Can we get a new forum for 4th ed D$D?

[jephlewis]

So, we should engage in serious discussion of F.A.T.A.L., RaHoWa, and Hybrid, because, somebody out there considers them to be serious RPGs?

If I understand pundit correctly, yes. They're not forge games, right?

[Kyle Aaron]

So, we should engage in serious discussion of F.A.T.A.L., RaHoWa, and Hybrid, because, somebody out there considers them to be serious RPGs?

Name these people. Tell us about the game groups which have actually played these games. Point us to the campaign wikis, the forums where players argue about the rules, and so on.

Because I see a lot of people mocking these games, but nobody seems to be playing them. Even the crappiest, most bizarre and specialised, most one-shotty, depressing  Forger game gets players.

It doesn't exist as a game until someone plays it a few times at least. Wanking in forums and mailing lists about how wonderful or dreadful it is doesn't count. Until it's played, it's just words on paper or screen - may as well be a telephone book.

Likewise, if you don't game, and don't want to game, you're not a gamer. Again, wanking in forums and mailing lists doesn't count.

Gamers and the games they play should all be welcomed here (inasmuch as we are capable of a warm welcome), regardless of whether they fit some category we like or dislike. Even, God help us, fucking LARPers should be able to talk here without hindrance.

So if you come across those groups playing FATAL, RaHoWa, or Hybrid, by all means tell them to come here and chat about their game sessions. And if you come across the people for whom their only roleplaying is pretending to be a gamer on forums and mailing lists, tell them to fuck off.

[Aos]

I  hate to agree with Kyle with hateful hating hate, but he is correct.
Furthermore, the 4e threads are dominated by a really small subset of the forum who can't, love or hate it, let it go. Pseudo, Drew and I, for instance, have all played and like 4e, and yet, for the most part we stay out of those threads- or at least, in may case, out of the silly endless arguments they spawn. Despite the fact that I like all of the major posters in those threads, their positions (for the most part) are so polarized and unchanging that engaging with them is a zero sum game. They're not talking about 4e in those threads. They're having an emotional circle jerk. Beyond that, if you begin to worry about the ideology of rpgs, maybe it's time to look for another hobby, like drinking or whores.
P.S. Fuck you, Kyle.

[David R]

You guys are no fun. The 4E talk around here is fine. Sure it gets a little fiesty but for the most part IMO it's been pretty informative. Both "sides" make some very interesting points and for me at least tells me what I like and dislike about the game.

I mean look at the silly title of this thread. Of course 4E is an rpg like so many other games. I just wanted to draw attention to stuff like "Dogs, Burning Wheel etc are not rpgs but as long as you talk about the mechanics of these games it will remain in the RPG section"...seriously, what the fuck.

Regards,
David R

[Aos]

I'm all about ruining the fun, David. It's that, or finish reading these fucking taphonomy articles.
Seriously though,reading the 4e threads is like watching a nature film about trolls during mating season.

[droog]

Don't you like nature films?

[shalvayez]

So if you come across those groups playing FATAL, RaHoWa, or Hybrid, by all means tell them to come here and chat about their game sessions. And if you come across the people for whom their only roleplaying is pretending to be a gamer on forums and mailing lists, tell them to fuck off.

 
 Mein gott, who in their right mind would PRETEND to be a roleplayer? what would be the point?  There are poser RPers now?  I thought that title was reserved for the punk/metalhead subcultures?  
 
 How the hell would one pull it off?  Why?  I don't think I quite understand the point of RP posers.  That's kind of like going to Wyoming with a megaphone, and proclaiming one's gayness in every shitty little homophobic town one drives through.

[RPGPundit]

How is Burning Wheel (or Sorcerer, or DitV) different from D&D, apart from crunch and that? Seriously, mate. There's a DM, there are some players that make some PCs, they roll dice and use exactly the same procedures that would be used in regular D&D. Talk about fucking gall.

There's a DM, but he's all but powerless. The players collectively create the setting and the story. Whatever power they don't have, the RULES do, the GM isn't allowed to determine fuck all.

One thing is to say "these games won't be discussed in this forum because I hate them." That's fine and dandy, man, you run this place however you want. But don't try to pass that bullcrap as a coherent reasoning. You don't need excuses.

Nope, sorry, the Landmarks are clearly delineated points, lines in the sand if you will, where for this site we have determined "beyond this it is not an RPG".

Your Landmarks are as arbitrary as the GNS model. So they don't mean shit.

Nope. My landmarks are based on two factors:
1. "Time immemorial": features that have ALWAYS been a part of RPGs. Like the GM.
2. "an understanding of regularity": that the healthy regular-roleplayers would consider to be normal RPG play.

Those are shitloads less arbitrary than made-up categories that have been proven not to actually work.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

So anything which resembles an rpg but is not really an rpg but is not a Forge game can be discussed in the RPG section ?

Regards,
David R

No, D&D can. Mainly due to reasons of tradition.

RPGPundit

[Imperator]

There's a DM, but he's all but powerless. The players collectively create the setting and the story. Whatever power they don't have, the RULES do, the GM isn't allowed to determine fuck all.

That's absolutely and completely false. All of those games state clearly the role of the GM as the person in charge of leading the game. Manifesting a strong preference for player input doesn't strip the GM of power. I dare you to find the quote in those games that supports that retarded lie.

Nope, sorry, the Landmarks are clearly delineated points, lines in the sand if you will, where for this site we have determined "beyond this it is not an RPG".

Problem is, those games are not specially against the Landmarks, no more than Amber is.

Nope. My landmarks are based on two factors:
1. "Time immemorial": features that have ALWAYS been a part of RPGs. Like the GM.

There's a GM in charge of everything but the PCs in Sorcerer, DitV and BW.

2. "an understanding of regularity": that the healthy regular-roleplayers would consider to be normal RPG play.

You don't have a fucking clue of what people out there considers normal, and you're not in position to decide it.

Those are shitloads less arbitrary than made-up categories that have been proven not to actually work.

No, they are the same. Decissions based on your own bias and, at bets, anecdotical observation. Bullshit.

[CavScout]

Nope, sorry, the Landmarks are clearly delineated points, lines in the sand if you will, where for this site we have determined "beyond this it is not an RPG".

Who's this "we" made of?

Nope. My landmarks are based on two factors:

Ok, that was quick to be cleared up. Makes you wonder why you said "we" above instead of just I.

Nope. My landmarks are based on two factors:
1. "Time immemorial": features that have ALWAYS been a part of RPGs. Like the GM.
2. "an understanding of regularity": that the healthy regular-roleplayers would consider to be normal RPG play.

Those are shitloads less arbitrary than made-up categories that have been proven not to actually work.

When your "landmarks" are based on arbitrary judgments on who is a "healthy" RPGer (one must assume those who don't play the games you define as RPGs as unhealthy) then the "landmarks" themselves can't claim to be something other than arbitrary.

[RPGPundit]

That's stupid. You're imposing your own ideology about gaming on discussions, knowing that if a thread's removed from the roleplaying subforum it's more likely to fizzle away.

Asking whether My Life With Master is "really an rpg" is like asking whether the Palestinians are "really an ethnic group, or are they just Arabs". They think they are, so they are.

Creationists think they're "Legitimate Scientists". Are they? Just because they say they are?

Likewise, if everyone playing something vaguely rpg-like think it's an rpg, then it is. It's certainly more an rpg than anything else.

No, its a story game. If people playing an RPG thought it was called a "wargame"; that wouldn't make it a "wargame".
Its an entirely different hobby, only Storygames continues to feed parasitically off RPGs because its backers fear that it could not survive on its own.

Those Forger games are certainly crap rpgs, but they're rpgs, however you try to twist it, unless you really go crazy with the new definitions for old words in an elaborate theory that will really make you earn your nickname of Mirror Ron.

Nope, I'm just using the old definitions of what is or is not an RPG. If the people who made Magic: The Gathering had tried to claim that M:tG was an RPG, and not something new and different, they would have been equally wrong.
We know what an RPG looks like. Co-operative story-creation using tiddly-winks where you determine the sexual deviancy of victorian medical doctors without a GM is not it.

I realise that with lots of members you're now much more confident about therpgsite's existence, and reckon you can bin some people and their ideas with the site still being viable, and it's true - but I still think we ought to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Saying "good riddance to the people playing games we dislike" leads us to... well, rpg.net.

It has been the policy of this site from DAY ONE to relegate attempts at propagandism by the Forge to Off-topic. Nothing has changed.

I want an rpg discussion site with a broad range of games and gamers, inclusive rather than exclusive. That means no ghettos, not in subforums or Off Topic.

I don't want this site turned into a venue for people to come in and advertise their RPGs, forums, or political movements in inappropriate areas of the forum.
And you know, that WHENEVER a storygamer starts a thread he's basically attempting to do that.  Its their religious duty. Ron Edwards closed the theory forums and told them, "go out and conquer".

Here's one place they won't conquer, ever.

RPGPundit

[CavScout]

If people playing an RPG thought it was called a "wargame"; that wouldn't make it a "wargame".

You haven't been keeping up on the 4E hate talking points, have you?

Nope, I'm just using the old definitions of what is or is not an RPG.

Is that sorta of like how you use Gary's words when it supports your cause and ignore it when it doesn't?

[RPGPundit]

Name these people. Tell us about the game groups which have actually played these games. Point us to the campaign wikis, the forums where players argue about the rules, and so on.

Because I see a lot of people mocking these games, but nobody seems to be playing them. Even the crappiest, most bizarre and specialised, most one-shotty, depressing  Forger game gets players.

F.A.T.A.L., at the very least, is supposedly being played by its authors. Which I believe should technically earn it its own subforum on the Forge and representation on IPR. Also, shouldn't its authors be recognized by Storygames as "RPG Industry insiders"?

I mean fuck, what's the difference? FATAL is vanity press; the latest Forge "ashcan" crap game is vanity press. Its something they published because they wanted to claim they're an RPG author, and therefore an intellectual "authority".

Its bullshit that you suggest we should be welcoming to Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding or Pirate Baby-Rape:the Storygame, and its two assholes who actually play it, but should not be welcoming to FATAL and its two assholes who actually play it.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

That's absolutely and completely false. All of those games state clearly the role of the GM as the person in charge of leading the game. Manifesting a strong preference for player input doesn't strip the GM of power. I dare you to find the quote in those games that supports that retarded lie.

The GM can't say "NO, actually, the setting is like this".
That's enough. If the GM cannot say NO to the players, its not an RPG.

There's a GM in charge of everything but the PCs in Sorcerer, DitV and BW.

No he isn't. In a conflict, the Player gets to pick the "stakes", and if the Player wins, he gets to determine what happens in the reality of the world. Not an RPG.

You don't have a fucking clue of what people out there considers normal, and you're not in position to decide it.

I'm in far better a position than the pretentious asswipe pseudo-intellectual social retards over at the Forge, who take pride in being unlike the "unwashed masses".

No, they are the same. Decissions based on your own bias and, at bets, anecdotical observation. Bullshit.

The difference is I have history and numbers on my side. You don't. Get over it.

RPGPundit