Quote from: Rincewind1;722094You can always return to RPG.net if you don't like it so much here.

Zing!

Quote from: Arminius;722108Much of what you write is fair enough even though it smacks somewhat of special pleading, but wrt the last sentence frankly I expect better of you. Dirk wanted to know why anyone would have a problem with Knizia; I offered my subjective view as an example of why.

Sorry, didn't mean to jump down your throat. I was addressing the overall anti-euro tenor of recent posts in this thread.

No problem.

The reaction to box art and other presentation is a personal one although I think it's shared by others. Basically if you look at Abalone you know you're not getting a game about diving for shellfish, no harm done. And even for a game like Acquire, which has some interesting analogues to business investing, but is basically abstract, there have usually been cues that signal a distinct genre. But you can't easily tell, glancing at the box, that many modern Euros are different from wargames and simulations on the same theme. So they are perceived as a kind of a fraud even if that was never the intent.

Simple distinctions drawn between games that feature setting or premise associated mechanics and those that feature mechanics divorced from a setting or premise perspective attacked with hostility by those who seem to be incapable of telling the difference, as well as a tendency of the second group of games to improperly advertise their differences...

Where have I seen this before? :hmm:

I am of the opinion that fantasy-esque boardgames can be a gateway into RPGs, and thus support that side of the industry whole heartidly.  Not only is there less of a stigma to overcome, but it's much easier to get a new player into a game that only had a dozen pages of rules than one that has 300.


I just wish the RPG wouldn't turn into a fantasy boardgame....  :cool:

I found the GNS/GDS/3-fold model/big model or whatever game theory to be too abstract to hold any practical meaning.  Is there like a big honking list of rpgs out there where the theory has been applied?  Where I can compare the GNSitude of, say, Twilight 2000 to that of Ghosbusters or PsiWorld or Robotech or Dresden?

Quote from: Arminius;722162But you can't easily tell, glancing at the box, that many modern Euros are different from wargames and simulations on the same theme. So they are perceived as a kind of a fraud even if that was never the intent.

Wait, you mean that Stratego isn't really a game about leading Napoleonic armies into battle?  Fraud! Fraud!

Quote from: Old One Eye;722226I found the GNS/GDS/3-fold model/big model or whatever game theory to be too abstract to hold any practical meaning.  Is there like a big honking list of rpgs out there where the theory has been applied?  Where I can compare the GNSitude of, say, Twilight 2000 to that of Ghosbusters or PsiWorld or Robotech or Dresden?

The GNS and the Forge was mainly academic jargon and navel-gazing, so something as concrete as applying the game types to existing games was way too practical for that crowd.

Quote from: Arminius;722162But you can't easily tell, glancing at the box, that many modern Euros are different from wargames and simulations on the same theme. So they are perceived as a kind of a fraud even if that was never the intent.

It's probably a mistake to buy those sorts of games based on the box art. There's a reason Boardgamegeek has a few hundred thousand members - you can find everything you need to know about any boardgame with a couple clicks.

But I would think things like 'ages 8 and up, 60 minutes' would also be a clue that you're not getting a serious simulation of trading empires in the 16th century.

Quote from: The Ent;721865Well to an extent there ARE types of gamers.

On one extreme: char op freaks.
On another: people who want stuff that resembles freeform theatre with minimal if any rules.

Less extreme versions:

People who want to play fantasy superheroes vs people who want fantasy survival Horror.

People who enjoy tight storylines vs people who prefer hexcrawls.

And much more.

I prefer to look at from the viewpoint of what players get from games.

Some gamers just want an excuse to hang out with their friends.
Some gamers want to charop like hell.
Some gamers care about being in an imaginary world.
Some gamers care about their character being part of a story.
Some gamers want to be *told* a story.
Some gamers want to do tactical combat.
Some gamers want rules that they can still deal with when drunk.

Etc., etc., etc.

In general, these things aren't mutually exclusive.  And some gamers even like different things at different times!

Some of these needs clump together.  It might be (dunno, speculation and hypothetical example alert) that gamers that want to be in a story and have an effect on its outcome tend to not be gamers that care about charop, while the charop and tactical combat guys have a high overlap.  Great.  Awesome.  And you can make some general categories based on that, but they've got to be fuzzy and imprecise, because for any given category, you'll find some gamer that best fits in one category, but absolutely despises some things in that category, while really wanting things from another category.

I also like looking at things this way, because it helps me with a few things:

1) I can look at games and understand why people like them, even when I don't.
2) I'm more likely to enjoy a new game if I can figure out the needs it's trying to cater to, rather than judging it against the needs that I presume it will cater to.

Quote from: Haffrung;722239The GNS and the Forge was mainly academic jargon and navel-gazing, so something as concrete as applying the game types to existing games was way too practical for that crowd.

That's disappointing.  Might be something useful if it was actually used.  O well.

Quote from: Haffrung;722241It's probably a mistake to buy those sorts of games based on the box art. There's a reason Boardgamegeek has a few hundred thousand members - you can find everything you need to know about any boardgame with a couple clicks.

But I would think things like 'ages 8 and up, 60 minutes' would also be a clue that you're not getting a serious simulation of trading empires in the 16th century.

Well of course I'd never buy based on the art. It's just gotten a lot harder to use external cues as a filter for looking further. And BGG is also kind of a bitch to use quickly. You really have to look at the descriptions, comments, and who's making the comments, because the audience is so broad, and many of them don't see that there are multiple genres.

Quote from: Old One Eye;722264That's disappointing.  Might be something useful if it was actually used.  O well.

The big problem was that the underlying premise of Edward's GNS theory was that games should focus on appealing to one specific playstyle (else they were "incoherent"), which is self-evidently faulty to the point of being a detriment to any game's success.

Also, it was very clear Ron and Co did not understand the playstyle(s) they categorized as "Simulationist" to the point thier essay on Simulationism is really just about as useful as an essay on what its like to live in Prague by an American whod never left the states nor ever talked to a Czech in person. This led to them eventually deciding Simulationism doesnt actually exist and all those gamers they didnt understand were just lying about how or why they played.

It was all a clusterf*** of magnificent proportions.

Quote from: Old One Eye;722264That's disappointing.  Might be something useful if it was actually used.  O well.

I doubt it.  Supposing they actually came up with a list of games that were "Simulationist" or "Gamist."  Terrific.  Now you've found out that your favorite game (or conversely, the game you hate the most) is "Simulationist."  Now what?  Where do you go from there?

This is the nutshell of why I find the mania for labeling amongst gamers to be silly.  We spend so much time, effort and angst coming up with labels, arguing about labels, yelling at people who place labels we consider pejorative on games we like.  In the end, nothing's improved, nothing's decided, nothing's created.

That's time we could be spending improving our games.  Writing a scenario.  Creating a vivid NPC.  Tightening up a house rule. Or, heck, actually playing the damn things.  

I like discussions as well as the next guy, but arguing how many games will fit on the head of a pin doesn't seem to me to be at all productive, and it's why I've never had any interest in diving into the GNS morass.

I've come to conclusion that where the Forge dropped the ball was not looking at the role of the rules on a more fundamental level.  That is, what are the rules for? Are they tools for GM-adjudication?  Or are they the primary medium through which the players interact with the game?  Because that has important design implications orthogonal to GNS or GDS.  But the Forge essentially accepted the later as a given, thus rendering their theories incomplete at best, and irrelevant at the worst.  In fairness, that was the zeitgeist, with even D&D ending up moving from GM-tools to play-mediators.  But to me the fundamental role of the rules, and interactions thereof, are the most salient issues for me, and the greatest difference I feel between myself, coming into the game in the 80s, and many of those who have come into it in the late 90s and beyond.