TheRPGSite

I have some thoughts about the Landmarks.

#1: The vast majority of gamers are having fun gaming.

Ultimately, this depends on how you define "gamers."  Now, I'm not here to say everyone is having a miserable time.  However, the hobby does consist of a very large contingent of "hangers on."

These "hangers on" aren't like groupies.  They simply play because no other better activity is available to them during game time.  I think we've all met these people, and their existence also neatly explains why this hobby is most popular with teens under the legal driving/dating age.  They play not because of any particular desire, but because they're just hanging out with their peers.


#2: The vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played.

I'd say due to the sheer evidence of the multitude of game systems that exist, and the tendency of gamers to constantly be making house rules, this Landmark is grossly in error.  Or, as I've said for years, "No two Palladium gamers play anything resembling the same system."  Whereas, I'm interpreting this landmark as "the majority of gamers are satisfied with their game exactly as written."

I would say that gamers in general are satisfied with the general TEMPLATE of RPG, and that template is a heavily D&D influenced one.

So, if it wasn't before, I suggest the operative word in the Landmark be THEIR.  Saying that the majority of gamers are satisfied with their favorite houseruled game doesn't seem to me to be that important of an observation, but then again...


#6: 6. Given point #3, above, any gaming theory that suggest that the GM should get disproportionately more or less power than they do in D&D in order for a game to be "good" is inherently in violation of the Landmarks. The vast majority of players enjoy a game where the GM has power over the world and the players over their characters; and while a theory can suggest ways that GMs and Players can experiment with interactively creating the setting, it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do (except for the "power" to walk away from a game).

This really makes me wonder what you think about player invoked plot mechanics like those found in the subplot cards of Torg, or, for that matter, any number of "enemy" disadvantages in any number of advantage/disadvantage systems.  Both of these are exactly "telling the GM what to do."

For example, Amber DRPG fails this landmark.  For instance, while players use a point based system in Amber to create characters, their ratings are ultimately meaningless because the basic resolution system is "Highest Rank wins, except when the GM arbitrarily decides it doesn't" and all ratings are subjective rather than having any objective basis to top it all off.  The GM holds all the cards in Amber, and can make the player characters meaningless, because they ultimately don't have any mechanical legs to stand on.  

While D&D and other similar RPGs certainly have a rule which says "The GM is God." there is much more mechanical groundwork for a player to argue his case.

I bring this up because, from your blog, this point really seems to be your ultimate point of definition for a mainstream RPG.


#10:Given points #9 and #1, the suggestion that so-called "immersion" is not a real or viable goal in an RPG, or that "genre emulation" is not a viable priority in a game, is in violation of the Landmarks.

This is where I've always been confused about your point of view about gaming.  For instance, D&D is not terribly emulative of any genre but D&D.  By your landmark #2, the vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the way their game is played.  So, it would follow from that line of thought that genre emulation  isn't important in the slightest.

So, mark me as surprised that you actually think "genre emulation" is important.

I'm concerned about #6 as well.  It's not only Torg and Amber that it rules out from being a mainstream, but also Toon, Unisystem Lite, "Tales from the Floating Vagabond"...

Heck any Supers game that has a "Luck" or "Probability Manipulation" power (which I'd imagine is just about all of them) might fail this test

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm concerned about #6 as well.  It's not only Torg and Amber that it rules out from being a mainstream, but also Toon, Unisystem Lite, "Tales from the Floating Vagabond"...

Heck any Supers game that has a "Luck" or "Probability Manipulation" power (which I'd imagine is just about all of them) might fail this test

I don't think he is saying that a game is excluded for having ways that players can introduce plot mechanics. IMO, he is saying that if the GM doesn't have the option of "veto" it is excluded. Atleast that is how I read it.

Quote from: McrowI don't think he is saying that a game is excluded for having ways that players can introduce plot mechanics. IMO, he is saying that if the GM doesn't have the option of "veto" it is excluded. Atleast that is how I read it.

Exactly. Number 6 is specifically a response to the Forge-mentality that GMs are the root of all evil and that players must be able to walk all over a GM or else the game won't be "fair" or "satisfying" to them.

Stuff like Torg, or the "enemies" disadvantage, don't even enter into it, because there you're talking about something that is simply restructuring some of the player's options in a way that doesn't take away from the traditional player-gm relationship. These games are just doing with mechanics what in other games will happen normally anyways.

Incidentally, your interpretation of Amber is based on a brutal misunderstanding of its rules.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditExactly. Number 6 is specifically a response to the Forge-mentality that GMs are the root of all evil and that players must be able to walk all over a GM or else the game won't be "fair" or "satisfying" to them.

:eek:

Which games do that?

Quote from: RPGPunditExactly. Number 6 is specifically a response to the Forge-mentality that GMs are the root of all evil and that players must be able to walk all over a GM or else the game won't be "fair" or "satisfying" to them.

Stuff like Torg, or the "enemies" disadvantage, don't even enter into it, because there you're talking about something that is simply restructuring some of the player's options in a way that doesn't take away from the traditional player-gm relationship. These games are just doing with mechanics what in other games will happen normally anyways.

Incidentally, your interpretation of Amber is based on a brutal misunderstanding of its rules.

Turning it around... just what is so criminal about giving players a 'hardcoded' means to invest in and influence play? It still has to be interpreted through the GM and all it really does is feed them hooks and information on what the players want to see in the game.

How is that bad?

To me it's no different to having specific rules for combat, climbing or whatever else you want to pick out of the air.  It's just support structure, I fail to see 'teh 3vil'.

Quote from: GRIMTurning it around... just what is so criminal about giving players a 'hardcoded' means to invest in and influence play? It still has to be interpreted through the GM and all it really does is feed them hooks and information on what the players want to see in the game.

How is that bad?

To me it's no different to having specific rules for combat, climbing or whatever else you want to pick out of the air.  It's just support structure, I fail to see 'teh 3vil'.

I think hardcoded, as in "the GM has no say at all" is a bad thing.

In a warm fuzzy world where people don't try to take advantage of holes in the rules, these games work. So if you have the right mix of people @ the table it should work fine.

What if the plot mechanic introduced by the player makes the game less fun for the other players? What if according to the rules the GM has no right to tell the player to try something else that would make the game more fun for everyone?

That is my thought, but I'm not sure what Pundit thinks about it.

Quote from: McrowI think hardcoded, as in "the GM has no say at all" is a bad thing.

In a warm fuzzy world where people don't try to take advantage of holes in the rules, these games work. So if you have the right mix of people @ the table it should work fine.

What if the plot mechanic introduced by the player makes the game less fun for the other players? What if according to the rules the GM has no right to tell the player to try something else that would make the game more fun for everyone?

That is my thought, but I'm not sure what Pundit thinks about it.

My position is very close to yours, Mcrow.

Gaming groups are essentially social units, they're a pack.
If the GM is the alpha male, and assuming he isn't an asshole, then the game works.

If the GM is not in a position where he can be in charge of the game, it will inevitably lead to one of the players becoming the Alpha, and this warps the entire game into one where the most insistent players end up controlling the group, and making the experience less pleasant for the rest of the group.

There's a reason, in other words, why the GM doesn't have his own PC (or at least, shouldn't treat his NPCs as "Just another PC" in competition with the other players). If the guy dominating the group is also trying to be a player, he will inevitably skewer the game towards being about him, and not about the group as a whole.

The other factor is that typically, human nature being what it is, players will have one idea about what they think they would like for their PCs, and a very different truth as to what they REALLY want.
The problem with a lot of the Forge-type games, or that whole mentality, is that idea of "Fun now!" interpreted as meaning that the players should all get to be Uber-cool guys what have things always go their way. This is no different, when you come down to it, to the gaming group of 12- or 13 year olds playing D&D and turning the whole thing into a Monty Haul.
And it will fail for the same reason: when you give the players exactly what they claim they want, they will quickly get bored; worse still if the whole thing becomes about giving the loudest or pushiest player exactly what he wants.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIncidentally, your interpretation of Amber is based on a brutal misunderstanding of its rules.

Uhm.  No.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I had accidentally quoted an actual line from the book.  It all really boils down to "high rank always wins, except when the GM decides it doesn't."  The GM is also the only player who knows comparative ranks with any certainty.  There is absolutely no impartial task resolution, because everything is decided by the GM.

Not to mention that it can (in quite a few fumbling hands) become the ultimate metaplot/GM-PC driven game there is.  In fact, it's probably one of the easiest things labeled as a RPG to gravitate toward that direction.

It's a great social exercise, and can generate entertaining role-play.  But if the GM has any bias against you whatsoever, then you might as well just get up and leave the table.

Actually, I'd be very interested in wider discussion (clearly our minds are made up) of whether Amber passes or fails your Landmark #6.  While I find it a very entertaining read, and an excellent primer on how to GM (probably one of the only good ones), I definitely wouldn't call it a RPG.  It's more like free-form role playing.  It's very similar in nature to a free form moderated military simulation (cadets placed in different rooms, told what resources they have at their disposal, and then a officer presents them with a scenario and decides on their success solely based on his own experiences.)

Grand Poobah, if this forum is going to function as anything more than an extension of your blog, I suggest that you need to educate yourself on some of the games you like to rail against. You're coming up with verifiable errors. For a start, among the Forge games there is a variety of specific powers given to the GM. Dogs in the Vineyard does not work the same way as Primetime Adventures.

Your Hobbesian analysis of roleplaying groups simply doesn't accord with the entirety of my experience. So, as administrator, are you going to continue to take this belligerent line, or are you going to allow for the possibility of differences of opinion?

Quote from: GabrielUhm.  No.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I had accidentally quoted an actual line from the book.  It all really boils down to "high rank always wins, except when the GM decides it doesn't."  The GM is also the only player who knows comparative ranks with any certainty.  There is absolutely no impartial task resolution, because everything is decided by the GM.

Not to mention that it can (in quite a few fumbling hands) become the ultimate metaplot/GM-PC driven game there is.  In fact, it's probably one of the easiest things labeled as a RPG to gravitate toward that direction.

It's a great social exercise, and can generate entertaining role-play.  But if the GM has any bias against you whatsoever, then you might as well just get up and leave the table.

Actually, I'd be very interested in wider discussion (clearly our minds are made up) of whether Amber passes or fails your Landmark #6.  While I find it a very entertaining read, and an excellent primer on how to GM (probably one of the only good ones), I definitely wouldn't call it a RPG.  It's more like free-form role playing.  It's very similar in nature to a free form moderated military simulation (cadets placed in different rooms, told what resources they have at their disposal, and then a officer presents them with a scenario and decides on their success solely based on his own experiences.)

You and I must have read very different Amber manuals, then. Because to me it is a roleplaying game, with some pretty strict (if basic) rules.
Yes, it depends on a GM that isn't biased for or against particular players, but EVERY RPG depends on that.

Yes, the "GM decides the resolution"; but again, you can do that in just about any game. Amber only does it more blatantly. And saying that is NOT the same as saying "the game has no rules, the GM just chooses willy-nilly". The idea is that the ranks and the DM's ideas of how the circumstances of play modify the ranks are very concrete things.

Most Amber games I've been involved with did have very strong NPCs, generally not GMPCs, and were usually quite player-driven in the sense of the player's actions influencing the actions and choices of the NPCs and the focus of the whole game.  Because the "world" of Amber is so open, it is in fact one of the games where, unless the GM is extremely heavy-handed, the actual play is more PC driven then in almost any other game.

I would certainly call it innovative (perhaps the most innovative and original RPG ever designed, the one that most truely goes outside the D&D mold, while still being an RPG).  But its definitely an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogYour Hobbesian analysis of roleplaying groups simply doesn't accord with the entirety of my experience. So, as administrator, are you going to continue to take this belligerent line, or are you going to allow for the possibility of differences of opinion?

Hey, anyone can post anything they want to on here. I'd say that's "allowing for difference of opinion".

All that the landmarks are saying here is that if you come onto here and start talking about the "Narrativist interpretations of x" or about "the impossible thing before breakfast" etc etc. as if they were widely-accepted truths; or if you're going to start making up theories that are based more on your own interests and prejudices rather than accurate assessments of the reality of what most gamers enjoy, you will not be supported in these assertions by the Admins here. This is a place to talk about PRACTICAL theory, based on the REALITY of gaming as the hobby its played and enjoyed by most gamers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, anyone can post anything they want to on here. I'd say that's "allowing for difference of opinion".

Fine. We shall see.

Now, you are debating with Gabriel about the rules of Amber. Notice that I do not take part in this conversation. This is because I know nothing of Amber. Someone I play with speaks highly of it (though with caution), but I myself have never read nor played it. From many online references I have formed a vague idea of its workings.

I think this is where you stand with the Forge games. For instance:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem with a lot of the Forge-type games, or that whole mentality, is that idea of "Fun now!" interpreted as meaning that the players should all get to be Uber-cool guys that have things always go their way.

Anybody who's actually played some of the better-known Forge games would be scratching their heads at this description. I've played and run a few of these games (eg Sorcerer, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Nicotine Girls, Donjon), and I can assure you that 'having things always go the players' way' is not at all the philosophy behind them.

It's no skin off my nose what you like and what you don't. I've been at this since 1981, and I can decide for myself what I like to play. But if the administrator of a board makes a point of making hostile (and error-filled) statements about the very types of games I presently enjoy, it's not going to be a useful environment for me. You dig?

QuoteBut if the administrator of a board makes a point of making hostile (and error-filled) statements about the very types of games I presently enjoy, it's not going to be a useful environment for me.

Why? He's admin and not moderator. He, as anybody else can talk as much bullshit as he likes, as long asyou can refute it.

pwn his arguments, go ahead. That's got nothing to do with if he's an admin or not.

I'll show you:

@Pundit: Forge Games =! power Now! [Insert play example here] what you say is wrong!

Follow this example, and all is well.
And Free Speech is served.

I'm not sure I can be bothered. I'm just having a feel around. Maybe later.

QuoteBut if the administrator of a board makes a point of making hostile (and error-filled) statements about the very types of games I presently enjoy, it's not going to be a useful environment for me. You dig?

Please don't let Pundit push you away.  Just because he's hostile to the Forge, its designers, and games doesn't mean everyone here is.  He may be an admin, but for most purposes he's just one guy with his own (vocal) opinions.  As Settembrini indicates calling him on his crap is a-okay.  As is ignoring him when he gets too belligerent.  Lord knows I've done both over at his own blog!  I'd really love it if you stuck around and maybe posted something about your experiences with Trollbabe in the Actual Play or general RPGs section.  I'm not a fan of one-on-one RPGs, but some of the other features of the game look intriguing.

Quote from: GabrielActually, I'd be very interested in wider discussion (clearly our minds are made up) of whether Amber passes or fails your Landmark #6.  While I find it a very entertaining read, and an excellent primer on how to GM (probably one of the only good ones), I definitely wouldn't call it a RPG.  It's more like free-form role playing.  It's very similar in nature to a free form moderated military simulation (cadets placed in different rooms, told what resources they have at their disposal, and then a officer presents them with a scenario and decides on their success solely based on his own experiences.)

I find Pundit's love of Amber to be a strange, and possibly hypocritical, aberration as well.  I can't think of a more 'swinish' game in terms of mechanics and play than that one, save perhaps Nobilis.

Quote from: GRIMI find Pundit's love of Amber to be a strange, and possibly hypocritical, aberration as well.  I can't think of a more 'swinish' game in terms of mechanics and play than that one, save perhaps Nobilis.

Well, I won't presume to know what Pundit is thinking, but I can take a stab at MAYBE why Amber doesn't get thrown to the swine.

While I think of Amber as role playing without rules, it is a social game of sorts.  From the beginning of character creation, it is extremely competitive.  And, everything theoretically boils down to player skill, player skill meaning how manipulative a player can be.  And it's very well focused on this premise.

Pundit always makes a big deal about how RPGs are social exercises first and foremost.  Amber eliminates most of the other dressings of a RPG in favor of a purely social experience.  To be a bit unkind, Pundit has historically been pretty big on his "alpha male" hypothesis, and Amber, by its very competitive structure and personality versus personality gameplay, encourages this kind of social pecking order.

Plus, there's the all important lack of pretentiousness.  Wujick writes the book in a conversational manner.  He doesn't dream up new random terms, and instead simply uses the exising RPG vocabulary.  He basically just says, "Hey!  Here's this fun idea I had, please try it out.  I think you'll like it."  That's drastically different from "the Hollyhock God" and claims of "revolutionizing and changing role playing forever."  He doesn't claim Amber is somehow innately superior to something like Palladium, he just says "I have fun playing without dice.  You might like it too."

How about this:

QuoteAs stated in Landmark #3, D&D is the template for a successful RPG.  The relative proposed levels of control of the game between players and GMs is an important part of this success.  In short, players should have total control of their characters and own actions.  Players should be able to expect the GM to be an impartial moderator dedicated to the enjoyment of the social group.  And GM's should have control of the world and non-player controlled inhabitants (unless he abdicates this responsibility, as in the case of player controlled Hirelings and such).

Intruding upon this defined structure, or altering it to cripple the GM or Players respective spheres of influence may be seen as a sign of dysfunctional play and/or may be indicative of something which does not match the template of an RPG.

Yes?  No?  Says something entirely separate from what was originally intended?

I'm one of the most ardent swine hunters and too radical for many, but listen what Clinton R. Nixon has to say:

Quote(Settembrini: the bit I quoted from you is so smart and on the money that I want to shake your hand.)

Enough bragging, honestly, there is a fighting understanding between the Forge and most Pundit-Heads. Even Ron doesn't understand Pundits hate for him, as they are most of the time of the same opinion.

I myself am deeply looking into buying Burning Empires, who would have thought?

Whom I hate feverishly are the Swineheads who run around with their Magic Pixie Dust, and threadcrap non-Forge peoples threads. But they do it for a reason: they are not even seen as the in-people at the forge! They are double sided losers. So I fight them.

But truth and free speech will be served on this site, if anything at all. But this right is also central to the Admin himself. NOBODY shall restrain their arguments, as long they stand up to defend them.

EDIT: ANY Game must be criticized. No matter WHO wrote it. There shall never be a "safe zone" for any type of game. If forge games can stand for themselves, they will survive a punditrous onslaught. If he's right and a game is bullshit, he has done society a service by pointing it out.

Quote from: GabrielYes?  No?  Says something entirely separate from what was originally intended?

I think that's pretty good stuff, though I'd go with "may be seen as a sign of dysfunctional play".  I'm not yet convinced that seriously screwing with the GM/player relationship is a useless endeavor.

Quote from: jrientsthough I'd go with "may be seen as a sign of dysfunctional play".  

I agree, and edited.

Quote from: GabrielHow about this:



Yes?  No?  Says something entirely separate from what was originally intended?

Er.. well its basically saying what I meant to say, yes. Except you've switched th words around to give more emphasis to defending the rights of players.  In the way that it sounds, I mean. You say "Players should have total control of their characters"; whereas the GM you just say should have "control" of his setting.

Let's be honest here: The swine these days, other than the few reprobates left over from the old White-Wolf "hate the players and make them puppets for the Storyteller" days, are all about the opposite reaction: they were anti-player back in the 90s, now they are anti-GM.

Its the GM's role that needs protecting by the Landmarks. I mean, really, both of them need protecting, but the GM is the one who is constantly under assault these days.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GabrielWell, I won't presume to know what Pundit is thinking, but I can take a stab at MAYBE why Amber doesn't get thrown to the swine.

While I think of Amber as role playing without rules, it is a social game of sorts.  From the beginning of character creation, it is extremely competitive.  And, everything theoretically boils down to player skill, player skill meaning how manipulative a player can be.  And it's very well focused on this premise.

Pundit always makes a big deal about how RPGs are social exercises first and foremost.  Amber eliminates most of the other dressings of a RPG in favor of a purely social experience.  To be a bit unkind, Pundit has historically been pretty big on his "alpha male" hypothesis, and Amber, by its very competitive structure and personality versus personality gameplay, encourages this kind of social pecking order.

Plus, there's the all important lack of pretentiousness.  Wujick writes the book in a conversational manner.  He doesn't dream up new random terms, and instead simply uses the exising RPG vocabulary.  He basically just says, "Hey!  Here's this fun idea I had, please try it out.  I think you'll like it."  That's drastically different from "the Hollyhock God" and claims of "revolutionizing and changing role playing forever."  He doesn't claim Amber is somehow innately superior to something like Palladium, he just says "I have fun playing without dice.  You might like it too."

You basically got it, with one exception. Amber HAS rules. Very well defined RULES. The fact that these rules include neither a beancounter element nor a random element does not stop them from being rules.

Amber is the fucking Chess of RPGs.  Or really, more accurately, its the Diplomacy of RPGs. Lots of fixed non-random mechanics that play elegantly, modified by how the players are trying to fuck each other up the ass.

But you're utterly right about the social pecking order business.

You see, Amber strips away a lot of the veneer of illusion that other RPGs have; I think that's part of why it makes certain people so nervous.
It strips away the illusion other RPGs create that the GMs power to influence the world is somehow less than absolute. We all know that in D&D, in just about any RPG, the GM at the end of the day can make ANYTHING he wants to happen. In Amber, Wujcik just got rid of the illusion that things like dice and modifiers and difficulty ratings provided, the illusion that somehow the GM is limited in some way, and made the obvious truth visible.

There is also an illusion, in RPGs, that the game is all egalitarian. Its not, its always a social power struggle. There's always people competing for time, for attention, for protagonism. The GM better be the top dog, and after that part of how he keeps it fun is by making sure that no other player becomes too dominant over the rest of the pack.

In Amber, there is a vent for that power-struggle. First, it establishes absolutely and plainly, by removing that first illusion, that the GM is the top dog.  Then it puts plainly what the second illusion was meant to cover up: that the players with the most ability to think quickly, to be social, to draw attention to themselves; will end up getting more out of the game. Then it creates a way for that truth to be obvious without ruining the fun for everyone, and in the process encourages everyone to think more quickly, be more social, and draw more attention to themselves.

Amber doesn't just make better GMs, it makes better players too.

And yes, finally, the lack of Pretentiousness is a hugely important thing. Being a Swine is 9/10ths about your posture. If you run around claiming that your RPGs are all-important (or more often that YOU are all important for playing RPGs the way you play them) then you are a Swine. Most Swine act that way, making out that RPGs are art or intellectual pursuit or culture, without ever actually doing a fucking thing, so its ALL about posture. And the ones who do make an RPG inevitably make one that in no way lives up to their hype about their own self-importance.
What is the difference, for example, between an old fashioned RPG and a Storyteller game?
Simple, the Storyteller game claims to be a storyteller game. That's it. That's the only difference. Mechanically, there's nothing about Vampire that makes it more sophisticated or more oriented toward "storytelling play" than D&D. Its just another RPG, with nothing special or new about it.

Whereas Erick Wujcik did something radically different. He actually made an RPG that was radically innovative, utterly different from other games that were out there, and he did it without claiming that he was the "answer" to gaming's woes, or that his way was the new movement for the brighter future, or that he was the greatest artist since Jack Kerouac, or any other fucking bullshit claim the Swine like to toss about.

I fucking ADORE Amber because it kicks the living shit out of ANYTHING the Swine ever made in terms of innovation and originality, it is the living proof that they are WRONG, and that they are LIARS. That all their claims of intelligentsia are just that, claims, with no foundation.

It is the anti-Swine.

So I love it for the same reason they hate it. You don't see a lot of Swine love for Amber around the Forge do you?

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogAnybody who's actually played some of the better-known Forge games would be scratching their heads at this description. I've played and run a few of these games (eg Sorcerer, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Nicotine Girls, Donjon), and I can assure you that 'having things always go the players' way' is not at all the philosophy behind them.

The whole "say yes or roll the dice"; "fun now", shit... NARRATIVISM is nothing more, when it comes down to it, then the players' selfish demands that they get to protagonize exactly the way they want to, the idea that if something is happening with the story that they don't care for, they should be able to change reality to fit their wants; even if it goes against what the GM had planned.

So you're wrong. But to paraphrase the Emperor Claudius "the difference between me and him is that I will simply not agree, whereas with him your disagreement would see your head on a pole by morning".

You should stay, because here you're allowed to disagree with me all you like.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou don't see a lot of Swine love for Amber around the Forge do you?

Depends who you talk to.

I mostly lurk there, but I really love Amber.

Ben Lehman wrote Polaris, the game that won the "most innovative" indie RPG last time out, and in his list of games that influenced his, right in the book, he includes the note that "this game totally blew my mind".

So, that's two fans.  

Can you point me to two people there getting any hate on for the game, or did you just make up that idea based on the lack of regular discussion about it?

Yeah, you won't find any supporters of Amber on the Forge...right?

But wait, who wrote this article? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/)

Do some games on the Forge challenge the concept of narrative control?

Sure, some do.

Do all of the games do this?

Nope.

Is it cool to sometimes play a different game that challenges what I know and have always accepted about RPGs?

Yes.

Have the games that do this better have something more and not just exist to challenge something?

Damned right they'd better.

This is very much like someone who plays Monopoly getting upset because in another game you don't get around the board in an orderly fashion or in some boards games you create the board as you go!  No way!

That isn't a board game, dammit.

So basically, yeah, it's hypocrisy.

What you're really saying is 'games I don't like are swinish', 'games I do like, even if they have swinish tendencies/mechanics/structure aren't'.

That or you're judging on the designer's attitude, not the game itself.

Ah well, at least you stir and foster debate.

QuoteThat or you're judging on the designer's attitude, not the game itself.

Swinedom is all about attitude, it's the culture of self-elevation in swinery that is to be condemned. it has nothing to do with the games. Promethean is a regular adventure game, but the attitude of the authors tries to make it into something "better" which is in no way backed up by the facts or the rules.

Quote from: SettembriniSwinedom is all about attitude, it's the culture of self-elevation in swinery that is to be condemned. it has nothing to do with the games. Promethean is a regular adventure game, but the attitude of the authors tries to make it into something "better" which is in no way backed up by the facts or the rules.

Most Swine games are just mediocre RPGs with claims of grandeur.
The ones that aren't are inferior RPGs with claims of grandeur.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe whole "say yes or roll the dice"; "fun now", shit... NARRATIVISM is nothing more, when it comes down to it, then the players' selfish demands that they get to protagonize exactly the way they want to, the idea that if something is happening with the story that they don't care for, they should be able to change reality to fit their wants; even if it goes against what the GM had planned.

So you're wrong.

No, you're wrong. Again, you don't fully understand these terms, or you're trying to score polemical points. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is nothing more or less than a method of cutting to the chase, of streamlining play. Fun Now (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/fun-now-manifesto.html) is a manifesto that says nothing about your concerns at all.

Finally, you're confusing all sorts of things you've heard about designated authority in Forge games. Let's dissect a few games in detail to examine your claims. Pundits first.

QuoteFinally, you're confusing all sorts of things you've heard about designated authority in Forge games. Let's dissect a few games in detail to examine your claims. Pundits first.

That's the spirit, Droog!

Yeah Droog, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Quote from: droogNo, you're wrong. Again, you don't fully understand these terms, or you're trying to score polemical points. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is nothing more or less than a method of cutting to the chase, of streamlining play.

No it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disputing you here, but from my collated dozen:

8. Consider Your Options.
When someone makes an attempt to alter 'your part' of the fiction - the world if you're the GM, your character if you're a player, you have choices. You can simply agree, or disagree; you can put it to the mechanics, you can modify what they've stated and give it back to them. Limiting your options in this case is silly; most advice to limit these options in a 'positive' way comes from a desire to keep the energy of the game high, or allow for trust between players above and beyond the basic average; those are good goals, but instead of using limits on yourself and others to achieve them, simply remember that your decisions will affect those things as well as the specific matter at hand.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

RPGPundit

I like "yes but...." better.

I'm the kind of GM that likes to give the players what they want as long as it won't ruin the fun for the rest of the group.

So I tend to run across a lot of times where I will let the player do something that is questionable, but give them a trade off for doing so.

now if "say yes, or roll the dice"  means strickly that if a player asks for something that I as the GM has only two choices:
Say yes and just let them have it willy nilly
or
Let them make a roll for it and go by the results

then I say it's pretty much denutting the GM without cause. The GM should have atleast the option of giving trade offs.

If the GM is forced to say yes all the time, or further runs the possibility of still being overruled when he rolls the dice (and perhaps fails), the game ends up with increasingly stupid and silly gameplay, since everyone's ideas are equal, and players can escalate all you want.

Player 1: "Oh yeah, well I decide the villian suddenly has to have a sex change operation!"

Player 2: "And *I* decide that s/he is in love with me!"

Coincidentally I think they are struggling with that sort of thing now...

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

RPGPundit

Can you give a concrete example, please?

Because it really sounds like you have no idea how this works at the table.

As a GM, I don't say, "No," to the ideas the players put forth with my alpha dog GM growl, I say, "No," with the game's system, putting shit in their way and making them roll the dice in a conflict if they want something.

THis is quite different than someone walking into a game set in ancient Rome and wanting to play a ninja assassin.

Apples, over here.

Oranges, over there.

Quote from: McrowI like "yes but...." better.

That was always my philosophy running LARPs.
Saying an outright no, particularly to something that was clearly within a character's capabilities always struck me as a touch... stupid.  So you let them have things, but you create a hitch or a hook from it.

Interplay is good.

Dictatorial GMing leads to railroading and the dark side.

QuoteSaying an outright no, particularly to something that was clearly within a character's capabilities always struck me as a touch... stupid. So you let them have things, but you create a hitch or a hook from it.

There are some instances where this motto clashes with my (for lack of a better, less Swiney term) "Simulationist" streak.

A realistic (in the context of the fantastic) world is important to me. I don't want the cosmos to seem either benevolent or antagonistic to the actions of PCs.

For example, let's say that the PCs are rummaging through an orcish storeroom in the dungeon:

1. They're free to make use of any item that I have already established is there in my room description.

2. If they're looking for something I haven't mentioned, but that is at least somewhat likely to be present in an orcish storeroom, I'll assign a chance of it being present and roll the dice to find out for sure if it is. After all, even when a particular item is likely to be present in a given location, it isn't always so. This, I feel, enforces the illusion of a "real fantasy world" that may ultimately exist for the players' benefit, but definitely does not exist for the benefit of their PCs.

3. If they want something ridiculous, say a jet pack and an inflatable clown hammer, I'll simply say "No." Unless we're playing Toon. :)

Quote from: PakaCan you give a concrete example, please?

Because it really sounds like you have no idea how this works at the table.

As a GM, I don't say, "No," to the ideas the players put forth with my alpha dog GM growl, I say, "No," with the game's system, putting shit in their way and making them roll the dice in a conflict if they want something.

THis is quite different than someone walking into a game set in ancient Rome and wanting to play a ninja assassin.

Apples, over here.

Oranges, over there.

For starters, a lot of Narrativists would argue that it should be possible for a player to be a ninja assassin in ancient rome, because he wants to "create the story" that an asian assasin came from China and taught him everything he knows before conveniently dying, and as the player it should be his perogative to be able to able to do that.

But let's ignore that bit of lunacy for a moment, and assume that you would not be so drunk on the kool-aid that you would go for that kind of nonsense.

Let me put a simple question to you: should I, as the DM, have the right to say "No, that isn't allowed"?

Does "Say yes or roll the dice" mean "say yes or roll the dice" or doesn't it?
Answer the question, don't avoid, don't try to turn it back to being about me, just answer the fucking question.
You either think the DM should be allowed to say NO to his players about anything, the buck stopping with him, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFor starters, a lot of Narrativists would argue that it should be possible for a player to be a ninja assassin in ancient rome, because he wants to "create the story" that an asian assasin came from China and taught him everything he knows before conveniently dying, and as the player it should be his perogative to be able to able to do that.

This statement is full of shit.

Give me a quote, text, data, something real other than your opinion of a group of people that you have built your reputation and internet cred screaming shit about.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut let's ignore that bit of lunacy for a moment, and assume that you would not be so drunk on the kool-aid that you would go for that kind of nonsense.

Let me put a simple question to you: should I, as the DM, have the right to say "No, that isn't allowed"?

Does "Say yes or roll the dice" mean "say yes or roll the dice" or doesn't it?
Answer the question, don't avoid, don't try to turn it back to being about me, just answer the fucking question.
You either think the DM should be allowed to say NO to his players about anything, the buck stopping with him, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

This statement is NOT about before the game starts.  It is about play at the table after character generation has already gone down.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, a game you can't stop talking shit about on your blog, you play a paladin gunslinger of the Faith.  Thassit.  There is no ninja choice because there is no other choice.  There are choices within that restriction but that is all there is.

Now que the howling hordes saying that it is too restrictive, please.

Say, "Yes," or roll the dice is about conflicts in the game, not between players at the table.

You don't use Say, "Yes," and roll the dice when a player asks if they can take a steaming shit on the table nor do you use it if they ask if its alright if they borrow your car to smuggle drugs.

Are we clear?

I edited in a NOT that is pretty vital to the whole post.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

This is where you need to quote the relevant text.

Personally, I don't mind a bit of deconstruction, but if you're going to take that line I'm pretty sure we can find ideology in any cultural artifact existing. Bit of a red herring for our purposes, I think.

Quote from: PakaIn Dogs in the Vineyard, a game you can't stop talking shit about on your blog, you play a paladin gunslinger of the Faith.  Thassit.  There is no ninja choice because there is no other choice.  There are choices within that restriction but that is all there is.

Now que the howling hordes saying that it is too restrictive, please.

Say, "Yes," or roll the dice is about conflicts in the game, not between players at the table.

You don't use Say, "Yes," and roll the dice when a player asks if they can take a steaming shit on the table nor do you use it if they ask if its alright if they borrow your car to smuggle drugs.

Are we clear?

Let us ignore for the moment the bizzare fetish that Forge-ites have with uber-specified narrow mini-games. That, after all could be the subject of a whole other thread.

Let us ignore all the red herrings of your post.

What you're saying then, fundamentally, is that IN PLAY the GM is NOT allowed to say "no" to his players? Yes or no?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you're saying then, fundamentally, is that IN PLAY the GM is NOT allowed to say "no" to his players? Yes or no?

RPGPundit

Give me an example of saying no as you see it.

Quote from: RPGPunditLet us ignore all the red herrings of your post.

No, let's not.

You wrote:

QuoteFor starters, a lot of Narrativists would argue that it should be possible for a player to be a ninja assassin in ancient rome, because he wants to "create the story" that an asian assasin came from China and taught him everything he knows before conveniently dying, and as the player it should be his perogative to be able to able to do that.

And I said it was full of shit.

Show me where anyone said that, don't just start ranting towards your next topic.  I will gladly talk about Say, "Yes," or roll the dice and I am attempting to by getting examples from ya but you don't get to engage in bullshit hyperbole and then stomp off to your next tantrum without owning up to your last post.

Quote from: PakaGive me an example of saying no as you see it.

What the fuck is this, the Clinton deposition?! Does it depend on what my meaning of "no" is?

Ask the Take Back The Night crowd: NO means NO.

Can your players ask for something in the game, and the GM say NO to it, or is he OBLIGED to "say yes or roll the dice?"
Its a very simple question.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat the fuck is this, the Clinton deposition?! Does it depend on what my meaning of "no" is?

Ask the Take Back The Night crowd: NO means NO.

Can your players ask for something in the game, and the GM say NO to it, or is he OBLIGED to "say yes or roll the dice?"
Its a very simple question.

RPGPundit

It is a simple question.

Give me an example of where you would say no to your players at the table.

Not hyperbole.

Not Ron Edwards killed my puppy and peed on my D&D books.

An example where you would say no to your players at the table.

Can we communicate or do you want to just go back to your blog and rant?

Quote from: PakaGive me an example of where you would say no to your players at the table.

I'm not the Pundit, but I can give you an example:

When playing through a murder mystery plot and, immediately after the murder, one of the players wants the killer to reveal him/herself

Actually, the "Never say No" is just a stupid idea, which is an outcrop, or better artifact, of bad GM experiences.
In any emulating RPG, there is stuff that the GM knows which won't function. Say, in Traveller a PC wanted to modify his jump drive to J-7.
I'd say "No." and would tell him to let go off the dice.
Adventure RPGng always is about plausabilities and possibilites. If something is implausible I'd be dishonouring and devalueing the emulation if I allowed a roll for something implausible in the game world.

EDIT: The underlying idea, that players shopuld actually be able to affect the gameworld, is laudable. But I tell you thematic players a secret: We D&D, Traveller and Adventure Game GMs already know and do that since 1965. Go figure.

Quote from: SettembriniActually, the "Never say No" is just a stupid idea, which is an outcrop, or better artifact, of bad GM experiences.
In any emulating RPG, there is stuff that the GM knows which won't function. Say, in Traveller a PC wanted to modify his jump drive to J-7.
I'd say "No." and would tell him to let go off the dice.
Adventure RPGng always is about plausabilities and possibilites. If something is implausible I'd be dishonouring and devalueing the emulation if I allowed a roll for something implausible in the game world.

EDIT: The underlying idea, that players shopuld actually be able to affect the gameworld, is laudable. But I tell you thematic players a secret: We D&D, Traveller and Adventure Game GMs already know and do that since 1965. Go figure.

Dude, you're okay, and it seems to me you got a raw deal at the other place, but you also do not really know what you're talking about. Why people jump from a different distribution of authority straight to the dictatorship of the playerteriat is beyond me. It's like you don't think anybody who plays these games might be concerned with plausibility in their fiction.

In any case, 'say yes or roll the dice' is not about the separate issue of whether some kind of directorial authority is given to players. Broken down, it means this: you have a conflict or you do not. If you do not have a conflict, don't bother to roll. If you do have a conflict, engage the game's mechanics and have at it.

"I want to find out who's killing the cattle." Is this a conflict? Do you as GM want the player to find the information? If you do, why roll? (Dogs in the Vineyard, for example, assumes you want the town to be fully revealed ASAP, and let's remember that that's where the rule comes from).

If for some reason you do want the finding of the cattle-killer to be a conflict, roll the dice and abide by them. Simple as that.

If this is what you do always and already, bully for you. Quite a few people seem to have benefited from having the principle articulated, so maybe you should have got there first.

Quote from: droogIn any case, 'say yes or roll the dice' is not about the separate issue of whether some kind of directorial authority is given to players. Broken down, it means this: you have a conflict or you do not. If you do not have a conflict, don't bother to roll. If you do have a conflict, engage the game's mechanics and have at it.

This is a good explaination of why I like the concept of "yes or roll the dice". The statement is not about the players, but the GM. It's a guideline for GMs to decide on what's important to the game at the time and what isn't. A good GM shouldn't waste their player's time rolling for every little activity that comes along, you should keep events moving and let fate and the dice roll where it would actually lead to creating energy and tension at the table and in the game. In the end the Pundit's worry about this statement eroding GM control is unfounded, since the GM is in full control of how the information relates to what's going on.

As for Settimbrini's concern about emulation. The GM should exercise the prerogative to let the players attempt anything they choose. I mean it certainly helps me out in that player input helps me shape the situations they are in, and makes my life a lot easier. I unfortunately don't know much about Traveller, but if a player in my sci-fi game wanted a fancier star drive for their ship that wouldn't work for it, then the result will be in them finding out why, and laying for them a setting consistent hook to attempt to change the situation if they really want it. No guarantees of success or even survival, just a note of what it would take.

Here's how I'd handle the situation, if for instance the star drive is too big for the ship they have:

QuotePlayer: Captain Thomas wants to try and upgrade his star drive to a J-7.
GM: You ask around and you find out that J-7 drives are designed for larger ships than yours, like travel liners. Cost for one is 50 million credits.
Player: So if I stole one I could probably sell that baby on the black market and use the cash to buy myself an even bigger ship, huh?
GM: You can try.

As a matter of fact for me the statment this discussion is revolving around is slightly different. For me it's "Say yes, roll the dice, or you can try." Noes are dead in the water for a game, a yes, roll, or you can try at least keeps things moving.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm not the Pundit, but I can give you an example:

When playing through a murder mystery plot and, immediately after the murder, one of the players wants the killer to reveal him/herself

Okay, let's go through that as it might happen at the table.

The Player: I want the killer to reveal themselves.

GM:  THat isn't going to happen, what are you going to do to try tom ake it happen?

Player: I am going to investigate X, Y and Z, try to find a clue.

And we're off and playing.  Odds are, in that situation, I'd toss out some kind of clue that would get the game moving and engage the player but I'd damn well mark in my head that this player just isn't interested in this mystery in the least.

This doesn't mean I'd end it right there, especially if the other players were invested in it but I'd remember that this player wanted done with it and I'd push the pace a bit.

Quote from: RPGPunditCan your players ask for something in the game, and the GM say NO to it, or is he OBLIGED to "say yes or roll the dice?"
Its a very simple question.

I think this boils down to who you give the benefit of the doubt to.

See, when I started reading Pundit's blog, I constantly wondered "why does this guy like Amber?"  Then when I saw the Landmarks, I really wondered.  So, I bring up Amber not to say "it iz not RPG.  it iz teh suxxorz!"  I bring it up because, as far as I'm concerned, it's how to understand where Pundit is coming from with his Landmarks.  And since the Landmarks are supposed to serve as a guideline for discussion here, I think understanding them is a pretty good idea.

(Maybe even testing them against some cases and maybe tempering them a bit is a good idea.)

From this discussion and the Point Buy discussion in the main RPG forum, I've come to the conclusion that most of us are really on the same wavelength.  The difference is who we have a bias to at the table.

Pundit, I believe there's a rule somewhere in Amber that says something akin to, "Unless you have a specific reason for not letting a character do something, then let them do it."  I believe it's either the same rule or one in the same section which says something like "when in doubt, let the player's succeed."  And, now that we've all been kind of discussing this for a while, I understand why you don't see this as something contrary to what you're saying about the GM saying "NO."

The key difference in what all of us are saying is that you seem to basically assume that players will be the problem element of a group, not the GM.  You seem to be thinking that we're talking about swinging the power pendulum all the way over to the player side, and we're not.  I think we're all saying that the GM still has authority over the game and has the right to refuse stupid things.

Now that I think about the whole thing, I don't even think you're talking about players not having any narrative (or directorial or whatever you want to call it) over the world.  After all, in Amber a player character can walk to another shadow and dictate to the GM exactly what the world is and shape it to his or her desires.  If that isn't player power, I don't know what is.

So, what we're all really talking about is when it all goes wrong.  If the GM is being stupid, what recourse does the game give?  If the player is being a jackass, what options does the GM have?  This assumes that the various participants aren't being jackasses on purpose, but are misinterpreting their power balance in the game.

Quote from: PakaGM:  THat isn't going to happen, what are you going to do to try tom ake it happen?

How is that (the bit I highlighted) not "saying no"?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonHow is that (the bit I highlighted) not "saying no"?

Why is it that simple? I have yet to see anyone here advocate that every situation is subject to instant success if the players demand it. Paka's choice doesn't preclude the guilty party from ever being discovered, it just makes the player aware that some work will be involved in doing so. It more than just 'no', it was, 'you can find out, but you'll have to try to do so'.

Quote from: droog"I want to find out who's killing the cattle." Is this a conflict? Do you as GM want the player to find the information? If you do, why roll? (Dogs in the Vineyard, for example, assumes you want the town to be fully revealed ASAP, and let's remember that that's where the rule comes from).

If for some reason you do want the finding of the cattle-killer to be a conflict, roll the dice and abide by them. Simple as that

That's all fine and good; and what if the finding of the cattle killer is something you judge should be absolutely impossible at this stage of the game, no matter how bad the player wants it?

What then?

RPGPundit

Quote from: JamesVThis is a good explaination of why I like the concept of "yes or roll the dice". The statement is not about the players, but the GM.

In the sense that its an absurd straightjacket on GM-behaviour, yes.

QuoteIt's a guideline for GMs to decide on what's important to the game at the time and what isn't.

It isn't couched in the language of a "guideline". Its couched in the language of a rule.
Fuck, in a certain Swine system, its put in the form of a LAW.

QuoteA good GM shouldn't waste their player's time rolling for every little activity that comes along, you should keep events moving and let fate and the dice roll where it would actually lead to creating energy and tension at the table and in the game.

I agree, everyone rational agrees with this.

What I can't seem to get a single one of you fuckers to do, however, is to answer the simple question of do you think the GM has a right to say an outright no to his player's demands as he sees fit?

Why are you guys all so scared to answer that question?

QuoteIn the end the Pundit's worry about this statement eroding GM control is unfounded, since the GM is in full control of how the information relates to what's going on.

Not if he's not allowed to say "no", he isn't.

QuoteAs for Settimbrini's concern about emulation. The GM should exercise the prerogative to let the players attempt anything they choose.

Why the fuck should he?
That's just a formula for creating either a player-run monstrosity of an inconsistent game (if the GM really does have to give them a CHANCE to do absolutely anything at all), or an utterly false sense of player empowerment (if the GM just pretends to but in fact does not).

Either way, this doesn't seem to be a way to use "theory" to "cure" dysfunctional groups; it seems to be a recipe for making groups far more dysfunctional than the worst evil GM-boogeyman run dictatorship could possibly be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JamesVI have yet to see anyone here advocate that every situation is subject to instant success if the players demand it.

Ok, I must be missing something then.  What does "say 'Yes' or roll." actually mean then?

Quote from: PakaOkay, let's go through that as it might happen at the table.

The Player: I want the killer to reveal themselves.

GM:  THat isn't going to happen, what are you going to do to try tom ake it happen?

Player: I am going to investigate X, Y and Z, try to find a clue.

How is "That isn't going to happen" any different from saying "NO"?
Or is it just the word "no" that you guys are all pissed off about because daddy wouldn't let you have a tonka truck or mommy wouldn't let you eat ice cream or a bad stranger touched you in the park?

I mean, shit, if this is really just an obsession with a single fucking word, then its really reached new depths of the truely dysfunctional...

Or are you really trying to suggest that the radical fucking innovation here is the concept of "what are you going to do to try to make it happen?"

Because really, if that's the case, what you're saying is that you guys are radical innovators because you assume your players are either fucking retards or whiny bitches that will throw a hissy fit if you don't spoonfeed them over toward something they actually could do?

That's just sad.

You see, in my gaming group at least, I say "no", and my players automatically know, without me having to engage in the fucking pop psychology or fondling their fucking nipples that said "no" implies "try something else"; and not just "I'm an asshole".

But of course, that's the problem with just about all Forge theory, isn't it? It was created by a group of guys who were anally raped by a gang of Storyteller Swine with GM-fiat and GM-PCs and Designer-metaplot, and now as a sad traumatized reaction you guys all go into spasms at the merest thought of an empowered GM, all because fucking White Wolf was bad for you... that's a little like eating one spoilt apple and deciding never to eat solid food again.

RPGPundit

Just say yes or roll the dice has nothing at all to do with GM power it has to do with getting the game to where it matters and not concentrating on rolling dice for conflicts that don't matter worth a damn.

Thass all it is.

Easy.

It has nothing to do with taking the power out of the GM's hands.

And if there was a game somewhere that did try to take the power out of the GM's hands, why is that a big deal?

There's no one way to play these games, there's tons of ways and sometimes different ways are fun.

I never said anything about not saying no.

There are clearly things that a player could attempt and in doing so would be crapping the bed.  Trying to fly around and use eyebeams in a historical western or whatever.

You are taking just say yes or roll the dice and turning it into something you can rant about.

If you are interested in looking for something to rant about, go find it.

Quote from: RPGPunditdo you think the GM has a right to say an outright no to his player's demands as he sees fit?

I'll say it. Yes a GM can say no to a player, but for me a no is a zero contribution to game, and is so a waste of time. If a player asks for something and I say no, than that situation is dead when maybe it doesn't have to be. Maybe if I'm using my head and the players like it enough to follow along, I can spin what seems to be a ludicrous request into a full on adventure. Hell if it's a bad idea or too hard to achieve and the players follow it, ignoring whatever warnings or outs I provide until they all get killed, that's not my fault, at least they decided to follow something they thought would be fun. I can TPK a party for a dumb-ass idea and sleep at night, especially if I worked my ass off to make even that situation fun in the attempting.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr are you really trying to suggest that the radical fucking innovation here is the concept of "what are you going to do to try to make it happen?"
Because really, if that's the case, what you're saying is that you guys are radical innovators because you assume your players are either fucking retards or whiny bitches that will throw a hissy fit if you don't spoonfeed them over toward something they actually could do?

That I have little argument with. I've tried reading GNS theory and to this day, even with a reread, there are ideas that have spoonfed, cluestick vibe to it. As if what is being written down really is something that has never occurred to anyone before, ever.

Quote from: GabrielPundit, I believe there's a rule somewhere in Amber that says something akin to, "Unless you have a specific reason for not letting a character do something, then let them do it."  I believe it's either the same rule or one in the same section which says something like "when in doubt, let the player's succeed."  And, now that we've all been kind of discussing this for a while, I understand why you don't see this as something contrary to what you're saying about the GM saying "NO."

I believe there is. Amber is utterly FILLED with excellent GM-advice.

But its just that, advice. Its not taken to mean a leash you hang around a GM's neck. The GM can take it or leave it.

Whereas on the other hand, the way the Forgeites take the "say yes or roll the dice" thing, at least judging from the posts all of you are making here, is one where you believe that in at least some circumstances the GM should be literally prohibited from saying no.

QuoteThe key difference in what all of us are saying is that you seem to basically assume that players will be the problem element of a group, not the GM.  

No, I think both can be problematic.  White-Wolf swine, for example, are all about creating problematic GMs. Fucking glory hounds that reduce the players to cheerleaders with utterly no ability to influence the world or the precious metaplot, they are reduced to watching impotently while the GM plays out the little story sent to him by the game designers and all the important NPCs do things.

I assume that the problem in a group will be when there is too much deviation from the traditional division of GM and Player authorities.  A GM robbing players of their role in the gaming group is just as bad as the players robbing the GM of his role in the gaming group.

QuoteYou seem to be thinking that we're talking about swinging the power pendulum all the way over to the player side, and we're not.  I think we're all saying that the GM still has authority over the game and has the right to refuse stupid things.

Yes, but you think the players should be able to FORCE the GM to be unable to say no to "reasonable" things. And that's where the real problem is.
Im glad you're not so extremist to think that the player should be allowed to have a jetpack in the wild west just because he feels like it, but the real problem is when the players think that it would be reasonable that he should get to "say yes or roll the dice" about something and the GM doesn't.

QuoteNow that I think about the whole thing, I don't even think you're talking about players not having any narrative (or directorial or whatever you want to call it) over the world.  After all, in Amber a player character can walk to another shadow and dictate to the GM exactly what the world is and shape it to his or her desires.  If that isn't player power, I don't know what is.

Sure, its player power within the context of the player's role (as in, what is relevant to HIS character).  A good GM should allow for quite a bit of leeway there.
What should not be allowed is for the player to start dictating the GM's role in the game. For the sake of the game, the buck must stop at the GM.

QuoteSo, what we're all really talking about is when it all goes wrong.  If the GM is being stupid, what recourse does the game give?  If the player is being a jackass, what options does the GM have?  This assumes that the various participants aren't being jackasses on purpose, but are misinterpreting their power balance in the game.

Right. And to me the best possible recourse is the appeal to the the traditional divisions of player/gm roles and the traditions of "good customs" of GM and player behaviour.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PakaI never said anything about not saying no.

There are clearly things that a player could attempt and in doing so would be crapping the bed.  Trying to fly around and use eyebeams in a historical western or whatever.

You are taking just say yes or roll the dice and turning it into something you can rant about.

If you are interested in looking for something to rant about, go find it.

And yet I notice you still haven't answered the question.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd yet I notice you still haven't answered the question.

RPGPundit

And you haven't answered my question nor have you commented on me calling you out on making up bullshit that suits your rant about what Narrative play is about.

I'm not meeting you halfway until you meet me.

The way people keep defending the oft-quoted line, they are diluting it's absoluteness. If it isn't absolute anymore, it's pointless to discuss it, as clearly, the absoluteness is the thing that is so laughable.

Is it absolute, or not?

If not, discussion ends here.

I'll quote the relevant text:

Quote from: Vincent BakerDrive play toward conflict

Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes. If nothing's at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they're doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they're there. If they want it, it's theirs.

Sooner or later — sooner, because your town's pregnant with crisis — they'll have their characters do something that someone else won't like. Bang!  Something's at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice.

Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes.

Also, here's some text about GMing Conflicts:

Quote from: Vincent Baker— As GM, you get to help establish stakes. If your player says "what's at stake is this" you can say "no, I don't dig that, how about what's at stake is this instead?" Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn't abdicate it.

Make of that what you will.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's all fine and good; and what if the finding of the cattle killer is something you judge should be absolutely impossible at this stage of the game, no matter how bad the player wants it?

What then?

RPGPundit

All right, let's break this down a bit.

1. You are running a game in which the point is to find the cattle-killer. In this case, why are you saying 'No'? Isn't there some way for the players to be moving towards that goal? If not, why is this the point of the game?

2. You are running a game in which the cattle-killer is irrelevant. You could block, saying 'No' or whatever combination of words achieves the same purpose. You could also riff off the players attempts and throw them some new conflict. There are multiple choices, depending on your style (individual and group).

3. You are running a game in which you have carefully plotted the point at which the PCs will find the catle-killer (related to 1.). Something has gone wrong with your railroad. Say 'No'.

In combination with the text quoted above, it should be pretty clear that (a) this is a technique for pacing conflict; (b) it does not require to check your head at the door; (c) it is for a specific game (and style) and should be handled with care in other circumstances.

Quote from: droogAll right, let's break this down a bit.

1. You are running a game in which the point is to find the cattle-killer. In this case, why are you saying 'No'? Isn't there some way for the players to be moving towards that goal? If not, why is this the point of the game?

2. You are running a game in which the cattle-killer is irrelevant. You could block, saying 'No' or whatever combination of words achieves the same purpose. You could also riff off the players attempts and throw them some new conflict. There are multiple choices, depending on your style (individual and group).

3. You are running a game in which you have carefully plotted the point at which the PCs will find the catle-killer (related to 1.). Something has gone wrong with your railroad. Say 'No'.

In combination with the text quoted above, it should be pretty clear that (a) this is a technique for pacing conflict; (b) it does not require to check your head at the door; (c) it is for a specific game (and style) and should be handled with care in other circumstances.

You and I are operating from totally different bases of how a game is GMed.

Consider: what if the cattle killer's identity may or may not be relevant to the game, but it is simply not logical for the PCs to be capable of identifying the cattle killer at this moment, because they lack the necessary information/connections to do so?

That's the point. You seem to presume that an RPG is run from the point of view that there is a "story" in place, that you are either trying to lead the characters to, or the "cattle rustler" is a totally irrelevant aspect of the story, or if not you are "railroading" to keep them from it until some pre-arranged moment.
But what if story is secondary to emulation? Why should the GM fuck up the entire emulation of the world only because some player really wants to be able to find the cattle rustler now, even though the reality of the setting doesn't allow it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou and I are operating from totally different bases of how a game is GMed.
...................................
But what if story is secondary to emulation? Why should the GM fuck up the entire emulation of the world only because some player really wants to be able to find the cattle rustler now, even though the reality of the setting doesn't allow it?

You've answered your own question. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is a narrativist tool. If what you're doing is simulating a world, the principle may not apply. On the other hand, it might, but caveat emptor. I said this already.

Quote from: meit is for a specific game (and style) and should be handled with care in other circumstances

So how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

Quote from: YamoSo how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

Do you want me to post the text that covers this again?

Quote from: YamoSo how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

The -no- you are looking for is here.

Quote from: Vincent Baker— As GM, you get to help establish stakes. If your player says "what's at stake is this" you can say "no, I don't dig that, how about what's at stake is this instead?" Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn't abdicate it.

Quote from: LostSoulDo you want me to post the text that covers this again?

Go right ahead. I guess I got distraced watching this Paka dude flail around like mad to avoid answering a simply yes/no question.

What's wrong, dude? Do you get mystically banished back to the Forge Mytzlplk-style if just say "yes" or "no" instead of launch into some blather about "conflicts?" It's not about Pundit, it's about "yes" or "no."

EDIT:

QuoteThe -no- you are looking for is here.

Well, FINALLY! :)

So it's really, definitively "Say yes or roll the dice or say no."

Thanks for admitting it at last.

Quote from: YamoGo right ahead. I guess I got distraced watching this Paka dude flail around like mad to avoid answering a simply yes/no question.

What's wrong, dude? Do you get mystically banished back to the Forge Mytzlplk-style if just say "yes" or "no" instead of launch into some blather about "conflicts?" It's not about Pundit, it's about "yes" or "no."

EDIT:



Well, FINALLY! :)

So it's really, definitively "Say yes or roll the dice or say no."

Thanks for admitting it at last.

*sniffs the bait*

Nah.

Quote from: Paka*sniffs the bait*

Nah.

That's not the bait you smell, it's the victory laurels on the brows of the opposing team. :)

Quote from: YamoThat's not the bait you smell, it's the victory laurels on the brows of the opposing team. :)

I think we were playing a different game there, chief.

Enjoy.

Have a good weekend.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDepends who you talk to.

I mostly lurk there, but I really love Amber.

Ben Lehman wrote Polaris, the game that won the "most innovative" indie RPG last time out, and in his list of games that influenced his, right in the book, he includes the note that "this game totally blew my mind".

So, that's two fans.  

Can you point me to two people there getting any hate on for the game, or did you just make up that idea based on the lack of regular discussion about it?

Perhaps more importantly, Ben Lehman who wrote Polaris plays in Erick's weekly group (which does Amber... sorta), and Erick plays in Ben's weekly group (which does assorted indie games.)

But, no.  RPGs will always be home to those who pin their egos on things other than their own happiness (such as specific games or styles of play) and thus this is impossible.  There must be war.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: YamoSo how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

I don't know why you roll your electronic eyes. That shit's been covered. Quick answer: you don't? You say, "That's ridiculous, dude," (along with everybody else at the table)?

Quote from: droogI don't know why you roll your electronic eyes. That shit's been covered. Quick answer: you don't? You say, "That's ridiculous, dude," (along with everybody else at the table)?

That's a no.

Yes.

There's actually a good rule hiding in there for non-narrativist games...

If you want the players to find the secret map  when they search the room (or it would make sense, or is inevitable) -- don't make them roll the dice, just say "yes" when they say they're searching.  Yes, you find a map.  Why?  Because it keeps the game moving, and if it's not really an important roll, or it makes sense that they'd find it (5 people searching an empty 10'x10' room for a few minutes should find just about ANYTHING in there).

I do like the "Take 10 or Take 20" rule in 3rd Ed. D&D for that.

But you could also say "No" instead of rolling the dice.  If your player wants to try jumping the 80' canyon... well, there's no need to roll for that either... just keep the game moving as you describe their graceful dive into the abyss. :)

Quote from: Ben LehmanPerhaps more importantly, Ben Lehman who wrote Polaris plays in Erick's weekly group (which does Amber... sorta), and Erick plays in Ben's weekly group (which does assorted indie games.)

But, no.  RPGs will always be home to those who pin their egos on things other than their own happiness (such as specific games or styles of play) and thus this is impossible.  There must be war.

yrs--
--Ben

Do you use this line on the Forge too? "Some of my best friends are dysfunctional game designers"?

I mean, really, the fact that you game with Erick means that you are either:
1. Desperate for a game in China, where I imagine that gaming groups are rather few and far between.

2. An OK guy who happens to be into theory crap. Those do exist. Levi's another. And you've always seemed relatively reasonable when I've spoken to you.

That doesn't change the fact that the Forge ideologically opposes mainstream gaming, that the Swine in general tend to piss on Amber at every opportunity on RPG.net and elsewhere, and make utterly absurd and outlandish claims about the games mechanics ("Its all GM fiat.. its just comparing the ranks", "first rank always wins", "its broken/unplayable", etc etc ad nauseum) that a gang of them tried to pressure Guardians of Order into remaking Amber as a variant of the Swine-game Borgstromosity Nobilis.  I mean, fucks' sake, that's the RPG hobby equivalent of denying its right to fucking exist.
I don't give a fuck that a Palestinian is buddies with Ehud Olmert, it doesn't change the fact that various arab states have claimed that Israel must be driven into the sea.

The real question now would be whether you recognize that in fact Amber is by far a more innovative game than anything the Forge has come up with thus far (and did so more than a decade before the Forge even existed!), all without having to stop being a mainstream roleplaying game, and while doing so without as much as a whiff of pretentiousness?

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogYou've answered your own question. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is a narrativist tool. If what you're doing is simulating a world, the principle may not apply. On the other hand, it might, but caveat emptor. I said this already.

ALL roleplaying is emulation. Trying to turn Roleplaying into some kind of collaborative storytelling exercise is a fruitless endeavour.
So is trying to classify Roleplaying into the categories of "narrativist" or "simulationist", which are faulty flawed terms invented from incorrect premises by someone who has publically confessed to being brain damaged.

Trying to push it on the rest of us, or claim that our games are dysfunctional because we play RPGs the way we do, or that we're ignorant for not seeing the genius of My Life With Master, is fucking insulting.

RPGPundit

So, just to review, we are all clear now that "Say yes or roll the dice" is either a monumentally fucking stupid concept; or that it actually means "say yes or no or roll the dice", in which case its utterly meaningless and thus a monumentally fucking useless concept?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditALL roleplaying is emulation. Trying to turn Roleplaying into some kind of collaborative storytelling exercise is a fruitless endeavour.
So is trying to classify Roleplaying into the categories of "narrativist" or "simulationist", which are faulty flawed terms invented from incorrect premises by someone who has publically confessed to being brain damaged.

Trying to push it on the rest of us, or claim that our games are dysfunctional because we play RPGs the way we do, or that we're ignorant for not seeing the genius of My Life With Master, is fucking insulting.

RPGPundit

Okay, now we're back to the beginning. Press Repeat.

Quote from: droogOkay, now we're back to the beginning. Press Repeat.

I agree.  I thought the exact same thing on the post prior to the one you quoted.

In any event, my original issues were answered.  

I do think the Landmarks have a bit of a flaw, and it's because they were created as a reaction to Forge theory.  I think #4, #9, and #10 are the Landmarks which are probably the most meaningful to discussion.

#3 has the slight connotation that a successful RPG with many followers can't be called "bad".  That certainly has implications for my tendency to gripe about Palladium mechanics.  But, I haven't been banned yet.  ::knock on wood::

QuoteI do think the Landmarks have a bit of a flaw, and it's because they were created as a reaction to Forge theory.

How so?  I'm not sure these would be the same 10 points I'd make -- but I didn't see any that I strongly disagreed with.  I don't think I saw any that I'd call "Flawed".  My only negative comment would be that they're very specific to a certain style of RPG -- and I think with a bit of rewording they could apply to all sorts of games.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, just to review, we are all clear now that "Say yes or roll the dice" is either a monumentally fucking stupid concept; or that it actually means "say yes or no or roll the dice", in which case its utterly meaningless and thus a monumentally fucking useless concept?

RPGPundit

Wha?  So you think that rolling dice for pointless stuff - let's say, just to see if Bob the Barbarian can tie his shoes - is a good idea?

Say yes or roll the dice means only roll dice when it's cool and fun to do so.  Don't roll the dice when it's totally pointless.

If you want to say it's not a new concept, that's cool, I'd agree with you; but to rail against something basic like that is... well, I just don't get it.

Quote from: GabrielI agree.  I thought the exact same thing on the post prior to the one you quoted.

In any event, my original issues were answered.  

I do think the Landmarks have a bit of a flaw, and it's because they were created as a reaction to Forge theory.  I think #4, #9, and #10 are the Landmarks which are probably the most meaningful to discussion.

#3 has the slight connotation that a successful RPG with many followers can't be called "bad".  That certainly has implications for my tendency to gripe about Palladium mechanics.  But, I haven't been banned yet.  ::knock on wood::

No one would ever be banned for griping about any mechanic.  If I can help it, no one will ever be banned, period.

As for #3, it doesn't really mean that at all. It means you can't suggest that games that are successful aren't what most gamers really want. It counteracts the common syndrome in theorists, most of whom don't care for mainstream games, of claiming "millions of D&D players actually despise D&D like I do, and really want to play Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, like I do, they are just ignorant and don't realize that they hate themselves".

It doesn't mean you have to bend over and let D&D rape you with a +5 tool; which is how many have apparently chosen to interpret it.

If you agree with the general spirit of the Landmarks, but disagree with the execution, I might suggest you could start a new thread presenting your own set of the Landmarks, and we could compare and contrast?

RPGPundit

Quote from: LostSoulWha?  So you think that rolling dice for pointless stuff - let's say, just to see if Bob the Barbarian can tie his shoes - is a good idea?

Say yes or roll the dice means only roll dice when it's cool and fun to do so.  Don't roll the dice when it's totally pointless.

If you want to say it's not a new concept, that's cool, I'd agree with you; but to rail against something basic like that is... well, I just don't get it.

I have to assume you're either willingly playing stupid here, or you didn't actually read the thread?

The problem with "just say yes or roll the dice" is that it is implicit that you can't just say no.

RPGPundit

QuoteIf you agree with the general spirit of the Landmarks, but disagree with the execution, I might suggest you could start a new thread presenting your own set of the Landmarks, and we could compare and contrast?

Here we go (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1592)

Quote from: StuartHere we go (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1592)

Right, except I was suggesting you formalize these thoughts into your own set of "Landmarks", rather than just a commentary to my own. You're halfway there, you might as well go whole hog!

RPGPundit

If the game has done its job, if character creation has done its job and everyone is on the same page, ready to dip their big toe and then take a dive into where the game is heading, saying no isn't necessary that often.

Sometimes...sure but even when I run games with strangers at cons if the intro is tight, no's can be kept in the chamber where they belong and we can play the game and go.

Say, "Yes," and roll the dice is for driving a game forward.

Thassall.

Well, well well. Turns out the quote is just one part of the handholder design DitV. It's thematic rolplaying, which has nothing to do with adventure gaming. It's a special rule for a special game.
Don't harass us with a special case for a special game, as I am not harassing you with the intricacies of interstellar trade!

And for the superiour insight in that phrase: Wow. Gm has to keep game moving. wow. If you needed Vincent to tell you that, I pity you.

So take this special rule, and apply it to the game it belongs. And this is not an adventure game.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, well well. Turns out the quote is just one part of the handholder design DitV. It's thematic rolplaying, which has nothing to do with adventure gaming. It's a special rule for a special game.
Don't harass us with a special case for a special game, as I am not harassing you with the intricacies of interstellar trade!

And for the superiour insight in that phrase: Wow. Gm has to keep game moving. wow. If you needed Vincent to tell you that, I pity you.

So take this special rule, and apply it to the game it belongs. And this is not an adventure game.

Oh!

You are going to spew venom no matter what anyone says.

Got it.

Thanks, Settembrini, you have just saved me tons of time.

Spare your snappy line, it's not venom. It's truth.
I have no ill feelings about DitV. It's only that several people mixed stuff up. And your idea of:

"simply keep the game moving"

is, actually laudable, but doesn't need the unbearable asbsolutism in the cited passage.

We are all here for discussion, so dismount your mortally offended horse and talk stuff to us. If Vincent was the first to show it to some people, just fucking admit it. There is no pain involved. If it's so brilliant, then admit it. Say:
"The way he put it opened my eyes!"

That would be honest shit, instead of claiming that it`s not individual enlightenment but universal insight only Vincent could spread to the world which is in the oft-mentioned line.

This is not a pissing match, we are talking down to earth. But as long as anybody is elevating that line above what it actually is, I will keep attacking it.

Again: That way Vincent of putting it into exactly those words worked for you? Great! It changed your look at games? Great! But don't be so arrogant to claim that nobody ever bofore reflected on GMing and came to the same conclusion.

Quote from: SettembriniDon't harass us with a special case for a special game, as I am not harassing you with the intricacies of interstellar trade!

The thing is, I don't think anybody was harassing anybody else with that phrase. The Poobah, maybe. Where were people saying "YOU WILL USE THIS RULE!"?

And I might well be interested in the intricacies of interstellar trade. It depends. Got anything interesting to say about it?

Quote from: SettembriniSo take this special rule, and apply it to the game it belongs. And this is not an adventure game.

Okay, I will take this rule and apply it to Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel and HeroQuest, and I will promise not to bother you with it. Did I?

QuoteOkay, I will take this rule and apply it to Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel and HeroQuest, and I will promise not to bother you with it. Did I?

Honestly I don't know who started the thread. I just don't see the need to argue about it:

It's absolutism is non-discussable in a general gaming context.
It's basic idea...well let's say others had it too beforehand.

As a textual artifact, it might have laurels, as for some gamers it opened their eyes (I assume). We could discuss that.

@bothering: You got me there. It was hyperbole, of course nobody is actually bothering me, as it is "consentual posting and readin" what is happening here. You defend things you were asked to defend.

Quote from: RPGPunditI have to assume you're either willingly playing stupid here, or you didn't actually read the thread?

The problem with "just say yes or roll the dice" is that it is implicit that you can't just say no.

RPGPundit

Sorry dude, I was thinking that you were responding to the game text from Dogs.  When you look at what the text says, it doesn't mention that you can't say no at all.

I think this whole "can I say no" thing doesn't really have anything to do with "Say yes or roll the dice" - as presented in Dogs.

Quote from: SettembriniSpare your snappy line, it's not venom. It's truth.
I have no ill feelings about DitV. It's only that several people mixed stuff up. And your idea of:

"simply keep the game moving"

is, actually laudable, but doesn't need the unbearable asbsolutism in the cited passage.

We are all here for discussion, so dismount your mortally offended horse and talk stuff to us. If Vincent was the first to show it to some people, just fucking admit it. There is no pain involved. If it's so brilliant, then admit it. Say:
"The way he put it opened my eyes!"

That would be honest shit, instead of claiming that it`s not individual enlightenment but universal insight only Vincent could spread to the world which is in the oft-mentioned line.

This is not a pissing match, we are talking down to earth. But as long as anybody is elevating that line above what it actually is, I will keep attacking it.

Again: That way Vincent of putting it into exactly those words worked for you? Great! It changed your look at games? Great! But don't be so arrogant to claim that nobody ever bofore reflected on GMing and came to the same conclusion.

That was a good post.  I haven't read your posts as containing any venom - I see RPGs the way you do: Thematic roleplaying and Adventure gaming.  Cool!  I really like thematic roleplaying, but I also like adventure gaming.  

I'll admit it: I needed Vincent to say it in that way for it to *click* with me.  I kind-of knew the concept before, but presented in that way it really connected with me.

[off-topic]

I also admit to being a crazy-ass supporter of Narrativism when I first read about it.  I was playing Star Wars d20, and I kept thinking, "This game needs a theme to make it cool."  Somehow I stumbled on to the Forge, and I saw all these techniques to give me what I wanted!  Wicked!

I say this because it never really dawned on me that people wouldn't want to play that way.  After reading the GNS stuff, I started to understand that what I wanted from the game wasn't the same thing that people I was playing with wanted - and that there wasn't anything wrong with that.  So to make it fun for me, I consciously decided to change my goals for play.  And things have been much better since.

Now, maybe GNS is flawed and everything, but I don't care.  It helped me get more fun out of my own gaming experiences, and that's all I care about.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but I just got back from the club and I don't really care. ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditThe whole "say yes or roll the dice"; "fun now", shit... NARRATIVISM is nothing more, when it comes down to it, then the players' selfish demands that they get to protagonize exactly the way they want to, the idea that if something is happening with the story that they don't care for, they should be able to change reality to fit their wants; even if it goes against what the GM had planned.

This is where all the disagreement in the thread stems from, I think.

Personally, I think Pundit is pretty accurate.  You use the resources that the mechanics give you to influence the story (the way things turn out).

I just don't know why he thinks that it's selfish to do that sort of thing.

Quote from: YamoSo it's really, definitively "Say yes or roll the dice or say no."

Which is exactly the same as every RPG since EGG wrote that supplement for Chainmail.  Has there ever been a GM advice chapter that doesn't have "don't bother rolling for trivial things that don't advance the game."?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWhich is exactly the same as every RPG since EGG wrote that supplement for Chainmail.  Has there ever been a GM advice chapter that doesn't have "don't bother rolling for trivial things that don't advance the game."?

Magnificant! We're coming together!

So more or less it's coming down to:

Keep the game moving,
Don't roll dice for stupid stuff,
The advice had been around for awhile but people found it useful to have spelled out,
If your game isn't fun, then try going at it from another angle, first, ask yourself and/or your group what isn't working. (added with thanks to Zachary The First)
If a theory helps your game to be fun then cool, just don't tell me it's the only way to game or is a brand new way of thinking that's going to save us all,

That more or less cover it?  I'd like to mention (as I don't post to this thread much) that I've been learning and enjoying reading through it so far, so thanks to everyone whos been posting.

Quote from: cnath.rmSo more or less it's coming down to:

Keep the game moving,
Don't roll dice for stupid stuff,
The advice had been around for awhile but people found it useful to have spelled out,
If your game isn't fun, then try going at it from another angle,
If a theory helps your game to be fun then cool, just don't tell me it's the only way to game or is a brand new way of thinking that's going to save us all,

That more or less cover it?  I'd like to mention (as I don't post to this thread much) that I've been learning and enjoying reading through it so far, so thanks to everyone whos been posting.

It pretty much covers my feelings on the matter, although with this:

QuoteIf your game isn't fun, then try going at it from another angle

I would only add the basic advice of "first, ask yourself and/or your group what isn't working?"  Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to, of course.

Good synopsis thus far, though!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstIt pretty much covers my feelings on the matter, although with this:

 
I would only add the basic advice of "first, ask yourself and/or your group what isn't working?"  Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to, of course.

Good synopsis thus far, though!

Thanks, I figured I'd try to go with and foster the consensous that seemed to be forming. I totally agree with your addition (and will add it above so others can see (with credit of course))

On a sidenote, did the APO system ever kick those packages out to you?  I just sent a package to an APO so I'm wondering what it's chances are.

Quote from: cnath.rmThanks, I figured I'd try to go with and foster the consensous that seemed to be forming. I totally agree with your addition (and will add it above so others can see (with credit of course))

On a sidenote, did the APO system ever kick those packages out to you?  I just sent a package to an APO so I'm wondering what it's chances are.

I got the one, but never the first one.  Bummer, huh?  Still, we've been having insane problems at the APO here.  It's funny, because it seems like the Middle East APOs are usually ok, Germany and England are solid, but for some reason, Spain and Italy seem to have severe problems--perhaps because we're a little bit off the DoD beaten-path.  So as long as you aren't sending it to one of those two places, I think you'll be ok.

Now, back to the thread. :)

So "say yes or roll the dice" has been dealt with.  The problem is that people who were angry about it seemed to have never read it in context and made assumptions about it based on the phrase.  But I want to go a step further.

Irrespective of SYORTD, indie RPGs do not support the idea that any one player can do anything she likes, trampling over the fun of everyone else, including the stupid GM asshole, and that she may introduce stupid ideas that violate theme.

In fact, this kind of violation of story is pretty constrained in many indie RPGs.  Most of these games--and the best of them, in my opinion--have another set of rules having to do with consensus (aka the "bullshit" rule):  Any player (including the GM) can say, "That's crap, it's silly," and voila, it doesn't happen.  So someone who brings a wuxia master with magical eye-beams to a game of Dogs in the Vineyard will be told to stuff it by everyone at the table.

Quote from: droogThe thing is, I don't think anybody was harassing anybody else with that phrase. The Poobah, maybe. Where were people saying "YOU WILL USE THIS RULE!"?

There were a few folks pretty strongly suggesting wandering it into other games over on RPGnet in a thread about "great GM advice".

So, uh, it has happened at least once.

Not that this invalidates your point, here, but it has happened.

Quote from: cnath.rmThanks, I figured I'd try to go with and foster the consensous that seemed to be forming. I totally agree with your addition (and will add it above so others can see (with credit of course))

On a sidenote, did the APO system ever kick those packages out to you?  I just sent a package to an APO so I'm wondering what it's chances are.

The part where there still isn't consensus, and I suspect cannot be, is the question of "where the buck stops". Whether the GM is the absolute authority of his game, with the right to say no to the players for whatever fucking reason he pleases, or whether the players have the right to demand that the GM do things a certain way.

Given that all the theorists seem unbelievably desperate to avoid direct responses to this issue, I doubt that consensus can be reached.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RobNJSo "say yes or roll the dice" has been dealt with.  The problem is that people who were angry about it seemed to have never read it in context and made assumptions about it based on the phrase.  But I want to go a step further.

No, the problem is with the underlying assumptions that fuel the statement.

QuoteIrrespective of SYORTD, indie RPGs do not support the idea that any one player can do anything she likes, trampling over the fun of everyone else, including the stupid GM asshole, and that she may introduce stupid ideas that violate theme.

And in their concern about "DM tyranny" they try to create a dictatorship of the playertariat (as someone called it here), that is far MORE likely to lead to dysfunctional groups led by a manipulative glory hound than if you just let the GM actually keep his testicles.

QuoteIn fact, this kind of violation of story is pretty constrained in many indie RPGs.  Most of these games--and the best of them, in my opinion--have another set of rules having to do with consensus (aka the "bullshit" rule):  Any player (including the GM) can say, "That's crap, it's silly," and voila, it doesn't happen.  So someone who brings a wuxia master with magical eye-beams to a game of Dogs in the Vineyard will be told to stuff it by everyone at the table.

This too is a "rule" that can be horrifically abused by manipulative players. Why not let the GM be arbitrer of what is or is not bullshit, and then you actually solve most of the problems, by focusing on creating better more responsible GMs instead of trying to make the GMs powerless and irrelevant?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere were a few folks pretty strongly suggesting wandering it into other games over on RPGnet in a thread about "great GM advice".

So, uh, it has happened at least once.

Not that this invalidates your point, here, but it has happened.

It is one of many, many things on RPG.net (and elsewhere) that the Swine try to push as if "everyone" agrees with these things. GNS in general is like that, they just come in and start talking on unrelated threads about Narrativism as if EVERYBODY clearly accepts that narrativism exists as a real concept and works the way Ron Edwards says it does.

The "Monarda law" is the same thing, the Swine try to act as if EVERYBODY is clearly in agreement with something that they consider so fucking brilliant and obvious, when in fact its anything but either.

Trying to dominate the terminology is a cheap way of trying to subvert the realm of ideas. If you're in control of how people are talking, you are in control of what they're allowed or not allowed to talk about.

Its also a way to "force" people to accept it without saying "You must agree to this!".
Its like if I came up to Bill and started talking about how I've already booked all of the arrangements for his sex change, without actually asking him if he wanted a sex change in the first place.  Its the old "fait accomplit" tactic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "Monarda law" is the same thing, the Swine try to act as if EVERYBODY is clearly in agreement with something that they consider so fucking brilliant and obvious, when in fact its anything but either.

If you're in control of how people are talking, you are in control of what they're allowed or not allowed to talk about.

Its also a way to "force" people to accept it without saying "You must agree to this!".

You mean, in the way that you employed the tactic yourself, just a few hours ago? In this very thread?

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, just to review, we are all clear now that "Say yes or roll the dice" is either a monumentally fucking stupid concept; or that it actually means "say yes or no or roll the dice", in which case its utterly meaningless and thus a monumentally fucking useless concept?

Reading your diatribes (one I sidestep the landmine field of Red Herrings you ejaculate with every post), seeped in the most immature of logical fallacies (usually which you attribute to others, then employ yourself) makes me laugh as hearty as I do when I read essays from Ayn Rand.

Continue!  This is Entertainment!

Just a note at the outset here.  I'm attempting to give the most charitable possible reading of what you're saying as I can.  I hope you will reciprocate.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the problem is with the underlying assumptions that fuel the statement.

I'm not sure I understand you, because to me there are no underlying assumptions of SYORTD (I'm not trying to coin a cutsie acronym here, I just don't want to type it out again and again).  Taken in context (which is the only way these paragraphs or any rules text make sense), it says that you should only roll for stuff that matters to you.  This is a point of view that everyone here seems to share.  Quoting it out of context and demanding people argue against your interpretation of it isn't a helpful way to discuss it.  Vincent didn't mean GMs should never be able to say "no" when he wrote that.  The handful of paragraphs SYORTD comes from never say the GM shouldn't be allowed to say "no," they say the GM should only roll when he feels it's important.

The only remnant of disagreement that remains here is the accusation that SYORTD has been bandied about as a revolutionary idea and that seems to offend some people.  But even that remnant isn't very strong, as most people seem to agree that it's not a brand-new concept, and that those who are energized by it maybe just needed to hear it phrased the way Vincent put it in order to get how helpful it is to only roll when it matters.

If someone comes onto a thread and says, "What a bunch of assholes you are!  Just say yes or roll!" then you will have my complete agreement that that this person is a jerk and not worth our time.  However, the bit of rules text which engendered the whole "say yes or roll the dice" debate we're having here is not an example of someone being a jerk.

QuoteAnd in their concern about "DM tyranny" they try to create a dictatorship of the playertariat (as someone called it here), that is far MORE likely to lead to dysfunctional groups led by a manipulative glory hound than if you just let the GM actually keep his testicles.

First, the person who called it a "playertariat" appeared to me to be joking, and did not seem to believe in or advocate such a thing.  The way your statement reads to me suggests that someone who defends Forge or indie games is espousing a playertariat.

Second, Forge games are not "obsessed with GM tyranny" as a rule.  I cannot think of one that is, in fact.  Can you name one, and provide specific evidence of its obsession with GM tyranny?  (Specific evidence would be along the lines of, "This specific statement says this thing which talks about GM tyranny.")  While there are some GMless games, even those are not obsessed with GM tyranny.  Instead, they are designed such that a specific GM isn't necessary, or that the role of the person saying what happens in the world changes from person to person during a session (that is, they have multiple GMs).

Incidentally, I consder d20 to be remarkably constraining on the GM.  I say this as someone who knows d20 rules pretty well (3.0 anyway) and GMed several ongoing campaigns of the game.  The level of exactitude in the rules means that one has to be extremely careful to get all the bonuses and stuff lined up juuuust right, and that if one's players are on their game, they can be constantly emasculating you by pointing out little errors or getting into arguments over how the rules work.  Now one may say that a "real GM" would tell the player that she will deal with his impudence later, but I do not believe the rules as written support this.  

QuoteThis too is a "rule" that can be horrifically abused by manipulative players. Why not let the GM be arbitrer of what is or is not bullshit, and then you actually solve most of the problems, by focusing on creating better more responsible GMs instead of trying to make the GMs powerless and irrelevant?

Any rule can be abused by manipulative players.  The D&D boards have a 5th level character who is legal by 3.5 rules who can kill gods.  While rule by consensus could be used to neuter the GM at every turn, it can also be used by the GM and other players to cut off stupidity of another player.

Most indie RPGs aren't very interested in the politics of player vs. GM power.  They are far more interested in trying to ensure that every player at the table--GM or not--is having fun.  The games and the community surrounding them encourage each participant to engage in dialogue with one another so--in the best games--you always know if your friend is enjoying herself.

But all this is a distraction from my point, and it doesn't seem you have addressed the core of it.  If you're concerned about greater player power leading to stupid, off-theme crap, most indie RPGs have rules that prevent it.  If that's the case, how can there be any concern that players will intoduce stupid off-theme crap when the GM or any other player can always say "no?"

At the risk of getting embroiled in the livelie awfullenesse that is this thread, I own a copy of Burning Wheel which is generally seen as a Forge game and IMO it is pretty trad.  The GM creates the world and folk in it, the players play their characters, it has interesting stuff and is I think a good game but there isn't much wouldn't have been familiar to me conceptually back in 1982 say.

That's not a criticism, just noting that these Forge games vary widely.  Then again, I'm never terribly sure what is a Forge game and what isn't.

Oh, and I have played My Life with Master, fun little game, again though we had a GM and players and everything.  It's a bit of a cross between a board game and an rpg in some ways, but it didn't seem to allow me to leap across the table and wave my nads in the GMs face while chanting "Take that you overbearing bastard", more's the pity*.


*Actually, the GM is a mate and it was a fun game, but any game that had rules letting you to do that would have to get at least some kudos.

Quote from: Andy KYou mean, in the way that you employed the tactic yourself, just a few hours ago? In this very thread?

No, that was just rhetorical duelling.

Rather, I mean like in the very way that I employed the tactic myself, with writing the Landmarks themselves.
I freely admit that I'm imitating the Theory Swines' tactics for this board, putting up the Landmarks and making them the defining "fundamental" that THIS board takes as a "given", to make sure that the Forgites can't come in here and subvert this thread with that tactic the way they have everywhere else on the fucking internet.

Think of it as a vaccination.

RPGPundit

Pundit:

Your and others reaction to much of this stuff only backs up the idea that it is a successful movement in RPGs.

It's the Kool-aid point. (http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html)

And the reaction many people have to you proves the same thing.

Quote from: RobNJSecond, Forge games are not "obsessed with GM tyranny" as a rule.  I cannot think of one that is, in fact.  Can you name one, and provide specific evidence of its obsession with GM tyranny?

When Nisarg says "Tyranny of the players" or "obsessed with GM tyranny", he's indicating the games where you have a decentralized GM role, and a stronger player role. Like PTA, or Shab al-Hiri Roach, or... hmmm... My Life With Master? (unsure here). Games like this make the Pundit rage with unbridled nerdfury.

Or the games where there are specific rules, guidelines, suggestions, etc that give the players some sort of power over the GM: Like those wacky rules in Sorensen's Inspectres game (where the players state facts and stuff), or the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" (which gives the GM advice of when and when not to say Yes/No to the players), or (frex, tho Pundit hasn't stated it) how only Players, not the GM, can declare Bringing Down the Pain in The Shadow of Yesterday.

But to attribute this to ALL Forge games? Hmmmm. No. For every PTA there's an AGON or Cold City or another GM-has-traditional-GM-power game, with no rules or constraints or suggestions on use or abuse of GM power. But facts like that sorta get in the way of the PunditTruth, so are promptly properly discarded in the better rants.

Quote from: Andy Knerdfury.*

Remember, Andy, anger is always fear in drag.

:D

Quote from: RPGPunditI freely admit that I'm imitating the Theory Swines' tactics for this board, putting up the Landmarks and making them the defining "fundamental" that THIS board takes as a "given", to make sure that the Forgites can't come in here and subvert this thread with that tactic the way they have everywhere else on the fucking internet.

Couldn't you just have said "No GNS or related terminology may be used in this forum"?

It seems simpler and more efficient, though I grant it would lack the bearbaiting element that I think may be part of your overall strategy.

Quote from: Andy KWhen Nisarg says "Tyranny of the players" or "obsessed with GM tyranny", he's indicating the games where you have a decentralized GM role, and a stronger player role. Like PTA, or Shab al-Hiri Roach, or... hmmm... My Life With Master? (unsure here).

In that case, I'd like to know about a specific incidence of a specific problem that arose from a specific rule in PTA.  That's currently my favorite game, and the worst experience I've had with that game so far is better than my best experience with D&D.

Quote from: BalbinusCouldn't you just have said "No GNS or related terminology may be used in this forum"?

It seems simpler and more efficient, though I grant it would lack the bearbaiting element that I think may be part of your overall strategy.

Is such discussion actually banned here?  Wouldn't our current discussion belie that?  What weight do these Landmarks have?  Are they just a statement of opinion by the guy who moderates the site?

Quote from: RobNJIs such discussion actually banned here?  Wouldn't our current discussion belie that?  What weight do these Landmarks have?  Are they just a statement of opinion by the guy who moderates the site?

No idea, but it seems the point of the landmarks.

That said, landmark 6 precludes theory based on the idea that GM restraining mechanics are necessary or necessarily desirable.  Landmark 6 on my reading does not say that you cannot like a game which has such mechanics.  

So, as I read it, I am not free to say that I think GM power needs to be constrained and a good game will necessarily do this, which is fine as I think that would be a ludicrous statement.  I am free to say although I don't think constraining GMs is at all necessary some games that happen to do that such as PTA rock on toast.

Which is actually my view, I don't think rules to constrain GM power are at all necessary.  That said, PTA does have rules like that IIRC and that's a choice that particular game made.  I think PTA rocks, I still prefer Runequest and Call of Cthulhu but I don't see Landmark 6 precluding me from liking PTA.  It just precludes me from holding it up as a necessary model for game design.

Quote from: RobNJJust a note at the outset here.  I'm attempting to give the most charitable possible reading of what you're saying as I can.  I hope you will reciprocate.

I'm not sure I understand you, because to me there are no underlying assumptions of SYORTD (I'm not trying to coin a cutsie acronym here, I just don't want to type it out again and again).  Taken in context (which is the only way these paragraphs or any rules text make sense), it says that you should only roll for stuff that matters to you.  This is a point of view that everyone here seems to share.  Quoting it out of context and demanding people argue against your interpretation of it isn't a helpful way to discuss it.  Vincent didn't mean GMs should never be able to say "no" when he wrote that.  The handful of paragraphs SYORTD comes from never say the GM shouldn't be allowed to say "no," they say the GM should only roll when he feels it's important.

Then "Vincent" wrote it very poorly. Note that there are other games where the same basic type of statement appears, written even more forcefully (ie. Nobilis).

But let's look at the DiTV version.
You are claiming, as are the other Forgites here, that Baker intended that the "rule" was only meant to say "just roll stuff that you feel is important". But analyzing how he actually put it, its clear that the situation allows for the following conditions.

"Say Yes or roll the dice":
The GM has the option to:
1. Say yes to stuff that isn't important.
2. Say yes to stuff that is important, presumably.
3. Roll the dice over stuff that is important.

If something isn't important, he should not roll the dice. If stuff IS important, he must roll the dice, or say yes. He can't just dictate.  
No matter which way you want to look at the fucking thing, there's one part clearly (and I must assume INTENTIONALLY) missing from that statement, and its the option for the GM to say "No".
If there's something unimportant, why can't the gm say no to that?
If there's something important, all the more reason why sometimes he should say no? The implication is clear that instead the GM should somehow "give the player a chance" even if he feels its against the interests of emulation, or the GM's intentions for the game, or party harmony.

So if Vince Baker really wasn't trying to make the statement be about DM disempowerment, then he really should have been more fucking careful about how he phrased it. Because it certainly HAS been used in that context by people on message boards.

QuoteFirst, the person who called it a "playertariat" appeared to me to be joking, and did not seem to believe in or advocate such a thing.  

In jokes unintentional truths often slip out.

QuoteThe way your statement reads to me suggests that someone who defends Forge or indie games is espousing a playertariat.  

Some of them are, brought about as an excessive reaction to the White-Wolf Swine's "abuse" of the GM/"storyteller" role.  Ron and various other forgies were burnt by pushy railroading GMs dominating the "story" in White Wolf games, and now they think the solution is to castrate GMs at every turn, all in the name of giving precious "Narrative control" to the players.

QuoteSecond, Forge games are not "obsessed with GM tyranny" as a rule.  I cannot think of one that is, in fact.  Can you name one, and provide specific evidence of its obsession with GM tyranny?  

Any Forge game which allows the players to roll the dice against the GM to take control of the "story".
Not to mention many of the things Ron has wrote in the Forge essays.
Shit, the whole trend toward the "micro-game"; a narrow very specifically defined game, is meant to strip GMs of their control over setting or theme. Its as though the Forgeites would like to change the hierarchy into one of Designer/Player, and turn the GM into little more than a ref, or the banker in monopoly, if he's allowed to exist at all.
So in that sense: My Life With Master, DiTV, The Mountain Witch, and even stuff like OctaNe as its written are GM-disempowering.

QuoteIncidentally, I consder d20 to be remarkably constraining on the GM.  I say this as someone who knows d20 rules pretty well (3.0 anyway) and GMed several ongoing campaigns of the game.  The level of exactitude in the rules means that one has to be extremely careful to get all the bonuses and stuff lined up juuuust right, and that if one's players are on their game, they can be constantly emasculating you by pointing out little errors or getting into arguments over how the rules work.  Now one may say that a "real GM" would tell the player that she will deal with his impudence later, but I do not believe the rules as written support this.  

Yes, they do. The GM is in absolute control of what rules are applied or not applied in D20. Its the fundamental rule.
Maybe you're thinking of Hackmaster? You know, that parody of what Swine like to imagine/pretend D&D is still like (which, indeed, it was never really like that in the first place)?

QuoteAny rule can be abused by manipulative players.  The D&D boards have a 5th level character who is legal by 3.5 rules who can kill gods.  While rule by consensus could be used to neuter the GM at every turn, it can also be used by the GM and other players to cut off stupidity of another player.

So instead of having one guy who has the final word, you have five or six guys who can all veto each other whenever they feel like they ought to. Congratulations, you've reduced Roleplaying all the way back to the level of Cops And Robbers ("I shot you timmy!" "No you didn't it missed!").

QuoteMost indie RPGs aren't very interested in the politics of player vs. GM power.  They are far more interested in trying to ensure that every player at the table--GM or not--is having fun.  

By presuming that gamers as they are right now are not having fun.
That's not true. The VAST MAJORITY of gamers have fun using the traditional division of GM/Player powers.
Its in the Landmarks, therefore its true.

QuoteThe games and the community surrounding them encourage each participant to engage in dialogue with one another so--in the best games--you always know if your friend is enjoying herself.

Right, and "lack of fun" cannot be solved  by creating microgames, its solved by communication between players in the group. You CANNOT make a mechanical solution to a social problem.
Its in the Landmarks, therefore its true.

QuoteBut all this is a distraction from my point, and it doesn't seem you have addressed the core of it.  If you're concerned about greater player power leading to stupid, off-theme crap, most indie RPGs have rules that prevent it.  If that's the case, how can there be any concern that players will intoduce stupid off-theme crap when the GM or any other player can always say "no?"

If every participant in the group can say "no" then things will bog down in a mire of nay-saying until someone gets tired and someone else gets his way. Again, that's not an RPG, that's playing cops and robbers with annoying spoilt nine-year olds.

Of course, most Forge games are made to principally appeal to Primmadonna spoilt players, who want to be the center of all attention all the time, so its no surprise you'd hold that up to be the paragon of gaming.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusSo, as I read it, I am not free to say that I think GM power needs to be constrained and a good game will necessarily do this,

So if you're precluded from saying that, does that mean that if I were to say that, I would be banned or my post would be deleted?  This seems contrary to the things that I've heard RPGPundit say about how he wants to moderate the site.

It would appear the Landmarks are a statement of principals held by the site moderator, and which he expects to be prevalent.  It would appear that they lack teeth, per se.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's not a criticism, just noting that these Forge games vary widely.  Then again, I'm never terribly sure what is a Forge game and what isn't.

Yes, Forge games do vary. There's even one I ALMOST like (OctaNe, though its one of those "marginally" Forge games).

But I'm talking about the fundamental ideology of the Forge here. What you're saying is like saying "Republican Senators do vary, they have a wide variety of ideas". Yes, great, sure. Now let's look at what the overall thrust of the Republican party is.  You can't turn around and say that because the Republican governor of New Jersey is pro-choice it means that the Republican Party is also Pro-choice.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMaybe you're thinking of Hackmaster? You know, that parody of what Swine like to imagine/pretend D&D is still like (which, indeed, it was never really like that in the first place)?

Most of the Hackmaster fans are also or were once fans of ADnD.  I don't quite get the point of it myself given you can still buy old versions of DnD if that's your preference on ebay, but it's not the Forge guys playing that - it's the old school crowd.

Anyway, I thought you were being a bit unfair to Hackmaster there, as for DnD it's a broad church and for some it was like HM and for some it wasn't.  One of DnD's strengths is the many ways in which it can be played, and I really shouldn't need to tell you of all people that.

Quote from: RobNJSo if you're precluded from saying that, does that mean that if I were to say that, I would be banned or my post would be deleted?  This seems contrary to the things that I've heard RPGPundit say about how he wants to moderate the site.

It would appear the Landmarks are a statement of principals held by the site moderator, and which he expects to be prevalent.  It would appear that they lack teeth, per se.

I haven't the faintest idea.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPundit:

Your and others reaction to much of this stuff only backs up the idea that it is a successful movement in RPGs.

It's the Kool-aid point. (http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/08/physics_of_pass.html)

And the reaction many people have to you proves the same thing.

Nope, only that its a successful movement in Online RPG Communities.

The Forge has had ENORMOUS success in taking over and subverting online RPG forums, and overall discussion of RPGs online. They are a very loud and very powerful lobby group in what is the wierd world of RPG-discussion Forums.

In RPGs as a whole, the Forge is a fucking blip.  I get more hits on my blog per day than the average Forge RPG gets sales per year.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, Forge games do vary. There's even one I ALMOST like (OctaNe, though its one of those "marginally" Forge games).

you like octaNe?  It's all about the shared narrative control thingy, in fact that's precisely what I don't enjoy about it since I don't enjoy shared narrative control stuff.

Isn't it the poster child and flagbearer for the stuff you're arguing against?

Quote from: Andy KBut to attribute this to ALL Forge games? Hmmmm. No. For every PTA there's an AGON or Cold City or another GM-has-traditional-GM-power game, with no rules or constraints or suggestions on use or abuse of GM power. But facts like that sorta get in the way of the PunditTruth, so are promptly properly discarded in the better rants.

And how many people outside of the Forge have ever fucking HEARD of Cold City or AGON?

All the Forge games that matter, the ones that are hyped, the ones that Ron approves of in public, the ones that become RPG.net darlings, the ones that people claim are the "Most Innovative Game EVAR!!!1!!" for three weeks until the next one comes along, those are all the ones you mentioned in the first category, and not the second.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusCouldn't you just have said "No GNS or related terminology may be used in this forum"?

It seems simpler and more efficient, though I grant it would lack the bearbaiting element that I think may be part of your overall strategy.

No, because that's just what the Swine would like, so that they could argue that this place is a nest of censorship.  You guys can talk all you like about Forge stuff, or GNS, or what-have-you, but you just won't be able to beat people over the heads with it the way you do in every other Forum with the tacit approval (or occasional  participation) of the Moderation.

In this forum, if someone goes on the "Roleplaying games" board and enters a thread about, say, Warhammer, and starts saying that "Narrativism blah blah blah", the poster being manipulated in that way will be able to say "Narrativism is a violation of the Landmarks, it makes no sense, and isn't considered a rational or useful term around these here parts, pilgrim..".

End of story.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou guys can talk all you like about Forge stuff, or GNS, or what-have-you, but you just won't be able to beat people over the heads with it the way you do in every other Forum with the tacit approval (or occasional  participation) of the Moderation.

Um, just to be clear, I think GNS is nonsense and have said so often and in many places.  The fact I like some Forge derived games does not make me someone who thinks GNS is remotely useful.  I just get on ok with most of the guys who do think it's useful.

I am currently playing Pendragon, I just bought the DnD Rules Cyclopedia, my next purchase will be either something for Pendragon or the new Runequest.  That's what I play by and large, I occasionally play the Forgeite stuff but almost overwhelmingly my play is trad games every one of which I would bet money you will have heard of.

Nope, I like a lot of the guys who are into the theory, I like several of the games, I just happen to think the theory itself is wrong and I don't mind that they probably think I think that because they think I don't really understand it (if that makes sense).  After all, if I think they're wrong I can hardly complain that they think I am.

Quote from: RobNJIs such discussion actually banned here?  Wouldn't our current discussion belie that?  What weight do these Landmarks have?  Are they just a statement of opinion by the guy who moderates the site?

The Landmarks are the Statement of Fundamentals that are supposed to be used in designing theory or games on this, the Theory and Game Design Forum.

No one is going to punish you for talking about the Forge, or for not using the Landmarks. I'm not trying to have a cult here, the way other people have tried to turn their theory-foundations into a Cult.

However, the idea is that in this forum, you design games using those presumptions. If you come in with other presumptions, and get a rhetorical smackdown because of it, you don't go crying to the moderation. If you want to make Narrativist Games about Man's Eternal Struggle With Teatime, you can do that kind of bullshit on pretty much every other Gaming forum out there.
Here, we work with the assumptions that most gamers are having fun already, that D&D is not the antichrist, that its actually the most popular game because its what people like to play, that player problems can't be solved with narrow game mechanics, that most gamers enjoy having a GM who isn't a eunuch, that most gamers likewise enjoy having Players that can do more than cheerlead, and that emulation of genre and immersion are two HUGE positive and attainable goals for most gamers, rather than two Stupid Things we Hate (as they are on the forge).

So now, instead of arguing with me about the Forge, are any of you Theory gimps man enough to actually try MAKING a game based on those assumptions? Try it, you might even find that you like it. Its certainly  more productive than sitting around talking about "narrative space" or drawing diagrams about the Kabbalistic Tree of Player Story Influence.
Hell, you might even end up inventing a game that normal people would have fun playing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusNo idea, but it seems the point of the landmarks.

That said, landmark 6 precludes theory based on the idea that GM restraining mechanics are necessary or necessarily desirable.  Landmark 6 on my reading does not say that you cannot like a game which has such mechanics.  

So, as I read it, I am not free to say that I think GM power needs to be constrained and a good game will necessarily do this, which is fine as I think that would be a ludicrous statement.  I am free to say although I don't think constraining GMs is at all necessary some games that happen to do that such as PTA rock on toast.

Which is actually my view, I don't think rules to constrain GM power are at all necessary.  That said, PTA does have rules like that IIRC and that's a choice that particular game made.  I think PTA rocks, I still prefer Runequest and Call of Cthulhu but I don't see Landmark 6 precluding me from liking PTA.  It just precludes me from holding it up as a necessary model for game design.

Yes, exactly, you got it.  The point was that you can't make a theory saying that RPGs that give the GM traditional power are wrong, bad, etc.
That's it. Its not saying you can't like a game where players have more influence. You just can't say that this is the "right" way of gaming, and that the way of gaming that 99% of the world's gamers actually seem to use and enjoy is the "wrong" way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo now, instead of arguing with me about the Forge, are any of you Theory gimps man enough to actually try MAKING a game based on those assumptions? Try it, you might even find that you like it. Its certainly  more productive than sitting around talking about "narrative space" or drawing diagrams about the Kabbalistic Tree of Player Story Influence.
Hell, you might even end up inventing a game that normal people would have fun playing.

RPGPundit

The guys who like GNS won't, as it wouldn't make sense for them not to use a theory they think works.

I won't, because I have no particular desire to design a game and if I did I still wouldn't as I think theory is irrelevant to that goal anyway, I think games are a matter of craft and as such I don't think theory is especially relevant.

Quote from: RobNJSo if you're precluded from saying that, does that mean that if I were to say that, I would be banned or my post would be deleted?  This seems contrary to the things that I've heard RPGPundit say about how he wants to moderate the site.

No, you wouldn't be banned or deleted. You'd just be told that your statement is in violation of the Landmarks, or in other words lacks any and all common sense from the point of view of PRACTICAL game design (ie. designing games that normal gamers would actually want to play).  
In other words, you would not be able to impose your point of view on others here, you could say it, but everyone else would be busy working to make playable games and talking about games from the point of view of the landmarks.

QuoteIt would appear the Landmarks are a statement of principals held by the site moderator, and which he expects to be prevalent.  It would appear that they lack teeth, per se.

The only "teeth" they're meant to have is Rhetorical teeth. You see, when you have the Truth on your side, you don't actually need to ban people to win arguments.

For some, that's a really novel concept. For me, its Saturday.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusMost of the Hackmaster fans are also or were once fans of ADnD.  I don't quite get the point of it myself given you can still buy old versions of DnD if that's your preference on ebay, but it's not the Forge guys playing that - it's the old school crowd.

Anyway, I thought you were being a bit unfair to Hackmaster there, as for DnD it's a broad church and for some it was like HM and for some it wasn't.  One of DnD's strengths is the many ways in which it can be played, and I really shouldn't need to tell you of all people that.

I would figure that most people who play Hackmaster don't actually play it "By the book", Ie. where players can force the GM to follow the rules to the letter and can quote mechanics against him.

But hey, I might be wrong with that... maybe that's where all the rules lawyers went... I haven't actually seen many of them lately.. hmm... :hmm:

Quote from: Balbinusyou like octaNe?  It's all about the shared narrative control thingy, in fact that's precisely what I don't enjoy about it since I don't enjoy shared narrative control stuff.

Isn't it the poster child and flagbearer for the stuff you're arguing against?

I loved the setting, and most aspects of the system were very good too. The one problem it had was exactly that one: the die mechanic where the results of the die determine whether the gm or the player gets to choose what happens.

When I ran it, I just changed that so that the die results were all GM-interpreted, as unfavourable, slightly unfavourable, slightly favourable, or favourable to the player, but the GM was in charge.

So I guess what was great about OctaNe, besides the setting and the rest of the mechanic, was that you could very easily port it into being an actual RPG, instead of a shared-storytelling monstrosity.

RPGPundit

I'm calling "Say Yes or Roll Dice" as a defeated idea at this point.  It seems pretty obvious, you can't say really just say yes to everything, even narratively. It also seems obvious that even the Swine have abused the concept to their own detriment (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1199&page=1#Item_0) on occaision. (See Ron's post which contains the exchange about "If I win, your dick shrivels off..!". Funny stuff. )

The obvious concept of keeping the game moving forward and not requiring a roll for trivial tasks is noted as good advice though. D&D (and other games) had that idea first, and even codified it into rules in a more reliable way.

Quote from: BalbinusUm, just to be clear, I think GNS is nonsense and have said so often and in many places.  The fact I like some Forge derived games does not make me someone who thinks GNS is remotely useful.  I just get on ok with most of the guys who do think it's useful.

By "you guys" I meant Forge Swine, not you in particular. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

QuoteNope, I like a lot of the guys who are into the theory, I like several of the games, I just happen to think the theory itself is wrong and I don't mind that they probably think I think that because they think I don't really understand it (if that makes sense).  After all, if I think they're wrong I can hardly complain that they think I am.

The only difference being that they're actually wrong.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd how many people outside of the Forge have ever fucking HEARD of Cold City or AGON?

Exactly!  So what's the big deal?

I keep seeing you make this argument:

1) Forge/Small Press games are miniscule irrelevant blips. They are totally and utterly inconsequential.
2) ...
3) Forge/Small Press games and their play styles are taking over the world! Holy shit we have to haul sandbags to keep the swine away from messing with our precious games! Stay awake and alert!

If you believe in one of the above, the other is impossible.  Either indie games and their fans are weak and have no clout, or they are powerful and have clout. Personally, I believe in #1 over #3.

If these games are unheard of, inconsequential, and absolutely nothing compared to mainstream games (Hey, I'll buy that argument), what the fuck is the big deal with them? They're not affecting your gameplay, or the guy down the street's gameplay, or the thousands of dudes on EnWorld, or the millions of dudes who play D&D and don't surf RPGNet or The Forge. Why must their dirty machinations be belittled and stopped at every opportunity? Why not just ignore these inconsequential blips and move on!

You guys are being unnecessarily argumentative (by you guys, I mean all of youse).

There is a travesty of reason happening, though - in order to meet some standard by which you think el Pundito will agree with you, the original statement is being watered down.

So, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

Now, the slippery slope argument that will happen and has happened is basically this: "what happens when my player says, 'I want so-and-so to give me an atom bomb?'" The answer to this is simple:

- Is it within the game's realm of possibility to have an atom bomb? Ok, then, roll some dice and shut up.

- It isn't? Well, then, the group as a whole has the right to tell anyone crapping on the game to shut up.

Or put simpler - all "Forge-theory," or whatever you want to call it, requires one assumption: that all the players at the table are there to actively participate in having fun. If someone is actively trying to subvert the fun (by doing something totally out of genre, or just being stupid), then anyone and everyone has the right to tell them to shut up or go home, as you would in any social activity.

And to the forum's point about theory actually playing into real games and real play: yeah, this works. I play RPGs all the time - a minimum of my weekly game, with usually a pick-up game somewhere else in the week - and it works. My players can say "I want *this right here*" and I can ask, "How bad do you want it?" and pull out some dice and man, then it gets exciting.

Note for all: I'm in no way saying this will work for you. I'm not that kind of dude. I spend my time on the Internet saying what works for me, and if it works for you, awesome! If not, I'm totally interested in what works for you.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm calling "Say Yes or Roll Dice" as a defeated idea at this point.  It seems pretty obvious, you can't say really just say yes to everything, even narratively. It also seems obvious that even the Swine have abused the concept to their own detriment (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1199&page=1#Item_0) on occaision. (See Ron's post which contains the exchange about "If I win, your dick shrivels off..!". Funny stuff. )

Well well well... so its finally happened, and the "revolution" has gotten out of Ron's hands.. and now he's upset that the People's Commune is going to guillotine him too, as if he was one of the big mean Aristos because the whole thing has been taken over by people even more extreme than him...

I'd been waiting for this moment for some time...  :killingme:

RPGPundit

Quote from: Andy KExactly!  So what's the big deal?

I keep seeing you make this argument:

1) Forge/Small Press games are miniscule irrelevant blips. They are totally and utterly inconsequential.
2) ...
3) Forge/Small Press games and their play styles are taking over the world! Holy shit we have to haul sandbags to keep the swine away from messing with our precious games! Stay awake and alert!

If you believe in one of the above, the other is impossible.  Either indie games and their fans are weak and have no clout, or they are powerful and have clout. Personally, I believe in #1 over #3.

If these games are unheard of, inconsequential, and absolutely nothing compared to mainstream games (Hey, I'll buy that argument), what the fuck is the big deal with them? They're not affecting your gameplay, or the guy down the street's gameplay, or the thousands of dudes on EnWorld, or the millions of dudes who play D&D and don't surf RPGNet or The Forge. Why must their dirty machinations be belittled and stopped at every opportunity? Why not just ignore these inconsequential blips and move on!

Forge games are inconsequetial in the RPG Industry.

The Forge is hugely influential online.

Forge games do not affect my enjoyment of RPGs at all.

The Forge and its cultlike prosletyzers do strongly affect my enjoyment of RPG discussion forums.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonYou guys are being unnecessarily argumentative (by you guys, I mean all of youse).

There is a travesty of reason happening, though - in order to meet some standard by which you think el Pundito will agree with you, the original statement is being watered down.

So, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

Now, the slippery slope argument that will happen and has happened is basically this: "what happens when my player says, 'I want so-and-so to give me an atom bomb?'" The answer to this is simple:

- Is it within the game's realm of possibility to have an atom bomb? Ok, then, roll some dice and shut up.

- It isn't? Well, then, the group as a whole has the right to tell anyone crapping on the game to shut up.

Or put simpler - all "Forge-theory," or whatever you want to call it, requires one assumption: that all the players at the table are there to actively participate in having fun. If someone is actively trying to subvert the fun (by doing something totally out of genre, or just being stupid), then anyone and everyone has the right to tell them to shut up or go home, as you would in any social activity.

So you're betting on Mankind's essential goodness, huh?

Yea.. that worked out really great for Marx and Lenin...

But I admire, Clinton, that you at least had the courage to stand up and admit this. I would have expected no less from you.  Its what I admire about Ron too; his honesty: he admits that he thinks mainstream gamers are brain-damaged, he doesn't, like most of his cultmembers, pretend to be nice to them while secretly despising them. He openly despises them.

You, here, have shown that you are willing to step up, be a man, and admit that you think that the GM should be neutered to allow for good game play (pity that your "being a man" involves taking a stance essentially arguing that the GM shouldn't be allowed to be likewise). Your reasoning for this is that RPG players are a noble and ideal sort of being that will always care more about the common good than about their character ending up with the +10 Holy Avenger, or their character getting to be the center of attention as much as possible. You really honestly believe that players will willingly sacrifice their own "time to shine" as protagonists of the party in favour of giving others equal time, each according to his needs. And you believe that all players will behave this way. On the other hand, you must apparently believe that GMs, if given the same kind of authority, would not be trustworthy with it and would end up abusing the game and ruining everyone's fun, because for some bizzare reason a group of self-interested players who's purpose is for THEIR character to shine will somehow be less prone to abuse this kind of power than a single GM who's purpose is for his players to enjoy his game. I can only suppose that you assume that GMs are lesser human beings, perhaps because you met a couple of Vampire "Storytellers" who were, and it soured you on the whole deal.

Great. You're utterly and totally wrong, but at least you are honest.

Thank you, sincerely, for that honesty. It was sorely missing from the rest of the Forgeites here. You are a lesson to them in principles, even if not in reason.

RPGPundit

Below, parenthetical statements inside of quote tags are me providing context so that the quote makes sense and are not an attempt by me to alter RPGPundit's meaning.

Quote from: RPGPunditThen "Vincent" wrote it very poorly. Note that there are other games where the same basic type of statement appears, written even more forcefully (ie. Nobilis).

Can you provide an example?

QuoteIf something isn't important, he should not roll the dice. If stuff IS important, he must roll the dice, or say yes. He can't just dictate.  

That's not true, though, and that's not what he wrote there.  What he writes is relating to making rolls when things matter or not.  Elsewhere in the book, and this has been quoted on this thread, he says it's the GM's responsibility to say no to stupid stakes.

This is exactly the point I've been making about context.  The paragraphs quoted earlier in the thread from Dogs in the Vineyard are presented in the book in the context of talking about when to roll, and do not relate to the GM's ability to say no to stupid things.

QuoteNo matter which way you want to look at the fucking thing, there's one part clearly (and I must assume INTENTIONALLY) missing from that statement, and its the option for the GM to say "No".

It's missing because it's not what this part of the rules are talking about.  This is equivalent to complaining that the space combat rules aren't addressed in the section on how to make a monster.  What Vincent is talking about there, in context, is when to roll the dice.  Here are the choices you have, let's say with information that someone is hiding:

1. The person gives whatever information he has. (Say yes when it doesn't matter).
2. The person is an obvious liar (saying yes when it's important).
3. The person is a liar but isn't obvious, and you have to try to see if you can discover what he's lying about (rolling).

Saying "no" makes no sense there.  I suppose you could say, "This guy is withholding information, but I don't want the players to have any idea about it."  That would be just saying "no."  It's not the kind of game I'd want to play in, and in a Schrodinger's Cat sort of way, the person might as well not know the information since the players will never be able to find out.

QuoteIf there's something unimportant, why can't the gm say no to that?
If there's something important, all the more reason why sometimes he should say no? The implication is clear that instead the GM should somehow "give the player a chance" even if he feels its against the interests of emulation, or the GM's intentions for the game, or party harmony.

Give me a specific example, please, because I can't imagine the kind of situation you're talking about.  I'd like to be given an example of a time when you're trying to decide whether or not to roll the dice, and it's unimportant whether the PCs find out or not, but you say no.  Genre emulation is irrelevant here, because Vincent's not talking about introducing nonsensical elements to the world in the section we're arguing about.  Elsewhere, he says it's the GM's responsibility not to allow people to introduce stupid shit.

QuoteSo if Vince Baker really wasn't trying to make the statement be about DM disempowerment, then he really should have been more fucking careful about how he phrased it. Because it certainly HAS been used in that context by people on message boards.

First of all, he's very clear in the rules quoted elsewhere on this thread.  In context, there is no doubt that he's not at all talking about GM disempowerment, he's talking about advice, telling you when to roll and when not to roll.  If someone takes that and decides it's about never presenting the players with any opposition, then they are stupid.  Blaming Vincent for people misreading and/or misusing something that's very clear in the text is unfair.  If someone who read your blog went around saying stupid things, would you be responsible for them?

QuoteIn jokes unintentional truths often slip out.

That's unfair and a dishonest way of engaging in a discussion.  You know he doesn't mean it.  You know he's making a joke.  Why be rude and intentionally misinterpret and twist his words?  You seem to be a pretty big Hunter S. Thompson fan.  I find it interesting you'd engage in intentional twisting of the truth (or, the Truth, if you'd have it that way).

QuoteSome of (the fans of indie RPGs) are (advocating a "playertariat"), brought about as an excessive reaction to the White-Wolf Swine's "abuse" of the GM/"storyteller" role.  Ron and various other forgies were burnt by pushy railroading GMs dominating the "story" in White Wolf games, and now they think the solution is to castrate GMs at every turn, all in the name of giving precious "Narrative control" to the players.

I don't believe that that's very prevalent.  What is your evidence that Ron was burnt by White Wolf and GM-gods?  What other designers who are part of the Forge community do you have evidence have had a similar experience, and what is the evidence?  

Even if you could prove those things, which I don't believe you can, why would you tar everyone who plays certain games with that brush?

QuoteAny Forge game which allows the players to roll the dice against the GM to take control of the "story".

Isn't a to-hit roll in D&D a roll of dice to take control over the story from the GM?  Isn't a diplomacy roll the same thing?  Isn't "forcing" a monster or NPC to make a save against a charm spell the same thing?

The story elements that D&D's rules are most concerned with are those relating to combat.  There are plenty of rules in D&D that take control away from the GM for combat-related things.

Many indie games aren't as concerned about combat as they are about, say, character motivation.  Winning narration rights in PTA is the equivalent of rolling a crit on the GM's pet monster in D&D, given the areas that the rules focus on.

QuoteNot to mention many of the things Ron has wrote in the Forge essays.

I will grant you that Ron Edwards is a major force in indie RPGs, but he's not the only force.  What he says or thinks does not speak for everyone who enjoys indie RPGs.  As with most people, I happen to agree with some things he's said and disagree with others.  The most important thing that Ron did, in my opinion, is to tell people that the system you're playing with matters.  I don't know whether he was the first person to advocate that you should pay close attention to the rules of your game, and that these rules would help you predict the kind of play you'd have at the table.  I suspect he was not (this is me dryly understating the obvious).  However, he and other people in the Forge community did break me out of the "rules don't matter" mindset.

QuoteShit, the whole trend toward the "micro-game"; a narrow very specifically defined game, is meant to strip GMs of their control over setting or theme.

I'm confused by this statement.  If, as a GM, I choose to play a game about Mormon paladins in the Old West, how can I complain that I'm being stripped of control over setting or theme?  I've chosen to play in that game.  Obviously I want to play in that world if I chose that book to play in.  It's like complaining that Wizards is trying to constrain your creativity by producing a Star Wars game.

Furthermore, it is a perfectly valid and highly encouraged tactic in the indie RPG community to take a ruleset designed for a very specific setting and totally warp the setting (and make the necessary rules adjustments).  Dogs in the Vineyard has been used to create a Young Adult fantasy about princes enforcing the King's law, to create workplace comedy about management efficiency consultants, to do Jedi bringing the peace and rationality of The Republic to the Outer Rim, and many other incarnations.

Finally, many people don't see creative constraints as oppressive.  People write sonnets, people undertake Iron Game Chef competitions, and so on.  Creative constraints can lead to a lot of fun.

The only way these can be seen as oppressive is if somehow people were forced to play these games.  I know you don't mean that, so where do you see the oppression?  I am genuinely confused by this, and not trying to be snarky or sarcastic.

Have you played any of these games?  When you played them, did you begin with a charitable eye toward them or did you start expecting them to aggravate and disappoint you?  Can you talk about a specific game indie game you played, and give us a specific example of how it broke for you?

QuoteThe GM is in absolute control of what rules are applied or not applied in D20. Its the fundamental rule.
Maybe you're thinking of Hackmaster? You know, that parody of what Swine like to imagine/pretend D&D is still like (which, indeed, it was never really like that in the first place)?

I have never played Hackmaster, and nothing I've ever heard about it sounds like it would be fun for me.

Would you say that the GM in D&D is free to ignore any rule he wants, and impose that on the other players at the table, even if they really hate the rule?  If everyone at the table dislikes how something is being done, and one person has the power to ignore all of that, how can that be fun?

I suspect that most games of D&D as actually played have a great deal of player consent and consensus, they just don't have rules to encourage consent and consensus.  My experience and logic tell me that it it would be very rare for a GM to make a ruling, have everyone (or even most) at the table go, "Wow, that sucks!" and have her ignore that entirely.  As a D&D GM I was constantly trying to tap in to what my friends enjoyed or didn't enjoy about the games I ran, and trying to facilitate that.  One of the things I love about indie RPGs is that that fun-check is an integral part of most rules, and most of these games give the players ways to signal very clearly to the GM what kinds of things they'd like to see highlighted about their characters.

And that's all these player-input rules do.  They encourage the players to let the GM know what they want, by showing them directly and providing rules support for it.  The GM then also has the ability to say, "No, that's lame.  Why are you doing that?"  This is present in the hippiest of hippie games.

QuoteSo instead of having one guy who has the final word, you have five or six guys who can all veto each other whenever they feel like they ought to. Congratulations, you've reduced Roleplaying all the way back to the level of Cops And Robbers ("I shot you timmy!" "No you didn't it missed!").

Well, no.  That's not true.  Let's say I'm playing Primetime Adventures and I'm the Producer.  I win my stakes and my narration.  I have Timmy get shot.  One guy says, "No, that sucks."  That one guy has to defend his point.  He won't win the day if most people are convinced it doesn't suck.  And if most people at the table think it sucks, why should it happen?  How is it a fun game if most of the time, stuff most people think sucks is happening?

Quote(I said: Indie RPGs are interested in making sure everyone has fun.)  By presuming that gamers as they are right now are not having fun.

That's not true.  You may think it's true from the essays you've read or what have you, but if you actually look at the rulebooks, none of them either says, "You think you're having fun now but you're not," nor do they imply that the way you've been playing before sucks.  This fun-check is a thermometer.  There are rules to encourage communication between players and to try to prevent people from quietly waiting for the game to end.

Again I ask that you provide textual evidence from an indie RPG that they explicitly or implicitly assume you weren't having fun roleplaying until just now.

And please don't quote the essays.  The essays don't matter.  The games do.

QuoteRight, and "lack of fun" cannot be solved  by creating microgames, its solved by communication between players in the group. You CANNOT make a mechanical solution to a social problem.
Its in the Landmarks, therefore its true.

I disagree, both with the way you've characterized the situation, and your conclusion.  No rules can solve social problems entirely, but they can hedge against them, and give people rules-support for trying to ensure everyone's having fun.  One asshole can still ruin the game if they want to badly enough, but things like consensus rules make it obvious to everyone who the asshole is and encourage them to discourage assholery.

QuoteIf every participant in the group can say "no" then things will bog down in a mire of nay-saying until someone gets tired and someone else gets his way.

If that is necessarily the case, why has this never happened in any of the indie RPGs I've played?  People don't come to a gaming table waiting to negate each other and make each other miserable.  They come to have fun, and a healthy table will seek for ways to say yes.

QuoteOf course, most Forge games are made to principally appeal to Primmadonna spoilt players, who want to be the center of all attention all the time, so its no surprise you'd hold that up to be the paragon of gaming.

Do you intend to be attacking me personally here?  Do you intend to be calling me a spoiled primadonna?  If so, why?  I haven't insulted you once here, not even implicitly.  So why would you insult me?

Now to address your actual point, rather than the tone of it:  Most Forge games are made to appeal to players who are interested more in character development and theme than simulation of real-world physics or win/lose gamieness that can be the focus of D&D if played directly as written.

I have some sympathy with your viewpoint.  I have had plenty of fun sessions of, say, Vampire or Werewolf.  One time I was talking to Thor, one of the Burning Wheel crew guys, and said, "How can you say that I didn't have fun and play a great political game of Vampire when I know I have?"

He said (I paraphrase freely and will continue to do so), "I can't.  You did have a fun political game.  All I'm saying is, was the political fun you had tied in any way to the rules of the game?  Or was it fun you could've had with any game system or without rules entirely?"

And he was right.  The political fun I had in my vampire games had to do with the setting material provided, and with the friends I was playing with, and not with the rules.  The Forge and the games that its community produce don't nullify the fun you've had with traditional RPGs.  They don't say you didn't have fun before.  What they say is, "I want to make a game with rules that encourge the kind of play you want.  If you want a game about political vampires, I will give you rules that encourage and allow you to play a political vampire."

And I really am baffled to see what the offense is in that.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonThere is a travesty of reason happening, though - in order to meet some standard by which you think el Pundito will agree with you, the original statement is being watered down.

So, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

I think I said that, Clinton. Notice that you've gently qualified your statement with for no reason. There'll always be some reason, particularly in the Poobah's world. And if any player may say 'No', then surely the GM may as well.

'Say yes or roll the dice' is a conceptual tool. It reminds people that very often we as GMs may say 'No' for no particular reason. It relies to some extent on a consensus within the group. It's also a particular step in the development of indie games, written as a particular rule in a particular game from 2003. Arguably, the Forge community as a whole has learned the lessons of this game and moved on.

Quote from: RobNJAnd I really am baffled to see what the offense is in that.

It's in this fellow's eye:
(http://www.fischart.com/assets/art/artwork/Games/d20/beholder.jpg)

Quote from: RPGPunditYour reasoning for this is that RPG players are a noble and ideal sort of being that will always care more about the common good than about their character ending up with the +10 Holy Avenger, or their character getting to be the center of attention as much as possible. You really honestly believe that players will willingly sacrifice their own "time to shine" as protagonists of the party in favour of giving others equal time, each according to his needs. And you believe that all players will behave this way. On the other hand, you must apparently believe that GMs, if given the same kind of authority, would not be trustworthy with it and would end up abusing the game and ruining everyone's fun, because for some bizzare reason a group of self-interested players who's purpose is for THEIR character to shine will somehow be less prone to abuse this kind of power than a single GM who's purpose is for his players to enjoy his game. I can only suppose that you assume that GMs are lesser human beings, perhaps because you met a couple of Vampire "Storytellers" who were, and it soured you on the whole deal.

The problem with your approach to this is that you assume players want fictional stuff for their fictional person, and that totally drives them. In my experience: not true. They want the *experience* of getting that fictional stuff, and the challenge of getting it. What the fictional stuff is is really of little matter: what matters is that it is something the character cares about and that it is hard to get.

That's why I like this rule. It could easily be restated as "the players will tell you exactly what their characters want. Don't shut that down. Make it hard."

Your supposition about me and GMs, though - not true, again. I prefer being the GM in my games, although I enjoy playing almost as much. I've got a good group, and, really, yeah, they do all want to give each other equal time and help each other enjoy the story. We have a podcast that we do before and after the game each week, and we give real, honest evaluations of the games we play. You can check it out if you like: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Durham3 (http://feeds.feedburner.com/Durham3).

Wow, in typing this, I had a realization, so thank you for challenging me. I used to hate being the GM, and since I started playing games with power shared equally around the table, I enjoyed being the GM. I know why: like for players, it's in the challenge. When my player says, for example, "I'm going to assault the underworld to take my seven brides," I have to think quickly and it is a real challenge to push him. We're both playing as hard as we can, and we both have a challenge we're up against. In a more traditional GM role, when I could make up whatever I want to throw at the players, I'm not a player myself: I'm an entertainer. In the GM role I have now, I'm a full-fledged player, and fully invested in the challenge and reward cycle.

Oh, hey, Pundit - I don't want this to turn into a philosophical forum, but, yes, I do believe in mankind's fundamental goodness. It's what turned me from traditional Christianity (which predicates itself on mankind's fundamental badness) and it's also the center of my game, The Shadow of Yesterday (http://www.crngames.com/the_shadow_of_yesterday). People are good beings, and they know the right thing to do. Lots don't, sure, for a multitude of reasons. But that doesn't mean that they don't wish they had.

I don't think this has much to do with the points above. You missed the part where *everyone* at the table keeps the game moving toward fun, and anyone can put a stop to nonsense (yes, even the GM) :).

Jesus fucking Christ, RobNJ, was yours a post, or an epic fucking novel??

Anyways, I'm not going to engage in a little deconstructionist game with you, suffice it to say that Clinton has already come forward and admitted that he doesn't think that the Buck should stop with the GM. I am willing to bet dollars to donughts that Vince Baker feels the same way.

Now, I will respond to a couple of little points:

Quote from: RobNJcan you provide an example?

I did. In the very same piece you quoted. Nobilis.

QuoteFirst of all, he's very clear in the rules quoted elsewhere on this thread.  In context, there is no doubt that he's not at all talking about GM disempowerment, he's talking about advice, telling you when to roll and when not to roll.  If someone takes that and decides it's about never presenting the players with any opposition, then they are stupid.  Blaming Vincent for people misreading and/or misusing something that's very clear in the text is unfair.  If someone who read your blog went around saying stupid things, would you be responsible for them?

I'd be responsible if I intentionally worded the language in question in such a way that people could make use of that wording to spread inflammatory concepts.

QuoteThat's unfair and a dishonest way of engaging in a discussion.  You know he doesn't mean it.  You know he's making a joke.  Why be rude and intentionally misinterpret and twist his words?  

I'm not. I'm approrpriating his joke. His joke was basically an attempt at claiming that I was being hyperbolic. I'm turning it around and saying that actually, his joke wasn't very far from reality at all.

QuoteI don't believe that that's very prevalent.  What is your evidence that Ron was burnt by White Wolf and GM-gods?  

He's said so, multiple times. The GNS essays are all about that, basically.

QuoteWhat other designers who are part of the Forge community do you have evidence have had a similar experience, and what is the evidence?  

I assume like attracts like. I don't see why people would otherwise be drawn to a theory that argues strongly for the disempowerment of GMs, if not from a misguided reaction to having had bad experiences with an abusive GM.

QuoteEven if you could prove those things, which I don't believe you can, why would you tar everyone who plays certain games with that brush?

I'm not. Assume when I say "Forgeites", I mean most Forge-followers, not some random dude who's read the Forge once or twice. And not necessarily everyone who's ever played a Forge game.
In other words, if you aren't acting like the kind of assholes I'm describing, please don't assume that I'm talking about you.

QuoteI'm confused by this statement.  If, as a GM, I choose to play a game about Mormon paladins in the Old West, how can I complain that I'm being stripped of control over setting or theme?  I've chosen to play in that game.  Obviously I want to play in that world if I chose that book to play in.  It's like complaining that Wizards is trying to constrain your creativity by producing a Star Wars game.

No, its like complaining if Wizards produces a game about Star Wars, where you HAVE to play Jedi, and HAVE to travel to small planets to solve the problems of average citizens. Or if they produced a Star Wars game that said "Star Wars as an RPG is ALL about the relationships between fathers and sons". What if your SW RPG has nothing to do with that??
To top it all off, it would be like if they went on to say that creating a SW RPG that only has Jedi as a class and is only about the relationships between fathers & sons was somehow "Better" for you, and that games that tried to be about more than just that are "broken" because they are "incoherent".

QuoteWould you say that the GM in D&D is free to ignore any rule he wants, and impose that on the other players at the table, even if they really hate the rule?  

Ultimately speaking, yes. The law is there for the GM, not the GM for the law.

QuoteIf everyone at the table dislikes how something is being done, and one person has the power to ignore all of that, how can that be fun?

It might not be. The GM could ignore it for them too, if he felt it best serve the game. But the final decision belongs to the GM, not the players.
The only final decision a player has is about whether or not to play.
And that's really all he needs.

QuoteI suspect that most games of D&D as actually played have a great deal of player consent and consensus, they just don't have rules to encourage consent and consensus.  

Of course they have that, and of course they don't need rules. Because normal people realize that you don't do that sort of thing with "mechanics": You do that kind of thing by having a functional gaming group that talks to each other.

QuoteMy experience and logic tell me that it it would be very rare for a GM to make a ruling, have everyone (or even most) at the table go, "Wow, that sucks!" and have her ignore that entirely.  As a D&D GM I was constantly trying to tap in to what my friends enjoyed or didn't enjoy about the games I ran, and trying to facilitate that.  

Of course, and I do that too. But the thing is that my players are secure in knowing that I'm trying to make the game as good as possible for them, in good faith, and they are secure in knowing that I am the ultimate arbitrer, who is responsible for the final decision on any issue in the game. They don't need to feel "empowered" by being able to over-rule me, nor would they think it a good idea, I would suspect.

QuoteAnd that's all these player-input rules do.  They encourage the players to let the GM know what they want, by showing them directly and providing rules support for it.

No, rulebooks that say stuff like "talk to your master", or "GM talk to your players" does that. What these rules do is tell the players "If you don't like what your GM does, you can force him to change it, because you're supposed to have "fun NOW" and supposed to have Narrative authority".

QuoteThat's not true.  You may think it's true from the essays you've read or what have you, but if you actually look at the rulebooks, none of them either says, "You think you're having fun now but you're not," nor do they imply that the way you've been playing before sucks.  This fun-check is a thermometer.  There are rules to encourage communication between players and to try to prevent people from quietly waiting for the game to end.

Again I ask that you provide textual evidence from an indie RPG that they explicitly or implicitly assume you weren't having fun roleplaying until just now.

And please don't quote the essays.  The essays don't matter.  The games do.

The essays are the foundation of those games. The essays say: "Reality is like this", and posit that if you make games based on Ron's supposed solutions to his supposed perception of reality, you will create the best RPGs ever.
The Forge games are an attempt to use applied Forge theory.
If the premises of the Forge essays are wrong, then the execution of creating RPGs will also be wrong.
That explains, for one part, why the Forge hasn't surged ahead to become the dominant force in the marketplace. If Ron's ideas were right, the games the Forge produces would have been quickly recognized by any gamer who ran into them as being vastly superior to mainstream RPGs. Instead, they have been largely ignored aside from a small cadre of fellow-travellers.

QuoteDo you intend to be attacking me personally here?  Do you intend to be calling me a spoiled primadonna?  If so, why?  I haven't insulted you once here, not even implicitly.  So why would you insult me?

Again, I'm just describing a type. Please feel insulted only if you resemble my remarks.

QuoteNow to address your actual point, rather than the tone of it:  Most Forge games are made to appeal to players who are interested more in character development and theme than simulation of real-world physics or win/lose gamieness that can be the focus of D&D if played directly as written.

And there you go again, implying that "D&D" (by which you mean all mainstream RPGs) are less intelligent than "indie games", or deal with less intelligent issues. Bullshit. I've done more character development in my Roman campaign, or Amber, or my Traveller D20 game, than the whole fucking Forge volume put together.
Shit, I can't recall the last time I had a campaign that WASN'T ultimately about character development.


Oh, but wait.. now's where you say that its "Incoherent", right? That I couldn't possibly have a game were the goals were BOTH genre emulation AND character development, right? That Pope Ron said that this is impossible, and the universe would explode if you even tried to do both things well and at the same time!!!

Guess what: Ron lied to you. You can do campaigns that do Plot, Characters, and Setting, all at once, and do all three well.

QuoteAnd he was right.  The political fun I had in my vampire games had to do with the setting material provided, and with the friends I was playing with, and not with the rules.  The Forge and the games that its community produce don't nullify the fun you've had with traditional RPGs.  They don't say you didn't have fun before.  What they say is, "I want to make a game with rules that encourge the kind of play you want.  If you want a game about political vampires, I will give you rules that encourage and allow you to play a political vampire."

And I really am baffled to see what the offense is in that.

The thing that really offends me is Forgeites that pretend that they CAN'T POSSIBLY GRASP what it is that upsets traditional gamers about the Forge.

Are you one of these dudes who can't understand why the world hates America, too?

Or that "just doesn't get" what pisses off the dark-skinned people?

I mean, fuck, its extremely condescending of you to pretend that mainstream gamers have just pulled this whole "ticked off" thing out of their ass, and that the Forge isn't actually utterly full of prosletyzing condescending pretentious assholes who have done everything in their power to try to push an agenda of the Cult of Ron and denigrate and insult mainstream games and mainstream gamers at every turn.

I have two fucking words for you: BRAIN DAMAGE.

Now, are you going to keep on pretending that you don't get why we're pissed off? Or are you going to accept that mainstream gamers might be justified in feeling just a little bit insulted and/or threatened by things MANY people, including KEY people in the Forge have done or said, or the overall attitude of elitist superiority and prosletyzing zeal?

I mean, do you really REALLY not get this? Do you really think we're so stupid we don't see that its NOT just "live and let live"; and that your very presence here talking about Forge Theory is absolute PROOF of that? I mean, if it was really just a small group doing their own thing and not interested in affecting anyone else's play, you wouldn't be talking about this right here and now, would you?

RPGPundit

QuoteSo, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

Hahahaha!

Silly rabbit, rules are for players! :cool:

The GM is a (hopefully benevolent) dictator figure and exists above and apart from such things. They are merely one tool that he can make use of if he chooses.

That's how my hobby works, anyway. I've been saying for some time that Forgey Narrativism junk is essentially a new one and ought to own up to it and leave us RPGers be. This discussion clearly indicates what sort of mess results when you try to cram two very different hobbies into one forum.  Add to that the fact that one camp won't even admit the reality of the situation and the mess becomes a farce. Like a bunch of model train fans invading a knitting forum and insisting that laying tiny track next to a paper mache' Mt. Rushmore is knitting, too, dammit! Completely and totally different in every way, granted, but still knitting!

Honestly, just own up and name what you do and quit trying to mix water and oil.

Quote from: YamoThis discussion clearly indicates what sort of mess results when you try to cram two very different hobbies into one forum.  Add to that the fact that one camp won't even admit the reality of the situation and the mess becomes a farce. Like a bunch of model train fans invading a knitting forum and insisting that laying tiny track next to a paper mache' Mt. Rushmore is knitting, too, dammit!

You don't know how this makes me want to cuddle you to my bosom and talk to you about narrativist games until next year. You and I are going to be sweethearts.

Quote from: YamoThat's how my hobby works, anyway. I've been saying for some time that Forgey Narrativism junk is essentially a new one and ought to own up to it and leave us RPGers be.

I'm looking for a clarification, here:

Once Upon A Time, the card game, is purely a story-making engine.  A very, very fun one.

It was marketed by and to RPG players, though it wasn't marketed as an RPG.

Are you angry at Atlas Games for making it, too?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt was marketed by and to RPG players, though it wasn't marketed as an RPG.

Sounds fine to me. That's all I'd like the Forgies to do. If you want to market your story-creation games or narrative theme games or whatever you want to call them to RPG players, go for it, but foisting them on RPG gamers under the pretense that they're RPGs is misguided and leads to a whole lot of confusion.

Quote from: YamoSounds fine to me. That's all I'd like the Forgies to do. If you want to market your story-creation games or narrative theme games or whatever you want to call them to RPG players, go for it, but foisting them on RPG gamers under the pretense that they're RPGs is misguided and leads to a whole lot of confusion.

Okay, I get your position.

I don't entirely agree, mind, as I suspect would personally draw the "what is an RPG" line in a slightly different place than you would.

Yet the point of honesty-in-advertising is a good one.

Personally, I'd say that Adventure-type RPGs and Story-type RPGs are different enough to qualify as sepearate hobbies, if there weren't a shitpot of in-between games.

But there are a shitpot of in-between games.

Who draws the line, and where?

Nobody can decide.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWho draws the line, and where?

Nobody can decide.

Line-drawing isn't always strictly neccessary. If I wear a big, pointy wizard hat to the table for D&D, am I LARPing?

It's still possible to discuss tabletop and LARP games as such without worring too much about the line.

I can.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonWow, in typing this, I had a realization, so thank you for challenging me. I used to hate being the GM, and since I started playing games with power shared equally around the table, I enjoyed being the GM. I know why: like for players, it's in the challenge. When my player says, for example, "I'm going to assault the underworld to take my seven brides," I have to think quickly and it is a real challenge to push him. We're both playing as hard as we can, and we both have a challenge we're up against. In a more traditional GM role, when I could make up whatever I want to throw at the players, I'm not a player myself: I'm an entertainer. In the GM role I have now, I'm a full-fledged player, and fully invested in the challenge and reward cycle.

Whereas I am every bit an entertainer, invested in the happiness and enjoyment of my players, my "reward cycle" is seeing them satisfied with the adventure, challenged and entertained by what happens to their characters. And that's how I like it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonPeople are good beings, and they know the right thing to do. Lots don't, sure, for a multitude of reasons. But that doesn't mean that they don't wish they had.

Do some reading on pyschopaths/sociopaths.  I did some research on what motivates bad people for the purpose of better understanding what Evil meant in the context of a role-playing game like D&D where it's a detectable thing and descriptions of psycopaths/sociopaths to fill the criteria.  There is good evidence that even when they know the right thing to do, they don't feel compelled in any way to do it.  Some good places to start:

http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

Two paragraphs to consider from the last link:

QuotePsychopaths succeed in conventional society in large measure because few of us grasp that they are fundamentally different from ourselves. We assume that they, too, care about other people's feelings. This makes it easier for them to "play" us. Although they lack empathy, they develop an actor's expertise in evoking ours. While they don't care about us, "they have an element of emotional intelligence, of being able to see our emotions very clearly and manipulate them," says Michael Maccoby, a psychotherapist who has consulted for major corporations.

Psychopaths are typically very likable. They make us believe that they reciprocate our loyalty and friendship. When we realize that they were conning us all along, we feel betrayed and foolish. "People see sociopathy in their personal lives, and they don't have a clue that it has a label or that others have encountered it," says Martha Stout, a psychologist at the Harvard Medical School and the author of the recent best-seller The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us (Broadway Books, 2005). "It makes them feel crazy or alone. It goes against our intuition that a small percentage of people can be so different from the rest of us -- and so evil. Good people don't want to believe it."

As for Christianity, Original Sin, and human nature, I often wonder if embracing Augustine over Pelagius was one of the biggest mistakes the Church ever made.

Sociopaths are arguably amoral, not immoral and therefore 'neutral'.

Quote from: RPGPunditNote that there are other games where the same basic type of statement appears, written even more forcefully (ie. Nobilis).

Except that as pointed out in the other thread on the same subject, it isn't really forceful at all: paraphrased, "If you think that your railroading is keeping the players from having fun, then not saying 'no' to their suggestions should help."

Quote from: RPGPunditWhereas I am every bit an entertainer, invested in the happiness and enjoyment of my players, my "reward cycle" is seeing them satisfied with the adventure, challenged and entertained by what happens to their characters. And that's how I like it.

Yeah, but you're an attention whore.

Which is okay.  So am I.

I think most GMs are, really.

Quote from: GRIMSociopaths are arguably amoral, not immoral and therefore 'neutral'.

It depends on the sociopath/psychopath (sometimes those terms are differentiated and other times they aren't).  Add any motivation for them to hurt or kill others (e.g., sadism, a fascination with death) and you've got a pretty good recipe for immorality and Evil, since there is no moral conscience to stop them from acting on their needs and there is evidence that they do understand what they are doing is wrong.

To the original point that all people are basically good and want to do good, even where they are simply amoral, this is not true of the sociopath/psychopath.

QuoteYeah, but you're an attention whore.

That's the whole secret of GMing. The GM is totally different from the other players.

Quote from: John MorrowIt depends on the sociopath/psychopath (sometimes those terms are differentiated and other times they aren't).  Add any motivation for them to hurt or kill others (e.g., sadism, a fascination with death) and you've got a pretty good recipe for immorality and Evil, since there is no moral conscience to stop them from acting on their needs and there is evidence that they do understand what they are doing is wrong.

To the original point that all people are basically good and want to do good, even where they are simply amoral, this is not true of the sociopath/psychopath.

Clinton said people are good, he didn't say every single person is good.  He was speaking in the general.  I don't think one can reasonably extrapolate to him saying all people are basically good, that's not really what he said.

Sociopaths are about 2% of the population IIRC.  I don't think that necessarily defeats Clinton's view.  Also, arguably sociopaths are not functionally normal people and I don't think Clinton was speaking to the mentally ill or neurologically impaired.

Quote from: SettembriniThat's the whole secret of GMing. The GM is totally different from the other players.

Not in my experience. In point of fact, I've spent over 90% of my roleplaying career GMing. I've continuously sought ways to break down that notion and make play more consensual; to remove the perceived difference between GM and players. From as simple as not using a screen, to as complex as introducing new games and new styles. Something like 'Say yes or roll the dice' didn't come as a huge revelation to me, but it's certainly a good little mnemonic to examine my GMing practice.

You say you've been playing for 16 years. Well, I've been playing for 26 years. I say you've got a case of the blinkers. 'The GM is this', 'The GM is that'. Actually, the GM is whatever his group allows him to be, and that varies more than you're admitting. There is no one secret.

QuoteActually, the GM is whatever his group allows him to be, and that varies more than you're admitting. There is no one secret.

Right. There is no one secret. Mine is as good as yours. Which is w-a-y different from: You must empower your players.
I'm also a player. A lot. I don't want to have a say in game prep. I wanna explore through my character, not chit-chat and form a story-circle with talking stone and all that. It takes away the suspension of disbelief for me, if I can have a say in things, which my characrter couldn't.

Yes – but you are phrasing your position in just as absolutist a fashion as anybody you like to talk about (still not sure who that is exactly). It's not the simple dichotomy of adventure game/thematic game either. You can want a game of high adventure and still want empowerment. You can run a 'thematic' game where the players are entirely disempowered.


PS And as a player, I like to be able to have more to do and say than just following the GM's cues and trying to guess what he's thinking. Note how this description is somewhat biased and unfair – like 'chit-chat and form a story-circle with talking stone', for example.

Quote from: John MorrowAs for Christianity, Original Sin, and human nature, I often wonder if embracing Augustine over Pelagius was one of the biggest mistakes the Church ever made.

The Eastern Church didn't ;)

QuotePS And as a player, I like to be able to have more to do and say than just following the GM's cues and trying to guess what he's thinking. Note how this description is somewhat biased and unfair – like 'chit-chat and form a story-circle with talking stone', for example.

I hate neutrality, it's a big lie. Be upfront and i'll respect you. See, now we are talking. You just don`t want to second guess the GM or adventure author? All the better, take the other games.
I myself totally loathe Carcassonne and Siedler von Catan, but I must intellectually acknowledge there are people who like that for good reasons. This does not stop me from hating Carcassonne with every milimeter of my body.

The same it is with RPGs in it's different guises: I hate character navel-looking, but see that many people love it, and they have functional stuff for them working (Thematic RPG Design Theory aka Forge). This intellectual courtesy and honesty is all I demand. I don't want people to like what I do, but I want them to acknowledge it's right of existence, like Democrats acknowledge the Republicans. No love, but acceptance of difference. As we are not competing for the running of a state, ther is no need for conflict. Live and let die.

Yes, we're getting somewhere. But you still need to understand that you're coupling things together that don't need to be coupled. I may be a player who wants to play an 'adventure story' yet wants more creative control than you are allowing for. I may be a player who likes 'character navel-looking' yet does not see the need for greater empowerment. Do you understand?

This business about 'live and let die' and 'acknowledge right of existence' is just hysteria. It really is.

QuoteDo you understand?

Totally. And you can have all kinds of mixtures. No magic pixie dust needed.

@hysteria: I like the emperor naked.

I'm fairly new to this entire forum thing, so it's with great trepidation that I offer the following two quotes:

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonSo, I'll answer your question with a straight answer, Pundit: "say yes or roll the dice" totally says that as the GM, you don't have the right to say "no" to a player for no reason. You've got a strictly defined role in the game: you either say yes, or you go to the system to bring difficulty.

Now, the slippery slope argument that will happen and has happened is basically this: "what happens when my player says, 'I want so-and-so to give me an atom bomb?'" The answer to this is simple:

- Is it within the game's realm of possibility to have an atom bomb? Ok, then, roll some dice and shut up.

- It isn't? Well, then, the group as a whole has the right to tell anyone crapping on the game to shut up.

Or put simpler - all "Forge-theory," or whatever you want to call it, requires one assumption: that all the players at the table are there to actively participate in having fun. If someone is actively trying to subvert the fun (by doing something totally out of genre, or just being stupid), then anyone and everyone has the right to tell them to shut up or go home, as you would in any social activity.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon(from a Forge thread about Stakes (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21179.msg218824#msg218824))
Story Guide: "Feel free to set nasty stakes for crazy attempts your players will want to make. There's nothing wrong with saying 'If you lose this ability check writing a song for the duke, you'll take level 5 harm in Instinct and be banned from the kingdom.'"

How is that not what we'll call "bad stakes"? It's not what you get if you lose, like a consolation prize, which is how I see this technique used all the time. It's a warning from Story Guide to player: "Hey, if you try this and screw up, this will be a consequence." The player doesn't get to say anything else, like, "Ok, but if I win, the duke's wife comes down and washes my feet."

Now I admit that I am not even a novice when it comes to the games discussed in the linked thread (Dogs in the Vinyard, The Shadow of Yesterday, etc.), so I'm just going by what I've gleaned from months of lurking.  So, again with some hesitence born of asking this of someone so well known and respected as Clinton Nixon, I ask: don't the bolded portions of the quotes contradict each other?

I understand that in the second quote, the "Story Guide" is not saying no, per se.  However, to offer the player a result so devastating that's it's crazy to even attempt it, then allow no recourse, seems to me to be the equivalent of saying "no."

The first quote has the context of responding to the age-old atom bomb question.  And it's fair to assume that we're all playing with a group of people who will not take the approach.  But the player's possible response in the second quote doesn't seem to be of "atom bomb" nature.  The player seems to be saying "OK, my character is a brazen sort.  He'd risk that level 5 harm in Instinct and banishment from the kingdom, but only if his reward for success is having the Duke's wife come down and wash my feet. That would be a sight worth the trouble."  But the Player is not allowed to say that.  What if the Player does? Is the answer "No."?

Wow. I just read this entire thread, and it cracked me up in many places.

But I think nearly everyone in the thread missed the whole point of "say yes or roll the dice," and that's because we took a few paragraphs from Vincent Baker and ignored the context around it--pretty badly, it seems.

This is a most unfortunate case of missing the forest because of a tree. The person who came closest to seeing the big picture is Pundit, but even he doesn't seem to get it imo.

Pundit is right in that this is largely about neutering the GM. By design. It gives the GM a very different role. It's a totally different philosophy, but I don't think it's necessarily dysfunctional like he thinks it is; rather, it's just a very different way to play that still walks and quacks like an RPG for the most part.

Here it is:

Traditional Model: GM knows what's up. GM is in control. GM has a plan. GM may or may not have a railroad, but GM is prepared for most things. GM most likely knows some things that are going to happen, and some things that are likely to happen. Since the GM is sharing the steering wheel, if not mainly in control of driving the car, the GM is unlikely to be too surprised. There is some chaos in the equation, but also a lot of underlying order. GM wields a lot of importance. He is not only the central hub, but basically omniscient and omnipotent. His ego is supposed to be neutral and impartial, but the game cannot go on unless his ego is also strong and empowered; after all, he's got a lot of cool shit planned.The GM is judge, jury, and executioner.

Dogs in the Vineyard Style: Other than the basic problem scenario of the story being figured out by the GM before play (such as a minister is abusing children), it's super spontaneous, to the point that the GM is not the one directing the action at all. There simply is no master plan, just a basic problem that moves with urgent speed. This would be a martial art where you do not force anything, you merely respond instinctually and welcome being surprised by the moral implications of what occurs with the players. And all of this happens very ... quickly. And this brings us to "say yes or roll the dice."

Seen in the bigger picture (the whole context) presented by Baker, "say yes or roll the dice" is actually about speed. Keep thing moving. Keep things moving toward conflict. Then when conflict happens, escalate the conflict more. Make it tense and uncomfortable. And it is largely about not saying no, although in no way does it mean that a GM can't say that a player wanting to hump a magical, flying wildebeest while turning into Lonnie Anderson is out of his fucking mind, and "Hell no."

So it's about saying yes whenever saying yes to the players moves the story forward towards something interesting and challenging. In that sense, it is a very much neutered GM, because in this approach, the GM deliberately does not give a shit about what happens, he is only there to facilitate difficult encounters and keep things moving quickly towards them, and the GM doesn't know all that much.

So in the end, both GMs are trying to do the same thing. Provide a fun world for the players to interact with and have fun with. The GM is still the glue that binds. But the first model basically involved a heck of a lot of preparation and some significant player boundaries with a "strong" GM figure. The second model starts with one seed concept or story, and then let's the players pretty much steer all of the action until it's time to roll the dice, but still only within reason. In either case, the GM roleplays the NPCs. PCs can't make NPCs do their bidding or conform to their wishes; not in the least. But one GM needs a strong, central ego because he really knows what's up and needs to make that specific reality available. The other GM needs to bend and sway like grass and is actually hoping to be utterly surprised.

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.

Here's some quotes around the infamous phrase that illustrates only part of this:

QuoteProvoke the players to have their characters take action, then React! ... Don't play "the story." ... You can't have plot points in mind before hand, things like "gotta get the PCs up to that old cabin ... let go of "what's going to happen." Play the town. Play the NPCs. Leave "what's going to happen" to what happens. How though? Here's how. DRIVE PLAYERS TOWARDS CONFLICT Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes ... FOLLOW THE PLAYERS LEAD ABOUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT ... ESCALATE, ESCALATE, ESCALATE ... DO NOT HAVE A SOLUTION IN MIND

Whether or not it works really well, it is an interesting approach. In the end, it's less about getting off on enjoying seeing your players interact with the stories and scenarios you've dreamed up for them to encounter and interact with (which there's nothing wrong with, obviously). It's more about not knowing what the hell is going to happen, and allowing people to get themselves into interesting situations and continuing to humbly move things forward so that things continue to happen and escalate. Either way, it's about helping people roleplay, be challenged, roll dice, and have fun.

I don't have a 'dog' in the fight. I'm not here to defend it. I've never played it or anything like it. I just don't think anyone in this thread really said what "roll dice or say yes" really means in context to DitV. No offense. It's just that it requires a lot more context than was given.

So the problem here is that if you run a traditional game, and then let the players determine where the narrative goes, it doesn't necessarily make sense. Sometimes it will really screw things up if you let that happen. The problem is critiquing 'roll dice or say yes' from that point of view, because that guideline isn't meant to be used in a traditional game, at least not in the way it's used in DitV. It's like trying to use software on a computer that can't read it. Or, apples and oranges.

However, if the whole game functions that way, then it makes sense. And it's just a different way to run a game, one in which the GM has no major plans going in.

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 :D

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... :D

-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.

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

I disagree. If I wanted to play a boardgame, I'd play a boardgame. And it'd probably be a wargame, not these pansy-assed german freaky "resource-management" bullshit games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: holyshitI 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.

Hmm. I wondered about possible connections to the discussion over there, but couldn't tell for certain since there were no direct links to this thread.

Quote from: RPGPunditI disagree. If I wanted to play a boardgame, I'd play a boardgame. And it'd probably be a wargame, not these pansy-assed german freaky "resource-management" bullshit games.

I said the influence of them.  :)

Things like:

• Easier to learn rules
• Faster gameplay
• Minimized downtime between turns
• Shorter minimum duration
• Less looking up charts in books

These are good things for all games.

Edit:  And games like Heroscape, Battlelore, or Command and Colors really blur the lines between boardgames and wargames.

Quote from: holyshitI 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.

I am much more tolerant than most people view me, you might find that out by how I run this site; in any case, if I misjudged you, and I hope that I did, bally good.  Let's see you post on here about stuff other than DiTV (not saying you should stop posting about DiTV, just that I'd love to see what else you have to say about all kinds of other stuff).

And for the record, I agree with Clash, and I think that you misrepresented the standard playstyle of the conventional GM, as well as having a slightly naive perception of DiTV's "Freedom".

The "Freedom" that DiTV offers gaming groups is the freedom to "buy a car of any colour they want, providing that colour is black". The game designer has already firmly set in an authoritarian tone exactly what the game is supposed to be about, and made mechanics that pretty well make that concept inescapable. So its not that the GM is "supposed to be more open"; its that the GM is totally subverted, by the players on the one hand but mostly by Mr. Baker himself, who is already doing 9/10ths of what the GM's job is supposed to be and forcing it on the group.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartEdit:  And games like Heroscape, Battlelore, or Command and Colors really blur the lines between boardgames and wargames.

To me all three of those are definitely wargames. They're "board wargames", as opposed to "miniature wargames", and they're more simplistic than, say Advanced Squad Leader, but that's a good thing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThey're "board wargames", as opposed to "miniature wargames", and they're more simplistic than, say Advanced Squad Leader, but that's a good thing.

Yes, I'd agree with that.  A lot of these games are actually influenced by the German Style games, and some of the "resource management" stuff is definitely making it's way into modern wargames.  They're picking the best bits from other types of games to make better overall games.  I don't see that as a bad thing for RPGs to do as well.

Quote from: StuartSo 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?

Huh? When did I say that? I said the group trumps the designer. If the group wants to do something totally different with the board game - or whatever - I designed, I'm not going to stand in their way and interfere.

Quote from: StuartThe 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.

Innovation in general is a positive thing. So is cross-fertilization. In particular, that is as it applies in a specific instance, it may or may not be positive. Each one of us is free to judge that for ourselves. I'm very happy for you that you judge it to be positive. Positive influences make the day a little sunnier, the workload a little lighter, and the birds sing a bit sweeter.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHuh? When did I say that? I said the group trumps the designer. If the group wants to do something totally different with the board game - or whatever - I designed, I'm not going to stand in their way and interfere.

Well sure, I guess anyone could decide to take their new boardgame out tobogganing instead of playing it. Once they've got it at home, there's not much you can do to stop them.  Unless you see them on the drive home...  "You Damn Kids!?!  Don't do that with my game!!!" :D  

The point I was hoping to make is that a game designer providing a clearly defined game, where there's a set method of play, and conditions of winning -- that's not inherently a bad thing.  It's just a different thing. :)

Quote from: StuartWell sure, I guess anyone could decide to take their new boardgame out tobogganing instead of playing it. Once they've got it at home, there's not much you can do to stop them.  Unless you see them on the drive home...  "You Damn Kids!?!  Don't do that with my game!!!" :D  

The point I was hoping to make is that a game designer providing a clearly defined game, where there's a set method of play, and conditions of winning -- that's not inherently a bad thing.  It's just a different thing. :)

I used to mod board games all the time. Come up with new rules, change rules, make new pieces, everything. At a certain point, however - and don't ask me where because I can't tell you - you stop modding an old game and start designing a new one. Anyway, board games and RPGs are very different things. I like board games and I like rpgs. As to mixing them, some folks might say "You got peanut butter in my chocolate!" but I say "You got herring in my ice cream."

Quote from:  flyingmiceI like board games and I like rpgs. As to mixing them, some folks might say "You got peanut butter in my chocolate!" but I say "You got herring in my ice cream."

It all depends on your point of view, I guess. :)

(http://www.jimmyakin.org/images/fish-ice-cream.jpg)

Quote from: flyingmiceYep - 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

I should have been more clear. I was surprised you would use this as the definition of traditional games. For me, there is a long list of factors that define traditional RPGs versus non-traditional play. Designer over GM has little to do with it except in the sense of the role of players and GMs.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI should have been more clear. I was surprised you would use this as the definition of traditional games. For me, there is a long list of factors that define traditional RPGs versus non-traditional play. Designer over GM has little to do with it except in the sense of the role of players and GMs.

Bill

Oh, I agree they're there, I just think of them as 'typical features' or 'significant markers.' When push comes to shove, I think the breakpoint is designer impact on playstyle. Also, I was talking specifically about Forge-related games, not all non-traditional games. There are non-traditional games that are not at all influenced by the Forge.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI used to mod board games all the time. Come up with new rules, change rules, make new pieces, everything.

Scotland Yard happens to be very good for that. Once you've started modding it heavily, it might begin to resemble Fury of Dracula.

Quote from: GrimGentScotland Yard happens to be very good for that. Once you've started modding it heavily, it might begin to resemble Fury of Dracula.

Hehe! Yeah! Some games were a joy to mod! :D

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd for the record, I agree with Clash, and I think that you misrepresented the standard playstyle of the conventional GM, as well as having a slightly naive perception of DiTV's "Freedom".

The "Freedom" that DiTV offers gaming groups is the freedom to "buy a car of any colour they want, providing that colour is black". The game designer has already firmly set in an authoritarian tone exactly what the game is supposed to be about, and made mechanics that pretty well make that concept inescapable. So its not that the GM is "supposed to be more open"; its that the GM is totally subverted, by the players on the one hand but mostly by Mr. Baker himself, who is already doing 9/10ths of what the GM's job is supposed to be and forcing it on the group.

RPGPundit

I'm certainly no expert on that game, but from what I can tell I think there's some validity to what you're saying. However, it looks like a little of both to me.

On the one hand, the players would steer the moment-to-moment course of action relatively moreso when compared to traditional RPGs, and likely hear "yes" from the GM more often, as the GM interferes somewhat less with the direction of events than in normal RPGs, and generally has less nudging input. This applies within that particular setting being played, however. But in this sense, the players do seem to have more freedom and power than normally is the case (although in the end, they do have to buy some sort of black car), although it's not that there aren't some traditional GMs that also give the players a ton of freedom; there are exceptions to every rule, but we're engaging in a comparison. The players are more in the drivers seat than with traditional RPGs, in any given (restrictive) setting, because they will not ever be railroaded in any way other than ultimately confronting the main dilemma of the evening, because of their own actions; yes, that is a very ironic statement. Yes, it's more freedom on one level and less freedom on another. But apparently that's how this game works.

So conversely, the players have been given a specific scenario in a specific town, and they are expected to stay in that town and deal with that. That gives them much less freedom in the bigger picture, and it seems the GM is much more constraining in that regard, unless we're compairing him to a really railroady traditional DM, although in playing this game the players would naturally accept those limitations.

I do think the GM is supposed to be a lot more open in the way he manages the game, in that he is supposed to come into the game with a lot less plannning, prejudices, opinions, scenarios, scenes, agenda, and so forth.

However, I think it's very true what you're saying about the GM being subverted in a way by Baker, although of course that's by design. And that is because DitV does seem to resemble a board game more in the sense that it involves a set scene and episode. It is different.

I'd agree that altogether the players have less freedom. But this is sort of the "German boardgame" of RPGs in that you have something like Settlers of Catan, where the game is always pretty much the same, it's just the that map changes a little bit every night so the experience is a little different. But each episode seems mainly like a one-shot deal from what I've read.

It does tremendously limit the possibilities on a macro level while opening up the possibilities somewhat on a micro level. In the end, the more broadly limiting nature of it is probably what would keep me from playing it on a regular basis. I'd still like to try it sometime to take it for a spin, though. You never know.

All in all, it's just a fairly different approach to roleplaying. It's not going to be for everyone. I doubt it's for me. I like traditional RPGs.

It is paradoxical, though. The GM is more authoritarian at first. Then less authoritarian once the game starts. The GM defines the setting and dilemma more clearly, then lets the players determine more of the action and outcome. A lot of more traditional games (not necessarily good ones, mind you) do have some sort of binary outcome. Either you save the village or you don't. Here the outcomes are probably much harder to predict, because the players have to make a moral judgment about what should happen, and the GM wants nothing whatsoever to do with that decision and what spirals off from it. That's another major angle to the game. The players solely become the judge, jury, and executioner, and that's supposed to be one of the most interesting things about the game, i.e. the players are forced to make very heavy moral decisions all the time.

I really didn't come here to defend the game, although I understand if it seems like I did. I don't know what else to say about that. But I do think it's an interesting concept worth talking about, whether it's best thing since the blowjob or a steaming pile of excrement. But before we can decide that, we should try to understand it on its own terms. I mainly wanted to put the "roll dice or say yes" bit in more context. Because when you do that, that slogan doesn't really mean all that much. The issues become something else. Like what we're talking about in terms of the fundamental difference in a game made up of set episodes like this one, or traditional RPGs, which must lend themselves much better to sweeping campaigns. Which tend to kick ass imo.