TheRPGSite

I'd like to read about real games, and not just pen and paper World Of Warcrack. PLEASE?

We don't ghettoise games here, we just keep one as a pet.

Try rpg.net.

Been there, they 86ed all the cool people.

Quote from: shalvayez;288308I'd like to read about real games, and not just pen and paper World Of Warcrack. PLEASE?

Most of the discussion about 4e here is butthurt by the butthurt squad. If you don't like 4e: Don't talk about it incessantly; Start threads about other games; Talk about games you do like.

It's as simple as that. Heck, I talk less about 4e than most of the posters on this site, and I actually play the damn game.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288314We don't ghettoise games here, we just keep one as a pet.

Actually we do. All Forge or Forge influenced games. Now, since Mearls has admitted that some Forge ideas influenced the design of 4E...well maybe all 4E discussions should be carried out in OT.

:killingme:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;288373Actually we do. All Forge or Forge influenced games. Now, since Mearls has admitted that some Forge ideas influenced the design of 4E...well maybe all 4E discussions should be carried out in OT.

:killingme:

Regards,
David R

Any real RPG, even if it is influenced by Forge theories, can be discussed on the main RPG forum.

FORGE THEORY is not a topic for discussion on the main forum, since it is a clearly discredited theory in violation of the Landmarks of roleplaying, and essentially a dogmatic quasi-religious ideological cult-propaganda device and not a legitimate theory for discussion.

Finally, games that are NOT real RPGs obviously don't belong in the main RPG section.  These are games like Monopoly, Chess, World of Warcraft, Sorcerer, My Life With Master, Tiddlywinks, Burning Wheel, football, Dogs in the Vinyard, hopscotch, "computer roleplaying", LARPing, Dread, Jenga, the Shab-al-hiri roach, or playing with yourself.

Just because you might call any of the above activities a "roleplaying game", doesn't mean that it actually is for the purposes of this forum. None of the games listed above actually do the things you're supposed to be doing in an RPG.

Is D&D 4e a roleplaying game? Barely. Some people might use it for roleplaying. Roleplaying might occur in a 4e game in between encounters and skill challenges.
It gets about as close to the frontier of the Landmarks as you can get; and I'm not sure if it doesn't break some of them.

But at least as of now, 4e is still something visibly closer to an RPG than anything the Forge has come out with, so it gets to stay. This is not a particularly great accomplishment: the old Heroquest boardgame, or World of Warcraft, both decidedly NOT RPGs, are still much closer to an RPG than anything the Forge has come out with either.

RPGPundit

Ouch.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288446Finally, games that are NOT real RPGs obviously don't belong in the main RPG section.  These are games like Monopoly, Chess, World of Warcraft, Sorcerer, My Life With Master, Tiddlywinks, Burning Wheel, football, Dogs in the Vinyard, hopscotch, "computer roleplaying", LARPing, Dread, Jenga, the Shab-al-hiri roach, or playing with yourself.

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.

QuoteJust because you might call any of the above activities a "roleplaying game", doesn't mean that it actually is for the purposes of this forum. None of the games listed above actually do the things you're supposed to be doing in an RPG.

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.

QuoteIt gets about as close to the frontier of the Landmarks as you can get; and I'm not sure if it doesn't break some of them.

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

NO, Just no.

D&D 4/e does not need a seperate forum. (Heck I still think 'politrics' should be re-merged into Off-Topic as well.)

It still has enough of a roleplaying game aspect to it - that the bunch I play with winds up doing plenty of roleplaying with it.


- Ed C.

Even though Ramon continues to deliver killing blows, I have no problem poking dead things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288446Any real RPG, even if it is influenced by Forge theories, can be discussed on the main RPG forum.

Cool. I see some of this is already happening, thanks to comrades AM and droog.

QuoteFORGE THEORY is not a topic for discussion on the main forum, since it is a clearly discredited theory in violation of the Landmarks of roleplaying, and essentially a dogmatic quasi-religious ideological cult-propaganda device and not a legitimate theory for discussion.

Quasi religious ideological cult-propaganda ? Says the guy who more or less questions if 4E is a roleplaying game but allows discussions of it simply because it's supposedly "closer to an rpg than anything the Forge has come up with".

QuoteJust because you might call any of the above activities a "roleplaying game", doesn't mean that it actually is for the purposes of this forum. None of the games listed above actually do the things you're supposed to be doing in an RPG.

Actually DitV and Burning Wheel [/] or any rpg in the above list seems more like an rpg than 4E. (Even though I think 4E is an rpg, you seem to think otherwise). and let's not forget that Burning Wheel was adopted by the Forge whereas, Mearls has been rather open that 4E has been influenced by these socalled discredited ideas....which seem to work for the vast majority who enjoy this new edition of D&D. Just sayin'

QuoteBut at least as of now, 4e is still something visibly closer to an RPG than anything the Forge has come out with, so it gets to stay. This is not a particularly great accomplishment: the old Heroquest boardgame, or World of Warcraft, both decidedly NOT RPGs, are still much closer to an RPG than anything the Forge has come out with either.

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

It's nice to have you back David.

And Pundit gets the win with a satisfactory explanation. Now time for me to get some real RPGing in with my 63rd level Forsaken Death Knight.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288446Just because you might call any of the above activities a "roleplaying game", doesn't mean that it actually is for the purposes of this forum. None of the games listed above actually do the things you're supposed to be doing in an RPG.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Aos;288571It's nice to have you back David.

 Thanks. I can't seem to quit this place....*

(We really need a gay cowboy emote)

*So I'm stealing from Brokeback Mountain....I have a feeling that the Pundit is going to replay his greatest hits, so teh gay Blue Rose will some how crop up.....

Regards,
David R

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?

Quote from: shalvayez;288602So, 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?

Quote from: shalvayez;288602So, 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.

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.

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

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.

Don't you like nature films?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288657So 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.

Quote from: Imperator;288489How 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.

QuoteOne 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".

QuoteYour 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

Quote from: David R;288566So 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

Quote from: RPGPundit;288747There'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.

QuoteNope, 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.

QuoteNope. 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.

Quote2. "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.

QuoteThose 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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288747Nope, 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?

QuoteNope. 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.

QuoteNope. 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.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288592That'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?

QuoteLikewise, 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.

QuoteThose 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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

Quote from: RPGPundit;288755If 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?

QuoteNope, 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?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288657Name 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

Quote from: Imperator;288749That'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.

QuoteThere'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.

QuoteYou 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".

QuoteNo, 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

Quote from: CavScout;288750Who's this "we" made of?

Regular Roleplayers.

QuoteWhen 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.

Society has judgments as to who is healthy and who isn't.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288762The 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.

You've said some dumb shit in your time, but this has to rate right up there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288765Regular Roleplayers.

Name them? Where was this discussed? Who was there?

QuoteSociety has judgments as to who is healthy and who isn't.

And how does that show your judgments to be less arbitrary? Society indeed has judgments, many very arbitrary. I am not sure if you meant that when attempting to make an appeal to authority.

Aww, poor Cavscout. Society has mistreated you? You're just misunderstood? Its not your fault that the other kids all thought you were a creepy spotty smelly little dork?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288773Aww, poor Cavscout. Society has mistreated you? You're just misunderstood? Its not your fault that the other kids all thought you were a creepy spotty smelly little dork?

Are you going to flame-out on your own forum?

Quote from: RPGPundit;288762The 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.

Again, you're lying. In Sorcerer the GM sets up the setting, definition of Humanity, what's sorcery about, what are demons, and has the authority to reject any character who doesn't fit with those ideas. This is clearly explained in the chapter 4.

When you're doing Sorcery, you try to Contact a demon and the GM makes whatever the fuck he wants. Yeah, that's right. He has the right to create whatever demon he wants, give it the abilities he deems fit, and everything else. As an optional rule, though, the text says that if the Contact roll is successful enough, you could go ahead and give the player a contact with the demon he wants. Period. It's in the page 92.

Regarding BW, as you're this steaming moron, let me tell you what it says in the page 268, under the heading Role of the GM:

Quote"In Burning Wheel, it's the GM's job to interpret all of the various intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. He's got to make sure that all the player wackiness abides by the rules. When it doesn't he must guide wayward players gently into the fold. Often this requires negotiating an action or intent until both player and GM are satisfied that it fits both the concept and mood of the game."

See? It's there, right in the fucking book. GM is in charge. GM makes decissions on the validity of player's actions.

You really think that paragraph is so different from your regular GMing description? Fuck off.

QuoteNo 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.

Not in the fucking least - the player gets to state what he wants from the conflict, just like in any other regular RPG. The GM has the power to say "you cannot fly over the moon if you win this conflict." If the GM approves the stakes the player is suggesting, then the GM says something like "If your guy wins the conflict you get this, if the NPC wins the conflict he gets that."

Very similar to any rolling in any RPG. As I said before, even if you and their authors doesn't like the idea, these are not so different from any other game advice.

QuoteI'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".

You do exactly the same shit with your jerking off with REAL GAMERS and that shit. And you even use the picture of a crazy dirty psycho to illustrate your presence. Nice and appropriate.

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

You have failed to provide any other thing that bullshit, and history (if you call history, for example, GG's words) says that your favourite game is not an RPG. YOU get over it.

If anyone doubts Pundit's value to this board, he's a magnificent shit-magnet.

Quote from: One Horse Town;288777If anyone doubts Pundit's value to this board, he's a magnificent shit-magnet.

If you took a moment to look at the shit you are sucking of his dick, you'd see it's shit spewing from his own mouth.

Quote from: CavScout;288779If you took a moment to look at the shit you are sucking of his dick, you'd see it's shit spewing from his own mouth.

You can do better than that, surely?

Tell us all why you're here, mate. Go on, tell us.

To talk about RPGs? Hmm, lets see, your politics playground has gone, so you now hang out a lot on pundit's forum. What, i hear? You post in the RPG forum too? Yep, you do. You say nothing, however. You don't talk about rpgs, you talk about other people talking about rpgs. The only opinions you express are opinions on the opinions of others.

So, why are you here? What do you contribute bar mind-numbing boredom?

For someone with an obsession with the military, you sure have problems with authority don't you? Whinging about appeals to authority, having a go at anyone who you think is in authority. Fuck, you'd make the worst soldier in the history of the universe. Your troop would die in fire and you'd be talking about the craptitude of the orders you received.

Hey, i saw some folk on RPGnet the other day wondering where you had gone to and why they were so lucky you'd fucked off.

Here's a clue fuckwad. The ability to say what you like and pretty much do what you want doesn't mean that you have to be a fuck-stick the whole time.

Grow up, you scrotum.

Quote from: One Horse Town;288789Grow up, you scrotum.

Pardon the quibble, but shouldn't you be calling CavScout an empty scrotum? It's more appropriate and accurate.

Lets not nitpick - One Horse Town wrote a highly amusing post.


- Ed C.

Even more amusing that it came at the expense of CumSquirt.

Quote from: Imperator;288776Regarding BW, as you're this steaming moron, let me tell you what it says in the page 268, under the heading Role of the GM:


See? It's there, right in the fucking book. GM is in charge. GM makes decissions on the validity of player's actions.

Except, say, for the rule that says the GM can't oblige the player to make multiple skill checks, right? And that's just one of many.

QuoteNot in the fucking least - the player gets to state what he wants from the conflict, just like in any other regular RPG. The GM has the power to say "you cannot fly over the moon if you win this conflict." If the GM approves the stakes the player is suggesting, then the GM says something like "If your guy wins the conflict you get this, if the NPC wins the conflict he gets that."

Its "say yes, or roll the dice". The GM can't say no.

QuoteYou do exactly the same shit with your jerking off with REAL GAMERS and that shit. And you even use the picture of a crazy dirty psycho to illustrate your presence. Nice and appropriate.

Bill the Butcher kicks ass AND smokes a pipe. Somehow, I found him appropriate.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CavScout;288779If you took a moment to look at the shit you are sucking of his dick, you'd see it's shit spewing from his own mouth.

Aw, now we've hurt Cav's feelings...

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;288789For someone with an obsession with the military, you sure have problems with authority don't you? Whinging about appeals to authority, having a go at anyone who you think is in authority. Fuck, you'd make the worst soldier in the history of the universe. Your troop would die in fire and you'd be talking about the craptitude of the orders you received.

More likely that some suspicious "friendly fire" would take him out in the back of the head before he got a chance to send his own troop to their deaths. Real soldiers aren't as stupid as some people think.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288889Bill the Butcher kicks ass...

RPGPundit

Amen!  He's one of my favorite movie villians.

Quote from: One Horse Town;288789You can do better than that, surely?

Ah, come on now. You're not going to get all butt-hurt when you get a little coming back your way, are you? Nothing is worse than those who can dish it but get all frazzled when it gets dished right back.

QuoteTell us all why you're here, mate. Go on, tell us.

For the same reason anyone else is, I want to be. Or is there a secrete-code answer I should know?

QuoteTo talk about RPGs?

Well, it is TheRPGSite and all...

QuoteHmm, lets see, your politics playground has gone,

Ahh, that's right. I was supposed to leave when you quashed opinions you didn't like. The group-think was what again, oh yeah "he's here only for this forum, let's ban him and he'll go away".

Perhaps you should rethink your position then, eh.

Quoteso you now hang out a lot on pundit's forum.

"a lot"? Really... that's odd. Far more posts elsewhere. But maybe I am not in on another secrete, you're not really suppose to read Pundy's forum or, heaven forbid, occasionally post to one.

Probably not worth it to point out how full of shit you are. I mean, if posting to one thread on the first page (http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pundy.jpg) of threads in Pundit's forum constitutes "a lot" others are certainly over-indulging in his ranting.

It's a good thing you're not prone to making shit up... oh wait.. you are.

QuoteWhat, i hear? You post in the RPG forum too? Yep, you do. You say nothing, however. You don't talk about rpgs, you talk about other people talking about rpgs. The only opinions you express are opinions on the opinions of others.

Is that like how I post "a lot" on Pundit's forum? I mean, if you can't be trusted to tell the truth in one place, why should we trust you in other places?

QuoteSo, why are you here? What do you contribute bar mind-numbing boredom?

Did you just ask this question? Oh, and if you don't want to read my posts, there are tools available to skip them.

QuoteFor someone with an obsession with the military, you sure have problems with authority don't you?

A) What obsession? You mean my handle? Are you obsessed with horses? Or are you obsessed with small towns?
B) If you mean, "do I have a problem with folks who abuse their authority" then, yes, you could probably say I do. But I suspect many people do.

QuoteWhinging about appeals to authority, having a go at anyone who you think is in authority.

Me thinks someone doesn't understand what was being said. Look up logic and "appeals to authority" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). Read it and come back and try again.

QuoteFuck, you'd make the worst soldier in the history of the universe. Your troop would die in fire and you'd be talking about the craptitude of the orders you received.

This would probably be funny if you hadn't botched what the statement meant. It is funny, though, having someone call someone stupid, or the equivalent, while at the same time totally missing what was being said.

QuoteHey, i saw some folk on RPGnet the other day wondering where you had gone to and why they were so lucky you'd fucked off.

Good for them. Most people don't like to have their precious views challenged.

Of course, I stop by there quite often. There just isn't much to post about. I mean, you can only take so many "sell me on X" threads when there is one for the same game several threads down.

QuoteHere's a clue fuckwad. The ability to say what you like and pretty much do what you want doesn't mean that you have to be a fuck-stick the whole time.

Just imagine if I did. Of course, your ability to accurately relate what happens on this site is in question.

QuoteGrow up, you scrotum

Ahh, you're sweet. I hope you're not blabbering away in Pundy's ear, again, to get folks tossed from the board. I know how you can't handle the shit you like to dish out.

Quote from: Koltar;288812Lets not nitpick - One Horse Town wrote a highly amusing post.

Says the "man" who doesn't like beer and can't figure out how to download the simplest program off the internet.

Quote from: shalvayez;288868Even more amusing that it came at the expense of CumSquirt.

Shouldn't you be working on recovering your memory and your ex-wife?

Quote from: RPGPundit;288890Aw, now we've hurt Cav's feelings...

The only one with hurt feelings would be the guy flipping out, throwing out warnings and threating bans.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288889Bill the Butcher kicks ass AND smokes a pipe. Somehow, I found him appropriate.

Yes, he's got a rather incoherent view of the world and thinks very highly of himself when he's just a two-bit crook. Bit of a knob, really.

:rotfl:

I have to admit you're priceless, CavScout.

Some folk paid to see the elephant man and loads like to see the village idiot cavorting.

You didn't answer the most important question, though. Just a glib, "it's the RPG site" response. You aren't here to talk about RPGs, you're here to argue with people.

You have nothing to say. Half the site have you on ignore and when you realised this, you started in on folk who didn't recognise you for what you are or those who have to read your drivel 'cos they have little choice.

Start a fucking thread in the RPG forum. Discuss stuff in good faith. Express your opinions and not those of others. Get a life. Do not pass Go and do not collect £200.

Chose life. Come into the light. I see dead people. "They're here".

Quote from: One Horse Town;288935:rotfl:

I have to admit you're priceless, CavScout.

Some folk paid to see the elephant man and loads like to see the village idiot cavorting.

You didn't answer the most important question, though. Just a glib, "it's the RPG site" response. You aren't here to talk about RPGs, you're here to argue with people.

You have nothing to say. Half the site have you on ignore and when you realised this, you started in on folk who didn't recognise you for what you are or those who have to read your drivel 'cos they have little choice.

Start a fucking thread in the RPG forum. Discuss stuff in good faith. Express your opinions and not those of others. Get a life. Do not pass Go and do not collect £200.

Chose life. Come into the light. I see dead people. "They're here".

Don't be mad because you totally botched what "appeals to authority" meant and went off on some military rant. Oh, and you totally ignored the rebuttle to your false accusation about posting to Pundit's forum "a lot".

But  facts have never been important to you when advancing your 'cause', have they?

Quote from: shalvayez;288704Mein gott, who in their right mind would PRETEND to be a roleplayer? what would be the point?  There are poser RPers now?

Apparently, yes.

But far more common are those who roleplayed in the past, but are bitter about it, or claim "I have no time" and then go on to rack up a postcount in the tens of thousands on an rpg forum, and who when offered the chance to game, refuse it - but they still like to talk at length about systems and settings and "canon".

BNGs, Bitter Non-Gamers, they're the bane of many a forum and mailing list.
 

Quote from: RPGPunditCreationists think they're "Legitimate Scientists". Are they? Just because they say they are?

That the Earth was created some billions rather than thousands of years ago, the processes of continental drift and sedimentary formation, these are things which are all well-supported by the work of literally tens of thousands of scientists, all writing articles to journals which their colleagues use their decades of knowledge to tear holes in if they're dodgy.

RPGPundit's Landmarks have rather less behind them. Just a single thread in a forum and a blogpost, both by the same guy, largely ignoring any critiques. Comparing it to geology is like when Uncle Ronny's chums say you can't doubt his "brain damage" theory because he's a professor of bat penises.

When your Landmarks have the work of even a few hundred scientists behind them, with even a dozen academic peer-reviewed papers to it, then we can speak of it in the same breath as mainstream geology. Until then the Landmarks have even less behind them than GNS.

Quote from: RPGPunditWe 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.

Sad to say, but what you describe actually would be an rpg. The only one we've heard of that isn't an rpg is We All Had Names - because there's no uncertainty of outcome. Everyone is killed by the Nazis in the end. You just get to feel the angst. All the rest have people playing roles where their actions and the way they play their roles determine how things turn out, and there are some aspects of competition, like "roll vs X to succeed". That's an rpg.

Again, lots are crap and stupid and depressing. But they are nonetheless rpgs. Your ideology of division is an old one. "Well, they're not real Christians," says the Pope, "since they don't acknowledge me." No. If you want a division, it's enough to say that they like crap and fucked-up games, and we don't. We don't have to pretend they're "not real rpgs."

And now you're telling us that D&D in its present form isn't an rpg. Which as I've pointed out before, means you need to rewrite your Landmarks. But like Uncle Ronny, you've found your perfect pet theory, and will defend it against all common sense and inconvenient facts simply by ignoring them.

Give it up. Forger games are rpgs. They're crap rpgs, largely pretentious and depressing, but they are nonetheless rpgs. They have people playing roles where their actions and the way they play their roles determine how things turn out, and there are some aspects of competition, like "roll vs X to succeed".

Quote from: CavScout;288945Don't be mad because you totally botched what "appeals to authority" meant and went off on some military rant. Oh, and you totally ignored the rebuttle to your false accusation about posting to Pundit's forum "a lot".

But  facts have never been important to you when advancing your 'cause', have they?

Start a thread in the RPG forum. Put your balls where your mouth is. Have the courage of the convictions of everyone else on the forum. Put your opinions out there for folk to comment on. Talk about your favourite games and how you play them. Ask for advice on house rules. Talk about games you've played and how they've been cool. Ask about games you're interested in. Offer advice to folk who are asking about games you have experience with. Post an actual play thread. Post your house rules or the house rules of your GM to the design forum. Post links to cool sites that are useful for roleplayers. Pose interesting conundrums for the site to puzzle through. Post thoughts on campaign settings.

That's what we're mostly here for, right?

Quote from: RPGPundit;288760F.A.T.A.L., at the very least, is supposedly being played by its authors.

Their website went down some time ago, and their yahoo group appears to no longer exist. Google searches for it turn up nothing but reviews and people mentioning it in passing on rpg forums as a joke. They may still be playing quietly in their basement, but since in the past they were always eager to discuss their game experiences at length in public, it would be surprising if they were still playing but not telling us.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts 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.

Yes, I agree that we should not be welcoming of people claiming to play rpgs which don't actually exist.

The welcome they receive should be the same we give all people here. That is, we treat them seriously, give them praise when they deserve it, and a strong critique when they deserve it. Think for a moment, and imagine if someone came along describing his cabin boy neck-raping experiences with Poison'd. What reaction do you imagine he'd get on therpgsite? Would it really be necessary to move his thread to Off Topic for him to get a good idea what we think of his idea of fun?

We welcome him as a gamer - that doesn't mean he's immune from critique or mockery, quite the contrary. Pundit himself is, site admin or not, critiqued and mocked - but we don't have to pretend he's "not really playing rpgs" to do so, we welcome him as a gamer.

Crappy, depressing and fucked-up rpgs are still rpgs.

Quote from: One Horse Town;288960That's what we're mostly here for, right?

Forget OHT, it's Cavscout. He will probably link you to a couple of threads where he wasn't being a troll forgetting the majority of which where he is.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;288966Forget OHT, it's Cavscout. He will probably link you to threads where he wasn't being a troll forgetting the majority of threads where he was.

Regards,
David R

I know. It's funny watching the squirming though. It'll all be my fault in the end, but i'm comfortable in letting my peers judge the truth of the matter, whatever comes up.

I might be a bastard, but i'm not a fucking bastard. (bonus points for naming the film that comes from).

Quote from: One Horse Town;288971I might be a bastard, but i'm not a fucking bastard. (bonus points for naming the film that comes from).

I got nothin'. Too early in the morning in my part of world....(eh...something with Richard E Grant ?)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;288972I got nothin'. Too early in the morning in my part of world....(eh...something with Richard E Grant ?)

Regards,
David R

Wrong!

Think Mr. Clooney.

"Ok ramblers, let's get rambling."

Quote from: One Horse Town;288971I might be a bastard, but i'm not a fucking bastard. (bonus points for naming the film that comes from).

Oh Hell I should know this one.

 That thing with the Aztec Vampires, Cheech Marin , and Quentin Tarantino.

Was it the first From Dusk Til Dawn ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dusk_Till_Dawn


- Ed C.

Jesus Ed, it's from one of the Ocean movies.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Koltar;288515It still has enough of a roleplaying game aspect to it - that the bunch I play with winds up doing plenty of roleplaying with it.

Impossible!

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse Town;288960Start a thread in the RPG forum. Put your balls where your mouth is. Have the courage of the convictions of everyone else on the forum. Put your opinions out there for folk to comment on. Talk about your favourite games and how you play them. Ask for advice on house rules. Talk about games you've played and how they've been cool. Ask about games you're interested in. Offer advice to folk who are asking about games you have experience with. Post an actual play thread. Post your house rules or the house rules of your GM to the design forum. Post links to cool sites that are useful for roleplayers. Pose interesting conundrums for the site to puzzle through. Post thoughts on campaign settings.

That's what we're mostly here for, right?

Again, you're dodging. Admit it, you had no fucking idea what appealing to authority meant, in the context it was used, and went off half-cocked. You also made up the bullshit about me posting "a lot" in Pundit's forum.

Now that you are caught with your dick in your hand you start making bullshit "challenges" instead of facing the call on your bullshit.

Quote from: David R;288993Jesus Ed, it's from one of the Ocean movies.

Regards,
David R

You sure its not in both movies?

- Ed

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288954That the Earth was created some billions rather than thousands of years ago, the processes of continental drift and sedimentary formation, these are things which are all well-supported by the work of literally tens of thousands of scientists, all writing articles to journals which their colleagues use their decades of knowledge to tear holes in if they're dodgy.

RPGPundit's Landmarks have rather less behind them. Just a single thread in a forum and a blogpost, both by the same guy, largely ignoring any critiques. Comparing it to geology is like when Uncle Ronny's chums say you can't doubt his "brain damage" theory because he's a professor of bat penises.

I'm not comparing my work to geology, I'm comparing their movement to the Creationists. They're the ones that make claims about their credentials; I rely only on the weight of history and populism.

QuoteWhen your Landmarks have the work of even a few hundred scientists behind them, with even a dozen academic peer-reviewed papers to it, then we can speak of it in the same breath as mainstream geology. Until then the Landmarks have even less behind them than GNS.

Its pretty hard to compare the two really; GNS is a "theory" that really is about as much theory as "Dianetics" is a "science", that attempts to present a world-view based on certain hypotheses that are clearly untrue about how gamers game and what they want, that has proven to be incorrect in its claims that it would lead to the design of more successful games.

The Landmarks are NOT a theory, they're a collection of statements based on general analysis of what regular RPGs have historically included, meant to guide the creation of any new series and serve to discern as to what is or is not a Regular RPG.  They do not have a hypothesis, nor are they meant to "produce" anything other than regular ("mainstream") RPGs and RPG-related theories.
And certainly, any games or theories that fell within the Landmarks would do that.

QuoteSad to say, but what you describe actually would be an rpg. The only one we've heard of that isn't an rpg is We All Had Names - because there's no uncertainty of outcome. Everyone is killed by the Nazis in the end. You just get to feel the angst. All the rest have people playing roles where their actions and the way they play their roles determine how things turn out, and there are some aspects of competition, like "roll vs X to succeed". That's an rpg.

No. You have to take GOALS in mind too; if the "goal" is to "create a story" first and foremost, its no longer an RPG, its a story-creating game.  You also have to consider conventions; if a game fails to contain the most basic structural conventions of an RPG (Players, setting, GM, rules, etc) then its not a regular RPG either.

QuoteAnd now you're telling us that D&D in its present form isn't an rpg. Which as I've pointed out before, means you need to rewrite your Landmarks. But like Uncle Ronny, you've found your perfect pet theory, and will defend it against all common sense and inconvenient facts simply by ignoring them.

No, this is an ongoing question, the jury is still out as to 4e, and it skirts right up to the border of the Landmarks, particularly in emulation of setting, but it doesn't seem to cross them, particularly notable is that the chief rebuttal the 4e fans try to make to claims about the game is that it does in fact "allow" emulation; the main "question" being whether this is in spite of or by openly defying the rules.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;288961Their website went down some time ago, and their yahoo group appears to no longer exist. Google searches for it turn up nothing but reviews and people mentioning it in passing on rpg forums as a joke. They may still be playing quietly in their basement, but since in the past they were always eager to discuss their game experiences at length in public, it would be surprising if they were still playing but not telling us.

I would guess that 90% of the "indie games" invented on the Forge are no longer played by anyone, even the authors. Not surprising given that most of those games are so utterly specific that they're really unplayable beyond two or three sessions. According to you, would that mean that they are no longer RPGs either?
I don't think you can really use whether a game is being played or not as the standard as to whether its an RPG or not.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;289018I would guess that 90% of the "indie games" invented on the Forge are no longer played by anyone [...] According to you, would that mean that they are no longer RPGs either?

If no-one plays AND no-one wants to play it, then yes, it's no longer an rpg. It's just words on some dusty pages somewhere. It was alive once, it's dead now. Whether it was beautiful or ugly while it was alive no longer matters. It's dead.

I mean, it's a pretty weak defence. "Oh no! If we did as you suggested then games which nobody plays and talks about except to mock, the groups which don't exist might come here to talk seriously about them!"

When presented with the fact that nobody plays these games, and thus would not be talking about their experiences with them, you resort to imaginary games. First, imaginary groups, and when that doesn't work, imaginary games. Let's deal with the reality.

The reality is that nobody plays these offensive games and so wouldn't be here to talk about them, and nobody plays games which have never been written, either, so likewise won't be here to disturb us with their talk of them. The reality is that you've got a contradiction in your Landmarks, and a contradiction in your moderation policy. As Consonant Dude's helpfully pointed out, you said (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2279&highlight=forums),

"Mr.administrator of an RPG board, [SNIP]... you give that guy some power, and he's going to turn the board into his own private wankfest, stained with the drying cumstains of his own narcissistic crapulence. Threads become about what is fashionable to the admins instead of what is relevant."

We don't care if you think these things are or aren't rpgs. We do. Now, is this a forum for us, or is it your wankfest? Is it just about you?

Quote from: Koltar;289014You sure its not in both movies?

- Ed

Damn Ed, you're RIGHT. It is From Dusk Till Dawn. My bad.

I like this one :

"Well, your best better get a hell of a lot fucking better, or you are gonna feel a hell of a lot fucking worse"

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;288889Except, say, for the rule that says the GM can't oblige the player to make multiple skill checks, right? And that's just one of many.

No, that's not what the rules says. At all. And please, would you quote any of those many rules you mention?

QuoteIts "say yes, or roll the dice". The GM can't say no.

Again, no, that's not what the rules says.

QuoteBill the Butcher kicks ass AND smokes a pipe. Somehow, I found him appropriate.

You didn't get to see the end of the movie, right? droog's description is more fitting.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;289026I mean, it's a pretty weak defence. "Oh no! If we did as you suggested then games which nobody plays and talks about except to mock, the groups which don't exist might come here to talk seriously about them!"

What's weak is suggesting that the criterion of what is or is not a real RPG should be based on whether a game is played anymore. Which, I guess, is why you're desperately trying to change the subject.

But here's another one for you: let's say a group of dedicated Monopoly players came on here, looking for a board to chat about Monopoly, but they wanted to do it on the main forum instead of "other games".  So they start to claim that the game is actually an RPG, where you play the "role" of someone trying to become a millionaire. Does that make it an RPG?

QuoteLet's deal with the reality.

Yes, lets.  The reality is that no one is coming here to talk about My Life With Master because they think this place will be the right place for that.
So they're here either because:
a) They want to try to get new recruits to the Cult of Ron
b) They want to damage this site
c) They heard I don't like that game and have some kind of personal beef about me
or
d) all of the above.

That's the reality.

QuoteThe reality is that nobody plays these offensive games and so wouldn't be here to talk about them

Which offensive games? Shab-al-hiri roach, where you play sexually deviant college professors? I find that one offensive.
Shit, I find all of them offensive! I find the utter amorality of Dogs in the Vinyard offensive. I find Sorcerer's pretentiousness offensive.

If "offensive" should be the hallmark, we wouldn't have anything to talk about here.

The only way to legitimately judge what should be talked about here in the main RPG forum is whether or not its an RPG. And what should determine that is not "anything goes" or "what a bunch of self-proclaimed intellectuals at the Forge claim", it should be what has traditionally been the format and style of the RPG game. The Landmarks are the list of rules that establish that, for this site at least.

QuoteThe reality is that you've got a contradiction in your Landmarks, and a contradiction in your moderation policy.

Bullshit.

QuoteAs Consonant Dude's helpfully pointed out,

Why should I give a fuck what he thinks? He can't handle being here.

QuoteWe don't care if you think these things are or aren't rpgs. We do. Now, is this a forum for us, or is it your wankfest? Is it just about you?

Jesus Christ, I have a whole subforum dedicated to me on here. OF COURSE this place is about me. Fortunately, a big part of "about me" is about defending and promoting the REAL RPGs that regular roleplayers enjoy, and keeping this place safe from the Forge theorists.  And that's not going to change. I don't give a twopenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you cunt. If you don't like the way things are here, if you'd rather be somewhere that "embraces" Forge-think and want to see what the product of that would be (in terms of game discussion, game design, and moderation policy) then:

:forge:

No doubt you'll find it so much more comfortable a place to hang out in, and you'll feel so less constrained by my narcissistic tyrannical moderation style. I mean shit, clearly a right-thinking enlightened intellectual like Ron Edwards will be far less of a TYRANT than I am.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;289077You didn't get to see the end of the movie, right? droog's description is more fitting.

You mean where he teaches that little pussy Dicaprio about how to be a man instead of a skulking little serpent that goes around trying to stab people in the dark? Where Bill cuts and humiliates him until he figures out that a man has to have laws, and to do things rightwise? And remolds him into an honorable man, finally the man worthy of killing him so that he'll die like a true american?

Yeah. I'm hip to that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CavScout;289006Again, you're dodging. Admit it, you had no fucking idea what appealing to authority meant, in the context it was used, and went off half-cocked. You also made up the bullshit about me posting "a lot" in Pundit's forum.

Now that you are caught with your dick in your hand you start making bullshit "challenges" instead of facing the call on your bullshit.

Yep, you're right. You've convinced me of the superiority of your position and the fact that debating the meaning of 'appeals to authority' is more important to you than talking about RPGs. Hands up, yep, i dodged that bullet. My apologies.

Now that you have my apology we can get back to...

Starting a thread in the RPG forum. Putting your balls where your mouth is. Having the courage of the convictions of everyone else on the forum. Putting your opinions out there for folk to comment on. Talking about your favourite games and how you play them. Asking for advice on house rules. Talking about games you've played and how they've been cool. Asking about games you're interested in. Offering advice to folk who are asking about games you have experience with. Posting an actual play thread. Posting your house rules or the house rules of your GM to the design forum. Posting links to cool sites that are useful for roleplayers. Posing interesting conundrums for the site to puzzle through. Posting thoughts on campaign settings.

Because that's what we're mostly here for, right?

Quote from: One Horse Town;289095Yep, you're right. You've convinced me of the superiority of your position and the fact that debating the meaning of 'appeals to authority' is more important to you than talking about RPGs. Hands up, yep, i dodged that bullet. My apologies.

Now that you have my apology we can get back to...

Starting a thread in the RPG forum. Putting your balls where your mouth is. Having the courage of the convictions of everyone else on the forum. Putting your opinions out there for folk to comment on. Talking about your favourite games and how you play them. Asking for advice on house rules. Talking about games you've played and how they've been cool. Asking about games you're interested in. Offering advice to folk who are asking about games you have experience with. Posting an actual play thread. Posting your house rules or the house rules of your GM to the design forum. Posting links to cool sites that are useful for roleplayers. Posing interesting conundrums for the site to puzzle through. Posting thoughts on campaign settings.

Because that's what we're mostly here for, right?

 Unfortunately, he cannot put his balls where his mouth is. He ain't got any.
 He has to resort to going to the locker room at the local YMCA for any balls/mouth action.

Quote from: RPGPundit;289086What's weak is suggesting that the criterion of what is or is not a real RPG should be based on whether a game is played anymore. Which, I guess, is why you're desperately trying to change the subject.

It's not really the subject.

The subject is, "oh no! What if people playing this offensive game came along and wanted to discuss it?"
"Nobody plays it, so the chances of that happening are not great."
"But they did play it once! And they might again."
"But they don't."

So really whether a dead rpg is still an rpg is irrelevant. You're saying that welcoming (in therpgsite way) players of all sorts of things calling themselves rpgs would mean welcoming people who play FATAL, RaHoWa, and Hybrid. Which is a bit like saying that welcoming any religion would mean welcoming Aztecs who cut hearts out of people. But nobody does anymore, so it's irrelevant.

Or in your example of Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, it's not even some rpg people played once and then discarded. It's non-existent.

"Oh no! What if people who play a game which doesn't exist came along talking about it?"
"Um, when that happens we can discuss it then."

Quote from: RPGPunditBut here's another one for you: let's say a group of dedicated Monopoly players came on here [...] they start to claim that the game is actually an RPG

What happens if monkeys start flying out of my bum?

When that happens, we can discuss it then.

Somehow, I really doubt it'll happen. Can we just stick to discussing games people have actually played, play now, and which actually exist? Grounding things in reality is generally pretty helpful in deciding how to run your forum. Otherwise you get all sorts of loopy shit.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe reality is that no one is coming here to talk about My Life With Master because

Let's check. Well, a forum search for "My Life With Master" turns up exactly zero threads discussing it by itself, it's always in passing - usually scorning it.

Probably they think their Forger nonsense will be mocked here. Even more probably they don't play the thing, so they've got nothing to say.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhich offensive games? Shab-al-hiri roach, where you play sexually deviant college professors? I find that one offensive.
Shit, I find all of them offensive! I find the utter amorality of Dogs in the Vinyard offensive. I find Sorcerer's pretentiousness offensive.

I think they're pretty stupid and pretentious and mostly depressing. But if you're going to be offended by everything that's stupid or pretentious or depressing, you'll probably die early from stress.

I mean, you're pretty pretentious, but do we go around getting all offended at you? No. We just scratch our heads in puzzlement, have a laugh and move on. Take it easy, mate. Relax.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only way to legitimately judge what should be talked about here in the main RPG forum is whether or not its an RPG. And what should determine that is not "anything goes" or "what a bunch of self-proclaimed intellectuals at the Forge claim",

Nor should it be what a single self-proclaimed intellectual at therpgsite claims, either.

Basically, if most gamers consider it an rpg, it's an rpg. Shall we have a poll? If, say, at least two-thirds of respondents at the therpgsite say that Forger games are rpgs, will you promise to accept that they're rpgs? Or at least shut the fuck up and not move discussion of them to Off Topic?

Or would you say that what the majority of gamers think about games doesn't matter, that you know better than the majority of gamers? That sounds familiar. Uncle Ronny would be proud.

Quote from: RPGPunditit should be what has traditionally been the format and style of the RPG game. The Landmarks are the list of rules that establish that, for this site at least.

The Landmarks which say,

"D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks.[...] you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG."

So your own Landmarks now tell you that you are "obviously not in touch with reality" - they didn't refer to any particular edition of D&D. So you need to revise your Landmarks, or else admit that it's a load of old bollocks. Thus the comparison with GNS - it's bound up in self-contradictions because it no longer goes on what "most people define as an rpg", and goes on your own particular ideas.

Quote from: RPGPunditBullshit.

I am overwhelmed by the erudition of your response.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you don't like the way things are here, if you'd rather be somewhere that "embraces" Forge-think

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you get your arts degree from a cornflakes packet and not know how to provided reasoned responses and construct a coherent argument?

When did I say that? I said that people should be able to talk about Forger rpgs, as rpgs, in the roleplaying subforum. This is just the old fallacy of the excluded middle.

"I believe in capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?!"
"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"

or in this case,
"We should let people discuss Forger rpgs as rpgs."
"What?! So we should all embrace Forge-think?!"

When you get to accusing me of being a Forger, you really have descended into delusional paranoia in your Swine War. Fuck, I've half a mind to go crawling back to rpg.net to get unbanned just so I can tell them I've been accused of being a Forger. They'd fall on their fat basement-dwelling arses in surprise.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, clearly a right-thinking enlightened intellectual like Ron Edwards will be far less of a TYRANT than I am.

Again, the excluded middle. When did I say you were a tyrant? The response, by the way, is par for the course for rpg.net. Whenever there's a complaint about the moderation, the mods start joking about being jackbooted thugs, and all the arse-kissers come out to make similar jokes. You don't have anyone kissing your arse, so you have to go a bit overboard with your own silliness. But it's the same thing. You reject any criticism of your moderation with, "oh so I'm a tyrant, am I? Absurd!"

Contend with what people are actually saying, speak about rpgs which actually exist and which people are actually playing, and your arguments will be much more relevant and useful.

Until then, you're just jerking off.

I mean honestly, it's not like these stupid fucking games are any threat. D&D4e, wanting to move that out I can understand, because it's fucking popular and so it's a threat to the little world of games you approve of. But a game about deviant cockroach professors or teenage girls smoking and gossipping and backstabbing, these are no threat at all. These guys are not even the ragged fringe anymore, they're just a muddy tattered corner of the cloth of the hobby.

*Cue Pundit dodging the topic once more and taking credit for Forger irrelevance*

Quote from: One Horse Town;289095Yep, you're right. You've convinced me of the superiority of your position and the fact that debating the meaning of 'appeals to authority' is more important to you than talking about RPGs. Hands up, yep, i dodged that bullet. My apologies.

Now that you have my apology we can get back to...

Starting a thread in the RPG forum. Putting your balls where your mouth is. Having the courage of the convictions of everyone else on the forum. Putting your opinions out there for folk to comment on. Talking about your favourite games and how you play them. Asking for advice on house rules. Talking about games you've played and how they've been cool. Asking about games you're interested in. Offering advice to folk who are asking about games you have experience with. Posting an actual play thread. Posting your house rules or the house rules of your GM to the design forum. Posting links to cool sites that are useful for roleplayers. Posing interesting conundrums for the site to puzzle through. Posting thoughts on campaign settings.

Because that's what we're mostly here for, right?

You don't even know what I am here doing, posting wise. How can you even comment on what I am here for? Clearly you have a view of a person and you hold on to it irregardless of what the facts are. You have shown this repeatedly, including in this very thread. You've made proclamations that are easily disproved yet you still want to maintain the appearance of credibility.  

When you ignore what someone does currently, why would they choose to do something new hoping you'd not ignore that too? I mean, you think posting in one of dozens of threads in a specific forum is "posting a lot". You think someone's handle denotes "obsession". You attempt to deride someone on something you failed to understand and then when called on it try and turn it around.

It's obvious you ignore what you want, exaggerate what you will so why would anyone bother doing anything you are challenging them to do? You'll just invent your reality and claim some sort of victory anyways.

Do you hear that noise, CavScout? That's the silence of the board. You've even alienated the couple of people who used to give you the benifit of the doubt. You did that because you couldn't help yourself. You have to argue, you have to try to get your gotcha moment. Now you're relegated to having pops at pundit and me, 'cos no one else is interested. That's why i said that Pundit is an excellent shit-magnet. Guys like you always end up battling him at every step, because you've got nothing else left and he offends your alpha male complex.

So, you only have two things left - wave your dong about in a futile manner or actually engage in what the board is for. Trouble is, you're right. If you wanted to do that now, you've burnt so many bridges, folk just wouldn't give a shit.

You're on your own.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;289122It's not really the subject.

The subject is, "oh no! What if people playing this offensive game came along and wanted to discuss it?"
"Nobody plays it, so the chances of that happening are not great."
"But they did play it once! And they might again."
"But they don't."

The subject isn't really that either. Its not "should we welcome people?", its "what games should be talked about in the main board?".

And being welcoming has fuck all to do with that, pollyanna.

QuoteSo really whether a dead rpg is still an rpg is irrelevant. You're saying that welcoming (in therpgsite way) players of all sorts of things calling themselves rpgs would mean welcoming people who play FATAL, RaHoWa, and Hybrid. Which is a bit like saying that welcoming any religion would mean welcoming Aztecs who cut hearts out of people. But nobody does anymore, so it's irrelevant.

Again, the question here is not about welcoming anyone. Its about whether if a bunch of asswipes come together and claim they're playing an RPG, does it AUTOMATICALLY make it so? You claim it does. I say it does not.

QuoteOr in your example of Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding, it's not even some rpg people played once and then discarded. It's non-existent.

I could have used REAL Swine-games that would be FAR more offensive than Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding. I could have used the Polish-children-being-murdered-emo-tourism Game; or I could have used the Transparent-main-uniform-child-rape Game; or I could have used the Dead-cabin-boy-esophagus-sex Game.  Any of those, which really do exist, virginia, are thousands of times more horrifying a concept than Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding.

In fact, I was being kind.

QuoteSomehow, I really doubt it'll happen. Can we just stick to discussing games people have actually played, play now, and which actually exist? Grounding things in reality is generally pretty helpful in deciding how to run your forum. Otherwise you get all sorts of loopy shit.

The reality is that there's a shitload of people out there who would be pissing their pants with joy if this site were either taken over to become a place where Storygames-discussion dominated, or if this place simply ceased to exist. Because its a thorn in their side.

QuoteNor should it be what a single self-proclaimed intellectual at therpgsite claims, either.

Nope, no intellectuals here either. It should be what has conventionally been understood to be a regular RPG.

QuoteBasically, if most gamers consider it an rpg, it's an rpg. Shall we have a poll? If, say, at least two-thirds of respondents at the therpgsite say that Forger games are rpgs, will you promise to accept that they're rpgs? Or at least shut the fuck up and not move discussion of them to Off Topic?

If those two-thirds did not include people connected to Storygames or the Forge, perhaps.
But sadly, you know how they work, they get on here, scream and shout, and claim that its the people of this forum that are "demanding" whatever they want: GNS discussion, brain damage being a forbidden topic, an "emotionally safe environment", etc. etc.
That's how they gain power.

QuoteOr would you say that what the majority of gamers think about games doesn't matter, that you know better than the majority of gamers? That sounds familiar. Uncle Ronny would be proud.

No, I would say that I know what the real majority of gamers think. That its common sense. And that common sense is that it isn't what that gang of degenerates over at the Forge want for the future of this hobby.

But hey, you have fun making it your personal mt.everest to defend the rights of people who enjoy neck-rape RPGs and think you're brain damaged to come in here and subvert this forum.

QuoteThe Landmarks which say,

"D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks.[...] you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG."

So your own Landmarks now tell you that you are "obviously not in touch with reality" - they didn't refer to any particular edition of D&D. So you need to revise your Landmarks, or else admit that it's a load of old bollocks. Thus the comparison with GNS - it's bound up in self-contradictions because it no longer goes on what "most people define as an rpg", and goes on your own particular ideas.

I'm sorry, D&D has existed for well over 30 years while 4e has existed for ONE. I don't think that its been around long enough for you to make the judgment that it is now the new definition for "most people" yet. Particularly since there's been NO indication whatsoever that WoTC has managed to create a flood of new joiners to the hobby.
Should 4e's concepts and ideas be successful in the longer term, something that is not yet certain, then YES, the theory must be altered to accomodate that.

But NONE of this is relevant to the current discussion. I'm ALLOWING 4e discussion on the main forum. Its discussion about the Neck-rape RPG I'm not allowing there.

QuoteI am overwhelmed by the erudition of your response.

As I am by sincerity and good intentions of yours.

QuoteAre you being deliberately obtuse, or did you get your arts degree from a cornflakes packet and not know how to provided reasoned responses and construct a coherent argument?

When did I say that? I said that people should be able to talk about Forger rpgs, as rpgs, in the roleplaying subforum. This is just the old fallacy of the excluded middle.

"I believe in capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?!"
"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"

or in this case,
"We should let people discuss Forger rpgs as rpgs."
"What?! So we should all embrace Forge-think?!"

When you get to accusing me of being a Forger, you really have descended into delusional paranoia in your Swine War. Fuck, I've half a mind to go crawling back to rpg.net to get unbanned just so I can tell them I've been accused of being a Forger. They'd fall on their fat basement-dwelling arses in surprise.

When you allow the Forgers to discuss Forge games and Forge Theory on an RPG forum, they quickly find ways to turn EVERYTHING into discussions about those things. You'll see threads on D&D being turned into discussions about "illusionism", you'll see threads popping up and flooding the main board about all of the garbage Forge-games, you'll see every thread jacked. And they will claim "free speech" as their defense if people complain.
They will try to get someone into moderation, and then they will moderate in the style they believe in, where it becomes obvious just how much they really value "free speech". There has never been a SINGLE forge/storygames-forum that has allowed free speech anywhere near the level that this forum does. And yet all you fuckers can do is complain constantly about me, and give leeway to those who hate me to claim I'm being tyrannical.

QuoteAgain, the excluded middle. When did I say you were a tyrant?

You and various others have implied it. You've implied that I'm being EXACTLY LIKE the RPG.net mods (you do it again one sentence down from here) or Ron Edwards. And I'm sick of it. NONE of those fuckers would put up with the kind of SHIT I put up with from you people every fucking day. None of them.

QuoteThe response, by the way, is par for the course for rpg.net.

Yes, except there they are WRONG because they are really banning people left and right.
If ANYONE said the kind of things to an rpgnet mod that people have said to me over and over again here, they'd have been banned ages ago.

To bring them up here is just an insult to me, and it weakens your point because its essentially the Godwin of the rpg forums, "you're JUST LIKE HITLER, DUDE!!"

QuoteWhenever there's a complaint about the moderation, the mods start joking about being jackbooted thugs, and all the arse-kissers come out to make similar jokes. You don't have anyone kissing your arse, so you have to go a bit overboard with your own silliness. But it's the same thing. You reject any criticism of your moderation with, "oh so I'm a tyrant, am I? Absurd!"

No, I reject the specific incredibly insulting criticism that people constantly attack me with here that claims that I'm JUST LIKE or JUST AS BAD as the RPG.net mods or Ron Edwards which is an utter FAILURE to recognize the efforts I've made to preserve free speech on this forum.

QuoteContend with what people are actually saying, speak about rpgs which actually exist and which people are actually playing, and your arguments will be much more relevant and useful.

Until then, you're just jerking off.

You're the one whose entire thread has been one big set of diversions and ad hominems meant to avoid the reality that your definition of what makes a game worth discussion on the RPG main forum was utterly and completely shot down from a logical perspective.

QuoteI mean honestly, it's not like these stupid fucking games are any threat.

They are a threat to this forum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;289087You mean where he teaches that little pussy Dicaprio about how to be a man instead of a skulking little serpent that goes around trying to stab people in the dark? Where Bill cuts and humiliates him until he figures out that a man has to have laws, and to do things rightwise? And remolds him into an honorable man, finally the man worthy of killing him so that he'll die like a true american?

Yeah. I'm hip to that.

RPGPundit

Dude, your models of masculinity explain an awful - really awful - lot about you.

Can we lock this thread, I think we've strayed FAR from the point?

Quote from: shalvayez;289284Can we lock this thread, I think we've strayed FAR from the point?

Nah. Someone is close to blubbing and it'd be a shame to miss it.

Would that be the same cocksucker who keeps bringing up my divorce?

Quote from: One Horse Town;289306Nah. Someone is close to blubbing and it'd be a shame to miss it.

Well, when Pundit and CavScout cry, they can comfort each-other. In a manly way, of course.

Come now, everyone. Isn't it better this way. No peace for us old friend. In cyberspace all flamewarriors are cold ones.

Regards,
David R

I'm a lead farmer, motherfuckers!

Quote from: David R;289310Come now, everyone. Isn't it better this way. No peace for us old friend. In cyberspace all flamewarriors are cold ones.

Regards,
David R

Yes - but its a Khan-stant thing so much so that it gets boring. Its like a chime at midnight goes Cha-Chang every time they start up again.


- Ed C.

Edit: Apparently Ed is better with this Trek stuff, than me. You got both the Khan and Chang reference, Ed. Well played, sir.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;288765Society has judgments as to who is healthy and who isn't.

I'd just like to point out that, by and large, "society" would put all roleplayers in the socially retarded category.

EDIT: I'd also have to say that putting BW in the "not a RPG" category suggests that Pundit hasn't actually read BW and is basing his opinions on what other people have said about the game (or more likely, the fact that Luke Crane is a Forgeite).

KoOS

Luke Crane has consistently shown a powerful anti-GM attitude, the idea that the GM is the "enemy" who has to be neutered and controlled.  His game reflects that.

RPGPundit

If you didn't wrap your whole identity up in being the GAME MASTAH, it might not bother you so much.

I mean, 'neutered'? Is there a shrink in the house?

You should try actually reading an rpg - hell, even playing it - before judging it.

Burning Wheel is a big wankfest from the authour, with heaps of bullshit about game design mixed in with the rules, and is needlessly complicated. It is nonetheless an rpg. Which you would know if you at least read it.

I know, fuckin' radical idea, eh? Next we'll only be reviewing movies based on watching them, and books based on reading them. Before you know it, we'll be basing our ideas on actual facts instead of shit we just made up.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;290924Burning Wheel is a big wankfest from the authour, with heaps of bullshit about game design mixed in with the rules, and is needlessly complicated.

That sounds so much like Aftermath!

Have you told the Fitzroy crew that they're not playing an RPG according to Poontang?

I got pissed when they chose on ENWorld to "exile" d20 discussions to their own forums and put artificial limits between 4E and 3E folks there, because the flamewars happen anyway - mainly due to a small pool of assholes down there.

Bottom line? I quit ENWorld and now just visit once in a while. The forums suck now.

I think that separating systems/games via forums for all sorts of reasons besides the clarity of the navigation of the forums is a wrong reason, and ultimately makes the community lamer for it.

Quote from: droog;290925That sounds so much like Aftermath!

Sadly, yes! I must say that Burning Wheel was more readable than Aftermath! A friend had lent me BW, and at first glance I mocked it horrendously, he got offended so I was sort of morally obliged to look at it properly, and read it cover to cover. It was a struggle but I managed it.

I've been unable to read Aftermath! cover-to-cover. It's just too tedious.

I was a bit annoyed though after reading BW that the guy who'd got so offended when I mocked the writing... hadn't read it all himself. It was sort of like someone getting upset at you for mocking The English Patient and then it turns out they walked out fifteen minutes in.

Quote from: droogHave you told the Fitzroy crew that they're not playing an RPG according to Poontang?

Nowadays they're playing Mouse Guard, I'm not sure who produced that or if it uses dice or jenga blocks or arm wrestling or what. But honestly it never occurred to me to tell them they weren't playing rpgs. They would react with bemused incomprehension, as they do to most such arguments online.

One in particular would be quite indignant, I think, at hearing that someone whose favourite game is diceless is saying their forger stuff is "not a real rpg". I mean, let's be serious - going diceless is far more on the fringe of most gamers' ideas about gaming than is playing a low-class teenage girl looking for approval or some shit like that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;290980Nowadays they're playing Mouse Guard, I'm not sure who produced that or if it uses dice or jenga blocks or arm wrestling or what.

That's Burning Wheel, lightened up and with more explicit structure.

Quote from: RPGPundit;290898Luke Crane has consistently shown a powerful anti-GM attitude, the idea that the GM is the "enemy" who has to be neutered and controlled.  His game reflects that.

Do I have to produce again factual quotes from the book in which he states "The GM must say NO to things that don't fit in the game?"

For example, look at the page 46, when he deals with players asking for rolls with no other goal than getting raises on the skills. Where he says "Your job as GM is to flatly say NO."

The book is peppered with examples like that, in which the GM is clearly in control of the game, just like in any other RPG. Just because there's no a splash-page with capital letters saying "THE GM'S BONER IS THE BIGGEST BONER THERE IS" it doesn't mean that GM has no control.

Crane's games take the opposite tact, where the RULES are the ultimate power (and Crane himself by extension, as their designer).  The GM MUST say no to the Players if they're trying to break or manipulate the rules; but he can't circumvent the rules himself.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;291002Crane's games take the opposite tact, where the RULES are the ultimate power (and Crane himself by extension, as their designer).  The GM MUST say no to the Players if they're trying to break or manipulate the rules; but he can't circumvent the rules himself.

RPGPundit

Well, different takes, I think. I definitely don't see why the GM should play with a different set of rules than players: we're all playing the same game.

Though I'm all for houseruling, it' s my opinion that once a rule is decided, it should stand equal for everyone. I don't see in OD&D that the book encourages you to cheat: only to change rules for everyone, with everyone agreeing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291002Crane's games take the opposite tact, where the RULES are the ultimate power (and Crane himself by extension, as their designer).  The GM MUST say no to the Players if they're trying to break or manipulate the rules; but he can't circumvent the rules himself.

This is one of your more dumber criterias, Kommisar Pundit, for what is or is not an rpg. Just because the rules explicitly or implicitly say that a GM can break the rules, for years GMs have confined themselves (for whatever reasons) to the letter of the rules, just like the players. This does not mean that the trad games they were playing suddenly ceased to be rpgs. Designer intent is irrelevent when it comes to gameplay.

So in this case some GMs have been following the rules - no fudging etc -for years even though the rules give them the leeway to do just that. In the case of BW, Luke just codified something that has been going on for years with some GMs and as I argued in Bill's thread, this does not make it new or fresh or innovative.

I don't know why I even bother.

Regards,
David R

It's as I said - any new games Pundit will just judge at face value, if you want your rejected game to make it out of the ghetto then you'll just have to send him a review copy and hope it touches his arbitrary whimsy in the right way :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;291002Crane's games take the opposite tact, where the RULES are the ultimate power (and Crane himself by extension, as their designer).  The GM MUST say no to the Players if they're trying to break or manipulate the rules; but he can't circumvent the rules himself.

You know, I dislike this element of BW as much as you do, but IMO it's an incredibly arbitrary and dumb manner of judging what is and isn't an RPG that flies in the face of the "community standards" that you espouse.  Forgetting stuff like Nicotine Girls, Poison'd or whatever has slithered out of the Forge this week, if you showed BW to 100 "traditional" gamers, 99% of them would say it's an RPG whether they liked it or not.  You're the odd man out on this one, Pundit.

(I won't even get into what the traditional gamer community as a whole would say about Amber...)

Also, this "the GM must be the absolute God of all things at the table" attitude that you promote as counterpoint would be considered just as dysfunctional by reason, popular acclaim and common custom as Crane's POV, if not moreso.  Seriously, most well-adjusted people do not want to game (or socialize) with dictatorial jackasses... which is why modern games (even "traditional" ones) have moved away from text which implies an all-powerful GM.

KoOS

If a player can say to a GM "You can't do that, its against the RULES", and get away with it, then you're not playing a regular RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;291065If a player can say to a GM "You can't do that, its against the RULES", and get away with it, then you're not playing a regular RPG.

RPGPundit

Let me use an example:

We're playing this game of RQ III, and the GM takes this NPC that badmouthes us, and then attacks because we're not falling for it. He, despite being an elf (small size) using a gladius (small weapon) attacks in SR 1. That's absofucking lutely impossible: to do that you have to be a troll - sized guy wielding a weapon the size of a jousting lance. That fucker used whatever SR the GM thought fit, while we were explicitly told to suck it up because he was the GM and rules were not binding him.

If he had created an spell / magical item / whatever thing he wanted, that would have been OK. But the elf attacked on the SR 1 just because.

So we told him to fuck off. And we were playing an RPG. And I don't think the GM had any right to use a different set of rules for his GMPCs than the one we used.

Many years ago I decided to always use the same rules as the players, to roll in the open, and to agree with everyone when houseruling: once we houseruled, it's the same for everyone. And I strongly feel that my games are better because of that.

Quote from: Imperator;291091So we told him to fuck off. And we were playing an RPG. And I don't think the GM had any right to use a different set of rules for his GMPCs than the one we used.

Many years ago I decided to always use the same rules as the players, to roll in the open, and to agree with everyone when houseruling: once we houseruled, it's the same for everyone. And I strongly feel that my games are better because of that.

QTMFT brother!

But you guys don't understand. If the GM agrees that everybody should play by the same rules, then he hasn't given up any authority and it's still an RPG.

unless it requires minis.

Shit. Not again.

Any objections to closing the thread? The OP question was answered a fair time ago.

I'm surprised it isn't closed already.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Aos;291107unless it requires minis.

But if the GM agrees that it requires minis, then it's all good again.

Unless it requires minis.

I have absolutely no objections to closing the thread, but I'm going to start a new one on the topic we're actually discussing (since I think it's relevant to the forum subject).

KoOS

Quote from: Imperator;291091Let me use an example:

We're playing this game of RQ III, and the GM takes this NPC that badmouthes us, and then attacks because we're not falling for it. He, despite being an elf (small size) using a gladius (small weapon) attacks in SR 1. That's absofucking lutely impossible: to do that you have to be a troll - sized guy wielding a weapon the size of a jousting lance. That fucker used whatever SR the GM thought fit, while we were explicitly told to suck it up because he was the GM and rules were not binding him.

If he had created an spell / magical item / whatever thing he wanted, that would have been OK. But the elf attacked on the SR 1 just because.

So we told him to fuck off. And we were playing an RPG. And I don't think the GM had any right to use a different set of rules for his GMPCs than the one we used.

Many years ago I decided to always use the same rules as the players, to roll in the open, and to agree with everyone when houseruling: once we houseruled, it's the same for everyone. And I strongly feel that my games are better because of that.

You took the wrong lesson out of that experience then.

The lesson shouldn't have been "The GM should be forced to obey the rules", the lesson should have been "The GM shouldn't be a dick".

RPGPundit

Yes, let's close this one. Threads about GMs having to follow rules vs. just not being dicks can always be made in the main RPG forum.

RPGPundit