Quote from: John MorrowAgreed.  I think a telling point was in a discussion about play perspective on RPGnet where I suggested that most movie makers focus on hiding the artifice of movie making as much as possible from audiences so that they can watch and respond to the movie as if they were watching something real when some of the story-game types said that they love thinking about the artifice specifically, how the special effects were done, the movie was edited, and so on.  So while I think the traditional railroading GM might be a frustrated novelist, many story-game people are frustrated directors, actors, and producers, thus we get things like PTA.

Very good insight.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawHere, I think you are mistaken. They say gamist when they are trying to be nice. Gamism was out in 1999-2002 or so, but eventually made a comeback as an acceptable thing.

The real verboten style is simulationism, variously regarded as sociopathy or dysfunction by definition.  (This statement even predates Brain Damage). The idea that D&D falls under simulationism was based somehow on the idea that you bought gear with gold and managed physical details that didn't directly effect the game parameters. See also: Settembrini's spaceship argument.

They don't really give a fuck about anything that isn't Narrativism.  Do they hate Simulationism more? Yes.

But both are just essentially ways of describing games that they dislike.

They're just pissing their pants with joy that D&D is now everything they always used to slanderously claim it was. That's how low 4e has sunk.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course, it won't actually mean they'll now play D&D. They wanted D&D to be like that because they wanted to see it go down.

And the people who are playing D&D 4e, and enjoying it?

Quote from: TonyLBAnd the people who are playing D&D 4e, and enjoying it?

Well, thats one of life's fun little ironies.

I do think there's a bit of "lets take credit for 4e", but if they actually had any influence at all, then independent roleplaying as a movement becomes unnecessary by definition. Expect to see those sentiments walked backards in the next week or so if they haven't started already.


UPDATE: They've started already.

Quote from: walkerpThat sounds reasonable.  But what is bothering me is why do they suddenly give 4e a huge benefit of the doubt?  They sure as hell don't "ask questions in a humble" way with other new games.  It always seems to me that tough, straight talk is one of the hallmarks of the indie movement.

And just to be fair, because I'm not trying to attack the story-games community here, I see this same behaviour here and over at rpg.net.  It's just that it was so pronounced over at story-games, where I expect a higher level  of criticism.

Really, I don't think that the RPG community as a whole is all that critical or analytical about the games they like or don't like.  People have their likes and dislikes, but they tend not to dissect them.  Actually, this is true for people in general, but there are more established fields such as books where there are limited communities of people who make more of an effort at critical thinking.  

The Story Games community has a strong tactical focus.  A lot of the people are old-school gamers who became tired of certain trends in RPG design and rebelled against it.  At Go Play NorthWest the weekend before last, there was a Warhammer 40K game as well as Tunnels & Trolls as well as two slots of D&D4.  However, that subset tends to like their tactics more "pure".  

Quote from: John MorrowAgreed.  I think a telling point was in a discussion about play perspective on RPGnet where I suggested that most movie makers focus on hiding the artifice of movie making as much as possible from audiences so that they can watch and respond to the movie as if they were watching something real when some of the story-game types said that they love thinking about the artifice specifically, how the special effects were done, the movie was edited, and so on.  So while I think the traditional railroading GM might be a frustrated novelist, many story-game people are frustrated directors, actors, and producers, thus we get things like PTA.

Feh.  Calling people a "frustrated X" when they resemble "X" is a cheap rhetorical tactic.  I'd classify it on the same level as saying people are "afraid of X" when they just don't like something.  (i.e. They're "afraid" of breaking their immersion or "afraid" of having unbalanced characters.)  

Yes, the "Story Games" label explicitly refers to more deliberate, out-of-character construction of story than most traditional RPGs -- which makes Story Gamers closer in mindset to a film director.  By parallel, some people use miniatures and battle maps in their RPGs, which makes their play closer to miniature wargames -- but I wouldn't call them "frustrated wargamers".  It's just their preference of how they like their play.

There's also the other thing, which is that 2+ years ago the creative story games well went dry. Since then it's just been a matter of dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s, working one's way down the genre list ("Shock, the first scifi story game," cetera cetera). This particular paradigm is exhausted, so any diversion is welcome.

Quote from: jhkimYes, the "Story Games" label explicitly refers to more deliberate, out-of-character construction of story than most traditional RPGs -- which makes Story Gamers closer in mindset to a film director.  By parallel, some people use miniatures and battle maps in their RPGs, which makes their play closer to miniature wargames -- but I wouldn't call them "frustrated wargamers".  It's just their preference of how they like their play.

And how one person prefers to play can influence the quality of a game for another person with the same or different preferences.  And considering the criticism stated bluntly rather than dispassionately can help one understand not only why styles of play differ but how they can grate on each other.  For example, I learned a great deal considering why immersive play is frequently called "selfish" and "disruptive" and there is certainly some merit to those complaints.

Quote from: jhkimYes, the "Story Games" label explicitly refers to more deliberate, out-of-character construction of story than most traditional RPGs -- which makes Story Gamers closer in mindset to a film director.  By parallel, some people use miniatures and battle maps in their RPGs, which makes their play closer to miniature wargames -- but I wouldn't call them "frustrated wargamers".  It's just their preference of how they like their play.

"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Meanwhile the "Frustrated Director" generally can't Direct. And the "Frustrated Writer" can't write. If they could, I would then agree that the adjective "Frustrated" wouldn't apply to them. They'd also be quite the exception, and might be worth talking with to determine why they felt the need to play rpgs. I think the answer might be telling as it's likely to involve escaping the limits of being a writer or director- not to embrace them.

In that line of thought, I'm a wargamer who happens to mix in some role-playing to escape the limits of a pure wargame format. The label is complete and accurate.

Quote from: gleichman"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Meanwhile the "Frustrated Director" generally can't Direct. And the "Frustrated Writer" can't write. If they could, I would then agree that the adjective "Frustrated" wouldn't apply to them. They'd also be quite the exception, and might be worth talking with to determine why they felt the need to play rpgs. I think the answer might be telling as it's likely to involve escaping the limits of being a writer or director- not to embrace them.

In that line of thought, I'm a wargamer who happens to mix in some role-playing to escape the limits of a pure wargame format. The label is complete and accurate.

...And if you can just wargame.. you aren't (by definition) frustrated.

That makes perfect sense to me. Some people get down to that last sentence you wrote and they can't figure it out. "Well, if you like tactical games, why not just play a wargame?!!!" It's all or nothing.

They don't get the idea that mixing the two elements (tactical gaming and roleplaying/plot type stuff)  is something that is special and neat all by itself.

Quote from: gleichman"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Meanwhile the "Frustrated Director" generally can't Direct. And the "Frustrated Writer" can't write.

I'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

Quote from: EngineI'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

I'm presuming that they mean the writer is "frustrated" because he is not successful in getting his work published by a reputable publisher -- which would be the equivalent of a wargamer being frustrated because he can't successfully compete with other wargamers in tournaments.  

Quote from: Abyssal MawThey don't get the idea that mixing the two elements (tactical gaming and roleplaying/plot type stuff)  is something that is special and neat all by itself.

Right, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.  Mixing into storytelling elements, or improv acting elements, or wargame elements -- can all be fine things, and shouldn't be viewed as any lesser.

Quote from: EngineI'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

The key point of the frustrated Director/Writer is they seek (at least emotionally) to be professionals and they can be judged professionally (and found lacking in the case of the 'Frustrated' version). Thus to Direct, or to 'successfully' Write- they have to have a degree of professional acceptance. Difficult to get.

The wargame by contrast is just a hobby.

The one difference puts the two in different catagories. It's much easier for the wargamer to game than it is for Director to successfully direct.

Quote from: gleichmanThe key point of the frustrated Director/Writer is they seek (at least emotionally) to be professionals and they can be judged professionally (and found lacking in the case of the 'Frustrated' version).

Sound like douchebags. Art is its own reward.

Quote from: gleichmanThe one difference puts the two in different catagories. It's much easier for the wargamer to game than it is for Director to successfully direct.

That makes sense, then: if the wargamer requires no one but an opponent, and the writer or director require recognition from the industry as a whole, that is, indeed, a radical difference. [Still sound like douchebags to me.]

Quote from: gleichman"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Not necessarily.  Role-playing and wargaming are social activities and I can imagine a person who would rather be wargaming who is stuck role-playing being a "frustrated wargamer", and have played with people something like that -- people who would prefer not the be role-playing but who goes along with it because that's what everyone else wants to do.

Quote from: jhkimRight, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.  Mixing into storytelling elements, or improv acting elements, or wargame elements -- can all be fine things, and shouldn't be viewed as any lesser.

Which I agree with, but when we are talking about "coherent" (Forge sense) games, the system designers generally throw the concerns of other styles of play under the bus to maximize the one style that they want and people tend to take a negative view of other styles of play when they step all over the style of play that they prefer.