So damn, it took me all night to just realize this. Strangely enough, when you really get down to it, other than moving things along quickly, "roll dice or say yes" mainly means ...

Improvise. Without no Master Plan.

Build a town with some key characters and a key problem.

Then let the players determine what they want to do about it. And go totally with their flow until they try to do something tricky.

And when you totally improvise your GMing on the spot, you end up mainly just saying yes to the players ("okay, you go to the bar and get a drink.") and just interacting with them as the NPCs or the town, until it comes time to roll dice and then escalate shit some more.

Any GM style that isn't based totally on improvisation won't get it, and shouldn't get it. If you've got a plan, then you're going to need to say "no" a lot more often.

Quote from: holyshit[clip]

In practice and in reality, I would imagine it also boils down basically to this. In the first case, the GM basically steers the plot. In the second case, the players entirely steer the plot. But this isn't about being weak, it's about how the game actually, mechanically works. It's just two different mechanisms for running a fun game. But either DM can really say no when something makes no sense.

Bullcrap. I am a very traditional GM. I also have no story, no pre-planned course of events going into a game. I have no clue what's going to happen. I have an initial situation going in that will define what the basic thrust of the game is, as soon as we know what happens. I have a few situations which might or might not happen, depending on what the PCs do. I have defined NPCs with goals and resources in place. I have the setting defined. That's it. I've been running games for almost thirty years, and I've always done it this way.

Traditional play is not defined by having the GM steering the plot, or even by having a plot at all. Traditional play is defined by the group trumping the designer. That means in some groups the GM plots out everything, in some groups there is a plot skeleton, in some no plot at all, and in others anything in between. It all depends on the group itself.

In Forge-influenced gaming, the designer trumps the group. The play is how the designer says it is. The group can take it or leave it.

That's it in a nutshell.

-clash

Quote from: holyshitI don't have a 'dog' in the fight. I'm not here to defend it. I've never played it or anything like it.

Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

You show up here out of nowhere, revive a long-dead thread, and your first THREE posts are a lengthy diatribe about the game (demonstrating a considerable knowledge about said game, regardless of whether you've played it or not), where essentially you try to claim that DiTV is radically brilliant and Real RPGs are railroady evilness where the GM already knows everything that's going to happen... but you have no dog. Sure...

RPGPundit

What do you think set it off? Is TheRPGSite growing enough, starting to influence other discussions enough, that other interested parties are taking notice? Could it be that people from TheRPGSite are starting to influence places like RPGNet and The Forge with ideas and arguments that are against dogma?

I've got my tinfoil hat on, but I think there is an effort underfoot.  How is it coincidence that in the last month or so there has been a noticeable influx of people who pick up dead threads and unrelated issues and turn them into diatribes about the Forge and GNS?

It's...weird.

God forbid someone disagrees with you on a discussion form...

Really, lots of people like Forge games (relative to the size of RPGsite's membership). Some people don't like the heavily moderated style of the Forge or RPG.net. TheRPGsite has, on RPG.net, kind of made itself out to be the alternative to those who don't like the moderation policy.

Buck up, means your site is getting popular.

BTW, "Say yes or roll the dice" means exactly what it says. Yes that implies the players can do stupid shit. However, like most rules of any game, it can be overlooked at will by the group. So if one player tries to do something stupid, the rest of the GROUP (not just the GM) can stop him. This should be, IMO, stated in most rules just so these kind of arguements don't happen.

My solution, if you don't want poeple saying "I find an atom bomb in the orc fortress"? Don't play with silly people. Or don't play Dogs in the Vineyard or like games with silly people.

Or, you know, imagine a magi-nuke and what kind of plot could happen from it. How did the orcs get it, what were their plans, what will they do to get it back...

Quote from: RPGPunditYeah, right... :rolleyes:

You show up here out of nowhere, revive a long-dead thread, and your first THREE posts are a lengthy diatribe about the game (demonstrating a considerable knowledge about said game, regardless of whether you've played it or not), where essentially you try to claim that DiTV is radically brilliant and Real RPGs are railroady evilness where the GM already knows everything that's going to happen... but you have no dog. Sure...

RPGPundit

I understand your skepticism, but you've got me pegged wrong. I read the book for DitV yesterday. I found this thread because it was referenced on a thread that was referenced on a thread that was referenced by a thread and so forth (I had about half a dozen browser windows open before I found it). Initially I found this site on a link on RPG.net. I spent half the night reading some very good discussions on this forum, actually. At first I thought you were a complete asshole/idiot, Pundit, but actually after reading about a hundred of your posts, I think you're doing some good things and I actually respect you for that. I think your fatal flaw is just not always understanding what you're criticizing and attacking some straw men. But you may be the funniest mother fucker I have ever met in my entire life. Props.

But absolutely no dog in the fight. This just seems like a forum where you're supposed to talk straight. So I did.

I am not saying that DitV is "radically brilliant," but I will give it credit for encouraging a pretty different GM mindset compared to traditional RPGs. I have no idea if it's any good in practice. I'm intrigued enough to try it, but I suspect it's pretty weird and that I'd like traditional RPGs better. But who knows. I haven't played it.

My 'dog' in the fight is just to talk about the issue, because I find it interesting enough to stay up all night reading and thinking about it, and to say what I see.

I think you're right in general here Pundit, but I don't think you've grasped the nature of the beast completely either. No offense, truly. But after seeing how Baker's few paragraphs were quoted on this subject, after having read the text literally earlier in the same day, I realized that more context was needed in this discussion.

FWIW, I've never been to "the Forge's" website in my life. I discovered RPG.net a few weeks ago, and I just saw some links to this forum within from there the last couple days. Check the current Nobilis thread over there, for example. That was the first breadcrumb.

QuoteBullcrap. I am a very traditional GM. I also have no story, no pre-planned course of events going into a game. I have no clue what's going to happen. I have an initial situation going in that will define what the basic thrust of the game is, as soon as we know what happens. I have a few situations which might or might not happen, depending on what the PCs do. I have defined NPCs with goals and resources in place. I have the setting defined. That's it. I've been running games for almost thirty years, and I've always done it this way.

Sorry man, it doesn't sound like you're a standard fare GM at all. JMO. Most D&D DMs aren't this wide open. Good for you, though. You apparently have a strong inner artist

Just fucking with you.

QuoteTraditional play is not defined by having the GM steering the plot, or even by having a plot at all. Traditional play is defined by the group trumping the designer. That means in some groups the GM plots out everything, in some groups there is a plot skeleton, in some no plot at all, and in others anything in between. It all depends on the group itself.

Okay, but if we're going to try to contrast two different GM mentalities, I still stand by what I said. I think that very, very few people who DM, say, D&D, are as radically open as Baker suggests that a DitV GM should be.

QuoteIn Forge-influenced gaming, the designer trumps the group. The play is how the designer says it is. The group can take it or leave it.

I don't know enough about Forge-influence gaming to completely deny that, but if DitV is Forge-influenced gaming, then this is not at all the impression that I got from reading the game book. What I read is that the players steer the action and that the GM has no fucking clue what's supposed to happen or going to happen, really, and that a good Dogs GM should be in that mindset, and just keep things moving toward conflict and moral dilemmas.

That's it in a nutshell.

Quote from: holyshitI don't know enough about Forge-influence gaming to completely deny that, but if DitV is Forge-influenced gaming, then this is not at all the impression that I got from reading the game book. What I read is that the players steer the action and that the GM has no fucking clue what's supposed to happen or going to happen, really, and that a good Dogs GM should be in that mindset, and just keep things moving toward conflict and moral dilemmas.

Exactly - because the designer mandates that, not because the group chooses that.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceBullcrap. I am a very traditional GM. I also have no story, no pre-planned course of events going into a game. I have no clue what's going to happen. I have an initial situation going in that will define what the basic thrust of the game is, as soon as we know what happens. I have a few situations which might or might not happen, depending on what the PCs do. I have defined NPCs with goals and resources in place. I have the setting defined. That's it. I've been running games for almost thirty years, and I've always done it this way.

Traditional play is not defined by having the GM steering the plot, or even by having a plot at all. Traditional play is defined by the group trumping the designer. That means in some groups the GM plots out everything, in some groups there is a plot skeleton, in some no plot at all, and in others anything in between. It all depends on the group itself.

In Forge-influenced gaming, the designer trumps the group. The play is how the designer says it is. The group can take it or leave it.

That's it in a nutshell.

-clash

Wow. Clash, do you truly believe this? That is all not the attitude I would have expected from you...

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWow. Clash, do you truly believe this? That is all not the attitude I would have expected from you...

Bill

Yep - at least in regard to the group trumps designer/designer trumps group dichotomy. I don't believe in forcing my style of play down anyone's throat. If some group wants to play In Harm's Way with no GM and the players rotating authority, that's their business, not mine. It doesn't bother me a lick. The group trumps me, the designer, every time. My job is to give them a good setting and a solid system, the best I can come up with. They take it from there.

-clash

Clash, if you were to design another kind of game -- not an RPG -- would you have this same design philosophy?

Quote from: StuartClash, if you were to design another kind of game -- not an RPG -- would you have this same design philosophy?

Of course.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceMy job is to give them a good setting and a solid system, the best I can come up with. They take it from there.

As a consumer, what I expect from you is that you make games that are your own; bearing your own passion and style. If the game intrigues me, I will play it. I don't think your job is any more constrained than that.

Quote from: droogAs a consumer, what I expect from you is that you make games that are your own; bearing your own passion and style. If the game intrigues me, I will play it. I don't think your job is any more constrained than that.

It's self-constrained. This is my job description (as game designer) from myself (as publisher.) Passion and style aren't in it. Passion often gets me in the wrong place saying the wrong thing to the wrong people, and anyone who's read my games knows I have no sense of style...

-clash

So if you were making a boardgame, or a card game, you would take the route of "traditional RPG design" -- you provide a setting, some dice mechanics, and let the group figure out how to make a finished game?

The approach that DitV take is more like what you'd see in most non-RPG game design.  Most games tell you *exactly* how to play, and define how you win/lose the game.

I think the Forge/GNS theory stuff is junk, but I think the influence of modern boardgames on RPG design is a positive thing.