Quote from: TonyLBI'm not exactly sure where people are drawing the line and saying that some explicit, non-optional rules are "just the rules" and some are "railroading of player styles."  I suspect that, in reality, this is more about what type of things people want choice over, which is more an issue of personal preference than universal truth.  But hey, maybe somebody will show me where the line is sensibly drawn in the sand, and I'll understand the difference.

Exactly, Tony - it's a personal preference thing, which is how you phrased the question. My answer was for myself only - I'm not speaking for anyone else. I suspect we all have a line drawn in the sand somewhere, but exactly where that is varies enormously.

-clash

Clash:  Gotcha.  Personal preferences, I won't read more than that into them.  I suggest that other people do likewise.

No, I'm afraid personal preference cannot be allowed to stand in the way of progress.

Rigorous analysis shows Your Favorite Games sucks, and must be written out for the good of the hobby.

So sorry. I mean, I know you like your little games, but, lets face it, they arn't very good when viewed dispassionatly.

We can't afford emotion. I know you have some sentimental attachment, but there you go. You have to let go of your preconcieved ideas and examine things with a critical eye, and the evidence just shows your ineptness.

It hurts me as much as it hurts you to see em go, it really does, but, lets face it, it is for the best.

Did I mention how much I hate the forge?

:-)

Although I really do think that deciding what to give guidance on and what not is a crucial question, and things like Vampire, Call of Cthulhu, DnD and Dogs get the balance about right. Its a big part of WHY they are so popular.

And in these games it is SITUATION that is heavily discussed, while THEME and STYLE are very open.

Quote from: Erik BoielleSo sorry. I mean, I know you like your little games, but, lets face it, they arn't very good when viewed dispassionatly.

Just to be clear ... you are not trying to merely express your opinion, right?  You are claiming to speak the objective truth?

Quote from: TonyLBJust to be clear ... you are not trying to merely express your opinion, right?  You are claiming to speak the objective truth?

Hell yes. I think it is incontrovertable that the important part of a game design is creating situations that inspire players to think of reactions. It is NOT to control those reactions railroading players in to specific paths and modes of behaviour.

Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Examples, damn it!

Quote from: Erik BoielleHell yes. I think it is incontrovertable that the important part of a game design is creating situations that inspire players to think of reactions. It is NOT to control those reactions railroading players in to specific paths and modes of behaviour.

Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Well, I'd like to know where you intend to draw the line between "just rules" and "railroading."

Take, for instance, My Life with Master:  It is a game that specifically tells you that you must play the simpering minions of a horrific master.  You must do inhuman things at the master's behest.  You really don't get a choice about that stuff, and it genuinely is pretty horrific.

The things you get a choice about are whether you will try to find love, how much you will sacrifice your own pride and safety to try to protect others and ... hrm.  That's about it, really.  That general question crops up in a lot of different ways (particularly the perennial "Will you try to defy the master, even knowing that you will fail and be punished?")

There's some stuff there that's dictated, and some stuff that isn't.  How do you draw the line and say whether the important freedoms (objectively) are being infringed?

Quote from: TonyLBTake, for instance, My Life with Master:  It is a game that specifically tells you that you must play the simpering minions of a horrific master.  You must do inhuman things at the master's behest.  You really don't get a choice about that stuff, and it genuinely is pretty horrific.

And, lets face it, the game ain't gonna have legs.

http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Second_Annual_Top_5_Small_Press_RPGs_Poll

4 votes.

Dogs? 41 votes.

Grabby it ain't. I sure got no interest.

Dogs now - Dogs is the kind of game people love because it inspires rather than telling you what to think.

I don't know, Erik. I'll agree with you that Dogs is more popular, and why that might be. But the game that caused the most buzz at the con I went to was MLwM. The two guys I played with said they were going to buy it.

Quote from: droogI don't know, Erik. I'll agree with you that Dogs is more popular, and why that might be. But the game that caused the most buzz at the con I went to was MLwM. The two guys I played with said they were going to buy it.

Meh - lots of Harsh games get talked about - Paranoia! Its so cool! You die in the first five minutes! and then everyone goes home and plays Vampire. Or frikkin jew pirates of the carribean or WFRP/Doctor Who crossovers.

Thats a slightly tangential issue though. Don't you have to make up your Master in whatnot? Simpering henchmen is always going to be a hard sell (I mean!), but would the game be easier to swallow if the choice of Breaking Free and Bringing Down The Man or Continued Simpering were yours to make?

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnd, lets face it, the game ain't gonna have legs.

Heh ... I'm almost tempted to get into that with you, but I think I'll pass.

The question isn't whether the game "has legs."  The question is whether this (and Paranoia, if you want to include it) is one of those games that you think only "a fool" could think were well designed.

And, if so, can you point out some specific elements that make them bad games?

Quote from: Erik BoielleThats a slightly tangential issue though. Don't you have to make up your Master in whatnot? Simpering henchmen is always going to be a hard sell (I mean!), but would the game be easier to swallow if the choice of Breaking Free and Bringing Down The Man or Continued Simpering were yours to make?

That's one of those 'what if' questions, unless you're prepared to do the playtesting. I don't know where such a game would go. It seems to me that one of the only things that makes MLwM bearable is the Master's death.

Hmmm, 1984: The Stomping....

Quote from: droogHmmm, 1984: The Stomping....

I strongly suspect that any game that really captured peoples imagination would have some people going - 'This is so cool! Its just like Equilibrium or Total Recall! I'm totally gonna bring down The Man!' and others going 'This is so cool! Its just like Brazil! I'm totally gonna get chewed up and spat out by the machine!

And would probably have Edition Wars with people arguing about which bits are the True Core of the game.

QuoteAnd, if so, can you point out some specific elements that make them bad games?

Well, there was the famous Crap edition of paranoia, where they went All Zany All The Time. The current edition tries really hard to escape its rep, but I think its to late.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, there was the famous Crap edition of paranoia, where they went All Zany All The Time. The current edition tries really hard to escape its rep, but I think its to late.

You've got to pick out particular editions?  I thought any game that crossed the line was objectively bad, and only a fool would think otherwise.  Are you saying that some editions of paranoia cross the line in terms of railroading the players, and some don't?