Forgites are pleased that D&D is now a wholly Gamist game. They feel it proves their theory that coherent games (focused on one of the GNS elements) are better than incoherent games that try to mix types. They also feel it proves what the elitists among them have said all along - that the mouth-breathing masses care only for gamist fun, and aren't sophisticated enough to enjoy simulation or narrativism.

Nothing pleases me more than watching people distill the opinions of dozens of individuals into a single mentality.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThis is just like back in what, 2003? When Riddle of Steel came out and the Forge went through contortions of logic that would impress a Chinese acrobat to show that it was a narrativist game instead of a fantasy heartbreaker. It too was a highly tactical game that they loved.

Wait...ready?

4e is a Narrativist game.

Odds?

Quote from: EngineNothing pleases me more than watching people distill the opinions of dozens of individuals into a single mentality.

The irony in that is...well...ironic...

And no, OHT, not in the Allanis sense...

Quote from: JDCorleyIt's here that's the intellectual ghetto of hate, not there.

The rest of your post was spot on but this above? Pure horseshit.

Story-Games is even more of a ghetto than TheRPGSite could ever dream to be. And they hate things too over there. They just hate different things and hate them differently.

So fuck you too.

Quote from: HaffrungForgites are pleased that D&D is now a wholly Gamist game. They feel it proves their theory that coherent games (focused on one of the GNS elements) are better than incoherent games that try to mix types. They also feel it proves what the elitists among them have said all along - that the mouth-breathing masses care only for gamist fun, and aren't sophisticated enough to enjoy simulation or narrativism.

It's actually ok in forgie land to love gamism. The dog is supposedly simulation-ism, which is (as defined on their terms) the crux of Settembrini's spaceship argument. If the spaceship exists, it needs to be defined in game terms. Else--> it doesn't exist. "You can't just have a spaceship as a plot element."

But if you go back to GDS, which is actually functional and descriptive, all forgie games are actually simulationist constructions, because they are all specifically designed as story simulators without any real story. (like Prime Time Adventures is basically a TV show simulator, not a story creator). They assign all the elements of a story, protagonists, plot elements, plot points, etc.. and then they fill in the blanks, mad-libs style. Half of them are played by flowchart.

Interestingly, games like D&D (and nearly anything that is specifically played as a long term cohesive campaign with single character ownership) fit under Dramatism in GDS, because the campaign is the story, and the campaign-story is of primary importance.

Narrativism as explained and promoted by the forgies (filling in plot elements to create a preprogrammed moral statement and tackle an issue) is something that had to be invented whole cloth and specifically promoted, originally because Ron was using it to sell Sorcerer. All future forgie games that followed the template after that were promoted on the basis that they too helped sell Sorcerer.

Over time they figured this out, (Well, by their terms if 49.45% want Sim, and 49.45% want game, and .10% want narrativism, there must be a flaw in their model...) so the term "story-game" more or less is meant to be distinct from Roleplaying game entirely. Take an in-depth look at Pantheon (Robin Laws, it came out in 1999 or so, I think) or Once Upon a Time (neither of which are RPGs, and never claimed to be) and you will see that all of this was done before, by better people, in a less offensive or insulting way.

So what we have left are the resentful griefers who have for the most part given up on roleplaying games partially or entirely, but still see the community as an easy way to make a couple of bucks. Thus, stealth promotion and retarded games about Poland.

Quote from: TonyLBI suspect that a lot of the initial euphoria is a perceptual bias due to the fact that everyone is unfamiliar with the ruleset so far.  People who have a hard first session are not inclined to jump in and bash the game:  they're more inclined to think "Hrm ... I wonder if the rules are really bad, or if I'm just misreading them ... a lot easier to ask questions in a humble way than to go off the deep end and then look like an idiot later."

That sounds reasonable.  But what is bothering me is why do they suddenly give 4e a huge benefit of the doubt?  They sure as hell don't "ask questions in a humble" way with other new games.  It always seems to me that tough, straight talk is one of the hallmarks of the indie movement.

And just to be fair, because I'm not trying to attack the story-games community here, I see this same behaviour here and over at rpg.net.  It's just that it was so pronounced over at story-games, where I expect a higher level  of criticism.

I am absolutely unsuspicious about the Story-game or rather indie crowd love for 4e. I was actually expecting exactly that. I also expect that the love will fade away and in few years the situation will be the same as it was... D&D is the big and evil monster etc.

Now I understand why the love is present. The tactical element in 4e is particulary strong, although I would be sceptical about 4e being solely gamist game. If you take those terms seriously which I don't than there is still strong element of Sim, yet somewhat forgotten under the first look - wow powerz c00l!!!

I pretty liked 3e and I quite like 4e (I have some minor issues with it) but I must admit I am probably growing older or maybe I am too traditional or something, because I lack that "vibe" of joy when I open this game. Is is well exected but it lacks soul or something. Hell I felt more vibe with Star Wars Saga Edition than this.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut if you go back to GDS, which is actually functional and descriptive, all forgie games are actually simulationist constructions, because they are all specifically designed as story simulators without any real story. (like Prime Time Adventures is basically a TV show simulator, not a story creator). They assign all the elements of a story, protagonists, plot elements, plot points, etc.. and then they fill in the blanks, mad-libs style. Half of them are played by flowchart.

Interestingly, games like D&D (and nearly anything that is specifically played as a long term cohesive campaign with single character ownership) fit under Dramatism in GDS, because the campaign is the story, and the campaign-story is of primary importance.

I think you are folding, spindling, and mutilating the GDS as badly as the GNS did here.  Again, the GDS evolved out of a "world-based" vs "story-based" dichotomy that developed from discussions about Theatrix, which was considered "story-based" and thus "Dramatist".  The "Simulation" in the GDS was in the "physics engine" sense, that things that happen are internally consistent within the game setting.  Neither the GDS nor the GNS deals with the concept of genre simulation involving the metagame very well.

I think the story-gamer love for 4E can be summed up by saying that 4E is a more "coherent" (Forge sense) game than 3e or 3.5, and I think that's true.  It's also why I have little interest in it because what I am interested falls outside of the desired play style and was sacrificed in the process.

Quote from: John MorrowI think you are folding, spindling, and mutilating the GDS as badly as the GNS did here.  Again, the GDS evolved out of a "world-based" vs "story-based" dichotomy that developed from discussions about Theatrix, which was considered "story-based" and thus "Dramatist".  The "Simulation" in the GDS was in the "physics engine" sense, that things that happen are internally consistent within the game setting.  Neither the GDS nor the GNS deals with the concept of genre simulation involving the metagame very well.

Well, I have to admit, you would be the authority on that. We hashed this all out on Gaming Outpost heavily referencing your posts on Usenet in 2000 and my memory is a bit hazy.

But my independent conclusion (and I still hold to this) is that none of these guys are that invested in taking part in stories so much as they are in simulating the creation of them as independent little entities.

Quote from: walkerpSee I just don't see how it falls into their philosophy.  I mean it leans closer towards it as Stuart points out at least in terms of minimizing GM fiat (in combat mostly), but that is just one (though significant) pillar of storygamers preferences.  Since when have they been into detailed, exception-based tactical combat, for instance?  Where is the narrative manipulation that is the real calling card of storygames?  None that I can see in 4e?

The "Storygames" moniker comes out of "Narrativism".
In their opinion, D&D is "supposed" to be "Gamist".
So now that Mearls has made 4e "Gamist", they're all heaping it with praise because its ideologically correct.
It doesn't mean any of them have any intention of actually buying or playing it for any meaningful period of time, its just that now D&D is SMALL enough to fit their definitions, and they're pleased about that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut my independent conclusion (and I still hold to this) is that none of these guys are that invested in taking part in stories so much as they are in simulating the creation of them as independent little entities.

Agreed.  I think a telling point was in a discussion about play perspective on RPGnet where I suggested that most movie makers focus on hiding the artifice of movie making as much as possible from audiences so that they can watch and respond to the movie as if they were watching something real when some of the story-game types said that they love thinking about the artifice specifically, how the special effects were done, the movie was edited, and so on.  So while I think the traditional railroading GM might be a frustrated novelist, many story-game people are frustrated directors, actors, and producers, thus we get things like PTA.

Quote from: MelanWell, it's not like TheRPGSite's usual suspects have much love for Story Games or the whole indie RPG scene either...

On topic, I also noted that indie fans like, or at least have some grudging respect towards 4e. I partially ascribe this to the image that 4e is a less "incoherent" system by Forge terms, which is seen a plus; it gives lip service to some indie concepts, which is another plus; and it shoot D&Disms in the back of the head, which is seen as a MAJOR plus. Let's face it, 4e is a "progressive" game in that it gingerly slaughters "sacred cows"; that's worthy of some indie rep.

Not surprisingly, the reaction is a lot less positive among people who liked D&D for being D&D, but I guess people here already noticed this.

Yes, its notable how Mearls & Co. have created a game that is loved by the ENEMIES of D&D, and fits exactly into the definition of what people who hated D&D and never played it said it should be like. Of course, it won't actually mean they'll now play D&D. They wanted D&D to be like that because they wanted to see it go down.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "Storygames" moniker comes out of "Narrativism".
In their opinion, D&D is "supposed" to be "Gamist".
So now that Mearls has made 4e "Gamist", they're all heaping it with praise because its ideologically correct.
It doesn't mean any of them have any intention of actually buying or playing it for any meaningful period of time, its just that now D&D is SMALL enough to fit their definitions, and they're pleased about that.

RPGPundit

Here, I think you are mistaken. They say gamist when they are trying to be nice. Gamism was out in 1999-2002 or so, but eventually made a comeback as an acceptable thing.

The real verboten style is simulationism, variously regarded as sociopathy or dysfunction by definition.  (This statement even predates Brain Damage). The idea that D&D falls under simulationism was based somehow on the idea that you bought gear with gold and managed physical details that didn't directly effect the game parameters. See also: Settembrini's spaceship argument.