Quote from: soviet;812033Well,no, it's more the opposite. It's saying that hammers and screwdrivers are useful for different things, therefore have both of them in your toolbox rather than carrying round a less effective multitool.

Really? Within the same game?

Isn't the so-called "story game" approach to have one game that is all about hammers and then a completely separate game that is all about screwdrivers?

They're not technically "in the same toolbox" because they are separate games.

If so, then it's still exactly what Justin is talking about.

Quote from: Enlightened;812034Really? Within the same game?

Isn't the so-called "story game" approach to have one game that is all about hammers and then a completely separate game that is all about screwdrivers?

They're not technically "in the same toolbox" because they are separate games.

If so, then it's still exactly what Justin is talking about.

Actually, yes, you're right, I missed the 'at a time' bit.

I think of it more in terms of ice cream flavours, or movie genres.

Sometimes mixing different things can work out well. Neapolitan ice cream, Evil Dead II's combination of horror and comedy, etc. But for the most part, focusing more clearly on one thing allows you to enjoy that one thing more. You don't throw in a few crisps, some salad, a burger, and some chocolate into your favourite soup. A film that goes from horror to comedy to arthouse philosophising to political allegory to dance number is probably not going to be a great movie. A bit of focus is a good thing.

Quote from: soviet;812036I think of it more in terms of ice cream flavours, or movie genres.

Sometimes mixing different things can work out well. Neapolitan ice cream, Evil Dead II's combination of horror and comedy, etc. But for the most part, focusing more clearly on one thing allows you to enjoy that one thing more. You don't throw in a few crisps, some salad, a burger, and some chocolate into your favourite soup. A film that goes from horror to comedy to arthouse philosophising to political allegory to dance number is probably not going to be a great movie. A bit of focus is a good thing.

Unfortunately, when the focus is a playstyle, rather than a genre, which is what Edwards was advocating, then it basically eliminates whatever percentage of the roleplaying populace as a customer base who don't like the particular playstyle being enforced. And, judging by the lack of success of "comprehensive" games in comparison to the games Edwards and Co deem unfocused, this was probably not the best idea.

Quote from: TristramEvans;812037Unfortunately, when the focus is a playstyle, rather than a genre, which is what Edwards was advocating, then it basically eliminates whatever percentage of the roleplaying populace as a customer base who don't like the particular playstyle being enforced. And, judging by the lack of success of "comprehensive" games in comparison to the games Edwards and Co deem unfocused, this was probably not the best idea.

Sure, a more focused game has a lower potential audience than a less focused one. I agree with that. I think it's no coincidence that so many self-published games go down this kind of route - if your goal is to realise your personal vision of a game rather than to keep a publishing business going, you can afford to take risks and narrow things down.

The majority of RPGs that are presented as story games come across as what would be adventures or campaign supplements in a traditional RPG. Once you are done exploring the subjedt matter of the game you are done with the game. Coupled with the fact you have to interested in the specifics in the first place means that story games will never be more than a specialized interest in the the larger hobby.

Traditional RPGS have a more versitle approach capable of depicting and handling a wide variety of circumstances. In fact this is inherent to any game about players interacting with a setting as their characters where thier actions are adjudicated by a human referee. The only to limit this potential is to "brain damage" the game into something with more limited potential.

Quote from: TristramEvans;812037Unfortunately, when the focus is a playstyle, rather than a genre, which is what Edwards was advocating, then it basically eliminates whatever percentage of the roleplaying populace as a customer base who don't like the particular playstyle being enforced.

That's a feature, not a bug, though. Those people should be finding a game that suits them better, rather than forcing themselves into a game they don't really like (Which would result in everybody having a worse time).

QuoteAnd, judging by the lack of success of "comprehensive" games in comparison to the games Edwards and Co deem unfocused, this was probably not the best idea.

Individual focused games are never going to top the charts themselves, and that's fine; again, feature, not bug. They're not designed for mass appeal at an individual game level.

Quote from: Ladybird;812044That's a feature, not a bug, though. Those people should be finding a game that suits them better, rather than forcing themselves into a game they don't really like (Which would result in everybody having a worse time).Individual focused games are never going to top the charts themselves, and that's fine; again, feature, not bug. They're not designed for mass appeal at an individual game level.

1) if Edwards had described these things in terms of "feature not a bug" rather than "games not designed this way inflict brain damage" I don't think he would still be held up a decade later as the poster child for "Pretentious Arse de Jeur" of the online rpg world"

2) I think its quite clear that the Forge intended this to be the standard for rpgs, so they were indeed intended for mass appeal.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;811950Yup. They started with "system matters", meaning that mechanics have an impact on how the game is played (which is pretty obviously true), and then concluded that the system should therefore only do one thing.

Which is like realizing that hammers, screwdrivers, and cement mixers are all useful for different things and concluding that, therefore, your toolbox should only ever have one tool in it at a time.

It's so far past right than it's not even wrong any more.

So it doesn't have as much to do with a unified mechanic as it much as a game specifically about one thing? Sounds like these guys could just use Parcheesi and ascribe different elements to the pieces each time they play. Like one game they're cavemen searching for berries, the next sailors trying to navigate the Bering Strait.

Seriously, wtf...

I think honestly that some of the premises of "forge theory" isn't wrong, its that they took the wrong lessons from it.

Like "System Matters". Well, yeah, it does. The way the system plays will influence the game. I mean, that is part of the reason we've all got house rules for our home games right? To make the game run more how we intend. That is why some of us like D&D, some of us like Runequest, etc.

But then they somehow got into their heads that "System Matters" means that all games should be laser focused. And that just... doesn't make any sense at all. Its such a weird jump in logic.

Now, there can be a place for laser focused games (I still think the Leverage RPG creates some of the best heist games), BUT for the most part, an "unfocused" game house ruled to match the table will be able to get to the table more.

Sometimes I like waffles for lunch. or dinner. Sometimes I like them with syrup, or just butter, or maybe chickens and gravy.

The Forge stuff sounds like people going "NO! BREAKFAST ONLY, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED! You are being traumatized by trying to shoe-horn a breakfast item into dinner!"

But yeah, what the fine Emperor of These United States said.

Quote from: Will;812062Sometimes I like waffles for lunch. or dinner. Sometimes I like them with syrup, or just butter, or maybe chickens and gravy.

The Forge stuff sounds like people going "NO! BREAKFAST ONLY, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED! You are being traumatized by trying to shoe-horn a breakfast item into dinner!"

But yeah, what the fine Emperor of These United States said.

Breakfast foods are the "incoherent games" of the food world. its good for every meal.

So would Forge gamers say HERO and GURPS and BRP are crap?

Quote from: soviet;812033Well,no, it's more the opposite. It's saying that hammers and screwdrivers are useful for different things, therefore have both of them in your toolbox rather than carrying round a less effective multitool.

The multi-tool came around because people were doing many different things at roughly the same time and didn't want to take a toolbox with them, so they put the most common tools that work for the most common tools into a smaller package. I have a multi-tool and I use it for 99% of tool related functions. In addition to my multi-tool, I can add some specialized tools that do some other functions common for me to cover without needing to bring the entire toolbox every time I might need to work on something.

A game like DnD is a toolbox with a few extra specialized tools added as individuals see fit (houserules). Many playstyles are covered in the core with add-ons (supplements) over the course of the game's life cycle.

The problem with super focused theme games is that the idea that the game must support anything the players want to do in the game without the need for houserules, so they exclude a lot of things that "don't fit  the game theme" which is great if everyone wants to do that exact thing at the time. It also means that they build a toolbox of games for different tastes, but everyone has to play with screwdrivers at the same time or hammers at the same time, but you can't have one person playing with a screwdriver and the other with a hammer at the same time.

I think we have gotten lost in the analogy.