Quote from: Balbinus;376030I think people misread Koltar's post.

I don't agree with him, but I read him not as saying revolution was necessarily adolescent, but that this specific revolution was adolescent.  In other words, he was making a comment about the indie revolution saying it was adolescent in nature, he wasn't making any more general or extrapolable point.

Now, as I say, by and large I disagree with that.  But I don't think he was extending the point to art, politics or indeed any other sphere.  

On the general point.....................

Balbinus, you are correct about what I posted. (even if you disagree with me)  It was the other guy that dragged in the names of Art, artists & writers into thing - I just responded to what he posted.

This also touches on one of my main beefs with the "Forge/Indie" game writers - they don't seem to care if something is fun or not or even if it has the potential to be.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;376270This also touches on one of my main beefs with the "Forge/Indie" game writers - they don't seem to care if something is fun or not or even if it has the potential to be.

I'm not really sure that's true.

Sometimes I find that a designer focuses on an aspect of play that I personally don't enjoy, or that they take play too seriously, but I could say the same thing about some trad RPGs, and there are a lot of indie games that specifically state the goal is to just have fun.

I think when you get to that point, it's more about the individual behind the game than it is about the movement.

Personally, I'd rather play in a game run by someone like Luke Crane or Jared Sorensen than I would one by Mark Rein*Hagen, at least coming from play reports of some of Rein*Hagen's campaigns.

Quote from: Koltar;376270Balbinus, you are correct about what I posted. (even if you disagree with me)  It was the other guy that dragged in the names of Art, artists & writers into thing - I just responded to what he posted.

This also touches on one of my main beefs with the "Forge/Indie" game writers - they don't seem to care if something is fun or not or even if it has the potential to be.


- Ed C.

Imperator do you mean?  He's a mate of mine in real life actually, not that that's relevant to this debate.

Anyway, here's why I disagree with that last bit, or disagree a bit anyway (some of these games genuinely aren't intended to be fun as such, rewarding yes but fun no, I'm thinking say Grey Ranks here).

I've played Dogs, which I didn't like, and My Life with Master, which I did.  Both games, most folk had fun.  Dogs I hated having to roll so many dice and I didn't enjoy the dice bidding aspect, but that's mechanical stuff.  Others did like those things, tastes vary.  The game was clearly designed to be fun, I just don't enjoy rolling tons of dice and it got a bit meta for me at times.

MLwM was almost like a boardgame, but that I thought was huge fun.  Why?  I dunno, the author himself once asked me why I liked that when I like so few other indie games.  I couldn't really answer, my suspicion though is that it's lighter so it's easier to get into the fiction and that the idea of gothic horror appealed to me way more than judgemental asshole cowboys.

But both times, it seemed about the fun.  I don't really see what's fun about 4e, but when Abyssal or Imperator tell me they have fun with it I believe them, hell I might even have fun playing it with them, who knows?  But I think you're confusing your tastes with their goals, they may be aiming for fun but in a way that's so not fun for you it's hard to see it.

It would seem to be fairly basic that "I hate that and don't think it's fun" is not equivalent to "everyone hates it, no one enjoys it" and especially not "the person who created it did it out of hatefulness and not for the purpose of enjoyment."  Basic as in "my seven year old has already learned it."

But, on the other hand, who *doesn't* enjoy the visceral entertainment of calling people affiliated with something you don't like criminal perverts out to destroy our way of life?  I know I do.  So point fairly made.

In reference to Forge/Ron Edwards, It's classic theory, countertheory, synthesis.  He thought D&D was a bad game, he writes stuff to counter it...making his own mistakes in the process (especially assuming people can only get one thing out of a game and never being able to define some of their own terms like simulationist like time I checked), now we're in the phase where people try to tie theory and countertheory together.

Quote from: Balbinus;376030*Stuff*.

*Sig*

Dude, you're running Space:1889?

I gotta read that.

Quote from: flyingmice;376074Well, you're certainly different! I *like* your games, Chad, just like Tim's games. You two have written the only two supers games I care for, and neither of you is what I would call traditional, unlike my crap.  

-clash

Funny thing is I play lots of "Traditional" games, and enjoy them. I just prefer simple direct mechanics that emulate the genre. If that is non-traditional? Well that's cool. The genre is important to me so I try and write towards that--wherever it goes. Derelict Delvers is traditional, old school, but with the goal of making say HP mean "luck and skill" not just damage ablation like D&D claimed.

Quote from: Silverlion;376325Funny thing is I play lots of "Traditional" games, and enjoy them. I just prefer simple direct mechanics that emulate the genre. If that is non-traditional? Well that's cool. The genre is important to me so I try and write towards that--wherever it goes. Derelict Delvers is traditional, old school, but with the goal of making say HP mean "luck and skill" not just damage ablation like D&D claimed.

It's not your aims that are non-traditional, Tim - it the way you get where you're going. I find it fascinating.

-clash

Quote from: Balbinus;376282I don't really see what's fun about 4e, but when Abyssal or Imperator tell me they have fun with it I believe them, hell I might even have fun playing it with them, who knows?  But I think you're confusing your tastes with their goals, they may be aiming for fun but in a way that's so not fun for you it's hard to see it.

Well put.

Quote from: Balbinus;376030On the general point, there's more than one reason for these games.  Some come from a dysfunctional place, Ron Edwards has long since lost it for example (though that came after Sorceror, which as best I can tell is a good game badly written).  Others, I'd pick out Joshua Morningstar say or Gregor Hutton, have ideas they think are cool and want to see in a game.  Your taste may coincide with theirs or not, but there's no revolution there - just folk doing what they want to do.

That's a grand point. Certainly for the UK small press games scene, it's pretty much all people writing games about stuff they think is cool and because they want to play those games. Joe Prince wrote 'Piledrivers & Powerbombs' because he loves professional wrestling and wanted to have a quick-playing game of all the fun craziness that wrestling involves. Same applies for Gregor and 3:16, Neil Gow and Duty & Honour (because he had a burning desire to write 'Sharpe: The Roleplaying Game'0, and so on and so forth. None of these games were written because of rebellion, ideology, or anything like that. They were written because they are the games people wanted to write and have fun with. If it's not the fun you enjoy, that's fine. If it is the fun you enjoy, then they might have something to offer.

Oh, and the original point of the OPs question:

QuoteWhy do so many Forge-Indie derived games, keep trying to change the dynamic of play. How play works on a fundamental level?

Well, in the cases I mentioned above, changes in dynamics from a 'traditional' model were purely because that's what the designer felt would make the game they were writing most fun for the game they wanted to create. Bit of a circular argument there. I think it all comes back to the fact that almost all of the people I know who have written, or are writing, games, write games that they find fun and cool. If other people find them fun and cool, that's great. If there are people who don't, that's fine. I'm always amazed how many people have bought, played, and enjoyed my games. They were things I wrote because I found them fascinating. The fact that other people play them and like them is a very pleasing experience.

Oh, Balbinus: I think you're mixing up Joshua Newman and Jason Morningstar! Both are great guys who write fantastic stuff. But different people.

Cheers
Malcolm

Quote from: Malcolm Craig;376352Oh, Balbinus: I think you're mixing up Joshua Newman and Jason Morningstar! Both are great guys who write fantastic stuff. But different people.

Cheers
Malcolm

Oops, I think you're right.  To save my embarassment, I suggest we put them both through a teleport booth and combine them, it's the easiest solution.

The only thing I'd add is that claims of unusual design are often overlaboured.  In Dogs you have a GM, players, GM controls the world and NPCs, same in BW or Sorceror (and I think Cold Cityr, though sadly the guy who bought it then left the group before we could play it).  Most of these games have a fairly classic GM/player split, those with shared narrative control often have it in a fairly limited sense (and a lot of ostensibly trad games have the same), games with full narrative control are the minority (and often less popular, IMO due to gonzo creep of which I'll post on another occasion).

GMless games exist, but they're not that common (really, they should be more common by at least one, where's Okhrana?).  My main concern with them is that they make maintenance of tone harder, but that's a practical issue, not an ideological one.  

Generally, most of these games aren't that strange.  If we didn't have the idea they were, if we weren't told that Sorceror is somehow radically different to Shadowrun, I wonder if we'd notice.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;376322Dude, you're running Space:1889?

I gotta read that.

Check it out.  My next slot on the chair's not for ages, but I'll be running a six week wodge then too continuing it all.  

It's unusually plot driven for me, I usually go more for dynamic situations and relationship maps and all that stuff.  This one, there's ancient secrets to be unearthed and the PCs are (presently unwittingly, at character level anyway) on their trail so it's more linear.

That said, if at any point they want to chuck it all and go conquer a minor city state or whatever, that's their choice.  They'd only do that if it were cooler than what I have planned after all.

Quote from: Balbinus;376529The only thing I'd add is that claims of unusual design are often overlaboured.[...]
Generally, most of these games aren't that strange.  If we didn't have the idea they were, if we weren't told that Sorceror is somehow radically different to Shadowrun, I wonder if we'd notice.

Absolutely. I've run many Sorcerer games: using Kickers is a cool technique to get PCs involved, and group definition of Humanity and sorcery is a great idea, but nothing game changing.

Burning Wheel is absolutely trad. GM, players, stuff. Same for Dogs in the Vineyard, and many other indie games.

That's why the non-rpg label is ridiculous.

Quote from: Imperator;376534Absolutely. I've run many Sorcerer games: using Kickers is a cool technique to get PCs involved, and group definition of Humanity and sorcery is a great idea, but nothing game changing.

Burning Wheel is absolutely trad. GM, players, stuff. Same for Dogs in the Vineyard, and many other indie games.

That's why the non-rpg label is ridiculous.

I've been using kickers since 1978, and I didn't invent them. We just didn't have a clever name for them back when.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;376536I've been using kickers since 1978, and I didn't invent them. We just didn't have a clever name for them back when.

-clash

I've used relationship maps since the early '90s.

Ironically, I first saw them in Chicago by Night, a supplement for Vampire.  I mentioned that to RE once, he wasn't happy with the comment...

The thing is though, one guy's old hat is another's lightning strike of innovation.  We all have different ideas, back in the day they were just harder to spread because we didn't have the internet so they'd often be isolated.  You used kickers, I'd never had that particular idea.