Quote from: Black Vulmea;728237It never crossed my mind that such a campaign would require some sort of special rules to play.

Likewise.

However there I believe if Town Creation is to be incorporated into the campaign then you will need to add something. But my view this is no different than adopting Battlesystem if your AD&D 1st campaign is going to have a lot of mass combat.

Ars Magica didn't have specific game mechanics for setting up the troupe (the players and their stable of characters). But they wrote a lot about the subject in their core rulebook because the designers considered it an important feature of a typical Ars Magica campaign.

Quote from: estar;728233Of course it will play differently. My point that whatever situation that the players is facing as a Dog in the Vineyard character can be setup in Boot Hill. And despite the difference in mechanics, if in both games the players make the same choices and the referee rules with the same consequences then there will be NO difference in the ensuing stories about what happened.

What the story looks like when written down afterwards is irrelevant. The point of an RPG is the play experience itself. The play experience under D&D or Boot Hill will be very different from the play experience under Sorcerer or Dogs.  

Quote from: estar;728233Moral dilemmas are Moral dilemmas regardless of the mechanics to use to handle them.

But the point is how they are handled. How they are handled is the whole point of play, the nature of the dilemma itself is just the setup.

Quote from: estar;728233The mechanics are the medium in which the player can play an individual character in an imagined situation. Just like I can read the bible on a scroll, a bound book, a e-ink tablet, my computer screen or other technologies capable of displaying the printed word.

The bible is the bible regardless of where it words appear. People may prefer a scroll, a bound book, or a e-ink tablet to read the Bible. But it doesn't change the fact that it is the Bible that being read.

But that's because the content is exactly the same. The point of different rule sets is that they drive the content in different ways and thus create different experiences. The rules are a part of the content.

Honestly I think a large part of the divide between people who value GNS and people who don't is the value you put on rules. I think the rules are very important.  

Quote from: estar;728233Dogs in Vineyards depicts a certain situation. Boot Hill can be used to depict the same exact situation. Both can result in the same sequence of events occurring ending in the "same" story. But the medium that the two games are played out on is different. One person will prefer Dogs, another Boot Hill.

I agree with that, I'm not saying one is better, I'm saying they are not interchangeable.  

Quote from: estar;728233Dogs in Vineyard rulebook only focus on that particular situation which happens to take place in the American west. While Boot Hill is designed to run the entire western genre. Once my interest fades in what Dogs describes the book is of not further use to me as well as its supplements. While with Boot Hill I can pick some other aspect of the Old West and focus on that without too much work.

But it doesn't support other genres, does it? You can't use Boot Hill to play science fiction or superhero games. It doesn't even offer very much support for the characters jumping on a ship and sailing to the Antarctic. Or (I presume) giving up any idea of shooting people for money or justice and peacefully running a farm instead. Which is fine, because why would you play Boot Hill if you didn't want to play a western?

Well, why would you want to play Dogs in the Vineyard if you didn't want to play characters faced with difficult moral dilemmas?

Quote from: soviet;728251The point of different rule sets is that they drive the content in different ways and thus create different experiences. The rules are a part of the content.

Honestly I think a large part of the divide between people who value GNS and people who don't is the value you put on rules. I think the rules are very important.

I wanted to repeat this because I think it directly addresses the points made by Black Vulmea and Estar (post 496) and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.

Quote from: soviet;728254I wanted to repeat this because I think it directly addresses the points made by Black Vulmea and Estar (post 496) and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.

I think you will find people who dislike GNS who still value rules (I know I care about rules and mechanics). But the point of disagreement is on whether rules should be focused on a single agenda of play as defined in GNS.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728241I think with D&D people could sit here and debate all day long what the core, essential features of the game are. But I think most people would agree there is a blend involving things like exploration, getting stuff, inhabiting a setting, growing in power, being challenged, playing a character, development of different campaign elements, social interaction, etc. And how all these things get condensed into groups of "agendas" would vary from one person to the next. If I reduce it to being all about "step-up on up" or something, I feel like I would lose a lot of all the other things that make me happy about playing D&D.

But I don't think the agendas are as reductionist as portrayed. For example I would say that all editions of D&D are primarily gamist with a strong supporting  pillar of simulationism (arguably 2e was the other way round). But the gamism of AD&D 1e is all about player skill, exploration, puzzle solving, caution, thinking outside the box and outwitting the GM. The gamism of WotC editions has an element of that but particularly with 4th edition it is much more strongly on rules play - character builds, group tactics, precise movement, rationing and combining mechanically defined powers, gambling on dice odds, etc. So while AD&D 1e and D&D 4e are both primarily gamist games, the play experiences are very different.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728255I think you will find people who dislike GNS who still value rules (I know I care about rules and mechanics). But the point of disagreement is on whether rules should be focused on a single agenda of play as defined in GNS.

Brendan which games do you play out of interest?

Quote from: estar;728246Perhaps I haven't played your game so I can't weigh on the consequences of the mechanics you use to resolve actions. But I do know Fate. Out of the box its mechanics are very simple to handle a wide variety of actions. But the consequence is the lack of detail and having to fit Overcome, Creating an Advantage, Attack and Defend onto the action that being resolved.

GURPS in contrast opts for detailed subsystems layered in some instances on top of a general purpose framework. In general the GURPS authors opt for a one to one correspondence with what they are describing. Definitely not the approach that Fate takes.

And the mechanics of neither game is to everybody tastes.

However what Fate and GURPS do share in common that they are both focused on the player playing a character with the ability to attempt anything that character can do. Both offer support for multiple situations the same as your game, Other Worlds does. So it isn't too much work to use the core rulebook to run fantasy then switch to a western and then to a golden age sci-fic campaign then finally running a transhuman sci-fi campaign.

My game is a lot closer to Fate than to GURPS. I would agree with your characterisation of the two approaches and the advantages/disadvantages of each. But what I'm saying is, my game is a storygame, and it's written with some ideas from GNS in mind, but it's just as flexible as GURPS if not more so (again, accepting that the GURPS approach has other advantages). So therefore contrary to what you seemed to be suggesting, games inspired by GNS do not necessarily pigeonhole people or characters in any way (I accept some do, just like some non-GNS games do. But it's not inherent to the concept).

I personally dont put a lot of value on rules, except insofar as they interfere with the game. For me, the point of role-playing is playing a character in a shared imaginative space, with rules there just so you dont have to deal with situations like "The arrow hits you in the chest" "Nuh uh, I was hiding behind the pillar!"

Quote from: soviet;728259Brendan which games do you play out of interest?

I play D&D (2E, 3E and 1E; OSR games like Arrows of Indra), Savage Worlds, and Network System (as the main go-to games people are willing to run and play in my groups). I try to run Network the most, because I want to make sure I am improving the system. Sometimes we will also play GURPS, Call of Cthulu (though it has been a while since I had a proper session of this), Colonial Gothic, Doctor Who, and Shadows of Esteren. Probably forgetting something.

Quote from: soviet;728258But I don't think the agendas are as reductionist as portrayed. For example I would say that all editions of D&D are primarily gamist with a strong supporting  pillar of simulationism (arguably 2e was the other way round). But the gamism of AD&D 1e is all about player skill, exploration, puzzle solving, caution, thinking outside the box and outwitting the GM. The gamism of WotC editions has an element of that but particularly with 4th edition it is much more strongly on rules play - character builds, group tactics, precise movement, rationing and combining mechanically defined powers, gambling on dice odds, etc. So while AD&D 1e and D&D 4e are both primarily gamist games, the play experiences are very different.

I guess we disagree. I see that as quite reductionist. And I think it would be a mistake to look at D&D, believe you see a trend of gamism dominating 1E, then make an edition that serves gamist ends.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728266I guess we disagree. I see that as quite reductionist. And I think it would be a mistake to look at D&D, believe you see a trend of gamism dominating 1E, then make an edition that serves gamist ends.

I see what you did there.

Quote from: soviet;728251But that's because the content is exactly the same. The point of different rule sets is that they drive the content in different ways and thus create different experiences. The rules are a part of the content.

I excised this rest because I believe this is the heart of our disagreement. It my opinion and experience that in RPGs the rules are subordinate to the content.

That the content i.e. the roleplaying of an individual character is what defines the experience of a tabletop roleplaying campaign. The game i.e. the mechanics are not critical to that experience.

I have never seen bad roleplaying fixed by rules. I have seen bad rules fixed by good roleplaying.

Where mechanics are important that the actions in a tabletop campaign are resolved by using a game. So helps the roleplaying everybody understands and likes the game being using to resolve their action.

My view of the #1 problem in the industry in the past decade is persistent attempts to try to fix tabletop roleplaying by "better" mechanics. Forge, 4e, etc are all focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.

What we need is better roleplaying, by the referee, by the players.

Quote from: estar;728269I excised this rest because I believe this is the heart of our disagreement. It my opinion and experience that in RPGs the rules are subordinate to the content.

That the content i.e. the roleplaying of an individual character is what defines the experience of a tabletop roleplaying campaign. The game i.e. the mechanics are not critical to that experience.

I have never seen bad roleplaying fixed by rules. I have seen bad rules fixed by good roleplaying.

Where mechanics are important that the actions in a tabletop campaign are resolved by using a game. So helps the roleplaying everybody understands and likes the game being using to resolve their action.

My view of the #1 problem in the industry in the past decade is persistent attempts to try to fix tabletop roleplaying by "better" mechanics. Forge, 4e, etc are all focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.

What we need is better roleplaying, by the referee, by the players.

This, precisely.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728265I play D&D (2E, 3E and 1E; OSR games like Arrows of Indra), Savage Worlds, and Network System (as the main go-to games people are willing to run and play in my groups). I try to run Network the most, because I want to make sure I am improving the system. Sometimes we will also play GURPS, Call of Cthulu (though it has been a while since I had a proper session of this), Colonial Gothic, Doctor Who, and Shadows of Esteren. Probably forgetting something.

OK, so what support do your games of D&D, GURPS, and Call of Cthulhu give to narrativism? By which I mean: What freedom do players have to add their own content to the game world or negotiate the potential stakes of their own actions? How much authority does the GM have? Does the GM have the authority to fudge dice rolls in secret? How important are the characters' goals, relationships, and personalities to what happens in play? How important are the players' decisions as to where the game goes next?

Quote from: estar;728269I excised this rest because I believe this is the heart of our disagreement. It my opinion and experience that in RPGs the rules are subordinate to the content.

That the content i.e. the roleplaying of an individual character is what defines the experience of a tabletop roleplaying campaign. The game i.e. the mechanics are not critical to that experience.

I have never seen bad roleplaying fixed by rules. I have seen bad rules fixed by good roleplaying.

Where mechanics are important that the actions in a tabletop campaign are resolved by using a game. So helps the roleplaying everybody understands and likes the game being using to resolve their action.

My view of the #1 problem in the industry in the past decade is persistent attempts to try to fix tabletop roleplaying by "better" mechanics. Forge, 4e, etc are all focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.

What we need is better roleplaying, by the referee, by the players.

I see rules as a positive tool that can create or strongly reinforce a particular mood or type of play. It's not about fixing bad roleplaying, it's about making good roleplaying even better.  The rules by which you determine the content of the game cannot help but influence the nature of that content.