TheRPGSite

In another thread, Erik said this:

Quote from: Erik BoielleSandy Petersen has said that Call of Cthulhu was the work of a talented amature. If he did it these days it would be different, more focused, more polished and people probably wouldn't love it as much.

I hadn't heard this before, but its brilliant and no doubt true.

It led me to consider that in reality, one of the primary errors in game design is trying to focus, as first priority, on creating a game that will be "well designed", "focused" etc. rather than making priority one having a game that will appeal to players.

Often game designers get so overzealous about creating a game that they can't see their head for their asses as far as whether what they design will be truly appealing and broadly functional or not.  The "perfect system" is not necessarily the best system for actual play.

This is, of course, aggravated by design philosophies that hold narrowcast highly-specialized highly-focused microgames are the best possible way to get to the "Perfect Game".

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIn another thread, Erik said this:



I hadn't heard this before, but its brilliant and no doubt true.

It led me to consider that in reality, one of the primary errors in game design is trying to focus, as first priority, on creating a game that will be "well designed", "focused" etc. rather than making priority one having a game that will appeal to players.

Often game designers get so overzealous about creating a game that they can't see their head for their asses as far as whether what they design will be truly appealing and broadly functional or not.  The "perfect system" is not necessarily the best system for actual play.

This is, of course, aggravated by design philosophies that hold narrowcast highly-specialized highly-focused microgames are the best possible way to get to the "Perfect Game".

RPGpundit

Agreed. D&D, as written, is a wide-open game in terms of what the world and action will be. This is true of, and I say this without hyperbole, literally every single big-selling game ever made except for some of White Wolf's stuff, and WW fans are infamous for disregarding the mandated mode of play anyway.

The hobby has spoken when it comes to the amount of "focus" they want in their games. It's spoken by insuring that nothing else has sold enough to buy its designers a hot lunch at any restaurant that doesn't boast a $0.99 value menu. :)

I think there is some truth to this but it is also somewhat misleading. A focused game is not necessarily bad.  For instance, I would say humor games do well as focused games. It lets the joke get through. The trick is to have a general framework that allows you to carry new jokes to the game or allow the GM to tell jokes that are funny to the players.

The truth of this seems to be not the wrong priorities but taking those to extremes. It can be very easy to get wrapped up in the latest mechanic you are working on but play testers will often set you straight. Personally, that is the litmus for me, what do play testers think. Games that get little or no play before they are published tend to show (alternatively, if play testers are ignored).

With that understanding, I always design with adventure hooks, player concepts and interesting venues in mind. System is there to serve those functions and enable play. If your system does not do this then you need to look at your fundamental design.

Just my take on it is all,
Bill

Quote from: YamoAgreed. D&D, as written, is a wide-open game in terms of what the world and action will be. This is true of, and I say this without hyperbole, literally every single big-selling game ever made except for some of White Wolf's stuff, and WW fans are infamous for disregarding the mandated mode of play anyway.

To be fair, though, Call of Cthulhu isn't as wide open as many other games. The assumed mode of play is the investigative model, and by far the majority of published adventures (and homebrewed games that I've seen) follow that model. Call of Cthulhu succeeds in consistently promoting focused play that even old-school grognards enjoy without having an even slightly focused system.

I think this returns to the game-toolkit vs. finished game discussion.  Many people like the toolkit, because they can use it to build the perfect game for their group.  Others like the finished game because they have to invest less effort before enjoying playing the game.

Quote from: StuartI think this returns to the game-toolkit vs. finished game discussion.  Many people like the toolkit, because they can use it to build the perfect game for their group.  Others like the finished game because they have to invest less effort before enjoying playing the game.

In my experience most players like a finished game, so they can create characters and know what they are capable of doing.  Many GMs want games where they can tinker with the system.  Thus most successful games have rock solid chargen and functional combat/skill resolution/conflict resolution but fuzzier bits elsewhere that the GM can fine tune.

I always figure my job is to set the framework and provide inspiration, while the GM and/or playgroup sets the details. If I go into detail with anything beyond chargen, I always make it optional.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI always figure my job is to set the framework and provide inspiration, while the GM and/or playgroup sets the details. If I go into detail with anything beyond chargen, I always make it optional.

Well, but everything in a paper-and-pen RPG is optional.  There are plenty of games with different options for chargen, different settings, and so forth.  On the other hand, there are published modules which do provide detail.  

I could equally point out that the only successful RPGs are ones which have provided detail in the form of detailed settings, modules, and so forth.  (Though I think that arguing from successful RPGs of the past is extrapolating from a vanishingly small set, and it's an error in itself.)

Quote from: WarthurTo be fair, though, Call of Cthulhu isn't as wide open as many other games. The assumed mode of play is the investigative model, and by far the majority of published adventures (and homebrewed games that I've seen) follow that model. Call of Cthulhu succeeds in consistently promoting focused play that even old-school grognards enjoy without having an even slightly focused system.

But that's the point. It does this WITHOUT having a system that does anything whatsoever to encourage "investigation".  

If Peterson had wanted to, he could have created a system that was much more narrow-focused. You could easily make a Forge-style game that would only have mechanics dealing with "investigation", that wouldn't have all of the supposedly "incoherent" play that CoC has.
And like most Forge games, it would suck ass and no one outside of the Swine would play it.

My point is that the very things that Forgeites say make for bad games are actually part of what makes games appealing to people, because "Focused game design", which seems to be their holy grail, is in fact the OPPOSITE of what normal roleplayers want.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceI always figure my job is to set the framework and provide inspiration, while the GM and/or playgroup sets the details. If I go into detail with anything beyond chargen, I always make it optional.

-clash

And this, sir, is why you absolutely ROCK as an RPG designer.

Because you know where your job ends and where the GM's begins. You make sure you do your job excellently, and let the GM do his.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim(Though I think that arguing from successful RPGs of the past is extrapolating from a vanishingly small set, and it's an error in itself.)

That "small set" is certainly much less small than, say, "Forge games which have been as successful".  That one would be a set of ZERO.

So I will take our experience over your theories which have never proven any success, any day.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat "small set" is certainly much less small than, say, "Forge games which have been as successful".  That one would be a set of ZERO.

So I will take our experience over your theories which have never proven any success, any day.

And I will take both experience and theories, since they go well together.  More on this on a new thread:

The Error of Tradition-Based Game Design (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3252)

Quote from: WarthurTo be fair, though, Call of Cthulhu isn't as wide open as many other games. The assumed mode of play is the investigative model, and by far the majority of published adventures (and homebrewed games that I've seen) follow that model. Call of Cthulhu succeeds in consistently promoting focused play that even old-school grognards enjoy without having an even slightly focused system.

Well, what he wanted was a horror movie experience in which every adventure left one third of the characters dead and another third insane. Set in the modern day.

Which isn't really what people love about Call of Cthulhu. The big epic campaigns, the tommy guns, the tomes of arcane law, the funky insanities, the 1920's feel, the apparent depth of research etc. (and thats what I like - others loves may vary)

I'm not entirely sure what the moral is, except that CoC really is a classic and that when it comes down to it you just need to throw ideas at people and see which ones stick. Or something.

Quote from: jhkimWell, but everything in a paper-and-pen RPG is optional.  There are plenty of games with different options for chargen, different settings, and so forth. On the other hand, there are published modules which do provide detail.  

Indeed, but there are different levels of "optional." Some people - a surprisingly large number - are afraid to "break canon," as if the RPG Police would come knocking in the middle of the night. I try to label things as "Optional" which can be easily ignored, if desired, without any house-ruling or system hacking. As far as supplements go, I consider all supplements by definition optional. If it was necessary, it would/should be in the main book. I have several times folded supplements into a revision of the main book because I realized they were necessary, and not optional. This was to my financial loss, but it made the game better.

Quote from: jhkimI could equally point out that the only successful RPGs are ones which have provided detail in the form of detailed settings, modules, and so forth.  (Though I think that arguing from successful RPGs of the past is extrapolating from a vanishingly small set, and it's an error in itself.)

As I said, the detail is optional, and is available in the optional supplements. If you want to know how everything works on a StarCluster Starship, you can pick up the "Starship Construction and Engineer's Guide," which can tell you how waste is handled by the ship's plumbing. You don't need that level of detail to play the game, though. It plays just fine without it. Similarly, you get a stat block description of the Shore system and the world Far Shore in the main book, which can give you the basics on the bodies in that system. You can also get the "Far Shore Planetary Supplement," which gives you the whole setting in 64 pages, with maps, history, people, and native tech. Your choice.  

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd this, sir, is why you absolutely ROCK as an RPG designer.

Because you know where your job ends and where the GM's begins. You make sure you do your job excellently, and let the GM do his.

RPGPundit

Thanks, Pundit! I don't want to tell the GM how to run a game any more than I'd appreciate being railroaded as a GM by some game designer. I like getting my PCs into sticky social and political situations, but that's not all I want to do in the game, and someone else might not like it at all. I was a GM long before I was a designer.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you want to know how everything works on a StarCluster Starship, you can pick up the "Starship Construction and Engineer's Guide," which can tell you how waste is handled by the ship's plumbing. You don't need that level of detail to play the game, though. It plays just fine without it.

See, I have a horrible time trying to do books like that. To me, they are just not important enough. I have it all worked out but I just cannot bring myself to write a book with pages on "A guide to waste reclamation and you: where not to touch". It is an interesting footnote and as a GM I have used such material (ala jumping down the waste chute to escape the inept soldiers) but it has little adventure appeal in and of itself. For me, I am always looking at it as a means to an adventure hook so I need to be able to see the part of the waste reclamation system as more than a means to sneak around the ship. Engine details can be useful as they can be a means of wealth or a plot goal. The engine crystal is damaged and they only grow on Xylos. Party is going to Xylos.

Not to sy you are doing that Clash, just that what you said there sparked that thought.

BTW- If you ever are interested in writing a book on starships or tech for Nebuleon let me know. ;)

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I have a horrible time trying to do books like that. To me, they are just not important enough. I have it all worked out but I just cannot bring myself to write a book with pages on "A guide to waste reclamation and you: where not to touch". It is an interesting footnote and as a GM I have used such material (ala jumping down the waste chute to escape the inept soldiers) but it has little adventure appeal in and of itself. For me, I am always looking at it as a means to an adventure hook so I need to be able to see the part of the waste reclamation system as more than a means to sneak around the ship. Engine details can be useful as they can be a means of wealth or a plot goal. The engine crystal is damaged and they only grow on Xylos. Party is going to Xylos.

Not to sy you are doing that Clash, just that what you said there sparked that thought.

BTW- If you ever are interested in writing a book on starships or tech for Nebuleon let me know. ;)

Bill

When I get my ridicuously ambitious publishing plans in hand, I'd love to. :D

BTW, I worked for years for my father, who was an engineer, designing and drafting mechanical systems and machinery. This kind of stuff fascinates me, but I fully realize most folks like to turn on the engine and go. Albert and I designed the StarCluster tech so that it would be self-consistent and logical, even though we intended to bury it under layers of abstraction. It was fun, and satisfied our inner wonk, and gave us a firm base of tech to exploit for game purposes. Plus it's just elegant. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThanks, Pundit! I don't want to tell the GM how to run a game any more than I'd appreciate being railroaded as a GM by some game designer. I like getting my PCs into sticky social and political situations, but that's not all I want to do in the game, and someone else might not like it at all. I was a GM long before I was a designer.

-clash

While I believe you are worthy of praise, the point in all this wasn't just to suck up to you; it was also because your games have all made a significant choice that makes them much more playable than microgames.  

In Cold Space, I can run "Platoon" (in space or on earth), "James Bond" (in space or on earth), "Traveller", even "The Mission" (with the hominid race being exploited by evil colonists) if I wanted to, plus countless other games.

I don't see the point of having a game where the game designer's whims, and his desire to force people to play only the game he wants, means I can only do one thing with a game.  What is there to gain in that? The choice of the campaign is something for the gaming group to make, and not the game designer; and a GOOD RPG is one that provides a broad spectrum of possible playstyles.

This is what I dislike so very much about the Forge's microgames, and why I'm so very disappointed that Black Industries has chosen to follow this monumentally stupid model with Warhammer 40k; just so that they can have more control over what I play, and so that they can try to sell me three games instead of just one. That's a sucker's game, and I won't accept it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't see the point of having a game where the game designer's whims, and his desire to force people to play only the game he wants, means I can only do one thing with a game.  What is there to gain in that? The choice of the campaign is something for the gaming group to make, and not the game designer; and a GOOD RPG is one that provides a broad spectrum of possible playstyles.  This is what I dislike so very much about the Forge's microgames,

The idea of having a focus for your game is not some new-fangled Forge idea.  Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Paranoia, Toon, and lots of other games all including not just a setting but a model for adventure.  

Now, the game mechanics for Call of Cthulhu can and were adapted to many other uses, but CoC never sold itself on being a broad game.  The same goes for Paranoia.  

I don't think it's a bad model.  Small press in particular can't support a dozen different setting and genre lines for a rules system -- so it makes sense to pick one and support that, rather than piss-poor support on a bunch of ones.

Incidentally, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu and WFRP suffer a bit from pigeon holing.

CoC is the game where you all go mad or get eaten, Paranoia you get through six clones in ten minutes, WFRP you get beaten up in dark alleys etc.

And these pigeon holes don't entirely line up with how people actually play the games, or why people like them.

Frex, find the guy who does Paranoia these days and tell him his game is so cool, what with the computer is your friend and killing each other in the first ten minutes. He will either kill himself or patiently try to explain that there are more things you can do than that. 'Zap' paranoia is just one possibility etc. etc.

Frex, Luke Crayne of Burning Wheel played paranoia as his first game - he played it as straight future spy stuff.

Quote from: jhkimThe idea of having a focus for your game is not some new-fangled Forge idea.  Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Paranoia, Toon, and lots of other games all including not just a setting but a model for adventure.  

Focus is one thing, narrowness is another.

IHW is a very focused game, its a game of napoleonic naval adventures. There's no question that would be "focused" in most people's books.  But the number of different forms of play you can have with it are legion.

CoC is a game of Lovecraftian horror, but its nothing like what the Forge would come up with as a horror game, and you can do tons of different things with it.

Let's not be silly here; we all know what we mean: there's a world of difference between "a game about the Cold War in space" or "A game where you play anthropomorphic reptilian ninjas", and "a game that tells the same mountain folktale every time", or "a game where you are mormon gunslingers that go to a town and resolve a problem with that town that must originate from an act of sin from one of the townspeople".  Its like saying that the ranges of 1-1000000 and 1-3 are both "focused". You'll have to do better than that.

QuoteThe same goes for Paranoia.  

Paranoia is a comedy game, and thus something of a special case.  That said, even it is considerably less focused than most Forge games.

QuoteSmall press in particular can't support a dozen different setting and genre lines for a rules system -- so it makes sense to pick one and support that, rather than piss-poor support on a bunch of ones.

I don't see why.  Clash Bowley's games, at least, would seem to tell the lie to that.
Likewise, I would think that there would be far more appeal in making a game that offers (in one book) the opportunity to run 4 or 5 different styles of game (like IHW or Cold Space do), and that you can run as CAMPAIGNS, than to offer 1 single very focused narrow game, that you can only really run for a few sessions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceWhen I get my ridicuously ambitious publishing plans in hand, I'd love to. :D

BTW, I worked for years for my father, who was an engineer, designing and drafting mechanical systems and machinery. This kind of stuff fascinates me, but I fully realize most folks like to turn on the engine and go. Albert and I designed the StarCluster tech so that it would be self-consistent and logical, even though we intended to bury it under layers of abstraction. It was fun, and satisfied our inner wonk, and gave us a firm base of tech to exploit for game purposes. Plus it's just elegant. :D

-clash

Oh, don't get me wrong Clash, planning out the intricacies of a setting are vital, IMO, but translating it to a book needs to be thought out. Sometimes it works. For whatever reason folks love equipment guides. I am truly horrible at writing such books. There is a level that such minutiae just goes too far though.

Bill

The problem here is not with games that are focused, the problem is with games that are constrained. Years ago one Lisa Padol ran an epic CoC campaign she called "Cthulhupunk" (pre GURPS Cthulhupunk, which it "inspired") in which she used elements of a number of CoC adventures. The adventures occured around the world, featured recurring villains, and had unexpected turns of event. As one player noted when a particularly nasty villainess actually fell victim to our hero's latest assassination attempt, "Sometimes a plan actually works."

What made it a success, and the write ups a popular feature of 90's era Alarums and Excursions was the fact Lisa let her game go in directions others may not have allowed. She was willing to let her players have their lead and adapted to their initiative. Her Cthulhupunk had a focus, but she did not constrain what people could do to fit a vision.

By all means have a focus. But don't make people do as you wish. Let them have their lead, and adapt your vision to what they are doing.

Quote from: RPGPunditLet's not be silly here; we all know what we mean: there's a world of difference between "a game about the Cold War in space" or "A game where you play anthropomorphic reptilian ninjas", and "a game that tells the same mountain folktale every time", or "a game where you are mormon gunslingers that go to a town and resolve a problem with that town that must originate from an act of sin from one of the townspeople".  Its like saying that the ranges of 1-1000000 and 1-3 are both "focused". You'll have to do better than that.

Look, I'm tired of fucking bullshit substitution.  If you're going to argue me, you have to actually address what I say.  Did I say that Cold Space was a focused game?  No.  Did I say that TMNT was a focused game?  No.  

So, again, using my actual examples:  "a game where you play commie mutant traitorous troubleshooters who are sent on an impossible mission by an insane computer".  Yeah, I'd say that's comparable to Dogs in the Vineyard.  Similarly, James Bond 007 has a well-worn formula of being given a mission, decked out with gadgets from Q, and going to stop a villain from a nefarious plot.  A number of superhero games equally have a narrow focus on fighting supervillains in powered slugfests (like 1ed Champions, say).  

Now, can the JB007 mechanics be used for a wider variety of games?  Yes, certainly.  However, if you allow that, however, you have to allow that Dogs in the Vineyard is not limited to Mormon gunslingers resolving a town's problems.  People use DitV to play wandering vikings, investigators of Lovecraftian horror, Jedi knights, and more.  For example, last year at AmberCon NorthWest, I played in a DitV game where we played Amberites fighting off the moon riders of Ghanesh.  

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, I would think that there would be far more appeal in making a game that offers (in one book) the opportunity to run 4 or 5 different styles of game (like IHW or Cold Space do), and that you can run as CAMPAIGNS, than to offer 1 single very focused narrow game, that you can only really run for a few sessions.

I think you're applying a double standard here.  You're saying that the first GM can be inventive and come up with wildly different creative campaign and adventure ideas based on a paragraph or two -- but the second GM is hidebound and totally uncreative and won't come up with anything except exactly what is laid out for him step by step in the core book.  

It doesn't strike me as a reasonable comparison of the game systems.  By your logic, the less a game provides, the more "freedom" it gives to the GM -- who naturally would want the "freedom" of not having any fucking material to use.  

Now, admittedly, I think there are some sticklers like this -- who wouldn't dream of changing a rule or the setting or breaking from scenario creation unless it was labelled "Optional".  However, first of all, they're morons.  Second, you can just lean over with a pen and write "Optional" all over their book.

Quote from: jhkimI think you're applying a double standard here.  You're saying that the first GM can be inventive and come up with wildly different creative campaign and adventure ideas based on a paragraph or two -- but the second GM is hidebound and totally uncreative and won't come up with anything except exactly what is laid out for him step by step in the core book.  

It doesn't strike me as a reasonable comparison of the game systems.  By your logic, the less a game provides, the more "freedom" it gives to the GM -- who naturally would want the "freedom" of not having any fucking material to use.  

Now, admittedly, I think there are some sticklers like this -- who wouldn't dream of changing a rule or the setting or breaking from scenario creation unless it was labelled "Optional".  However, first of all, they're morons.  Second, you can just lean over with a pen and write "Optional" all over their book.

You certainly have a point, but that said the way a game defines itself determines not just how much room there is within the boundaries of the rules, but also how far you can stretch beyond that and not end up with an unplayable mess.

So I'm not applying the double standard you suggest at all; because what I'm saying is the "first GM" (the one GMing Cold Space) doesn't have to go beyond the boundaries of what was set out for him because the multiple options are built right into the game, whereas the second (the one doing DiTV) can only afford to make small variations and is not able to vary the overall "thematic" of the game at all, because the game is designed to be so "tight" and with system so tied to setting that any major changes would result in practically having to design a new game!

And my logic is not "the less a game provides the more freedom it gives", it is "be rich on options, instead of constraining on options".  
Cold Space is certainly chalk full of "providing" for setting, but it keeps the options open.

Why? Because its blatantly obvious that Clash doesn't care how you play his game.

Whereas Dogs in the Vinyard doesn't provide much for setting, and even less for options. Why? Because its blatantly obvious that Vince Baker wants you to play it the way HE wants it played.

Yes, you can substitute "mormon lawmen" for "Jedi Lawmen" or "Amberite Lawmen", but you can't really:
1. Explore the setting as written in any other way.
2. Diverge from the formula of "x (be they jedi or lawdogs or whatever) goes into a town (or equivalent) to resolve a problem in said place".

Likewise I know that people have played "My Life with Master" substituting "master" for someone else, but that's really not the kind of "Options" we're talking about here.

No matter what, they're still constraining you to a single style of play.  This makes the games less useful to everyone except the game designer; who gets to impose their vision and gets to sell you the NEXT microgame once you've gotten bored of this one after three of four sessions.

Its lazy, and a little sleazy, and I don't like it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo matter what, they're still constraining you to a single style of play. This makes the games less useful to everyone except the game designer; who gets to impose their vision and gets to sell you the NEXT microgame once you've gotten bored of this one after three of four sessions.

Its lazy, and a little sleazy, and I don't like it.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning at all.  Here's why:

Dogs in the Vineyard:  $14 PDF / $22 Print

WotC books at about $50(?) each:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Player's Handbook II
Dungeon Master's Guide II
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Fiend Folio
Psionics Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Arcane
Complete Adventurer
Complete Psionic
Savage Species: Playing Monstrous Characters
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Races of Destiny
Races of Eberron
Races of the Dragon
Arms and Equipment Guide
Weapons of Legacy
Epic Level Handbook
Planar Handbook
Tome of Magic
Magic of Incarnum
Spell Compendium
Manual of the Planes
Unearthed Arcana
Deities and Demigods
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow
Sandstorm: Mastering the Perils of Fire and Sand
Stormwrack: Mastering the Perils of Wind and Wave
Heroes of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead
Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations

Whether or not a game like DitV is your thing, I don't think it's fair to accuse the designer of being sleazy... that goes too far.

Hmm, from a pure economical perspective an independent publisher should either make lots of different games for different market niches (as to maximize his total market) or get a small niche and make lots of products for the same customers.

Currently the trend goes towards lots of small games with not much support. Most authors seem to make this lack of support an integral part of the game.

I don't agree that this has to be neccesarily so.

Quote from: SosthenesHmm, from a pure economical perspective an independent publisher should either make lots of different games for different market niches (as to maximize his total market) or get a small niche and make lots of products for the same customers.

Currently the trend goes towards lots of small games with not much support. Most authors seem to make this lack of support an integral part of the game.

I don't agree that this has to be neccesarily so.

Indeed. I have a large number of games with a lot of support - at least for a Small Press outfit. I used paradigm #1, but many Small Press use paradigm #2. Not surprisingly, the more traditional Small Press outfits - ourselves, Hinterwelt, PiG, etc. - all follow paradigm #2.

-clash

Quote from: StuartI don't agree with this line of reasoning at all.  Here's why:

Dogs in the Vineyard:  $14 PDF / $22 Print

WotC books at about $50(?) each:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Player's Handbook II
Dungeon Master's Guide II
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Fiend Folio
Psionics Handbook
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Arcane
Complete Adventurer
Complete Psionic
Savage Species: Playing Monstrous Characters
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Races of Destiny
Races of Eberron
Races of the Dragon
Arms and Equipment Guide
Weapons of Legacy
Epic Level Handbook
Planar Handbook
Tome of Magic
Magic of Incarnum
Spell Compendium
Manual of the Planes
Unearthed Arcana
Deities and Demigods
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow
Sandstorm: Mastering the Perils of Fire and Sand
Stormwrack: Mastering the Perils of Wind and Wave
Heroes of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss
Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead
Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations

Whether or not a game like DitV is your thing, I don't think it's fair to accuse the designer of being sleazy... that goes too far.

First, unless there's some really serious inflation going on in your neck of the woods, its $30, not $50. Second, those books are usable over and over again in different ways for years. Particularly the corebooks have a huge cost-to-use ratio.

Whereas with a Forge game, you might only be paying a bit over half as much, but your use of the game is much more restricted.  Unless you seriously believe that you'd NEVER get tired of playing Igor or variants thereof, the actual cost-for-use of something like D&D is miniscule compared to the cost-for-use of My Life With Master (even assuming that you would in theory WANT to play each one, obviously someone with NO interest in D&D will get no cost-for-use out of it, ditto with MLWM; but I'm talking here about people WITH interest, the payout for interest with D&D over time is much higher than the payout for interest with MLWM, unless you're really obsessive about the very specific "theme" of MLWM).

RPGpundit

You also don't need any of those books to run a game. In fact, any game which allowed them all willy-nilly could get silly quickly.

Chapters.ca lists Monster Manual 3 at:
List Price:$51.95
Our Price:$34.28

I'm not saying the WotC books aren't worth what they're charging... I'm saying that calling something like Dogs in the Vineyard sleazy is going too far.

Ah, $51 Canadian. MSRP is only $34.95 American.

Quote from: RPGPunditFirst, unless there's some really serious inflation going on in your neck of the woods, its $30, not $50.

Oh... so a mere $1200 of merchandise for sale, rather than $2000.  Certainly, that makes the $22 price-tag of the entire DitV system look much sleazier by comparison.

Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, those books are usable over and over again in different ways for years. Particularly the corebooks have a huge cost-to-use ratio.

Only if you like sword and sorcery type fantasy.  Once you've played a few games of that, and it gets boring for you, there's basically nothing you can do except shell out more money for some other game.

Of course, I don't personally find sword and sorcery palls after a few sessions.  But then, I don't find that morally charged westerns pall after a few sessions either.  I get lots of use out of D&D and I get lots of use out of DitV, so we're clearly in a "Your mileage will vary" situation.

You don't find much material to interest you in judgmental westerns?  Fair enough.  But when you claim that there isn't much material there, you're simply wrong.  Just because it's not your thing doesn't mean it's nothing.

Y'know... skipping the entire list of D&D books and Canadian dollar values, this last page (30 posts per on mine...) has got me going...


heart of the game, heart of the motherfucking game....


Nobody listens to me. :rolleyes:


Give the players (GM included) solid character creation and a good, generally useful system to use and every thing else is gravy on top.  Seems like many of these forge games miss that, and try to make the game about the gravy.


Am I gonna have to go all thread necromantic on your ass?:eek:

Quote from: RPGPunditWhereas with a Forge game, you might only be paying a bit over half as much, but your use of the game is much more restricted.  Unless you seriously believe that you'd NEVER get tired of playing Igor or variants thereof, the actual cost-for-use of something like D&D is miniscule compared to the cost-for-use of My Life With Master (even assuming that you would in theory WANT to play each one, obviously someone with NO interest in D&D will get no cost-for-use out of it, ditto with MLWM; but I'm talking here about people WITH interest, the payout for interest with D&D over time is much higher than the payout for interest with MLWM, unless you're really obsessive about the very specific "theme" of MLWM).

OK, I'll buy My Life With Master or as a better example The Shab-al-Hiri Roach as scenario-like games.  They have a short-term structure built into the mechanics.  However, if you want to make an economic argument, they are around the cost of a published scenario, and they are easily replayable a number of times.  (I've played the Roach three times, and found it fresh each time -- admittedly with long breaks between.)  

More importantly, that isn't the standard for Forge games.  

Games like Primetime Adventures, Universalis, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and Dogs in the Vineyard aren't like that.  They have a generalized mechanics which can be used to play many different scenarios.  Some may be narrower than D&D or True20, but as you mention they are less than half the cost (particularly for a complete set of core books).  

For example, picking DitV...  Yes, it has a standard structure for scenarios: much like a mission in Paranoia or James Bond 007.  However, that's not built into the mechanics -- that's just the suggested way to make scenarios.  You can easily have scenarios which don't follow this, if you just use a little (gasp) imagination.  You know, like what a True20 GM uses when he makes up scenarios.

Quote from: jhkimFor example, picking DitV...  Yes, it has a standard structure for scenarios: much like a mission in Paranoia or James Bond 007.  However, that's not built into the mechanics -- that's just the suggested way to make scenarios.  You can easily have scenarios which don't follow this, if you just use a little (gasp) imagination.  You know, like what a True20 GM uses when he makes up scenarios.

Yeah, but forge dogma prevents development of scenarios for it. You can't talk about a book of sample towns, frex, because, yknow, Not Invented Here! Railroading! Boooo!!!!!!!!

Thus aptly demonstrating why forge dogma is bad for the development of roleplaying games.

(And is vastly entertaining because some Other forge games effectively ARE scenarios. So you can develop scenarios, just not scenarios for the games you already have!)

Quote from: Erik BoielleYeah, but forge dogma prevents development of scenarios for it. You can't talk about a book of sample towns, frex, because, yknow, Not Invented Here! Railroading! Boooo!!!!!!!!

Thus aptly demonstrating why forge dogma is bad for the development of roleplaying games.

Actually, plenty of people have posted towns for DitV on the web.  And I discussed having a book of sample towns on Story Games recently, and had some interesting talk on it.  There was one guy who said he didn't like the idea of a book of towns -- but there were others like me who said it would be interesting.  I think the one guy's objection was a somewhat knee-jerk reaction that it felt too much like having an "adventure module" which was part of the type of games he hated.  

So, I'm with you that there are some players who are hidebound and opposed to any changes in the game -- and that can be bad for play.  But Forge dogma doesn't prevent me from doing anything, because if it gets in the way I just ignore it.  The same applies to dogma that story games are evil swine creations which no one could have fun playing.  

You will equally find that there are some hidebound traditional RPG players.  I recall in particular that I ran a HERO System Star Trek game at a convention.  I explained to them that there weren't any damage stats for phasers -- that if you were hit by a phaser, you were automatically out.  Most of the players were fine with it, but one player was mortally offended and after arguing for a few minutes walked out.

Both John & Pundit are right in some ways, wrong in others.

Yes, the core mechanic of DitV can be used for other things besides "travelling judges moving from location to location". In fact I think it could work pretty well for a pulp adventure game or a noir potboiler.

But marketing a game on the basis of a nifty core mechanic is expressly against the design philosophy of the author of DitV. Vincent believes that "traditional" game design is faulty, because it doesn't provide a complete procedure for play. He (and others with a similar outlook) believe that scenario construction and GMing advice should be part of the rules, or considered as such.

So judged by its own goals and standards, DitV is a narrowly-focused microgame. James Bond, which it's being compared to, doesn't have the same explicit standards. Furthermore, one can argue that "Bondian adventure spy genre", while clearly limited thematically, is still broader than "travelling judges meting out justice". (Certainly it has a wider audience, even if the stories are repetitious.)

It's worth pointing out that saying "scenario construction and GMing advice should be part of the rules" doesn't mean a game would have to be as narrowly focused as DitV or other Forge games.

Quote from: Elliot WilenVincent believes that "traditional" game design is faulty, because it doesn't provide a complete procedure for play.

Yeah, but thats crap because the classics, like DnD, CoC, Vampire and Exalted have core stories. Especially DnD.

So why exactly do we have to put up with all the forge crap? Because you can make a good game out of the mechanics of Heroquest coupled with the good bits of design? Well NO SHIT SHIRLOCK - YOU SURE IS A GENIUS!

Erik;

Your response there doesn't seem to have anything to do with the part you're responding to.

Could you maybe clarify?

Erik's saying that each of these games has a "core story" that serves as a model for player expectations and GM prep. Of those mentioned the only one I know is D&D, where the "core story" is: hear about a dungeon, visit the dungeon, loot & kill, level up. (BTW, I first read the "core story" concept on Mike Mearls' livejournal.)

Sometimes in D&D & similar games, the "core story" is: get hired by some dude to deliver something or kill somebody, go off on your mission, do some fighting, level up.

The problem is that when the designers/players of these games (particularly the GM) get more ambitious and try to contextualize these isolated scenarios in a broader narrative, some of them end up railroading. Therefore the Forge hardcore, many of them recovering railroaders, believe that games need overarching rules governing social interactions.

Quote from: StuartChapters.ca lists Monster Manual 3 at:
List Price:$51.95
Our Price:$34.28

I'm not saying the WotC books aren't worth what they're charging... I'm saying that calling something like Dogs in the Vineyard sleazy is going too far.

I see. You were using Canadian dollars for the WoTC books.

Just out of curiosity, is the $22 price for DiTV Canadian dollars, or US dollars?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenErik's saying that each of these games has a "core story" that serves as a model for player expectations and GM prep. Of those mentioned the only one I know is D&D, where the "core story" is: hear about a dungeon, visit the dungeon, loot & kill, level up. (BTW, I first read the "core story" concept on Mike Mearls' livejournal.)

Okay, cool.

So, changing from a central vision that guides prep and play to a standard process of preparation and play feels confining?

Or, only when the game gives the vibe that "the standard process" is the right way?

Quote from: RPGPunditI see. You were using Canadian dollars for the WoTC books.

Just out of curiosity, is the $22 price for DiTV Canadian dollars, or US dollars?

Who cares. :)

It's not really very relevant to the point I was making -- that calling out DitV as "Sleazy" because they have a narrower scope game for $22 isn't reasonable when popular mainstream RPGs have many books of that price and higher as part of their game(s).

Quote from: StuartWho cares. :)

It's not really very relevant to the point I was making -- that calling out DitV as "Sleazy" because they have a narrower scope game for $22 isn't reasonable when popular mainstream RPGs have many books of that price and higher as part of their game(s).

I agree - I don't think there's any intent to soak the fans here, or at least no more so than trad games. I think it ties in more to design philosophy and adherence to tightly held beliefs.

-clash

Well, in part how can one say that traditional game do this what the real traditional core games DON'T.

It's silly. Certainly one gets crap like, sadly, Transhuman Space that just isn't really a game, but 90% of EVERYTHING is crap.

But a revolution based around what makes Vampire and DnD good? Bloody Hell!

Traveller! What you do in traveller is cruise around as middle aged ex military doing crime. A revolution based on recreating Traveller! Thats so old school it hurts!

ITS NOT MY FAULT YOUR GAMES SUCKED IN THE NINETIES, AND YOU ARE NOT A GENIUS FOR LEARNING HOW TO FUCKING PLAY!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, changing from a central vision that guides prep and play to a standard process of preparation and play feels confining?

Or, only when the game gives the vibe that "the standard process" is the right way?

Sorry, I've tried several times to reply but I need to do too much interpretation. I think I agree with your first sentence; no idea about the second.

Quote from: Erik BoielleCertainly one gets crap like, sadly, Transhuman Space that just isn't really a game...

And tangentially, could you point me to a more complete version of this opinion? Because I've heard so much good about ThS that I was almost ready to put it on my want list.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSorry, I've tried several times to reply but I need to do too much interpretation. I think I agree with your first sentence; no idea about the second.

Say I have a game.

It walks me through all the procedures of play, step-by-step, laying out in detail one (and only one) complete method of play.  This differs from many traditional games, which occasionally skip little bits that the authors thought should be bloody obvious.

Now, what's offensive?

That the game does this at all?

Or, that it seems to say (or, in some cases, implies quite strongly) that the one procedure that it has laid out is The Right Way To Play This Game?

Or both?  Or do they seem inseperable?

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd tangentially, could you point me to a more complete version of this opinion? Because I've heard so much good about ThS that I was almost ready to put it on my want list.

TS is The posterboy for roleplaying games that arn't. The material is really interesting, the spaceships are SO COOL and

But theres just no game in there. The setting is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make common roleplaying conceits impossible. The tech undermines a lot of traditional adventures, but it concentrates on describing tech instead of trying to figure out how to make it in to a game (frex, you can track every object in the solar system, meaning you can't sneak up on things, but theres no thought on what to do instead.

I do recomend it, but when a forgite is talking about roleplaying games for people to read instead of play, he isn't talking about DnD, he's talking about Transhuman Space.

TS just about single handedly rescued my interest in skiffy, but, like, so Not What To Do.

QuoteIt walks me through all the procedures of play, step-by-step, laying out in detail one (and only one) complete method of play. This differs from many traditional games, which occasionally skip little bits that the authors thought should be bloody obvious.

Now, what's offensive?

Incidentally, this is how most games that are not RPGs are presented...

Erik: Gotcha, thanks. (Great thread idea: figuring out how to use a given setting and/or how [not to] to design a setting for play.)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSay I have a game.

It walks me through all the procedures of play, step-by-step, laying out in detail one (and only one) complete method of play.  This differs from many traditional games, which occasionally skip little bits that the authors thought should be bloody obvious.

Now, what's offensive?

That the game does this at all?

Or, that it seems to say (or, in some cases, implies quite strongly) that the one procedure that it has laid out is The Right Way To Play This Game?

Or both?  Or do they seem inseperable?

Neither's offensive. I'm saying that people are wrong to criticize games for not doing those things. E.g.,

Quote from: Vincent at the Forgemany of us here, including me for certain, consider that to be a real problem, a real indictment, of conventional RPG design. Anybody can create some isolated resolution mechanics, slap on a setting, and say "here you go! You figure out what to do with them! If you have fun with them, good job, it's not my fault!" That's a pretty crap game.

As far as I'm concerned, a well-designed game forces me and my group to play in a way that a) is fun, but b) we wouldn't have come up with on our own. It makes us adopt a whole new set of general procedures, a whole new way to play.

You got into a related back & forth with him on his blog, when he wrote, "The fact that players seek out theory to better their play is a damning indictment of the current state of RPG design."

Then there's all the negativity over "toolbox games" ("Design what doesn't matter") as compared to games that are "ready to play out of the box" ("Design what matters"), as seen in some threads over at Story Games and elsewhere.

The "narrowly focused" philosophy is based on the idea that an RPG can and should be written in such a way that the participants don't have to rely on things outside the text (like, say, their own interests), and that there's no need for craft or socialization. At least it's marketed that way, and I think it's doubly wrong: craft & socialization (the sort of stuff that JimBob is often on about) are not only effective methods of achieving fun, they're key attractions of traditional RPGs. Reduce their role in games, and you're marketing to a different audience--in fact, one whose existence is pretty much speculative outside a small niche.

Those boys never played a decent "toolbox"-derived Traveller campaign.

"Pity the fools!", as Mr. T put it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe "narrowly focused" philosophy is based on the idea that an RPG can and should be written in such a way that the participants don't have to rely on things outside the text (like, say, their own interests), and that there's no need for craft or socialization.

I agree with that part of the philosophy.

The trick to me is that word, need.

I think should be able to plunk down a game, walk through it's stuff, and be able to play it straight up.

I also think that the game should also spur me to developing content of my own, set me to tinkering, and fit smoothly inside of a social atmosphere.

Maybe that's too much to ask for.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThen there's all the negativity over "toolbox games" ("Design what doesn't matter") as compared to games that are "ready to play out of the box" ("Design what matters"), as seen in some threads over at Story Games and elsewhere.

Yup, that's there.  And I argued over there on Story Games that toolkit design is valid and reasonable.  

But this thread started out with the opposite, which was that design which shows you a way to play (i.e. "focused design") is inherently a mistake.  

I think that both of these positions are dumb.  There is room for both kinds of products.  Some people may prefer one or the other, and some people may play both.  It doesn't matter.  But the claim that one is better than the other is just like a fight of fantasy versus sci-fi, or how diceless games are better than diced (or vice-versa), and so forth.

Levi: Yes, a game should offer a sort of "basic scenario"--a core story that gets you up and running. Thus: the dungeon. Or: the mission. Or a number of other options.

But once you're familiar with the mechanics and you've played through a few iterations of the core story, the game shouldn't discourage you from branching out. Unfortunately, the message I get from certain quarters is that a game that's designed to allow this process is wrong. Instead, once you leave the dungeon and start engaging in political intrigue, you should play a different game. A game which is political intrigue, every time.

(Note: I don't think this is typical of all Forge games. In fact if I didn't say so earlier, Burning Wheel is pretty obviously not of this ilk. On the other hand, it doesn't do a very good job of presenting a core story in the first place. I think this is a minor flaw, though.)

John: I think focused games are okay, although they necessarily limit the audience. What Pundit started the thread with, though, I think there's a good deal of truth to it. The problem is that two points are being argued that aren't really in conflict. It's probably true that unfocused designs will dominate actual play for the foreseeable future--even if the bulk of that is just a handful games. If there are any Forgers who're thinking "We will bury you", they're just deluding themselves. But simultaneously it's obviously true that some people enjoy focused games, and that choosing to focus is a viable market-differentiation strategy.

Beyond that, though, we have a fundamental clash between the interests of hobbyists and those of designers. It's hardly in a designer's financial or career interest to make a D&D clone (maybe with a different setting). The paradox is that's what most hobbyists want.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think focused games are okay, although they necessarily limit the audience. What Pundit started the thread with, though, I think there's a good deal of truth to it. The problem is that two points are being argued that aren't really in conflict.

I'm not sure what two points you mean.  The point I am arguing about is what Pundit said in his first post: that making focused games is an error in design.  Since you think focused games are OK, then presumably you agree with me.  So I'm not sure what the disconnect is.  

What two points are you talking about?  

Quote from: Elliot WilenBeyond that, though, we have a fundamental clash between the interests of hobbyists and those of designers. It's hardly in a designer's financial or career interest to make a D&D clone (maybe with a different setting). The paradox is that's what most hobbyists want.

This doesn't really have to do with the topic, but I address this in The Error of Tradition-based Game Design (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3252) -- so I'm going to follow up over there.

Pundit says focused games are an error in design because they constrain play.

Others say that focused games are great because they focus play. (Duh.)

From an aesthetic standpoint you can't really weigh the two statements. Personally, I think the freedom of unfocused design is truer to the RPG form, that which makes RPGs different from boardgames and even wargames, but I doubt I could make a theoretical case for the superiority of unfocused design, across the board. Besides which the practical fact is that there are people who like each, and people who like both. Including me.

From a marketing standpoint, I can at least hypothesize that my sense of what makes RPGs stand out is shared by the market at large. I.e., people in general will continue to prefer the experiential, unfocused form of game over the focused, narrative or competitive variety.

But even here, if you're looking to break into the market, I think a focused design is probably a better choice. At least in terms of picking a specialized subject, if not strongly focused mechanics. The reason for this is: D20 already exists, so do GURPS, BRP, etc. If they didn't, I'd advise people to make them, but since they do, I don't think it's smart to compete with them.

Quote from: flyingmiceI agree - I don't think there's any intent to soak the fans here, or at least no more so than trad games. I think it ties in more to design philosophy and adherence to tightly held beliefs.

-clash

Oh, its ideological, for sure. But ideology always ends up serving someone. It might not be conscious, but I'm sure on some level of the reptile brain, the Forge guys realize that if they can actually hype up a new game that is playable for 4-8 sessions max every couple of months, they can consistently make new sales more easily than by creating a single game system that can be playable for years.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, its ideological, for sure. But ideology always ends up serving someone. It might not be conscious, but I'm sure on some level of the reptile brain, the Forge guys realize that if they can actually hype up a new game that is playable for 4-8 sessions max every couple of months, they can consistently make new sales more easily than by creating a single game system that can be playable for years.

RPGPundit

See, I don't get this. Churning out small games over and over again, you have to make a new game every time. Traditional games can churn out supplements and new editions with essentially the same system. And people will actually buy this.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, its ideological, for sure. But ideology always ends up serving someone. It might not be conscious, but I'm sure on some level of the reptile brain, the Forge guys realize that if they can actually hype up a new game that is playable for 4-8 sessions max every couple of months, they can consistently make new sales more easily than by creating a single game system that can be playable for years.

But this is always your tactic, isn't it?  When there's no evidence for your claims that other people are motivated by some shitty, petty nastiness you just claim that it's because they're consistently misrepresenting their true motives.

Maybe they're just nice people, accurately representing what they're trying to do.  I mean, I know this may seem inconceivable to you, but not everyone is driven by the basest of human emotions.

Quote from: StuartI don't agree with this line of reasoning at all.  Here's why:

Dogs in the Vineyard:  $14 PDF / $22 Print

WotC books at about $50(?) each:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual

Try under 20$ apiece for each of the (300 or so page, color, professionally edited/laid out, hardcover)core books, from Amazon.  If you're going to try to support an argument by waving around price comparisons, maybe you should try taking 2 seconds to research the actual prices rather than pulling bogus numbers out of your nether region.

Quote from: TonyLBBut this is always your tactic, isn't it?  When there's no evidence for your claims that other people are motivated by some shitty, petty nastiness you just claim that it's because they're consistently misrepresenting their true motives.

Maybe they're just nice people, accurately representing what they're trying to do.  I mean, I know this may seem inconceivable to you, but not everyone is driven by the basest of human emotions.

There are a few asshats, but that's true of any human endeavor. There will always be a few asshats. Most of the ones I've met (online) are pretty nice guys. More than a few of them are a bit 'religious' about the Big Model, which can be off-putting if you don't share their enthusiasm, but that's like the Mormon down the street - once you get past his attempts to convert you, he's pretty cool. They're just excited and want to share something that's really cool to them, in which you have no interest. They're just gamers whose idea of a great game isn't the same as yours.

-clash

Quote from: ScaleTry under 20$ apiece for each of the (300 or so page, color, professionally edited/laid out, hardcover)core books, from Amazon.  If you're going to try to support an argument by waving around price comparisons, maybe you should try taking 2 seconds to research the actual prices rather than pulling bogus numbers out of your nether region.

So wait... DiTV is actually MORE expensive than the D&D PHB?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo wait... DiTV is actually MORE expensive than the D&D PHB?

Well, the list price on the PHB is $29.95 compared to $22 for DitV (see the PHB Product Page (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/175240000) at WotC), but certainly you can get a PHB on sale or used for far less than that.  Indie books, being print-on-demand or at least small print runs, will usually cost more per page and certainly for equivalent production values.  

Though in the bigger picture, I don't think the ridiculously low price of the PHB is a good thing.  They can't be making much money off selling a hardbound 320-page full-color book at that price -- so it feel it's a bad sign for the business.  RPG books are already priced very low compared to other books of the same production value (like cookbooks or such), and they have a smaller market.  But that's another topic...

Quote from: ScaleTry under 20$ apiece for each of the (300 or so page, color, professionally edited/laid out, hardcover)core books, from Amazon. If you're going to try to support an argument by waving around price comparisons, maybe you should try taking 2 seconds to research the actual prices rather than pulling bogus numbers out of your nether region.

Awesome job reading the entire thread, and getting the point! :hyper:

The list price on the core D&D books is $42 CN.  I wrote "$50(?)" because I thought they were in the neighbourhood of $50, but wasn't sure -- so I added a question mark.

The list price on the core books is $29.95 US.  Go to WotC site and check if it really matters to you.

You need to own at least 3 book ($90/$120) and there are over 40 books you could buy ($1200/$1600).

The point of brining this up is -- trying to say Vincent Baker is using "sleazy" business practices because DitV is a more focused game is retarded.  Lots of mainstream RPGs cost *much* more, and many of those books (not the core ones) are *more* focused.

Ah, but TSR has Earned its audience through years of quality service, while The Swine are attempting to steal these hard earned tokens of appreciation out of the very college funds and medical care programs of the employess and shareholders of its legal sucessor by using cheap sales techniques.

LOL!  Good one, Erik!  :D

Quote from: StuartAwesome job reading the entire thread, and getting the point! :hyper:

The list price on the core D&D books is $42 CN.  I wrote "$50(?)" because I thought they were in the neighbourhood of $50, but wasn't sure -- so I added a question mark.

The list price on the core books is $29.95 US.  Go to WotC site and check if it really matters to you.

You need to own at least 3 book ($90/$120) and there are over 40 books you could buy ($1200/$1600).

The point of brining this up is -- trying to say Vincent Baker is using "sleazy" business practices because DitV is a more focused game is retarded.  Lots of mainstream RPGs cost *much* more, and many of those books (not the core ones) are *more* focused.

Ignoring that you arbitrarily overestimated the values to begin with, and giving you a little lee-way by assuming the sticker price is representative of the actual street price of the WoTC products (which obviously is not the case) why did you deliberately try to distort them by citing DiTV's price in US Dollars, and the WoTC books in Canadian dollars?  I'm not supporting Pundit's assertion, I'm pointing out that the numbers you initially cited are straight out bullshit, and scratching my head as to why you even bothered barfing them out.

Is there anyone on an RPG forum that TRULY doesn't know how much the core books are?  Also, for a time Amazon was offering the 3.5 core book box set for arround $60.  I honestly believe they did this for me so I wouldn't strangle a WoTC rep after buying 3.0.

I'm still not convinced that "broadly functional" is always a good thing, nor that the opposite is a bad thing. Sure I could, potentially, play DnD forever, whereas Dogs might eventually get tired (you can cover a lot of dramatic ground within its setting with it but it would probably run thin after a few medium length campaigns). So, if our only consideration is "Replay value/price" then DnD wins. However, that's not the only consideration. If we would use video games as an example, something like Civilizationhad TONS more replay value than any Final Fantasy game. Hell, you could probably play all the Final Fantasy games back to back in the time it would take to do truely everything in Civ III. However, I don't think Final Fantasy games are by definition a rip off just because their Reply/Price ratio is far less than Civ's. I get different things out of Final Fantasy, or other linear games. Bring in things like single player FPSs and it starts getting even more obvious that replay/price is far from the only value worth considering.

Really, I've always been a specialized man. I like things which focus on one thing and do it well. As such I think DitV and like games are very very well made and certainly the wave of the future for RPGs. I've heard people say you can play a DnD campaign for YEARS but a DitV campaign would probably only last a few months. My response is: so? I've never played a DnD campaign for years. I've never played a DnD campaign for A year. I've never really wanted to.

Similarly, lots of people say you can play a game with any setting in GURPS. Again, so? Why would I want to use the same system for every game I ran? That's boring. I'd much rather have a system that was made for a specific setting and even a specific them/plot structure.

Why quotes prices in Canadian dollars?  Why not -- I live in Canada.  Pundit lives in Uruguay, but he's from Canada.

Last time I looked at a D&D 3.x book in the big bookstore would have been at least a year ago.  Maybe more.  I thought it was somewhere around $50.  I wasn't sure about the exact price so I wrote $50(?).  That little question mark was my way of letting everyone know I wasn't sure about the price and was more-or-less guessing.

Quote from: GunslingerIs there anyone on an RPG forum that TRULY doesn't know how much the core books are?

Truly.

I don't own a single Wizards of the Coast product.  All the D&D books I own are 1st Edition from the 80's.  Anything I know about d20 I've read in forums or the online Systems Reference Document.

Not owning the core books, and never having purchased them, I think my $50 guess was pretty good. :)

Quote from: Scalewhy did you deliberately try to distort them by citing DiTV's price in US Dollars, and the WoTC books in Canadian dollars?

Deliberately?  Because you don't like what I'm saying I must be deliberately trying to mislead people?

I don't own DitV, and I had *no idea* what it might cost, so I typed "Dogs in the Vineyard" into Google and clicked on the first link.  I copied the prices and pasted them into my post.

I forgot they were in US $ not CAN $.  This isn't an unusual thing for Canadians to do.  Sometimes it's a minor mistake, sometimes it's more serious (http://www.guardiansorder.com/).

Whether it's $30, $40, $50 -- the point I was making it exactly the same - - there are many books to buy for that game.  Pundit's point was DitV was sleazy because the designer built the game narrowly focused so you'd need to buy more books for different narrowly focused games.

Even if the core books were $10 each, you still need at least 3 of them... that's $30.

So I don't even know what the hell kind of point you're trying to make. :confused:

Sorry about that Stuart, I was trying to be sarcastic to agree with your point.  If you bought the 3.0/3.5 Core Books at your local store it would've cost you about $105 US dollars.  If you looked around the internet you could possibly find some deals.  

The reason I picked up Burning Wheel was that for $25 US dollars I was getting everything I needed to play.  Picked up the Monster Burner (supplement) for $20 US dollars.  $105 compared to $45.

Yeah, sarcasm works really well on the Internet. :rolleyes:

;)

Actually, I think DitV is a pretty good deal for the money.  I didn't realize Burning Wheel was only $25 -- that's not bad either.

I'm just not sure if they're my cup of tea -- but they don't seem overpriced.

Quote from: jhkimThough in the bigger picture, I don't think the ridiculously low price of the PHB is a good thing.  They can't be making much money off selling a hardbound 320-page full-color book at that price -- so it feel it's a bad sign for the business.  RPG books are already priced very low compared to other books of the same production value (like cookbooks or such), and they have a smaller market.  But that's another topic...

Well, its possible that they're selling the book at cost because its the introductory book, though considering the massive difference in production runs, they can probably put it at a $30 price point and still make profit.

My position, however, is that the most basic book for D&D should actually not be hardbound, not be full colour, and cost considerably less than $30; at least in its standard version.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartYeah, sarcasm works really well on the Internet. :rolleyes:

;)

Well, that is what the roll-eyes smiley is for, in my book.
And on this site, you can actually still use it, unlike other places where apparently Sarcasm has been outlawed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, its possible that they're selling the book at cost because its the introductory book, though considering the massive difference in production runs, they can probably put it at a $30 price point and still make profit.

My position, however, is that the most basic book for D&D should actually not be hardbound, not be full colour, and cost considerably less than $30; at least in its standard version.

RPGPundit

Don't forget the box, and dice, and Keep on the Borderlands.

Know what?
I nearly bought Shab Al-Hiri Roach.

Why didn´t I?
Because I learned, that the cool props for the NPCs/Ressources disguised as NPCs, weren´t part of the game, but were made by the demo team. And that the NPC collection is always the same. Thank you, I memorized the play mechanism, so no need to buy the book anymore.

The value is very low with those Thematic publications. You don´t get much, not even the stuff that´s supposed to be inside:
ready made towns, oodles of Themes to explore, NPC collections etc., Organizations or whathevu.

I´m not talking illustrations or glossy paper. I´m talking thematic gaming materiél. All you get is another bidding/pool mechanism and a different way of distributing narrative power.

They might play well and be the grandest thing on earth since water closets.
But they lack substance, big time.
At least for over €15 a piece.

Quote from: SettembriniThe value is very low with those Thematic publications. You don´t get much, not even the stuff that´s supposed to be inside:
ready made towns, oodles of Themes to explore, NPC collections etc., Organizations or whathevu.

I´m not talking illustrations or glossy paper. I´m talking thematic gaming materiél. All you get is another bidding/pool mechanism and a different way of distributing narrative power.

They might play well and be the grandest thing on earth since water closets.
But they lack substance, big time.
At least for over €15 a piece.

I'll certainly agree that some of the Forgista games are better value than others, even measuring in different ways. I've played the Roach, but I haven't studied it in depth. I do think it lacks a certain amount of substance (if I understand you correctly) compared to, say, DitV.

With DitV, what you get is the results of some very careful thinking about roleplaying games. You get the dice mechanic (Raises and Sees), which I personally find a lot of fun to roleplay off. Built into that is Giving, Escalation and Fallout, three very clever mechanics. But that's not all. You also get the Town Creation system, which, for producing consistent fun in games with minimum effort while allowing plenty of space for the GM's creativity, beats just about everything else I've ever seen. You get characters absolutely loaded to explode in play, with a cosmology that gives them any authority they can enforce. You get a full set of instructions on how to run this game, and it's loaded for fun.

DitV is a minimalist masterpiece. It distills roleplaying to it's essential heart and charges you US$22. It's a bargain. BUT not every Forgista game is the same, with the volume now coming out. Caveat emptor, I say.

Quote from: ScaleDon't forget the box, and dice, and Keep on the Borderlands.

FUCK YEAH! :D

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogYou also get the Town Creation system, which, for producing consistent fun in games with minimum effort while allowing plenty of space for the GM's creativity, beats just about everything else I've ever seen. You get characters absolutely loaded to explode in play, with a cosmology that gives them any authority they can enforce. You get a full set of instructions on how to run this game, and it's loaded for fun.

WHAT fucking "Town Creation System"??

You see, when I hear "town creation system"; I think "Random tables that let me create the size, population, interesting characters, fundamental conflicts, potential adventure seeds, useful stores, magic items, etc etc in a town".

What you get in DiTV is 3/10ths christian-sociology essay, and 7/10ths of "Pick a sin, invent an excuse, do it yourself and stop bothering me... I mean fuck, I'm the Game Designer! Actually having to stoop to the level of 'designing' something for my game would be a insult; how dare you even dream of asking such a thing!?"

I mean really, fuck: Ok, pick a town name, pick a sin, pick a person who did the sin, pick some other people affected by the sin.  THAT'S a "town creation system"?!

You poor stupid cunts, where the fuck have you been? How desperately do you want to fit in and belong that you will really bend down and lick Vince Baker's ass and tell him he's the next fucking Jack Kerouac for inventing that piece of shit?!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean really, fuck: Ok, pick a town name, pick a sin, pick a person who did the sin, pick some other people affected by the sin.  THAT'S a "town creation system"?!

There's quite a bit more structure to it than that.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou poor stupid cunts, where the fuck have you been? How desperately do you want to fit in and belong that you will really bend down and lick Vince Baker's ass and tell him he's the next fucking Jack Kerouac for inventing that piece of shit?!

Well, I've been playing the game and watching it reliably produce solid results with a wide variety of groups.  That's where I've been.

Some more sample towns, ready to play, would just add value.
That´s my point.

And other TGs don´t even have a guide/formula for setting up the conflict. How shallow DitV´s take might be, it´s more than most have.

The BW/BE is a totally different animal. Kudos to Luke for actually delivering stuff for my €.

Luke's a clever bastard.

Quote from: RPGPunditWHAT fucking "Town Creation System"??

You see, when I hear "town creation system"; I think "Random tables that let me create the size, population, interesting characters, fundamental conflicts, potential adventure seeds, useful stores, magic items, etc etc in a town".

What you get in DiTV is 3/10ths christian-sociology essay, and 7/10ths of "Pick a sin, invent an excuse, do it yourself and stop bothering me... I mean fuck, I'm the Game Designer! Actually having to stoop to the level of 'designing' something for my game would be a insult; how dare you even dream of asking such a thing!?"

I mean really, fuck: Ok, pick a town name, pick a sin, pick a person who did the sin, pick some other people affected by the sin.  THAT'S a "town creation system"?!

You poor stupid cunts, where the fuck have you been? How desperately do you want to fit in and belong that you will really bend down and lick Vince Baker's ass and tell him he's the next fucking Jack Kerouac for inventing that piece of shit?!

RPGPundit

Why is it so impossible for you to consider that we/they like the game, think it is innovative and helpful, and have lots of fun playing with it? Is it just... beyond you to see from someone elses eyes?

I mean, I certainly have a hard time understanding your preferences, but I don't think you are lying about them due to some desire for attention. I accept them as your preferences and I try to understand them.

Quote from: SethwickWhy is it so impossible for you to consider that we/they like the game, think it is innovative and helpful, and have lots of fun playing with it? Is it just... beyond you to see from someone elses eyes?

I mean, I certainly have a hard time understanding your preferences, but I don't think you are lying about them due to some desire for attention. I accept them as your preferences and I try to understand them.

Because he's the Pundit! D'OH! That's the way Pundits are. :D

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditYou poor stupid cunts, where the fuck have you been? How desperately do you want to fit in and belong that you will really bend down and lick Vince Baker's ass and tell him he's the next fucking Jack Kerouac for inventing that piece of shit?!

Have you used it in play? Anyway, I never brought up Jack Kerouac (I don't really like him). Next Greg Stafford, maybe.

And if you're going to talk like that, how do you expect people to talk? Honestly! Look, I've been doing this stuff for a long time. I know what I'm talking about, pipe-boy.

Quote from: droogYou get characters absolutely loaded to explode in play...

What sort of nonsense jargon is this? I'd almost think the designer was paying you to shill.

Quote from: droogYou get characters absolutely loaded to explode in play, with a cosmology that gives them any authority they can enforce. You get a full set of instructions on how to run this game, and it's loaded for fun.

I feel the same way about a number of games and they are not exactly Forge-type games. In Harms Way, Jorune, Unknown Armies are just a few examples.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: YamoWhat sort of nonsense jargon is this? I'd almost think the designer was paying you to shill.

Right – what I mean is this: the characters are set up from the start with overwhelming moral authority and big guns (but the players always bring their own morality to the table – they must because of the lack of moral canon). Then the GM is instructed to set up situations that require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The dice mechanic continually pushes players to escalate and bring more into the conflict. See how that produces explosive play?

Quote from: droogRight – what I mean is this: the characters are set up from the start with overwhelming moral authority and big guns (but the players always bring their own morality to the table – they must because of the lack of moral canon). Then the GM is instructed to set up situations that require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The dice mechanic continually pushes players to escalate and bring more into the conflict. See how that produces explosive play?

No, I don't. First, you still haven't defined "explosive play." It's about as meaningful a term as "X-TREEM ACTION."

Secondly, D&D gives a party of dungeon crawlers overwhelming treasure-lust, big swords and fireball spells. The GM is instructed to set-up situations that require require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The player's own desire to succeed pushes them to escalate and bring more to the conflict.

See how D&D can produce explosive play?

Quote from: droogRight – what I mean is this: the characters are set up from the start with overwhelming moral authority and big guns (but the players always bring their own morality to the table – they must because of the lack of moral canon). Then the GM is instructed to set up situations that require judgement to be made and conflict to be created. The dice mechanic continually pushes players to escalate and bring more into the conflict. See how that produces explosive play?

But isn't it the GM's job in any game, to provide opportunities for explosive play (however one defines it) based on character motivations ? Or is your point that some games do it better than others - something which I subscribe to.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: YamoSee how D&D can produce explosive play?

I'm glad you brought that up. Because it's quite true. Different kind of explosion, though. Less about judgement, more about tactics.

Quote from: David ROr is your point that some games do it better than others[/I] - something which I subscribe to.

Naturally.

Quote from: droogI'm glad you brought that up. Because it's quite true. Different kind of explosion, though. Less about judgement, more about tactics.

See, now if you'd said "more likely about tactics" or "YMMV" I would be cool with your assessment.

But this is one of those things about Forge theory that drives me to distraction. It's the assumption that before Forge theory, the only explosion was tactical - that it was somehow impossible to pursue and resolve moral conflicts in traditional rules or styles. The only way to do this was to change the GM/Player relationship, change the focus/granularity of the resolution mechanic, pursue story above all else, etc.

Or you could just find a group with a good GM that used GURPS as a base with which to pursue and resolve moral conflicts.

Quote from: droogI'm glad you brought that up. Because it's quite true. Different kind of explosion, though. Less about judgement, more about tactics.

You have to remember that Yamo's species just evolved a forebrain, and so rational thought is still a new thing with them. They still tend to react violently to any requirement to engage in figuring something out. We're hoping for some improvement in a few generations, when frontal lobes start to appear. If this type of accelerated uplift proves successful we're hoping to apply it to attorneys.

Quote from: mythusmageYou have to remember that Yamo's species just evolved a forebrain, and so rational thought is still a new thing with them. They still tend to react violently to any requirement to engage in figuring something out. We're hoping for some improvement in a few generations, when frontal lobes start to appear. If this type of accelerated uplift proves successful we're hoping to apply it to attorneys.

On the other hand, I have nothing but priase for you. It's nice to have some more typical Forgies around here. There's a certain temptation to look at generally-constructive posters like droog and Tony LB and conclude that the ego-wankers are some sort of abberant minority.

You keep it real.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's the assumption that before Forge theory, the only explosion was tactical - that it was somehow impossible to pursue and resolve moral conflicts in traditional rules or styles. The only way to do this was to change the GM/Player relationship, change the focus/granularity of the resolution mechanic, pursue story above all else, etc.

Or you could just find a group with a good GM that used GURPS as a base with which to pursue and resolve moral conflicts.

Yes, you could. I've seen such stuff done in Aftermath. I know perfectly well you can do it. The point is that Dogs is highly focused on moral conflict from start to finish. When I say that the characters are explosive, that's the way in which I mean it. How's that?

It's like this. IMO (thanks blakkie :D ) all rpgs are tools. Some rpgs are tools created for a very specific purpose or at the very least makes the job easier to do.

So, lets say you dig moral conflict and all that stuff, you could use any rpg to do that, or you could use Dogs for instance, which is a very specific instrument.

Either way, it's all good.

Regards,
David R

QuoteSome rpgs are tools created for a very specific purpose or at the very least makes the job easier to do.

But who, ultimately, is to say how well these games succeed at their goals?

Just because they attempt to be an ideal vehicle for a particular type of play is no guarantee that they will succeed to in being so.

Mere intentions are not enough. Which comes back again to my point that DotV is no way superior to D&D or Traveller in producing "explosive" play. It may aspire to be so, but aspiration is not enough.

Quote from: YamoMere intentions are not enough.

That's always the case, right? Not every game will achieve what it sets out to do. Some might even be confused about what they want to do. And tastes will always differ.

My point about DitV is that it's good value, and I'll really have to stick by that.

Quote from: YamoBut who, ultimately, is to say how well these games succeed at their goals?

If it works for the people who use them, great.

QuoteJust because they attempt to be an ideal vehicle for a particular type of play is no guarantee that they will succeed to in being so.

This goes for every type of game.

QuoteMere intentions are not enough. Which comes back again to my point that DotV is no way superior to D&D or Traveller in producing "explosive" play. It may aspire to be so, but aspiration is not enough.

I don't think it's a question of superior. It is different, though, well at least IME. And when it comes to certain kinds of themes, IMO some games work better than others depending on what I want to do.

For a slasher horror campaign I use a stripped down version of Hunter. For more subtle horror, I use Unknown Armies. Sure I could use either one of them  for both types of campaigns , but each system has advantages that makes it ideal for the specific type of campaign (slasher/subtle) I want to run.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that for some folks, certain systems are a lot more condusive to the kind of games they want to run/play. Does this apply to everyone? No. I think the mistake is claiming it does. Not that anyone here is doing that.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RFor a slasher horror campaign I use a stripped down version of Hunter. For more subtle horror, I use Unknown Armies. Sure I could use either one of them  for both types of campaigns , but each system has advantages that makes it ideal for the specific type of campaign (slasher/subtle) I want to run.

And who are you, exactly? One single dude, that's what.

Honestly, I'd use neither set of rules under any circumstances, including the ones you mentioned.

Thus, my point still stands.

Quote from: YamoAnd who are you, exactly? One single dude, that's what.


Thus, my point still stands.

That one can use any system to produce explosive play? Sure. But that's not true for all folks.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThat one can use any system to produce explosive play? Sure. But that's not true for all folks.

So absolutely everything is completely relative in every sense?

Where does that leave this discussion as whole, exactly?

Also: Is anybody going to attempt to define what "explosive play" is? I'm waiting...

Quote from: YamoSo absolutely everything is completely relative in every sense?

When it comes to rpgs, I guess so.

QuoteWhere does that leave this discussion as whole, exactly?

No idea. Hopefully knowing were each other is coming from in terms of their rpg experience.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: mythusmageYou have to remember that Yamo's species just evolved a forebrain, and so rational thought is still a new thing with them. They still tend to react violently to any requirement to engage in figuring something out. We're hoping for some improvement in a few generations, when frontal lobes start to appear. If this type of accelerated uplift proves successful we're hoping to apply it to attorneys.

This from a person who, in another thread, said

Quote from: mythusmageI have died more times at the hands of fanatics than most of you have been alive, I know the breed."

So can we keep the comments about other posters' capabilities of rational thought to a minimum, lest ye be judged? Otherwise we're going to have to find more ways to say Pot=Kettle=Black.

Quote from: YamoAlso: Is anybody going to attempt to define what "explosive play" is? I'm waiting...

Dynamite fishing?

Replacing pizza with beans?

Quote from: YamoAlso: Is anybody going to attempt to define what "explosive play" is? I'm waiting...

I would say it's the kind of game where everybody is leaning forward, totally jazzed on what somebody could to do next, and how that could effect what will happen next.

The kind of sessions where everybody is going "hell yeah". The kinds of games you go back and want to tell everybody you meet about because the game was so awesome.

Like porn, you know it when you see it :)

And yes, DitV gives me those kinds of game sessions more reliability than anything else in over 20 years of roleplaying. (This is for dozens of towns across three different groups -- as well as with a bunch of 'random roleplayers' who had never heard of it before at a UK mini-con.)

To be fair, a "battlemap & minis" D&D 3.5 game I play with one group also brings a similar kind of "explosive play", but as droog says, it's a different kind of explosion (and one that -- personally -- doesn't quite hit me quite as hard as DitV's). On the other hand, another group has just started a D&D "planar walkers" game, and that hasn't brought any kind of "explosive play" so far.

Yamo, surely you have an idea of what I meant, or you couldn't have made up the D&D example?

Quote from: James J SkachThis from a person who, in another thread, said



So can we keep the comments about other posters' capabilities of rational thought to a minimum, lest ye be judged? Otherwise we're going to have to find more ways to say Pot=Kettle=Black.

James, there's only one way you're going to learn the truth about what I said, and I hope it's a good long time before you do die. :p

I think "Explosive Play" is more of a judgement on your excitement about and enjoyment of a particular game.  Different people could describe different games as having "explosive play".

I do think some games are better suited to certain types of play.  If you want an RPG that lets you include battlefield tactics for mass combat -- some games will do a better job than others.  Similarly some games are better suited to roleplaying political intrigue than others.

Of course a group of players can use just about any game system to create any type of game -- but you can dig a hole with a wrench instead of a shovel if you want to. :)

Quote from: mythusmageJames, there's only one way you're going to learn the truth about what I said, and I hope it's a good long time before you do die. :p

I die just a little bit every time you go away...

But thanks, I hope so to - and right back atcha...