Quote from: Stuart*snip*

You know something, though this is used as an argument for saying no, I've never really run a game where that has happened. No one has ever demanded the absurd or not even really the impossible. They've always asked for stuff that was achievable, though maybe difficult to do so. Now it's just my experience, but if the example above is really the way some folks will act, then no isn't likely to be strenuous enough for them. It would be easier just to kick them out of the group.

JamesV, I don't know who you are, but you speak sense and the truth.

Seriously, everyone else, if you're really playing with people that are so slippery that the moment you loosen your firm GM reins, they're making up imaginary bombs for their imaginary characters to do whatever imaginary thing that is totally not fun for everyone else, theory or nothing else will help you. You're already screwed.

I wake up happy every game day (Mondays) that I have a group of awesome individuals that care about making each other have the most fun possible.

Clinton, that's just unnatural.

Happiness on mondays is just wrong.

Quote from: Stuart*Fuck*

Awesome, man.

QuoteNow it's just my experience, but if the example above is really the way some folks will act, then no isn't likely to be strenuous enough for them. It would be easier just to kick them out of the group.

DM: Get the hell out. Don't bother coming back you worthless piece of garbage.
Player: What? We've been friends since the 6th grade!
DM: You are dead to me...

---------------------------------

Kidding aside, there are all sorts of people in the world and some of those people will act differently from the ones you game with.  If people think it's an RPG -- with RPG type goals -- some will try and "win" the game in the same way they "win" other RPGs.  Being rewarded with widgets and treasure.  If the game says they can narrate what happens to their own character... it's pretty easy to imagine what they might do.

If you state very clearly that it's not a roleplaying game in the traditional sense, but rather a storytelling game and you "win" by working with the other players to tell a really cool story, and your own character is secondary to the overall story... I doubt you'll find the situation outlined above.  I doubt players of Once Upon a Time run into that sort of probem (although there are ways that game is easily disrupted as well).

Quote from: StuartI doubt players of Once Upon a Time run into that sort of probem (although there are ways that game is easily disrupted as well).

Totally the case.

Among my friends, Once Upon A Time stories sometimes get really crude and ribald.  This makes for much fun, but occasionally annoys someone if they were trying to play seriously.

No, I can't explain this.

Well, there is that ending "And it fit perfectly".  But we don't talk about that.

Much.

Quote from: blakkieYes, pointless given that the Landmarks are a hobbled together collection of logic fallacies. For example this above is a classic argumentum ad populum, but even the premise of majority preference required more to get there. :pundit:

Except an "argumentum ad populum" isn't in ANY way stupid if you are talking about what is "best" for the "Populum" in question.

If you're trying to create a supposedly universal set of theories about gaming, you can't start that theory by pissing on the position of the vast majority of gamers, arguing that they are playing wrong and either so stupid that they don't know it or are willingly pretending not to know it.

The idea in this Forum at least is to create theory and RPGs that actually serve the majority, instead of playing little elitist circle-jerks.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonJamesV, I don't know who you are, but you speak sense and the truth.

Seriously, everyone else, if you're really playing with people that are so slippery that the moment you loosen your firm GM reins, they're making up imaginary bombs for their imaginary characters to do whatever imaginary thing that is totally not fun for everyone else, theory or nothing else will help you. You're already screwed.

I wake up happy every game day (Mondays) that I have a group of awesome individuals that care about making each other have the most fun possible.

Except its not usually a question of such extreme things. Its more like the "death of a thousand cuts".

Its more like players asking for a bunch of little things, that they think they really want, because then they'll be COOL if they  have these things. The "things" in question could be items, powers, skills, or could be protagonism and "screen time"; it could be the desire that "more" of the plots of the game focus on them or interest them. They could feel that these requests are perfectly reasonable.
So do every other player.
In the end, the result is a game that quickly spirals out of control, as surely as if they had the atom bomb or the +10 sword.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept an "argumentum ad populum" isn't in ANY way stupid if you are talking about what is "best" for the "Populum" in question.

During the black plague it was initially widely thought that it was largely transmitted by dogs and cats. There were city mayors that ordered total extermination of the dogs and cats based on this belief. Unfortunately it was in truth the fleas primarily carried on rats that was the major vector. Thus action based on the popular belief accelerated the spread of the plague. A widely held belief that was based on shallow observations and false assumptions.

Argumentum ad populum in action.

QuoteThe idea in this Forum at least is to create theory and RPGs that actually serve the majority, instead of playing little elitist circle-jerks.

Then why are you purposely closing your eyes things that have been shown to work in practice?    With real people. People that had previously and even continue to play D&D? People that can play the games one way or another. People that actually [EDIT:change the rules to] play D&D differently than built?

Because believe it or not there are a good number of people that buy D&D books and play D&D that really take issue with a number of the things in it. A large number of things.


P.S.  So no comment on the rest of my post trying to explain 'say yes or roll' in terms of games like D&D?

Quote from: StuartPlayer: Okay. Then, I want a +10 sword. I take it off the dead guy we killed.
GM: What the FUCK?! What the FUCK is wrong with you?!!?!
Player: Uh, dude -- you need to chill out.
GM: Fuck Chad, FUCK -- you need to start playing the FUCKING GAME!
Player: Well you said we could say what our charcter --
GM: FUCK!?>!@!!!  It has to be part of THIS GAME! Not some OTHER GAME!! FUCK!!?!
Player: Ok, ok -- he finds a +5 sword.
GM: HOLY FUCKING FUCK CHAD!!@!!!@! Are you kidding me?  What the FUCK kind of game are you playing???
Player: +4?
GM: Chad...
Player: 3?
GM: I swear to god Chad...
Player: What?! What do you want me to say??!?!
GM: Do you really think you'd find a magic sword in an empty room?  Think Chad, THINK!
Player: Um, ok, ok -- he, uh, he finds... nothing?
GM: and...?
Player: And he...uh... he thinks about his feelings?
GM: Okay good.  See -- that wasn't so hard, and you'll feel more empowered because I didn't say no to your suggestion.
Player: Yeah, that's really awesome. wow - is it that time already?  Jeez, I better get going...

That's a pretty poor handling of it by the GM. Under any system.

Also remember that up front Chad had a very real part in and accepted the basic design of the setting. This setting was not thrust upon him in an arbitrary manner.  Pride of ownership is a powerful motivating force.

But to clear something up, sure they might find something rare to the setting on the guy. But when they pick up one end of the stick they pick up the other.  Why is there, in the context of the setting, this rare sword on this body? Who did they just kill? Who's going to want that sword from them? What lengths will they go to to obtain it?

So the GM presents that choice to them, find the sword and deal with the conciquences. If the player(s) want to turn the heat up with that kind of challenge then I say GAME ON!  Damn I love to see that. Not in a sadistic way. But in a 'hero born before me' way. This is making action happen.

Quote from: blakkieDuring the black plague it was initially widely thought that it was largely transmitted by dogs and cats. There were city mayors that ordered total extermination of the dogs and cats based on this belief. Unfortunately it was in truth the fleas primarily carried on rats that was the major vector. Thus action based on the popular belief accelerated the spread of the plague. A widely held belief that was based on shallow observations and false assumptions.

So basically, you're arguing that mainstream RPG players are ignorant rubes who don't know what is really good for them?

Yea, its a real fucking mystery why Forgeites are so resented...

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieYes, pointless given that the Landmarks are a hobbled together collection of logic fallacies. For example this above is a classic argumentum ad populum, but even the premise of majority preference required more to get there. :pundit:

The basis of economics is that people know their own preferences and are capable of choosing the option best for them.  If you knew fuck-all about the social sciences, or even exercised the smallest bit of common sense, you would realize why "just because people prefer it doesn't mean it's more fun" is such a moronic thing to say.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo basically, you're arguing that mainstream RPG players are ignorant rubes who don't know what is really good for them?

Nope. I'm, among other things, suggesting that I've personally witnessed that when given the side by side choice I've seen more players than not show a preference towards 'empowerment' and the results have been solidly positive. This includes long time D&D players.  Now this isn't all gamers, and there are situations where it will work better than others.  Such as longer term gaming groups.

It also is going to work poorly with the what you call lawncrappers.  The socially challenged beyond your personal preference to tolerate. The people that I might go so far as to recommend not gaming with.


P.S.  I'm also suggesting you seem to be ignoring the actual meat of the topic and instead are focusing on red-word arguments.   EDIT Oh, and I happen to be a....what would you call it....RPGsiter? At least defined by where I post.  Welcome to your clientelel!  

Quote from: hgjsThe basis of economics is that people know their own preferences and are capable of choosing the option best for them.  If you knew fuck-all about the social sciences, or even exercised the smallest bit of common sense, you would realize why "just because people prefer it doesn't mean it's more fun" is such a moronic thing to say.

You are assuming a number of things, such as equal market exposure for customers to have had time to settle thing out.  Which simply isn't the case.  But "it's popular" isn't the only part of where his logic breaks down.

EDIT There is the small matter of the assumption of each individual feature in the product being a positive influence on the customer purchasing the whole of the product.

Also as has been shown earlier in the thread the concept of 'say yes or roll dice' isn't actually new nor particularly alien to D&D tables.


Anyway, I think that's enough of RPGPundit's obstification tactics for me. Thanks, and take care.

Quote from: blakkieNope. I'm, among other things, suggesting that I've personally witnessed that when given the side by side choice I've seen more players than not show a preference towards 'empowerment' and the results have been solidly positive. This includes long time D&D players.

So you're clinging to basic snobbery, then? "To know my tastes is to love them?" Those poor saps are only doing what they're doing because they haven't tried your (right) way yet?

Anybody else smell bacon...?