptive stunt ("I do a double backflip before sitting on the toilet to give me a +2D to taking a dump"; "I make an exaggerated courtsey when I meet Unimportant NPC x in case I have to get a bonus to my diplomacy check").

That's why Feng Shui has got it going on: there, you are ALLOWED to do any normal attack/action as a stunt, in a cool way and without penalty, as long as the end result not have a greater positive result than if you did it the normal way. For ex, instead of just saying "I run toward the guy and shoot him" you can say "I run three steps, jump onto the table sliding down off it shooting at the guy". Since the end result mechanically is the same ("Ok, roll to hit") there's no penalty for doing it acrobatically. Its "encouragement" in the sense of not fucking you over for giving your character a personal touch; rather than giving you a bonus for thinking up ways of dragging your personality into every little act.


Hmm.  I'm going to think on that one a bit.  You've certainly scored a hit with that example, though.

Quote
Lame. Why create an onus for characters to be purely unidimensional? Why do characters have to have a set starting point and set ending point, other than a foolish attempt to try to force "story" to happen?

Even lamer. Its like Edward's idea except that you don't even get to pick the conflict.


They are about the struggle, though - clearly focused in that direction.

Here's another one you might actually like: Experience Keys, by Clinton R. Nixon (http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/sweet20/experience.html)

Quote
I've played a lot of D&D campaigns where the gaining of power and wealth were purely incidental to the goals of the campaign. The fact that D&D as a game has it built in that your characters will become incrementally more powerful as time goes by doesn't mean that this is ALL the game has to be about.


But the game is always going to be at least partly about it.  And because that part is so very, very dependable under those rules, it's the optimum thing to play to.

Quote
And you skipped my comment about Pastiche.


Whoop.  Yes; journey-of-wonder stuff can be *cool*.

Quote
I think you know by now that I'll agree things were far worse in the 90's, but I think this is only because now D20 has secured a solid victory for the side of reason, if you will. I think that if the Swine (be they the WW swine or their opposing Forge Swine) had more influence in the industry today they'd still be trying to pull the same subversive shit that almost destroyed the hobby in the mid-late 90s. Thats the whole basis for my forceful opposition to these ideologies; I really don't think they've learnt their lesson or "Know their place"; they really belive that games like DiTV SHOULD be the main games produced and marketed to the hobby base, and would gladly destroy the hobby with their theories if they are once again given the chance to.


Hm.  While I generally don't agree, there's very little in the way of evidence to point to for either of us.  I doubt we can make progress on it.

Quote
Thank you. And I think the correct statement would be "a lot of theorists want to pretend they're academics". What I like to call "intellectualoids"; they are to real intellectuals what D&D "humanoids" are to real humans.  Real academics wouldn't waste their time dedicating their academia to RPGs. Fuck, what you and I are doing here is closer to REAL academia than the intellectualoid circle-jerks that go on in "gaming theory" threads.


At least a couple of them are university professors.  That is real academia. But I do agree that RPGs should always avoid intellectual elitism, in both theory and practice, and that it's shown up in theory in a few really public places.

Quote
I'll take your word for it. I still think that many of the people involved, and especially Ron Edwards, believed that their theories were meant to be applied to a global scale and would revolutionize how gaming was done.


I can't speak to his specific motives; I wasn't there for the start of his bit, though I do know the format it happened in.  But I doubt it.

As for most of the others, well, many of them didn't even really think anyone was listening.  I do remember jokes about how maybe what was being talked about might make it into an nice obscure textbook someday, and that was about it.

Quote
I'm more or less familiar with these people. I think if John Kim had been seen as the model to follow rather than Edwards things will have turned out better for gaming theory.


...Well, we'd know where all the free games were, for one (John Kim maintains a huge list of link to such stuff these days, among other things).

Quote
The ones that do only seem to do so in the context of the belief that their games are meant to be a "niche" for the special elite that are truly above the common masses of D&D players.


I again point you to Ben Lehman.  If you told him that, I suspect he'd ask you what planet you were from.  He was the guy that wrote Polaris, the game I called "just outside being an RPG" - and he later asked me if I'd ever noted that the game actually never calls itself an RPG; I think he's pretty sure it's near a boundary state of some kind, as well.

Quote
There are two types of people that are involved in gaming theory that make me despise gaming theory as a whole: the ones who think that the theory needs to become the mainstream of gaming, and the ones who think that the theory puts them above the mainstream of gaming.


Well, I can't say that neither kind exists.  Both do.  But as for numbers, I can only say that talking to them outside of the specific culture of the Forge has been a hell of an eye-opener for me; they aren't anything near as common as I once thought.

Quote
Fortunately, they aren't in a position to be able to do very much; but intellectually subverting the largest independent gaming website on the internet and generally creating the delusion that games like DiTV are not just superior but are the truly innovative and "hot" games out there; people on RPG.net talking about Weapons of the Gods as though anyone in the real world is actually playing it, or people on the GoO forum trying to convince the GoO staff to make Amber 2nd edition run on Nobilis because its "clearly superior" to the Amber system, these are all things that have personally affected me, and have affected (or in the case of Amber have the potential to affect) the entire gaming hobby negatively.


*Blink, blink*

Amber run on Nobilis?  That's incredibly silly.  Nobilis has maybe one or two little points worth stealing for Amber.  And that's being generous.  Active Exploits, from Politically Incorrect Games, has far more stuff that might be of use to improving that system - AE being a diceless sytem that's almost purely about resource management.

As for the rest, people talk about what they love, what they hate, and what gave them a whole new take on things.  They rarely talk about the basic stuff that they've been doing for years, and will continue to do for many more.  Again, that's just the nature of the beast; I don't see any deliberate subversion there.

Quote
I agree that Gaming Theory could have actually been useful had the focus been on actual play at the start. Not "theoretical actual play" which is what it was based on. It wasn't based on improving actual play, it was based on changing actual play to fit the delusionary pet theories of guys like Ron Edwards.

I know that some of you guys keep trying to shift the focus back to "how to improve actual play" and that's a step toward the right direction, but I fear that this ship has already sailed, since any thread where you attempt to do this tends to be subverted by the GNS crowd by the second or third post.

I think the only way to do this effectively is to create an "anti-theory" movement; one that is based on intelligently examining how to improve gaming and game play (and yes, even game design) while intentionally and aggresively positioning one's self against the terminology and mentality of what has gone before, rather than trying to reform it.


That sounds hostile.  But some of those things (the ones that aren't basically giving the finger to other theorists) are ones I've actually done, and intend to continue doing.

Quote
What exactly has Mr.Lehman said on these boards or elsewhere that would be of interest in this conversation? I ask sincerely because I wouldn't know where to begin to look. Also, as I believe I hinted at in the beginning of this thread, I'm pretty fucked up on a combination of cigars, pipes, beer, Teacher's Scottish Cream Whiskey, and heavy-duty Grappa.


No specific points, just his general attitude.  He's a theory-head that's solidly among the many that anyone can talk to, knows the Forge, and happens to be right here.  He also started a thread on the swine side about "THEORY!", in fairly good humor.

And now I want some Grappa.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 22, 2006, 03:59:40 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
I hope that it's celebratory.  If not, well, crappy.

It was celebratory.

Quote
In practical terms of sales, you're correct.
In terms of "writing what you love and what you want to play", that's not necessarily so.

Yes, which is why I said that I wasn't implying such games couldn't be made. Just that it makes far more sense to start with a broad brush and create lots of options for narrowing down the game to fit the group.
The Game-Theory/Forgeite obsession with "microsettings" is deeply disturbing and counter-productive.

Quote
Now, form my perspective, this kind of thing comes from two possible places.  Either the player doesn't really want to play that kind of game, or the player wants to be Uber.  To me, both problems are player issues; I wouldn't try to fix them through the game, but through actually talking with the real people at my table.  
The solution might well be "let's play a different kind of RPG, one that doesn't focus on this." - or it might not be.  Depends on the player.

Now grok this: to me, ALL Roleplaying issues are "player issues".  You cannot create better roleplaying through system. You can create (sometimes) better or worse emulation of genre through system, you can create easier or harder play through system, but Roleplaying depends on the players and the group, tinkering with system to try to force roleplaying out of it won't get you squat.

Good roleplayers will roleplay well with any system, "Bad" roleplayers will roleplay poorly with any system.

Quote
Hmm.  I'm going to think on that one a bit.  You've certainly scored a hit with that example, though.

Feng Shui follows the way of the Tao, grasshopper.

Quote
They are about the struggle, though - clearly focused in that direction.

Here's another one you might actually like: Experience Keys, by Clinton R. Nixon (http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/sweet20/experience.html)

Dear god. I didn't like it.  Generally the WORST way to encourage "roleplaying" (or "character development") is to try to force character advancement to go along with it. That's the equivalent to roleplaying of what the old "wheelbarrow full of weapons" syndrome in Runequest was to combat ability.

I agreed with the premise, though. Tying XP to killing monsters in D&D was not the brightest thing to do in the bigger context of what they wanted to do with D20 (Im guessing it was a very early part of 3.x's development that then somehow slipped through the cracks, or was allowed to because it fits in with the tactical model, even though in this case its at the cost of diversity).  True20 does levelling nicely in my book.
I'll add a couple of personal notes: in my own "Forward... To Adventure!", XP is based on a simple model of "adventures completed": Complete x number of adventures, you go up in level. That's it. I don't really think that it should be based on monster-killing (wherein the loot should be its own reward) or on roleplay (ditto).  The DM does have leeway, though, to lengthen or shorten his definition of what completes an "adventure" (as in, it doesn't automatically equal one session of play).

The other thing I do regarding roleplay is that at the end of each session I award a bonus (xp in D20, Conviction/Adventure/sanity points in other games as fits) given to the player the whole group felt did the best roleplaying of the session. Each player has a vote, the DM has two votes, you can't vote for yourself. The discussion that ensues as each player gives his vote and his reasons for why he feels that player deserves it has helped greatly to encourage the group as a whole to work on developing their characters and creating a joint conception of what is considered group play in any given party.

Quote
But the game is always going to be at least partly about it.  And because that part is so very, very dependable under those rules, it's the optimum thing to play to.

I don't really agree. In many of my games the power rise has been something that has simply reflected the characters growing in experience (who'd figure?) and personal ability/fame as they face greater challenges. In my Star Wars campaign, for example, the lust for power was not a very central theme (except for a few guys who fell to the dark side). Likewise in my Midnight campaign, the growth in power of the characters was more a reflection of their improved ability over time to survive in a truly harsh world where everything was against them.
In my Traveller game the characters already start with a few levels behind their belt due to prior history, and in that game it really makes very little difference whether you're level 4 or level 12; it makes a hell of a lot more difference whether the party as a whole can correctly estimate the resale value of Senator Tanzel's Commemorative Plates on Gantros.

Its been pretty rare that I've had a D&D/D20 game where the POINT of the game is the rise in power itself. The only one in recent memory I can think of is my RC D&D campaign, where the set goal from the beginning was to try to advance the players from 1st to 36th level and complete the immortality quests for each of them.

Quote
Whoop.  Yes; journey-of-wonder stuff can be *cool*.

And yet, so many in gaming theory have a serious hate-on for pastiche. Any comments on that?

Quote
Hm.  While I generally don't agree, there's very little in the way of evidence to point to for either of us.  I doubt we can make progress on it.

Fair enough.

Quote
At least a couple of them are university professors.  That is real academia.

Professors of what, though? And where? A lot of so-called academia these days is really pseudo-academia, sadly.

Quote
But I do agree that RPGs should always avoid intellectual elitism, in both theory and practice, and that it's shown up in theory in a few really public places.

Yup, and always to the detriment of Theory. They're your very own personal lawncrappers.

Quote
...Well, we'd know where all the free games were, for one (John Kim maintains a huge list of link to such stuff these days, among other things).

Indeed he does. That was my first experience of him, in fact.

Quote
I again point you to Ben Lehman.  If you told him that, I suspect he'd ask you what planet you were from.  He was the guy that wrote Polaris, the game I called "just outside being an RPG" - and he later asked me if I'd ever noted that the game actually never calls itself an RPG; I think he's pretty sure it's near a boundary state of some kind, as well.

Well, that's nice.

Quote
Well, I can't say that neither kind exists.  Both do.  But as for numbers, I can only say that talking to them outside of the specific culture of the Forge has been a hell of an eye-opener for me; they aren't anything near as common as I once thought.

Care to explain?


Quote
*Blink, blink*
Amber run on Nobilis?  That's incredibly silly.  Nobilis has maybe one or two little points worth stealing for Amber.  And that's being generous.  Active Exploits, from Politically Incorrect Games, has far more stuff that might be of use to improving that system - AE being a diceless sytem that's almost purely about resource management.

And yet I fought a months-long battle on the GoO boards against a group of these guys who were hell-bent on Nobilis (or more accurately, Nobilis-derived rules) replacing Amber's own rules for the Amber game. The main argument being that Nobilis is diceless like Amber is, but its more "hip" because the self-styled intelligentsia claim it to be, even though its in reality a steaming pile of dog excrement with an unbearably vile beancounter system.

Personally, my argument is that the very best system for Amber is Amber, which has not only been hugely successful over the years, but actually follows through with all the stuff that other more pretentious games only claim to do, namely have a truly original and brilliantly innovative system.

Quote
As for the rest, people talk about what they love, what they hate, and what gave them a whole new take on things.  They rarely talk about the basic stuff that they've been doing for years, and will continue to do for many more.  Again, that's just the nature of the beast; I don't see any deliberate subversion there.

Whereas I do; I remember what RPG.net was like before first the WW crowd and later the Forge crowd got control of the moderation there.
That's deliberate subversion.

Quote
That sounds hostile.  But some of those things (the ones that aren't basically giving the finger to other theorists) are ones I've actually done, and intend to continue doing.

Sometimes its good to be hostile, if it helps the flowers to grow.

Quote
No specific points, just his general attitude.  He's a theory-head that's solidly among the many that anyone can talk to, knows the Forge, and happens to be right here.  He also started a thread on the swine side about "THEORY!", in fairly good humor.

Well, he seems to be trying to be helpful in clearing up definitions, while still presuming that people must accept and work within those Forge definitions. I am curious to see how he would respond to the criticism about GNS (namely that the definitions of G, N, and S seem to be completely up to the what the person doing the defining wants them to mean at the time, mixed in with appeals to authority, in some twisted version of medieval church theology only replacing the Vulgate of St.Jerome with the Holy Writings of Ron). I'd be curious to see how you'd defend it, but then I'm not entirely sure you accept GNS theory, and if you (wisely) don't I wouldn't want you to bother trying to take the defence of it.

Quote
And now I want some Grappa.

It certainly seems to clear the mind so that words flow with greater ease.

RPGPundit


EDITed PS NOTE TO EVERYONE READING THIS: Since this thread has just been moved to the main Roleplaying forum frmo the "pundit's parlour" I will ask that you please be considerate and abstain from writing entries in this thread until we've completed the Disputation. The Nutkins already said that they'd delete them if you did, so you'd only be making them work more, and disrupting the flow of the debate. There are a number of threads that have been started by others to discuss this thread, usually with the header [popcorn] in front of it. Please put comments on those threads or start a new [popcorn] thread. Thank you.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 22, 2006, 02:34:44 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Yes, which is why I said that I wasn't implying such games couldn't be made. Just that it makes far more sense to start with a broad brush and create lots of options for narrowing down the game to fit the group.
The Game-Theory/Forgeite obsession with "microsettings" is deeply disturbing and counter-productive.


Concerning "microsettings"; creating them makes perfect sense given the ideals of leaving the setting to player and GM creativity to fill in, focusing on a set range of issues and themes, and building a "focused" game.  The practice fulfills it's intended purpose, but it's intended purpose is limited to a specific playstyle.

Quote
Now grok this: to me, ALL Roleplaying issues are "player issues".  You cannot create better roleplaying through system. You can create (sometimes) better or worse emulation of genre through system, you can create easier or harder play through system, but Roleplaying depends on the players and the group, tinkering with system to try to force roleplaying out of it won't get you squat.

Good roleplayers will roleplay well with any system, "Bad" roleplayers will roleplay poorly with any system.


I spent a lot of time thinking on your point here, and have come to a much simpler conclusion than my previous one.  In the games and things I've been considering, and used as my first examples (Castle Falkenstein, Heroquest, the Power Attack, and so on), when things are rolling, the rules don't create the roleplaying.

They just don't get in the way.

So how's this:

Rules can interfere with roleplay.  They may not be able to create it, but they can block it.  Rules that are good for roleplaying are ones that, first, provide plenty of raw material for that roleplaying, and, second, get out of the way.  

Quote
Dear god. I didn't like it.  Generally the WORST way to encourage "roleplaying" (or "character development") is to try to force character advancement to go along with it. That's the equivalent to roleplaying of what the old "wheelbarrow full of weapons" syndrome in Runequest was to combat ability.

I agreed with the premise, though. Tying XP to killing monsters in D&D was not the brightest thing to do in the bigger context of what they wanted to do with D20 (Im guessing it was a very early part of 3.x's development that then somehow slipped through the cracks, or was allowed to because it fits in with the tactical model, even though in this case its at the cost of diversity).  True20 does levelling nicely in my book.
I'll add a couple of personal notes: in my own "Forward... To Adventure!", XP is based on a simple model of "adventures completed": Complete x number of adventures, you go up in level. That's it. I don't really think that it should be based on monster-killing (wherein the loot should be its own reward) or on roleplay (ditto).  The DM does have leeway, though, to lengthen or shorten his definition of what completes an "adventure" (as in, it doesn't automatically equal one session of play).


Hm.  Well, you liked the premise, so that's progress.  Here's the part I think you object to.

Among a large number of theorists (most of them Forge-influenced), the idea is to structure the game so that the "reward cycle", whatever that is in the game, is based on playing the game either the way it was meant to be or in some way that you have set as best for your character.  D&D rewards you for killing monsters, and therefore killing monster would be what the game is all about if it was built by that theory - except, of course, D&D isn't.

This theory looks dead sexy on paper, and may actually be very close to being true.  Actual forms of execution range from the really neat to the bizarre to the fairly ham-handed, in my experience; nobody has got it right, yet.

Quote
The other thing I do regarding roleplay is that at the end of each session I award a bonus (xp in D20, Conviction/Adventure/sanity points in other games as fits) given to the player the whole group felt did the best roleplaying of the session. Each player has a vote, the DM has two votes, you can't vote for yourself. The discussion that ensues as each player gives his vote and his reasons for why he feels that player deserves it has helped greatly to encourage the group as a whole to work on developing their characters and creating a joint conception of what is considered group play in any given party.


Oddly, this sounds a great deal like what I do in LARP games I run; the last ten minutes of the game, everyone "circles up", and XP is handed out player to player - with everyone watching and generally pretty solid reasons given.  It works.

Quote
I don't really agree. In many of my games the power rise has been something that has simply reflected the characters growing in experience (who'd figure?) and personal ability/fame as they face greater challenges. In my Star Wars campaign, for example, the lust for power was not a very central theme (except for a few guys who fell to the dark side). Likewise in my Midnight campaign, the growth in power of the characters was more a reflection of their improved ability over time to survive in a truly harsh world where everything was against them.
In my Traveller game the characters already start with a few levels behind their belt due to prior history, and in that game it really makes very little difference whether you're level 4 or level 12; it makes a hell of a lot more difference whether the party as a whole can correctly estimate the resale value of Senator Tanzel's Commemorative Plates on Gantros.

Its been pretty rare that I've had a D&D/D20 game where the POINT of the game is the rise in power itself. The only one in recent memory I can think of is my RC D&D campaign, where the set goal from the beginning was to try to advance the players from 1st to 36th level and complete the immortality quests for each of them.


See my comments on reward cycles.  As I said, I think that idea is close to being true.

Actually, given that we're a fair ways in, and that's likely to be an interesting topic, would you like me to state a full position on that one?

Quote
And yet, so many in gaming theory have a serious hate-on for pastiche. Any comments on that?


Please understand, this is pure speculation.

As I've said, struggle is at the heart of the kinds of games that many theorist want to play.  Maybe not expressed in a way you'd like, but struggle.  And, it's important to their vision of struggle that the characters be key figures in their part of the struggle - they don't need to be the biggest kids on the block, but if the other kids are way, way, bigger, better to focus just on their house for now and get to the rest of the block later.

When I said that the kind of play that comes out of theory involves putting specific things foremost in the experiece, I really meant it.  If you're focused on the ongoing conflict of these characters, the scenery is ultimately no more than loose bits of background to be played with and bring into the game in ways that serve that conflict, ramp it up, broaden the scope of it, give it color - but the setting serves the situation, and the situation serves the greater conflict.

Now, there are a lot of benefits to recasting things in this way, and actually playing to those strengths all the way.  But there are some struggles, some conflicts, that just don't fly.

As an example of this, a character that is coming of age, whose struggle is the attempt to find a place in the world where they can belong, and to find a way to accept that the world is the way it is and he needs to fit to it just as much as mold a corner of it to fit him - it doesn't work right.  That particular struggle is one that a player actually could short-circuit given even a tiny amount of narrative power. And yet that conflict, "finding my place in the world" is the center of so many coming-of-age stories that I can't even begin to count them.  And journey-of-wonder and coming-of-age have a lot of ties, though they aren't quite the same deal.

Now, I could easily be wrong; that's just my supposition.  Tony Lower-Basch is working on a high-school drama game that flies directly in the face of this idea; I'm watching it to see how it comes out.

Quote
Professors of what, though? And where? A lot of so-called academia these days is really pseudo-academia, sadly.


I'd have to look it up.  The nature of academia itself is something I'd prefer to generally leave to the side; I'd say that some fields seem to act oddly from my perspective, but I really don't know enough to debate it with any real fervor.

Quote
Yup, and always to the detriment of Theory. They're your very own personal lawncrappers.


God, I hate that term.  And yet, point taken.

Quote
Care to explain?


Sure.  Recently, I've been spending a fairish amount of time hanging around at http://www.story-games.com, and a lot of them swing by there to "put their feet up", so to speak.  Reading the conversations there has revised my opinions of a great many people a long ways upward - which was good, for me, since the number of them that turned out to dissent on the "Brain Damage" thing had given me a pretty severe downturn of opinion.

Quote
And yet I fought a months-long battle on the GoO boards against a group of these guys who were hell-bent on Nobilis (or more accurately, Nobilis-derived rules) replacing Amber's own rules for the Amber game. The main argument being that Nobilis is diceless like Amber is, but its more "hip" because the self-styled intelligentsia claim it to be, even though its in reality a steaming pile of dog excrement with an unbearably vile beancounter system.

Personally, my argument is that the very best system for Amber is Amber, which has not only been hugely successful over the years, but actually follows through with all the stuff that other more pretentious games only claim to do, namely have a truly original and brilliantly innovative system.


*Shrug*

To me, Nobilis is very evocative in terms of tone and feel.  But it's not an astonishing system.  

As to Amber's system, I generally agree.  I'd like to see Amber gone over with a fine-tooth comb, and a touch more resource management added in on few the rough spots (hence my suggested 'place to steal'), but the core of it is solid.

Quote
Whereas I do; I remember what RPG.net was like before first the WW crowd and later the Forge crowd got control of the moderation there.
That's deliberate subversion.


I'm on the staff there, as you know.  I can say that there's never been any discussion among moderators there that spoke towards favoring WW or the Forge; the closest that was ever seen was discussion on how to stop theory threads from turning into flamewars.  I am, of course, biased, and strictly limited from sharing details, so I can't really justify my position.

I mean, I'm writing a game with Tony Lower-Basch and Robert Earley-Clark(both common readers of theory), Stephen Lea Sheppard (who has freelanced for White Wolf), and Dmitri whose-last-name-I-always-spell wrong (who typically thinks theory is a serious waste of time).  

Quote
Well, he seems to be trying to be helpful in clearing up definitions, while still presuming that people must accept and work within those Forge definitions. I am curious to see how he would respond to the criticism about GNS (namely that the definitions of G, N, and S seem to be completely up to the what the person doing the defining wants them to mean at the time, mixed in with appeals to authority, in some twisted version of medieval church theology only replacing the Vulgate of St.Jerome with the Holy Writings of Ron). I'd be curious to see how you'd defend it, but then I'm not entirely sure you accept GNS theory, and if you (wisely) don't I wouldn't want you to bother trying to take the defence of it.


I don't accept GNS as it stands.  I do accept the outline of the Big Model, but believe that the wording is poor, and the place where that model places Creative Agendas, something much less clean and simple is going on; I'd be happy to show you my version of the model, and defend it, if you like.  The glossary thread I started shows the terms I use, for instance.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 22, 2006, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Concerning "microsettings"; creating them makes perfect sense given the ideals of leaving the setting to player and GM creativity to fill in, focusing on a set range of issues and themes, and building a "focused" game.  The practice fulfills it's intended purpose, but it's intended purpose is limited to a specific playstyle.


They're a fad. They annoy the hell out of me. The Forge seems to go out of its way to create microgames that are unbelievably specific and couldn't possibly be entertaining for very long.

Quote

I spent a lot of time thinking on your point here, and have come to a much simpler conclusion than my previous one.  In the games and things I've been considering, and used as my first examples (Castle Falkenstein, Heroquest, the Power Attack, and so on), when things are rolling, the rules don't create the roleplaying.
They just don't get in the way.
So how's this:
Rules can interfere with roleplay.  They may not be able to create it, but they can block it.  Rules that are good for roleplaying are ones that, first, provide plenty of raw material for that roleplaying, and, second, get out of the way.  


Let me see if I have your point straight: are you saying that games like D&D, where you have a vested interest in getting certain feats like Power attack or cleave or whatever and then using them, is in some way a force that stifles Roleplay?  To me the choice of certain feats in the beginning would be a question of roleplay, they would reflect the kind of combat (or specialties of other kind) that it makes sense for your character to have.

Of course, you have to have various options, and make it that no one set of special feats or what have you would be so essential that people would choose them in spite of their character's mojo; but then that becomes a question of good rules design, rather than roleplay.

Quote

Hm.  Well, you liked the premise, so that's progress.  Here's the part I think you object to.
Among a large number of theorists (most of them Forge-influenced), the idea is to structure the game so that the "reward cycle", whatever that is in the game, is based on playing the game either the way it was meant to be or in some way that you have set as best for your character.  D&D rewards you for killing monsters, and therefore killing monster would be what the game is all about if it was built by that theory - except, of course, D&D isn't.
This theory looks dead sexy on paper, and may actually be very close to being true.  Actual forms of execution range from the really neat to the bizarre to the fairly ham-handed, in my experience; nobody has got it right, yet.


Yup, that's exactly what I object to. Essentially in-system bribery to encourage "roleplay".  This differs from my own "roleplay award" in that this award is at the end of the session and for overall play, rather than encouraging specific instances of doing a specific kind of roleplay, which is where players will tend to try to force play into artificial pretzels of convoluted fabrication in order to get their points.

Quote


See my comments on reward cycles.  As I said, I think that idea is close to being true.

Actually, given that we're a fair ways in, and that's likely to be an interesting topic, would you like me to state a full position on that one?


On "reward cycles"? Sure.

Quote

Please understand, this is pure speculation.

As I've said, struggle is at the heart of the kinds of games that many theorist want to play.  Maybe not expressed in a way you'd like, but struggle.  And, it's important to their vision of struggle that the characters be key figures in their part of the struggle - they don't need to be the biggest kids on the block, but if the other kids are way, way, bigger, better to focus just on their house for now and get to the rest of the block later.

When I said that the kind of play that comes out of theory involves putting specific things foremost in the experiece, I really meant it.  If you're focused on the ongoing conflict of these characters, the scenery is ultimately no more than loose bits of background to be played with and bring into the game in ways that serve that conflict, ramp it up, broaden the scope of it, give it color - but the setting serves the situation, and the situation serves the greater conflict.


Yup, but it seems to mean that they have a one-track-mind as to what kind of games they want to play, a very narrow view of there they get their rocks off with gaming, and this is what leads to the bizzare little microgames. Its practically a case where the chance that someone else would sincerely like the game that came out of this kind of fevered mindset is pretty minimal; and most of the people who are playing are doing so either because its "what's so hot right now" on the Forge or because they are changing it around in some pretty radical ways (or, more often than not, both).

Quote

As an example of this, a character that is coming of age, whose struggle is the attempt to find a place in the world where they can belong, and to find a way to accept that the world is the way it is and he needs to fit to it just as much as mold a corner of it to fit him - it doesn't work right.  That particular struggle is one that a player actually could short-circuit given even a tiny amount of narrative power. And yet that conflict, "finding my place in the world" is the center of so many coming-of-age stories that I can't even begin to count them.  And journey-of-wonder and coming-of-age have a lot of ties, though they aren't quite the same deal.


Which to me is part of the failing of Theorist mentality: this idea that every game must have a big overarching theme.  At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with a bunch of little themes, or historical or panoramic pastiche. This is only viewed as "wrong" by Theorists because they can't create their "GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF How Smart I Am".

Quote

To me, Nobilis is very evocative in terms of tone and feel.  But it's not an astonishing system.  
As to Amber's system, I generally agree.  I'd like to see Amber gone over with a fine-tooth comb, and a touch more resource management added in on few the rough spots (hence my suggested 'place to steal'), but the core of it is solid.


It needs some work done in a couple of areas, but otherwise it is a superior and more successful system than Nobilis, WoTG, or any of the other various games I've heard being touted as so "innovative" and brilliant.  The Gaming Theorists, if they really cared about gaming theory and not just seeming smart, should be licking Erick Wujcik's balls. In all these years of the Forge they have yet to produce a game that comes even close to Amber's level.

Quote

I'm on the staff there, as you know.  I can say that there's never been any discussion among moderators there that spoke towards favoring WW or the Forge; the closest that was ever seen was discussion on how to stop theory threads from turning into flamewars.  I am, of course, biased, and strictly limited from sharing details, so I can't really justify my position.


Here's how I get misinterpeted as a "conspiracy nut". There doesn't have to be a conspiracy to have deliberate subversion.

I mean, of COURSE you guys aren't sitting around back there twirling your black mustacchios and cackling with glee at the thought of how you've taken over RPG.net and have managed to subvert it into a place where open discussion, and therefore the challenge of your theories and delusions about the industry, can no longer take place.

But it doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what happened. I doubt any of you (well, maybe one or two) went into it thinking you were going to be all for the totalitarian censorship and the favoritism of certain RPGs over others, but you (well, not really you, you're too new as a mod, but the other mods) went into their jobs with certain twisted concepts of what's "important" in RPGs, what's "good" and "bad" in RPGs, what games are cooler than other, which people are cooler than other, and how Gaming Fandom "ought to be". And then the mods went on to create that imaginary kingdom right there on RPG.net, complete with placing a higher value on "tolerance" rather than "freedom" in speach, to make sure that the views of the governing majority could not be challenged. You top it all off with some pretty words about "respect" to hide a level of lawless mod-totalitarianism that would make the King Gyanendra's reign seem constitutional and populist by comparison.

It doesn't take conspiracy, all it takes is intent and opportunity. Hell, most of you weren't conspiratorial about it in the least; Curt was very open about what he wanted, for example, which is why they had to keep him at arms length until freedom of posting had been reduced to such a low that his ideas went from seeming like a total fascist asshole's (which is how they would have been viewed in the old RPG.net), to extreme (middle RPG.net), to understandable and valid (late RPG.net), to mainstream and clearly true (current RPG.net). And at that point, lo even Curt could be a mod.

The Swine have systematically destroyed any value RPG.net had; just like they subverted and destroyed (much earlier on) the value that gaming theory could have had.  Just like they'd destroy the industry if they could. Not because they're mustache-twirling evil, just because they are so utterly self-absorbed and determined to be the dictators of what is artistic, intelligent, permitted, and good. That's why they're so dangerous.

Quote

I don't accept GNS as it stands. I do accept the outline of the Big Model, but believe that the wording is poor, and the place where that model places Creative Agendas, something much less clean and simple is going on; I'd be happy to show you my version of the model, and defend it, if you like. The glossary thread I started shows the terms I use, for instance.


Please do, show me your model.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 22, 2006, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
They're a fad. They annoy the hell out of me. The Forge seems to go out of its way to create microgames that are unbelievably specific and couldn't possibly be entertaining for very long.


My impression of the narrowness of these games is pretty neatly summed up in the model stuff below.

Quote
Let me see if I have your point straight: are you saying that games like D&D, where you have a vested interest in getting certain feats like Power attack or cleave or whatever and then using them, is in some way a force that stifles Roleplay?  To me the choice of certain feats in the beginning would be a question of roleplay, they would reflect the kind of combat (or specialties of other kind) that it makes sense for your character to have.

Of course, you have to have various options, and make it that no one set of special feats or what have you would be so essential that people would choose them in spite of their character's mojo; but then that becomes a question of good rules design, rather than roleplay.


I agree with your points - and that actually wasn't what I was saying.

When rules block roleplaying, they tend to do so by their very mass.  Let me see if I can give an example.  You're at the D&D table.  Your GM is playing straight out of the book, all rules active.  And everything that you do is filtered therough the letter of the rules, even in places where it's a bad idea.  As such, you keep hitting places where the game world doesn't operate in accord with your play.

Yes, a more experienced and flexible GM can bend or ignore rules around situations to allow for all those little cases where the rules don't quite mesh.  In fact, they're advised to do so by the book.

My point is, even though it's a common GM skill to work around the rules in situations like this, they shouldn't have to.  Because their impression of when they should do that and mine will never quite match, meaning one of us will be irritated all the damn time.

Quote
Yup, that's exactly what I object to. Essentially in-system bribery to encourage "roleplay".  This differs from my own "roleplay award" in that this award is at the end of the session and for overall play, rather than encouraging specific instances of doing a specific kind of roleplay, which is where players will tend to try to force play into artificial pretzels of convoluted fabrication in order to get their points.

On "reward cycles"? Sure.


I'll put it together for my next post.  This time out, I'm just trying to get my stuff together.

Quote
Yup, but it seems to mean that they have a one-track-mind as to what kind of games they want to play, a very narrow view of there they get their rocks off with gaming, and this is what leads to the bizzare little microgames. Its practically a case where the chance that someone else would sincerely like the game that came out of this kind of fevered mindset is pretty minimal; and most of the people who are playing are doing so either because its "what's so hot right now" on the Forge or because they are changing it around in some pretty radical ways (or, more often than not, both).


Again, my impression of this is pretty neatly summed up in the model stuff below.

Quote
Which to me is part of the failing of Theorist mentality: this idea that every game must have a big overarching theme.  At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with a bunch of little themes, or historical or panoramic pastiche. This is only viewed as "wrong" by Theorists because they can't create their "GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF How Smart I Am".


Every game?  Nope.  Every game I personally want to play?  Nope.  Most of the ones I talk about most often, because they're new to me?

You bet.

Quote
*Snip Amber stuff*


While I disagree with your statements about theorists there, we're already arguing that one on other fronts.  I do agree with the innovative nature of Amber.

Quote
*Snip RPGnet Stuff*


You've gone into details to a degree that I cannot argue your statements without stepping away from the basic rules that my position there requires.  As such, I note my disagreement, and will leave it at that.

Quote
Please do, show me your model.


Okay.  This is going to be kind of long; that's part of why I gave fairly short answers to some of your statements above.  

It consists of a few basic assertions, and misuses exactly one word, as far as I can tell (and yes, I'm looking for a better one); then there's some explanation of the assertions.

First Assertion: Boxes inside each other
A game has three basic things that can be easily examined and tooled around with, each contained within one of the others.  The first thing is the consensus of the group.  Consensus contains the rules.  The rules contain the mechanics.  To define those terms clearly:

   Consensus: The Consensus is the whole mass of stuff that people bring to the table that they can agree on, whether they actually talk about it or not.  When a group goes over group stuff, they're usually either just clearing up how their consensus works, or adding more stuff to it.  

Rules: Every clearly stated part of the consensus is a rule.  That includes if we roll dice, what dice we roll, and if we re-roll dice that go onto the floor, as well as who buys the pizza, whose house we play at, and so on.  This is the one term I may be misusing; I've considered calling it "agreements' instead, but that's a bit uppity-sounding.

Mechanics: Mechanics are a specific kind of rule.  A mechanic is a rule that governs and works with numbers, ratings, and such.  A rule that says "a gun does 2d6 damage" is a mechanic.  A rule that says "reroll dice that hit the floor" isn't.

Second Assertion: The Playstyle Wedge
My group plays the game in a way that's different from yours.  We have different goals, want different kinds of satisfaction or fun, use different "stances" at different times, and so on.  Different people have varying levels of authority.  

However, if I'm providing my group with a style of play that they can buy into and enjoy, and so are you, then both of us are doing things right.  Our playstyles are one solid piece, internally consistent in and of themselves, but they are different styles despite that.

I show this as a wedge on the pictures below, but the triangular shape is only important insofar in order to make my third point; it is not meant to mean that there's "more playstyle in consensus" or something dumb like that.

So here's the first picture - and yes, it looks a lot like the Big Model from the Forge:

(http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/LittleModel1.jpg)


Third Assertion: The Shape of the Game
Different games contain different "stuff".  D&D supports different a slightly different group of playstyles than GURPS, and a far different one from Amber, which is different again from Dogs in the Vineyard.

Now, one of the ways they differ, and possibly one of the most imortant ways, is how many different playstyles they support, and how clear the intent of the designer is as to the style or style it was build for.

GURPS 'looks' like the first picture.
There's plenty of room for different styles; you can play the game any number of ways.  However, the game doesn't 'show' the group a single clear way to play; they need to sort that out on their own.

Here's what Dogs in the Vineyard looks like:
(http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/LittleModel2.jpg)

The whole "wedge" is there - a complete, viable playstyle.  But there's no extra space around it.  This means two things.  First, the playstyle of the game is obvious, focused, and clear; reading the book, you can see the style of play it's intended for instantly, and everyone can get on that same page, if they're interested in playing at all, very quickly.  Second, the style the game was built for is the only one it supports.  If the style of the group wanders very far from the book, then you're on your own.

And here's what Amber looks like:
(http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/LittleModel3.jpg)

Again, there's the wedge, and the space around it.  There's some room to move around in terms of playstyle - but not as much as, say, GURPS.  And you can tell looking at the game what the general shape of the playstyle is going to be, but still need to fine-tune it to your group.

...

Okay, so, that's the shape of my model.  There's a whole lot of other stuff that goes with it - like ideas on how to get an solid playstyle that fits your group and the game, blah, blah, blah.  But that's the basic shape of it.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 23, 2006, 02:08:00 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

I agree with your points - and that actually wasn't what I was saying.

When rules block roleplaying, they tend to do so by their very mass.  Let me see if I can give an example.  You're at the D&D table.  Your GM is playing straight out of the book, all rules active.  And everything that you do is filtered therough the letter of the rules, even in places where it's a bad idea.  As such, you keep hitting places where the game world doesn't operate in accord with your play.

Yes, a more experienced and flexible GM can bend or ignore rules around situations to allow for all those little cases where the rules don't quite mesh.  In fact, they're advised to do so by the book.

My point is, even though it's a common GM skill to work around the rules in situations like this, they shouldn't have to.  Because their impression of when they should do that and mine will never quite match, meaning one of us will be irritated all the damn time.


Ok, I can grasp that. I still see it as more a problem of rules than of roleplay.


Quote

You've gone into details to a degree that I cannot argue your statements without stepping away from the basic rules that my position there requires.  As such, I note my disagreement, and will leave it at that.


Pity.

Quote

Okay.  This is going to be kind of long; that's part of why I gave fairly short answers to some of your statements above.  

It consists of a few basic assertions, and misuses exactly one word, as far as I can tell (and yes, I'm looking for a better one); then there's some explanation of the assertions.

First Assertion: Boxes inside each other

Second Assertion: The Playstyle Wedge

Third Assertion: The Shape of the Game

Okay, so, that's the shape of my model.  There's a whole lot of other stuff that goes with it - like ideas on how to get an solid playstyle that fits your group and the game, blah, blah, blah.  But that's the basic shape of it.


Ok, so how exactly is this useful for anything at all?

I mean, I can see in principle that it appears to be intended to find the best little diagram to fit your group's gaming interest, as though games are made only for certain groups based on the "kind of play" they address... is that it?

Only, I don't think about games in that way when I choose what games I want to run or not. And trying to organize them along the lines of "consensus" or "playstyle"; well, I don't know.
I think if you really want to figure out some kind of system to help you know whether you want to run a game or not, I would say the questions would be whether that game is orthodox or unorthodox, whether it encourages railroading, how sound the system is.

I just would really have no use for this kind of "unified theory". I mean that in he most literal sense, I'm not being mean, I simply can't fathom exactly how its intended to help in the real world. Which is really the problem I run into with virtually all theory I've seen thus far.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 23, 2006, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Ok, I can grasp that. I still see it as more a problem of rules than of roleplay.


It means that rules can be refined in ways that make roleplaying easier - though I will concede, now, that it's not by "creating" roleplay, but by not stopping it.  The difficulty, of course, is that going "whole hog" and pushing as far as possible to try and make it so the rules don't need little adjustments like this is hard; most games that try to go that full distance end up looking pretty strange, and the people working their hardest to do it try to do a lot of other things at the same time.

Quote
Ok, so how exactly is this useful for anything at all?


*Grin*

Every model has one and only one point of utility - when you put a problem in terms of that model, sometimes you see things you wouldn't have noticed otherwise; that's the benefit.  Every model also offers up a trap; if you get to used to thinking in the terms of the model, you get dismissive of things that don't fit - and if the terms of the model are a fair distance from "speaking plainly"...  well.

Having a clear glossary of all the different parts used to make a playstyle is helpful to me, because it lets my players tell me they want "more of this, less of that" - and some players are well-known for wanting something different, but not being able to express what the hell it is, so the terms sometimes spark them to being able to tell me what it is they want.

The advice I have on finding a group playstyle, that's also useful in and of itself.  But so far as I can tell, even though it grew out of me having this mental "picture" of games, I don't present the advice with the model because the advice now stands on it's own.

And, for now, that's it.  I have a few other things that I've been thinking over in these terms that might become something of real utility in the future, but we'll see.  As always, I'm just tossing darts at the board, and seeing what hits.

...moving on...

Reward Cycles
In play, people do all sorts of things, and want all kinds of different things from the game.  One way that groups have been staying "on the same page" since the very beginning is by rewarding specific behaviours.  If you do a specific thing, and do it in the "right way", you get a reward.  In D&D, the right thing is to overcome challenges, the right way to do it is so that they will not need to be faced again, and the reward is Xp, which translates into getting better at overcoming challenges.

And if that sounds a bit circular, that's exactly right.  The reward for having your fun in the way that the game supports is almost always more resources to use in order to do more things of exactly the same sort.

A reward cycle and how it is applied emphasizes a playstyle.  Because the most commonly rated challenges in D&D are monsters, the playstyle emphasized is basically one of fighting monsters.  If challenge ratings were attached to really different stuff, like "Talk down the hostage taker without making any rolls" - then two things would happen.  First, it would create a whole different playstyle.  Second, the system would start to feel really strange, because the reward that you'd be getting for negotiation is "getting more resources to use for action adventuring"; they wouldn't match up.

Now, rewards can be given at any point in the game - but the more that figuring and calculating are involved in using them, the more problems result in doing that.  Imagine having the fighter drop a foe, level up, and then continue that same swing with their brand new Cleave feat.  That's crazy talk, is what that is.

So, some groups want to have rewards flying around the table all the time, even given by other players.   It's a way of smoothing out and speeding up that whole process of negotiating what is and isn't lame, and of encouraging your fellow players; those are pretty cool things.  But rewards given out this way can't be as complex to use as XP.  So they change it up, and have things like "plot points" - see Theatrix, Primetime adventures, and Toon, for three totally different ways of using these.  Or whatever.

Now, I suspect you don't have a problem with the basic concept here, but with specific applications of it.  If so, name a couple, and we can get down to business on them.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 24, 2006, 01:36:06 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
It means that rules can be refined in ways that make roleplaying easier - though I will concede, now, that it's not by "creating" roleplay, but by not stopping it.  The difficulty, of course, is that going "whole hog" and pushing as far as possible to try and make it so the rules don't need little adjustments like this is hard; most games that try to go that full distance end up looking pretty strange, and the people working their hardest to do it try to do a lot of other things at the same time.


Yes. To a certain degree it can be useful to think about this in designing a game, but after a certain point it creates more problems than its worth.


Quote

Every model has one and only one point of utility - when you put a problem in terms of that model, sometimes you see things you wouldn't have noticed otherwise; that's the benefit.  Every model also offers up a trap; if you get to used to thinking in the terms of the model, you get dismissive of things that don't fit - and if the terms of the model are a fair distance from "speaking plainly"...  well.


In the end all models try to classify why gamers play certain games; most models fail catastrophically at even attempting to explain why D&D is the most consistently popular RPG in the world, usually preferring to view it as a question of general ignorance + marketing rather than the reality that D&D is the best model from which you can design a successful RPG.
And, fundamentally, you are likely to have as much or more luck in classifying games (and gamers) by the type of dice they use as you would by the way they "approach narrative" or their style of play.

Quote

Having a clear glossary of all the different parts used to make a playstyle is helpful to me, because it lets my players tell me they want "more of this, less of that" - and some players are well-known for wanting something different, but not being able to express what the hell it is, so the terms sometimes spark them to being able to tell me what it is they want.


I've never run into this. Usually I address games by saying to my group of players "I'm thinking of running X campaign" or sometimes "x system", and my players will be into it. It helps also, of course, to have a wide pool of players from which to choose from, which is a luxury I have here in Uruguay. But even back in Canada, it was really more of a question of "what setting would be cool" or "what system do we want to play" rather than "what playstyle do my players want"?

Quote

Reward Cycles

Now, I suspect you don't have a problem with the basic concept here, but with specific applications of it.  If so, name a couple, and we can get down to business on them.


My main problem is how to handle these kinds of rewards (be they mechanical rewards for skill use or combat, or rewards for "roleplaying" or descriptions) in such a way that they don't warp the game themselves in a gratuitous fashion; where the players are pushed or could feel pushed to artificially replicate the situation that creates the reward just to get the reward.

The classic example of this in mechanics is in the classic Runequest, where you advanced in weapon skills only by using the weapon in question, and since you only advanced once it was more practical to carry a "wheelbarrow full of weapons" and alternate between each to get to earn an experience check with each.  Similar examples could be made of RPGs that gave rewards for "roleplaying" based on acting out certain character traits, flaws, or descriptions repeatedly.

The reward should be for organically natural play, not something that actually makes the players change their play JUST for the reward.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 24, 2006, 03:19:27 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Yes. To a certain degree it can be useful to think about this in designing a game, but after a certain point it creates more problems than its worth.


I'm not so sure - I'd say that "after a certain point", the people chasing it are still, plainly, pretty new at it.  They've made some pretty impressive progress, and they've also made some pretty bad dud attempts.  And they're in a subculture that doesn't tolerate all that many duds.

Quote from: RPGPundit
In the end all models try to classify why gamers play certain games; most models fail catastrophically at even attempting to explain why D&D is the most consistently popular RPG in the world, usually preferring to view it as a question of general ignorance + marketing rather than the reality that D&D is the best model from which you can design a successful RPG.
And, fundamentally, you are likely to have as much or more luck in classifying games (and gamers) by the type of dice they use as you would by the way they "approach narrative" or their style of play.


Models are pretty consistently about reasons for play and how they affect playstyle, is how I'd put it.

As for why D&D is the most popular game, bar none, some reasons:

1. The game speaks directly to the reasons why the majority of players come to the table; they go to escape, vent steam, to imagine grand adventures and real heroes, and "be there" to a certain extent, doing the big stuff.

2. Material for it is written by people that are paid real money to do so, and who like their jobs (on the whole).  They thus provide consistently quality material (again, on the whole).

3. Name Recognition and market placement.

4. Production values.  Art, layout, color.

5. Networking; you know that you can probably find a group.

Personally, I dig on #2.  Items 3, 4, and 5 mean less to me than most gamers, and I like to change up the stuff in #1.  So it's a good game among many, to me.  But I'm not blind to the reality of it.

Also, I like d12's, and would love to read a thesis where someone tried to peg my preferences by that.

Quote
I've never run into this. Usually I address games by saying to my group of players "I'm thinking of running X campaign" or sometimes "x system", and my players will be into it. It helps also, of course, to have a wide pool of players from which to choose from, which is a luxury I have here in Uruguay. But even back in Canada, it was really more of a question of "what setting would be cool" or "what system do we want to play" rather than "what playstyle do my players want"?


For me, with my extended group, I can pretty much find a play group before my hat hits the floor, for whatever I like.  After that, it's all about how we want to play it.

Quote
My main problem is how to handle these kinds of rewards (be they mechanical rewards for skill use or combat, or rewards for "roleplaying" or descriptions) in such a way that they don't warp the game themselves in a gratuitous fashion; where the players are pushed or could feel pushed to artificially replicate the situation that creates the reward just to get the reward.

The classic example of this in mechanics is in the classic Runequest, where you advanced in weapon skills only by using the weapon in question, and since you only advanced once it was more practical to carry a "wheelbarrow full of weapons" and alternate between each to get to earn an experience check with each.  Similar examples could be made of RPGs that gave rewards for "roleplaying" based on acting out certain character traits, flaws, or descriptions repeatedly.

The reward should be for organically natural play, not something that actually makes the players change their play JUST for the reward.


Yes and no - I think the rewards should flow naturally with the style of play that the game itself encourages, whatever that is.  In may ways, a reward system is the way to "encourage" whatever it is the game is built for.  But whenever the reward system doesn't actually match up with that playstyle just right, there will be problems.  Sometimes bizzare ones, like the "wheelbarrow of weapons", sometimes huge ones, like the group of D&D players that are there to be diplomats with a GM that can't figure out how to hack the system.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 24, 2006, 04:02:32 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

Models are pretty consistently about reasons for play and how they affect playstyle, is how I'd put it.


Right, the "who" and "why" rather than the "what". But I think that if they don't address the "what" first, then they don't really get accurately at the other two, and if they do address the "what", the "who" and "why" become pretty self evident.

Quote

As for why D&D is the most popular game, bar none, some reasons:


Your reasons are all basically true statements, but "network externalities" aside, I think that the number one reason why D&D is the most popular game is because the game is focused on play, on being a game, and yet has nothing inherent to it that prevents sophisticated and profound games. It need NOT be just escapist steam-venting monster-bashing; it is designed to accomodate using the rules for tactical monster-bashing AND sophisticated roleplay without having to add anything to the rules.
A good RPG is one that can do both of those things, the way D&D does.

Quote

Also, I like d12's, and would love to read a thesis where someone tried to peg my preferences by that.


Here is my game theory:

RPGPundit's Dice-Derived Game Theory

People do not choose RPGs based on their narrative needs or story needs. Most people do not really have any of those kinds of needs; they haven't thought about them, wouldn't feel strongly about them even if they did think about them, and would probably just make shit up if asked about it from fear of not looking intellectual enough.
Most people would also not have a clue which games would fit which "playstyles",  given that no one can seem to agree on how to categorize playstyles in the first place.

Instead, people will usually gravitate to differing RPGs for entirely shallow reasons, purely aesthetic elements that reflect more about their extrovert personality than their introverted "needs". You can identify types of gamers and the kind of games they enjoy more from the kind of dice that they favour than from any subjective set of jargon about "playstyles".

Gamers that like D20s are mostly interested in rapid, fun play. They like a good solid ruleset, want games to be coherent without being too completist, and  will in no way be picky or selective about the games they play as long as its fun to play. They are by a VAST majority the most common kind of gamer.

Gamers that like D6s don't care about how a game looks, they care about how it works. What kind of dice a game use doesn't matter, a simple D6 is enough, its more important that the rules BE there.  They are technical perfectionists, wanting games that function with detail and consistency. They don't fear big rulebooks. They want games that demand a serious level of commitment; and are seeking out a kind of perfect game system, a set of rules so thurough and complete that they cover everything.

Gamers that like percentile dice (not D10s, but rolling 2D10s as percentiles) are a cross between D20 and D6 people. They want something solid and dependable, but simple to understand. So simple you can express it in percentiles.  Getting to the game is very importance, but the mechanics have to be there.

Gamers that like D10s, on the other hand, prefer play that's mostly style over substance. D10s are the only dice that aren't Platonic Solids. This clearly means that D10 lovers are clearly degenerates (unless they're percentage lovers, who aren't really dice lovers at all).  They actually care more about a game looking and acting cool and being thought of as "hip" than actually working. Ease of play and fun aren't as important as the "fulfillment" of seeming to do something important.

Gamers that like D12s or D8s are the ones who enjoy wierd for wierd's sake. They aren't as purely solipsistic as the D10-lovers, they enjoy mechanics, but they want mechanics that aren't orthodox. They want mechanics that are generally counter-intuitive; and generally don't want complexity as much as they want originality. They aren't looking for the perfect game system, they're looking for a new game system every week.

Gamers who like D4s are sadomasochistic sexual deviants who enjoy being molested by lizards.

Quote

For me, with my extended group, I can pretty much find a play group before my hat hits the floor, for whatever I like.  After that, it's all about how we want to play it.


I don't get this though; with very particular and rare exceptions, this is something that I've never had to TALK THROUGH with any group of mine ever. In most cases, its pretty self-evident: "we want to play it like an RPG".

Quote

Yes and no - I think the rewards should flow naturally with the style of play that the game itself encourages, whatever that is.  In may ways, a reward system is the way to "encourage" whatever it is the game is built for.  But whenever the reward system doesn't actually match up with that playstyle just right, there will be problems.  Sometimes bizzare ones, like the "wheelbarrow of weapons", sometimes huge ones, like the group of D&D players that are there to be diplomats with a GM that can't figure out how to hack the system.


I do not accept your presumption, in this statement, that RPGs can only be "built for" one thing at a time, or only one "playstyle". I have no problem running D&D/D20 as a diplomatic/political campaign. None in the least. Its built for that just as much as its built for combat, or exploration/pastiche, or character interation. It can do all of those things.
So while in certain cases you could be right that the "rewards" system would run into trouble if it didn't match the game's goals, in many games this would not be the case. It would be more common a problem that the "rewards" system is just badly designed, or unnecessary in the first place.
In the case of the "wheelbarrow of weapons", for example, the problem isn't that Runequest isn't made for weapon use. Its clearly made for combat/weapons use. Its just that the mechanic is badly made; it fails to take player greed into account and allows players to create artificial situations where they engage in metagaming: doing things not because it fits your character but because it is mechanically encouraged.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 24, 2006, 12:48:31 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Right, the "who" and "why" rather than the "what". But I think that if they don't address the "what" first, then they don't really get accurately at the other two, and if they do address the "what", the "who" and "why" become pretty self evident.


Not if the "what" isn't satisfying to the players.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
Your reasons are all basically true statements, but "network externalities" aside, I think that the number one reason why D&D is the most popular game is because the game is focused on play, on being a game, and yet has nothing inherent to it that prevents sophisticated and profound games. It need NOT be just escapist steam-venting monster-bashing; it is designed to accomodate using the rules for tactical monster-bashing AND sophisticated roleplay without having to add anything to the rules.
A good RPG is one that can do both of those things, the way D&D does.


Add anything?  Nope.  Take things away?  Yep, sometimes.  Like, say, you don't use a Diplomacy check *every* time your character tries to convince an NPC of something, do you?

Quote
RPGPundit's Dice-Derived Game Theory


Damn, that's fun.

Some stuff...

Quote
People do not choose RPGs based on their narrative needs or story needs. Most people do not really have any of those kinds of needs; they haven't thought about them, wouldn't feel strongly about them even if they did think about them, and would probably just make shit up if asked about it from fear of not looking intellectual enough.
Most people would also not have a clue which games would fit which "playstyles",  given that no one can seem to agree on how to categorize playstyles in the first place.


Most people do not have story "needs".  Sure, true.  But many people like stories in RPGs.

I actually try not to categorize whole playstyles, anymore.  Instead, I mostly just try to categorize pieces that make up playstyles.  It's less of a fiction, that way around, and more likely to produce something useful to the majority at some point, since they tend to have styles that are really, really closely related.

Quote
I don't get this though; with very particular and rare exceptions, this is something that I've never had to TALK THROUGH with any group of mine ever. In most cases, its pretty self-evident: "we want to play it like an RPG".


Do you play all games the same way?  

Quote
I do not accept your presumption, in this statement, that RPGs can only be "built for" one thing at a time, or only one "playstyle". I have no problem running D&D/D20 as a diplomatic/political campaign. None in the least. Its built for that just as much as its built for combat, or exploration/pastiche, or character interation. It can do all of those things.
So while in certain cases you could be right that the "rewards" system would run into trouble if it didn't match the game's goals, in many games this would not be the case. It would be more common a problem that the "rewards" system is just badly designed, or unnecessary in the first place.
In the case of the "wheelbarrow of weapons", for example, the problem isn't that Runequest isn't made for weapon use. Its clearly made for combat/weapons use. Its just that the mechanic is badly made; it fails to take player greed into account and allows players to create artificial situations where they engage in metagaming: doing things not because it fits your character but because it is mechanically encouraged.


Oh, a game can be built for more than one playstyle.  

D&D isn't that game.

Open your PHB, version 3.5, to page 4.  Ignore the "Why a Revision?" bar at the bottom.  Read the rest.  That's a playstyle, and every single line of text from that point onward backs up that style in every way.

That syle includes negotiation, roleplaying, pastiche, and character interaction.

It does not make room for "a battle of verbal wits" in any rules-governed meaningful sense.  Nor does it concern itself with matters of moral judgement in anything but the most basic senses.  It doesn't do these things because these things are far enough outside the clearly-laid-down playstyle of the game that including them would do nothing but confuse the design of the game.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 24, 2006, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Not if the "what" isn't satisfying to the players.  


The "what" in question is "what kind of game do they want to play" (as opposed to "who is playing x type of game" or "why does x person game", which are the two more typical theorist questions).  If you answer the "what" for each person, you answer the other two automatically.

Quote

Add anything?  Nope.  Take things away?  Yep, sometimes.  Like, say, you don't use a Diplomacy check *every* time your character tries to convince an NPC of something, do you?


Usually, yes. Of course, the diplomacy check is done in combination with the roleplaying the player does.
But wait, are you saying you disapprove of social mechanics?

Quote

Damn, that's fun.

Some stuff...

Most people do not have story "needs".  Sure, true.  But many people like stories in RPGs.


Sure, but I'm saying that's not the best way to figure out what kind of game is for what kind of player.

Quote

I actually try not to categorize whole playstyles, anymore.  Instead, I mostly just try to categorize pieces that make up playstyles.  It's less of a fiction, that way around, and more likely to produce something useful to the majority at some point, since they tend to have styles that are really, really closely related.


I'll grant that makes more sense than categorizing whole playstyles. One of the biggest failings of GNS is that gamers can be "gamists" "narrativists" and "simulationists" all in one fell swoop. Usually they're combinations of at least two, and more often all three "types": and likewise, all of the most succesful games in Roleplaying are games that allow for the application of ALL three types of play, something that is directly counter the assertion of GNS theory, where a "better" game is one which only handles one type of play specifically.

If GNS were true, Sorceror or My Life With Master would be the most successful RPGs of all time. Even taking market realities into account, they would at least be vastly more successful than they are. But they're not. So they're wrong.

Quote

Do you play all games the same way?  


All RPGs, basically yes. Some are played with different conventions to fit emulation of genre, but all are played "like RPGs". As in, with the GM, the players, the fixed roles, the character sheets, the dice (except Amber), etc etc.
There's never been a need to discuss with my group "how" we want to play, say, the Traveller campaign, because that is clearly outlined from the start.

Quote

Oh, a game can be built for more than one playstyle.  

D&D isn't that game.

Open your PHB, version 3.5, to page 4.  Ignore the "Why a Revision?" bar at the bottom.  Read the rest.  That's a playstyle, and every single line of text from that point onward backs up that style in every way.

That syle includes negotiation, roleplaying, pastiche, and character interaction.


Um, unless you and I have very different definitions of "Playstyle", would not a game that can range from a group of 12 year olds doing a game of fighting orcs and getting a lot of treasure and casting magic missle, to a group doing a game of exploring the Eastern Shaar mapping new trade routes, to a group doing a game of politics and intrigue in the Roman senate during an election, all be very different playstyles? When I'm saying "playstyle" I mean say: "pure hack and slash", "pastiche travellogue", "political-social intrigue", "humour", "epic warfare", etc etc. Those are all different types of play.
Of course, I realize now you could be meaning "playstyles" here as in "shared storytelling" or "co-operative group exercises" or other such stuff. But I don't see how any of that would have anything to do with the problems and pitfalls of a Reward Cycle, which is what we were talking about here.

Quote

It does not make room for "a battle of verbal wits" in any rules-governed meaningful sense.


But that's the point; in the omission of rules to regulate that sort of stuff, it allows actual roleplay to occur. D20 has rules for the stuff that needs to be regulated. You don't need rules to regulate "a battle of verbal wits", you just have to play it out.

Quote

 Nor does it concern itself with matters of moral judgement in anything but the most basic senses.  


You can use D&D/D20 to handle that too, if you want to: There's no reason you couldn't do a D20 Dogs In the Vinyard, or even a D20 Dragonraid, horrifying as either of those prospects might be.

Quote

It doesn't do these things because these things are far enough outside the clearly-laid-down playstyle of the game that including them would do nothing but confuse the design of the game.


I think including those types of things as RULES confuses the design of pretty  much any game.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 24, 2006, 10:00:32 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
The "what" in question is "what kind of game do they want to play" (as opposed to "who is playing x type of game" or "why does x person game", which are the two more typical theorist questions).  If you answer the "what" for each person, you answer the other two automatically.


I don't find that you always do.

Quote
Usually, yes. Of course, the diplomacy check is done in combination with the roleplaying the player does.
But wait, are you saying you disapprove of social mechanics?


That's rather interesting.  And if the check indicates something contrary to your impression of the roleplaying?

And, no, I don't disaprove of social mechinics.  What I don't like is when I want to play a certain way, the mechanics don't go with that - D&D doesn't get in my way, usually, but we "skip rolls" as often as not.  Dogs in the Vineyard actually inspires me to new ideas in play.  But Exalted blocks the fuck out of me in "social combat".

Quote
Sure, but I'm saying that's not the best way to figure out what kind of game is for what kind of player.


Let's say a player is in the mood for X, Y, and Z elements of play, and all those things are in "game A", but not "game B".

In your opinion then, when asked what he was in the mood for, he'd answer "game A".

And you think that I'm wasting my time looking for ways for him to be able to say "I'd like some X, some Y, and a whole lotta Z."

Is that what you're saying?

Quote
I'll grant that makes more sense than categorizing whole playstyles. One of the biggest failings of GNS is that gamers can be "gamists" "narrativists" and "simulationists" all in one fell swoop. Usually they're combinations of at least two, and more often all three "types": and likewise, all of the most succesful games in Roleplaying are games that allow for the application of ALL three types of play, something that is directly counter the assertion of GNS theory, where a "better" game is one which only handles one type of play specifically.

If GNS were true, Sorceror or My Life With Master would be the most successful RPGs of all time. Even taking market realities into account, they would at least be vastly more successful than they are. But they're not. So they're wrong.


I'd argue with that just a little, but not much.  Here's the part I'd argue.

Narrativism - the playstyle that these games are written to support - is basically a construct.  It's artificial.  Now, there are loads of things that people have developed to make it work that aren't artificial-feeling in play, like the idea of consistently front-loading a situation way, way harder than other games normally would.  But there's still a fair bit of artifice in games built specifically to support that kind of play.

Now, a small minority are willing to go along with that level of partial artifice in order to get what these games give in return benefit.  Others are flatly not.

This, to me, is the main cause that there's games haven't gone up like a house on fire.  Whether or not games that are highly focused on a single playstyle are likely to be more successful because of there focus has, I think, been flatly not proven either way, because we're never seen a game that had that kind of razor-sharp clarity and which was focused on a playstyle that the majority can get totally onboard with.

See what I mean?

Quote
All RPGs, basically yes. Some are played with different conventions to fit emulation of genre, but all are played "like RPGs". As in, with the GM, the players, the fixed roles, the character sheets, the dice (except Amber), etc etc.
There's never been a need to discuss with my group "how" we want to play, say, the Traveller campaign, because that is clearly outlined from the start.


XXXXXXXXXX

Quote
Um, unless you and I have very different definitions of "Playstyle", would not a game that can range from a group of 12 year olds doing a game of fighting orcs and getting a lot of treasure and casting magic missle, to a group doing a game of exploring the Eastern Shaar mapping new trade routes, to a group doing a game of politics and intrigue in the Roman senate during an election, all be very different playstyles? When I'm saying "playstyle" I mean say: "pure hack and slash", "pastiche travellogue", "political-social intrigue", "humour", "epic warfare", etc etc. Those are all different types of play.
Of course, I realize now you could be meaning "playstyles" here as in "shared storytelling" or "co-operative group exercises" or other such stuff. But I don't see how any of that would have anything to do with the problems and pitfalls of a Reward Cycle, which is what we were talking about here.


No, we're close to meaning the same thing by playstyle, though I also include full-on "shared storytelling" as a playstyle - though not necessarily a roleplaying style.

D&D's playstyle is "Heroic Adventures" - and regardless of what you play, so long as you focus it through that system, it will take on the tone of a Heroic Adventure.  If you drift the playstyle away from that feel, as you level up and play on, players look at their numbers and mechanical bits, and will get the urge to use them in play - and using them in play will slowly guide the group to trying to use them in a way that plays to the strengths of all the characters equally, because that's just good playing.  Heroic Adventures are the result.

Quote
But that's the point; in the omission of rules to regulate that sort of stuff, it allows actual roleplay to occur. D20 has rules for the stuff that needs to be regulated. You don't need rules to regulate "a battle of verbal wits", you just have to play it out.

You can use D&D/D20 to handle that too, if you want to: There's no reason you couldn't do a D20 Dogs In the Vinyard, or even a D20 Dragonraid, horrifying as either of those prospects might be.


d20 Versions of either of those games would completely miss the point, or would create a game that sucked so hard I can't even speak to it.

In DitV, the question is, what will you put on the line?  In D&D, you only have one flexible resource to put on the line - Hit Points.  It's not enough.

In Dragonraid, by my (admittedly rather hasty, because, yuck) reading, the real point of the game is to guide the players in the recitation and meorization of biblical passages in play, which d20 doesn't support and, frankly, shouldn't.[/QUOTE]

Do you also think that a d20 version of Amber would play the same way as the original, by that logic?

Quote
I think including those types of things as RULES confuses the design of pretty much any game.


And I don't.  You can make rules for whatever you like.  And if you keep at it, slowly, oh, so slowly, they'll get better and better until a group that wants what you do gets just what they want from play.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 24, 2006, 11:48:25 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

That's rather interesting.  And if the check indicates something contrary to your impression of the roleplaying?


The roleplaying reflects what the character's position is, whereas the die roll represents a combination of how difficult the person he's trying to convince is being, and of course the measure of the character, as opposed to the player's skill (a debate champ player shouldn't be able to do effective diplomacy with his 3 INT 4 CHA barbarian just because he's a debate champ, necessarily, nor should a player who stutters or just can't form effective arguments be prevented from roleplaying a diplomat; the die roll combined with the roleplay serves to kind of equalize the two circumstnaces of character vs. player abilities).  Someone who roleplays excessively well or makes an argument that the DM rules will be particularly convincing to the NPC he's targeting can get a bonus to his roll.

Quote

Let's say a player is in the mood for X, Y, and Z elements of play, and all those things are in "game A", but not "game B".
In your opinion then, when asked what he was in the mood for, he'd answer "game A".
And you think that I'm wasting my time looking for ways for him to be able to say "I'd like some X, some Y, and a whole lotta Z."
Is that what you're saying?


Well, what I'm saying is that in the real world there's a lot of reasons why a gamer might want to play a particular game; my "die-based personality type" theory was trying to make that point. I think most normal gamers out there don't start the process of play by saying "I want to play a game that deals with the theme of redemption"; they start out by saying "It'd be cool to play a game about Ninja Robots" or "it'd be great to play a historical campaign set in medieval spain, but with some supernatural elements". The "what" in those cases really tells you already which game is right for the person, and why the person would want to play a specific kind of game.
The real question of theory then becomes how to effectively create games that emulate particular settings, how to create systems that can adequately cover a variety of play-levels (I won't call them playstyles because clearly that's something different in your definition).
I think Theory has to start with the games, not with players or play groups or playstyles.

Quote

I'd argue with that just a little, but not much.  Here's the part I'd argue.
Narrativism - the playstyle that these games are written to support - is basically a construct.  It's artificial.  Now, there are loads of things that people have developed to make it work that aren't artificial-feeling in play, like the idea of consistently front-loading a situation way, way harder than other games normally would.  But there's still a fair bit of artifice in games built specifically to support that kind of play.
Now, a small minority are willing to go along with that level of partial artifice in order to get what these games give in return benefit.  Others are flatly not.
This, to me, is the main cause that there's games haven't gone up like a house on fire.  Whether or not games that are highly focused on a single playstyle are likely to be more successful because of there focus has, I think, been flatly not proven either way, because we're never seen a game that had that kind of razor-sharp clarity and which was focused on a playstyle that the majority can get totally onboard with.


So wait, are you saying that the Forge games have not been great successes because they're basically Narrativist and Narrativism lacks enough popular appeal? Leaving aside the fact that I believe there were a few forge games that also tried to be purely gamist, are you suggesting that if someone were to make a purely Gamist RPG it might be more successful?

Quote

XXXXXXXXXX


You left something out here again.

Quote

No, we're close to meaning the same thing by playstyle, though I also include full-on "shared storytelling" as a playstyle - though not necessarily a roleplaying style.


Ah, ok.

Quote

D&D's playstyle is "Heroic Adventures" - and regardless of what you play, so long as you focus it through that system, it will take on the tone of a Heroic Adventure.  If you drift the playstyle away from that feel, as you level up and play on, players look at their numbers and mechanical bits, and will get the urge to use them in play - and using them in play will slowly guide the group to trying to use them in a way that plays to the strengths of all the characters equally, because that's just good playing.  Heroic Adventures are the result.


Are you meaning "combat oriented" by "heroic adventure"? Because I really don't see anything in D&D that would mandate it to be "heroic adventure" other than the fact that characters go up in level and gain in combat ability (except maybe the XP system, that I've already mentioned to be poorly implemented). Most games I know of will have combat included in their system, even a few games that make a huge point of claiming to be about "more than hack n slash".
Interestingly, the campaigns I've had with the least combat in them have been D20 games, in particular my Traveller game that has had a grand total of 3 combat "scenes" in one year of weekly game play.

But pretty well any RPG will have "conflict" as a theme, and will generally have the characters get better at handling conflict as time goes by (though not always combat).

I really don't see this as a serious problem in D&D that prevents it from having sophisticated non-combat gameplay. In fact, in most D&D campaigns I've been involved in, the games shifts AWAY from combat-oriented play as the characters go up in level, when they usually tend to get less concerned about survival and more interested in the kind of conflicts going on in the setting that can't just be solved by teleporting in and kicking the shit out of people.

Quote

d20 Versions of either of those games would completely miss the point, or would create a game that sucked so hard I can't even speak to it.
In DitV, the question is, what will you put on the line?  In D&D, you only have one flexible resource to put on the line - Hit Points.  It's not enough.


Even if you address it specifically as D&D, there's a lot more any character can put on the line than hit points. Their dignity, their sanity, their reputation, their wealth, their loves, etc etc.
And of course, a DiTV D20 game wouldn't be D&D.

Quote

In Dragonraid, by my (admittedly rather hasty, because, yuck) reading, the real point of the game is to guide the players in the recitation and meorization of biblical passages in play, which d20 doesn't support and, frankly, shouldn't.


Yea, that one is a bit of a cheat. But still, a christian gamer could, in theory, run a D&D game that served as christian allegory or to instruct in christian morality.

Quote

Do you also think that a d20 version of Amber would play the same way as the original, by that logic?


No, but the reason would be one of power level, not of "theme": D20 doesn't handle the kind of power level the average starting Amberite would have.

But if you're talking about the "theme" of Amber, which is really about a machiavellian dysfunctional family engaging in plots and counterplots to try to gain an upper hand against long-hated sibling rivals; yes, you could easily do that with D20.  My Roman Immortals campaign (which is True20, but still serves for the example) had evolved into sessions of Amberesque machiavellian scheming; playing with influences and favours, manipulating others, with some player's characters (hi Jong!) putting enormous energy into obtaining even small petty political victories against hated rivals.

D&D/D20 works, and is ultimately more popular than other games, because it is versatile and your games with it as a system will change and evolve as your interests in types of roleplay grow and change.

I mean, as an example of a less versatile system, you have Palladium.  When I was 13 years old, I played TONS of D&D (rules cyclopedia D&D), and I played TONS of palladium RPGs (Robotech, RIFTS, Beyond The Supernatural, TMNT).  Today, I still play tons of D&D (including Rules Cyclopedia D&D, so you can't just say that its because of the change of editions), but I have long since left Palladium behind. It really is less versatile as a system in the sense I think you're trying to say D&D is. Not that you COULDN'T play a deep meaningful and non-combat-oriented game of RIFTS (just like you could in theory play an ultraviolent shoot-em-up hack-n-slash-oriented game of My Life With Master or DiTV), but it'd be sincerely harder.

Quote

And I don't.  You can make rules for whatever you like.  And if you keep at it, slowly, oh, so slowly, they'll get better and better until a group that wants what you do gets just what they want from play.


In theory that's certainly true; but in practice you are looking a seriously messed up rate of diminishing returns there; the more specific and narrow your scope gets, the more you "lock in" and therefore limit to your own particular vision as a designer these kinds of social or moral mechanics, the smaller the group of people will be who it will really appeal to as-is (or even the group that will be able to alter and fidget with the rules to get what they want out of it).

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 25, 2006, 12:27:01 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
The roleplaying reflects what the character's position is, whereas the die roll represents a combination of how difficult the person he's trying to convince is being, and of course the measure of the character, as opposed to the player's skill (a debate champ player shouldn't be able to do effective diplomacy with his 3 INT 4 CHA barbarian just because he's a debate champ, necessarily, nor should a player who stutters or just can't form effective arguments be prevented from roleplaying a diplomat; the die roll combined with the roleplay serves to kind of equalize the two circumstnaces of character vs. player abilities).  Someone who roleplays excessively well or makes an argument that the DM rules will be particularly convincing to the NPC he's targeting can get a bonus to his roll.


So, then, the gamelike elements act in fusion with the roleplaying ones?

:hmm:

That sounds familiar, that does.

Quote
Well, what I'm saying is that in the real world there's a lot of reasons why a gamer might want to play a particular game; my "die-based personality type" theory was trying to make that point. I think most normal gamers out there don't start the process of play by saying "I want to play a game that deals with the theme of redemption"; they start out by saying "It'd be cool to play a game about Ninja Robots" or "it'd be great to play a historical campaign set in medieval spain, but with some supernatural elements". The "what" in those cases really tells you already which game is right for the person, and why the person would want to play a specific kind of game.


The real question of theory then becomes how to effectively create games that emulate particular settings, how to create systems that can adequately cover a variety of play-levels (I won't call them playstyles because clearly that's something different in your definition).
I think Theory has to start with the games, not with players or play groups or playstyles.[/QUOTE]

For that purpose, I already have a theory: Just buy more d20-system books.  No "theory of games" is required; pure marketplace darwinian selection will cull the rejects there.

And, yeah, I think my definition of playstyle includes more stuff than yours.

Quote
So wait, are you saying that the Forge games have not been great successes because they're basically Narrativist and Narrativism lacks enough popular appeal? Leaving aside the fact that I believe there were a few forge games that also tried to be purely gamist, are you suggesting that if someone were to make a purely Gamist RPG it might be more successful?


Bingo.

It might be.  It depends - is "Gamist" actually the way that the majority plays?  

Quote
You left something out here again.


And I can't figure out what.  Crap.  I'll come back to it.

Quote
Are you meaning "combat oriented" by "heroic adventure"? Because I really don't see anything in D&D that would mandate it to be "heroic adventure" other than the fact that characters go up in level and gain in combat ability (except maybe the XP system, that I've already mentioned to be poorly implemented). Most games I know of will have combat included in their system, even a few games that make a huge point of claiming to be about "more than hack n slash".
Interestingly, the campaigns I've had with the least combat in them have been D20 games, in particular my Traveller game that has had a grand total of 3 combat "scenes" in one year of weekly game play.


What the characters gain isn't just combat ability, though.  It's a specific range of abilities, which are all keyed to different kinds of action (with combat high on the list), and each of which is treated with a specific level of detail.  Put those together, in anything roughly like the order of detail that they're treated with by the rules, and you get the action that takes place in a "Heroic Adventure".

Quote
But pretty well any RPG will have "conflict" as a theme, and will generally have the characters get better at handling conflict as time goes by (though not always combat).


Ayup.  Games without conflict are boring.

Quote
Even if you address it specifically as D&D, there's a lot more any character can put on the line than hit points. Their dignity, their sanity, their reputation, their wealth, their loves, etc etc.
And of course, a DiTV D20 game wouldn't be D&D.


Ah, sorry.  In d20 modern, they have more resources - wealth, for example.

But what "drives" DitV is that what you're putting on the line is actual stuff right there on your sheet, not just elements of the fiction.

Quote
Yea, that one is a bit of a cheat. But still, a christian gamer could, in theory, run a D&D game that served as christian allegory or to instruct in christian morality.


It'd be a stretch - and that's my point.  Why stretch?  Why not purpose-build?  I mean, Dragonraid is a terrible example of a purpose-built game to teach Christian morality, but it could be done, and no stretching would be required.

Quote
No, but the reason would be one of power level, not of "theme": D20 doesn't handle the kind of power level the average starting Amberite would have.

But if you're talking about the "theme" of Amber, which is really about a machiavellian dysfunctional family engaging in plots and counterplots to try to gain an upper hand against long-hated sibling rivals; yes, you could easily do that with D20.  My Roman Immortals campaign (which is True20, but still serves for the example) had evolved into sessions of Amberesque machiavellian scheming; playing with influences and favours, manipulating others, with some player's characters (hi Jong!) putting enormous energy into obtaining even small petty political victories against hated rivals.

D&D/D20 works, and is ultimately more popular than other games, because it is versatile and your games with it as a system will change and evolve as your interests in types of roleplay grow and change.


Then why isn't GURPS more popular than D&D, if that's the case?  And why is d20 Modern, with it's past and future supplements, not nearly as popular as D&D itself?

The popularity of D&D isn't about versatility, in my opinion; it's about a lot of things, but versatility isn't on that list.  Certainly, it's more versatile than DitV (to use the perennial example) by a long, long ways.  But it's hardly the most accomodating system that exists.

Quote
In theory that's certainly true; but in practice you are looking a seriously messed up rate of diminishing returns there; the more specific and narrow your scope gets, the more you "lock in" and therefore limit to your own particular vision as a designer these kinds of social or moral mechanics, the smaller the group of people will be who it will really appeal to as-is (or even the group that will be able to alter and fidget with the rules to get what they want out of it).


Depends on how your rules develop.  I'm pretty dead sure that Ron Edwards wasn't thinking of serving "Immersionists" with his Kicker and Bangs thing, but that trick works really, really well for many of those same folks.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 25, 2006, 02:22:26 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
So, then, the gamelike elements act in fusion with the roleplaying ones?

:hmm:

That sounds familiar, that does.


Yup, but like I said, its a question of diminishing returns. A little bit of that sort of thing can be really useful, but more than a little will make a barrier, not an aid, to game play.

Quote

For that purpose, I already have a theory: Just buy more d20-system books.  No "theory of games" is required; pure marketplace darwinian selection will cull the rejects there.
And, yeah, I think my definition of playstyle includes more stuff than yours.


I figure you're being sarcastic here, but basically, you've got a point.
The only games that really have a raison d'etre outside of D20 are games that do things beyond D20's scope (ie. stuff like Amber), or games that have a mechanical appeal outside of D20 (games that are considerably more rules-heavy, like GURPS, or games that are considerably more rules-lite, like OtE), or games that manage to emulate a specific setting better than D20 (like, say Paranoia).
Thats still room for a lot of games.  There is also the question of how to do a "better" mod of D20 for certain ranges of setting (ie. like what True20 does).
But yea, there's a whole slew of other games who's existence is pretty much unwarranted.
And I'm a huge fan of marketplace darwinian selection.

Quote

Bingo.

It might be.  It depends - is "Gamist" actually the way that the majority plays?  


Well, be it gamist or simulationist, I think games that tried to be "purely" either one of those would not find itself having serious success. In no small part than the fact that trying to make a game narrowly fit any one of these three requires that it be a highly specific, highly focused game.  That is clearly what has caused the "microsetting" phenomenon in the Forge.


Quote

What the characters gain isn't just combat ability, though.  It's a specific range of abilities, which are all keyed to different kinds of action (with combat high on the list), and each of which is treated with a specific level of detail.  Put those together, in anything roughly like the order of detail that they're treated with by the rules, and you get the action that takes place in a "Heroic Adventure".


I hate to get all into semantics here, but I think you might have to define "heroic adventure": Because the only way I can see you defining this that would honestly fit D&D is a definition that would still be broad enough to encompass all of the play-types that I've been claiming D&D can encompass.

Quote

Ayup.  Games without conflict are boring.


Well, yea. I think pretty well every game has conflict, though. Even if its just "man's conflict with his own navel" (my life with master) or "a symbolic representation of goths' deep struggle to maintain the illusion of being dark and brooding after they've been repeatedly wedgied by the jocks" (Vampire).

Quote

Ah, sorry.  In d20 modern, they have more resources - wealth, for example.

But what "drives" DitV is that what you're putting on the line is actual stuff right there on your sheet, not just elements of the fiction.


I've found the two of them can be equally meaningful.  If your players are sufficiently "into" the world and their characters, they will be just as upset at losing a political struggle or endangering their family as they would be at losing the +4 battle axe or 2 points of strength.

Quote

It'd be a stretch - and that's my point.  Why stretch?  Why not purpose-build?  I mean, Dragonraid is a terrible example of a purpose-built game to teach Christian morality, but it could be done, and no stretching would be required.


Well, given how unusual the dragonraid "goals" are, this is one of those cases where creating a purpose-built game would be justifiable; but then again given the history of those kind of things (a medium being subverted to promote/preach a specific ideology) and the way people in general, and geeks more specifically react to them, I wouldn't give it too many hopes in the old Darwinian Market.

Quote

Then why isn't GURPS more popular than D&D, if that's the case?  


GURPS is not as versatile as D&D. Its more rules-heavy, and the range of setting types it accomodates are less broad.  GURPS does superheros even worse than D20 does, and does Epic high fantasy much worse.

Quote

And why is d20 Modern, with it's past and future supplements, not nearly as popular as D&D itself?


D20, Modern and otherwise, is a variant derived from D&D. D&D, being the main "fantasy" part of the D20 "family", is just the most popular part of the system.

Quote

The popularity of D&D isn't about versatility, in my opinion; it's about a lot of things, but versatility isn't on that list.  Certainly, it's more versatile than DitV (to use the perennial example) by a long, long ways.  But it's hardly the most accomodating system that exists.


Just out of curiousity, which do you think would be?

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 25, 2006, 06:35:55 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Yup, but like I said, its a question of diminishing returns. A little bit of that sort of thing can be really useful, but more than a little will make a barrier, not an aid, to game play.


I've had plenty of players that want oodles of it.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I figure you're being sarcastic here, but basically, you've got a point.
The only games that really have a raison d'etre outside of D20 are games that do things beyond D20's scope (ie. stuff like Amber), or games that have a mechanical appeal outside of D20 (games that are considerably more rules-heavy, like GURPS, or games that are considerably more rules-lite, like OtE), or games that manage to emulate a specific setting better than D20 (like, say Paranoia).
Thats still room for a lot of games.  There is also the question of how to do a "better" mod of D20 for certain ranges of setting (ie. like what True20 does).
But yea, there's a whole slew of other games who's existence is pretty much unwarranted.
And I'm a huge fan of marketplace darwinian selection.


I was basically joking around, but the point was serious; you want more and better d20, wait a month.  It'll come; no theory needed.

It's when you want something d20 doesn't offer that you go elsewhere.  It would seem our opinions on "what games offer" differ somewhere way down at the very base.

Quote
Well, be it gamist or simulationist, I think games that tried to be "purely" either one of those would not find itself having serious success. In no small part than the fact that trying to make a game narrowly fit any one of these three requires that it be a highly specific, highly focused game.  That is clearly what has caused the "microsetting" phenomenon in the Forge.


I agree that trying to peg playstyles dead on is what caused the tendency to create those games.  However, I think that GNS is dead wrong on what makes a playstyle for design purposes; not only do people not play strictly to those three types (which they acknowledge), but the whole structure has a problem.

Here's the problem, as I see it.

The way that a group plays is built of a whole lot of stuff.  Previous experience, what it says in the book, what the rules inspire you to do with them, the different things that people want out of play, all sorts of stuff.  With practice and time, each group develops a style - and groups that have similar experiences or share members or use the same books are similar.  But every group is different - not only that, but they're different every time they play a different game, to some degree, if only because their characters are doing different stuff.

Now, a game poses a style to the group; the stuff in it, when you read it, leads you to think of it as "here's the way to play this game".  And every group will bring their own spin to that stuff - but if they can't fit their basic ideas of how to play into the game, they're toast.  It doesn't go.

A game that supports a focused style, therefore, needs to match what groups actually bring to the table, or it needs to effectively re-educate the players to the style.  If it fails at both, it fails.  Period.  

GNS-inspired games often don't match what people outside of that already-existing circle of players bring to the table, and only some of them do a really good job re-educating the players on what they actually should expect.  This leads to all kinds of "I don't get it", which quickly turns into "I don't like it" when people that are enthused by these games push people to like them even before they've bothered to show others what those games actually try to do.

Quote
I hate to get all into semantics here, but I think you might have to define "heroic adventure": Because the only way I can see you defining this that would honestly fit D&D is a definition that would still be broad enough to encompass all of the play-types that I've been claiming D&D can encompass.


Ur, not quite.  See, D&D defines a playstyle made up of a whole pile of stuff - characters that get stronger in specific ways as they overcome challenges, tactical confrontations, and so on.

Now, you can play outside that style - plenty of people do.  And the characters can be Florentine Italians doing politics in the style of Dangerous Liasons.  But as soon as those characters get into a duel, they are playing out a tactical combat.  And, say they like that - it's a good combat engine.  So they get into a few more tactical combats, and start thinking about combat tactics.   Now, someone else in the group is a Rogue, and they see the Fighter doing all this duelling.  They want some cool moments showing off their neat stuff, too, so they do a few of the cool skill things from the books - they don't quite fit the whole motif, but such is like.  And slowly, slowly, unless the GM spends time and effort offering cool stuf back over in the genre they were playing to, the whole tone of the game drifts closer to classic D&D play.

I'm a lazy bastard.  I don't want to have to lure my players away from the fun stuff the system offers to keep them in the style we're aiming for.  I want, in fact, a system that keeps offering them fun that does jive with the feel I have in mind.

Quote
I've found the two of them can be equally meaningful.  If your players are sufficiently "into" the world and their characters, they will be just as upset at losing a political struggle or endangering their family as they would be at losing the +4 battle axe or 2 points of strength.


Can be.  But see my comments above.

Quote
Well, given how unusual the dragonraid "goals" are, this is one of those cases where creating a purpose-built game would be justifiable; but then again given the history of those kind of things (a medium being subverted to promote/preach a specific ideology) and the way people in general, and geeks more specifically react to them, I wouldn't give it too many hopes in the old Darwinian Market.


I wouldn't hold out any hope for that one either.  

...I mean, a pictionary-style game where all the things people needed to guess were bible stories would do it better.

But I digress.

Quote
GURPS is not as versatile as D&D. Its more rules-heavy, and the range of setting types it accomodates are less broad.  GURPS does superheros even worse than D20 does, and does Epic high fantasy much worse.


More rules heavy?  They seem roughly the same to me.  And it depends what you want, again; I can think of about ten games I'd want to run in GURPS, about twenty in D&D - but if I really liked GURPS, is suspect that'd revese itself.  Which makes it a matter of perspective, to me.

Quote
D20, Modern and otherwise, is a variant derived from D&D. D&D, being the main "fantasy" part of the D20 "family", is just the most popular part of the system.


So "being fantasy" is more important to the market than "being versatile"?

Quote
Just out of curiousity, which do you think would be?


Off the top of my head?

FUDGE.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 25, 2006, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
I've had plenty of players that want oodles of it.

With more than a "little" of it, the mechanics become a substitute for real roleplay, rather than a compliment.
This is one of the things I've never gotten about the "roleplay not rollplay" crowd; they seem to think that the more rules you have about roleplaying (ie. the more rolls you have for things like social interaction) the better it is; but you'd think it would be the other way around.

Quote
I was basically joking around, but the point was serious; you want more and better d20, wait a month.  It'll come; no theory needed.

It's when you want something d20 doesn't offer that you go elsewhere.  It would seem our opinions on "what games offer" differ somewhere way down at the very base.

Sounds like its time for you to talk about what you think games "offer".

Quote
I agree that trying to peg playstyles dead on is what caused the tendency to create those games.  However, I think that GNS is dead wrong on what makes a playstyle for design purposes; not only do people not play strictly to those three types (which they acknowledge), but the whole structure has a problem.
Here's the problem, as I see it.
The way that a group plays is built of a whole lot of stuff.  Previous experience, what it says in the book, what the rules inspire you to do with them, the different things that people want out of play, all sorts of stuff.  With practice and time, each group develops a style - and groups that have similar experiences or share members or use the same books are similar.  But every group is different - not only that, but they're different every time they play a different game, to some degree, if only because their characters are doing different stuff.
Now, a game poses a style to the group; the stuff in it, when you read it, leads you to think of it as "here's the way to play this game".  And every group will bring their own spin to that stuff - but if they can't fit their basic ideas of how to play into the game, they're toast.  It doesn't go.
A game that supports a focused style, therefore, needs to match what groups actually bring to the table, or it needs to effectively re-educate the players to the style.  If it fails at both, it fails.  Period.  

What you're protesting here is the game designer imposing his vision on the gaming group. Well, you're not really protesting it; I'm protesting it, you're pointing out that it can be a problem, though you seem to be ok about it if the game designer can "re-educate" people.

Quote
GNS-inspired games often don't match what people outside of that already-existing circle of players bring to the table, and only some of them do a really good job re-educating the players on what they actually should expect.  This leads to all kinds of "I don't get it", which quickly turns into "I don't like it" when people that are enthused by these games push people to like them even before they've bothered to show others what those games actually try to do.

I think any game that requires that players be "re-educated" to play a certain game differently than a normal RPG has already got a serious problem.

To me, one of the fundamental things that RPGs "offer" are the freedom to create your own adventures, to make your own worlds.  My principle objection to the "story-based" games of White Wolf fame are that they reduce the GM from the principle creator of the game to a mere messenger for the Game Designer's delusions-of-grandeur, would-be-author metaplots.  Usually the Player Characters are also reduced to cheerleaders for the game designer's pet NPCs.
Forge games and other "theory" games suffer from a similar problem; where the game's design is so locked into the particular interests, agendas and priorities of the game designer, that they do not allow for easy adaptation to fit the GM's actual needs.

Quote
Ur, not quite.  See, D&D defines a playstyle made up of a whole pile of stuff - characters that get stronger in specific ways as they overcome challenges, tactical confrontations, and so on.

Can you name any other beside the two you just named? I still don't see what adds up to be called "heroic fantasy" other than "It is teh bad because it has levels and lots of fighting".

Quote
Now, you can play outside that style - plenty of people do.  And the characters can be Florentine Italians doing politics in the style of Dangerous Liasons.  But as soon as those characters get into a duel, they are playing out a tactical combat.  And, say they like that - it's a good combat engine.  So they get into a few more tactical combats, and start thinking about combat tactics.   Now, someone else in the group is a Rogue, and they see the Fighter doing all this duelling.  They want some cool moments showing off their neat stuff, too, so they do a few of the cool skill things from the books - they don't quite fit the whole motif, but such is like.  And slowly, slowly, unless the GM spends time and effort offering cool stuf back over in the genre they were playing to, the whole tone of the game drifts closer to classic D&D play.

That really hasn't been my experience. I mean, pretty much any game of D&D will have some "adventuring" and some "heroism", that's kind of the point of RPGs in general. But I've never had a problem doing D&D campaigns that were not drawn to combat or "cool skills" as a solution in a way that screwed up a campaign that wasn't meant to be about combat.

Quote
I'm a lazy bastard.  I don't want to have to lure my players away from the fun stuff the system offers to keep them in the style we're aiming for.  I want, in fact, a system that keeps offering them fun that does jive with the feel I have in mind.

Ok, I'll bite: can you name a system that would be able to handle the Florentine plots & counterplots aforementioned BETTER than D&D would, and WHY that would be the case?
Or are you suggesting that you pretty much have to make a microgame for that? Because at that point you're saying that making microgames for everything is the natural choice, and I just don't accept that. Microgames suck because they FORCE you to play in a specific way.
If I have a guy in a florentine game that wants to resolve things from combat or breaking & entering, I would want him to be able to do that, and not be told that "there's no mechanic for it" or "it goes against narrative" or whatever else.

Quote
More rules heavy?  They seem roughly the same to me.  

GURPS lite is actually a little less heavy than D&D, and about the same as general D20; normal GURPS is heavier than D&D, and "GURPS with ALL the fixings" is unbelievably more rules heavy than D&D.
GURPS' point-buy system alone makes it more complex than D&D, not to mention the tactical rules, etc etc.

Quote
And it depends what you want, again; I can think of about ten games I'd want to run in GURPS, about twenty in D&D - but if I really liked GURPS, is suspect that'd revese itself.  Which makes it a matter of perspective, to me.

To me its a matter of genre emulation. If i want to run a totally historical campaign that's meant to have "realistic" (hate that word) combat and a gritty level of survivability, GURPS is superior. But if I want to run high fantasy, or even superheroes, or run of the mill tolkienesque/moorcockian fantasy, its D20 all the way.

Quote
So "being fantasy" is more important to the market than "being versatile"?

D20 is versatile. D&D is the most popular fantasy iteration of D20. Fantasy is the most popular genre of RPGs.

Quote
Off the top of my head?
FUDGE.

I knew you were going to say that. FUDGE isn't even a real RPG.
EDIT: I should have said a "full RPG". I don't mean FUDGE is too "alternative"; just that its not in and of itself a real RPG, its just a toolkit for RPG construction, so its kind of unfair to use as the example of a game system more "versatile" than D20

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 26, 2006, 12:17:15 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
With more than a "little" of it, the mechanics become a substitute for real roleplay, rather than a compliment.
This is one of the things I've never gotten about the "roleplay not rollplay" crowd; they seem to think that the more rules you have about roleplaying (ie. the more rolls you have for things like social interaction) the better it is; but you'd think it would be the other way around.


To be fair, most of the players of mine that want it are chasing story, not roleplay.  I have at least one other other player that fits the "roleplay not rollplay" crowd that despises social mechanics, though.

Quote
Sounds like its time for you to talk about what you think games "offer".


Social engagement with friends.  Escape and a chance to blow off pressure.  Tactical fun.  Story generation.  Exercises in resource management that can be tactical or engaging.  Theatrics without theatre.  A chance to walk in another world in your own imagination.

...In almost any balance you like and can build a rule-set to match (though some such sets will take you outside of what I'd call a roleplaying game proper).

Quote
What you're protesting here is the game designer imposing his vision on the gaming group. Well, you're not really protesting it; I'm protesting it, you're pointing out that it can be a problem, though you seem to be ok about it if the game designer can "re-educate" people.

I think any game that requires that players be "re-educated" to play a certain game differently than a normal RPG has already got a serious problem.

To me, one of the fundamental things that RPGs "offer" are the freedom to create your own adventures, to make your own worlds.  My principle objection to the "story-based" games of White Wolf fame are that they reduce the GM from the principle creator of the game to a mere messenger for the Game Designer's delusions-of-grandeur, would-be-author metaplots.  Usually the Player Characters are also reduced to cheerleaders for the game designer's pet NPCs.
Forge games and other "theory" games suffer from a similar problem; where the game's design is so locked into the particular interests, agendas and priorities of the game designer, that they do not allow for easy adaptation to fit the GM's actual needs.


Okay, this is kind of funny - because I've thought of a game book that sets up a playstyle just a little ways away from D&D, serves a method of play that gamers actually do play, is slightly more focused, and is selling like a hot damn.

Iron Heroes.

It "re-educates" players the short step required almost instantly; you can see Conan, Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser, and other such characters walking out of the system.  And what it shakes off in terms of rules, it brings back in terms of more and more thoroughly focused tactical combat.  

In terms of fitting what a number of groups actually do, it succeeds; in terms of teaching what it does differently, it succeeds, and in terms of market position, it succeeds.

It's closer to clearly defining the "Gamist" agenda that most people actually practice at the table than the GNS definition of Gamism is.

Quote
Can you name any other beside the two you just named? I still don't see what adds up to be called "heroic fantasy" other than "It is teh bad because it has levels and lots of fighting".


Grab the skill list and read over it.  Let's say that a group did each of those things once in an game session.  You're already getting close to that feel.

Quote
That really hasn't been my experience. I mean, pretty much any game of D&D will have some "adventuring" and some "heroism", that's kind of the point of RPGs in general. But I've never had a problem doing D&D campaigns that were not drawn to combat or "cool skills" as a solution in a way that screwed up a campaign that wasn't meant to be about combat.


So in your game set in Imperial Rome, the players never took even the slightest of steps out of their way to turn something into a fight or to use their neat abilities?  Ever?

Quote
Ok, I'll bite: can you name a system that would be able to handle the Florentine plots & counterplots aforementioned BETTER than D&D would, and WHY that would be the case?
Or are you suggesting that you pretty much have to make a microgame for that? Because at that point you're saying that making microgames for everything is the natural choice, and I just don't accept that. Microgames suck because they FORCE you to play in a specific way.
If I have a guy in a florentine game that wants to resolve things from combat or breaking & entering, I would want him to be able to do that, and not be told that "there's no mechanic for it" or "it goes against narrative" or whatever else.


Seventh Sea.

Because the list of cool stuff in the game already matches the cool stuff that you want to do in the genre pretty closely.

Quote
GURPS lite is actually a little less heavy than D&D, and about the same as general D20; normal GURPS is heavier than D&D, and "GURPS with ALL the fixings" is unbelievably more rules heavy than D&D.
GURPS' point-buy system alone makes it more complex than D&D, not to mention the tactical rules, etc etc.


I haven't read the new GURPS yet, so I'll have to concede this one.

Quote
To me its a matter of genre emulation. If i want to run a totally historical campaign that's meant to have "realistic" (hate that word) combat and a gritty level of survivability, GURPS is superior. But if I want to run high fantasy, or even superheroes, or run of the mill tolkienesque/moorcockian fantasy, its D20 all the way.

D20 is versatile. D&D is the most popular fantasy iteration of D20. Fantasy is the most popular genre of RPGs.


See, I would have said that GURPS has greater range, but a large chunk of that range lies outside what a lot of gamers actually want to play.  I'd say that Dd20 has a smaller range, but that range is centered almost perfectly on what gamers actually do.

Quote
I knew you were going to say that. FUDGE isn't even a real RPG.
EDIT: I should have said a "full RPG". I don't mean FUDGE is too "alternative"; just that its not in and of itself a real RPG, its just a toolkit for RPG construction, so its kind of unfair to use as the example of a game system more "versatile" than D20


You can play it directly out of the recent hardcover release; basically, after flipping the switches to the setting you want.  That strikes me as a full game with a lot of options, no more.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 26, 2006, 12:53:29 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Social engagement with friends.

Agreed. This one is extremely important. Its important that your gaming group be of friends, though I disagree that it necessarily needs to be with friends that you'd want to do things other than Roleplaying with.

Quote
Escape and a chance to blow off pressure.  Tactical fun.

Yes, and yes.

Quote
 Story generation.  

Here, I disagree, as per the earlier parts of the debate.

Quote
Exercises in resource management that can be tactical or engaging.  Theatrics without theatre.  A chance to walk in another world in your own imagination.

I agree about all of these, even the theatrics bit.

To me, the most important parts of the RPG are the "Having fun with friends" bit and the "walk in another world" bit. But all the rest of those are legitimate reasons.

Quote
...In almost any balance you like and can build a rule-set to match (though some such sets will take you outside of what I'd call a roleplaying game proper).

Well, I know you seem to think these things work on some kind of percentage/recipe sort of thing; but to me its more of an "on/off" switch. And every one of the things you mentioned can be found/done in D20, even the misguided "story" business.

Quote
Okay, this is kind of funny - because I've thought of a game book that sets up a playstyle just a little ways away from D&D, serves a method of play that gamers actually do play, is slightly more focused, and is selling like a hot damn.
Iron Heroes.
It "re-educates" players the short step required almost instantly; you can see Conan, Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser, and other such characters walking out of the system.  And what it shakes off in terms of rules, it brings back in terms of more and more thoroughly focused tactical combat.  
In terms of fitting what a number of groups actually do, it succeeds; in terms of teaching what it does differently, it succeeds, and in terms of market position, it succeeds.
It's closer to clearly defining the "Gamist" agenda that most people actually practice at the table than the GNS definition of Gamism is.

Well, its still a part of D20, and proof of the versatility of that system; but you are right that its a more "gamist" game than D&D.  We can only guess whether Mearls consciously set out to make the game more "gamist". Note that its only "more" gamist, not "solely gamist". But its still a good argument.

Quote
So in your game set in Imperial Rome, the players never took even the slightest of steps out of their way to turn something into a fight or to use their neat abilities?  Ever?  

Given that the game is also a game of highlander-style immortals, that one in particular might be a bad choice. But the point is that the players weren't out looking to solve everything with "Jong Smash!!" just because they'd gone up in level.

Quote
Seventh Sea.
Because the list of cool stuff in the game already matches the cool stuff that you want to do in the genre pretty closely.

Well, except for the metaplot cthulhu-aliens.

In any case, other than the vagaries of setting, I don't really see what in 7th sea would make it more apt than D&D as a rules-set to run that Florentine campaign.

Quote
See, I would have said that GURPS has greater range, but a large chunk of that range lies outside what a lot of gamers actually want to play.  I'd say that Dd20 has a smaller range, but that range is centered almost perfectly on what gamers actually do.

It depends on if you define "historical games" (which is what GURPS does best) as just one category, or you say "GURPS can run any place any time in history ever!!! (plus gritty fantasy, modern, and hard sci fi)"

Quote
You can play it directly out of the recent hardcover release; basically, after flipping the switches to the setting you want.  That strikes me as a full game with a lot of options, no more.

Ok, I didn't realize that; I haven't read the latest hardcover of FUDGE. And yes, if you consider it a system, its pretty damn versatile. Its also got some design features (such as the need for special dice that aren't the "usual special dice") that make it a harder sell than D20.  Also, part of what I meant by "versatile" was that it had full/complex rules that do not require deep roleplay, but at the same time didn't impair deep roleplay.  
FUDGE has oodles of versatility in terms of what settings you can run, but it doesn't really have the level of tactical complexity that would satisfy that kind of gamer.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 26, 2006, 04:25:30 AM
Okay - we're getting close to the middle of this debate, so I'm going to restate almost my whole set of positions, updated to suit the conversation thus far.

Some of these, I think we agree on more, others, not so much.

----------------------------

Roleplaying games are a fusion.
Roleplaying games are much like what they sound like – there are elements of roleplaying, in a generally theatrical sense (but the bit about art not being special applies here too), and elements of gameplay like you’d find in a board or card game, and these things come together to form a unified thing distinct from it’s component parts.   Despite this, though, all roleplaying games provide at least slightly different fusions of these elements.

----------------------------

Roleplaying Games are art.  This doesn’t make them special.
When we play these games, we are taking part in the performance of art.  Art isn't some kind of elite title.   If, in calling an RPG art, you’re just speaking to what the games already are, good on you.  But if, in doing so, you’re trying to somehow “elevate them”, shove off.  I don’t want to be elevated that way; very few gamers do.  And walk carefully; plenty of folks out there have seen the “elevate” thing one too many times, and immediately believe if you call an RPG art, that’s what you’re up to.

----------------------------

Roleplaying Games create stories.  But they aren’t for telling stories.
Every game creates stories, as a side effect if nothing else.  People tell stories about their game experiences, reliving the moment; some of these stories can be good, or funny; some of them, you had to be there.  They also sit back at the table now and then and think things generally like “That was really cool, story-wise”.  That’s something some gamers want to explore further.  But the first impulse of a lot of GMs when they meet this idea is to control the story so they can be sure that it’ll turn out ‘properly’.  This is a mistake; if you want the story to turn out your way, go write it down.  If you do it, you’ll take away the ability to make meaningful choices from the players and you’ll have to interfere with their ability to play their characters; this means that your game will have problems both as something to roleplay and as a game.  If you want an RPG to act as an engine that works purely for the generation of collaborative stories, you’re likely going to push outside of the boundaries of what most people would consider a Roleplaying Game – it might be good, and RPG rules may be a good place to start, but you’re looking for a different creature than the one I’m talking about.

----------------------------

Getting more ‘story’ from an RPG is simple.
You front-load, and you drive (I’ll define those in a second), and that’s all you really need to do.  Going further than this can, again, carry your game outside of either “roleplaying” or “game” or both, and unless your players are with you in doing that, it’s best avoided.  I’m going to talk about those two things for a moment.

   Front-Loading: Front-loading is another way of saying that the group (sometimes the GM, sometimes the players, sometimes both together) builds a starting situation that focuses on the same stuff that the characters are focused on.  Not only that, but this situation involves conflicts that the characters will be drawn into, but which could be resolved any number of ways.  The person or people creating this situation should not know how things are going to turn out, only that conflict will always occur.  This is just basic preparation – an evil army threatening the town where the characters live is some serious front-loading.  The place where this turns into specifically story preparation is that a group (in this case, almost always the GM) can front-load elements that require choices from the characters – hard stuff that will give depth to the character no matter what they choose.  Again, the creator shouldn’t have picked “right choices” out in advance, just created things that require those choices be made.

Driving: This may not be the best word for it, since ‘driving’ implies a degree of control that really isn’t involved.  Driving is pushing the characters to make to those choices on their own, harder and harder, until they do, by adding intensity and requiring action based on each choice as play continues.  This often requires that the GM bring on characters and events that hit those choices in new ways; this is the part that takes practice, because doing it ham-handedly produces artificial-feeling play.

----------------------------

Every group has it’s own style of play.
No two players are the same – they have different attitudes, different past experiences, and sometimes want different things out of an RPG - some want more roleplay in their gaming, some want more gaming in their roleplay, some want more story, some want to get further “into character” than others.  That’s just the nature of what happens when you get people together.  But if they play together, they start to balance out a singular style of play between them that works for them.  This group style includes how they use the mechanics of the game, the things they agree on as other rules, and even the social structures that exist between them when they sit down at the table.  

----------------------------

Games influence style.
Every actual game book out there has its own slant – the writers had at least some of the elements that make up a style of play, however loosely or firmly conceived, in mind when they wrote it.  These are passed on to the players in a variety of ways.

First, and most obvious, a game book has advice in it that talks about how to run the game.  Some games go on at length about how to get just the game you want from the rules, working to accommodate different playstyles.  Others give the reader a solid impression of the kinds of play the creators had in mind, but also talk about adjusting it to get what you like.  And still others (though not that many) describe a single, tightly focused style that the game is “fine-tuned’ for.

Second, and either more or less obviously, a game shows you what it’s about in the presentation of the material itself.  If it has a lot of art, that can be pretty obvious.  Even if it doesn’t, examples of play given in a book speak to the style, as do descriptions of the various smaller bits of “how you do things”.

Third, the actual physical components of a game can have an impact.  If the game requires big piles of dice or miniature figures, its best played at an actual table, which can change the group dynamic to something less casual than just sitting around a living room.

And finally, the characters you can build, the various components of them, and the specific kinds of rules-based fun that you can get from those components, all speak to the style.  If there are detailed rules on some specific thing, and players engange with those often and enjoyably, the game will be drawn to those things more often, making the game more “about” those things.  Some examples of this; and I’m going to use games that I wrote myself because I’m a big stinky egomaniac.  

--

Perfect 20 (http:// http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Perfect20_2006.pdf) is a d20-based system; because it has a lot of emphasis on combat and the like, it lends itself basically to action-adventure games; this is pretty much the “baseline” kind of thing.

The Playtest kit for The Pulse (http:// http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/DemoRough.pdf) presents something notably different – the rules drive the characters to do and get things in a completely blatant fashion, because the game is about raw need.  And if anyone thinks they can get that same feel, at the same speed and intensity, from d20, without basically rebuilding that system, I’d love to hear about it.

The Exchange (http:// http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange.pdf) does something different again; it’s all about description, nothing else.  You can plug it into whatever genre you like, but what you always get is a game that’s high-description, low-tactics.

8bitDungeon (http:// http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange.pdf) isn’t even a roleplaying game; it’s an adventure game. And while it’s all about action and adventures, certainly, it pushes the “feel” that it’s aiming for so hard in it’s game mechanics that most people that have tried it out never even consider actually roleplaying with it.

----------------------------

In many places, roleplaying games have an image problem (Revised slightly)
People that play roleplaying games are often looked at as being “weirdos”, simply because of what we do, and because of the popular media impression of us.  It’s a bit of a sore spot in some places, and a complete non-issue in others.  But what we do, really, isn’t freaky at all.

In order to keep, or make, the hobby healthy in your area, gaming needs one thing above all else - to maintain a healthy image.  The image that we have now in many places is pretty crappy, and making it healthy again isn't that hard.  We have four basic image problems, and each one is a kind of person. They are:

The first, and most common, is "silent" but otherwise perfectly great.  There are loads of gamers out there that are great people, but the more they keep quiet, the more that regular hear about roleplaying by means of people that aren't them.  This isn't a good thing, people.  Don't be ashamed - the majority of gamers are totally cool people.  Be confident; it’s amazing how many people will be interested in what we do when it’s presented to them by someone who does so smoothly.

The second is the basically thoughtless – gamers that speak up, but are plainly bad at it.  These are the gamers that babble on about roleplaying in earshot of non-gamers in ways that freak them out.  The group of LARPers that wear their costumes home on public transit and talk loudly.  The guy that talks about his outrageous character to people at his work that really don't want to hear it.  If you think that you're guilty of this, check with a friend that you can trust to be honest – after all, it’s not just our image that this one is about – it’s yours, too.

The third is the slightly unwashed.  These are gamers that have taken the idea that they'll be accepted as they are just a few steps too far.  Folks, we need to tell these people that they can't be this way.  A lot of these people are great folks, and may be friends of yours - and if they are, give them a hand if you can.  Sometimes giving them a hand means you'll need to tell them that specific form of behavior won't stand.  Sometimes it's easier than that.  Sometimes it's harder.  And if it simply doesn't happen, maybe you can't help them - maybe they're just not willing to put in the energy; if that's the case, you decide if you want to keep on playing with them.  Again, this isn’t just about us – this about you.  Do you really want to keep having to put up with a guy at your table who is great fun, except for his volume control problem?  If you’ve got him, or someone similar, chances are you’ve got to work up the guts to talk to him, sooner or later; personally, I recommend “sooner”.

The fourth, and the rarest by far, is the unrepentant.  These are the few that have irredeemable habits, utterly inexcusable behavior, and no intention of changing it.  The best thing we can do as gamers for these people is put as much distance as possible between us and them, and make that completely clear.  We're not camouflage for them; we shouldn't act like it.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Guest (Deleted) on April 26, 2006, 03:43:23 PM
Thread derailment posts moved to new thread. Continue with the debate itself - this is interesting stuff.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 26, 2006, 05:27:09 PM
Given that this was supposed to be a no-holds barred debate, about the state of the RPG hobby and what's good and bad in it, I feel that the topic of RPG.net was not a "strawman" but a perfectly legitimate part of the argument in question, ESPECIALLY considering that Levi is a collaborating participant in the RPG.net modclique, and I'm rather well known as the most outspoken (and given Cessna's own commentary on trouble tickets, feared) critic of RPG.net's policies.

However, Pooka chose to intervene and separate that discussion into a different thread. That's fine, but I am still counting it as part of the 100-post count. The good news is that those six posts being removed from this thread, plus the addition of Pooka's extra post, mean that the six posts that were removed balance out perfectly with the (now) six "non-debate" posts that had accumulated in this thread. This means that assuming there will be no other interrupting posts that are not volleys in the disputation, this debate will now end precisely at post #100, with me getting the last word, as agreed.

Since RPG.net's totalitarian policies are apparently off-limit in this disputation, I will now go back to presenting my own summary of points thus far in the debate:

Roleplaying Games are Not a Fusion
Roleplaying games were not created as a mix between improv theatre or collaborative story-writing and wargames; they were created as an evolution from miniature wargames. They are not an unwieldly combination of two different games that are forced together, they are a completely seperate entity of their own; they're not wargames, they're not improv theatre, they're not therapy groups.  They are games that use mechanics to allow GMs to create a shared world, and allow players to participate as characters in those worlds.  Games that assume that mechanics are either barriers to roleplay or the means by which to create roleplay have misinterpreted the nature of RPGs. The mechanics of RPGs are meant to govern physical actions in the game, in a degree inversely proportional to that which the players can actually portray them outside the game. So things like combat and physical activity are fully portrayed by the rules, and things like social actions require mechanics only to the extent in which they complement the acting out of these activities.

RPGs Must Be Viewed Primarily as Games
Efforts to interpret RPGs as "art", "intellectual pursuit", storytelling, etc. are detrimental to both the enjoyment of the game and the popularity of the hobby at large. Arguing about whether or not RPGs can be defined as "art", "intellectual pursuit" etc all come down to semantic arguments about these labels themselves, and are pointless. On a pragmatic level, the only reason to include these definitions in Roleplaying are to create elitist sentiments in those who play these games. Since the public at large does not recognize artistic or intellectual merit in the playing of RPGs (be they D&D, Vampire, or any other RPG), the insistence that these things are such appears pretentious and serves to contribute to the idea that gamers are delusional individuals. Treating RPGs as entertainment, and addressing the design of RPGs as such, best contributes to the wellbeing and expansion of the hobby.

RPGs Can Sometimes Create Stories, But This Is Incidental To Their Purpose
If the purpose of RPGs is entertainment, then the creation of stories as a conscious act is detrimental to the value of RPGs as such. When play takes place in such a way that it forms a coherent story by coincidence of how the play turns out, there's nothing wrong with that. But trying to change RPGs into vehicles for story-creation is a misguided enterprise set upon by would-be artistes and failed second-rate "authors" who have found a willing audience of sycophants among RPG "collectors". The railroading and forced play required to change a typical RPG session into a "story" takes it outside the realm of regular roleplaying.  Games that are designed for collective story-telling rather than the orthodox GM-Player activities found in mainstream RPGs may or may not be well designed for their intended function, but the intended function of "story-building" itself means that these games are NOT RPGs.  Likewise, RPGs that claim to be "storytelling games" but do not in practice have any mechanical difference from regular RPGs, but rely on insistence on the GM railroading the players and the Game Designer's Metaplot railroading the GMs are not in fact "storytelling games", only poorly-designed Roleplaying games that fail to satisfy either would-be storytellers or would-be RPG gamers.

Story In RPG is only acceptable when it occurs Organically
In an RPG, the only part of a "story" that can be intentionally included in the game without worsening the gaming experience is the "set up" for a story. Indeed, most RPG adventures begin with a premise based on the setting or based on the Player Character's own characteristics.  However, pushing the GM or the players to try to resolve this set-up in a way that is of "literary value" will only result in inferior game play.

Each Group is Different, Gaming as a Whole has Clear Structure
Its true that every gaming group will have its own particular interests, starting from which game they would like to play, what kind of setting and system is most appealing to them, and what style of adventures they want to run. On a practical level, these different make-ups are so unique to each gamer that attempts to pigeonhole gamers or gaming groups into different categories of "gamer types" (ie. "narrativists", "gamists") is a futile endeavour that only works in the fever-dream of delusional theorists. Inevitably, most individual gamers and for certain all gaming groups will actually end up blurring the lines and consist of combinations of all the various different criteria you could create for gamers, by simple virtue of the fact that human beings are complex.
On the other hand, with the exception of gamers or gaming groups that do not in fact wish to play RPGs, the structure of RPG gaming as a whole is very clear cut. The GM, the players, the rules, the adventures, all follow traditional structures that are as fundamental to the definition of "Roleplaying games" as the rules and movement of chess-pieces are to the game of chess. The aforementioned exceptions are gamers or gaming groups that believe for one reason or another that they want to play RPGs, but in reality would be better suited to engaging in some other kind of activity; whether it be wargames, collaborative storytelling, or group therapy.

RPGs are Best Designed when they are Versatile
Since its a practical impossibility to create practical categories by which to pigeonhole gamers, and given that most gamers actually enjoy playing a multiplicity of styles depending on their interest at the moment or the vagaries of the group they're involved with, the best designed RPGs are those  RPGs that are versatile in design to accomodate a wide variety of styles of play. Games that are micro-designed to fit non-functional gaming theories are bound to be of highly limited appeal and functionality; as are games that are too closely tied to the designer's own cult of personality, petty interests, or literary ambitions. Games that are capable of emulating specific genres well, or games that present a type of play that is hard to imitate with other systems are useful.  On the other hand, games that try to intentionally limit traditional gameplay in order to be "innovative" or to impressed some group of self-titled "cognosenti" usually fail at the level of being popular or playable.

Gaming Has a Very Real Problem as a Hobby
The negative image that gaming suffers in the public eye is not a product of unfair perceptions, or the ignorance of an uninformed public.  The problem is a natural result of real issues within the hobby for which gamers themselves are to blame. Gaming has, like several other "subculture" hobbies, become infested with a group of socially dysfunctional individuals on the one hand, and a group of intentionally-elitist pretentious pseudo-intellectual poseurs on the other.  These two groups have served to alienate gaming from mainstream acceptance to the point that regular people will avoid trying RPGs out of fear of being associated with these kinds of individuals, and regular peope who were already gamers become discouraged with the hobby and abandon it.
For gaming to avoid becoming a virtually extinct as a hobby a concerted effort must take place in game design to create games that are appealing to the natural demographic of the mainstream that would be drawn to gaming (in particular to young people), and to avoid allowing gaming to be subverted by the pseudo-intellectual crowd that have a vested psychological and personal interest in maintaining gaming an obscure and elitist practice; and likewise among the gamer base an effort must be made to demand that gamers who insist on sociopathic activity and comportment not be tolerated in the hobby, especially as "representatives" of the hobby to the public at large. Part of what this requires is that mainstream gamers who are socially and psychologically normal be willing to be more open about their particular hobby, and willing to make a point of informing the public that RPG gaming is a game hobby that does not belong to either the socially dysfunctional nor to elitist pseudo-artists.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 26, 2006, 06:44:33 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Given that this was supposed to be a no-holds barred debate, about the state of the RPG hobby and what's good and bad in it, I feel that the topic of RPG.net was not a "strawman" but a perfectly legitimate part of the argument in question, ESPECIALLY considering that Levi is a collaborating participant in the RPG.net modclique, and I'm rather well known as the most outspoken (and given Cessna's own commentary on trouble tickets, feared) critic of RPG.net's policies.

However, Pooka chose to intervene and separate that discussion into a different thread. That's fine, but I am still counting it as part of the 100-post count. The good news is that those six posts being removed from this thread, plus the addition of Pooka's extra post, mean that the six posts that were removed balance out perfectly with the (now) six "non-debate" posts that had accumulated in this thread. This means that assuming there will be no other interrupting posts that are not volleys in the disputation, this debate will now end precisely at post #100, with me getting the last word, as agreed.


It is Pooka’s forum, but I agree that those posts ought to “count” towards our total.  End at 100, barring further interruptions.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Roleplaying Games are Not a Fusion
Roleplaying games were not created as a mix between improv theatre or collaborative story-writing and wargames; they were created as an evolution from miniature wargames. They are not an unwieldly combination of two different games that are forced together, they are a completely seperate entity of their own; they're not wargames, they're not improv theatre, they're not therapy groups.


The origins of roleplaying games do not wholly define their current state.  I have never called this fusion “unwieldy”, and I have never once stated that roleplaying games were for use as “therapy”.  Beyond that, you haven't adress the combination of elements or lack thereof.

Are you writing generally, here?

Quote from: RPGPundit
They are games that use mechanics to allow GMs to create a shared world, and allow players to participate as characters in those worlds.


Agreed, though players can also participate in the creation of the world to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes, if only by detailing the backstory of their character).

Quote from: RPGPundit
Games that assume that mechanics are either barriers to roleplay or the means by which to create roleplay have misinterpreted the nature of RPGs.  The mechanics of RPGs are meant to govern physical actions in the game, in a degree inversely proportional to that which the players can actually portray them outside the game. So things like combat and physical activity are fully portrayed by the rules, and things like social actions require mechanics only to the extent in which they complement the acting out of these activities.


The mechanics of RPGs are “meant to be” what the writers intend.  I write RPGs, and you don’t speak for me in this instance.  I don’t expect you speak for any designers other than yourself.  So where do you get “meant to be” from?

Quote from: RPGPundit
RPGs Must Be Viewed Primarily as Games
Efforts to interpret RPGs as "art", "intellectual pursuit", storytelling, etc. are detrimental to both the enjoyment of the game and the popularity of the hobby at large. Arguing about whether or not RPGs can be defined as "art", "intellectual pursuit" etc all come down to semantic arguments about these labels themselves, and are pointless. On a pragmatic level, the only reason to include these definitions in Roleplaying are to create elitist sentiments in those who play these games. Since the public at large does not recognize artistic or intellectual merit in the playing of RPGs (be they D&D, Vampire, or any other RPG), the insistence that these things are such appears pretentious and serves to contribute to the idea that gamers are delusional individuals.


I believe it would be entirely possible to attempt to incorporate actual artistic – likely theatrical - elements into roleplaying practice; and I mean the real stuff, not merely the pretense.  However, as there is no notable body of practice attempting this outside of a few discussions I’ve seen and occasionally participated in regarding costuming and staging in LARP, I will concede that the semantics of the term “art” are misleading at best, until and unless such a body of practice emerges.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Treating RPGs as entertainment, and addressing the design of RPGs as such, best contributes to the wellbeing and expansion of the hobby.


This, I agree with, though I believe that the semantics of the term “game” as used in the title of this piece are equally misleading.  “A set of rules from group entertainment” is not the firs thing that comes to most minds when they meet the word game.

Quote from: RPGPundit
RPGs Can Sometimes Create Stories, But This Is Incidental To Their Purpose
If the purpose of RPGs is entertainment, then the creation of stories as a conscious act is detrimental to the value of RPGs as such.


Stories aren’t entertainment, now?

Quote from: RPGPundit
When play takes place in such a way that it forms a coherent story by coincidence of how the play turns out, there's nothing wrong with that.   But trying to change RPGs into vehicles for story-creation is a misguided enterprise set upon by would-be artistes and failed second-rate "authors" who have found a willing audience of sycophants among RPG "collectors".


I disagree with your assessment of these people entirely, but I also think that it’s nether here nor there.

Your opinion of the people involved in the attempt doesn’t speak to the value or lack of value in the attempt itself in any way whatsoever.  Even if a drooling moron painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, it’s still the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.  If a true genius build a dogshit sculpture from popsicle sticks, it’s still dogshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit
The railroading and forced play required to change a typical RPG session into a "story" takes it outside the realm of regular roleplaying.  Games that are designed for collective story-telling rather than the orthodox GM-Player activities found in mainstream RPGs may or may not be well designed for their intended function, but the intended function of "story-building" itself means that these games are NOT RPGs.  Likewise, RPGs that claim to be "storytelling games" but do not in practice have any mechanical difference from regular RPGs, but rely on insistence on the GM railroading the players and the Game Designer's Metaplot railroading the GMs are not in fact "storytelling games", only poorly-designed Roleplaying games that fail to satisfy either would-be storytellers or would-be RPG gamers.


And I’m not arguing for either of these two types of “stories from roleplaying”.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Story In RPG is only acceptable when it occurs Organically
In an RPG, the only part of a "story" that can be intentionally included in the game without worsening the gaming experience is the "set up" for a story. Indeed, most RPG adventures begin with a premise based on the setting or based on the Player Character's own characteristics.  However, pushing the GM or the players to try to resolve this set-up in a way that is of "literary value" will only result in inferior game play.


Notice that I didn’t say to drive towards “literary value”, only toward decisions, intensity, and action.  

Was this meant as a rebuttal of any of the points I’ve made, or is it just a clarification of your position?

Quote from: RPGPundit
Each Group is Different, Gaming as a Whole has Clear Structure
Its true that every gaming group will have its own particular interests, starting from which game they would like to play, what kind of setting and system is most appealing to them, and what style of adventures they want to run. On a practical level, these different make-ups are so unique to each gamer that attempts to pigeonhole gamers or gaming groups into different categories of "gamer types" (ie. "narrativists", "gamists") is a futile endeavor that only works in the fever-dream of delusional theorists. Inevitably, most individual gamers and for certain all gaming groups will actually end up blurring the lines and consist of combinations of all the various different criteria you could create for gamers, by simple virtue of the fact that human beings are complex.


Tastes remain distinct, despite any shortcomings in the current systems used to categorize the actual players.  And any two groups composed of people with similar tastes, are clearly recognizable as playing differently.  These differences are worth acknowledging and enjoying.

Quote from: RPGPundit
On the other hand, with the exception of gamers or gaming groups that do not in fact wish to play RPGs, the structure of RPG gaming as a whole is very clear cut. The GM, the players, the rules, the adventures, all follow traditional structures that are as fundamental to the definition of "Roleplaying games" as the rules and movement of chess-pieces are to the game of chess. The aforementioned exceptions are gamers or gaming groups that believe for one reason or another that they want to play RPGs, but in reality would be better suited to engaging in some other kind of activity; whether it be wargames, collaborative storytelling, or group therapy.


What are these traditional structures, then?

Quote from: RPGPundit
RPGs are Best Designed when they are Versatile
Since its a practical impossibility to create practical categories by which to pigeonhole gamers, and given that most gamers actually enjoy playing a multiplicity of styles depending on their interest at the moment or the vagaries of the group they're involved with, the best designed RPGs are those  RPGs that are versatile in design to accomodate a wide variety of styles of play. Games that are micro-designed to fit non-functional gaming theories are bound to be of highly limited appeal and functionality; as are games that are too closely tied to the designer's own cult of personality, petty interests, or literary ambitions. Games that are capable of emulating specific genres well, or games that present a type of play that is hard to imitate with other systems are useful.  On the other hand, games that try to intentionally limit traditional gameplay in order to be "innovative" or to impressed some group of self-titled "cognosenti" usually fail at the level of being popular or playable.


Popularity is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of a design.  It’s an indication of market value, and of the broad appeal.  It’s entirely possible to custom-build a niche product in any field; the only failure is in pretending that a niche product is something other than what it is.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Gaming Has a Very Real Problem as a Hobby
The negative image that gaming suffers in the public eye is not a product of unfair perceptions, or the ignorance of an uninformed public.  The problem is a natural result of real issues within the hobby for which gamers themselves are to blame. Gaming has, like several other "subculture" hobbies, become infested with a group of socially dysfunctional individuals on the one hand, and a group of intentionally-elitist pretentious pseudo-intellectual poseurs on the other.  These two groups have served to alienate gaming from mainstream acceptance to the point that regular people will avoid trying RPGs out of fear of being associated with these kinds of individuals, and regular peope who were already gamers become discouraged with the hobby and abandon it.
For gaming to avoid becoming a virtually extinct as a hobby a concerted effort must take place in game design to create games that are appealing to the natural demographic of the mainstream that would be drawn to gaming (in particular to young people), and to avoid allowing gaming to be subverted by the pseudo-intellectual crowd that have a vested psychological and personal interest in maintaining gaming an obscure and elitist practice; and likewise among the gamer base an effort must be made to demand that gamers who insist on sociopathic activity and comportment not be tolerated in the hobby, especially as "representatives" of the hobby to the public at large. Part of what this requires is that mainstream gamers who are socially and psychologically normal be willing to be more open about their particular hobby, and willing to make a point of informing the public that RPG gaming is a game hobby that does not belong to either the socially dysfunctional nor to elitist pseudo-artists.


Who, exactly, “has a vested interest in gaming being obscure and elite”?  Name names, if you would.  I don’t think that such a group of people exists.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 26, 2006, 10:32:46 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

The origins of roleplaying games do not wholly define their current state.  I have never called this fusion “unwieldy”, and I have never once stated that roleplaying games were for use as “therapy”.  Beyond that, you haven't adress the combination of elements or lack thereof.

Are you writing generally, here?


Yes, generally.
As for the combination of elements, there isn't really a combination of elements; there are elements that make up the game, but they aren't a fusion, they're all vital components that must be in the same proportion.

To say that RPGs are a "fusion" of elements (presumably of "game" and "roleplay" or what have you) is like saying that Chess is a "fusion" of checkers and Stratego.

Quote

Agreed, though players can also participate in the creation of the world to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes, if only by detailing the backstory of their character).


The option of how much they should participate in the creation of the world should be in the hands of the game-master.  Although they should have the freedom to create the character THEY want within the limits placed by the setting parameters.

Quote

The mechanics of RPGs are “meant to be” what the writers intend.  I write RPGs, and you don’t speak for me in this instance.  I don’t expect you speak for any designers other than yourself.  So where do you get “meant to be” from?


Orthodoxy.

Quote

I will concede that the semantics of the term “art” are misleading at best, until and unless such a body of practice emerges.


Ok.

Quote

This, I agree with, though I believe that the semantics of the term “game” as used in the title of this piece are equally misleading.  “A set of rules from group entertainment” is not the firs thing that comes to most minds when they meet the word game.


What is it about "rules for group entertainment" that doesn't fit with the concept of game? I mean, certainly some games are for only two people, which might not constitute a "group". But I can think of all kinds of games, from hide-and-go-seek to poker, that are basically a fit with that definition.

But please, if you have a better definition, let's hear it.


Quote

Stories aren’t entertainment, now?


Reading or hearing stories are, even telling them can be. Constructing them is   work. And most specifically, none of these things are a game; or at least not a Roleplaying game.

Quote

I disagree with your assessment of these people entirely, but I also think that it’s nether here nor there.
Your opinion of the people involved in the attempt doesn’t speak to the value or lack of value in the attempt itself in any way whatsoever.


No, but the term "misguided enterprise" does. You're right that their motives could be from simple foolhardiness or for more malignant reasons of personal aggrandizement, but the point is that trying to force RPGs to be about story-creation is a counterproductive activity.

Quote

And I’m not arguing for either of these two types of “stories from roleplaying”.
Notice that I didn’t say to drive towards “literary value”, only toward decisions, intensity, and action.  

Was this meant as a rebuttal of any of the points I’ve made, or is it just a clarification of your position?


It wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, I'm establishing my own points here.

Quote

What are these traditional structures, then?


The traditional structures of the RPG: The GM establishes and controls the world, and adjudicates the actions of the players. The players control their own character and his actions in the world. The rules detail how to create characters, how to act in the world, how to settle conflict, and advance over time as well, usually. The adventures are conceived of by the GM, with a fixed starting point but an unfixed middle and ending.
There are tons of others as well, traditions and conventions (like: the GM is supposed to treat all players equally, the die rolls, etc etc.).

Quote

Popularity is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of a design.  It’s an indication of market value, and of the broad appeal.  It’s entirely possible to custom-build a niche product in any field; the only failure is in pretending that a niche product is something other than what it is.


I would suggest that market value does directly connect to quality of design. This isn't Fast Food we're talking about here, this is a game; no one would buy a game just because its popular, if it wasn't also good.  That's been the constant error of the gaming theorists, claiming that D&D's popularity couldn't possibly mean its well-designed, and in fact means it couldn't possibly be well designed. Its a fundamentally elitist way of thinking, and one that mostly rationalizes their constant defeats ("clearly the reason people didn't buy my game about transvestite leprechauns was because the IGNORANT MASSES are fooled by that crap D&D system").

Quote

Who, exactly, “has a vested interest in gaming being obscure and elite”?  Name names, if you would.  I don’t think that such a group of people exists.


The Swine. The story based crowd and the Forge crowd alike. They want Gaming to be something mature and sophisticated, something that only especially artistic or intelligent people could possibly understand (with the rationale that they are the special elite few who "get it") and having the "unwashed masses" as I've heard them called by Swine being interested in RPGs would only be counter to that image they want to create. To them, there is no worse news than hearing of games having popular demand.

Hell, the very assertions people on RPG.net have made (the infamous "McDonald's argument",sometimes the "britney spears argument") is so clearly evidence of that pompous pretentious attitude that any game that has popular appeal is automatically seen by them as being of inferior stock.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 27, 2006, 02:42:13 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Yes, generally.
As for the combination of elements, there isn't really a combination of elements; there are elements that make up the game, but they aren't a fusion, they're all vital components that must be in the same proportion.

To say that RPGs are a "fusion" of elements (presumably of "game" and "roleplay" or what have you) is like saying that Chess is a "fusion" of checkers and Stratego.


Proportions can, and do, differ wildly.  Or are you saying that the old school dungeon-bashers "aren't roleplaying" and the people that dig on what theory tends to call immersion "aren't gaming"?

As to the chess analogy - In chess, you don't move from speaking in-character to rolling dice and moving miniatures, or anything remotely anagolous.  Find me a game where you do make jumps of perspective that large that isn't an RPG, if you can.

Quote
The option of how much they should participate in the creation of the world should be in the hands of the game-master.  Although they should have the freedom to create the character THEY want within the limits placed by the setting parameters.


Why?  Because the GM is incapable of retaining their authority in the face of things he didn't create?  Bull.  Either the GM leads, or he fails.  He can do that with or without full creative control of the game content.

Quote
Orthodoxy.


Sorry, tradition doesn't get to define how I build "rules for the entertainment of myself and others", and isn't interested in trying.  It can and does determine a significant degree of the market value, but market value doesn't make a single game session at my table one whit better than it is.

Quote
What is it about "rules for group entertainment" that doesn't fit with the concept of game? I mean, certainly some games are for only two people, which might not constitute a "group". But I can think of all kinds of games, from hide-and-go-seek to poker, that are basically a fit with that definition.

But please, if you have a better definition, let's hear it.


Here's mine:

Game: An activity defined by rules, for the purpose of entertaining a group, typified by both strategic thinking and a system or attitude of competition or one-upmanship.

Quote
Reading or hearing stories are, even telling them can be. Constructing them is work. And most specifically, none of these things are a game; or at least not a Roleplaying game.


I've given methods by which creation of story can be play, rather than work, and part of what the majority of gamers would consider a roleplaying game.  Do you deny that?

Quote
No, but the term "misguided enterprise" does. You're right that their motives could be from simple foolhardiness or for more malignant reasons of personal aggrandizement, but the point is that trying to force RPGs to be about story-creation is a counterproductive activity.


Why is it "foolhardy" for other to do something that they enjoy and you don't?

Quote
It wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, I'm establishing my own points here.


Fair enough.

Quote
The traditional structures of the RPG: The GM establishes and controls the world, and adjudicates the actions of the players. The players control their own character and his actions in the world. The rules detail how to create characters, how to act in the world, how to settle conflict, and advance over time as well, usually. The adventures are conceived of by the GM, with a fixed starting point but an unfixed middle and ending.
There are tons of others as well, traditions and conventions (like: the GM is supposed to treat all players equally, the die rolls, etc etc.).


Is Ars Magica thus not an RPG when the GM position is "rotating or open"?

Is Amber not an RPG when it fails to use dice?

The only way to define a roleplaying game that makes any sense at all to me is to say that it is a kind of activity that combines both roleplaying and gamelike elements, in a fashion that dominates but does not exclude other elements.

Quote
I would suggest that market value does directly connect to quality of design. This isn't Fast Food we're talking about here, this is a game; no one would buy a game just because its popular, if it wasn't also good.  That's been the constant error of the gaming theorists, claiming that D&D's popularity couldn't possibly mean its well-designed, and in fact means it couldn't possibly be well designed. Its a fundamentally elitist way of thinking, and one that mostly rationalizes their constant defeats ("clearly the reason people didn't buy my game about transvestite leprechauns was because the IGNORANT MASSES are fooled by that crap D&D system").


Really?  Nobody would buy a game based solely on popularity rather than quality?

Well, then, you can rest easy.  Clearly, nobody is ever going to buy the games you've called crap in any quantity at all, and all the so-called attempted influence in the world is doomed to fail - which makes me wonder why you worry or argue against such influence at all.

Either popularity and peer influence matter, or they don't.  Pick one.

Quote
The Swine. The story based crowd and the Forge crowd alike. They want Gaming to be something mature and sophisticated, something that only especially artistic or intelligent people could possibly understand (with the rationale that they are the special elite few who "get it") and having the "unwashed masses" as I've heard them called by Swine being interested in RPGs would only be counter to that image they want to create. To them, there is no worse news than hearing of games having popular demand.


Oh, really?  

Tell me then, why does Ron Edwards, the person you seem to despise so very much, consistently state that what gamers do is neither freakish nor something to be ashamed of, and that we should stop because it's hurting us as a hobby?  Because he does.  For all that I disagree with him on so very many points, the man you point to as the leader of "a cult of personality" has a vested, personal, and financial interest in introducing new people to gaming.

Why would people that create these independent games want to break into new markets and hold discussions concerning teaching people that have never played before how to do so?  Because they do.

And, hey, why would White Wolf try so hard to break into the book trade market?  They have.

You can think that they want to "subvert" the industry all you like.  But if you think they want to make it small and elite, you're standing alone in left field.  Say all you like about how you're going to catch the ball out there, nobody is hitting anything your way.

My personal suspicion is that you got at least a few of these ideas by arguing with a fellow by the name of Jack Spencer.  Here's a news flash for you: Jack quit gaming.  And I think that's a good thing; the man wasn't having any fun with the rest of us, even if he did have a few good ideas.

Quote
Hell, the very assertions people on RPG.net have made (the infamous "McDonald's argument",sometimes the "britney spears argument") is so clearly evidence of that pompous pretentious attitude that any game that has popular appeal is automatically seen by them as being of inferior stock.


It's a bad argument, made by people that dislike a specific game.  That doesn't mean they hate gaming.

People can hate your favorite game and still love gaming, you know.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 27, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Proportions can, and do, differ wildly.  Or are you saying that the old school dungeon-bashers "aren't roleplaying" and the people that dig on what theory tends to call immersion "aren't gaming"?

Both of those are playing roleplaying games. That's my point. Those proportions are not so varied as to make a difference in the nature of play. And as soon as you get two groups doing something so radically different from one another that they aren't recognizeable to each other, one of those two is no longer playing a Roleplaying Game.

So for example, someone who is playing RISK is not playing a Roleplaying Game. Neither is someone who is doing some cyber-sex chat roleplaying online.

Quote
As to the chess analogy - In chess, you don't move from speaking in-character to rolling dice and moving miniatures, or anything remotely anagolous.  Find me a game where you do make jumps of perspective that large that isn't an RPG, if you can.

How would that make a difference? You're arguing that RPGS are a "fusion" of two or more different kinds of games or play. I'm saying that they're a single kind of game that you cannot alter the composition of without making it a different game. If you remove what you consider to be the "checker like moves" from Chess, then you no longer have Chess.

Quote
Why?  Because the GM is incapable of retaining their authority in the face of things he didn't create?  Bull.  Either the GM leads, or he fails.  He can do that with or without full creative control of the game content.

By that logic, you should also shoot him in the kneecap. Hell, if he can't DM with a 9mm bullet lodged in his kneecap, he's no REAL DM anyways!

I mean really, what the fuck are you talking about? You're saying that removing the tools by which a GM functions to maintain the structure of the game is meant to "build character"? That's a bullshit excuse for creating some kind of quasi-socialist "shared storytelling game".

The only respect in which your argument makes any sense is that a GOOD GM will never let his players or a gang of pseudo-intellectual artistes try to convince him to play one of those games where he has no authority in the first place, or try to con him into thinking he has to let all his players have as much say as he does about the setting "or else it isn't democratic". Fuck that, we're playing an RPG here, not doing a goddamned nanny state grade 3 science fair where "everyone's a winner" and Nose-Picking Jeb will get the same ribbon as Nerdy McNerd, just because some pansy-assed Arts majors feel upset with hierarchies cause Daddy made them go to church and didn't let them grow their hair long.
But I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Anyways, my point is: why the fuck are you people so terrified of hierarchy?

Quote
Sorry, tradition doesn't get to define how I build "rules for the entertainment of myself and others", and isn't interested in trying.  It can and does determine a significant degree of the market value, but market value doesn't make a single game session at my table one whit better than it is.

I think the question is whether we're talking about "Levi's gaming table" or the gaming hobby at large. You keep saying stuff like; "well this doesn't apply at my games", "I don't need that in my group". And that's fine and good, but really, I could give a flying fuck if your group plays D&D in pink tutus or LARPS  the rape of the sabines. That's your business.

But is it something that is right to base Gaming Theory off of?
To me, if we talk about something we want to call "Gaming Theory", then it can't be based off of what you play in your group, or what Ron Edwards imagines while he's on the crapper, or what John Kim notices while he's fighting Nazis in a parallel universe.
It has to be about the gaming hobby as a whole, and it has to base itself on the precepts and practices of the majority of gamers.  So Tradition very well must apply. Otherwise your talk is either just stuff that's only relevant to your tiny group (and that you should therefore keep to yourself, because applied on a universal scale it will actually be counterproductive), or stuff that is pure mental wankery that applies absolutely nowhere but in some gaming theorist's head.

Quote
Here's mine:
Game: An activity defined by rules, for the purpose of entertaining a group, typified by both strategic thinking and a system or attitude of competition or one-upmanship.

How is that definition inconsistent with the original statement about RPGs being games?

Quote
I've given methods by which creation of story can be play, rather than work, and part of what the majority of gamers would consider a roleplaying game.  Do you deny that?

Well, basically yes. The creation of story, if you mean "the actual construction of a story with a beginning, middle and ending that resembles the standards of modern stories we are accustomed to reading" as an RPG will not under any circumstances be entertaining, except to people who don't actually want to play an RPG in the first place. Because to create this kind of story you MUST take away Player (and often GM) choice.

Quote
Why is it "foolhardy" for other to do something that they enjoy and you don't?

I might really enjoy trying to turn a toaster into a microwave oven, but it'd still be foolhardy. It would be wiser on my part to try to construct a microwave oven from scratch.

Quote
Is Ars Magica thus not an RPG when the GM position is "rotating or open"?

Is Amber not an RPG when it fails to use dice?

Dice is more a convention than a tradition. And having a rotating GM, while highly unorthodox, does not actually change the nature of play anymore than having rotating players. At the moment of play, you're still playing an RPG. But a game that tries to have everyone be the GM at once, that would be outside of the definition of an RPG.

Your positions on these things pushes me toward defending orthodoxy more than I probably do in real life. I am a fan of games that are cutting edge, and my definition of what DOES constitute an RPG is pretty broad. I'm just not a fan of games that try to use RPGs for some other end or claim to be RPGs but clearly aren't.

Quote
The only way to define a roleplaying game that makes any sense at all to me is to say that it is a kind of activity that combines both roleplaying and gamelike elements, in a fashion that dominates but does not exclude other elements.

Whereas to me, a Roleplaying game is defined as: A GAME (not a type of activity) that where a group of varying size (at least 2, more commonly 3 or more) engage in the roleplaying and simulation of a character in a world designed and controlled by one of the players (termed variously, but most commonly "game master"), participating in adventures where the goal is to overcome challenges of different kinds put upon the player's characters by the Game Master (challenges can be physical, mental, social, emotional, or even spiritual), and to overcome these challenges in ways that are consistent with the personality of the character being portrayed by the players (ie. roleplaying). A set of mechanics (system) is used to resolve elements of the simulation that are not easily resolved by the players themselves (ie. combat, physical activities) and to assist in delineating the abilities and limitations of the character being played.  These mechanics almost always include a random element.


Quote
Really?  Nobody would buy a game based solely on popularity rather than quality?

Not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the question of popularity and quality are interconnected.  People will of course buy crap because its been advertised in Dragon magazine or in RPG.net, only to regret it afterwards. But this doesn't mean that there is no connection with the sales of a product and the quality of said product in addressing the mainstream needs.

To consistently ignore or deny that, or to give faint praise about "marketing" and essentially dismiss D&D, is a recipe for disaster for any game company, or for any gaming theory.  And what a lot of people call "niche products" after the fact are really just games that failed because they chose to ignore the lessons of D20.

Quote
Oh, really?  
Tell me then, why does Ron Edwards, the person you seem to despise so very much, consistently state that what gamers do is neither freakish nor something to be ashamed of, and that we should stop because it's hurting us as a hobby?  Because he does.  For all that I disagree with him on so very many points, the man you point to as the leader of "a cult of personality" has a vested, personal, and financial interest in introducing new people to gaming.

No, only certain people. Only people who would buy his games. And those people are people who would not want to be associated with the "Unwashed masses".

Quote
Why would people that create these independent games want to break into new markets and hold discussions concerning teaching people that have never played before how to do so?  Because they do.

Why do they think its more important to try to reach the "Black middle-aged lesbian" demographic while downplaying as "outdated" and "fruitless" the efforts to reacquire the "white teenaged male" demographic?  They must know that the latter is far more likely to succeed in any sense than the former (well, I don't know of anyone arguing THAT former in particular, but there are a lot of Swine arguing that we "HAVE TO" try to get more women/older people/soccer moms/racial minorities into gaming).

Quote
And, hey, why would White Wolf try so hard to break into the book trade market?  They have.  

And yet they're the ones who write that WW gamers should take pity on poor deluded D&D players and try to show them the error of their "roll playing" ways.

Quote
You can think that they want to "subvert" the industry all you like.  But if you think they want to make it small and elite, you're standing alone in left field.  Say all you like about how you're going to catch the ball out there, nobody is hitting anything your way.
My personal suspicion is that you got at least a few of these ideas by arguing with a fellow by the name of Jack Spencer.  Here's a news flash for you: Jack quit gaming.  And I think that's a good thing; the man wasn't having any fun with the rest of us, even if he did have a few good ideas.

I mean, if a group wants gaming to be about "artistry" or to require a level of chatter about "paradigms" and "narrative" that puts it on par with 300-level undergraduate discussions about Chinua Achebe's writings, then they're pretty well being elitist.
These people really can't be stupid enough to believe that everyone is going to want to start doing those things, can they?

These are a subculture. They want gaming to be a subculture. A pretty fucking obscure one at that.
I mean, a hardcore German Goth band doesn't honestly release an album thinking that its going to appeal to every middle-american 12 year old girl, do they? Of course not. They think they're going to appeal to the self-segregated minority of black-lipstick-wearing bad-poetry-writing goth teens.
And fuck, if Marilyn Manson makes an album that becomes a huge commercial hit; what happens? The goth culture drops him like a rock, because he's a "fucking sell-out".

I can guarantee you that if tomorrow Sorcerer or Dogs In the Vinyard sold as much as D&D does, you'd have people all over RPG.net trashing it for being a "stupid lowest-common-denominator system". You'd have the swine dropping it like flies, accusing it of being broken, claiming that its only for people who are too ignorant to realize there are "better games out there". Why? Because these fuckers want to be an obscure minority. They don't want to be part of what the mainstream likes or plays.

I mean shit, that's basically what drives the Forge to criticize White Wolf games; the Forgeites have to position themselves as being more "alternative" than the "alternative". They have to say that the WW crowd, who consider themselves the elite, are really the sub-elite and they are the true elite.

Quote
It's a bad argument, made by people that dislike a specific game.  That doesn't mean they hate gaming.

People can hate your favorite game and still love gaming, you know.

Not if that "favorite game" is the game that the VAST majority of gamers play, and the only one that keeps the gaming industry running. At that point, wishing it ill is basically wishing all of Gaming ill, for one's own selfish interests.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 27, 2006, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Both of those are playing roleplaying games. That's my point. Those proportions are not so varied as to make a difference in the nature of play. And as soon as you get two groups doing something so radically different from one another that they aren't recognizeable to each other, one of those two is no longer playing a Roleplaying Game.

So for example, someone who is playing RISK is not playing a Roleplaying Game. Neither is someone who is doing some cyber-sex chat roleplaying online.


How about LARP?

Quote
How would that make a difference? You're arguing that RPGS are a "fusion" of two or more different kinds of games or play. I'm saying that they're a single kind of game that you cannot alter the composition of without making it a different game. If you remove what you consider to be the "checker like moves" from Chess, then you no longer have Chess.


Here you say you can't alter the composition.  In the last paragraph, you stated that the proportions could be varied.  Could you clarify that?  I read this as a contradiction, and I'm sure you didn't intend one.  Might just be the word use.

Quote
By that logic, you should also shoot him in the kneecap. Hell, if he can't DM with a 9mm bullet lodged in his kneecap, he's no REAL DM anyways!

I mean really, what the fuck are you talking about? You're saying that removing the tools by which a GM functions to maintain the structure of the game is meant to "build character"? That's a bullshit excuse for creating some kind of quasi-socialist "shared storytelling game".

The only respect in which your argument makes any sense is that a GOOD GM will never let his players or a gang of pseudo-intellectual artistes try to convince him to play one of those games where he has no authority in the first place, or try to con him into thinking he has to let all his players have as much say as he does about the setting "or else it isn't democratic". Fuck that, we're playing an RPG here, not doing a goddamned nanny state grade 3 science fair where "everyone's a winner" and Nose-Picking Jeb will get the same ribbon as Nerdy McNerd, just because some pansy-assed Arts majors feel upset with hierarchies cause Daddy made them go to church and didn't let them grow their hair long.
But I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.


You realize you've just said that absolute control over the contents of the setting is the full set of tools the GM uses to maintain the structure of the game, right?

Did you actually mean that?

Quote
Anyways, my point is: why the fuck are you people so terrified of hierarchy?


Why are you so intent on connecting "control over setting content" with hierarchy?

Quote
I think the question is whether we're talking about "Levi's gaming table" or the gaming hobby at large. You keep saying stuff like; "well this doesn't apply at my games", "I don't need that in my group". And that's fine and good, but really, I could give a flying fuck if your group plays D&D in pink tutus or LARPS  the rape of the sabines. That's your business.

But is it something that is right to base Gaming Theory off of?
To me, if we talk about something we want to call "Gaming Theory", then it can't be based off of what you play in your group, or what Ron Edwards imagines while he's on the crapper, or what John Kim notices while he's fighting Nazis in a parallel universe.
It has to be about the gaming hobby as a whole, and it has to base itself on the precepts and practices of the majority of gamers.  So Tradition very well must apply. Otherwise your talk is either just stuff that's only relevant to your tiny group (and that you should therefore keep to yourself, because applied on a universal scale it will actually be counterproductive), or stuff that is pure mental wankery that applies absolutely nowhere but in some gaming theorist's head.


Not at all.  It has to be about my gaming compared to your gaming compared to that guy's gaming compared to some other guy, in person and in detail, until we find common items and exchanges.

Some guys need to get off their high horse of academia, and you need to get off your supposed moral high ground of "tradition and orthodoxy"; we need to throw all that shit away, and talk about games, without saying "my gaming is better, nyah, nyah, nyah!" - because that claim, no matter what it's based on, is always a big ole' pile of dogshit.

Quote
How is that definition inconsistent with the original statement about RPGs being games?


Attitudes of competition and one-upmanship aren't a defining facet of RPGs.

Quote
Well, basically yes. The creation of story, if you mean "the actual construction of a story with a beginning, middle and ending that resembles the standards of modern stories we are accustomed to reading" as an RPG will not under any circumstances be entertaining, except to people who don't actually want to play an RPG in the first place. Because to create this kind of story you MUST take away Player (and often GM) choice.


So what I've given is, in your view, one of the following:

1) Not fun.  (Except that it is.)

2) Not an RPG.  (Which everyone I've ever played with agrees that it is.)

3) Not actually creating story.  (Which it does.)

Quote
Dice is more a convention than a tradition. And having a rotating GM, while highly unorthodox, does not actually change the nature of play anymore than having rotating players. At the moment of play, you're still playing an RPG. But a game that tries to have everyone be the GM at once, that would be outside of the definition of an RPG.

Your positions on these things pushes me toward defending orthodoxy more than I probably do in real life. I am a fan of games that are cutting edge, and my definition of what DOES constitute an RPG is pretty broad. I'm just not a fan of games that try to use RPGs for some other end or claim to be RPGs but clearly aren't.


I'm aware that I'm pushing you to the wall, here.  But fair's fair - you did it to me pretty hard in the opening of the debate, and I refined my position quite a lot.  I suspect a few posts from not, it'll run dry when we hit the semantic level, you'll restate a few things in ways that aren't as pick-at-able, and we'll be back on the go-around again.

Quote
Whereas to me, a Roleplaying game is defined as: A GAME (not a type of activity) that where a group of varying size (at least 2, more commonly 3 or more) engage in the roleplaying and simulation of a character in a world designed and controlled by one of the players (termed variously, but most commonly "game master"), participating in adventures where the goal is to overcome challenges of different kinds put upon the player's characters by the Game Master (challenges can be physical, mental, social, emotional, or even spiritual), and to overcome these challenges in ways that are consistent with the personality of the character being portrayed by the players (ie. roleplaying). A set of mechanics (system) is used to resolve elements of the simulation that are not easily resolved by the players themselves (ie. combat, physical activities) and to assist in delineating the abilities and limitations of the character being played.  These mechanics almost always include a random element.


That's actually a pretty narrow definition, by my standards.

Quote
Not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the question of popularity and quality are interconnected.  People will of course buy crap because its been advertised in Dragon magazine or in RPG.net, only to regret it afterwards. But this doesn't mean that there is no connection with the sales of a product and the quality of said product in addressing the mainstream needs.

To consistently ignore or deny that, or to give faint praise about "marketing" and essentially dismiss D&D, is a recipe for disaster for any game company, or for any gaming theory.  And what a lot of people call "niche products" after the fact are really just games that failed because they chose to ignore the lessons of D20.


You seem unable to see quality as anything other than "addressing mainstream needs".  

Quote
No, only certain people. Only people who would buy his games. And those people are people who would not want to be associated with the "Unwashed masses".


Have you ever actually read his game stuff?

Quote
Why do they think its more important to try to reach the "Black middle-aged lesbian" demographic while downplaying as "outdated" and "fruitless" the efforts to reacquire the "white teenaged male" demographic?  They must know that the latter is far more likely to succeed in any sense than the former (well, I don't know of anyone arguing THAT former in particular, but there are a lot of Swine arguing that we "HAVE TO" try to get more women/older people/soccer moms/racial minorities into gaming).


Why reach out to those groups?  Because diversity is good, and you don't know who gaming will appeal to until you try.

Quote
And yet they're the ones who write that WW gamers should take pity on poor deluded D&D players and try to show them the error of their "roll playing" ways.


Book and page reference, or link, please.  Something within the last five years.

Quote
I mean, if a group wants gaming to be about "artistry" or to require a level of chatter about "paradigms" and "narrative" that puts it on par with 300-level undergraduate discussions about Chinua Achebe's writings, then they're pretty well being elitist.
These people really can't be stupid enough to believe that everyone is going to want to start doing those things, can they?


And yet Ben has come here on these very board and shown willing to explain anything you'd care to ask.  Tony Lower-Basch has gone out his way with his "simple things" on RPGnet, which can be found on the Wiki there.  Vincent Baker has jumped into the fray to explain Narrativism to people on those same boards, in simple language.

Their ideas are breaking out of that level of chatter, into plain language, at a pretty fair speed, and taking a beating, and getting better.  Theory has ceased to be a pursuit just for people that like to finagle big words.

Quote
These are a subculture. They want gaming to be a subculture. A pretty fucking obscure one at that.
I mean, a hardcore German Goth band doesn't honestly release an album thinking that its going to appeal to every middle-american 12 year old girl, do they? Of course not. They think they're going to appeal to the self-segregated minority of black-lipstick-wearing bad-poetry-writing goth teens.
And fuck, if Marilyn Manson makes an album that becomes a huge commercial hit; what happens? The goth culture drops him like a rock, because he's a "fucking sell-out".

I can guarantee you that if tomorrow Sorcerer or Dogs In the Vinyard sold as much as D&D does, you'd have people all over RPG.net trashing it for being a "stupid lowest-common-denominator system". You'd have the swine dropping it like flies, accusing it of being broken, claiming that its only for people who are too ignorant to realize there are "better games out there". Why? Because these fuckers want to be an obscure minority. They don't want to be part of what the mainstream likes or plays.


Interesting.  I did a demo of Dogs in the Vineyard for 24 people in Edmonton, and they liked it.  I sold 10 copies of the book to regular folks that play tabletop games, and they loved it.  When the folks you're talking about heard about this, they thought it was awesome.

I've been sharing actual experiences and statements from people.  You haven't.  Notice that?

Quote
I mean shit, that's basically what drives the Forge to criticize White Wolf games; the Forgeites have to position themselves as being more "alternative" than the "alternative". They have to say that the WW crowd, who consider themselves the elite, are really the sub-elite and they are the true elite.


No.  What drives Forgefolk to frothing aggravation with White Wolf games is that many WW games (mostly the older ones, but you can still see it in the new ones) try to sell "story" as "railroad", and dress it up pretty enough that many people don't catch on - with two results.  First, many people coming to RPGs for story burn out and become bitter, and often leave.  Second, people that would otherwise be okay with story in games come to the Forge people and launch attacks on White Wolf's techniques rather than the ones actually on the table - Much like you've done here a few times.

Quote
Not if that "favorite game" is the game that the VAST majority of gamers play, and the only one that keeps the gaming industry running. At that point, wishing it ill is basically wishing all of Gaming ill, for one's own selfish interests.


"If you hate D&D, you're trying to destroy the hobby, whether you know it or not!"  - Gosh, that's an interesting viewpoint.  Because, you know, diversification is evil and constantly destroys industry...

...Oh wait, no.  Actually, the opposite is true.  Diversification makes industries stronger.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 27, 2006, 07:18:24 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
How about LARP?

Not an RPG, though a related cousin of the RPG.

Quote
Here you say you can't alter the composition.  In the last paragraph, you stated that the proportions could be varied.  Could you clarify that?  I read this as a contradiction, and I'm sure you didn't intend one.  Might just be the word use.

Yea. What I mean is that you can't seriously alter the composition. Its like a Martini: its Gin and Vermouth. There has to be more Gin than vermouth. You can make it with 7 parts gin and 3 parts vermouth, 4 parts vermouth, or 2 parts vermouth; but you take it out completely, or put more vermouth than gin, or add in a pint of red wine or chocolate flavouring, and suddenly its not a martini at all, and whoever says so is a bullshitter.

Quote
You realize you've just said that absolute control over the contents of the setting is the full set of tools the GM uses to maintain the structure of the game, right?

Did you actually mean that?

Yes. If the GM isn't in control of the setting, the game loses its structure and is no longer an RPG.

Quote
Why are you so intent on connecting "control over setting content" with hierarchy?  

Because it is hierarchy. The GM is the adjudicator. His word is law. That's not a bad thing, that's a pretty fucking essential thing, in fact.

I think that all you theory guys were so burnt by some railroading-GM at some point in your formative years that now you think the "solution" to the bad experience you had is to castrate the GM.  But that solves nothing, and just creates a situation where no one is in charge and anyone can abuse their power. Having one capable guy in charge is better than having six guys in charge each with their own interests and agendas.
The answer to GM abuse of power is to get better GMs.  The sacrifice the GM makes is that he gives up his own personal subjective investment to "winning" in the game in exchange for the power over the world and direction of the group and game itself.  A GM who tries to have his cake and eat it too (ie. with GM-PCs, or Mary Sues, or what have you) is a bad GM, it doesn't mean that GMing itself is bad.

Quote
Not at all.  It has to be about my gaming compared to your gaming compared to that guy's gaming compared to some other guy, in person and in detail, until we find common items and exchanges.
Some guys need to get off their high horse of academia, and you need to get off your supposed moral high ground of "tradition and orthodoxy"; we need to throw all that shit away, and talk about games, without saying "my gaming is better, nyah, nyah, nyah!" - because that claim, no matter what it's based on, is always a big ole' pile of dogshit.

I'm not saying my game is better, though. I'm saying that IN REALITY, my Game is the more loved and played game. And that we have to address that reality when making declarations about the nature of gamers or gaming as a whole. Declarations that suggest that the most loved and played game is stupid and that the vast majority of gamers who play it are ignorant are counter-productive. And most gaming theory still comes down to that, it still comes down to saying "My way is better than D&D".

What you're saying above appears to be that gaming theory ought to be about each little person's gaming group. Let's accept that premise for a moment: What about when Each Little Person's gaming group is examined and you find out that well over 80% of them are into the same thing? Do you then direct gaming theory from the perspective that this same thing is "The Game As People Want to Play It", or do you direct gaming theory from the perspective that this same things is "The Problem that people only do because they don't know better ways"? Becuase you guys are doing the latter, consistently.

Quote
Attitudes of competition and one-upmanship aren't a defining facet of RPGs.

Nonsense. Of course they are. Its just that the competition isn't overtly between the players (though a LOT of that goes on too; competition for the best character, most playtime, etc). The main competition is overtly a team effort against the challenges the DM creates.

Its one of the greatest misinterpretations in RPGs to say that "its a game, but no one wins". People "win" at RPGs all the time. They "win" when their character defeats the challenges put before him, whatever they may be. The only real difference you can point to between that and many other games is that often "winning" doesn't mean the game is over. But this isn't that unusual anymore, in light of computer gaming. Or are you going to say that those aren't games?

Quote
So what I've given is, in your view, one of the following:

1) Not fun.  (Except that it is.)

2) Not an RPG.  (Which everyone I've ever played with agrees that it is.)

3) Not actually creating story.  (Which it does.)

Well what exactly have you given that creates conventional story (not just fragments-of-story, sort-of-like-story or possible-story-if-everyone-behaves), is fun for mainstream RPG gamers, and fits RPG rules?

Quote
That's actually a pretty narrow definition, by my standards.

And yet its the definition of RPG I'm sticking to. And its the nature of a lot of our disagreements, and why certain things you will say are "RPGs" I will say are not.

Quote
You seem unable to see quality as anything other than "addressing mainstream needs".  

No, quality can be anything that's well-crafted within the definitions it addresses itself as. But if I, a pipe smoker, buy a pipe that doesn't actually have a draft hole, or that doesn't have a stem, or a bowl, and you try to tell me that its still a pipe, and that if I don't "get" how its a pipe then I am just ignorant and uneducated, I'll pretty well tell you that whatever you've got there, judged by the quality standards of what defines a "Pipe" is a piece of shit. Maybe its a vacuum cleaner; maybe its a great vacuum cleaner: That's cool, then don't sell it to me as a pipe.

Quote
Have you ever actually read his game stuff?

I've read Sorcerer, and some of his Forge essays, though certainly not all of them. I'm a sadist, not a masochist.

Quote
Why reach out to those groups?  Because diversity is good, and you don't know who gaming will appeal to until you try.

You know who gaming WILL appeal to, though? Teenage white boys. So why not focus on those we DO know it will work for? Especially now in this situation where we're faced with declining participation in the hobby?
Also, why is it that certain groups are willing to do whatever is necessary to draw in those other new demographics, including redefine RPGs out of existence to the point where mainstream gamers will become dissatisfied and leave the hobby in droves (like what happened in the 90s when RPGs were all being marketed to the "Art School" crowd by the Swine)? Why do we have to put up with that?
And why do these groups, on the other hand, seem to discourage the idea of marketing games toward the ONE demographic we KNOW RPGs as they are now have a strong appeal? When we do that, they accuse us of "dumbing it down". They mock companies that do this as making "unsophisticated" RPGs.

Quote
Book and page reference, or link, please.  Something within the last five years.

Try two years: White Wolf, WoD rulebook, P.188. Right by the Baudelaire quote that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to show us how artistic they are.

Quote
And yet Ben has come here on these very board and shown willing to explain
anything you'd care to ask.  Tony Lower-Basch has gone out his way with his "simple things" on RPGnet, which can be found on the Wiki there.  Vincent Baker has jumped into the fray to explain Narrativism to people on those same boards, in simple language.

I shouldn't need to learn those kinds of terms to be able to play RPGs. I shouldn't have to be indoctrinated in someone's lingo or pseudo-academic bullshit. And they aren't doing me a favour by patronizingly explaining it to me step by step, as though I was a mental defective for recognizing bullshit for what it is.

Quote
Their ideas are breaking out of that level of chatter, into plain language, at a pretty fair speed, and taking a beating, and getting better.  Theory has ceased to be a pursuit just for people that like to finagle big words.

No, it hasn't. The theorists have just learnt how to be patronizing in new and creative ways.
Plain language would be theory where you didn't have to make up a lexicon to have a discussion.
And until you get rid of the people who finagle big words, you will always have shitheads bringing any "plain talk theory" back to GNS, by talking about "narrativism" as though everyone knows what that word means (even though not even any two people on the Forge seem to be capable of defining it the same way) and as though everyone accepts GNS theory to be the word of god.

That's why I again insist: the only way to "reform" Gaming Theory from the hands of the pseudo-intellectualoids is to start an anti-intellectualoid movement that goes out of its way to shit on existing Forge-borne nonsense.

Quote
Interesting.  I did a demo of Dogs in the Vineyard for 24 people in Edmonton, and they liked it.  I sold 10 copies of the book to regular folks that play tabletop games, and they loved it.  When the folks you're talking about heard about this, they thought it was awesome.

I've been sharing actual experiences and statements from people.  You haven't.  Notice that?

No, I don't. what I'm talking about, what I've quoted is just as real and are just as true statements as what you are talking about. Having shitheads talking to me about the "unwashed masses"; fuckers on RPG.net claiming that D20 players are just "misinformed" and that if they only understood Forge theory they'd never play D20 again, white wolf's "don't look down on roll-players, help them learn how to storytell instead!" bull shit, Edward's Brain Damage comments. I didn't just make this shit up, and I resent the implication that I did.

Quote
No.  What drives Forgefolk to frothing aggravation with White Wolf games is that many WW games (mostly the older ones, but you can still see it in the new ones) try to sell "story" as "railroad", and dress it up pretty enough that many people don't catch on - with two results.  First, many people coming to RPGs for story burn out and become bitter, and often leave.  Second, people that would otherwise be okay with story in games come to the Forge people and launch attacks on White Wolf's techniques rather than the ones actually on the table - Much like you've done here a few times.

I do differentiate between WW-Swinery and Forge-Swinery. But they're both swinery in the end. They both suggest that they are special for playing RPGs and know better than most other gamers about how to play RPGs. The one want to railroad you into following the metaplots laid down by failed authors; and the other wants to railroad you into "creating story" with inane micro-settings and stupid mechanics.
The Forge-Swine are both less inisidious and more insidious. Less insidious because they honestly are borne of being burnt by  the WW swine, by bad GMs who followed bad game designers. More insidious because they tried to solve these problems by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, repeating the cycle of abusive game designers imposing their vision on gamers, and completely bought into the WW snobbery with the added twist of showing how they can be snobbish about the "commoners" over at WW.

Quote
"If you hate D&D, you're trying to destroy the hobby, whether you know it or not!"  - Gosh, that's an interesting viewpoint.  Because, you know, diversification is evil and constantly destroys industry...

...Oh wait, no.  Actually, the opposite is true.  Diversification makes industries stronger.

Not if by "diversification" you mean "wishing for the death and dismemberment of the vast majority of the hobby" or "trying to force the hobby away from what it is into something its not to satisfy your own interest".

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 28, 2006, 12:02:32 PM
Quote
Not an RPG, though a related cousin of the RPG.


What if they use the exact same system, including the dice?  I've seen it.

How about Parlour LARP, which is a LARP played by a small group in a single room? I've played in one of these using the Amber system, too.

Just how much game do you need in your roleplaying, in your opinion?  Or, if that's not what missing, what is?

Quote from: RPGPundit
Yea. What I mean is that you can't seriously alter the composition. Its like a Martini: its Gin and Vermouth. There has to be more Gin than vermouth. You can make it with 7 parts gin and 3 parts vermouth, 4 parts vermouth, or 2 parts vermouth; but you take it out completely, or put more vermouth than gin, or add in a pint of red wine or chocolate flavouring, and suddenly its not a martini at all, and whoever says so is a bullshitter.


Okay, I can totally follow the analogy.  What I've been saying in story terms, then, is I believe that it can be up to 2 or 3 parts of this other thing, as long as there's always more of each Gin and Vermouth than anything else, and still be a martini - and most people still agree with it as such.  

And when a bartending student sidles up and says "Hey, that's not a martini!", I'm entirely happy to ask him why not; his answers have never been satisfactory to date.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Yes. If the GM isn't in control of the setting, the game loses its structure and is no longer an RPG.


So, shared-world players aren't playing RPGs, then?

Quote from: RPGPundit
Because it is hierarchy. The GM is the adjudicator. His word is law. That's not a bad thing, that's a pretty fucking essential thing, in fact.

I think that all you theory guys were so burnt by some railroading-GM at some point in your formative years that now you think the "solution" to the bad experience you had is to castrate the GM.  But that solves nothing, and just creates a situation where no one is in charge and anyone can abuse their power. Having one capable guy in charge is better than having six guys in charge each with their own interests and agendas.
The answer to GM abuse of power is to get better GMs.  The sacrifice the GM makes is that he gives up his own personal subjective investment to "winning" in the game in exchange for the power over the world and direction of the group and game itself.  A GM who tries to have his cake and eat it too (ie. with GM-PCs, or Mary Sues, or what have you) is a bad GM, it doesn't mean that GMing itself is bad.


I actually agree with having the GM lead the game.  I even agree that they need to be completely in charge of their stuff, and of the game as a whole.  I don't agree that their stuff needs to be "the totality of the setting".

You're attacking a point I'm not making.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I'm not saying my game is better, though. I'm saying that IN REALITY, my Game is the more loved and played game. And that we have to address that reality when making declarations about the nature of gamers or gaming as a whole. Declarations that suggest that the most loved and played game is stupid and that the vast majority of gamers who play it are ignorant are counter-productive. And most gaming theory still comes down to that, it still comes down to saying "My way is better than D&D".


Then say that.  Because that, I'm not and never have been arguing.

Quote from: RPGPundit
What you're saying above appears to be that gaming theory ought to be about each little person's gaming group. Let's accept that premise for a moment: What about when Each Little Person's gaming group is examined and you find out that well over 80% of them are into the same thing? Do you then direct gaming theory from the perspective that this same thing is "The Game As People Want to Play It", or do you direct gaming theory from the perspective that this same things is "The Problem that people only do because they don't know better ways"? Becuase you guys are doing the latter, consistently.


You don't direct it at all.  Trying to direct it as anything other than "people with ideas that are trading them around to improve their personal gaming" is, in my opinion, a mistake.  People do their thing, others take what they want.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
Nonsense. Of course they are. Its just that the competition isn't overtly between the players (though a LOT of that goes on too; competition for the best character, most playtime, etc). The main competition is overtly a team effort against the challenges the DM creates.

Its one of the greatest misinterpretations in RPGs to say that "its a game, but no one wins". People "win" at RPGs all the time. They "win" when their character defeats the challenges put before him, whatever they may be. The only real difference you can point to between that and many other games is that often "winning" doesn't mean the game is over. But this isn't that unusual anymore, in light of computer gaming. Or are you going to say that those aren't games?


Oh, those are games.  But I don't think of the GM as an adversary.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Well what exactly have you given that creates conventional story (not just fragments-of-story, sort-of-like-story or possible-story-if-everyone-behaves), is fun for mainstream RPG gamers, and fits RPG rules?


Front-load and drive.  It results in full-on stories regularly - not universally, but regularly.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
And yet its the definition of RPG I'm sticking to. And its the nature of a lot of our disagreements, and why certain things you will say are "RPGs" I will say are not.


The places where I disagree clearly are that it must involve adventures, and that mehanics are only for those purposes you've laid down.

Here's one for you - would you have problems with social conflict mechanics that were specifically present for the purpose of dealing with reputation?

Quote from: RPGPundit
No, quality can be anything that's well-crafted within the definitions it addresses itself as. But if I, a pipe smoker, buy a pipe that doesn't actually have a draft hole, or that doesn't have a stem, or a bowl, and you try to tell me that its still a pipe, and that if I don't "get" how its a pipe then I am just ignorant and uneducated, I'll pretty well tell you that whatever you've got there, judged by the quality standards of what defines a "Pipe" is a piece of shit. Maybe its a vacuum cleaner; maybe its a great vacuum cleaner: That's cool, then don't sell it to me as a pipe.


See, that I can go with.  So let's worry about the "definitions it adresses itself as".

Quote from: RPGPundit
I've read Sorcerer, and some of his Forge essays, though certainly not all of them. I'm a sadist, not a masochist.


Trollbabe and Elfs have appeal well outside people "educated in theory".  Sorcerer, less so.  The essays are, to me, one guy talking about his stuff after having compared it with a whole bunch of other people, and are pretty interesting as such.

Quote from: RPGPundit
You know who gaming WILL appeal to, though? Teenage white boys. So why not focus on those we DO know it will work for? Especially now in this situation where we're faced with declining participation in the hobby?
Also, why is it that certain groups are willing to do whatever is necessary to draw in those other new demographics, including redefine RPGs out of existence to the point where mainstream gamers will become dissatisfied and leave the hobby in droves (like what happened in the 90s when RPGs were all being marketed to the "Art School" crowd by the Swine)? Why do we have to put up with that?


You don't have to "put up with that" - but why knock it?  Why not just sit back, having issued an "I told you so", and see what happens?  What's the compulsion?

Hell, man, some people have told me "You don't want to debate with that guy, he's got nothing to say.  I reserve the right to say I told you so".  And yet, here I am, learning your perspective and refining my own.  It's remarkably interesting stuff, to me.

Quote from: RPGpundit
And why do these groups, on the other hand, seem to discourage the idea of marketing games toward the ONE demographic we KNOW RPGs as they are now have a strong appeal? When we do that, they accuse us of "dumbing it down". They mock companies that do this as making "unsophisticated" RPGs.


Are you talking about the "McDonalds argument" here, or something else?

Quote from: RPGPundit
Try two years: White Wolf, WoD rulebook, P.188. Right by the Baudelaire quote that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to show us how artistic they are.


....Ugh.  

This one, I concede.  That's a nasty piece of work, now that I read it again.  "More evolved", my ass.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I shouldn't need to learn those kinds of terms to be able to play RPGs. I shouldn't have to be indoctrinated in someone's lingo or pseudo-academic bullshit. And they aren't doing me a favour by patronizingly explaining it to me step by step, as though I was a mental defective for recognizing bullshit for what it is.


The terms are getting their ass handed to them in open discussions, in a lot of cases.  But a few ideas are surviving and growing.

Quote from: RPGPundit
No, it hasn't. The theorists have just learnt how to be patronizing in new and creative ways.
Plain language would be theory where you didn't have to make up a lexicon to have a discussion.


I point at Tony's "simple things", again.  There's no lexicon there.

Quote from: RPGPundit
And until you get rid of the people who finagle big words, you will always have shitheads bringing any "plain talk theory" back to GNS, by talking about "narrativism" as though everyone knows what that word means (even though not even any two people on the Forge seem to be capable of defining it the same way) and as though everyone accepts GNS theory to be the word of god.

That's why I again insist: the only way to "reform" Gaming Theory from the hands of the pseudo-intellectualoids is to start an anti-intellectualoid movement that goes out of its way to shit on existing Forge-borne nonsense.


And I think that the movement itself needs to be broken into individuals.  Groupthink helps nobody.

Quote from: RPGPundit
No, I don't. what I'm talking about, what I've quoted is just as real and are just as true statements as what you are talking about. Having shitheads talking to me about the "unwashed masses"; fuckers on RPG.net claiming that D20 players are just "misinformed" and that if they only understood Forge theory they'd never play D20 again, white wolf's "don't look down on roll-players, help them learn how to storytell instead!" bull shit, Edward's Brain Damage comments. I didn't just make this shit up, and I resent the implication that I did.


White Wolf's problem, you've shown.

The Brain Damage thing, I'd be stupid not to accept; I was there.  Though I will give you one quote that you likely missed:

Quote from: Ron Edwards, on the Forge
Believe it or not, this was presented as a term of sympathy and brotherhood, as in, "we're all in this ward together." It's too bad it seems to have become a term of vicious insult to the current generation (as my generation, to our shame, used "retard"), without my knowledge.


I don't want to slur you with "you made that up!" - I want you to show me this thing you're seeing in detail.  I've been trying to show you the thing I've seen in detail.  Right now, I have two concrete details from you; I need more than that.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I do differentiate between WW-Swinery and Forge-Swinery. But they're both swinery in the end. They both suggest that they are special for playing RPGs and know better than most other gamers about how to play RPGs. The one want to railroad you into following the metaplots laid down by failed authors; and the other wants to railroad you into "creating story" with inane micro-settings and stupid mechanics.
The Forge-Swine are both less inisidious and more insidious. Less insidious because they honestly are borne of being burnt by  the WW swine, by bad GMs who followed bad game designers. More insidious because they tried to solve these problems by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, repeating the cycle of abusive game designers imposing their vision on gamers, and completely bought into the WW snobbery with the added twist of showing how they can be snobbish about the "commoners" over at WW.


"Abusive designers", eh?  Gosh.  I think you're well into the realm of hyperbole here, unless you want to get all Brain Damage on me.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Not if by "diversification" you mean "wishing for the death and dismemberment of the vast majority of the hobby" or "trying to force the hobby away from what it is into something its not to satisfy your own interest".


And is that what you think I, personally, want?  

If not, speak to the point, please.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2006, 05:04:49 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
What if they use the exact same system, including the dice?  I've seen it.

How about Parlour LARP, which is a LARP played by a small group in a single room? I've played in one of these using the Amber system, too.

Just how much game do you need in your roleplaying, in your opinion?  Or, if that's not what missing, what is?


Well, LARPS and Parlour games are interesting games in and of themselves. I don't see the need to consider them part of mainstream RPG gaming, though. They are their own thing. They will appeal to a different fanbase, with some overlap.

Any game that requires physically acting out your role is not a standard RPG within the definitions of the hobby as I'm using it. Of course, if you play D&D and act out all the parts, you're still playing an RPG because that's your innovation, its no REQUIRED by the rules... so you're still playing an RPG, you're just doing so with a high probability of being extremely lame.

Quote

Okay, I can totally follow the analogy.  What I've been saying in story terms, then, is I believe that it can be up to 2 or 3 parts of this other thing, as long as there's always more of each Gin and Vermouth than anything else, and still be a martini - and most people still agree with it as such.  

And when a bartending student sidles up and says "Hey, that's not a martini!", I'm entirely happy to ask him why not; his answers have never been satisfactory to date.


Really? So if you add chocolate sauce to an otherwise normal Dry Martini, its still a Martini? You see, my argument would be that it isn't.  That its some other kind of drink, it won't taste the same or even close to what a Martini tastes like, that you should name it something else, and not try to rely on the fame and reputation of the Martini to popularize your wierd new Gin-Vermouth-Olive?-Chocolate cocktail.

Quote

So, shared-world players aren't playing RPGs, then?


Nope. Neither are WoW players, even though people try to call that an RPG too. You can say its a "computer RPG", and then that becomes acceptable. You could call shared-world play "the Shared World Roleplaying Experiment", if you don't mind that at that point it sounds like a 70s Prog-Rock band, but trying to claim that its a mainstream RPG is not accurate.

Quote

I actually agree with having the GM lead the game.  I even agree that they need to be completely in charge of their stuff, and of the game as a whole.  I don't agree that their stuff needs to be "the totality of the setting".
You're attacking a point I'm not making.


You are, at the end of the day, arguing that one or more players should be able to FORCE the GM to change his setting to fit their whim. I'd say that's the point you're making; because at the point you argue that you are no longer in favour of the GM leading the game, or being in charge of his stuff or the game as a whole.

Quote

Then say that.  Because that, I'm not and never have been arguing.


Whether or not you personally argue it, its what Gaming Theory as a whole is arguing, and you are part and parcel of it at this point.
You see, in order to be doing Gaming Theory and NOT be arguing that, you pretty much have to explicitly state that you are not arguing that, and make that explicit statement relevant to the theories you create. Otherwise, you are guilty by association.

Quote

You don't direct it at all.  Trying to direct it as anything other than "people with ideas that are trading them around to improve their personal gaming" is, in my opinion, a mistake.  People do their thing, others take what they want.  


If you aren't directing it based on certain landmarks, gaming theory becomes meaningless pseudo-academic jargon with no positive application on the practical level, and fast.

Quote

Oh, those are games.  But I don't think of the GM as an adversary.


Neither do I. Go back and read what I wrote again: I said that the PCs "win" by defeating the challenges put before them; not that they win by defeating the GM. The GM isn't the adversary, he's the objective referee who presents the conflict. He isn't supposed to want the PCs to lose, and they aren't supposed to want to "defeat him".  That doesn't mean that there isn't a competition and spirit-of-winning going on in the game. That's part of what works so well in RPGs.

Quote

Front-load and drive.  It results in full-on stories regularly - not universally, but regularly.  


If it doesn't do it universally, then "story" is just a side effect. If you make it your "Purpose" to create stories with RPGs, and then find yourself incapable of doing it universally, it will inevitably lead to frustration. At which point, only three options exist (aside from continuing the frustration):
1. pushing RPGs more toward story-creation, at which point you kill the fun by forcing the situation, doing things where you as GM arbitrarily force the players by fudging to be unable to quickly resolve a conflict you were hoping would create story, or by fudging to save your players from their own stupidity or demise in order to create a better story, and essentially taking away their agency; or you as the Player try to force the GM to change his adventure to make it more story-like, trying to steal away the GM's agency.
2. You give up on the idea of playing RPGs, and go find some more effective mechanic for story-creation.
3. You give up on the idea that RPGs have to be about story, and have fun playing RPGs for what they are, instead.

Quote

The places where I disagree clearly are that it must involve adventures, and that mehanics are only for those purposes you've laid down.


My definition of "adventures" here isn't meant to be narrow, I'm not saying that in every RPG you have to go to the Caverns of Chaos and save the princess. By "adventure" I mean a conflict that is set-up, topical to the setting or genre being emulated, that the players must deal with. Do you think that you can play RPGs without that definition of adventures?

Quote

Here's one for you - would you have problems with social conflict mechanics that were specifically present for the purpose of dealing with reputation?


Please elaborate on this, I'd need you to explain what you're getting at here before I could say if I was "fer it or agin' it".

Quote

Trollbabe and Elfs have appeal well outside people "educated in theory".  


They do? I've barely heard of "trollbabe", and this is the first I've heard of "Elfs". And I actually make an effort to keep myself informed of even the most obscure RPGs around, even the Forge stuff. So it can't be all that well received...

Quote
Are you talking about the "McDonalds argument" here, or something else?


The McDonald's argument is a part of it; I think that a lot of the Swine are college-aged gamers (or were when they became Swine), that look down on younger gamers because they're not "playing right" and "don't get it"; and because the younger gamers will tend to enjoy playing Mainstream games more than obscure games about Mad Scientist's Assistants, and will tend to like being a sword-wielding barbarian or a wizard more than being a vampire (unless they're going through a goth phase, but that's pretty much dead in teen culture these days).
On the other hand, the Swine being PC like to believe that they're more "ethically evolved" than the rest of us, and that the fact that this hobby is pretty much made to be enjoyed by white teen males is a horrible thing, and we must diversify on racial, gender, and other demographic lines at all cost, to win Political-correctness points. They accuse the rest of us of being racists or homophobes or misogynists at the drop of a hat, when we aren't in the least, we just aren't willing to warp our game into something its not in a vain campus-socialist attempt to appeal to demographic groups that probably won't give a shit about it anyways so some nanny-statists can feel smug about themselves.

Quote
The terms are getting their ass handed to them in open discussions, in a lot of cases. But a few ideas are surviving and growing.


Interesting.

Quote

And I think that the movement itself needs to be broken into individuals.  Groupthink helps nobody.


That's a laudable position, but ultimately impractical. Ideological parties will be formed no matter how much you want to avoid it.

Quote

White Wolf's problem, you've shown.
The Brain Damage thing, I'd be stupid not to accept; I was there.  Though I will give you one quote that you likely missed:
I don't want to slur you with "you made that up!" - I want you to show me this thing you're seeing in detail.  I've been trying to show you the thing I've seen in detail.  Right now, I have two concrete details from you; I need more than that.


How much more do you need? I've already shown, as you requested, the corporate head of the Story-based Swine demonstrating exactly what I was talking about on the one hand, and the best-recognized figure in the Gaming Theory movement demonstrating exactly what I was talking about on the other hand.  These are the burdens that anyone trying to defend either movement has to overcome.  

As for the Ron Edward's statement, "hey I'm braindamaged too"; it rings pretty falsely when his basic suggestion is that he has overcome it (unlike the rest of us brain damaged gamers) and that his theories are the path to recovery. Not to mention that he also went on to "fix" the "brain damage" fiasco by instead using the metaphor that non-theory gamers are like victims of repeated child abuse. Yea, I caught that one.

Quote

"Abusive designers", eh?  Gosh.  I think you're well into the realm of hyperbole here, unless you want to get all Brain Damage on me.


What I meant to say is "game designers that take abuse of their place in the gaming hobby to impose their own visions/ideologies/priorities.


Quote

And is that what you think I, personally, want?  

If not, speak to the point, please.


See what I said above about guilt by association. You don't get to flip-flop back and forth from talking about "gaming theory" as a whole when it suits your argument, to saying "oh.. but I don't PERSONALLY believe that!" when "Gaming Theory" as a whole is being criticized.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 28, 2006, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, LARPS and Parlour games are interesting games in and of themselves. I don't see the need to consider them part of mainstream RPG gaming, though. They are their own thing. They will appeal to a different fanbase, with some overlap.

Any game that requires physically acting out your role is not a standard RPG within the definitions of the hobby as I'm using it. Of course, if you play D&D and act out all the parts, you're still playing an RPG because that's your innovation, its no REQUIRED by the rules... so you're still playing an RPG, you're just doing so with a high probability of being extremely lame.


Again, I'm not talking mainstream.  I'm talking RPG.

Quote
Really? So if you add chocolate sauce to an otherwise normal Dry Martini, its still a Martini? You see, my argument would be that it isn't.  That its some other kind of drink, it won't taste the same or even close to what a Martini tastes like, that you should name it something else, and not try to rely on the fame and reputation of the Martini to popularize your wierd new Gin-Vermouth-Olive?-Chocolate cocktail.


Depends.  If what I add is a taste that already exists to a degree in a martini, then we're talking differently.  And "story" is a taste that already exists in RPGs.

Quote
Nope. Neither are WoW players, even though people try to call that an RPG too. You can say its a "computer RPG", and then that becomes acceptable. You could call shared-world play "the Shared World Roleplaying Experiment", if you don't mind that at that point it sounds like a 70s Prog-Rock band, but trying to claim that its a mainstream RPG is not accurate.


Again, when did I say mainstream?  

You seem to be trying to defend the core of the hobby - and I don't give a rat's ass about affecting the core of the hobby.  I live on the fringes of it, I'm happy to do so, and what I do out here is stuff that people, in significant enough numbers to satisfy me, enjoy reading, talking about, and playing.

Quote
You are, at the end of the day, arguing that one or more players should be able to FORCE the GM to change his setting to fit their whim. I'd say that's the point you're making; because at the point you argue that you are no longer in favour of the GM leading the game, or being in charge of his stuff or the game as a whole.


"Forcing" assumes that the GM doesn't want them to do it, which is patently not what I'm saying.

Quote
Whether or not you personally argue it, its what Gaming Theory as a whole is arguing, and you are part and parcel of it at this point.
You see, in order to be doing Gaming Theory and NOT be arguing that, you pretty much have to explicitly state that you are not arguing that, and make that explicit statement relevant to the theories you create. Otherwise, you are guilty by association.


Really?  Theory says that, does it?  Where?

In fact, with apologies to Clinton (sorry, man), I'll snag a comment he made about this thread from elsewhere:

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon
Oh God, this is getting awesome.

I wish Levi would refute his "Forge people hate D&D" idea, though. It's unbearably untrue.

Right now:

a) Ron Edwards is running D&D for the kid down the street from him.

b) Ben Lehman loves his blackguard.

c) Some of the top-selling and best-loved indie RPGs are all either like D&D in some way or straight up homages - Burning Wheel (which I'm pretty certain is the best-selling indie RPG ever) and The Shadow of Yesterday (my hubris knows no end, but man, it's D&D-love in pure form). And Sorcerer's a Champions-supplement gone mad, so it's not so outside of what Pundit's defining as an RPG.


So, uh, what the fuck are you on about?  By your own claim, those people are Big Theory.  And they aren't saying what you seem to believe they do.

Quote
If you aren't directing it based on certain landmarks, gaming theory becomes meaningless pseudo-academic jargon with no positive application on the practical level, and fast.


Oh, so "My actual play" isn't a landmark.  Again, what?

Quote
Neither do I. Go back and read what I wrote again: I said that the PCs "win" by defeating the challenges put before them; not that they win by defeating the GM. The GM isn't the adversary, he's the objective referee who presents the conflict. He isn't supposed to want the PCs to lose, and they aren't supposed to want to "defeat him".  That doesn't mean that there isn't a competition and spirit-of-winning going on in the game. That's part of what works so well in RPGs.


*Goes back and rereads*

Ah.  Right.  Got it now.

Quote
If it doesn't do it universally, then "story" is just a side effect. If you make it your "Purpose" to create stories with RPGs, and then find yourself incapable of doing it universally, it will inevitably lead to frustration. At which point, only three options exist (aside from continuing the frustration):
1. pushing RPGs more toward story-creation, at which point you kill the fun by forcing the situation, doing things where you as GM arbitrarily force the players by fudging to be unable to quickly resolve a conflict you were hoping would create story, or by fudging to save your players from their own stupidity or demise in order to create a better story, and essentially taking away their agency; or you as the Player try to force the GM to change his adventure to make it more story-like, trying to steal away the GM's agency.
2. You give up on the idea of playing RPGs, and go find some more effective mechanic for story-creation.
3. You give up on the idea that RPGs have to be about story, and have fun playing RPGs for what they are, instead.


By your method of defining things here, then, I've *already* given up on story in RPGs, and must consider it no more than a side effect.

Except, of course, I haven't, and don't.

Quote
My definition of "adventures" here isn't meant to be narrow, I'm not saying that in every RPG you have to go to the Caverns of Chaos and save the princess. By "adventure" I mean a conflict that is set-up, topical to the setting or genre being emulated, that the players must deal with. Do you think that you can play RPGs without that definition of adventures?


Given that definition of "adventure", that's all good and well, then.

You've now successfully defined what I do as perfectly normal roleplaying, and a great many Forge games as perfectly normal games, except that they have this bizarre tendeency to talk about stories that they only "produce as side effects".

Quote
Please elaborate on this, I'd need you to explain what you're getting at here before I could say if I was "fer it or agin' it".


Let's say that a character has an "reputation" trait of some kind that they can use to get the effects of fame on a large scale.  Let's say, further, that there are rules for things like attacking the reputations of others with indirect slander, whispering campaigns, and the like.  Would you object to that?

Quote
They do? I've barely heard of "trollbabe", and this is the first I've heard of "Elfs". And I actually make an effort to keep myself informed of even the most obscure RPGs around, even the Forge stuff. So it can't be all that well received...


Since you don't know much about them, there's little point going on about it; you wouldn't have a position specifically related to them beyond positions already under direct debate.

Quote
The McDonald's argument is a part of it; I think that a lot of the Swine are college-aged gamers (or were when they became Swine), that look down on younger gamers because they're not "playing right" and "don't get it"; and because the younger gamers will tend to enjoy playing Mainstream games more than obscure games about Mad Scientist's Assistants, and will tend to like being a sword-wielding barbarian or a wizard more than being a vampire (unless they're going through a goth phase, but that's pretty much dead in teen culture these days).

On the other hand, the Swine being PC like to believe that they're more "ethically evolved" than the rest of us, and that the fact that this hobby is pretty much made to be enjoyed by white teen males is a horrible thing, and we must diversify on racial, gender, and other demographic lines at all cost, to win Political-correctness points. They accuse the rest of us of being racists or homophobes or misogynists at the drop of a hat, when we aren't in the least, we just aren't willing to warp our game into something its not in a vain campus-socialist attempt to appeal to demographic groups that probably won't give a shit about it anyways so some nanny-statists can feel smug about themselves.


Nobody in my extended gaming group (as in, the people I could call up for a pickup game) is a teenager.  More than half of them are female.  Most of them are white, as it happens, but most isn't all.  We have heterosexuals and homosexuals, office professionals and labourers.  These people game.

And no, I'm not accusing you of a damn thing, because I don't think you are those things.

On this point, I simply think you're wrong.  The market lacks diversity, and the core game that powers the industry doesn't address that lack.

Quote
That's a laudable position, but ultimately impractical. Ideological parties will be formed no matter how much you want to avoid it.


I've been an ideological party of one for quite some time.  I'm not seeking or accepting new members into my party, and it seems to be working fine.

Quote
How much more do you need? I've already shown, as you requested, the corporate head of the Story-based Swine demonstrating exactly what I was talking about on the one hand, and the best-recognized figure in the Gaming Theory movement demonstrating exactly what I was talking about on the other hand.  These are the burdens that anyone trying to defend either movement has to overcome.  

As for the Ron Edward's statement, "hey I'm braindamaged too"; it rings pretty falsely when his basic suggestion is that he has overcome it (unlike the rest of us brain damaged gamers) and that his theories are the path to recovery. Not to mention that he also went on to "fix" the "brain damage" fiasco by instead using the metaphor that non-theory gamers are like victims of repeated child abuse. Yea, I caught that one.


Close - his basic statement was that the best anyone can do is build games that create stories despite our crippled state.  That specific people can't naturally make story, and that it must be artificially assisted.

And he's wrong.

Quote
What I meant to say is "game designers that take abuse of their place in the gaming hobby to impose their own visions/ideologies/priorities.


How is that abuse?  When I write a game, it's my perogative to write it the way I like.  I'm not required to write it any way other than the way I like.  Period.  

Oh, it may not sell.  And people may talk nine yards of shit about it, insult it, me, my mother, and a goat somewhere.  But it's mine to write any way I like.

The only calling to account White Wolf will get from me on those loathsome little snippets of theirs that you've pointed out is very simple - no money.  A whole lot of 'no money at all'.

Quote
See what I said above about guilt by association. You don't get to flip-flop back and forth from talking about "gaming theory" as a whole when it suits your argument, to saying "oh.. but I don't PERSONALLY believe that!" when "Gaming Theory" as a whole is being criticized.


All right, then.  You believe that what theorists want is the destruction of the hobby, and want to include me in that number.  I believe that they/we want, if they/we want any one thing as a group, is diversity, and not in the terms of "dismemberment and destruction".

Show me I'm wrong.  Don't tell me.  Show me.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 28, 2006, 09:12:19 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Again, I'm not talking mainstream.  I'm talking RPG.

So am I. When I say "mainstream RPG"; what I really mean is "that which I would define as an actual RPG, with everything ranging from GURPS and Shadowrun to Everway and Over The Edge"; as opposed to "unorthodox RPGs" which are games that claim the title of "RPG" even though they clearly are for playing a game that does not follow the same parameters of those others I've named.

Quote
Depends.  If what I add is a taste that already exists to a degree in a martini, then we're talking differently.  And "story" is a taste that already exists in RPGs.

Well, what you're talking about is sort of like a Vermouth fan saying he wants to "create Vermouth" from his Martini, and restricting the olive and the gin to try to get a more "vermouthlike quality".  I'm saying that dude would be far better off just drinking Vermouth. A martini doesn't taste like Vermouth, and isn't meant to taste like Vermouth.

Quote
You seem to be trying to defend the core of the hobby - and I don't give a rat's ass about affecting the core of the hobby.  I live on the fringes of it, I'm happy to do so, and what I do out here is stuff that people, in significant enough numbers to satisfy me, enjoy reading, talking about, and playing.

Bully for you. Now if the other 99.9% of the Game Theorists would pay more than lip service to the notion that they are the fringe, and would acknowledge and respect those of us in the core, rather than condemn us as ignorants and brain damaged abuse victims or unwashed masses, and stop trying to subvert the core by suggesting that we have to be re-educated to play like they do, we'd be getting somewhere.

Quote
"Forcing" assumes that the GM doesn't want them to do it, which is patently not what I'm saying.

Let me put it this way: if you're running an actual game, and three of your players decide that they want to find the RuneSwords of The High Dwarven kings and use them to conquer the Orclands; or want your NPC to decide that they're so cool that he'll have to build them their own superfortress, and you don't want to do this, would you say that you have to negotiate this with them?  If so, you're in favour of the GM being forced.

Quote
Really?  Theory says that, does it?  Where?

Every time Theory suggests that D&D has "confused models" or is "simulationism at its worst" or that it doesn't allow for "Story now" or any of that crap. When your central, most famous model upon which the vast majority of Theory is based, derived from, or inspired by suggests that D&D is a fundamentally broken style of gaming, or whenever other theories pretend that D&D doesn't exist altogether.

Quote
In fact, with apologies to Clinton (sorry, man), I'll snag a comment he made about this thread from elsewhere:

First of all, i'd like to know where you got that quote from? I'd like to see the thread, if its a thread.
Second, bully for Clinton, but at this point talking about how Game Theory has really been about loving D&D and mainstream RPGs all along and the constant superiority-complex bashing of orthodox gaming was all... what -- meant to educate us about how to play D&D right? in good fun?-- is a bit like a baptist saying he "loves the sinner and only hates the sin".

Quote
So, uh, what the fuck are you on about?  By your own claim, those people are Big Theory.  And they aren't saying what you seem to believe they do.

I'm looking at their record, not their lip service. Since you quoted out of other threads, I'll quote out of a thread in this very message board:

Quote
(RPGPundit's) criticising an attitude which people don't tend to publically articulate. No one goes around saying "my hobbies make me smarter/more sophisticated than you", not least because it would be hard to pronounce that "/". In trying to prove that kind of attitude exists all you can really do is point to patterns of behaviour that reveal an underlying attitude, and that's always going to be vulnerable to a nitpicking "where did he actually say he felt that way" defence.
I think that problem is compounded if the best public example of patterns of conduct, rpg.net is ruled to be off-topic. I think that makes it impossible to nail-down attitudes among the "swine" without them actually publically declaring that they're better than everyone else.
(The other reason pundit's struggling to make the "people who like wanky rpgs are, themselves, wankers" argument stick is that Levi is obviously a very nice, balanced guy who clearly doesn't hold those views himself. In an important sense, Levi's is cheating by being so reasonable and pleasant)

I agree with all this, but note that despite this, I've already given a few very concrete examples of where the Swine let their hate-ons show.
And yes, part of the handicap against me is that you're a very nice guy, you're the token that Gaming Theory apologists always use; on RPG.net and elsewhere: "Not ALL Gaming Theory guys are stuck-up jerks.. look at Levi!"
But I'm not looking for you to say that you're a jerk, and I don't have to prove that all Gaming Theorists are jerks. I just have to get you to admit certain things, in order:
1. That the public at large views Gaming Theorists as a bunch of jerks.
2. That this view is not borne out of ignorance or "unwashed nature of our masses", but is based on truly bad behaviour on the part of some of your people.
3. That these people are not ostracized members of the Fringe of gaming Theory, but in fact they are some of the most influencial theorists around; including THE best known most influential theorist around.
4. That these people and their elitist pretentious attitudes and pseudo-intellectualism have, by virtue of these individual's influence, affected the fundamentals of gaming theory as a whole.

So, lets get to the brass balls here: do you deny that mainstream gamers view the Forge crowd as a bunch of elitist pseudo-intellectuals? Do you deny that this view is based on the actions of some of your own people, first and foremost of which is Ron Edwards and the crowd he rallied around him?

The problem is only compounded in the public eye when we see the vast majority of gaming theorists continue to treat the guy as a respectable figure in their movement.
I am willing to recognize that you and some others are trying to reform theory into something practical and useful rather than pseudo-intellectual jargon, but that means YOU have to admit that Theory has been based on pseudo-intellectual Jargon up till now.  When you guys go onto fora and try to "educate" us about the Jargon, putting it in "laymans" terms, it strikes as nothing but patronizing, especially since most of us reject the soundness of the jargon and the theory in the first place.

Its NOT that we just "don't get it". We get what its about; and we think its about BULLSHIT. The point is not now to educate us, its about recognizing that and going back to the fucking drawing board. Or retreating back to your little world of theoretical claptrap and stop trying to spread your unwanted "wisdom".

Quote
Oh, so "My actual play" isn't a landmark.  Again, what?

The term "Landmarks" refers to boundary points, definitions or standards that are unchangeable that serve as the fundamental structure by which the rest of a system is based.
So you have to start by agreeing on some landmarks.
Saying "All Theory should be based on actual play, rather than speculation" IS a landmark.
If you are now arguing that, you are in fact no longer arguing that we shouldn't "direct" Theory.

Quote
*Goes back and rereads*

Ah.  Right.  Got it now.

Cool.

Quote
By your method of defining things here, then, I've *already* given up on story in RPGs, and must consider it no more than a side effect.
Except, of course, I haven't, and don't.

If you are running a game where you've tried to make a story by front-loading, and it doesn't turn out to be a story (ie. the players pre-empt the story in some form or another), and you accept that ("Oh well, that's fine"), then you have in fact given up on story in RPGs.
If you do not accept that ("shit, there goes the story") but don't do anything about it, then you're still suffering.
If you do not accept that and try to change it ("well, I'll introduce GM-Fiat Character here, and Railroad over there, so that we can still make a story out of it") then you have effectively given up on the concept of the RPG, and have moved to some other kind of story-creation exercise, quite possibly killing the fun for those who want RPGs in the process.
If your whole party would care more about you making a story out of the game than about letting the game function organically, then your entire party has given up on RPGs, and you'd all be better off dumping the concept of RPGs altogether and starting a shared-world storytelling group.

Quote
Given that definition of "adventure", that's all good and well, then.

What exactly did you think I was saying before? That if it isn't a combat-laden hack n'slash D&D module then its not an RPG? Do you know me that poorly?

Quote
You've now successfully defined what I do as perfectly normal roleplaying, and a great many Forge games as perfectly normal games, except that they have this bizarre tendeency to talk about stories that they only "produce as side effects".

With the tiny difference being that the Forge crowd doesn't just talk about stories, they try to use RPGs to "Make" stories.

Quote
Let's say that a character has an "reputation" trait of some kind that they can use to get the effects of fame on a large scale.  Let's say, further, that there are rules for things like attacking the reputations of others with indirect slander, whispering campaigns, and the like.  Would you object to that?

It would depend a lot on the application. I use the True20 Reputation attribute, for example. I use a variation, in fact, in my Immortal Rome campaign, where each character has his "immortal reputation" (how well known he is among other immortals) and his "mortal reputation" (how well he is known by the world at large in this present incarnation). The two aren't necessarily connected in any way. Jong at one point was as well known as the Emperor Claudius among mortals, but wasn't very well known among immortals (enough that most immortals who didn't know him personally would have been suprised to learn that as well as everything else Quintus was one of them!).
But I digress; the mortal reputation in the game is indeed subject to a great deal of fluctuation, usually due to the character's own actions, though in theory another character could manipulate events to force the character to gain reputation or infamy (which was also reputation, but in a negative form that meant you were known in a scandalous context).
Now, if by a "mechanic" you mean creating some kind of guidelines to how this process is done, well, I don't have a big problem with that in general. However, there are two ways I can see this being done:
1. Making a bunch of mechanics and difficulty checks or spending points from some kind of attribute, or what have you, so that the whole thing is resolved on the mechanical level.
2. Making a list of things appropriate to the setting that would cause someone to gain fame or infamy, and then letting roleplay take care of the rest.

Obviously, I would think number 2 to be a vastly superior solution than number 1. Are you saying number 1 would be preferrable or necessary?

Quote
Nobody in my extended gaming group (as in, the people I could call up for a pickup game) is a teenager.  More than half of them are female.  Most of them are white, as it happens, but most isn't all.  We have heterosexuals and homosexuals, office professionals and labourers.  These people game.

If they do, great. I want everyone to game who wants to. My side is the one that anti-elitist and anti-exclusive. Whoever wants to play Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Shadowrun, Star Wars or any other RPG, be they male or female, gay or straight, young or old, be they a student or a doctor or a priest, I would say more power to them (as long as they are socially acceptable human beings, but we've covered that one to death already).
What I don't buy for a second is the idea that to intentionally try to bring more "diversity" we have to fundamentally change RPGs.
I don't buy it first and foremost because I don't think it'll work. Sure a lot of Goths who'd never played RPGs got into playing Vampire. Most of them left shortly afterwards when they grew up a bit and stopped being goths, and the vast majority of those who got into Vampire because they were goths never went on to play other RPGs. And when every RPG in the market tried to be more "like" Vampire in order to appeal to this crowd, it didn't work, and all that happened is that a huge percentage of the customers that these games already had felt alienated, frustrated and unwanted, and stopped roleplaying forever.
If you have to "Change" RPGs to be "more inclusive" you're not going to gain very many of that new target demographic, and you're going to lose a lot of the old target demographic.

Quote
And no, I'm not accusing you of a damn thing, because I don't think you are those things.
On this point, I simply think you're wrong.  The market lacks diversity, and the core game that powers the industry doesn't address that lack.

Ok, to begin with, which of the two do you honestly think will have more success:
1. A new basic D&D game along with a massive ad campaign, with style and price range aimed at the teenage market, and the ad campaign targeted at teenage males?
2. Putting out a new edition of D&D with its themes changed from Tolkien-esque fantasy to New-age pagan thematics along the lines of Carlos Castaneda and Starhawk with strong elements of wiccan myth, and marketed with strong ad campaigns meant to target 20-30something middle class women?

In terms of sheer numbers, which will be more likely to revitalize gaming? Which would be less likely to lose more current gamers than it gains in new gamers?

As pretty and politically correct as the sentiment sounds, NO, we don't need to "address the lack of diversity" in the hobby.
First, when companies try to do that, they usually have to do it by redesigning the product, and they usually have no idea of how to do this right in the first place.
In the pipe hobby, for example, the Butz-Choquin pipe company in the mid-90s tried desperately to attract a new younger market by creating a line of "cool" pipes with bizzare shapes and multicolour glazes. This naturally alienated their old client base, since this approach violated a lot of the standards by which pipes are judged (primarily that a "good" pipe is judged by the quality of its grain, a lot of the beaty of a pipe's crafting is by how the pipe is carved to highlite patterns in the grain of the briar, and these painted pipes obscured the grain totally). It did virtually nothing to bring in a younger clientele, since most younger pipe smokers felt unbelievably patronized by B-C's actions.  It did unbelievable harm to B-C's reputation as a quality pipe company, and they have only emerged out of that in these last few years by abandoning these boneheaded efforts and instead turning around 180º to an emphasis on high-quality grains and traditional designs at affordable prices, which have of course been a big hit among younger pipe smokers (older ones too).

Second, what we need to do in this time, when gaming is NOT doing enough to appeal to the traditional demographic that has been shown time and time again to be interested in RPGs as they are, is to focus on recovering that youth demographic, not engaging in ridiculous speculative marketing, especially when that requires changing the nature of the games we're playing. I mean fuck, you'd probably get more Frenchmen drinking british beers if the beer was made from high quality grapes from southern france, but then it wouldn't be beer anymore, would it?

Finally, the best thing to do in order to get new people of ALL stripes into the hobby is to emphasize what's good about the game as it is, to show what it does well and what can be done with it as it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
One thing living in south america has shown me is that latinamericans do not need "special RPGs made to their culture", they don't need RPGs to change their basic structure. What appeals to a 17 year old white middle-class kid in Hoboken will also appeal to a 17 year old hispanic kid in the slums of El Cerro in Montevideo. Exactly the same things. You just need to do things to make sure that RPGs can reach them in a way that they can play it and afford to play it, same as you have to with the white kid in hoboken.

Quote
How is that abuse?  When I write a game, it's my perogative to write it the way I like.  I'm not required to write it any way other than the way I like.  Period.  
Oh, it may not sell.  And people may talk nine yards of shit about it, insult it, me, my mother, and a goat somewhere.  But it's mine to write any way I like.
The only calling to account White Wolf will get from me on those loathsome little snippets of theirs that you've pointed out is very simple - no money.  A whole lot of 'no money at all'.

Ok, that's fine then, we'll not call it abuse and we'll instead call it "asshattery which should not be encouraged". The problem is that far too many game designers seem to want to do this sort of shit these days.

My game isn't about showing of the gloriousness and brilliance of R. Bumquist Gamedesigner. I have no interest in playing a game to be some other shithead's cheerleader, and neither do my players.

Quote
All right, then.  You believe that what theorists want is the destruction of the hobby, and want to include me in that number.  I believe that they/we want, if they/we want any one thing as a group, is diversity, and not in the terms of "dismemberment and destruction".
Show me I'm wrong.  Don't tell me.  Show me.

If you are willing to admit those points I established above, then no proof is necessary.
If you aren't willing to admit that this bad behaviour is going on in Gaming Theory, then nothing I argue will convince you.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 28, 2006, 11:31:07 PM
I'm going to address only three of these points right now - I'd go for the lot, but I'm about to go out and get shitfaced.

What I call story in an RPG isn't what you do.

I'm getting more and more convinced that White Wolf's definition of how to get story from games has completely fucked over the way that people see "stories in RPGs", because what I mean when I talk about this and what you mean are almost completely different things.  I actually believed they'd put that crap behind them for the most part, having looked at their newer books, which are generally better products - turns out I was wrong, on that one.

But the process that I use to get the kind of experience I want from RPGs isn't that at all - and, no, I don't change the process in midstream, railroading or making absolute rulings where they don't belong to make it "work better", because that would invalidate the point.  None of the stuff that I do to get what I call story is stuff that a lot of GMs don't already do - I just put it right at the front of my gaming.  And it's not a story in the sense of "it follows a specific literary tradition" at all.  

It is a story in the one and all-important (to me) regard that I have that same moment of satisfaction that I have in a book when I lean back, and look back at the events and their progression, and the way they flowed, and say "Yeah, that's right.  I didn't know what it was going to be, but there it is.  And it's the way it should be, and it speaks to something about the choices made within it."

If you don't call that a story, what the hell do you call it?

.........

On forcing the GM.

Quote
Let me put it this way: if you're running an actual game, and three of your players decide that they want to find the RuneSwords of The High Dwarven kings and use them to conquer the Orclands; or want your NPC to decide that they're so cool that he'll have to build them their own superfortress, and you don't want to do this, would you say that you have to negotiate this with them?  If so, you're in favour of the GM being forced.


Have to negotiate?  I don't get that.  If they're serious, I'd say "Right on!", and I'd figure out what I could put between them and what they want that would make those rewards feel as valuable as I think the players want them to.  If I think that the players want to actually feel like conquerors, then they've got a long and nasty quest ahead of them, followed by a vicious campaign across the orclands.  If I think they just want to change up the game and come at it as conquerors, I'll check and be sure, and happily time-skip forward, but I'll caution them that we're basically starting the game all over again.  

If I think they're just screwing around and power-tripping, I'll tell them just how lame I think they're being, and they'll knock it off.  Which anyone at my table could have done, equally.

..............

There are stupid statements made, and bad attitudes, among theorists.

I'll even use "we".

Yes, theory types have said things that are offensive, and rude, and nasty.  Some of us have come across as downright jackasses now and then.  We've included terminology in theories that is condescending and aggravating, and some of us have had amazingly stupid arguments in public places with each other and anyone else at hand over the meaning of made-up words.  We've sneered at people from time to time.  Not as a big huge group-thinking mind, but, yes, people from my side of the tracks have done those things.  

And I, personally, have been upset and offended to read it.  And on a few occasions (though, I hope, not that many) I've done it.

I've also found plenty of comments that you've made about me, most of them indirect and about groups I'm part of, to be offensive.  If I can talk to you, and expect others to read you and consider your points while you're playing the insult game, why would I worry if theory condescends to you?

Except that I do.

So you just keep going, Pundit.  I can take it.  And they can watch, and read, and learn.  And maybe, just maybe, the few individuals that keep saying those incredibly stupid fucking things will think about it.

Maybe we can all learn something new today.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 29, 2006, 02:45:15 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

What I call story in an RPG isn't what you do.

It is a story in the one and all-important (to me) regard that I have that same moment of satisfaction that I have in a book when I lean back, and look back at the events and their progression, and the way they flowed, and say "Yeah, that's right.  I didn't know what it was going to be, but there it is.  And it's the way it should be, and it speaks to something about the choices made within it."

If you don't call that a story, what the hell do you call it?
.........


"Adventure flow"?
In any case, if that's what you mean, that's fine, but I did make clear what I was defining as "story"; and my definition was based on the fact that Theorists have talked about RPGs making story as in that kind of "Literary" story.  Apparently you see it as something different.


Quote

On forcing the GM.
If I think they're just screwing around and power-tripping, I'll tell them just how lame I think they're being, and they'll knock it off.  Which anyone at my table could have done, equally.


Bully for you. And consider the problem when the system you're playing, the one you've been told is superior to mainstream rpgs and will show you how to be a better GM, tells you that you CANT say "no" to your players. It says shit like "you either say yes, or roll the dice"; or "You can't say no. You can only say "yes, but"".
If you're a slightly less experienced GM, you might actually take that utter crap seriously. Which apparently, you don't. But there we go.

Not to mention; what do you do when they say "no, we're not power tripping, and we won't knock it off, now don't be lame and give us our +5 swords of dragon slaying; get to work, GM-boy!".
Yes, of course, this would never happen in your group because you're all hip, but in other groups it could very well happen, and you still seem to be suggesting that at the end of the day all the GM can do is say "STOP.. or I.. um.. will say Stop a second time! So there!".

When I say fuck that; the GM's word is law. You shouldn't need someone else to tell them their boneheaded idea is lame. They shouldn't be able to dictate fuck all to GM. They can ask for whatever they like, and I will feel free to laugh at them conspire to make sure the bar gets their supper order wrong. And they'll fucking well like it, because that's what they agreed on when they signed on to play with me.
There's nothing wrong about that, not in the least. That's how RPGs are supposed to work. You don't fix problems with bad GMs by castrating the good GMs.


Quote

There are stupid statements made, and bad attitudes, among theorists.

I'll even use "we".

Yes, theory types have said things that are offensive, and rude, and nasty.  Some of us have come across as downright jackasses now and then.  We've included terminology in theories that is condescending and aggravating, and some of us have had amazingly stupid arguments in public places with each other and anyone else at hand over the meaning of made-up words.  We've sneered at people from time to time.  Not as a big huge group-thinking mind, but, yes, people from my side of the tracks have done those things.  
And I, personally, have been upset and offended to read it.


Ok, good. Now, do you recognize that the people who have acted this way are not lone yahoos, but people at the very core of the Theory movement, that have come to be associated directly with the public image of that movement?

Also, I will remind you at this moment, in case you have forgotten by the time you get around to responding, that there might have been other things in my previous entry that you'd have liked to comment on, but didn't becase of the rush.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 29, 2006, 03:03:04 AM
I'm very, very drunk as I type this - fair's fair, you've done it, too.  I will come back and hit the points I've missed before, but that's a bit too much for me right nopw.

Quote from: RPGPundit
"Adventure flow"?
In any case, if that's what you mean, that's fine, but I did make clear what I was defining as "story"; and my definition was based on the fact that Theorists have talked about RPGs making story as in that kind of "Literary" story.  Apparently you see it as something different.


I suspect by your definitions, there are a LOT of people associated with theory that are chasing what I call story, and you call "normal".  It's fucked up, but I checked the thesaurus, and I really can't find a bettter word for it.

And yeah, I've seen the literary thing.  And then I look at what they're actually doing, and either they aren't playing, or they're doing something like what I do.  In a few rare cases, they're doing something even stranger, and I can't actually figure out what it is, and I hate that.

The ones that aren't playing at all, and haven't for years, can, I agree, fuck off.

Quote
Bully for you. And consider the problem when the system you're playing, the one you've been told is superior to mainstream rpgs and will show you how to be a better GM, tells you that you CANT say "no" to your players. It says shit like "you either say yes, or roll the dice"; or "You can't say no. You can only say "yes, but"".
If you're a slightly less experienced GM, you might actually take that utter crap seriously. Which apparently, you don't. But there we go.


In DitV, one of the most prominent games, you really have three options.  They are "Yes", "Roll the dice", and "That's lame".

Which is less options than I think anyone actually uses.  Because sometimes, it isn't lame, but it takes more than "roll the dice" to get there.

Quote
Not to mention; what do you do when they say "no, we're not power tripping, and we won't knock it off, now don't be lame and give us our +5 swords of dragon slaying; get to work, GM-boy!".
Yes, of course, this would never happen in your group because you're all hip, but in other groups it could very well happen, and you still seem to be suggesting that at the end of the day all the GM can do is say "STOP.. or I.. um.. will say Stop a second time! So there!".

When I say fuck that; the GM's word is law. You shouldn't need someone else to tell them their boneheaded idea is lame. They shouldn't be able to dictate fuck all to GM. They can ask for whatever they like, and I will feel free to laugh at them conspire to make sure the bar gets their supper order wrong. And they'll fucking well like it, because that's what they agreed on when they signed on to play with me.
There's nothing wrong about that, not in the least. That's how RPGs are supposed to work. You don't fix problems with bad GMs by castrating the good GMs.


Yes and no.  I suspect that you're exaggerating or overstating to make your point, here.

Quote
Ok, good. Now, do you recognize that the people who have acted this way are not lone yahoos, but people at the very core of the Theory movement, that have come to be associated directly with the public image of that movement?


By some people, yes - especially the "arguing about nonsense" stuff.  Though, honestly, I'm far enough "in" that I see these people as individuals.  Which is more than others do, just as many people see you as no more than a chosen name and a rant.

Hopefully, this makes sense, even incomplete as it is.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 29, 2006, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
I'm very, very drunk as I type this - fair's fair, you've done it, too.  I will come back and hit the points I've missed before, but that's a bit too much for me right nopw.

Ok. In particular I still want to know where the Clinton quote was from.

Quote
I suspect by your definitions, there are a LOT of people associated with theory that are chasing what I call story, and you call "normal".  It's fucked up, but I checked the thesaurus, and I really can't find a bettter word for it.

Then I'd suggest that they've made a mountain out of a molehill, and are seeking something that is far easier than they make it out to be. And they won't find it in convoluted theory or untested methods, they'll find it in the fundamentals.
Shit, do I have to go and become a Zen master for gamers who can't find Normal, now?

Quote
In DitV, one of the most prominent games, you really have three options.  They are "Yes", "Roll the dice", and "That's lame".

Really, DiTV has "that's lame"? Because, though its been quite a while since I read it, I don't remember that. I do, of course, remember "Say Yes or roll the dice". That witty little catchphrase that made me instantly hate the game.

Not unlike the fuckheaded "laws" of R. Borgstrom in her unplayable games. I believe the "You have to say "yes" or "yes, but"" rule is her "monarda law", whatever the fuck that means.

Quote
Yes and no.  I suspect that you're exaggerating or overstating to make your point, here.

Of course I am.  A good DM doesn't beat on his players, he listens to them. He gives a shit about what they think about his game. I'm constantly trying to get feedback from my players, and I care deeply if one of them isn't getting what he wants from my game.
But to be able to do all that well, I have to know that I have the final and absolute authority over the game. My players need to know it too. It makes everything run better.

Quote
By some people, yes - especially the "arguing about nonsense" stuff.  Though, honestly, I'm far enough "in" that I see these people as individuals.  Which is more than others do, just as many people see you as no more than a chosen name and a rant.
Hopefully, this makes sense, even incomplete as it is.

Yes, it makes sense. But now Theorists as a movement, if they want to get out from under their bad reputation, have to either get those individuals to pony up and show some regret and remorse (not equivocating statements of defensiveness), and they need to start again basically from scratch.  GNS theory is a lame duck, it won't fly with anyone outside of the Forge circles anymore; overburdened as it is by the twin realities of the bad reputation Theorists have and the fact that the theory itself  is fatally wrong.  
Quit picking at the corpse, and start over on a more open and inclusive footing (open and inclusive of the mainstream, which up till now theorists have not been).

Also, i get what you say about knowing them personally. I'm sure most of them are fine dudes at the personal level. I think you put up with me because you looked at me at the personal level and saw that I'm a fine dude too.

But the Forgeites aren't RPGPundit. I can afford to be hated; contrary to what Nikchick and a few others might believe, I'm not the leadership of a movement; I'm a single outspoken guy with a huge group of fans but none of whom need be directly associated with me unless they really start taking the Proxy shit seriously (which, of course, it isn't meant to be; its whole purpose is to piss off Nikchick).

So "punditism" or "Proxyism" doesn't exist. It isn't a movement; and anyone who willingly wants to seriously go around calling themselves a proxy deserves whatever shit he gets for being associated with me. On the other hand, "Gaming Theory" does exist, it is a movement/subculture/whatever, and it presumably has goals outside of getting the vast bulk of gamers pissed off at them. That's why your "leadership" has to change.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 29, 2006, 02:07:22 PM
Hitting a couple older points:

http://www.story-games.com is the source of the quote, a thread titled "dueling banjos".  I'm not sure if you can see it without joining; the place is basically a lounge for some of the theory-heads, where they "Get their stoopid on", to steal a quote.    

I think what's most likely to revitalize gaming is to have a number of well-recognized and heavily supported game lines that sit where the money mostly comes in, and then a huge host of much smaller products ranging all over the damn place "around" that point, for quite a distance out.  And wherever one of those starts to really sell, people should take that as a hint to make more and bigger products at those points.  Which is pretty much what we're starting to see in the actual market, from my perspective, though a lot of folks talk a long line of bullshit about either that solid center or the range around it.  I think you've reacted strongly enough to some of that bullshit that you end up in bullshit-land on the topic relatively often as well, and even if you're just doing it to prove a point, you're still doing it, too.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Then I'd suggest that they've made a mountain out of a molehill, and are seeking something that is far easier than they make it out to be. And they won't find it in convoluted theory or untested methods, they'll find it in the fundamentals.


The fundamentals are, in fact, where it comes from.  But it's hard to move those things around even a little bit without spending a lot of time looking at them.  So start with "looking at all of the fundamentals".  Add in "screwing around with the fundamentals to see if anything cool happens".  Tack on a few whacky ideas, and a love for big words and funny pictures.  Then add in the natural reactions people have when the an assload of D&D playing teenagers come and tell you that you're "not playing D&D anymore" as if it was of grave importance.

You've got theory.  And it just gets stranger from there.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Shit, do I have to go and become a Zen master for gamers who can't find Normal, now?


If you can break down what you see as normal play into all it's fundamentals, with examples, and bits of advice on how you can adjust them - and what happens if you do - you'll have a hell of a theory, right there.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Really, DiTV has "that's lame"? Because, though its been quite a while since I read it, I don't remember that. I do, of course, remember "Say Yes or roll the dice". That witty little catchphrase that made me instantly hate the game.

Not unlike the fuckheaded "laws" of R. Borgstrom in her unplayable games. I believe the "You have to say "yes" or "yes, but"" rule is her "monarda law", whatever the fuck that means.


In the advice for the GM, it talks about watching the players, and turning down anything that makes one of them look like they want to roll their eyes.  Which means, you bet.  

And you can play by Borgstrom's rules in Nobilis.  If you just sit down with a game group, though, what you get is improv theatre, usually being performed by people that didn't come looking for it, and who probably aren't much good at it.  That's not exactly a recipe for good times.

Quote
Of course I am.  A good DM doesn't beat on his players, he listens to them. He gives a shit about what they think about his game. I'm constantly trying to get feedback from my players, and I care deeply if one of them isn't getting what he wants from my game.
But to be able to do all that well, I have to know that I have the final and absolute authority over the game. My players need to know it too. It makes everything run better.


Okay, a quick story.

I had a basically non-functioning player in a LARP come to me and tell me "I want this, or I'm leaving the game" - and this actually flew for them in other games.  My response was "You already left.  See you in a month, if you can show your face.".  

So I'm not talking about a GM giving up that final word.  But every single one of my players was utterly stunned by the occurence, because I'd been spending the whole rest of the night listening to people tell me what they wanted from the game, and having me show them how to go out there and get it, what it would cost, and maybe pitch in a few ides of ways it could be extra fun (some of which they took, some of which they rejected).

But I am talking about putting that final word away when it isn't actually needed, and seeing what happens.  In actual play, more and more, I find myself too busy facilitating the game to be the big authority for it - I haven't broken out the big stick in a long, long time, and I'm willing to run the game with my authority bent into a pretzel if it makes the game run better.  

But, yes, when it comes down to the bitter end, I do have a big stick, and if I must, I'll unkink my authority and smack someone with it.

Quote
Yes, it makes sense. But now Theorists as a movement, if they want to get out from under their bad reputation, have to either get those individuals to pony up and show some regret and remorse (not equivocating statements of defensiveness), and they need to start again basically from scratch.  GNS theory is a lame duck, it won't fly with anyone outside of the Forge circles anymore; overburdened as it is by the twin realities of the bad reputation Theorists have and the fact that the theory itself  is fatally wrong.  
Quit picking at the corpse, and start over on a more open and inclusive footing (open and inclusive of the mainstream, which up till now theorists have not been).


I don't think that's the way.  But I've talked about my own thoughts on this already.  People, talking to each other, nothing more.

Quote
Also, i get what you say about knowing them personally. I'm sure most of them are fine dudes at the personal level. I think you put up with me because you looked at me at the personal level and saw that I'm a fine dude too.


Ayup.  Though neither of you made it all that easy on me.

Quote
But the Forgeites aren't RPGPundit. I can afford to be hated; contrary to what Nikchick and a few others might believe, I'm not the leadership of a movement; I'm a single outspoken guy with a huge group of fans but none of whom need be directly associated with me unless they really start taking the Proxy shit seriously (which, of course, it isn't meant to be; its whole purpose is to piss off Nikchick).

So "punditism" or "Proxyism" doesn't exist. It isn't a movement; and anyone who willingly wants to seriously go around calling themselves a proxy deserves whatever shit he gets for being associated with me. On the other hand, "Gaming Theory" does exist, it is a movement/subculture/whatever, and it presumably has goals outside of getting the vast bulk of gamers pissed off at them. That's why your "leadership" has to change.


A lot of theory-users don't actually care if they're hated, either, remember - they're in it for their own gaming, and nothing else.  

Others are interested in simply playing the games and talking about them, and sharing what they know.

Some want to have a big collection of stuff they can reference, and a feeling of community.

I think that theorists need simply to learn to present themselves as individuals with their own ideas first, and stop pretending that there's any real authority in big words.  I think they need to take their ideas to new places that aren't already safe and friendly, and listen when people kick the crap out of some of them.  And I think it's happening.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 29, 2006, 05:00:15 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Hitting a couple older points:

http://www.story-games.com is the source of the quote, a thread titled "dueling banjos".  I'm not sure if you can see it without joining; the place is basically a lounge for some of the theory-heads, where they "Get their stoopid on", to steal a quote.


Hmm.. wierd.. I found the site, I found the thread, but nowhere did I find that Clinton quote, nor did I find any other conversation relevant to this thread. Is there a mistake here somewhere?

Quote

I think what's most likely to revitalize gaming is to have a number of well-recognized and heavily supported game lines that sit where the money mostly comes in, and then a huge host of much smaller products ranging all over the damn place "around" that point, for quite a distance out.  And wherever one of those starts to really sell, people should take that as a hint to make more and bigger products at those points.  Which is pretty much what we're starting to see in the actual market, from my perspective, though a lot of folks talk a long line of bullshit about either that solid center or the range around it.  I think you've reacted strongly enough to some of that bullshit that you end up in bullshit-land on the topic relatively often as well, and even if you're just doing it to prove a point, you're still doing it, too.


Fair enough. I use hyperbole to fight hyperbole, and the general tactics of the Swine against them. I'll concede that point.

Quote

The fundamentals are, in fact, where it comes from.  But it's hard to move those things around even a little bit without spending a lot of time looking at them.  So start with "looking at all of the fundamentals".  Add in "screwing around with the fundamentals to see if anything cool happens".  Tack on a few whacky ideas, and a love for big words and funny pictures.  


And patently un-necessary diagrams. Don't forget the diagrams.

Quote

Then add in the natural reactions people have when the an assload of D&D playing teenagers come and tell you that you're "not playing D&D anymore" as if it was of grave importance.
You've got theory.  And it just gets stranger from there.


I have trouble with the idea that any D&D playing teenager anywhere ever in the history of roleplaying on this planet as we know it would have, without provocation or prior cause, walked up to a Gaming Theorist and said he wasn't playing D&D anymore.
On the other hand, that Gaming Theorists would have walked up to teenagers and told them "You aren't playing RPGs right!", and these teenagers would have gone on to bitch out the Theorists, THAT I find believable.

Quote

If you can break down what you see as normal play into all it's fundamentals, with examples, and bits of advice on how you can adjust them - and what happens if you do - you'll have a hell of a theory, right there.  


But at that point, its not going to be good for anything anymore.
Lao Tzu said: "The Tao which can be written down is not the Tao".

You don't get better at gaming by following a theory, even if its a good theory, and especially not if its a theory based on some guy speaking out of his ass. You get better at gaming by playing and GMing, and learning organically how to be better at these things.
And yea, that pretty much means that a lot of theory is useless in my book. Game Design theory can still be useful, in terms of figuring out better ways to emulate certain genres or setting; how to make mechanics function better, etc etc. But "playing advice" type theory is usually worthless beyond the old standby of the "what is roleplaying?" and "Tips for Players & GM" chapters you get in any generic rulebook (and most of those are crap too, come to think of it).

Quote

In the advice for the GM, it talks about watching the players, and turning down anything that makes one of them look like they want to roll their eyes.  Which means, you bet.  


So it doesn't actually say "that's lame"; then? But it does say "say Yes or roll the dice".
Also, are you saying that the GM advice is for the GM to tone it down if he says anything that makes the Players roll their eyes? The advice is for him to watch himself? Or what?

Quote

And you can play by Borgstrom's rules in Nobilis.  If you just sit down with a game group, though, what you get is improv theatre, usually being performed by people that didn't come looking for it, and who probably aren't much good at it.  That's not exactly a recipe for good times.


By Jove, we've struck consensus! Let our mutual distaste for the non-rules that are Borgstrom's games bring us together!

Quote

Okay, a quick story.

I had a basically non-functioning player in a LARP come to me and tell me "I want this, or I'm leaving the game" - and this actually flew for them in other games.  My response was "You already left.  See you in a month, if you can show your face.".  

So I'm not talking about a GM giving up that final word.  But every single one of my players was utterly stunned by the occurence, because I'd been spending the whole rest of the night listening to people tell me what they wanted from the game, and having me show them how to go out there and get it, what it would cost, and maybe pitch in a few ides of ways it could be extra fun (some of which they took, some of which they rejected).

But I am talking about putting that final word away when it isn't actually needed, and seeing what happens.  In actual play, more and more, I find myself too busy facilitating the game to be the big authority for it - I haven't broken out the big stick in a long, long time, and I'm willing to run the game with my authority bent into a pretzel if it makes the game run better.  

But, yes, when it comes down to the bitter end, I do have a big stick, and if I must, I'll unkink my authority and smack someone with it.


Whereas in my case, its not that my players are all broken defeated shells of human beings too battered down to ask me even for a second bowl of gruel. Its that, in fact, I make the game entertaining enough as it is that they don't look to act like shitheads and try to dictate terms to me.  I have never had a lack of players for my games; as of this moment my active gaming pool is 12 players (that is, people who are in at least one of my campaigns at this time) and I have a larger inactive pool of a few dozen more. People want to play a game I run because I am known to run great campaigns, and to be a skilled and fair DM, though of course not without flaws.

So I haven't had to bring out the stick either. I don't go around using the stick gratuitously, and I think any GM that did would find himself in a whole other mess of problems for doing so.

But my point is that the very act of having a game or a gaming theory suggest that the GM's stick isn't useable, or that the players ought to go and mandate terms to the GM, well, its like an invitation to CREATE discord in a group. Why bother doing that? Especially if, as your anecdote above seems to suggest, at the end of the day you too believe that the GM should have the Big Stick? That makes the whole exercise all the more bizzare and futile...

Quote

Ayup.  Though neither of you made it all that easy on me.


Being a friend to the Wielder of the Flaming Keystrokes of Truth is never easy.

Quote

A lot of theory-users don't actually care if they're hated, either, remember - they're in it for their own gaming, and nothing else.  
Others are interested in simply playing the games and talking about them, and sharing what they know.
Some want to have a big collection of stuff they can reference, and a feeling of community.

I think that theorists need simply to learn to present themselves as individuals with their own ideas first, and stop pretending that there's any real authority in big words.  I think they need to take their ideas to new places that aren't already safe and friendly, and listen when people kick the crap out of some of them.  And I think it's happening.


I ABSOLUTELY agree with this (especially about the authority and big words bit), and in light of your statements above, it now makes more sense to me why you're insistent in the kind of "loose confederation" idea of Gaming Theory as a movement.

Though I'm still not sure how you or anyone else who wants to take that tact is going to be able to fix the problem that will inevitably arise: you will go on RandomRPGforum.net, make a couple of posts about your theory, and someone will say "OH, you're one of Those Forge Guys.", and there goes your ability to present your position outside of all the stuff associated with the Forge.
Bad enough when that happens, but then when the next post is from some ther theorist that says "Well, yes, Levi, but in Ron's essay about Narrativism he says x and y, which your theory isn't taking into account. Plus your theory doesn't approach Story Now correctly" (when of course, you never mentioned narrativism or "story now" anywhere in your original post).

You can't have your confederation until you do something to resolve the wild boar in the corner of the room that is current public perceptions about Theorists, or the oozing bag of pus in the other corner of the room that is Forgeites that want ALL theory to be about GNS/The Cult of Ron.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 29, 2006, 05:50:29 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Hmm.. wierd.. I found the site, I found the thread, but nowhere did I find that Clinton quote, nor did I find any other conversation relevant to this thread. Is there a mistake here somewhere?


Did you click "Duelling Banjos" or "Duelling Banjos RPG"?

The RPG one was started because people were hoping to actually read a thread about, y'know, duelling banjos in RPGs when they clicked the first one.

Quote
Fair enough. I use hyperbole to fight hyperbole, and the general tactics of the Swine against them. I'll concede that point.


'kay.

I'm not telling you to do as I do, but can you see why I think my way is better?

Quote
And patently un-necessary diagrams. Don't forget the diagrams.


Yeah - I said "pretty pictures".  Hell, I'm guilty of it it in this very thread.  It's something we do.

Quote
I have trouble with the idea that any D&D playing teenager anywhere ever in the history of roleplaying on this planet as we know it would have, without provocation or prior cause, walked up to a Gaming Theorist and said he wasn't playing D&D anymore.
On the other hand, that Gaming Theorists would have walked up to teenagers and told them "You aren't playing RPGs right!", and these teenagers would have gone on to bitch out the Theorists, THAT I find believable.


I can explain.  Internet theory really got rolling with Usenet, right?  rec.games.frp.advocacy, as I mentioned.  But, this was the weird thing.  On any other topic at all, if the name of a group ended with .advocacy, it's where you took the flamewars.

So rec.porn.blondes.advocacy would have been where you'd go to fight like bastards over "blondes in porn"; you get the idea.

.advocacy was the theory place because, for no comprehensible reason at all, the flamewars never got going.  Instead, people started talking about the similarities between playing this way and that way, and so on.  And then, other Usenetters looking for a fight would wander in, read a bunch of people calmly talking about games and this weird shit they were doing...

...Flame on, baby.

Ain't history fun?

Quote
But at that point, its not going to be good for anything anymore.
Lao Tzu said: "The Tao which can be written down is not the Tao".

You don't get better at gaming by following a theory, even if its a good theory, and especially not if its a theory based on some guy speaking out of his ass. You get better at gaming by playing and GMing, and learning organically how to be better at these things.
And yea, that pretty much means that a lot of theory is useless in my book. Game Design theory can still be useful, in terms of figuring out better ways to emulate certain genres or setting; how to make mechanics function better, etc etc. But "playing advice" type theory is usually worthless beyond the old standby of the "what is roleplaying?" and "Tips for Players & GM" chapters you get in any generic rulebook (and most of those are crap too, come to think of it).


Depends.  Say that I'm trying to emulate genre X, and genre X has conventions that, frankly, don't make good logical sense.  B-Movies, let's say.

Now, that's awesome.  But say I have a player who is totally into that whole "immersion" thing - for them, it's all about being there.

Now, it's a good thing for me to know that pushing the genre conventions might break the whole sense of internal cosistency for that player, which turns "me bringing in a cool genre thing" into "me pissing off a player by doing something I thought was cool."

See what I mean, there?  Breaking it down doesn't need to be formal or rigid.

Quote
So it doesn't actually say "that's lame"; then? But it does say "say Yes or roll the dice".
Also, are you saying that the GM advice is for the GM to tone it down if he says anything that makes the Players roll their eyes? The advice is for him to watch himself? Or what?


Here's one quote (Page 76):

"AS GM, YOU GET TO HELP ESTABLISH STAKES.  If your player says "What's at stake is this" you can say "no, I don't dig that, how about this is what's at stake instead?" Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn't abdicate it."

Quote
By Jove, we've struck consensus! Let our mutual distaste for the non-rules that are Borgstrom's games bring us together!


Actually, I like the rules as theatre.  But they aren't a game to me - they lack challenge-value.

And presenting them as a game strikes me as disengenious.

Quote
Whereas in my case, its not that my players are all broken defeated shells of human beings too battered down to ask me even for a second bowl of gruel. Its that, in fact, I make the game entertaining enough as it is that they don't look to act like shitheads and try to dictate terms to me.  I have never had a lack of players for my games; as of this moment my active gaming pool is 12 players (that is, people who are in at least one of my campaigns at this time) and I have a larger inactive pool of a few dozen more. People want to play a game I run because I am known to run great campaigns, and to be a skilled and fair DM, though of course not without flaws.

So I haven't had to bring out the stick either. I don't go around using the stick gratuitously, and I think any GM that did would find himself in a whole other mess of problems for doing so.

But my point is that the very act of having a game or a gaming theory suggest that the GM's stick isn't useable, or that the players ought to go and mandate terms to the GM, well, its like an invitation to CREATE discord in a group. Why bother doing that? Especially if, as your anecdote above seems to suggest, at the end of the day you too believe that the GM should have the Big Stick? That makes the whole exercise all the more bizzare and futile...


One of the big theory questions is:

"So, sure, you've got the big stick, and you could just whack 'em; but what else could you be doing right now that would be more fun?"

...And, of course, this leads to arguments about not having it at all, because, really, how often do you need it?  

Quote
Being a friend to the Wielder of the Flaming Keystrokes of Truth is never easy.


*Snort*

I've always read that line as a kind of "half-joke at your own expense", you know.

Quote
I ABSOLUTELY agree with this (especially about the authority and big words bit), and in light of your statements above, it now makes more sense to me why you're insistent in the kind of "loose confederation" idea of Gaming Theory as a movement.

Though I'm still not sure how you or anyone else who wants to take that tact is going to be able to fix the problem that will inevitably arise: you will go on RandomRPGforum.net, make a couple of posts about your theory, and someone will say "OH, you're one of Those Forge Guys.", and there goes your ability to present your position outside of all the stuff associated with the Forge.
Bad enough when that happens, but then when the next post is from some ther theorist that says "Well, yes, Levi, but in Ron's essay about Narrativism he says x and y, which your theory isn't taking into account. Plus your theory doesn't approach Story Now correctly" (when of course, you never mentioned narrativism or "story now" anywhere in your original post).


My response is simply "No, I'm talking about this.  You can talk about that if you like, and there sure are similarities, but it's not what I'm talking about."

I sometimes have to repeat myself a few times, but that's okay.  

Quote
You can't have your confederation until you do something to resolve the wild boar in the corner of the room that is current public perceptions about Theorists, or the oozing bag of pus in the other corner of the room that is Forgeites that want ALL theory to be about GNS/The Cult of Ron.


Odd as it may sound, the people that most consistently push for my theories to fall into GNS/Big Model are almost never regular posters at the Forge, with about two exceptions.  The actual Forgefolks that read my stuff mostly go "Huh.  Uh, okay.  Enjoy yourself!"

No, I can't explain that.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 30, 2006, 11:26:37 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Did you click "Duelling Banjos" or "Duelling Banjos RPG"?


"Duelling Banjos RPG"; it appears that the other one is for members-only, and thus it didn't appear in my search.

Quote

'kay.

I'm not telling you to do as I do, but can you see why I think my way is better?


I can see why you think so.

The problem with "my way" is that it becomes very easy to get lost in the hyperbole, for you or the people that end up behind you missing the point and taking the hyperbole seriously.

The problem with "your way" is that you will tend to get ignored and be ineffective.

So, its kind of a balancing act.

Quote

I can explain.  Internet theory really got rolling with Usenet, right?  rec.games.frp.advocacy, as I mentioned.  But, this was the weird thing.  On any other topic at all, if the name of a group ended with .advocacy, it's where you took the flamewars.
So rec.porn.blondes.advocacy would have been where you'd go to fight like bastards over "blondes in porn"; you get the idea.
.advocacy was the theory place because, for no comprehensible reason at all, the flamewars never got going.  Instead, people started talking about the similarities between playing this way and that way, and so on.  And then, other Usenetters looking for a fight would wander in, read a bunch of people calmly talking about games and this weird shit they were doing...
...Flame on, baby.
Ain't history fun?


Having been very active on usenet in my days, I can see how that could have happened, yes.
So would you say that the number of times that Theorists have gone on threads in message boards or other mediums and told regular D&D players that they "aren't playing right" is nothing but a repetition of the cycle of abuse?

Quote

Depends.  Say that I'm trying to emulate genre X, and genre X has conventions that, frankly, don't make good logical sense.  B-Movies, let's say.
Now, that's awesome.  But say I have a player who is totally into that whole "immersion" thing - for them, it's all about being there.
Now, it's a good thing for me to know that pushing the genre conventions might break the whole sense of internal cosistency for that player, which turns "me bringing in a cool genre thing" into "me pissing off a player by doing something I thought was cool."
See what I mean, there?  Breaking it down doesn't need to be formal or rigid.


Fair enough, if you can stick to those kinds of things, then I agree that you can talk about theory in a productive way.

Quote

Here's one quote (Page 76):

"AS GM, YOU GET TO HELP ESTABLISH STAKES.  If your player says "What's at stake is this" you can say "no, I don't dig that, how about this is what's at stake instead?" Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn't abdicate it."


How deeply pansy-assed. "I don't dig that"? You "help" to establish stakes?

Quote

Actually, I like the rules as theatre.  But they aren't a game to me - they lack challenge-value.

And presenting them as a game strikes me as disengenious.


Well, to be a game the rules would have to actually function, for starters.

Quote

One of the big theory questions is:

"So, sure, you've got the big stick, and you could just whack 'em; but what else could you be doing right now that would be more fun?"

...And, of course, this leads to arguments about not having it at all, because, really, how often do you need it?  


The Big Stick, with all due credit to Teddy Roosevelt, is what ALLOWS the GM to "walk softly".

Quote

I've always read that line as a kind of "half-joke at your own expense", you know.


Well, duh.

Quote

Odd as it may sound, the people that most consistently push for my theories to fall into GNS/Big Model are almost never regular posters at the Forge, with about two exceptions.  The actual Forgefolks that read my stuff mostly go "Huh.  Uh, okay.  Enjoy yourself!"

No, I can't explain that.


I would think that I can. You don't fit into the Forge groupthink. So once its clear that you aren't aggressive to the Forge, and yet you don't really buy into the memes the Forge pushes, they don't really know what to do with you and would kind of rather you stayed quietly in your own little theory-zone; except when you're needed to haul out and show off to the Forge's Critics as the "moderate reasonable Forgeite".

You're their Colin Powell.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on April 30, 2006, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
"Duelling Banjos RPG"; it appears that the other one is for members-only, and thus it didn't appear in my search.


Ah, well.

Quote
I can see why you think so.

The problem with "my way" is that it becomes very easy to get lost in the hyperbole, for you or the people that end up behind you missing the point and taking the hyperbole seriously.

The problem with "your way" is that you will tend to get ignored and be ineffective.

So, its kind of a balancing act.


Do you really think I get ignored?  Really?

Quote
Having been very active on usenet in my days, I can see how that could have happened, yes.
So would you say that the number of times that Theorists have gone on threads in message boards or other mediums and told regular D&D players that they "aren't playing right" is nothing but a repetition of the cycle of abuse?


I don't know if I would.  I think that on the occasions where that happens, those guys are just being dicks.

The whole "cycle of abuse" explanation between theorists and the people that hate them is really attractive, but if it's true, the both sides have amazingly shitty aim.


Quote
Fair enough, if you can stick to those kinds of things, then I agree that you can talk about theory in a productive way.


*Shrug*

I talk about a lot of things - whatever I'm thinking about, really.  It's the whole dartboard thing.

I think the trick is, when people go "What the fuck use is this?", honestly responding with "Uh, I dunno.  Just, stuff I'm thinking about", and trying to keep clear of having people talk about it like it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax.

Which can be tricky, because anytime someone gets even one little step closer to what they personally want in their gaming, they tend to go off like crazy - which happens, now and then, and it's those moments that really, really rock for theorists.

Quote
How deeply pansy-assed. "I don't dig that"? You "help" to establish stakes?


The stick is still there, though.  I mean, would you rather have a page about "GM authority" that describes it, followed by another one about "Keeping the game moving" that talks about giving people alternatives instead of just shutting them down, or would you like a quick little comment?

The effect on the actual play, for people that actually play DitV, is basically the same.

Quote
Well, to be a game the rules would have to actually function, for starters.


Heh.

Quote
The Big Stick, with all due credit to Teddy Roosevelt, is what ALLOWS the GM to "walk softly".


*Grin*

See this quote?

Quote from: Me, as an example
"So, you've got the big stick, got that, agreed all around - now, let's talk about "walking softly" and how you do that."


That, reworded to make sense in practical terms, would be the start of one hell of an interesting discussion to me.


Quote
I would think that I can. You don't fit into the Forge groupthink. So once its clear that you aren't aggressive to the Forge, and yet you don't really buy into the memes the Forge pushes, they don't really know what to do with you and would kind of rather you stayed quietly in your own little theory-zone; except when you're needed to haul out and show off to the Forge's Critics as the "moderate reasonable Forgeite".

You're their Colin Powell.


Doesn't work for me, as an explanation, because they've got a fair load  of moderate, reasonable folks already, and so far as they have groupthink (which isn't that far), the group on the whole doesn't give a shit about looking good, or much of anything beyond the actual on-topic stuff they discuss - it's individual people that care about being percieved or presented as assholes.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on April 30, 2006, 09:54:45 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

Do you really think I get ignored?  Really?


I think that the voices of elitist zealotry are designed to drown out people who argue with soft voices. Most of the times, I've found, they aren't there to reason in good faith.  So you can only fight fire with fire, and showy posturing with equal showmanship.
Hell, its what has cost the democrats countless elections in the US. They keep thinking that showing that they're being more reasonable then the opposition will somehow be a magic panacea to spin doctoring and dirty tricks, when of course it never is. You beat spin doctoring with better spin doctoring. Bill Clinton, who was the only Democrat with electability in a good long while, was the only guy in the party who knew that, and the rest of the democratic party made a fatal error twice in a row now when they chose to ignore his lessons.

As for you, personally (though I wasn't talking about you personally above, but about your style of presentation), I think you and those others who criticized Ron Edwards over the Brain Damage incident got roundly ignored in favour of his defensive posturing.

Quote

I think the trick is, when people go "What the fuck use is this?", honestly responding with "Uh, I dunno.  Just, stuff I'm thinking about", and trying to keep clear of having people talk about it like it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax.


Well, I think one of the reasons your type of talking about gaming theory is better received by the public at large than others is really your efforts to avoid using jargon and creating self-referential terminology when you talk about gaming. In other words, actually sticking to talking about the play at the ground level, rather than rising up into degrees of abstraction through terminology.

Quote

The stick is still there, though.  I mean, would you rather have a page about "GM authority" that describes it, followed by another one about "Keeping the game moving" that talks about giving people alternatives instead of just shutting them down, or would you like a quick little comment?ç
The effect on the actual play, for people that actually play DitV, is basically the same.


I just think that there's a lot of gaming theorist/DiTV-playing types that would shit bricks at the very thought that the DM could just put his foot down and overrule the wishes of the players.

Quote

Heh.
*Grin*
See this quote?
That, reworded to make sense in practical terms, would be the start of one hell of an interesting discussion to me.


Talking about "walking softly" makes a lot of sense to me, and its certainly a skill that every good DM must learn and improve. I think the foundation to being able to do that rests with the stipulation that the GM has the stick and can use it at any time. The next step is to learn how to get things done so that it never comes to using the stick.

Quote

Doesn't work for me, as an explanation, because they've got a fair load  of moderate, reasonable folks already, and so far as they have groupthink (which isn't that far), the group on the whole doesn't give a shit about looking good, or much of anything beyond the actual on-topic stuff they discuss - it's individual people that care about being percieved or presented as assholes.


Well, I'll agree that there's a lot of guys there that don't really give a shit whether mainstream D&D players think they're assholes or not, just like there's a lot of people in the Bush administration that at this point really don't give much of a shit what the public at large thinks of them.  But I think there's probably a lot of them who are happy for guys like you because they can continue to do the stuff they do and maintain that they don't actually need to change those things to be inclusive or approachable.

Maybe your presence will undermine those guys  over time anyways, and you'll get to that point of Theory being approachable and inclusive. But as long as the core continues to be based on the principles its based on right now, I have trouble seeing that come to pass.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 01, 2006, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
I think that the voices of elitist zealotry are designed to drown out people who argue with soft voices. Most of the times, I've found, they aren't there to reason in good faith.  So you can only fight fire with fire, and showy posturing with equal showmanship.
Hell, its what has cost the democrats countless elections in the US. They keep thinking that showing that they're being more reasonable then the opposition will somehow be a magic panacea to spin doctoring and dirty tricks, when of course it never is. You beat spin doctoring with better spin doctoring. Bill Clinton, who was the only Democrat with electability in a good long while, was the only guy in the party who knew that, and the rest of the democratic party made a fatal error twice in a row now when they chose to ignore his lessons.

As for you, personally (though I wasn't talking about you personally above, but about your style of presentation), I think you and those others who criticized Ron Edwards over the Brain Damage incident got roundly ignored in favour of his defensive posturing.


*Shrug*

I got read, and responded to.  That particular instance didn't go all that well, but a couple dozen people responded to me privately in different places to support my dissent.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, I think one of the reasons your type of talking about gaming theory is better received by the public at large than others is really your efforts to avoid using jargon and creating self-referential terminology when you talk about gaming. In other words, actually sticking to talking about the play at the ground level, rather than rising up into degrees of abstraction through terminology.


Sure, that's part of it.  But to me, it's all one unified approach.  

Quote from: RPGPundit
I just think that there's a lot of gaming theorist/DiTV-playing types that would shit bricks at the very thought that the DM could just put his foot down and overrule the wishes of the players.


There might be a handful.  Many more, I think, would ask "Dude, what was up with your game that you had to do that?" than say "But you caaaaaaan't."

But then, I'm a huge dominant-personality type.  I actually have trouble imagining getting into a serious argument with someone who was there to actually just play the damn game.  So I may be a bit biased.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Talking about "walking softly" makes a lot of sense to me, and its certainly a skill that every good DM must learn and improve. I think the foundation to being able to do that rests with the stipulation that the GM has the stick and can use it at any time. The next step is to learn how to get things done so that it never comes to using the stick.


Okay, I don't see any further actual debate coming off this one.  So I'm going to start a new thread where everyone can play with this idea together.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, I'll agree that there's a lot of guys there that don't really give a shit whether mainstream D&D players think they're assholes or not, just like there's a lot of people in the Bush administration that at this point really don't give much of a shit what the public at large thinks of them.  But I think there's probably a lot of them who are happy for guys like you because they can continue to do the stuff they do and maintain that they don't actually need to change those things to be inclusive or approachable.


A rather unflattering comparison, that.

Still, I'm far from alone in this kind of thing.  I "came forward" at a time when it was going to start happening anyway, I think.  Consider, the Forge closed up the big theory shop, moving it out to blogs and actual play.

This means that theorists need to:

1) Stay on the Forge and connect their theories to actual play, or...

2) Be interesting enough on their blogs to get an audience, or...

3) Take it to another forum where people can stomp all over what they're saying.

And just as that was happening, a few of the friendlier theorists that didn't dig on the atmosphere at the Forge started to show willing.  And I just slotted in there.

I'm in favor of this.
 
Quote from: RPGPundit
Maybe your presence will undermine those guys  over time anyways, and you'll get to that point of Theory being approachable and inclusive. But as long as the core continues to be based on the principles its based on right now, I have trouble seeing that come to pass.


Time, as always, will show us.  And I actually doubt that I'll get, or deserve, more than "just another line in the credits" if it happens.

...And, since we've still got some time, I'm going to revise the whole "stories have meaning" thing I had right off the starting block.  Let's toss that boy around.

Fiction can convey real meaning.  Including games.

I'm going to put aside the word "story" for now, and just use "fiction".  People at a game table create an imaginary world in their heads; that's a form of fiction, even if it isn't structured in a storylike way or  'deep' in any way at all.  If you have a better word, toss it out there.

Now, any shared context can convey things from one participant to another; some people think that this always happens, whether or not you want it to.  By playing Good and Evil in D&D in specific ways, players share their impression of what Good and Evil mean in the context of the game.  This does not mean that you learn ethics by playing D&D.  It means that that the players and the GM can, and occasionally will (deliberately or not) "make statements" about ethics just by playing to the alignments.

As in any fiction at all, this can be good or bad.  Going out of your way to "make statements" about the nature of good and evil using D&D strikes me a bit of a stretch.  But, say you're playing in a D&D game, and hit a few complicated moral choices.  Maybe the players will pick what they want, and then just try to justify it.  Maybe they'll think over their alignment, and play it out.  Whatever.

But once in a while, the fiction jumps out and speaks to you.  Tragedy happens, or comedy, or farce.

Now, in a really good movie, or a book, this kind of thing is what can seperate good fiction from great fiction.  Pushed too far, it can also turn good fiction into terrible fiction.

I think it's the same way with RPGs.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 02, 2006, 03:42:05 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

There might be a handful.  Many more, I think, would ask "Dude, what was up with your game that you had to do that?" than say "But you caaaaaaan't."

But then, I'm a huge dominant-personality type.  I actually have trouble imagining getting into a serious argument with someone who was there to actually just play the damn game.  So I may be a bit biased.


Well, you have guys like bankuei who seems to suggest that "GM-fiat" is one of the chief causes (or is it symptoms?) of dysfunctional games. They suggest that anyone who thinks that the "GM is god" in the campaign cannot possibly be playing in a functional group. Note that he doesn't say that some dysfunctional groups will have GM fiat; he suggests that all groups that use "GM fiat" are dysfunctional games.

So yea, I have some serious reservations about the typical Game Theorist's level of willingness to give the GM the authority to be in charge of the game. They seem to have some serious authority issues, and that shows in their theory and on what they view as the causes of dysfunction.

I've certainly seen, personally speaking, games where a power-mad GM caused a non-functional game. But I've seen WAAAAY more games where players trying to dominate/manipulate/make demands on the GM was the cause of group dysfunction.  And I've seen far more games where GM fiat was absolute and things worked just fine that the ones where GM fiat was a problem.  And in all of the latter, the GM fiat was not the cause of the problem, the cause of the problem was the would-be GM's personality. So that pretty well blows that theory out of the water; but of course Theorists would claim I'm just in denial and don't realize how dysfunctional my own play really is.

Quote

Okay, I don't see any further actual debate coming off this one.  So I'm going to start a new thread where everyone can play with this idea together.


I don't really see more debate there either; mainly because we basically agree on this point. If you ignore for the moment the question of how important the GM's authority is to the stability of the group (and I continue to insist that its absolutely important); we are both in agreement that one of the areas where Theorizing about RPGs can be useful on a practical level is in terms of getting GMs to be able to manage their groups better.

Quote

A rather unflattering comparison, that.


It was in following with the Colin Powell metaphor. And if you didn't like that one, I suspect you really won't like the one I make a little further down in this post.

Quote

This means that theorists need to:

1) Stay on the Forge and connect their theories to actual play,


As long as said theories also fit the assumptions of the GNS model, which are now unchangeable scriptural dogma at the Forge...

Quote

2) Be interesting enough on their blogs to get an audience, or...

3) Take it to another forum where people can stomp all over what they're saying.

And just as that was happening, a few of the friendlier theorists that didn't dig on the atmosphere at the Forge started to show willing.  And I just slotted in there.

I'm in favor of this.


Yea, well; i can't help but think all this talk of a "Forge Diaspora" means that Ron envisioned the Forgeites going from the indie-rpgs forum out into the internet as a whole and spreading the word of GNS, like a cancer metastasizing.  What he probably didn't expect was that forcing people away from the Forge for theory talk would mean that more theorists would start pushing models that were different from and even ignored the GNS paradigm.  I'm really hoping that the farther away theorists get from the Forge, the more they'll start to do work that is further and further away ideologically from the Forge's idea of what "Theory" is all about.

Quote
Time, as always, will show us. And I actually doubt that I'll get, or deserve, more than "just another line in the credits" if it happens.


Don't be so sure. I'll make you famous.

Quote

Fiction can convey real meaning.  Including games.

I'm going to put aside the word "story" for now, and just use "fiction".  People at a game table create an imaginary world in their heads; that's a form of fiction, even if it isn't structured in a storylike way or  'deep' in any way at all.  If you have a better word, toss it out there.


I certainly have a better word.  "Fiction" is just really a dodge to keep talking "story" in all but name. Switching from talking about "Story" to talking about "fiction" is a little like switching from talking about Creationism to talk about Intelligent Design.

If you sincerely want to talk about what RPGs do without suggesting that RPGs create structured story, then I would say to use Fantasy. Fiction still has all the implications of coherent and controlled designs, whereas fantasies do not.  When you're roleplaying you're not always creating stories, be they intentional or not; but you're always fantasizing.

Quote

As in any fiction at all, this can be good or bad.  Going out of your way to "make statements" about the nature of good and evil using D&D strikes me a bit of a stretch.  But, say you're playing in a D&D game, and hit a few complicated moral choices.  Maybe the players will pick what they want, and then just try to justify it.  Maybe they'll think over their alignment, and play it out.  Whatever.

But once in a while, the fiction jumps out and speaks to you.  Tragedy happens, or comedy, or farce.

Now, in a really good movie, or a book, this kind of thing is what can seperate good fiction from great fiction.  Pushed too far, it can also turn good fiction into terrible fiction.

I think it's the same way with RPGs.


I agree, but its interesting that you would be moving this way in your speculation: Because of course the difference between what makes a good experience and a great experience is just how far the participants have been able to relate to the personalities of the fantasy they are portraying. In other words, what you're doing here is arguing in favour of Immersion.  And here I thought Immersion was like the fucking antichrist or Easter Bunny for you Forge guys.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 02, 2006, 11:16:33 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, you have guys like bankuei who seems to suggest that "GM-fiat" is one of the chief causes (or is it symptoms?) of dysfunctional games. They suggest that anyone who thinks that the "GM is god" in the campaign cannot possibly be playing in a functional group. Note that he doesn't say that some dysfunctional groups will have GM fiat; he suggests that all groups that use "GM fiat" are dysfunctional games.

So yea, I have some serious reservations about the typical Game Theorist's level of willingness to give the GM the authority to be in charge of the game. They seem to have some serious authority issues, and that shows in their theory and on what they view as the causes of dysfunction.

I've certainly seen, personally speaking, games where a power-mad GM caused a non-functional game. But I've seen WAAAAY more games where players trying to dominate/manipulate/make demands on the GM was the cause of group dysfunction.  And I've seen far more games where GM fiat was absolute and things worked just fine that the ones where GM fiat was a problem.  And in all of the latter, the GM fiat was not the cause of the problem, the cause of the problem was the would-be GM's personality. So that pretty well blows that theory out of the water; but of course Theorists would claim I'm just in denial and don't realize how dysfunctional my own play really is.


I'd say that regular use of GM fiat probably means that we're looking at a group with a problem.  The problem might just the "the GM's kind of new", of course.

Quote
I don't really see more debate there either; mainly because we basically agree on this point. If you ignore for the moment the question of how important the GM's authority is to the stability of the group (and I continue to insist that its absolutely important); we are both in agreement that one of the areas where Theorizing about RPGs can be useful on a practical level is in terms of getting GMs to be able to manage their groups better.


True enough.

I do still believe it's possible to change up the authority in games, but I've only done it to a limited degree, myself.

Quote
As long as said theories also fit the assumptions of the GNS model, which are now unchangeable scriptural dogma at the Forge...


Well, little bits of the theory get changed by the Actual Play stuff, but a structural overhaul seems unlikely, yes.

Note "seems".  I've been really tempted a couple of times to get together a bunch of people that play in much the same way, who can all subscribe to a much different and plainer theory, and ask them to all take their Actual Play there...

...And then ask Ron and Clinton to host the essays it's based on.

They'd do it, I think, if the effort wasn't one meant to take potshots at the existing model, but just to create something new.  The problem, of course, is that it would be.  So I won't.

Quote
Yea, well; i can't help but think all this talk of a "Forge Diaspora" means that Ron envisioned the Forgeites going from the indie-rpgs forum out into the internet as a whole and spreading the word of GNS, like a cancer metastasizing.  What he probably didn't expect was that forcing people away from the Forge for theory talk would mean that more theorists would start pushing models that were different from and even ignored the GNS paradigm.  I'm really hoping that the farther away theorists get from the Forge, the more they'll start to do work that is further and further away ideologically from the Forge's idea of what "Theory" is all about.


Sadly, my telepathy isn't good enough to speak to that.  I'll keep trying, though.

:p

Quote
I certainly have a better word.  "Fiction" is just really a dodge to keep talking "story" in all but name. Switching from talking about "Story" to talking about "fiction" is a little like switching from talking about Creationism to talk about Intelligent Design.

If you sincerely want to talk about what RPGs do without suggesting that RPGs create structured story, then I would say to use Fantasy. Fiction still has all the implications of coherent and controlled designs, whereas fantasies do not.  When you're roleplaying you're not always creating stories, be they intentional or not; but you're always fantasizing.


Fantasy works, though it is loaded with genre connotations.  Maybe.

Quote
I agree, but its interesting that you would be moving this way in your speculation: Because of course the difference between what makes a good experience and a great experience is just how far the participants have been able to relate to the personalities of the fantasy they are portraying. In other words, what you're doing here is arguing in favour of Immersion.  And here I thought Immersion was like the fucking antichrist or Easter Bunny for you Forge guys.


Dude, immersion rocks.

It's also a big reason that I don't agree with what GNS says.

Consider: Is immersion a real thing some people chase after just as much as they chase after being challenged or getting story or genre emulation?  Are emulation and immersion the same goal?  As in, when playing in a way that supports one of the two, are you always playing in a way that supports the other as well, or just sometimes?  

My answers to these questions fundamentally do not match the GNS ones.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 03, 2006, 10:39:15 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
I'd say that regular use of GM fiat probably means that we're looking at a group with a problem.  The problem might just the "the GM's kind of new", of course.


Sure, but you're just as likely if not more likely to find a situation where disruptive players are the problem.  Why do bankuei and other theorists seem to think that the one (GM Fiat) is a "cause of dysfunction" while the other is an unfair slander on players (with statements like "putting a section on how to deal with problem players in an RPG manual is like including a section on how to deal with broken ribs from spousal abuse in a marriage guide")?
Why are players the little darlings who have to be mollycoddled and their whims cared for to insure an "Optimal experience" but GMs are seen as the CAUSE of dysfunctional play?

That, to me, is the makings of a seriously dysfunctional group right there...

Quote

Well, little bits of the theory get changed by the Actual Play stuff, but a structural overhaul seems unlikely, yes.

Note "seems".  I've been really tempted a couple of times to get together a bunch of people that play in much the same way, who can all subscribe to a much different and plainer theory, and ask them to all take their Actual Play there...

...And then ask Ron and Clinton to host the essays it's based on.

They'd do it, I think, if the effort wasn't one meant to take potshots at the existing model, but just to create something new.  The problem, of course, is that it would be.  So I won't.


So then you're basically conceding that Theory is stuck with GNS from now on?

Quote

Fantasy works, though it is loaded with genre connotations.  Maybe.


You could say "fantasizing" instead. The point is there's no "literary" connotation to those words (outside of the "genre connotations", anyways).  Whereas "fiction" is not really any different from "story" as far as those connotations existing.

Quote

Dude, immersion rocks.

It's also a big reason that I don't agree with what GNS says.


So why is it that so many  game theorists are against it?

Quote

Consider: Is immersion a real thing some people chase after just as much as they chase after being challenged or getting story or genre emulation?  Are emulation and immersion the same goal?  As in, when playing in a way that supports one of the two, are you always playing in a way that supports the other as well, or just sometimes?  

My answers to these questions fundamentally do not match the GNS ones.


And which are your answers in comparison to the GNS answers?

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 03, 2006, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Sure, but you're just as likely if not more likely to find a situation where disruptive players are the problem.  Why do bankuei and other theorists seem to think that the one (GM Fiat) is a "cause of dysfunction" while the other is an unfair slander on players (with statements like "putting a section on how to deal with problem players in an RPG manual is like including a section on how to deal with broken ribs from spousal abuse in a marriage guide")?
Why are players the little darlings who have to be mollycoddled and their whims cared for to insure an "Optimal experience" but GMs are seen as the CAUSE of dysfunctional play?

That, to me, is the makings of a seriously dysfunctional group right there...


Three things...

1) Some of that, I think, comes from the tendency of many theorists (including myself) to think of the GM as a special kind of player.  That is, they're at the table, doing game stuff, they're a player.  So some of it sounds that way even when it's not meant to.

2) Because many theorists are GMs, and they want guidelines for doing it better; they're quick to adjust what they are doing because they want to be skilled.

3) Because some theorists, yes, have had bad experiences with bad GMs in the past, and it shows through.

I've seen all three.

Quote
So then you're basically conceding that Theory is stuck with GNS from now on?


Theory at the Forge?  Yep.  Theory elsewhere?  Uh, no; maybe I wasn't clear on that bit.

Quote
You could say "fantasizing" instead. The point is there's no "literary" connotation to those words (outside of the "genre connotations", anyways).  Whereas "fiction" is not really any different from "story" as far as those connotations existing.


Could.  I'll wander back to the old Thesaurus.  But the old "Shared Imagined Space" thing sounds too pretentious to me.

Quote
So why is it that so many game theorists are against it?


Some conflate it with emulation; that was one of the ways that Simulation was defined in GNS for a while.  At least a few have heard really bad explanations of it that make it sound like some kind of weird headspace that sounds frankly crazy.  

...And I know of at least one that does understand what immersion is, and who thinks that really, really "going for it" all-out in a game may be a bad idea, because we're basically talking about a suggestible state.  And he makes good points, too, though they apply better to LARP than to tabletop play.

Quote
And which are your answers in comparison to the GNS answers?


I consider immersion a compeletely viable goal that can be discussed as much as any other.  Big Model theory calls immersion a "body of techniques", which means that it occurs at only one level of play, rather than an "agenda".

I think emulation can support immersion, but doesn't always; some genres and settings, faithfully emulated, simply don't have the right kind of internal consistency to support "being there" - you couldn't get immersion by emulating the Xanth novels, because the little 'inside jokes' would break the sense, for example.  Some GNS definition of simulation have combined immersive and emulative goals into a kind of homogenous mass.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 03, 2006, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Three things...

1) Some of that, I think, comes from the tendency of many theorists (including myself) to think of the GM as a special kind of player.  That is, they're at the table, doing game stuff, they're a player.  So some of it sounds that way even when it's not meant to.


Right. I think that the GM and the players need to be treated as two different kind of entities. They are getting their fun from two different activities, really...

Quote

Theory at the Forge?  Yep.  Theory elsewhere?  Uh, no; maybe I wasn't clear on that bit.


Well, I hope that's true, though I don't see how you'll be able to get away from the Forgethink, at least until there's a specific theory site/forum that becomes bigger than the Forge. Otherwise you'll always get Forgeites budding in and arguing from the viewpoint of GNS, and essentially insisting that GNS terminology be used and GNS positions be taken as defaults.

Quote

Could.  I'll wander back to the old Thesaurus.  But the old "Shared Imagined Space" thing sounds too pretentious to me.


Ditto, obviously.

Quote

Some conflate it with emulation; that was one of the ways that Simulation was defined in GNS for a while.  At least a few have heard really bad explanations of it that make it sound like some kind of weird headspace that sounds frankly crazy.  


Yes, I've seen those too, and I find it ridiculous.

Quote

I consider immersion a compeletely viable goal that can be discussed as much as any other.  Big Model theory calls immersion a "body of techniques", which means that it occurs at only one level of play, rather than an "agenda".
I think emulation can support immersion, but doesn't always; some genres and settings, faithfully emulated, simply don't have the right kind of internal consistency to support "being there" - you couldn't get immersion by emulating the Xanth novels, because the little 'inside jokes' would break the sense, for example.  Some GNS definition of simulation have combined immersive and emulative goals into a kind of homogenous mass.
´

Well, let me give you my take on immersion.

I think that Immersion is basically akin to what happens when you go to a movie, and get so into the movie that for the moment you essentially forget where you are or what you're doing. You're just a part of the movie.
This isn't really "psychologically dangerous" at all, at least not for someone who is psychologically sound, because the second something happens to remind you that you're in the movie theatre, or as soon as the movie ends, that state also ends.
Only really good movies will draw you in that way.

With RPGs, Immersion happens in different ways depending on who's perspective you're looking at. For the players, it happens quite simply when they come to like their character so much that care what "happens" to the character in a sense that goes beyond merely wanting to do well mechanically.

With GMs, it happens when the GM no longer "knows" what an NPC will do: that is to say, when a situation comes along that the GM wasn't expecting, and the GM can immediately respond to the situation because he is so thuroughly in tune with the personality of the NPC.  The NPC at this point is so developed as its own entity that the GM might be "surprised" by the reaction his NPC has, since he had not planned it ahead of time.

Essentially, Immersion is when the characters of a game take on "lives of their own", becoming sophisticated enough as personalities that the moment of acting the characters creates a temporary personality change in the player. The player doesn't go away, but his own personality is no longer enmeshed with the Character's at the conscious level.

Emulation and immersion are two different things, no doubt about it. Emulation is where you are trying to imitate a specific setting.  That is, where you run a "batman" game and the players are all impressed because its "totally batman" (totally like the comics, movies, cartoon, whatever).
Immersion would be a character playing Batman, and the other players saying "holy shit, you totally play a great Batman". Essentially, its effective acting.

To me, having a game do emulation of genre well is no guarantee that it'll lend itself to Immersion. In fact, Immersion to me is something that falls well outside the realm of system.  System helps or hinders emulation, to be sure. System cannot create or deny Immersion; which is, I think, why so many theorists dislike Immersion even though most roleplayers will say its one of the main "points" of roleplaying and one of the main signs of a "good" campaign.  Since system can't create Immersion, it means that Theorists have little they can do about Immersion, and that fucks up their "we have the solution for Roleplaying" mentality. So they'd rather pretend that immersion either can't happen or is undesirable if it could.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 04, 2006, 11:47:58 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, let me give you my take on immersion.

I think that Immersion is basically akin to what happens when you go to a movie, and get so into the movie that for the moment you essentially forget where you are or what you're doing. You're just a part of the movie.
This isn't really "psychologically dangerous" at all, at least not for someone who is psychologically sound, because the second something happens to remind you that you're in the movie theatre, or as soon as the movie ends, that state also ends.
Only really good movies will draw you in that way.

With RPGs, Immersion happens in different ways depending on who's perspective you're looking at. For the players, it happens quite simply when they come to like their character so much that care what "happens" to the character in a sense that goes beyond merely wanting to do well mechanically.

With GMs, it happens when the GM no longer "knows" what an NPC will do: that is to say, when a situation comes along that the GM wasn't expecting, and the GM can immediately respond to the situation because he is so thuroughly in tune with the personality of the NPC.  The NPC at this point is so developed as its own entity that the GM might be "surprised" by the reaction his NPC has, since he had not planned it ahead of time.

Essentially, Immersion is when the characters of a game take on "lives of their own", becoming sophisticated enough as personalities that the moment of acting the characters creates a temporary personality change in the player. The player doesn't go away, but his own personality is no longer enmeshed with the Character's at the conscious level.

Emulation and immersion are two different things, no doubt about it. Emulation is where you are trying to imitate a specific setting.  That is, where you run a "batman" game and the players are all impressed because its "totally batman" (totally like the comics, movies, cartoon, whatever).
Immersion would be a character playing Batman, and the other players saying "holy shit, you totally play a great Batman". Essentially, its effective acting.

To me, having a game do emulation of genre well is no guarantee that it'll lend itself to Immersion. In fact, Immersion to me is something that falls well outside the realm of system.  System helps or hinders emulation, to be sure. System cannot create or deny Immersion; which is, I think, why so many theorists dislike Immersion even though most roleplayers will say its one of the main "points" of roleplaying and one of the main signs of a "good" campaign.  Since system can't create Immersion, it means that Theorists have little they can do about Immersion, and that fucks up their "we have the solution for Roleplaying" mentality. So they'd rather pretend that immersion either can't happen or is undesirable if it could.


Okay.  Some things; tell me if you agree:

1. So far as system goes, the best thing it can do for immersion is get the hell out of the way.  System can't make immersion; it can fuck it up; in fact, spending too much time in contact with rules almost certainly will.  A set of rules that has immersion as a goal should have social mechanics only if they're very sparse or acting as a last resort.

2. An internally consistent setting that is portrayed as such is almost a requirement for immersion; breaks in the setting logic can knock you out of it.

3. Distractions at the place of play also get in the way, naturally; it's like the dick that insists on talking on his cell phone during the movie.

----------

Now, if you're with me so far, let me walk the next couple of steps, tell me if you follow:

4. Therefore, the best environment for this is one where there aren't any distractions; there's no phone ringing, no TV, nobody reading at the table (even from the rulebook); best would be a room with a pool of light containing the GM and players, their seating, and nothing else.

5. Perfectly portrayed, the setting would never need any referencing on the part of the GM; you'd talk, and they just come right back, every time, with no worries.

6. Really stupendously strong immersion would be done with a totally system that the players have found way to talk about in character, or to menatlly work around so that they don't even concern themselves with it - For example (not a perfect example, mind you) if the players could, in Amber, run a full conflict without actually breaking character to name traits because they could do it "in code", so to speak, and were all really familiar with that code.

--------

Here's where I push into "I'm not completely sure, but I'm close" territory.

Now, to go with nastiness, imagine that one of the people at the table is fucking about.  Say they have a real-world agenda in play; they want to seduce another player, or play stupid little dominance games.

They're screwing around with a character that doesn't "really" exist, you might say, but your character is, really, a part of you that you've engineered and "brought to life" - yeah, that's a bit overwrought, but you see what I mean.

Now, can you see why at least a few (I know one for sure, and I'm pretty certain there are more) theorists think that this isn't something to be chased after whole-hog?
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 04, 2006, 04:25:41 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Okay.  Some things; tell me if you agree:
1. So far as system goes, the best thing it can do for immersion is get the hell out of the way.  System can't make immersion; it can fuck it up; in fact, spending too much time in contact with rules almost certainly will.  A set of rules that has immersion as a goal should have social mechanics only if they're very sparse or acting as a last resort.


I basically agree.

Quote

2. An internally consistent setting that is portrayed as such is almost a requirement for immersion; breaks in the setting logic can knock you out of it.


I sort of agree, though the INTERNAL part is really the key; and to me that's still kind of incidental. I mean, I've seen Immersion happen in D&D with the Mystara setting, and that's a pretty goofy setting at times. I think that having stuff that is too wierd and inconsistent can knock one out of Immersion, but you're pretty much never "immersed" all the time anyways, so unless a game is just a constant cycle of goofyness, I don't really think that the question of consistency really affects Immersion one way or the other.  The principle thing is that a game has to create a situation where you care sufficiently about your character, and where the character is sufficiently fleshed out (though its usually better if he BECOMES fleshed out over time; I don't think that starting a character with reams of background history or details really does much to help immersion; whereas creating more details about him as you play certainly does).  
So the one thing I would say is that games with an uber-high rate of character turnover (some CoC campaigns, Paranoia, etc) make it more difficult for immersion to happen; though even then you can create immersion if you get to a point where you have a character that has survived "in spite of all odds" for much longer than he normally should, or if you have a character that has developed something really unique in the game (an insanity or mutation) that gives him more "personality".

Quote

3. Distractions at the place of play also get in the way, naturally; it's like the dick that insists on talking on his cell phone during the movie.
4. Therefore, the best environment for this is one where there aren't any distractions; there's no phone ringing, no TV, nobody reading at the table (even from the rulebook); best would be a room with a pool of light containing the GM and players, their seating, and nothing else.


Um, kind of. Certainly a gaming situation that's surrounded by distractions will be detrimental to Immersion. Likewise, I think that spectators being present who are not players does something wierd that diminishes the possibility of immersion happening.
But aside from that, I don't think I'd go as far as you. Certainly having music playing can sometimes help immersion, and not always just because the music is directly chosen for "setting the scene". Its a wierd phenomenon.
Likewise, I don't think that having other players who aren't in the scene reading something will really do anything to prevent the characters who ARE in the scene from experiencing immersion. I think more than a sterile environment, what lends to Immersion is a RELAXED environment.

Quote

5. Perfectly portrayed, the setting would never need any referencing on the part of the GM; you'd talk, and they just come right back, every time, with no worries.
6. Really stupendously strong immersion would be done with a totally system that the players have found way to talk about in character, or to menatlly work around so that they don't even concern themselves with it - For example (not a perfect example, mind you) if the players could, in Amber, run a full conflict without actually breaking character to name traits because they could do it "in code", so to speak, and were all really familiar with that code.  


Yes, these things sometimes help with Immersion. They're by no means a guarantee to create immersion, but they can help. Certainly a well-run game of Amber tends, in my experience, to be more able to create more moments of Immersion than other games.

Quote

Here's where I push into "I'm not completely sure, but I'm close" territory.
Now, to go with nastiness, imagine that one of the people at the table is fucking about.  Say they have a real-world agenda in play; they want to seduce another player, or play stupid little dominance games.
They're screwing around with a character that doesn't "really" exist, you might say, but your character is, really, a part of you that you've engineered and "brought to life" - yeah, that's a bit overwrought, but you see what I mean.
Now, can you see why at least a few (I know one for sure, and I'm pretty certain there are more) theorists think that this isn't something to be chased after whole-hog?


No, not really, that seems a pretty silly argument to me. Because you could make the same claims about, say, Acting in a play. No one seems to worry that actors can get too attached to the characters they portray, and generally the few cases where shit like that has happened has been when the actors were already nutjobs to begin with.

So the arguments against immersion on that basis seem pretty absurd to me; of course, not nearly as absurd as the arguments many Theorists make about Immersion not actually existing.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 04, 2006, 04:43:12 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
I sort of agree, though the INTERNAL part is really the key; and to me that's still kind of incidental. I mean, I've seen Immersion happen in D&D with the Mystara setting, and that's a pretty goofy setting at times. I think that having stuff that is too wierd and inconsistent can knock one out of Immersion, but you're pretty much never "immersed" all the time anyways, so unless a game is just a constant cycle of goofyness, I don't really think that the question of consistency really affects Immersion one way or the other.  The principle thing is that a game has to create a situation where you care sufficiently about your character, and where the character is sufficiently fleshed out (though its usually better if he BECOMES fleshed out over time; I don't think that starting a character with reams of background history or details really does much to help immersion; whereas creating more details about him as you play certainly does).  
So the one thing I would say is that games with an uber-high rate of character turnover (some CoC campaigns, Paranoia, etc) make it more difficult for immersion to happen; though even then you can create immersion if you get to a point where you have a character that has survived "in spite of all odds" for much longer than he normally should, or if you have a character that has developed something really unique in the game (an insanity or mutation) that gives him more "personality".


I can go with that.

Quote
Um, kind of. Certainly a gaming situation that's surrounded by distractions will be detrimental to Immersion. Likewise, I think that spectators being present who are not players does something wierd that diminishes the possibility of immersion happening.
But aside from that, I don't think I'd go as far as you. Certainly having music playing can sometimes help immersion, and not always just because the music is directly chosen for "setting the scene". Its a wierd phenomenon.
Likewise, I don't think that having other players who aren't in the scene reading something will really do anything to prevent the characters who ARE in the scene from experiencing immersion. I think more than a sterile environment, what lends to Immersion is a RELAXED environment.


I think I get what you mean, but can you give me an example or two of a relaxed environment, just so I'm sure?

Quote
No, not really, that seems a pretty silly argument to me. Because you could make the same claims about, say, Acting in a play. No one seems to worry that actors can get too attached to the characters they portray, and generally the few cases where shit like that has happened has been when the actors were already nutjobs to begin with.


...Too attached?  Oh!  No, not like "they become the character".  That's just odd.  They might learn something from playing the character, but that's not what I'm pointing at.

More like "If two actors play lovers, and work up some good intensity, are they likely to sleep together outside the show?" - and, in some theatre circles, the answer is "Pretty likely."

Like that.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 05, 2006, 12:25:24 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

I think I get what you mean, but can you give me an example or two of a relaxed environment, just so I'm sure?


A relaxed environment: a living room, with no non-gamers in the room, no TV turned on, music either off or on but softly, no grossly distracting outside noises, people sitting around on couches, reading if they want to and aren't in the scene, but not talking in a way that disrupts the scene.  Just a normal relaxed environment.

Quote

...Too attached?  Oh!  No, not like "they become the character".  That's just odd.  They might learn something from playing the character, but that's not what I'm pointing at.

More like "If two actors play lovers, and work up some good intensity, are they likely to sleep together outside the show?" - and, in some theatre circles, the answer is "Pretty likely."

Like that.


And my point would be, so what? The fact that some actors might be getting some doesn't mean we should force them to act more poorly.
Likewise, with gamers.  And denying the existence of importance of immersion is a direct formula for creating inferior gaming experiences.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 05, 2006, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
A relaxed environment: a living room, with no non-gamers in the room, no TV turned on, music either off or on but softly, no grossly distracting outside noises, people sitting around on couches, reading if they want to and aren't in the scene, but not talking in a way that disrupts the scene.  Just a normal relaxed environment.


So, basically, comfortable familiar surroundings.  Okay, that's what I thought, and I agree.

Now, why?  Because you can "block them out" easily?  

I mean, here's an example for me.  I have a group of friends that I was running a Victorian era game (Castle Falkenstein meets Call of Cthulhu, basically) for.  Their living room, comfy, well-known to all of us.  We'd drop a stack of CDs in the stereo before we started, all waltz music.  Then we'd turn down the lights, and light up the oil lamp.

Now, I can't explain it easily, but all of those things helped - the room, the music, the lighting - and, here's a strange one, the smell of the lamp; as soon as it started up, we were on.  

Quote
And my point would be, so what?


Okay.  Time for me to talk about "my worst gaming moment".

At a LARP, I decided to make my character a romantic.  And, as it happens, I got a fair bit of positive female attention out of this.  Good stuff; I was single at the time.

I got a very huge amount from one of the ladies present, after a game; I'd never actually talked to her before that game, though I'd seen her around.  We went for coffee after game.  We got some.  Turns out, afterwards, she was engaged, very happy with her boy, and it broke their relationship - she stopped coming to games for a long time after that.

I've also run some fairly intense tabletop games where a player unexpectedly stepped up and took the party in new directions, basically playing leader.  And I've seen the players, afterwards, treat them with a little more respect as a result.

Basically, what I'm saying is that "what happens in the game has no effect at all on real life" isn't really true, and when you're talking about high immersion games, it's even less true - It doesn't make people crazy or anything, but it can alter the dynamics between people.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 05, 2006, 03:09:49 PM
It looks like we really have run out of steam as far as disputation is concerned, since we are in agreement about the topic of Immersion.

Unless you want to cut the debate short and go straight to closing comments, I would suggest that you bring up something new to discuss.

Case in point, was this what you were talking about (http://zdashamber.livejournal.com/93053.html), when you were suggesting the need to be more inclusive in gaming?

If so, then here is my rebuttal: http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/481170384/item.html (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/481170384/item.html)

Feel free to comment in the context of this debate, or to bring up something else for us to continue hashing out instead.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 05, 2006, 03:28:15 PM
Sexism?

Okay, I'm in the middle on this one (as I often am).

The problem with exclusion of women from gaming has very little to do with game design, and the writing of games, in my opinion - at least, as it is right now, that's not where gamers should look.

The problem is twofold:

One, culturally, some gamer are sexist.  And their groups are exclusive, even if they don't want them to be.  To get over that habit, temporarily pushing in the opposite direction to be exceedingly welcoming might be helpful. But only sometimes.  And this is a much bigger social issue than gamers, and trying to turn gamers into a "force for good" in the larger picture is silly; we're here to play games, not change the world.  It all comes down to individuals - I try not to be a dick to women, and if my group was all guys, with a bunch of really male in-jokes, I'd drop them before inviting a woman to play.  Simple.

Two, plainly, one place where a lot of our "kinda dorky" folks - the ones that are friends, and are social at games, but that we wouldn't necessarily invite along to go clubbing or the like...  ...Well, many of them put women off, because nothing stinks as bad as desperate.

So far as "Games for women" go, let 'em write.  If what they write is good, it'll sell.  If they want things, let 'em say so.  But I'm not going to go and try to patronise them with crap they may or may not want.

Worth arguing, or would you like to go to closure?
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 06, 2006, 02:13:41 AM
No, I don't think we have enough level of disagreement to really make an argument on that worthwhile.

I suggest we go to closing arguments: you make yours, we see if there's any discussion that comes of it, then I make mine, and then each of us make our final post.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 09, 2006, 01:54:46 PM
Sorry I'm late, here - I'm a landlord, and the opening to this month has been a complete bitch, among other things.

Closing arguments it is, then.

Much of this is revised from my "midway" arguments - apologies if that makes for boring reading.

----------------------------

Roleplaying games combine gamelike and roleplaying elements into a unique whole.
Roleplaying games are much like what they sound like – there are elements of roleplaying, in a generally theatrical sense (but the bit about art not being special applies here too), and elements of gameplay like you’d find in a board or card game, and these things come together to form a unified thing distinct from it’s component parts.   The gamelike components provide the real structure for the whole, and so it's often best for a designer to look more to those elements than others, and find ways that mechanics can stay out of the way of the actual roleplaying.  Despite this, though, all roleplaying games provide at least slightly different fusions of these elements.

----------------------------

Roleplaying Games create something that gives the same satisfaction as a good story; it's not a literary form, but story is the only word I have for it.  But they aren’t for telling stories.
Every game creates stories, as a side effect if nothing else.  People tell stories about their game experiences, reliving the moment; some of these stories can be good, or funny; some of them, you had to be there.  They also sit back at the table now and then and think things generally like “That was really cool, story-wise”.  That’s something some gamers want to explore further, and there are ways to do it.

But the first impulse of a lot of GMs when they meet this idea is to control the story so they can be sure that it’ll turn out ‘properly’.  This is a mistake; if you want the story to turn out your way, go write it down.  If you do it, you’ll take away the ability to make meaningful choices from the players and you’ll have to interfere with their ability to play their characters; this means that your game will have problems both as something to roleplay and as a game.  If you want an RPG to act as an engine that works purely for the generation of collaborative stories, you’re likely going to push outside of the boundaries of what most people would consider a Roleplaying Game – it might be good, and RPG rules may be a good place to start, but you’re looking for a different creature than the one I’m talking about.

----------------------------

Getting more ‘story’ from an RPG is simple.
You front-load, and you drive (I’ll define those in a second), and that’s all you really need to do.  Going further than this can, again, carry your game outside of either “roleplaying” or “game” or both, and unless your players are with you in doing that, it’s best avoided.  I’m going to talk about those two things for a moment.

   Front-Loading: Front-loading is another way of saying that the group (sometimes the GM, sometimes the players, sometimes both together) builds a starting situation that focuses on the same stuff that the characters are focused on.  Not only that, but this situation involves conflicts that the characters will be drawn into, but which could be resolved any number of ways.  The person or people creating this situation should not know how things are going to turn out, only that conflict will always occur.  This is just basic preparation – an evil army threatening the town where the characters live is some serious front-loading.  The place where this turns into specifically story preparation is that a group (in this case, almost always the GM) can front-load elements that require choices from the characters – hard stuff that will give depth to the character no matter what they choose.  Again, the creator shouldn’t have picked “right choices” out in advance, just created things that require those choices be made.

Driving: This may not be the best word for it, since ‘driving’ implies a degree of control that really isn’t involved.  Driving is pushing the characters to make to those choices on their own, harder and harder, until they do, by adding intensity and requiring action based on each choice as play continues.  This often requires that the GM bring on characters and events that hit those choices in new ways; this is the part that takes practice, because doing it ham-handedly produces artificial-feeling play.

----------------------------

Every group has it’s own style of play.
No two players are the same – they have different attitudes, different past experiences, and sometimes want different things out of an RPG - some want more roleplay in their gaming, some want more gaming in their roleplay, some want more story, some want to get further “into character” than others.  That’s just the nature of what happens when you get people together.  But if they play together, they start to balance out a singular style of play between them that works for them.  This group style includes how they use the mechanics of the game, the things they agree on as other rules, and even the social structures that exist between them when they sit down at the table.  

----------------------------

Games influence style.
Every actual game book out there has its own slant – the writers had at least some of the elements that make up a style of play, however loosely or firmly conceived, in mind when they wrote it.  These are passed on to the players in a variety of ways.

First, and most obvious, a game book has advice in it that talks about how to run the game.  Some games go on at length about how to get just the game you want from the rules, working to accommodate different playstyles.  Others give the reader a solid impression of the kinds of play the creators had in mind, but also talk about adjusting it to get what you like.  And still others (though not that many) describe a single, tightly focused style that the game is “fine-tuned’ for.

Second, and either more or less obviously, a game shows you what it’s about in the presentation of the material itself.  If it has a lot of art, that can be pretty obvious.  Even if it doesn’t, examples of play given in a book speak to the style, as do descriptions of the various smaller bits of “how you do things”.

Third, the actual physical components of a game can have an impact.  If the game requires big piles of dice or miniature figures, its best played at an actual table, which can change the group dynamic to something less casual than just sitting around a living room.

And finally, the characters you can build, the various components of them, and the specific kinds of rules-based fun that you can get from those components, all speak to the style.  If there are detailed rules on some specific thing, and players engange with those often and enjoyably, the game will be drawn to those things more often, making the game more “about” those things.  

----------------------------

Making things happen means sharing a vision.

This one is a little out of left field, but I'm convinced that it's true.  

You've talked about the things that you think need to happen in gaming, I've talked about what I think, and we've found more common ground here than most people ever really thought we would.  

I think that there's a vision of gaming, a real, positive, and realistic thing, that you're looking for, despite the consistantly negative image you put out there.  And I think that you're in the habit of sniping in places where you should be building up, just as I'm in the habit of building up in a few places where I might do better shaking things off.

So let me give you a bit of advice on building up, if I may, and you can give me a bit of advice on tearing things down, if you're in the mood to do so.  We've already both learned a fair bit here; why not a bit more?

Everyone shows off something about who they are that is really cool.  Speak to that, and share with them a vision of the coolness that they have, plugged into something larger, and they will always respond to that, even if they don't show it.  If you engage with the best things in people, then their best is what you get; if you engage with the worst things about them, then you get the worst parts of them.  And if you make a habit of engaging them in one way, then you'll regularly get those same parts of them.

People are good.  Let them show you.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 10, 2006, 06:04:41 PM
I'm just coming down from one of the best gaming sessions I've done in a long time, where we concluded my epic OD&D campaign, one that started with the pcs at 1st level, and got them all the way to immortality, playing by the (sometimes confusing and obtuse) letter of the law according to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

It was incredible.

And it made something very clear to me.  Your points are very pretty, but I would be remiss if my rebuttal actually attempted to engage your points at their level.

So my rebuttal is this: Why the fuck do you people force me to do this?

I mean, really: Gaming isn't found in sitting around doing mental wankery on internet forums. The internet should be a place to talk about the games you like, the sessions you play, house rules, systems, etc.
But trying to create grand theories that will in theory either "improve play" or "improve game design" is a fools errand.

The key to improving those things is to actually go out and do them. To see what works in practice and follow it, not to try to re-invent the fucking wheel.

And you might say "we don't force you to do anything, you like coming on here and pissing on our parade"; but that's not the case. To say that I don't "need" to be opposed to you guys, when you're trying to overtake and influence fora like this one (or like RPG.net, which you already own lock stock and barrel) or (MUCH more importantly) try to influence the direction the game "Industry" goes in (and thus directly affect the games I purchase and play), is a little like saying that you don't "have" to offer a rebuttal to the Creationists who are trying to subvert your local school board. They want to redefine science; and if you just let them have their fun/beliefs while you have yours, then pretty soon your kids are learning about the Flood and Noah when they should be learning Biology 101.

Its disingenous to say that you only want to do your thing, when what you are setting out is to prove that theories that you all invent ab ovo are the superior form of game play/design. Its an obvious point that if that premise is accepted, then talking about these theories must occupy a central place in online fora, and that promoting design based on these theories should be the direction of the industry.

We lived through that once with story-based gaming.

RPGs are games, which gamers like to play. You guys are playing a different game, which is the game of "thinking great thoughts" about RPGs.  You could just as easily have been thinking great thoughts about basket weaving or astrology or how many angels dance on the head of a pin. The game for you is to show off your own intelligence to yourself and others by pondering deeply on things that are not worth pondering deeply about.

Now usually, my response to that is to use your own methods and practices against you. But interestingly enough, it got to be my turn to write this just after I played a really bitching game session in a really bitching campaign that required NO fucking theory to run well, violated pretty much all of the precepts that the Forge-gang claim must be followed to produce "functional gaming" (proof that these theories are full of shit), and could never have come about if I were to take the sort of things you claim are needed seriously.

So today, I find myself not in the mood to provide the rebuttal from the perspective of accepting the premise that this is an intellectual topic worth debating. I'm being more honest than usual today.

I will only say that, in the course of our 90 posts so far, you have failed to prove the one fundamental point to your entire argument for "your" side: that any of the stuff you talk about is in any way useful, much less necessary.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 10, 2006, 11:30:29 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
I'm just coming down from one of the best gaming sessions I've done in a long time, where we concluded my epic OD&D campaign, one that started with the pcs at 1st level, and got them all the way to immortality, playing by the (sometimes confusing and obtuse) letter of the law according to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

It was incredible.


Yep, I read about that.  Sounded like a great game.

Quote from: RPGPundit
*Snip*


Who the fuck are you talking to with this?  

Because while it may be "theorists", it sure isn't me.  In the last two weeks, I've played two games and run one, as well as working on design for another one yet.

I've never called my way of gaming "superior" for anyone but me.

And I've never considered any theory I have to be a "great thought".

Sorry Pundit, but while you may have successfully kicked the shit of the air here, you didn't touch me once.

Quote from: RPGPundit
I will only say that, in the course of our 90 posts so far, you have failed to prove the one fundamental point to your entire argument for "your" side: that any of the stuff you talk about is in any way useful, much less necessary.


It helps me.  Others have stated that it helps them.  It is, therefore, helpful.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 11, 2006, 12:25:27 AM
But that is, nevertheless, the crux of our debate.  I'm not expecting one or the other of us to "cave" here, but let's assess this discussion. Fundamentally, I think the key to it comes down to that argument: is gaming theory useful?

Its why the "who's winning" thread seemed so stupid to me; you could only possibly "win" if you convinced me that Gaming Theory is actually essential enough to merit its practice; and I could only "win" if I could convince you that it isn't.

I think perhaps we've both managed to convince the other of little things, that certain aspects of gaming theory are not without their applications, and on the other hand that many other aspects of gaming theory are indelibly tied into the frameworks of elitism that tend to float into any "hobby" area of human pursuits (or indeed, some would say any area of human pursuit period).

But fundamentally, my argument is that you haven't shown me yet that your uses of definitions, or that other theorists' uses of structured hypotheses for game design or game play, make a real difference in gaming; especially not a real difference that can't be accounted for by the gaining of overall experience and practice at the gaming table.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 12, 2006, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
But fundamentally, my argument is that you haven't shown me yet that your uses of definitions, or that other theorists' uses of structured hypotheses for game design or game play, make a real difference in gaming; especially not a real difference that can't be accounted for by the gaining of overall experience and practice at the gaming table.


My evidence, as all evidence along these lines, is anecdotal.

So it's story time.

1. Since the first draft of that little glossary on the purple site, I've recieved a total of seven PMs at that site from people thanking me - not for defining the terms clearly for use, but for giving them a way to talk to their GM about things that they want to talk about.  At least two had been looking for a way to express it for years.

2. The idea of a conflict system - a rules engine that treats all conflicts in the same fashion - came from theory developments.  It has made my gaming, and the gaming of quite a few other people I know locally substantially better.

3. Among my extended LARP group, I've used theory to talk to a few people about problems with different LARPs and how to work on them.  I've had one game organizer, after reading it over, suddenly realize that her problem was that she was still stuck in the mode where she decided how her plots should end, and I showed her why that was a bad thing.  She's been running games for many, many years, and I don't think she could have figured what I was trying to tell her if it hadn't been put into a value-neutral statement of "some different things players want".

...Would you like me to continue?  I can do this all day.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 14, 2006, 02:52:39 AM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
My evidence, as all evidence along these lines, is anecdotal.

So it's story time.

1. Since the first draft of that little glossary on the purple site, I've recieved a total of seven PMs at that site from people thanking me - not for defining the terms clearly for use, but for giving them a way to talk to their GM about things that they want to talk about.  At least two had been looking for a way to express it for years.


I think that's a great advocacy for bettering communication skills, but I think you can do that without gaming jargon, probably better than with; so it comes down to the "experience at the table" business.  I'll give you partial credit, but as I said I'd already done that before, I'd already said that there could be some applications. But surely you're not saying that Gaming Theory is the only possible way to create better communication between players?  I seriously debate that idea that it would even be the best method.

Quote

2. The idea of a conflict system - a rules engine that treats all conflicts in the same fashion - came from theory developments.  It has made my gaming, and the gaming of quite a few other people I know locally substantially better.


Wait, what are you talking about here? Are you talking about a single unified mechanic in a gaming system? Like what D20 does? because I really don't think gaming theory can take credit for that!

If you're talking about something different, you'll need to explain what that is.

Quote

3. Among my extended LARP group, I've used theory to talk to a few people about problems with different LARPs and how to work on them.  I've had one game organizer, after reading it over, suddenly realize that her problem was that she was still stuck in the mode where she decided how her plots should end, and I showed her why that was a bad thing.  She's been running games for many, many years, and I don't think she could have figured what I was trying to tell her if it hadn't been put into a value-neutral statement of "some different things players want".

...Would you like me to continue?  I can do this all day.


Well, I could talk about reams of thank you letters I've gotten from people since I started my blog, people saying that I'm saying the stuff about gaming that they've always felt but never could get around to saying; either for fear of seeming "stupid" in the light of the so-called cognoscenti, or from frustration that it wouldn't change anything, or just from an inability to express it effectively.

But its not really relevant to the point.  I mean hell, Shooting Dice could probably drum up scads of people who claim that White Wolf's story-based gaming is the panacea for all the world's ills, and the guys who designed F.A.T.A.L. could probably find some dude who'd claim that it cures cancer.

But there's nothing objective in that, which you can show a skeptic like me that will be reproducible direct proof of utility.

Gaming Theory seems to be taking Astrology and trying to sell it off as Astrophysics; or alchemy sold as chemistry.  There might even be a bit of a science in there somewhere, but its so surrounded by dogma and bullshit that on the whole you're mostly better off starting from scratch than trying to build on what's gone before.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 14, 2006, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
Wait, what are you talking about here? Are you talking about a single unified mechanic in a gaming system? Like what D20 does? because I really don't think gaming theory can take credit for that!


No, not that.  A game which can treat any use of mechanics as a conflict.

It may not be to your taste; it is to the taste of enough people.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Well, I could talk about reams of thank you letters I've gotten from people since I started my blog, people saying that I'm saying the stuff about gaming that they've always felt but never could get around to saying; either for fear of seeming "stupid" in the light of the so-called cognoscenti, or from frustration that it wouldn't change anything, or just from an inability to express it effectively.

But its not really relevant to the point.


Oh, really?

If people find it easier to remove staples with one of those stupid-looking jaw-shaped things, then that thing is useful.  If people find that theory lets them get better gaming, then theory is useful.  It doesn't need to be useful to everyone, just like not every game needs to be interesting to everyone.

Unless this is some new definition of "useful" I've never heard of before.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 15, 2006, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen

If people find it easier to remove staples with one of those stupid-looking jaw-shaped things, then that thing is useful.  If people find that theory lets them get better gaming, then theory is useful.  It doesn't need to be useful to everyone, just like not every game needs to be interesting to everyone.

Unless this is some new definition of "useful" I've never heard of before.


What I'm defining as "useful" is something that provides an advancement or progress for a player that can be objectively demonstrated to either be impossible to achieve without the use of gaming theory, or far simpler to achieve with the use of game play as opposed to regular play and practice and talking about play and practice without resorting to the jargon and particularities of Gaming theory.

Gaming Theorists try to argue that their ideas or principles are like a science, that someone who participates in them will have a better game; what I'm saying is that its a pseudoscience, and that any effect outside of the "placebo" effect (ie. what would have come about with regular game play and conversation, without having to resort to the use of Jargon, GNS, or creating other kinds of hypotheses about the nature of games, gaming groups or game design).

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 15, 2006, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit
What I'm defining as "useful" is something that provides an advancement or progress for a player that can be objectively demonstrated to either be impossible to achieve without the use of gaming theory, or far simpler to achieve with the use of game play as opposed to regular play and practice and talking about play and practice without resorting to the jargon and particularities of Gaming theory.


Ohh.  Okay, great.

How about you objectively prove to me that you enjoy pipe smoking?

It's impossible?  Great.  There you go.  No such proof can exist; I mean, you sound like you do, and you can probably tell me stories about it, but you can't, you know, actually prove it, can you?

Same deal.

Quote from: RPGPundit
Gaming Theorists try to argue that their ideas or principles are like a science, that someone who participates in them will have a better game; what I'm saying is that its a pseudoscience, and that any effect outside of the "placebo" effect (ie. what would have come about with regular game play and conversation, without having to resort to the use of Jargon, GNS, or creating other kinds of hypotheses about the nature of games, gaming groups or game design).


And I'm saying that sometimes, writing down ideas on "how this shit works" can help clarify them.  And discussing or reading people's ideas on "how this shit works" sometimes shortcuts over into realizing something useful that would never have come to mind otherwise.

None of that other crap is required, though sometimes it helps to have the right words on hand.

It works quite well for me.  And others, it seems.

That's theory.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 16, 2006, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Ohh.  Okay, great.
How about you objectively prove to me that you enjoy pipe smoking?
It's impossible?  Great.  There you go.  No such proof can exist; I mean, you sound like you do, and you can probably tell me stories about it, but you can't, you know, actually prove it, can you?
Same deal.


Ah, but therein lies my point. I ENJOY pipe smoking.
I absolutely love it.
I'm not asking you to prove that you enjoy gaming theory, in fact I'm a hundred-percent absolutely certain that you do.  That's the entire crux of my point.

What I can't prove is that pipe smoking makes people into more decent human beings.
I would like to think that, I almost believe it sometimes, when I look at the kind of guys who've smoked pipe; when I see my buddies in the pipe club, and notice how great they all are.
But in the end, that's just a feeling I get based on the fact that I really, REALLY like smoking a pipe.
Plus, there's always Josef Stalin. He smoked a pipe. Not a good guy.

What I'm saying, and what your very argument has unwittingly revealed, is that gaming theorists like doing gaming theory in and of itself.  

You're not doing gaming theory to be better gamers. You're doing Gaming Theory because you really love sitting around theorizing about games!

And you might really, really, like it. But that doesn't mean it makes you a better Roleplayer for it, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that it'll make others better roleplayers for it.  That's just an excuse you tell yourselves to justify spending your time doing Gaming theory, and for some gaming theorists to feel smug about what they're doing and lord it over gamers who aren't theorists.

Its like if I started telling others that they need to smoke a pipe to be more moral people, and claimed that this is why I smoke a pipe.

Why the subterfuge? Why not just admit it: you and all other gaming theorists don't do Gaming Theory for the sake of RPGs. You do it because you like Gaming Theory, in and of itself!

Admit that, be happy, spend your time making up theories about games. Hell, in some cases if some of you admitted it then they might not be inclined to ever have to bother actually playing RPGs anymore, just like a total asshole thinking he has to be moral in order to smoke a pipe.
Others, might actually enjoy both gaming theory and RPGs, but will come to understand that they aren't doing one for the sake of the other, and at that point might be kind enough to stop trying to push it on the rest of us by claiming that you need gaming theory to do gaming well.

Look deep in your heart, and know that its true. That you like Gaming Theory for its own sake, otherwise you'd never be doing it.

And those of us who don't like it, don't appear to need it to be good Gamers.  I'm willing to bet that I'm a better DM than many so-called gaming theorists, and I've never been "helped" by GNS.

So you aren't doing Theory because its something necessary to save or improve your gaming.  You (and all other Gaming Theorists) are doing it because you like to make up smart-sounding theories about games. Case closed.

I'll remind you that your next post on this thread is the last one, then I have the last word and this thread comes to a close.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Levi Kornelsen on May 17, 2006, 09:29:09 AM
I was considering making some kind of big closing statement here, full of specific points, or attempts to show you where I thought we were making use of stratagems instead of arguing openly, and the like.  

But, in the end, it would be pretty much pure showmanship; and while I do like being showy, I like to think that it's not my primary thing.

So I'll keep this simple.

I've learned a whole lot about both your viewpoint and about how I'm stating and expressing my own.  I'll be chewing on a few of your points here for quite a while, even though we did wander into a fair bit of argument-just-to-argue in places.

And to your last point, I'll say this - I like playing, and then discussing, and playing, and discussing.  As it happens, yes, I like abstracting the discussion a bit, because it helps me carry the stuff I got out out of this game here over to that one over there.  And to me, that's all that good theory is; taking notes on things I can carry from one group of games to another, or that I think can apply to all games generally in interesting ways, and sharing them.

Naturally, you can argue that a lot of highly visible theory isn't that at all, and there's some justice to that.  I've wandered off into wank-land a few times, myself, getting caught up in the "pure" abstraction; and every time, the results of getting caught up like that are profoundly unsatisfying.  Others do seem to find some intellectual satisfaction to it.

And now, the dispute is yours to end.

A good day to you, sir.
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: RPGPundit on May 19, 2006, 02:18:39 AM
My closing statement:

This thread has been good for telling me more about you personally as a gamer, Levi. And I've come to the conclusion that you're a thoroughly decent guy, and that you're probably a good and consciencious gamer/GM.

I've also come to wonder how the FUCK you got mixed in with the rest of the Forge-gang. You and a couple of others, who seem mostly reasonable guys. Likewise, why you persist at this point to keep (fruitlessly; IMO) working in that context when so much of it is so clearly and by your own admission contrary to your own stated goals and interests, one must wonder why you'd fight the tide in this way.

Some have suggested that I was hamstrung in this argument by the very fact that you are seen as a reasonable human being, and thus not an "honest broker" for your side of the argument, that you lack the extreme pretentiousness of others in the area of Gaming Theory, or certainly of most of the other RPG.net mods.  But I don't really see that as a disadvantage for me; first of all, its just the way it is; most of the other types wouldn't have had either the balls, or the mental capacity, or the  overall disposition to engage in this kind of debate with me. Second, even if they had it wouldn't have been much more than them screaming at me and me mocking them for 100 posts, and what the fuck would have been the point of that?!
But finally, you were a contrast that worked to my benefit.  Pretty much everyone recognized right away that the entire debate was only possible BECAUSE you were more moderate than the Swine, and that strengthened my point about the rest of them.  At one point I said that you're a token; sort of their Colin Powell, and like Powell, or the Black Republican Senator or whatever, you ultimately end up working against the public image you're supposed to better, because you only serve to highlite what an absolute anachronism and ill-suited figure you are in contrast to the rest of the group.
Your moderate nature only serves to highlite the extremity of the rest of your group. The very fact that you admit occasional forays into "wank-land" as you put it only emphasizes how many of your fellow Forgeites or RPG.netters are permanent citizens of that foul kingdom.

To close; one could say of this thread that never was so much written by so few about so little of importance.  Except, of course, on RPG.net or the Forge.

RPGPundit
Title: Pistols at dawn.
Post by: Thjalfi on May 19, 2006, 11:19:24 AM
Closing statements have been made.

The management of Nutkinland would like to thank both participants for this thread, it has proved interesting to watch evolve.

The thread will now be locked. At some point in the near future, we intend to archive it, and perhaps offer it in PDF format for anyone who wishes to review it. for now, it will remain locked and sticky'd in the general forum.