I think the difference is I view AW's structure as choosing a particular tempo, scale, and style, rather than choosing the notes ahead of time.  They're just a particular set of constraints so that you produce music that has certain qualities to it.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with tweaking things if you want to, but you're not going to use the same methods to produce bebop jazz and progressive rock.

So the notes are like the fictional stuff you come up with, and the compositional constraints are the structure of the rules.  AW might give you the methods to create on particular kind of music, but I don't think it chooses the notes for you.

Quote from: Peregrin;507422I think the difference is I view AW's structure as choosing a particular tempo, scale, and style, rather than choosing the notes ahead of time.  They're just a particular set of constraints so that you produce music that has certain qualities to it.

That's actually the problem for me - see, if Cash had AW's advice when creating Hurt, would he make it a touching story about an old man looking back on his life, instead of a story about a guy loosing a girlfriend?

Of course, that's just making the metaphor even more convoluted, so let's cut that Gordian knot a bit.

By the very idea of mechanic, creativity in RPG, at least by a normal definition of creativity, is constrained - and that's alright. Because I am not looking for a creative venue as a storyteller in an RPG, but for immersing my players in the best experience possible. Of course, there IS a place of storytelling creativity in RPG, you just need to remember that the show's about  the players and their characters, not about your intentions for them.

So, since creativity is already quite restricted in RPGs, why restrict it further by making claims about needing a very specific kind of such creativity for a game? Even worse, instead of allowing a GM to experience mistakes, and forge his own opinion, there's a small attempt of forcing an opinion on a GM.

And that's all, really - a normal RPG gives you all the composing and singing advice you need. Some will do it better, some will do it worse. But to try and claim that there's One True Way to play a song/compose a song, because that's what genre requires - is a big no - no. I mean, musicians even probably claim that - but most of the true splendid works happen, when a guy takes the most obvious song from a genre, and shows how much of a different spin you can put on it.

QuoteAnd I don't think there's anything wrong with tweaking things if you want to, but you're not going to use the same methods to produce bebop jazz and progressive rock.

True - but that's what GM Advice is for. Nobody really expects you to run CoC the same way you run DnD, but there are many ways to run CoC as well. Some prefer Purist - style tragedies, some prefer a bit more Lumley.

I don't see it as a problem because I see AW as a way to play AW, not a way to play all post-apoc.  If I want to play something else, I'll choose another game, and if I want to personalize my experience, I'll choose something flexible.  Savage Worlds would do pulpy, tactical, shoot-em-up post-apoc way better than AW.

And I don't recall the AW text making a statement that it was the definitive way to play post-apoc, just that it was the author's way to play his game.

Like I said, there are more and less constraining styles.  Constraints serve a purpose if they're well thought-out, and sometimes will inspire more creativity than starting with more freedom.  It's a different type of tool, but I don't think it's any worse.  Game-canon in established settings can also be extremely constraining on both the GM and the players, but that can inspire loads of sessions.  AW gives you a bit more freedom in terms of the specific details of the game setting, but constrains the game in other ways.

QuoteTrue - but that's what GM Advice is for. Nobody really expects you to run CoC the same way you run DnD, but there are many ways to run CoC as well. Some prefer Purist - style tragedies, some prefer a bit more Lumley.

Remember that Baker and other designers of his ilk view that GM advice and textual explanation of play as part of the system, whether or not it's hard-coded in.  A lot of the stuff in AW is just GM advice hard-coded in because Baker decided to do it that way.  Again, possibly constraining, but it serves a purpose.  If Baker were trying to pitch me his game and was saying I could use it for multiple styles of post-apoc, or told me something like "This is Fallout done right," then I'd have an issue with it.

Quote from: Peregrin;507424I don't see it as a problem because I see AW as a way to play AW, not a way to play all post-apoc.  If I want to play something else, I'll choose another game, and if I want to personalize my experience, I'll choose something flexible.  Savage Worlds would do pulpy, tactical, shoot-em-up post-apoc way better than AW.

And I don't recall the AW text making a statement that it was the definitive way to play post-apoc, just that it was the author's way to play his game.

Like I said, there are more and less constraining styles.  Constraints serve a purpose if they're well thought-out, and sometimes will inspire more creativity than starting with more freedom.  It's a different type of tool, but I don't think it's any worse.


Remember that Baker and other designers of his ilk view that GM advice and textual explanation of play as part of the system.  A lot of the stuff in AW is just GM advice hard-coded in.  Again, possibly constraining, but it serves a purpose.

The problem with first two paragraphs is, that generally speaking, when someone sells a board game or roleplaying game - the rest of how you create your experience, is yours. If I want to get an experience that the author wishes me to get, I'll buy a novel, record or a painting. Even video games should only be half - half. It is a problem with for example, modern FPS games - there's practically no freedom, you have to play the game as the designer intended. Sure, the graphics are nice, but it doesn't change the fact that no longer you can explore levels and get lost for hours. I mean, I hated getting lost, but I loved being able to just run around. But I will agree that an idea of a very narrow system is not something bad in it's own accord - in fact, it can be great.

As for the last part - and that's the problem. How hard is their advice coded in the system?

In Warhammer, Fate Points are such a piece - a GMing advice hard - coded. In CoC, Sanity Points are such a thing. But you can discard both in both cases (well, in CoC that'd be a bit silly), without breaking the game engine, or breaking even genre emulation - without Sanity Points in CoC it'd be a bit harder, but you can just describe the effects of progressing madness, rather then keep a count of it. Some of people here probably dislike Warhammer's idea of "extra lives" - so remove it. One slash of a pencil, and it's gone.

In AW, I feel that trying to remove that GMing advice, would just leave you with no game at all. That does not make it a bad game in it's own,  neither does a fact that it provides a set of perhaps needless crutches make it a bad game. But those two combined with additional supposed "superiority" of it's design as compared to classic RPG, which is what most of Forge's lovers are arguing, and the general air of elitism from the creators themselves, is what I consider a truly sour mix. The first two pieces'd be already a mark of a not - so - great game design - the last two are nails in the coffin.

I'll get to discussing this with you tomorrow - I really need to wrap up my campaign plans for tomorrow.

No problem, and have fun.

The only issues I see with the discussion at this point are that I don't see AW as constraining as you do, at least not the point where I'd equate it with a FPS railroad, and especially not static media.  The other issue is that if you're going to be bringing in other mediums of games, then RPGs, at least trad RPGs, skirt the line of not really being procedurally complete games in most design frameworks, or at least leaving the game portion very vague (some games like early D&D, as Justin alluded to, are exceptions).  Perhaps that's a bonus for some people, but for others it's not.

IOW, task-resolution systems or combat systems or whatever subsystems a game gives you apart from it's GMing advice or assumptions about play aren't games.  The assumptions of play, the structure that is created by the designer and combined with those subsystems is what creates the game, so of course if you remove the GMing advice from AW it's going to not seem like a game.  Similarly if you took away the mechanics and dice from some groups playing trad RPGs, it may not affect their group at all because their game no longer hinges on the text, but exists apart from the mechanical bits.  The game is what happens at the table, and the rules are the means to inspire a particular intended dynamic.  Baker just concentrated on creating a discrete game with mechanics to serve it rather than creating lots of system tools that the GM then uses to create their own game through trial and error.  I don't think the game attempting to act as a baseline for the creation of that dynamic constrains it so much creatively that it's a worse way to go about running a game.

If you don't view games that way, that's fine, but after doing a lot of reading and trying out different games at the table, it's the most logical view for me.  If you view design-work as part of the creative process of being a GM, then yeah, AW limits that.  But I don't think it limits how creative you can be with the fictional stuff any more than any trad RPG.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507343We all are, but pundy has to keep the flames going because he thinks otherwise this place will slink into obscurity.

Of course he doesn't get that there is a lot of positive discussion here, too, as he wouldn't know positive if it jumped into his face.

I was looking for the thread, just to read it. I don't care about AW one way or the other enough to comment, nor does it appeal to me to purchase. But to decide to just reorganise threads under some premise of 'story games' is batshit crazy. Who knows what threads will end up where if some arbitrary decision about what constitutes roleplayings is going to be made at any point by one person.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507459I was looking for the thread, just to read it. I don't care about AW one way or the other enough to comment, nor does it appeal to me to purchase. But to decide to just reorganise threads under some premise of 'story games' is batshit crazy. Who knows what threads will end up where if some arbitrary decision about what constitutes roleplayings is going to be made at any point by one person.

You have been here for a couple of years, you must know that this already happened. Pundy has claimed sole authority on what constitutes a RPG for ages now.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507586You have been here for a couple of years, you must know that this already happened. Pundy has claimed sole authority on what constitutes a RPG for ages now.

The sad part is, I actually think Pundit would like AW, if it wasn't written by Vincent Baker.

Quote from: Ladybird;507600The sad part is, I actually think Pundit would like AW, if it wasn't written by Vincent Baker.

Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

Quote from: One Horse Town;507608Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

Especially magic, item - generating sex.

QuoteThe only issues I see with the discussion at this point are that I don't see AW as constraining as you do, at least not the point where I'd equate it with a FPS railroad, and especially not static media. The other issue is that if you're going to be bringing in other mediums of games, then RPGs, at least trad RPGs, skirt the line of not really being procedurally complete games in most design frameworks, or at least leaving the game portion very vague (some games like early D&D, as Justin alluded to, are exceptions). Perhaps that's a bonus for some people, but for others it's not.

Warhammer or Call of Cthulhu aren't procedurally incomplete, and neither they are leaving game portion very vague. And those two system have a certain idea of playstyle hardcoded into the very nature of them - and yet, that playstyle can 1) be adjusted with a little tampering with mechanics, if you really feel the need to, and 2) there is no suggestion that only one playstyle is good for that - I myself prefer a very down to the earth and gritty Warhammer, but at least as far as 1e went, there was certainly a possibility for classic dungeoncrawling campaign to be made.

QuoteIOW, task-resolution systems or combat systems or whatever subsystems a game gives you apart from it's GMing advice or assumptions about play aren't games. The assumptions of play, the structure that is created by the designer and combined with those subsystems is what creates the game, so of course if you remove the GMing advice from AW it's going to not seem like a game. Similarly if you took away the mechanics and dice from some groups playing trad RPGs, it may not affect their group at all because their game no longer hinges on the text, but exists apart from the mechanical bits. The game is what happens at the table, and the rules are the means to inspire a particular intended dynamic. Baker just concentrated on creating a discrete game with mechanics to serve it rather than creating lots of system tools that the GM then uses to create their own game through trial and error. I don't think the game attempting to act as a baseline for the creation of that dynamic constrains it so much creatively that it's a worse way to go about running a game.

Again - CoC, Warhammer, plenty of games, really, are designed with a certain specific playstyle and GMing style (Gritty medieval combat with a bit of black humour/a desperate and perhaps a bit futile struggle of humanity against Things They Were Not Meant To Know), but nowhere there you see an idea that one way of playing the game might be truly superior, that there's only one way to run it properly, because the Authors Wrote so. Sometimes it's all about the wording - "Here's my advice on how to play this" is different then "Here's my advice on how you should play this".

If you take dice & mechanics from most (and really, all) groups, they aren't really playing an RPG anymore - such a game is called amateur psychodrama (not to be mistaken with the form of therapy - it's pretty much same idea, except you aren't trying to discover someone's true self etc. etc.).

QuoteIf you don't view games that way, that's fine, but after doing a lot of reading and trying out different games at the table, it's the most logical view for me. If you view design-work as part of the creative process of being a GM, then yeah, AW limits that. But I don't think it limits how creative you can be with the fictional stuff any more than any trad RPG.

I think I'll just put my mind simply here - Rules
Which could be replaced with a random table of 101 Problems To Befall A Post - Apocalyptic Heroes.

I used D&D as an example.  CoC is relatively complete, because the game is layered on top of the sim engine (much in the same way you build a game out of the Unreal Engine, but the UE isn't a game unto itself, nor was making it game-design).

QuoteIf you take dice & mechanics from most (and really, all) groups, they aren't really playing an RPG anymore - such a game is called amateur psychodrama (not to be mistaken with the form of therapy - it's pretty much same idea, except you aren't trying to discover someone's true self etc. etc.).

Dicing mechanisms aren't games in and of themselves.  Their function is to add some objectivity to fuzzy subjective stuff and prevent arguments about what happens in the game.  And a game can exist apart from them.  What I meant was the mechanics (the functional game bits) have drifted away from the text and dicing mechanisms and into a social structure that is a different game than the one presented in the text.

As for being a narration and problem generating machine, that's what GMs do.  They provide adversity.  Sometimes it's in the guise of a "world" or exploration site with challenges (like D&D), and other times it's based on encounters that take place in explicit scenes (like a lot of White-Wolf scenarios).  But in all games GMs use the game structure to create adversity to make like interesting for the characters.  That is a creative process in and of itself, as is unraveling all of those bits in play with the players helping create the imaginary stuff.  I don't get why you're writing that off as pure machination.  If you don't like the metes and bounds for the GM set by the game, don't play it.  But just because someone decided "Hey, I'd like to read literature on composing bebop, not on composing 6 styles of jazz" it doesn't mean their endeavors are any less creative.

If you really view the traditional GM-does-whatever role as superior to all others in terms of creative output, then I don't think we're going to agree on anything anytime soon, though.  But I'm more worried about folks having an enjoyable time than I am reaching the pinnacle of GM-dom, so if you want to view the MoC in AW as something different, than that's your prerogative.  

Quote from: Rincewind1;506781if you were quarter as clever as you try to paint yourself, you would get that I was joking and riling you up for quite some time,

Did you somehow miss the posts where I noted that you were a self-admitted troll?

But it is nice of you to, yet again, admit that you're trolling. And I must congratulate you on your success: You keep getting suckers like Peregrin to bite again and again.

Quick question: Are you self-admitting to trolling in every thread you post to here on RPGSite, most threads you post to, some threads you post to, or just this one?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507586You have been here for a couple of years, you must know that this already happened. Pundy has claimed sole authority on what constitutes a RPG for ages now.

the moving of threads seems to be a new thing.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507693the moving of threads seems to be a new thing.

It's been going on for a while, at least a year.

Quote from: One Horse Town;507608Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

* Opens AW.pdf *
* Searches for text string "emulat" *
* String not found *

It's not a claim the game makes, that was two_fishes back on page 1.