Quote from: Mistwell;722598Usually they find it hard to talk, with Ron Edwards' dick in their mouth.

Seriously though, it's usually easy to tell.  They use a lot of inane jargon, it sounds like someone VERY proud of their PhD trying to use as many words and acronyms as possible that they know most people wouldn't understand. There is a smug superiority about most of their posts.

The superiority of "You're doing it wrong" will flush them out a lot of the time.

Quote from: Omega;722597How does one tell a "Forgeist" from the average storygamer as it were?

In this particular instance, pemerton is quite clear about his fondness for Ron Edwards and the Forge; way back when, I jokingly referred to him as a 'F(riend)O(f)R(on)-player,' and he agreed.

That said, they're seldom hard to spot.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;722591Now, the top 20 games in the ratings are filled with Euros, with only three true AT titles there:  Mage Knight, Eclipse, and War of the Ring.  There are a few games that are a mix, like Twilight Struggle, but far more Euros than anything else.

Eclipse is a hybrid, though mostly Euro. It has direct conflict, but its core is really just a Euro economics game in space.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;722604In this particular instance, pemerton is quite clear about his fondness for Ron Edwards and the Forge; way back when, I jokingly referred to him as a 'F(riend)O(f)R(on)-player,' and he agreed.

I do wonder whether pemerton would have been disabused of his fondness if he had ever tried posting on The Forge. My experience of doing so, starting an interesting conversation, then having Edwards immediately close the thread on some kind of crazed power trip, cured me of any possible Forge-ism. He does/did that all the time. He has no concept of appropriate netiquette. He's one of the most obnoxious people involved in RPGs today. The whole 'brain damage' thing is entirely typical for him. He is a megalomaniac who set himself up as a cult leader, quite successfully.
Also, most of his theorising is positively harmful to actual play, since he doesn't understand huge swathes of traditional RPG game types, and despises what he doesn't understand. Storygames are all very well, but trying to apply his theory to a D&D campaign tends to trash it (IME).

Quote from: Old One Eye;722572You do not see the utility of music being categorized as R&B, gospel, classic rock, alternative, heavy metal, rap, or whatnot?  Interesting position.

Interesting characterization: happily, no one's come up with thirty-seven different synonyms of "straw man argument."

It shouldn't come as a terrible shock that there's a difference between calling a genre of music "heavy metal" and deciding that there are (a) really several dozen distinctive subgenres of the same, and that (b) there is a widely acknowledged, objective standard setting the definitions forth.  I chalk it up to fringe music "journalists" eager to Invent A New Genre, and fringe metal bands who coin "new styles" out of a horror of appearing to be sui generis.  It's tough to be a Dark, Tormented Rejectionist unless there's something you can be seen to be "rejecting."

Similar syndromes are at work in gaming.  New mechanics -- or, as commonly, new terms masking old mechanics -- are invented not so much because they're rational changes, but to provide something, anything that can be characterized as setting the system apart from others ... or, at the minimum, to Not Be D&D.

Quote from: S'mon;722621The whole 'brain damage' thing is entirely typical for him.

The funny thing about that is I kinda get what he's saying, especially if you look at it from a 80s/90s railroad perspective.

No, I'm not defending Ron, hear me out.

If you've played in nothing but games like that, the idea of your character actually having an agenda of their own, or of any kind of proactivity on the part of the player, is utterly counterintuitive.  Years, and in some cases *decades* of being led around by the nose through a maze of invisible walls teaches you that that's how you play.

One of the things I do when running games is often ask players what they're trying to accomplish when they do things.  And half of the time not only can they not answer me, but they look at me like it's a really novel question.  To them, the *entire* game has become poking around trying to find the plot button to advance to the next fight.  They literally can't conceive of actually having their own goals, or of trying to have their *own* plans.

(Yeah, I know, that's probably less of an issue for the folks on this site, but that's because this site gravitates towards play styles that don't result in that).

So, yeah.  Kind of a valid observation.  And then he goes about saying it in the most inflammatory, unhelpful way possible, in a way that's unclear to anyone that's not up on Forge jargon (when it could have been said in very simple terms).   And then he doubles down on it.  Which all combine to completely destroy any value that the initial observation may have had.

But I agree, that's typical for him.  Some small shred of truth, blown out of proportion, wrapped in obfuscating language, and then presented in the most inflammatory way possible.

On the other hand, he could have just said "playing lots of railroad style games can teach players to assume that there is some unalterable story, to the point where they don't try to, or even know how, to make their own plans".

But that would be useful, and doesn't sound nearly as impressive as claiming that certain types of games cause brain damage.  It's just an interesting, useful observation, not a call to arms for the followers.

Quote from: S'mon;722621He is a megalomaniac who set himself up as a cult leader, quite successfully.
Also, most of his theorising is positively harmful to actual play, since he doesn't understand huge swathes of traditional RPG game types, and despises what he doesn't understand.

It's a common factor in several personality disorders that they literally can't understand that there are things that they don't know, or that their own understanding of something may be incomplete or just wrong.

Literally, if they believe it, it must be true, and everyone else is wrong.

If you simply remember something different (or they've forgotten it), then it's not just a matter of memory, you're an out-and-out liar that's trying to ruin them.  They can't conceive that what they think or their view of something might not match reality, much less anyone else's views.

Those also tend to be disorders that occur in people that attract certain types of followers - the utter surety that they have that they're right is very attractive to certain types of people.

Quote from: soviet;722559I don't think that's true. I think this speaks to the point that S'mon made earlier about the role of the rules shifting from a tool for the GM to use or not at his discretion, to becoming a framework for the whole group. I suspect this is a creative agenda thing (sorry).

It would be nice if thats how things are practically playing out IRL, I was referring to exchanges Ive had on forums, which are sadly less inducing of optimism. But as I said, I repeat to myself as a mantra that these paranoid 4vengers/storygame epostilists are merely online extremists of limited intelligence and unlimited free time.

 The thing is that Ive always been accepting other styles of play. I was a big supporter of the badwrongfun admonishments of the early days of online forum debates. Whats frustrating is when constantly encountering the demographic of forum edition warriors or Forge theorywankers unable or unwilling to extend that same consideration.

Quote from: Ravenswing;722622Interesting characterization: happily, no one's come up with thirty-seven different synonyms of "straw man argument."

It shouldn't come as a terrible shock that there's a difference between calling a genre of music "heavy metal" and deciding that there are (a) really several dozen distinctive subgenres of the same, and that (b) there is a widely acknowledged, objective standard setting the definitions forth.  I chalk it up to fringe music "journalists" eager to Invent A New Genre, and fringe metal bands who coin "new styles" out of a horror of appearing to be sui generis.  It's tough to be a Dark, Tormented Rejectionist unless there's something you can be seen to be "rejecting."

Similar syndromes are at work in gaming.  New mechanics -- or, as commonly, new terms masking old mechanics -- are invented not so much because they're rational changes, but to provide something, anything that can be characterized as setting the system apart from others ... or, at the minimum, to Not Be D&D.

Yes, certainly there is no utility to splitting the rpg-equivalent hairs between speed metal and thrash.

But I do think there would be use in broad categorizations catching on.  Heavy metal is a useful musical categorization that everyone generally agrees what it means and is distinct from gospel even if the edges are fuzzy.  I usually like heavy metal, so if a band is categorized as such I may give them a shot.  I usually do not like gospel, so I know not to dither any time on a gospel group.

Like there is some game out there called Poison D (or something like that).  I like pirates.  I have no idea if I would like the game's mechanics.  Were there a generally acknowledged categorization system for rpg mechanics, it would be significantly more handy than searching around for reviews, quick plays, or whatnot.

Re: Knizia

Quote from: Omega;722551I do not dislike his games. He has put out some appallingly elegant designs that are very easy to pick up and play. Really he grinds a system down to a polished gem usually.

It is the fact that he slaps themes onto these rulesets willy nilly that boggles some. There was some game essentially a horizontal connect four and he slaps Cthulhu on it. The Moby Dick joke isnt too far off the mark. The themes oft seem totally irrelevant to the actual gameplay.

On the other hand this makes his games absurdly re-themeable.

It should be noted that the theme decision is often in the hands of the publisher not the author/designer.

Alan Moon is noted for his train game designs (Ticket to Ride, Union Pacific). Some of his games are variants of the "travelling salesman problem", a mathematical problem with roots in real life problems. Some of those train games got different themes slapped onto them. While the plane theme was still a good fit in Airlines the fantasy theme in Elfenland was more than just a bit off. But it won the Spiel des Jahres award.

In the 90s I belonged to a group of playtesters for publisher FX Schmid (now Alea/Ravensburger). Every year we would get invited to spend a weekend in a hotel room to playtest 10, 15, or 20 games of all stripes - board games, card games, dice games. Some of those prototypes came with a theme, some were just abstract mechanics. And the theme was always part of the analysis. Did the theme fit the mechanics?
In some cases it was the only fitting theme (when the author had designed his mechanics around it, like in that unpublished game where you had to build a research station on the floor of the ocean), and in others it was highly variable (every game where you distribute meeples in spaces to obtain majorities).
Some of those games we would see year after year, with slightly altered mechanisms, and refitted themes. Taj Mahal and Die Fürsten von Florenz comes to mind. (I never learned what became of that Venezia game by Wolfgang Kramer.)

It's interesting that we have the same problem in RPGs. For some people some mechanisms are a better fit for certain genres than others.

• Star Wars d6, d20, Saga, FFG (plus adaptions like FATE, Savage Worlds, Over the Edge...)
• Conan TSR (Zerfs + AD&D), d20, GURPS
• the abundance of Cthulhu games

Quote from: Old One Eye;722626Like there is some game out there called Poison D (or something like that).

You don't want to open that can of worms on this forum...

QuoteWere there a generally acknowledged categorization system for rpg mechanics, it would be significantly more handy than searching around for reviews, quick plays, or whatnot.

The problem seems to be that everyone uses a different set of metrics to gauge what interests them in RPGs (other than in board games where "auction" or "deck building" or "quiz" are easily understood and applied as the topmost qualifier of a game's nature, as soon as you look past the theme that might have been the iniatial reason to pull the box from the shop shelf).

Categorizition along the lines of GNS, Threefold, or Laws doesn't help me a bit.

If I were to play Sorcerer it would be a 100% trad urban sandbox because I would simply ignore Kickers and Flags and the notion of putting the characters, nah, the players in tight moral dilemmas.
I prefer the basic rules mechanism to WoD, Witchcraft Unisystem, or Dresden FATE.

And I heard of AD&D games from my store's customers that were played 100% in what we diagnose today as Storygame mode, long before the Forge was born.

I'd rather hunt down decent reviews in plain English, detailing the mechanisms and settings and problems found, and try to read between the lines if that game could still be drifted to my needs.
Also, abstract categorization can't include that je ne sais quoi of either setting specifics or graphic presentation that made me buy and try games despite rules elements I abhor on an abstract level.

Quote from: Old One Eye;722626Yes, certainly there is no utility to splitting the rpg-equivalent hairs between speed metal and thrash.

But I do think there would be use in broad categorizations catching on.  Heavy metal is a useful musical categorization that everyone generally agrees what it means and is distinct from gospel even if the edges are fuzzy.  I usually like heavy metal, so if a band is categorized as such I may give them a shot.  I usually do not like gospel, so I know not to dither any time on a gospel group.

Like there is some game out there called Poison D (or something like that).  I like pirates.  I have no idea if I would like the game's mechanics.  Were there a generally acknowledged categorization system for rpg mechanics, it would be significantly more handy than searching around for reviews, quick plays, or whatnot.

Agree that can be handy, but as a proud metalhead myself, i found this approach seriously limited my taste and exposure to good music. For a few years these categorizations became part of a self policing effort in my group (and one we imposed on ourselves individually as well). Thankfully i had a guitar teacher who found bridges into other genres for me, and that opened my experience up quite a bit. Now I will listen to all kinds of music and i prefer it that way. My feeling with RPGs, is I don't like feeling limited in the way my musical taste was limited. So it is much better in my opinion to take each game on individually than to say "it's gospel so I wont give it a shot". At the same time, i seriously hate jazz, and no amount of open-minded listening is going to change that, so I find there are some styles of game that just don't appeal to my taste when I do try them or play them. So just like i dont want to have my gaming limited by these categories, i also dont want to feel like i have to force myself to like something because it belongs to a category that is seen as intellectual, artsy or more authentic.

Quote from: robiswrong;722624The funny thing about that is I kinda get what he's saying, especially if you look at it from a 80s/90s railroad perspective.

No, I'm not defending Ron, hear me out.

If you've played in nothing but games like that, the idea of your character actually having an agenda of their own, or of any kind of proactivity on the part of the player, is utterly counterintuitive.  Years, and in some cases *decades* of being led around by the nose through a maze of invisible walls teaches you that that's how you play.

Yeah, I agree, I said this on the ENW thread that Mistwell linked to in the OP, trying to rally supporters from here to fight pemerton over there - I hadn't been on ENW in months until then.

If it wasn't for people talking *about* the Forge I would have no idea that it existed. I still have no idea what they were suppose to have 'accomplished'.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;722648Categorizition along the lines of GNS, Threefold, or Laws doesn't help me a bit.

If I were to play Sorcerer it would be a 100% trad urban sandbox because I would simply ignore Kickers and Flags and the notion of putting the characters, nah, the players in tight moral dilemmas.
I prefer the basic rules mechanism to WoD, Witchcraft Unisystem, or Dresden FATE.

And I heard of AD&D games from my store's customers that were played 100% in what we diagnose today as Storygame mode, long before the Forge was born.

I'd rather hunt down decent reviews in plain English, detailing the mechanisms and settings and problems found

It's perfectly possible to have jargon, and yet also give details. I can write a review of a heavy metal band - and use those two words to give it a broad category, but then go on to give more details.

Sometimes, though, you want a shorthand to communicate something quickly.

Just look at what you yourself wrote.  You referred to "trad" , "sandbox" , and "storygame" - which are bits of jargon that help communicate a general idea more quickly. Each of those are only fuzzily defined at best - and even just among the posters on this forum you'll find disagreement over whether some game is or isn't trad. However, they still have their uses.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;722648If I were to play Sorcerer it would be a 100% trad urban sandbox because I would simply ignore Kickers and Flags and the notion of putting the characters, nah, the players in tight moral dilemmas.

So you're saying that if you change the rules of a game then it's a different game that can do different things, suiting different interests? Sounds like a pretty basic observation to me -- I don't see how it supports or contradicts anything. Would someone actually argue otherwise?