TheRPGSite

I'm suspicious of a lot of the love for it, here and on other forums as well, but the Story-Games enthusiasm is so effusive, almost desperate sounding, that I am finding it hard to believe.  I mean suddenly because the tactical combat is much tighter and all the character classes get more opportunities to participate, it's the game they've all really been waiting for?

I don't know if its disingenuous enthusiasm or not but I've noticed that Story-Games has lately been even more susceptible to flavor of the month games as rpg.net.  Before 4e a great many threads there were about either Red Box Hack or In a Wicked Age.

Well, it is what it is, a super focused game. That's the real issues I think many of them have been wanting--a game that focuses VERY tightly to a very specific goal. (In this case a cooperative dungeoncrawl mini's game )

yeah, that's what they've been saying, but it sounds like an after-the-fact analysis to me.  I mean how super-focused is 4e?  Super-focused would be a board game.  What is the design goal?  As far as I can tell, it seems much more to have been fix the problems in 3.x and expand the demographic.

I don't think it's particularly suspicious that a forum that went collectively gaga over Memoir '44 when it was released, and then went gaga over the mere potential of BattleLore, well before release date, would find a lot to love in 4e.

Like this kind of talk, from Paul Czege, creator of My Life with Master:

QuoteComplexity that doesn't add more fun to a game than it kills is the fecund kudzu of game design. It's like it comes from nowhere as you're working on a game. You identify a problem, and fix it with a rule. Lather, rinse, repeat, and pretty soon you've got live kudzu and dead fun.

It seems to me the success of 4e depends on the answer to three questions:

1. Are people going to want to play it
2. Are people going to want to run it
3. Are people going to want to design for it

We played some of Keep on the Shadowfell yesterday. If the full game plays like Shadowfell, no doubt in my mind the answer to all three questions is yes. The great challenge of designing a face-to-face RPG is designing the social landscape. It's clear from just three combat encounters that Shadowfell nails it. Does the Dragonborn Paladin do her roar (or whatever the hell it is) if a wounded comrade will be caught in the effect? Do I use a Healing Surge now, or power through and hope my next attack takes the opponent down? The social concern of personally demonstrating effectiveness, playing for the good of the team, winning, losing, aiding each other, all collide and clash to produce meaningful personal and social rewards and consequences for fun gameplay. Shadowfell felt like a "just the good parts" version of my heaviest D&D phase (basically, when I was in high school). And there was no kudzu. Just fun. No small achievement.

Paul

This is in one of the more critical threads (which are starting to pop up there finally) on 4e, which had some very real, detailed and specific complaints as opposed to the vague, cheering analysis quoted above.

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6719&page=1#Item_0

More detailed rules and less GM fiat?

It's mainly due to small-mindedness on their part.  Anything that didn't fit into their philosophy (basically the majority of games on the market) was ill-conceived.  

They're pleased because d20 4e now falls into their philosophy.  That tabletop gaming is lesser for it is their blind spot.

See 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?

Quote from: walkerpSince when have they been into detailed, exception-based tactical combat, for instance?

They're into exceptionally focused games, regardless of the focus.

Quote from: walkerpWhere is the narrative manipulation that is the real calling card of storygames?

That's the calling card of a "narrative" focused game, not necessarily a focused game.  D&D 4e is focused on "gamism," and is fairly explicitly a "gamist" game.  They're hyped up because D&D is basically the "G" in GNS.  Now, if a game came out that made the "S," they'd be all over it, to some extent (although I think GURPS has that down cold).

Personally, I'm a little miffed that the "theory" crowd won D&D.

Quote from: walkerpSince 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?

Like ... omyGOD! ... they're, like, totally saying that one kind of thing is fun, but then they turn around and say that something totally different can be great fun too!  What hypocrites!

:rolleyes:

Quote from: walkerpI'm suspicious of a lot of the love for it, here and on other forums as well, but the Story-Games enthusiasm is so effusive, almost desperate sounding, that I am finding it hard to believe.  I mean suddenly because the tactical combat is much tighter and all the character classes get more opportunities to participate, it's the game they've all really been waiting for?

"Suspicious"? :rolleyes:

Sounds like you don't know the place very well, or it's just you being flabbergasted yet again by the possibility someone might actually appreciate D&D.

Suspicious kind of implies to me that there is something going down behind the curtain. Some agenda or something. I'm a lot more suspicious of anything you have to say about d20 or D&D, since you've made it no secret that you take personal offense at the game and consider it a "fucking virus".

There's nothing going on, man. 4e is predictably the kind of game that would at least interest the guys over at Story-Games due to its focused nature. As Tony said: it's kind of weird that you would think people can only be interested in one single kind of game.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Story-Games community, except when people like Ralph Mazza take cowardly, pathetic shots at TheRPGsite and there's almost a silent approval by the rest of their members. Aside from that, I think they're a cool bunch and they're just intrigued by D&D 4 at this point. Here's a less glowing thread on 4e over there, with interesting comments from a 4e playtester (post #8):

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6719&page=1

Quote from: Consonant DudeI don't think there's anything wrong with the Story-Games community, except when people like Ralph Mazza take cowardly, pathetic shots at TheRPGsite and there's almost a silent approval by the rest of their members.

Well, 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.

Dweebs like D&D! News at 11!

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

It would be hard not to notice some animosity directed at Story-Games or story games on TheRPGSite. That is true. But you'll also notice that there's a lot of divergence of opinions on this. Plus, anyone is free to register here.

I like Andy's style as far as moderation is concerned and I like the particular interests that drive the Story-Games community. However, when that insular nature (tight registration process, close community) is used to piss on me, I really feel like shoving my foot up someone's ass.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI don't think there's anything wrong with the Story-Games community, except when people like Ralph Mazza take cowardly, pathetic shots at TheRPGsite and there's almost a silent approval by the rest of their members. (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6719&page=1)

How many of us are members on both boards?  I am.  I must have missed this.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstHow many of us are members on both boards?  I am.  I must have missed this.

There are probably a few members of both, like Tony, you and I.

Most of them probably post mainly in one and lurk at the other, though. I know I do.

I appreciate that there are a lot of members of the story-games community who play or played 3.x and are looking for a new version of D&D.  I also recognize that there are a lot of them who respect the design.  It's the people who are saying that suddenly they can play D&D again like it's a big revelation.  It just seems odd.  I mean suddenly people who like to play desperate children on the streets of Krakow are all about building the optimal rogue?  How many other story-games have any tactical elements at all and now 4e a game which is almost entirely tactical is hailed as this great new game that has brought fun back to the D&D franchise?

I actually have this question for almost everybody.  4e looks kind of neat, but if it truly represents the vast majority of gamers' preferences, I am in the wrong hobby.  I would have expected more of a measured response from the story-gamers crowd at least.

Quote from: walkerpI mean suddenly people who like to play desperate children on the streets of Krakow are all about building the optimal rogue?  How many other story-games have any tactical elements at all and now 4e a game which is almost entirely tactical is hailed as this great new game that has brought fun back to the D&D franchise?

Okay, two things.  

First, a statement:  YES, people who enjoy playing desperate children on the streets of Krakow can also enjoy building the optimal rogue.

Second, a question:  What is it that you're suspecting, with all this suspicion?  Do you think that people's enjoyment isn't genuine?

I think it's hilarious.

Part of it might be real.

Part of it is some of them want to take credit for it. Which is funny.

Part of it is-- you have to remember the forgies are intensely conformist at the heart. So if one guy likes something, and that guy has enough influence, they all have to pretend to like it.

Part of it is they are pretending to like it because they thinks it pisses you guys off, because many of you jackasses adopted a "hat of 4e" stance early.
But they probably looked at it like once.

Part of it is guys on the outside of the inner circle are confused about why they are supposed to like it and feel they are out of sync. Their conformity meters are malfunctioning!

Part of it actually is flavor of the week-ism with these guys.

Part of it is many (perhaps most) of these jackasses missed out entirely on 3E, yet spent the last decade "addressing D&D through design" without actually having ever played the current version of it or having any real knowledge of it-- Burning Wheel for example was designed and held up as a competitor to D&D3, despite the fact that Luke never played D&D3 or read it even once. So they would talk about "d20" while they actually were thinking about AD&D2e. So perhaps a few of them are either determined not to do that again, or they are just now finding out D&D has had this stuff in it for years now.

None of it matters, ultimately.

Quote from: walkerpI actually have this question for almost everybody.  4e looks kind of neat, but if it truly represents the vast majority of gamers' preferences, I am in the wrong hobby.  I would have expected more of a measured response from the story-gamers crowd at least.

You are indeed in the wrong hobby. Remember how you couldn't get a group during the last decade? Get ready for that again!

Quote from: TonyLBFirst, a statement:  YES, people who enjoy playing desperate children on the streets of Krakow can also enjoy building the optimal rogue.

Absolutely.  You, for example, have shown yourself to be just such a gamer.  All this time.  However, there are a lot of people in the story-games community who have been violently anti-trad design and specifically anti-D&D.  They make up a significant enough voice in the story-games community that it is reading to me very much like a sudden about face.

Quote from: TonyLBSecond, a question:  What is it that you're suspecting, with all this suspicion?  Do you think that people's enjoyment isn't genuine?

I think AM actually answered this question better than I can.  While I don't agree with all his assertions and I am not opposed to Story-games on philosophical grounds, a lot of what he says rings very true to me.

I'm sure people have enjoyed the game when they played it.  But they are sounding ecstatic.  Suddenly, all the objectivity and distance that promotes good analysis that is supposed to be the hallmark of story-game designers is thrown out the window?  I'm sure the game is fun, if you like tactical miniatures combat.  So now story-gamers are all about tactical miniatures combat?

Quote from: walkerpHow many other story-games have any tactical elements at all and now 4e a game which is almost entirely tactical is hailed as this great new game that has brought fun back to the D&D franchise?

Quite a few Forge-influenced games are quite tactical. They're just tactical in a different way. I don't say "story-games" because I think of these (not the site, but the games labeled as story-games) as all about the N part of GNS. D&D is all about the G. There is no S. It was put there for balance.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou are indeed in the wrong hobby. Remember how you couldn't get a group during the last decade? Get ready for that again!

Well I've got a group(s) now, unfortunately time and space are the new problems. Quite annoying.  I'm not so worried though.  I think the bloom will come off the rose with 4e a lot faster than it did with 3rd.  WotC is just going to shove to much splat down people's throats and the game will be even less approachable than 3.x was for newbies and people whose main gaming goal isn't tactical miniatures.  I think after the first wave of excitement breaks, things will settle down a lot and you'll see a lot of groups moving away from 4e, either back to whatever they were doing before or on to new stuff (with 4e still being a part of their gaming repertoire).

4e just doesn't seem generalized enough to maintain such a massive hold over a hobby as diverse as ours.

Quote from: walkerpWell I've got a group(s) now, unfortunately time and space are the new problems. Quite annoying.  I'm not so worried though.  I think the bloom will come off the rose with 4e a lot faster than it did with 3rd.  WotC is just going to shove to much splat down people's throats and the game will be even less approachable than 3.x was for newbies and people whose main gaming goal isn't tactical miniatures.  I think after the first wave of excitement breaks, things will settle down a lot and you'll see a lot of groups moving away from 4e, either back to whatever they were doing before or on to new stuff (with 4e still being a part of their gaming repertoire).

4e just doesn't seem generalized enough to maintain such a massive hold over a hobby as diverse as ours.

Time will tell. I mean, really. We clash a lot, but time will tell, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Settembrini thinks I am wrong as well!

Quote from: Abyssal MawI think it's hilarious.

Part of it might be real.

Part of it is some of them want to take credit for it. Which is funny.

Part of it is-- you have to remember the forgies are intensely conformist at the heart. So if one guy likes something, and that guy has enough influence, they all have to pretend to like it.

rest of the post

Abyssal's on a roll here and is IMO quite correct.

Some of 4E plays directly to Forge Theory enough for them to embrace it for all the reasons he lists. All in all, I'd call 4E more of a victory for them than I would for the Pundit side of things. So it shouldn't be a surpise to see them praise it more.

Quote from: walkerpSuddenly, all the objectivity and distance that promotes good analysis that is supposed to be the hallmark of story-game designers is thrown out the window?

Are they designing now?  Looks to me like they're sharing stories of fun that they've had.  How much "objectivity and distance" do you expect in that?

I 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."

When folks are 100% sure that they're playing the game as written, and know how and why it's not working and could never work for a particular purpose (e.g. Jane Austen RPG) then you'll probably see a more balanced assortment of posts.

Quote from: walkerpHow many other story-games have any tactical elements at all...

Capes
With Great Power <---- especially this one
The Shadow Of Yesterday
Passages
Many many many many others.

Most people who post on story-games play and like a huge variety of games. A few don't, but they're rare. I've gotten great D&D suggestions and advice there in the past, even third edition. Plenty of people like D&D there and always have. They even played 3.0/3.5 extensively. It's here that's the intellectual ghetto of hate, not there.

This 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.

Quote from: Consonant DudeMost of them probably post mainly in one and lurk at the other, though. I know I do.

You're refering to me :D

Regards,
David R

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.

Quote from: John MorrowAgreed.  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.

Very good insight.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal MawHere, 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.

They don't really give a fuck about anything that isn't Narrativism.  Do they hate Simulationism more? Yes.

But both are just essentially ways of describing games that they dislike.

They're just pissing their pants with joy that D&D is now everything they always used to slanderously claim it was. That's how low 4e has sunk.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOf 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.

And the people who are playing D&D 4e, and enjoying it?

Quote from: TonyLBAnd the people who are playing D&D 4e, and enjoying it?

Well, thats one of life's fun little ironies.

I do think there's a bit of "lets take credit for 4e", but if they actually had any influence at all, then independent roleplaying as a movement becomes unnecessary by definition. Expect to see those sentiments walked backards in the next week or so if they haven't started already.


UPDATE: They've started already.

Quote from: walkerpThat 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.

Really, I don't think that the RPG community as a whole is all that critical or analytical about the games they like or don't like.  People have their likes and dislikes, but they tend not to dissect them.  Actually, this is true for people in general, but there are more established fields such as books where there are limited communities of people who make more of an effort at critical thinking.  

The Story Games community has a strong tactical focus.  A lot of the people are old-school gamers who became tired of certain trends in RPG design and rebelled against it.  At Go Play NorthWest the weekend before last, there was a Warhammer 40K game as well as Tunnels & Trolls as well as two slots of D&D4.  However, that subset tends to like their tactics more "pure".  

Quote from: John MorrowAgreed.  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.

Feh.  Calling people a "frustrated X" when they resemble "X" is a cheap rhetorical tactic.  I'd classify it on the same level as saying people are "afraid of X" when they just don't like something.  (i.e. They're "afraid" of breaking their immersion or "afraid" of having unbalanced characters.)  

Yes, the "Story Games" label explicitly refers to more deliberate, out-of-character construction of story than most traditional RPGs -- which makes Story Gamers closer in mindset to a film director.  By parallel, some people use miniatures and battle maps in their RPGs, which makes their play closer to miniature wargames -- but I wouldn't call them "frustrated wargamers".  It's just their preference of how they like their play.

There's also the other thing, which is that 2+ years ago the creative story games well went dry. Since then it's just been a matter of dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s, working one's way down the genre list ("Shock, the first scifi story game," cetera cetera). This particular paradigm is exhausted, so any diversion is welcome.

Quote from: jhkimYes, the "Story Games" label explicitly refers to more deliberate, out-of-character construction of story than most traditional RPGs -- which makes Story Gamers closer in mindset to a film director.  By parallel, some people use miniatures and battle maps in their RPGs, which makes their play closer to miniature wargames -- but I wouldn't call them "frustrated wargamers".  It's just their preference of how they like their play.

And how one person prefers to play can influence the quality of a game for another person with the same or different preferences.  And considering the criticism stated bluntly rather than dispassionately can help one understand not only why styles of play differ but how they can grate on each other.  For example, I learned a great deal considering why immersive play is frequently called "selfish" and "disruptive" and there is certainly some merit to those complaints.

Quote from: jhkimYes, the "Story Games" label explicitly refers to more deliberate, out-of-character construction of story than most traditional RPGs -- which makes Story Gamers closer in mindset to a film director.  By parallel, some people use miniatures and battle maps in their RPGs, which makes their play closer to miniature wargames -- but I wouldn't call them "frustrated wargamers".  It's just their preference of how they like their play.

"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Meanwhile the "Frustrated Director" generally can't Direct. And the "Frustrated Writer" can't write. If they could, I would then agree that the adjective "Frustrated" wouldn't apply to them. They'd also be quite the exception, and might be worth talking with to determine why they felt the need to play rpgs. I think the answer might be telling as it's likely to involve escaping the limits of being a writer or director- not to embrace them.

In that line of thought, I'm a wargamer who happens to mix in some role-playing to escape the limits of a pure wargame format. The label is complete and accurate.

Quote from: gleichman"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Meanwhile the "Frustrated Director" generally can't Direct. And the "Frustrated Writer" can't write. If they could, I would then agree that the adjective "Frustrated" wouldn't apply to them. They'd also be quite the exception, and might be worth talking with to determine why they felt the need to play rpgs. I think the answer might be telling as it's likely to involve escaping the limits of being a writer or director- not to embrace them.

In that line of thought, I'm a wargamer who happens to mix in some role-playing to escape the limits of a pure wargame format. The label is complete and accurate.

...And if you can just wargame.. you aren't (by definition) frustrated.

That makes perfect sense to me. Some people get down to that last sentence you wrote and they can't figure it out. "Well, if you like tactical games, why not just play a wargame?!!!" It's all or nothing.

They don't get the idea that mixing the two elements (tactical gaming and roleplaying/plot type stuff)  is something that is special and neat all by itself.

Quote from: gleichman"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Meanwhile the "Frustrated Director" generally can't Direct. And the "Frustrated Writer" can't write.

I'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

Quote from: EngineI'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

I'm presuming that they mean the writer is "frustrated" because he is not successful in getting his work published by a reputable publisher -- which would be the equivalent of a wargamer being frustrated because he can't successfully compete with other wargamers in tournaments.  

Quote from: Abyssal MawThey don't get the idea that mixing the two elements (tactical gaming and roleplaying/plot type stuff)  is something that is special and neat all by itself.

Right, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.  Mixing into storytelling elements, or improv acting elements, or wargame elements -- can all be fine things, and shouldn't be viewed as any lesser.

Quote from: EngineI'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

The key point of the frustrated Director/Writer is they seek (at least emotionally) to be professionals and they can be judged professionally (and found lacking in the case of the 'Frustrated' version). Thus to Direct, or to 'successfully' Write- they have to have a degree of professional acceptance. Difficult to get.

The wargame by contrast is just a hobby.

The one difference puts the two in different catagories. It's much easier for the wargamer to game than it is for Director to successfully direct.

Quote from: gleichmanThe key point of the frustrated Director/Writer is they seek (at least emotionally) to be professionals and they can be judged professionally (and found lacking in the case of the 'Frustrated' version).

Sound like douchebags. Art is its own reward.

Quote from: gleichmanThe one difference puts the two in different catagories. It's much easier for the wargamer to game than it is for Director to successfully direct.

That makes sense, then: if the wargamer requires no one but an opponent, and the writer or director require recognition from the industry as a whole, that is, indeed, a radical difference. [Still sound like douchebags to me.]

Quote from: gleichman"Frustrated wargamers" doesnt' work as well as "Frustrated Director" because those wargamers can just wargame.

Not necessarily.  Role-playing and wargaming are social activities and I can imagine a person who would rather be wargaming who is stuck role-playing being a "frustrated wargamer", and have played with people something like that -- people who would prefer not the be role-playing but who goes along with it because that's what everyone else wants to do.

Quote from: jhkimRight, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.  Mixing into storytelling elements, or improv acting elements, or wargame elements -- can all be fine things, and shouldn't be viewed as any lesser.

Which I agree with, but when we are talking about "coherent" (Forge sense) games, the system designers generally throw the concerns of other styles of play under the bus to maximize the one style that they want and people tend to take a negative view of other styles of play when they step all over the style of play that they prefer.

Quote from: EngineI'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

I say this with no malice whatsoever: lack of talent.

Quote from: EngineI'm not clear: why can't the frustrated director direct, or the frustrated writer write, if the frustrated wargamer can wargame?

Actually these days with self publishing and digital tech they can - write or direct*. I don't really subscribe to the idea that railroaders are frustrated writers or directors or whatever. Most times these folks are playing with the wrong group.

*Being recognized is another thing entirely.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RActually these days with self publishing and digital tech they can - write or direct*. I don't really subscribe to the idea that railroaders are frustrated writers or directors or whatever. Most times these folks are playing with the wrong group.

*Being recognized is another thing entirely.

Regards,
David R

This to me is the put-up-or-shut-up danger of trying to make gaming into a performance art rather than an entertaining activity. You can suck at it. You think your'e a master thespian? Film it. Record it.  Put it on Youtube. Put it up for download so we can all act as an audience armed with salmonella-tomatoes and bouquets of sweet, sweet roses. Let the people judge. There's nothing to fear here but your own mediocrity, so all of the improv advocates need to start putting their shit up so we can see it.  

 The media has been democratized.

Or...

You know, we could all just go back to gaming for fun.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis to me is the put-up-or-shut-up danger of trying to make gaming into a performance art rather than an entertaining activity. You can suck at it. You think your'e a master thespian? Film it. Record it.  Put it on Youtube. Put it up for download so we can all act as an audience armed with salmonella-tomatoes and bouquets of sweet, sweet roses. Let the people judge. There's nothing to fear here but your own mediocrity, so all of the improv advocates need to start putting their shit up so we can see it.  

 The media has been democratized.

Or...

You know, we could all just go back to gaming for fun.

What the hell are you going on about ? What does my answer to Engine's question have to do with your obsession of people who think their games are art ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat the hell are you going on about ? What does my answer to Engine's question have to do with your obsession of people who think their games are art ?

Regards,
David R

Your answer was this:

"Actually these days with self publishing and digital tech they can - write or direct*. ...

*Being recognized is another thing entirely."

I just cut out the part where you gave them a break.

The issues are completely related. writing/directing/the bizarro hard-on they have for improv. the accusation that a person is a frustrated whatever if they want to do whatever. You don't see it?

if gaming is about playing rather than a performance art, you can NEVER have the "frustrated writer" accusation. It simply doesn't apply. You might as well say "frustrated window washer."

Quote from: Abyssal MawYour answer was this:

"Actually these days with self publishing and digital tech they can - write or direct*. ...

*Being recognized is another thing entirely."

I just cut out the part where you gave them a break.

The issues are completely related. writing/directing/the bizarro hard-on they have for improv. the accusation that a person is a frustrated whatever if they want to do whatever. You don't see it?

No I don't.

I already stated that I don't subscribe to the idea of frustrated writers/directors in gaming. Engine asked why can't writers or directors write or direct ? I said they can. The recognition part is about ego. Some people are not content just producing their work. They want to be recognised for it.

You think improv is a sign of being a frustrated writer or director ?

Quoteif gaming is about playing rather than a performance art, you can NEVER have the "frustrated writer" accusation. It simply doesn't apply. You might as well say "frustrated window washer."

Playing also includes roleplaying and world creation and all that other stuff, that's why I think there's this accusation of frustrated writer/director.


Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RNo I don't.

I already stated that I don't subscribe to the idea of frustrated writers/directors in gaming. Engine asked why can't writers or directors write or direct ? I said they can. The recognition part is about ego. Some people are not content just producing their work. They want to be recognised for it.

You think improv is a sign of being a frustrated writer or director ?

Regards,
David R

I think it's a sign of being a frustrated and perhaps even cowardly wannabe performer of some type, and they choose a format where they can talk it up with very little risk of being actually judged by any audience. Like, Michael Scott from the Office, (also a fan of Improv) they fancy themselves as performers, they use verbs like "rock out" (as if they have ever "rocked out"), and ape the qualities of a talented person, but in such a way that they never have to prove it.

But you know the thing is, none of that shit is necessary if gaming is just gaming. You don't have to "rock out" to game. You can't/don't "rock out" to Poker or Mah Jong or even Pictionary, and those games all require a certain amount of talent.

So why don't the frustrated writers and directors actually write and direct? I mean, Youtube is right there. Almost every digital camera has a video mode. Gimp is free. Music software is everywhere. They talk about writing and directing stories as discreet entities constantly. They can be writing and directing at any point and yet they choose not to.

Why? Thats my question

I'm going to go "rock out" to D&D campaign design* for a while I guess.







* Egad, I just had to laugh even posting that!

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo why don't the frustrated writers and directors actually write and direct? I mean, Youtube is right there. Almost every digital camera has a video mode. Gimp is free. Music software is everywhere.  

I know, this is what I said. There's no reason why writers/directors should not be able to do what they want to do. Which was my reply to Engine.

As for the rest your post, welll it's the usual rant against against a specific group of gamers. Nothing new here.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI know, this is what I said. There's no reason why writers/directors should not be able to do what they want to do. Which was my reply to Engine.

As for the rest your post, welll it's the usual rant against against a specific group of gamers. Nothing new here.

Regards,
David R

The reason you are fun, David, is you have the hilarious desire to jump in defend people who you aren't even sure who they are from me saying things you aren't sure you even understand. But you know you have to get involved, and for that, I award you the fist of excellence.

(http://www.karate1.com/graphics/fist.gif)

Quote from: John MorrowNot necessarily.  Role-playing and wargaming are social activities and I can imagine a person who would rather be wargaming who is stuck role-playing being a "frustrated wargamer", and have played with people something like that -- people who would prefer not the be role-playing but who goes along with it because that's what everyone else wants to do.

I considered that when I made my post, and I'm certain it exists somewhere.

My point isn't so much that they don't exist, it's that the professional nature of Director/Writer produces an completely different class of 'frustrated' than a poor bastard who can't find anyone to play a wargame with. It's also that they are much rarer.

As to other types of people who play rpgs when they'd rather not... start a list. It may be another interesting topic.

Quote from: David RI already stated that I don't subscribe to the idea of frustrated writers/directors in gaming. Engine asked why can't writers or directors write or direct ? I said they can. The recognition part is about ego. Some people are not content just producing their work. They want to be recognised for it.

Thus rpgs.

It's very easy to be recognised for one's rpg in one's own group. And generally easier to get rpg gamers to sit still for it than it is to get people to read bad writing or watch a crappy youtube production.

The reason is simple- people don't have a lot of choice when it comes to GMs. They have the whole world when they are looking for books or movies.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe reason you are fun, David, is you have the hilarious desire to jump in defend people who you aren't even sure who they are from me saying things you aren't sure you even understand. But you know you have to get involved, and for that, I award you the fist of excellence.

(http://www.karate1.com/graphics/fist.gif)

                               VILLAINY


Unlike some you not really hard to understand. Oh, you try to be. I suppose you're one of those guys who has invested a lot in being misunderstood. But at least you posts about the games you run, which makes you bearable.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanThus rpgs.

It's very easy to be recognised for one's rpg in one's own group. And generally easier to get rpg gamers to sit still for it than it is to get people to read bad writing or watch a crappy youtube production.

The reason is simple- people don't have a lot of choice when it comes to GMs. They have the whole world when they are looking for books or movies.

Yeah, but this does not mean they are frustrated writers or directors, merely that they are attention whores.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RVILLAINY


Unlike some you not really hard to understand. Oh, you try to be. I suppose you're one of those guys who has invested a lot in being misunderstood. But at least you posts about the games you run, which makes you bearable.

Regards,
David R

Ouch! Words hurt, mister!



* possibly true!

Quote from: David RYeah, but this does not mean they are frustrated writers or directors, merely that they are attention whores.

Attention whores simply demand attention, and do whatever they can to get it. They exist in all hobbies and all professions.

The frustrated writer or director on the other hand is something special (hence why they have the name they do). They are specifically attempting to change the rpg to become more like their desired profession. As they can't succeed in real life, they instead attempt to find success in the game by redefining that game.

Quote from: gleichmanThe frustrated writer or director on the other hand is something special (hence why they have the name they do). They are specifically attempting to change the rpg to become more like their desired profession. As they can't succeed in real life, they instead attempt to find success in the game by redefining that game.

I'm sure some designers (gamers) try to emulate other forms of media. But I don't think the only reason they do this, is because they have failed in their desired profession. Perhaps for some failure in real life is a reason, for others it may be because they don't think rpgs are defined in stone and redifining rpgs can produce interesting products.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'm sure some designers (gamers) try to emulate other forms of media. But I don't think the only reason they do this, is because they have failed in their desired profession. Perhaps for some failure in real life is a reason, for others it may be because they don't think rpgs are defined in stone and redifining rpgs can produce interesting products.

I think they should make new types of games and call them what they are myself. Just as interesting and much more honest.

In the meantime I'll call them what they are, for it defines exactly what they do.

I'm stealing that Fist of Excellence for my own future use on other sites.  That was awesome.

Quote from: gleichmanI think they should make new types of games and call them what they are myself. Just as interesting and much more honest.

I agree...a little. The problem here is that these so-called new games play exactly like traditional games, even though some of their designers make these big proclaimations that they don't.

QuoteIn the meantime I'll call them what they are, for it defines exactly what they do.

Call them whatever you want, man. I just don't think it's a good general term to describe the diverse reasons these guys create the games they do.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI agree...a little. The problem here is that these so-called new games play exactly like traditional games, even though some of their designers make these big proclaimations that they don't.

If they had a different label, then they would be revealed even more easily as the failures they are.

Quote from: David RCall them whatever you want, man. I just don't think it's a good general term to describe the diverse reasons these guys create the games they do.

You find a successful Director or Writer who also does game design and send them to talk me. I have questions for them.

The other nitwits who are just attempting to mimic Director/Writer concepts in rpgs, you can keep for yourself.

Quote from: gleichmanIf they had a different label, then they would be revealed even more easily as the failures they are.

Well these games are not popular with most gamers and I'm sure their designers know this. They appeal to certain gamers who like only these types of games or gamers with diverse taste. Both groups combined don't make a significant number of gamers. I wouldn't call them failures, esp if it's done part time or out of passion for the hobby or more importantly there is no financial loss on the part of the designer. I'm sure , these guys don't mind making a few extra bucks.

QuoteYou find a successful Director or Writer who also does game design and send them to talk me. I have questions for them.

The other nitwits who are just attempting to mimic Director/Writer concepts in rpgs, you can keep for yourself.

And this would be relevent for those failed writers/directors who design games, but I don't think they are the only kind.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanYou find a successful Director or Writer who also does game design and send them to talk me. I have questions for them.

That would be Walter Jon Williams, who is a very successful writer who also designed Privateers and Gentlemen under the name Jon Williams. That's the only one I can think of. There are game designers who write game fiction, and some of them sell a lot of copies of their novels, but they are Game Designers who write, not Writers who have designed games.

Can't think of any directors who design games.

There's also the Artesia guy.

-clash

Well Joss Whedon is also pretty successful by any measure i can think of, and has at least dabbled in game design, amongst other things. But I better be careful, Gleichman is liable to call me a name!

Luckily he has the world all figured out, so the rest of us can rest on our laurels.

Quote from: David RI wouldn't call them failures,

You're the one who was saying that they fail to be significantly different from tradition design, to those was my comment directed.

Quote from: David RAnd this would be relevent for those failed writers/directors who design games, but I don't think they are the only kind.

I don't think anyone claimed that they were. Only that they exist and deserve the label.

Quote from: flyingmiceThat would be Walter Jon Williams, who is a very successful writer who also designed Privateers and Gentlemen under the name Jon Williams.

True, and as such fits the concept I already presented- successful Writer who went to rpgs not to redesign them as something to highlight writing, but as a rpg. P&G is quite traditional.

Quote from: Serious PaulLuckily he has the world all figured out, so the rest of us can rest on our laurels.

Now if only you had Laurels...

I didn't know that about Walter Jon Williams.  That's pretty cool.  How is Privateers & Gentlemen?

Quote from: walkerpI didn't know that about Walter Jon Williams.  That's pretty cool.  How is Privateers & Gentlemen?

It's an excellent game of the older type. Very solid percentile system, with a strong bent toward realism. I like it a lot.

-clash

Quote from: gleichmanYou're the one who was saying that they fail to be significantly different from tradition design, to those was my comment directed.

Fair enough.

QuoteI don't think anyone claimed that they were. Only that they exist and deserve the label.

Eh, I didn't see anyone mention any other kinds. Designer of certain games = failed, frustrated writer/director, was the theme.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmiceThat would be Walter Jon Williams, who is a very successful writer who also designed Privateers and Gentlemen under the name Jon Williams. That's the only one I can think of. There are game designers who write game fiction, and some of them sell a lot of copies of their novels, but they are Game Designers who write, not Writers who have designed games.

Can't think of any directors who design games.

There's also the Artesia guy.

WJW also worked on several Cyberpunk supplements (some of his own novels)
George R.R. Martin (or John J. Miller?) (at least Wildcards)
David Weber (Imperial Starfire etc.)

Aaron Alston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Allston) has done pretty well for himself.

Careful all this logic might mean people have to change their opinions!

Quote from: Serious PaulCareful all this logic might mean people have to change their opinions!

Please. Logic has never been your strong suit and appealing to it now only proves it.

Go back and look at my first post on this subject. So far all the names mentioned match my original statement exactly. They all did traditional game design, and weren't interested in making games more like 'writing'.

Some (like Weber) started with game design and then moved on.

No one has mention a writer or director attempting to make a game into writing or directing. Although Weber almost attempts to make his writing more like a game ;)

At this point, even if one did- it would almost be the exception that proved the rule.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis to me is the put-up-or-shut-up danger of trying to make gaming into a performance art rather than an entertaining activity. You can suck at it. You think your'e a master thespian? Film it. Record it.  Put it on Youtube. Put it up for download so we can all act as an audience armed with salmonella-tomatoes and bouquets of sweet, sweet roses. Let the people judge. There's nothing to fear here but your own mediocrity, so all of the improv advocates need to start putting their shit up so we can see it.

My squat and ugly friend, having done a fair bit of acting, and having a wife who won awards for her short films, I can say without fear that I at least could put something out there that wouldn't suck. If I could be arsed.

Because what you're either missing or ignoring is that roleplaying is a thing for your group. Audience and performers are the same. I can only say that my eyes tend to glaze over at actual play writeups (when they're not mine, of course) whatever their type of game, but that's because I wasn't there.



[Personally, I've never done improv. That's some kind of acting for people who aren't actors, right?]

Quote from: gleichmanNo one has mention a writer or director attempting to make a game into writing or directing.

I didn't even know this was the goal. I'm not even sure anymore what you're trying to prove; I remember long ago there was a tortured metaphor about frustrated writers and directors, and frustrated wargamers, but I can't even remember what that was supposed to prove, and now people are arguing the content of the metaphor without reference to the thing the metaphor represents.

So could you do me a favor and restate your thesis?

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis to me is the put-up-or-shut-up danger of trying to make gaming into a performance art rather than an entertaining activity. You can suck at it. You think your'e a master thespian? Film it. Record it.  Put it on Youtube. Put it up for download so we can all act as an audience armed with salmonella-tomatoes and bouquets of sweet, sweet roses. Let the people judge. There's nothing to fear here but your own mediocrity, so all of the improv advocates need to start putting their shit up so we can see it.  

Would taking a picture of the award I won for drama while working with the Pacific Conservatory for the Performing Arts suffice? I admit, it was back in High School and thus 21 years ago, but I joined the theater group so that I could do more Role-Playing (which, just happens to be one of the major enjoyments I get out of RPGs).

Quote from: droog[Personally, I've never done improv. That's some kind of acting for people who aren't actors, right?]

It's either acting for people who also want to be writers, or for actors who want to be funny actors, or for actors who want to be better actors [particularly on stage]. It can be a phenomenal tool; it can also be a terrible, terrible waste of time. Like roleplaying - which is just improv with a complicated board game added on, if you think of it - it can be exceptional or pedestrian or mind-rippingly bad: these three are distributed in a bell curve, like so many other things.

Quote from: EngineLike roleplaying - which is just improv with a complicated board game added on, if you think of it -

I'm not so sure roleplaying is necessarily connected with improv acting. I mean, sure people slip into funny voices, but that happens even when you talk about movies.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's very easy to be recognised for one's rpg in one's own group. And generally easier to get rpg gamers to sit still for it than it is to get people to read bad writing or watch a crappy youtube production.

Oh, not at all, provided you include the caveat you included for roleplaying: "in one's own group." People will put up with a lot for their friends, or even just people they know. I've sat through many hours of piss-poor live performances because some girl I was dating was playing bass. I've watched more hours of bad film than I can count because someone I knew made it. [And those people have had to sit through many hours of my compositions; no idea if they were bad or not, but I'll tell you my fan base is almost entirely people I know personally.]

If you were to roleplay in public, and draw a crowd, well that would really be something, wouldn't it? Improv which draws an audience is exceptional improv. Game reports or transcripts or [heavens forfend] recordings which got an audience would need to be really quite good to get a viewership, absolutely.

But we can't be drawing lines around with all these metaphors and not recognizing their differences.

Quote from: droogI'm not so sure roleplaying is necessarily connected with improv acting. I mean, sure people slip into funny voices, but that happens even when you talk about movies.

It's going to depend strongly on your group how much it's like improv, but ultimately, you're playing a role, even if you never speak in-character, and that's improv-ish, yeah? And if you're not playing a role, you're literally not roleplaying, you're wargaming, which is also fun and there's nothing wrong with it.

Quote from: Enginebut ultimately, you're playing a role, even if you never speak in-character, and that's improv-ish, yeah?

Is it? If no acting is involved?

Quote from: droogIs it? If no acting is involved?

I'd call it arguable? I do think it'd be pretty lame improv if you were just being yourself and saying, "Yeah, then I cry." ;) So good point. That's the "-ish" in my "improv-ish."

I also think roleplaying with no acting is pretty lame, but that's my personal opinion. What good is it to take a role if all you do is describe it? But everyone has differing notions of fun.

Quote from: EngineI didn't even know this was the goal. I'm not even sure anymore what you're trying to prove; I remember long ago there was a tortured metaphor about frustrated writers and directors, and frustrated wargamers, but I can't even remember what that was supposed to prove, and now people are arguing the content of the metaphor without reference to the thing the metaphor represents.

So could you do me a favor and restate your thesis?

It's wandered a bit...

My first point was that labels for Frustrated Director and Frustrated Writer are far more meaningful and common than the made up label of Frustrated Wargamer. They come with more baggage and the expectation of professional success/failure that doesn't exist with wargaming. Thus Frustrated Wargamer is an inappropriate label- one should instead use the already existing power gamer, munchkin, etc if you need to



The second point isn't really connected to the first, but developed out of it.

A successful Director or Writer will not enter the rpg hobby in order to make rpgs more like movies or books. Rather they will enter the hobby to escape the limits of movies and books. So for the most part, they won't be attempting to make rpgs more like books/movies- they'll be playing traditional rpgs.

A Frustrated Director/Writer on the other hand will be looking for the success that failed him in real life within the RPG. Thus he will attempt to make the RPG more like a movie or book.


The wargamer on the other hand is unlikely to move an rpg towards a wargame in any event. He'll just play a wargame, or he'll play an rpg to escape the limits of a wargame. Traditional designs will suit him just fine.

Quote from: gleichmanMy first point was that labels for Frustrated Director and Frustrated Writer are far more meaningful and common than the made up label of Frustrated Wargamer. They come with more baggage and the expectation of professional success/failure that doesn't exist with wargaming.

I'm with you.

Quote from: gleichmanThus Frustrated Wargamer is an inappropriate label- one should instead use the already existing power gamer, munchkin, etc if you need to

If Frustrated Wargamer is intended to be analogous to "power gamer," for instance, then the term Frustrated Wargamer does, indeed, sound to me like bullshit. And unnecessary, given, as you say, there's already words for it.

Does anyone think "Frustrated Wargamer" is intended to mean something beyond "power gamer" or "munchkin?"

Quote from: gleichmanA successful Director or Writer will not enter the rpg hobby in order to make rpgs more like movies or books. Rather they will enter the hobby to escape the limits of movies and books.

In my experience, writers - I don't know any directors who've given a go at game design - get into the roleplaying hobby long before they were professional writers, and then get asked to work on development due to their reputation as writers. I don't know a single one who's ever thought, "I wish to transcend the limits of writing, therefore I will design a roleplaying game!" So while I agree they don't do it to make roleplaying more like movies or books, I am not convinced they do it to escape the limitations of those things, particularly since their role in RPG development is restricted to writing and playtesting, and not to core development itself.

This is all apocryphal, of course: I can only speak for those writers I know or know of who have done development work for RPGs. None of them have ever spoken about this particular issue, and I suspect most of them got into it because they dig roleplaying.

Quote from: gleichmanA Frustrated Director/Writer on the other hand will be looking for the success that failed him in real life within the RPG. Thus he will attempt to make the RPG more like a movie or book.

I don't know any frustrated writers who have been able to do anything like professional RPG development, so I can't speak to this. The only people I know who come close - amateur writers, for instance - develop more-or-less traditional games, because they don't really even think of roleplaying and writing as being analogous at all: they just develop games the way the games they like have been developed, is all.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstAaron Alston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Allston) has done pretty well for himself.

Quote from: gleichmanNo one has mention a writer or director attempting to make a game into writing or directing. Although Weber almost attempts to make his writing more like a game ;)

Aaron Allston continued to do game design (Champions 5th) after starting to write novels, and he introduced "blue-booking" as a technique in Strike Force in 1988.  Blue-booking is writing out independent, non-combat stuff in a continuing record (originally the staple-bound "blue books" used for college exams) passed back and forth with the GM.  That is quite blatantly making the gaming more into writing.  

However, it seems to me that this is an empty rhetorical argument.  You don't actually respect the opinion of successful novelists with regard to game design, nor should you -- any more than someone should turn to Stephen King for movie directing advice.  If a successful novelist like Margaret Weis were to move back into more hands-on RPG design, it would prove nothing whether her design was more mainstream or more story-game in style.  If she were to make a story-game-style design, then she'd be judged a dabbler who doesn't really know about games - like Storm Constantine.  

Similarly, the argument that these indie RPGs would be more palatable under a different label seem like empty words.  I have seen no sign of any greater acceptance of games that don't use the label "RPG" such as Ben Lehman's Polaris.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich I agree with, but when we are talking about "coherent" (Forge sense) games, the system designers generally throw the concerns of other styles of play under the bus to maximize the one style that they want and people tend to take a negative view of other styles of play when they step all over the style of play that they prefer.

As for taking a negative view of others styles -- yeah, that sucks -- and that's why I complain about it.  Some people do it for Story Games, some people do it for larps, some people do it for adventure games, etc.  

As for throwing concerns for other styles under the bus...  There is plenty of room for narrow, specific-style games like Paranoia or Toon or My Life With Master as well as more generalized games like GURPS or Spirit of the Century.  It seems to me like an overly dramatic concern that someone is "throwing your concerns under the bus" if they're writing something for people who aren't you.

Quote from: jhkimSimilarly, the argument that these indie RPGs would be more palatable under a different label seem like empty words.  I have seen no sign of any greater acceptance of games that don't use the label "RPG" such as Ben Lehman's Polaris.

I don't think the point would be that they would have greater acceptance (for they are a very narrow niche product no matter the labeling). It's that they wouldn't draw fire from the traditional rpg crowd any more than Poker would.

Quote from: jhkimAs for throwing concerns for other styles under the bus...  There is plenty of room for narrow, specific-style games like Paranoia or Toon or My Life With Master as well as more generalized games like GURPS or Spirit of the Century.  It seems to me like an overly dramatic concern that someone is "throwing your concerns under the bus" if they're writing something for people who aren't you.

I don't think anyone is approaching it from that PoV John. If they had simply published their games (as Toon did), no one would have cared and they may even have reached a bit of a following (again, like Toon).

Instead people are reacting to their assertion that such specific and narrow game design is the only proper game design. That poisoned the entire well for them.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't think anyone is approaching it from that PoV John. If they had simply published their games (as Toon did), no one would have cared and they may even have reached a bit of a following (again, like Toon).

Instead people are reacting to their assertion that such specific and narrow game design is the only proper game design. That poisoned the entire well for them.

The only type of people you hate are intolerant ones, eh?  :rolleyes:

I think it far more likely that Toon didn't upset people because it didn't actually generate a following of other games that imitated it.  If it did -- like, say, Vampire: The Masquerade did -- then there would have been more of a backlash.  

Frankly, every well is poisoned, because any game with significant following has had its share of intolerant fans who insist that their way of playing is best.  Their rhetoric may vary, but it amounts to the same message.  In case you forgot, diceless role-playing had its share of rapid proponents in the nineties - like Berkman.  Yet ten years later here on theRPGsite we've got hoary Amber fans raving about the intolerant new story gamers.  

There are D&D fans who insist that its popularity is a mark of superior quality than the fringe.  There are Harn fans who bitch about D&D.  Heck, I'm sure there are still GURPS fans that bitch about Hero and vice-versa.

Quote from: jhkimThe only type of people you hate are intolerant ones, eh?  :rolleyes:

I think it far more likely that Toon didn't upset people because it didn't actually generate a following of other games that imitated it.  If it did -- like, say, Vampire: The Masquerade did -- then there would have been more of a backlash.  

I seriously doubt that. VtM got into trouble not because it was popular, but because it kept claiming to redefine the rpg (as the diceless games did before it).

Beyond that there would of course be the war of details (3d6 vs. d20, roll-over, roll-under, die pools vs. linear, etc), but those are simple nitpicks compared to the holy wars that "we're redefining the hobby" types inspire.

Quote from: gleichmanI seriously doubt that. VtM got into trouble not because it was popular, but because it kept claiming to redefine the rpg (as the diceless games did before it).

Interesting. The only trouble I ever saw Vampire get into boiled down to, "90 percent of the people who play this game are douchebags." And that wasn't even true: the actual figure was closer to 98 percent.

Quote from: EngineInteresting. The only trouble I ever saw Vampire get into boiled down to, "90 percent of the people who play this game are douchebags." And that wasn't even true: the actual figure was closer to 98 percent.

:)

Quote from: gleichmanThe wargamer on the other hand is unlikely to move an rpg towards a wargame in any event. He'll just play a wargame, or he'll play an rpg to escape the limits of a wargame.

Exactly so.

That's why it's bullshit when people cite D&D's origins as proof that it has always been a tactical wargame with miniatures. Sure, that was the genesis of the game. But the thing that made D&D cool was that it was an alternative to a wargame. Because back in the 70s, hex and counter wargames were still very popular, and anyone who wanted to play an honest to goodness wargame could do so easily. People got into D&D for a different experience from a conventional wargame.

Today, traditional wargames have become so marginalized that they simply aren't on the radar for the current generation of young gamers. That's why they turn to D&D for their tactical, number-crunching fun. If historical wargames were still prominent in the gaming scene, a lot of 3/4E tactical gamers would be playing those instead.

John, your argument is weak.

Theatrix & Berkman got into trouble because he was a co-creator (IIRC) and was shilling his game by putting down other playstyles.

Ditto Vampire.

Ditto Edwards and his pals.

Only other example off the top of my head I can think of is from some claims by Malcolm Sheppard that Ryan Dancey or WotC deliberately encouraged D&D fans to put down WoD as unmanly or something like that.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's why it's bullshit when people cite D&D's origins as proof that it has always been a tactical wargame with miniatures. Sure, that was the genesis of the game. But the thing that made D&D cool was that it was an alternative to a wargame. Because back in the 70s, hex and counter wargames were still very popular, and anyone who wanted to play an honest to goodness wargame could do so easily. People got into D&D for a different experience from a conventional wargame.

Agreed completely.  The whole logic is messed up.  i.e. "This RPG is sort of like X, so it must be a failed effort at X or a poor substitute for X"

And yet you see people continue to compound that logic.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOnly other example off the top of my head I can think of is from some claims by Malcolm Sheppard that Ryan Dancey or WotC deliberately encouraged D&D fans to put down WoD as unmanly or something like that.

Um? :what:

 

Let me get this straight -- you claim no one who likes D&D puts down WoD games or indie RPGs?  Say, like, calling them "failed writers" or claim that they game to inflate their egos instead of to have fun?

Quote from: jhkimAgreed completely.  The whole logic is messed up.  i.e. "This RPG is sort of like X, so it must be a failed effort at X or a poor substitute for X"

When it comes from the very mouths of the designers of the games, one tends to take them at their word.

But if you wish to call them liars John, feel free. Go tell Edwards that he's not attempting Nar games and see how far you get before you're banned from the site.

Quote from: jhkimUm? :what:

 

Let me get this straight -- you claim no one who likes D&D puts down WoD games or indie RPGs?  Say, like, calling them "failed writers" or claim that they game to inflate their egos instead of to have fun?

No, John.

I'm surprised you can't follow the point, but let me try again. I'm saying that, outside of Malcolm's comment about Dancey and D&D (which is probably now buried in a friends-only part of his livejournal), the only examples I can think of where RPGs were strongly marketed, virally marketed, guerilla marketed, on the basis of attacking another game or game style, putting it down, deliberately stirring up controversy, are Berkman, WoD, and the Story Now movement.

There was a substantial anti-D&D attitude to be found among RQ and GURPS fans in the 70's & 80's, but it wasn't created, led, and manipulated by the creators and publishers of those games. By contrast, in the latter three examples, the marketing modus operandi has been to attack existing games and playstyles, often with obnoxious kitchen-psychology that pathologizes fans of Brand X, and especially in the latter cases, appealing to resentment as a fuel for viral marketing.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy contrast, in the latter three examples, the marketing modus operandi has been to attack existing games and playstyles, often with obnoxious kitchen-psychology that pathologizes fans of Brand X, and especially in the latter cases, appealing to resentment as a fuel for viral marketing.

Y'know, I'm fairly sure that's not how I market.

Is this one of those "Group X does Y" arguments where the 75+% of the group that don't do Y are the exceptions that prove the rule?

Quote from: Elliot WilenBy contrast, in the latter three examples, the marketing modus operandi has been to attack existing games and playstyles, often with obnoxious kitchen-psychology that pathologizes fans of Brand X, and especially in the latter cases, appealing to resentment as a fuel for viral marketing.

You're talking about WotC again, aren't you?

Quote from: TonyLBY'know, I'm fairly sure that's not how I market.

That's true. Your personal shtick is fake-naive.

:singdance: Phony Tony, Phony Tony, Phony Tony... :singdance:

Quote from: jhkimUm? :what:

 

Let me get this straight -- you claim no one who likes D&D puts down WoD games or indie RPGs?  Say, like, calling them "failed writers" or claim that they game to inflate their egos instead of to have fun?

Oh, well, I will say I totally believe that the forgies game to inflate their egos, rather than to have fun. I consider that to be objectively true.

Quote from: droogYou're talking about WotC again, aren't you?

No; Malcolm said he thought WotC was doing that at some point which I thought was interesting.

Tony--fake naive, yup. Starting with self-identifying with the allegedly made-up group. Remember, there is no Story Now movement.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI consider that to be objectively true.

I don't know about anybody else, but I've had fun playing various Forgenik games. I've also had fun playing them with people who know nothing about the politics of the online RPG world, so could hardly be accused of playing for ego.

Now that is empirical evidence that contradicts your objective truth.

Quote from: jhkimThere are D&D fans who insist that its popularity is a mark of superior quality than the fringe..

Not popularity, community.  Also objectively true. The game with the biggest and best community wins. The same way the wiki site with the biggest and the most diverse community wins.

Quote from: droogI don't know about anybody else, but I've had fun playing various Forgenik games. I've also had fun playing them with people who know nothing about the politics of the online RPG world, so could hardly be accused of playing for ego.

Same here.

There's a thread on tBP . Both Marco & Paka make a lot of sense about the Forge, it's games and designers. Dwight is also contributing . He too makes some interesting points.

I think it would have been much more interesting if there was no "theory" as such but designers were creating these hippy games and posting about their design process on blogs or maybe forums.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot popularity, community.  Also objectively true. The game with the biggest and best community wins. The same way the wiki site with the biggest and the most diverse community wins.

What exactly do you win?  Cookies?  A merit badge?  Dubious bragging rights that your small niche is slightly less small than someone else's small niche?  :D

EDIT: Fair enough.  It is true that small-press games like Forward To Adventure!, Squirrel Attack, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. are a much smaller niche than D&D.

Quote from: jhkimWhat exactly do you win?  Cookies?  A merit badge?  Dubious bragging rights that your small niche is slightly less small than someone else's small niche?  :D

slightly?

:haw:

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot popularity, community.  Also objectively true. The game with the biggest and best community wins. The same way the wiki site with the biggest and the most diverse community wins.

So the winner is...

GaiaOnline (http://www.gaiaonline.com/)?

Vampires on Facebook (http://apps.facebook.com/vampires/)

Or is the objective truth really based on the entirely subjective definition of "best" community?

;)

Whoever wins, I better get a fucking cut since I started this thread.

Quote from: jhkimThere are D&D fans who insist that its popularity is a mark of superior quality than the fringe..

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot popularity, community.  Also objectively true.

Seriously, if you can't use the word properly, pick a different word. Saying, "objectively" doesn't grant you holy power, particularly when you're using it wrong.

That D&D has a larger community is [probably] objectively true. That this makes it "of superior quality" is not.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe game with the biggest and best community wins.

There is no victory condition for roleplaying. You're very fond of this word, "wins," but not once have I seen you use it in any way indicative of victory. Please, find a different word. "The game with the biggest community is easiest to play," or, "The game with the biggest community is likely to have the most financial success." Those are statements which can be analyzed and debated and judged on their merits. "I win because more people talk about my game," is not.

Also, "biggest" does not equal "best," so if you'd like to show how the D&D community is "best," you'll either need to qualify it ["in my opinion"] or use some other, more meaningful word.

Maw's on to something here.  He's talking about TRPGs as a business entity, and as TRPGs are just below telephones in their dependence upon network externalities and the network effect for deriving utility and relevance the size of a TRPG's network of players--what he calls "community"--does matter a great deal towards its success as a business as well as its influence in both the hobby and the business of TRPGs.

By the same argument, however, all MMORPGs are objectively better than all TRPGs, and World of Warcraft is the best damn RPG ever published because it has over 10 million people with open, active (i.e. used and playing) accounts- and unlike D&D, you can play it solo when you're either unwilling or unable to get a group going and the game is far more casual and user-friendly than any TRPG.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerMaw's on to something here.  He's talking about TRPGs as a business entity, and as TRPGs are just below telephones in their dependence upon network externalities and the network effect for deriving utility and relevance the size of a TRPG's network of players--what he calls "community"--does matter a great deal towards its success as a business as well as its influence in both the hobby and the business of TRPGs.

By the same argument, however, all MMORPGs are objectively better than all TRPGs

Well, I'll certainly agree that more players is a win for the people who are selling the game.  I mean, hell, they get more than cookies -- they get dough!! :p

But I don't see what the people who play it win, objectively speaking.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerMaw's on to something here.  He's talking about TRPGs as a business entity, and as TRPGs are just below telephones in their dependence upon network externalities and the network effect for deriving utility and relevance the size of a TRPG's network of players--what he calls "community"--does matter a great deal towards its success as a business as well as its influence in both the hobby and the business of TRPGs.

By the same argument, however, all MMORPGs are objectively better than all TRPGs, and World of Warcraft is the best damn RPG ever published because it has over 10 million people with open, active (i.e. used and playing) accounts- and unlike D&D, you can play it solo when you're either unwilling or unable to get a group going and the game is far more casual and user-friendly than any TRPG.

Bradford gets me, he is objectively true, and he wins!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote from: jhkimWell, I'll certainly agree that more players is a win for the people who are selling the game.  I mean, hell, they get more than cookies -- they get dough!! :p

But I don't see what the people who play it win, objectively speaking.

Because I can play with anyone, at any time. I can start a new campaign and have any mix I want of new and old players every time. And I never waste time promoting the game, and I *usually* never even have to spend time teaching the game. I never have to explain why it's fun to play a bunch of tedious fucking mormons or whatever. I just yell out "D&D going on here!" throw my books in the air, and by the time it lands I have six players around a table trying to figure out who's going to play the wizard.

Seriously, you don't get why this is such a massive advantage?

Quote from: jhkimBut I don't see what the people who play it win, objectively speaking.

Support. Bookshelves full of expansions and modules to buy. Online extentions, hints, and boards full of people talking about the same game. The list is nearly endless.

Contrast all the help and exchanges one can have about D20 here and elsewhere compared to say P&G. Most gamers don't like being lonely, so buying into the the big dog on the block ensures that isn't the case.


Myself, I run solo*- I gain nothing other than what I put in myself.


*Well, myself and my gaming group

Quote from: jhkimWell, I'll certainly agree that more players is a win for the people who are selling the game.  I mean, hell, they get more than cookies -- they get dough!! :p

But I don't see what the people who play it win, objectively speaking.

They win weekly (or even more frequent) gaming for life without having to stress!

You guys all objectively know this of course, and some of you are even hilarious enough to resent it.

"oh no, he's one of those guys who only plays D&D..WHY?"

And the reason that nobody ever believes (because it is apparently too fucking obvious) is because the guy doesn't get into all the esoteric crap about which rule is more realistic or who is dysfunctional or why fantasy is childish or whatever. He just wants to play. He doesn't want to LEARN a game system or EXAMINE a game system or DEMO a game system or OBSESS about whatever new way there is to roll dice. He isn't stuck playing with the same 6 guys he knew in high school or the 4 guys he knew in college, half of whom have moved away. He can play with anyone. He goes to a con? He can play in any game. He sets up a game at home? He can have anyone play. And anyone he meets on ANY SINGLE ONE of his games, he can ask back and get that guy and that guys wife and three friends for next time.

It doesn't matter. he just wants to play. He can pick any game. Assume he knows about all of them. Assume he has been giving marketing materials for every game. Which one is he going to play?


COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY.

You fucks are never going to learn this until you learn it.


No offense intended. Haha. :)

Quote from: Abyssal MawCOMMUNITY. COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY.

Community, and the support it offers, is not necessarily system specific.

It can be company-specific across several lines, or 'scene' specific (witness big parts of the indie thing), or...    Well, anyhow.

All that said, the D&D community is the biggest, with the most benefits for members.  It's like Windows.

>>It's like Windows.

Often said as a slur. But the truth is: It's like having a telephone and a telephone book vs having a walkie talkie. The walkie talkie thing will help you talk to anyone in your range who also has a walkie talkie.. as long as it is turned on and tuned to the same frequency.

But they have to turn their radio on before they come into your range, before you can even talk.

And maybe you will connect, and maybe not. Maybe just as that one guy with a walkie talkie that corresponds to yours passes by.. he has his switched off..

But if you have a telephone and a telephone book you can talk to people you don't even know. You can leave them a message even if they aren't home.

This is not fucking rocket science, and the forgies know this just as well as I do, because most of their efforts have been made to promote community. They usually do it the wrong way, (of course) by trying to sneak in promotion and enforce loyalty through thuggery. But every once in a while you see the right way: clubs, get togethers. Meetup.com.
 
It's almost infuriating (or perhaps funny) that you guys obviously know how all this shit works, and what the benefits are and then hilariously pretend thats not how it works. John Kim pretending that D&D occupies a "slightly larger niche" than the fucking one-off production crank blows my mind, but it's important to note that Kim has never understood or "gotten" D&D no matter how many years he has spent documenting and cataloging  RPGs.

How do you guys literally miss the elephant in the room? Are you that obsessed with some starry-eyed notion of your own someday RPG writer fame and fortune? It's a pastime, people. It isn't about you. Or us.

It's something you do.

And yeah, WoW beats all of this. Do you see me resenting WoW? No. I love WoW, because I know there's a whole generation of kids out there that get why gold pieces and hit points are cool. I can invite them into my COMMUNITY without denigrating theirs, or telling them they have to choose one over the other.

PS: This last bit is something you forgie fucks ought to look into.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBecause I can play with anyone, at any time. I can start a new campaign and have any mix I want of new and old players every time. And I never waste time promoting the game, and I *usually* never even have to spend time teaching the game. I never have to explain why it's fun to play a bunch of tedious fucking mormons or whatever. I just yell out "D&D going on here!" throw my books in the air, and by the time it lands I have six players around a table trying to figure out who's going to play the wizard.

Seriously, you don't get why this is such a massive advantage?

Well, I don't generally want to start a campaign with a big group of strangers, so it wouldn't be a massive advantage for me.  It's easy for me to get games going with my friends.  As others have pointed out, there are many games which have bigger networks than D&D -- yet you're choosing to play a relatively niche game.  

So no, I don't think this is an objective win.  The thing that you are winning is not something I am interested in -- i.e. it is a matter of taste.  

Quote from: gleichmanSupport. Bookshelves full of expansions and modules to buy. Online extentions, hints, and boards full of people talking about the same game. The list is nearly endless.

Contrast all the help and exchanges one can have about D20 here and elsewhere compared to say P&G.

My opinion is that effective support is not a question of sheer volume -- similar to board traffic.  More board traffic doesn't make a forum better.  That's why I prefer to hang out on small forums like here or Story Games rather than on RPGnet or ENWorld.  Greater volume actually causes problems in that I have to filter out a lot more of the signal to noise.  I suppose my ideal would be a level of support similar to the amount of official and third-party material that I actually use.  

So, again, it's a question of preference.  It's like saying that D&D players "win" more pages of rules than players of shorter games.  More pages of rules and options isn't an objectively better thing -- again, it is a matter of taste.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThey win weekly (or even more frequent) gaming for life without having to stress!

So, like, this type of "Win" (where "win" = "I receive a benefit") has lots of room for other people doing totally different things to "win" as well, in different ways ... yes?

So much nicer than "D&D has more fans, therefore its fans win, and the rest of you lose."

Quote from: Abyssal Maw>>It's like Windows.

Often said as a slur. But the truth is: It's like having a telephone and a telephone book vs having a walkie talkie. The walkie talkie thing will help you talk to anyone in your range who also has a walkie talkie.. as long as it is turned on and tuned to the same frequency.

But they have to turn their radio on before they come into your range, before you can even talk.

And maybe you will connect, and maybe not. Maybe just as that one guy with a walkie talkie that corresponds to yours passes by.. he has his switched off..

But if you have a telephone and a telephone book you can talk to people you don't even know. You can leave them a message even if they aren't home.

This is not fucking rocket science, and the forgies know this just as well as I do, because most of their efforts have been made to promote community. They usually do it the wrong way, (of course) by trying to sneak in promotion and enforce loyalty through thuggery. But every once in a while you see the right way: clubs, get togethers. Meetup.com.
 
It's almost infuriating (or perhaps funny) that you guys obviously know how all this shit works, and what the benefits are and then hilariously pretend thats not how it works. John Kim pretending that D&D occupies a "slightly smaller niche" than the fucking one-off production crank blows my mind, but it's important to note that Kim has never understood or "gotten" D&D no matter how many years he has spent documenting and cataloging  RPGs.

How do you guys literally miss the elephant in the room? Are you that obsessed with some starry-eyed notion of your own someday RPG writer fame and fortune? It's a pastime, people. It isn't about you. Or us.

It's something you do.

AM, not looking for a fight. What are you trying to convince us to do? Declare you the winner? Admit DND is the dominant RPG? Should we stop making our pointlessly small and irrelevant games?

Just to be clear, I am not using "we" in the indie sense since I am not allowed to be indie but I think you are effectively grouping "All not DND" together right?

And for the record, I don't think I have ever had anything bad to say about DND in any version. I think it is a fun game (although I have not played 4e yet). Still, I never lack for players of Iridium except when I lack players...then I make them. ;)

Bill

I think AM signed away his objectivity when he signed that NDA. ;)

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd yeah, WoW beats all of this. Do you see me resenting WoW? No. I love WoW, because I know there's a whole generation of kids out there that get why gold pieces and hit points are cool. I can invite them into my COMMUNITY without denigrating theirs, or telling them they have to choose one over the other.

Man, the folks I've seen playing D&D aren't people I'd invite anywhere. That's an objective fact.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBradford gets me, he is objectively true, and he wins!

Seriously, stop. Just stop. Unless you mean that Bradford is perfectly circular and won't wobble when spun.

Quote from: HinterWeltAM, not looking for a fight. What are you trying to convince us to do? Declare you the winner? Admit DND is the dominant RPG? Should we stop making our pointlessly small and irrelevant games?

Just to be clear, I am not using "we" in the indie sense since I am not allowed to be indie but I think you are effectively grouping "All not DND" together right?

And for the record, I don't think I have ever had anything bad to say about DND in any version. I think it is a fun game (although I have not played 4e yet). Still, I never lack for players of Iridium except when I lack players...then I make them. ;)

Bill

Actually I'm not trying to convince you guys to do anything. I'm trying (possibly in vain) to explain why and how D&D manages to maintain it's position year after year, why people choose it, what the benefit is when you have people.. all of that stuff. Those things generally shrugged off here, but the take-away for someone like you is this: YOU COULD BE DOING THIS YOURSELF. You could be growing your business. You could be getting fans by  promotion through community efforts rather than "hey here's my cool game". Instead we get caught up in a never ending fucking discussion of "WHY OF WHY  does my favorite RPG languish in obscurity when it is soooooo superior. ??"

Fan clubs, meetups, content creation directories .. all of that stuff is not exclusive to D&D-- the entire point of community is not exclusive to D&D. Neither is gameplay talking tactics and builds.. and pure content. But that shit is often shamed here, and I find it unfortunate. And yet we have these discussions constantly about "hey what do you do to promote, how far do you have to go to get people to game with you" and I have to just laugh.

Usually I just let them float on by.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, like, this type of "Win" (where "win" = "I receive a benefit") has lots of room for other people doing totally different things to "win" as well, in different ways ... yes?

So much nicer than "D&D has more fans, therefore its fans win, and the rest of you lose."

Yeah, I had thought it was being used in a zero-sum context, as well, but apparently, he means that there are many good benefits of playing D&D. I find the benefits of playing Shadowrun greater for myself - speaking for no one else - than the benefits of playing D&D, because I do not highly value community, and do highly value aspects of the game at which Shadowrun excels. So it's nice to know that we can all win.

But it seems like, if "win" means "has benefits," people would just use the term, "has benefits." "Win" is inaccurate and inflammatory.

Quote from: jhkimMy opinion is that effective support is not a question of sheer volume -- similar to board traffic.  More board traffic doesn't make a forum better.

There is no doubt that effective support requires a certain critical mass to be effect. For example, r.g.f.a is now ineffective.

For support of AoH, no board in the world is effective.

For D20, there are so many effective boards that one gets to pick and chose for individual taste.

Seriously if this isn't clear and plain to you- I have no hope for you.

Quote from: EngineBut it seems like, if "win" means "has benefits," people would just use the term, "has benefits." "Win" is inaccurate and inflammatory.

WELCOME TO ABYSSAL MAW.

Quote from: Abyssal MawActually I'm not trying to convince you guys to do anything. I'm trying (possibly in vain) to explain why and how D&D manages to maintain it's position year after year, why people choose it, what the benefit is when you have people.. all of that stuff.

Seriously, from one guy who gets misunderstood a lot to another, you're not succeeding, because what you're doing is alienating people. [Trust me, I have experience!] You may not realize it, but when you say, "My game wins," you anger the people who don't play your game, or who don't view it as a competition. If you want to explain the popularity of D&D, explain the popularity of D&D: don't say it "wins," which doesn't mean that at all.

You made a post here earlier in which you explained, basically, that you were just kind of being a dick for fun, and I get that, but if you really want to be understood, you've got to put that away, because you're operating at cross-purposes.

Quote from: StuartI think AM signed away his objectivity when he signed that NDA. ;)

I can almost give you the date when I signed my objectivity away. It was just before the release of D&D3 in 2000. I was a playtester for Torg 2. (the Kansas Jim version that was due to come out in 2000). The other playtesters (including the GM) would constantly flake on me, week after week after week.

So finally, after yet another session was last-minute canceled by the GM I had just picked up the Planescape boxed set as a cheapie (remember this is the dying days of AD&D2e about to be canceled) and said "if nobody shows up I'm going to run AD&D instead". I said it as like.. a joke.

I had the neighbor, his wife, and her three friends there within the hour. I was blown away.


I've only been under an NDA for like.. less than a year.

Quote from: gleichmanThere is no doubt that effective support requires a certain critical mass to be effect. For example, r.g.f.a is now ineffective.

Is support necessary? I roleplayed for a long, long time without any support beyond the books. After that, I was lucky enough to be able to call or e-mail the developers and ask, "What the fuck?" but it didn't make the game suddenly possible to play, it just got me more canon answers to my questions. And honestly, I spent a lot of years at a community targeted toward the game I played, and received no real benefit beyond nice conversation with like-minded people.

I understand some people value support, and a community, but I have players, and I have a GM, and I rarely get much of use from the community that I couldn't have gotten from them, so can I win, too, on the basis that my victory conditions are different?

I have community.  We're centered around roleplaying.  It's pretty cool.

Quote from: EngineSeriously, from one guy who gets misunderstood a lot to another, you're not succeeding, because what you're doing is alienating people. [Trust me, I have experience!] You may not realize it, but when you say, "My game wins," you anger the people who don't play your game, or who don't view it as a competition. If you want to explain the popularity of D&D, explain the popularity of D&D: don't say it "wins," which doesn't mean that at all.

You made a post here earlier in which you explained, basically, that you were just kind of being a dick for fun, and I get that, but if you really want to be understood, you've got to put that away, because you're operating at cross-purposes.

Probably true. I have been frustrated with TheRPGSite lately and I miss Settembrini. :(

Quote from: Abyssal MawActually I'm not trying to convince you guys to do anything. I'm trying (possibly in vain) to explain why and how D&D manages to maintain it's position year after year, why people choose it, what the benefit is when you have people.. all of that stuff. Those things generally shrugged off here, but the take-away for someone like you is this: YOU COULD BE DOING THIS YOURSELF. You could be growing your business. You could be getting fans by  promotion through community efforts rather than "hey here's my cool game". Instead we get caught up in a never ending fucking discussion of "WHY OF WHY  does my favorite RPG languish in obscurity when it is soooooo superior. ??"

I think I understand where I got lost. This is kind of "Well Duh?!". I could see how it could be frustrating if you see many people disagreeing with the stance that community makes a game successful. I will not argue.

In fact, I will add a point that may strike you as disagreeable but I will go as far as to say that a game could be total crap but if it has a well built community it will continue to thrive. Now, don't freak, I am NOT saying DND is crap, merely that even if it was the same as all other games, it would still be ahead of the curve due to its huge community.

Now, if I only had some community building skills. :)

Quote from: Abyssal MawFan clubs, meetups, content creation directories .. all of that stuff is not exclusive to D&D-- the entire point of community is not exclusive to D&D. Neither is gameplay talking tactics and builds.. and pure content. But that shit is often shamed here, and I find it unfortunate. And yet we have these discussions constantly about "hey what do you do to promote, how far do you have to go to get people to game with you" and I have to just laugh.

Usually I just let them float on by.

Interesting question comes to mind. If a game is not tactical, do you think it would affect its chances of success? I mean, less tactical than DND so as to hamper those discussions about builds.

Bill

Quote from: Abyssal MawI miss Settembrini. :(

Aim better, then. :D

Quote from: Abyssal MawI have been frustrated with TheRPGSite lately and I miss Settembrini. :(

I can understand that you are frustrated with TheRPGSITE, but you really miss Settembrini?

I think the site is a lot better without his baseless rants, ego stroking and general talking out of his ass.

Quote from: EngineIs support necessary?

For me? No.

For the typical buyer of rpgs, of course. This is why D&D is at the top of the market.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI have been frustrated with TheRPGSite lately and I miss Settembrini. :(

Let it all out, mate. Tell us about it. We're here for you.

Quote from: Abyssal MawProbably true. I have been frustrated with TheRPGSite lately and I miss Settembrini. :(

Story Games has tons of people I like talking with.  I win! :p

Quote from: gleichmanFor the typical buyer of rpgs, of course. This is why D&D is at the top of the market.

So "support," which means, "community," is why D&D is the best-selling roleplaying game right now?

Quote from: EngineSo "support," which means, "community," is why D&D is the best-selling roleplaying game right now?

IMO, it's why it's always been at the top or near top of the market.

However support means more than community, community is only part of it. The other half is the amount of published material for the game and settings for the game.

It certainly wasn't because it was the best game. Only Pundit would claim something stupid like that.

Quote from: gleichman

Quote from: EngineIs support necessary?

For me? No.

For the typical buyer of rpgs, of course. This is why D&D is at the top of the market.

Nonsense.   What, do you think you can deny the objective truth?!?  

Gleichman -- you need that support.  That is an objective fact.  There is no wishy-washy subjective "Oh, I'm a unique snowflake and the objective facts don't apply to me."  You can try to deny reality, but then you just lose!!  

:rolleyes:

Quote from: jhkimGleichman -- you need that support.  That is an objective fact.

Skipping the snark (directed more AM than myself I hope), there is little doubt that I could in fact use the support.

During the rather short period that Age of Heroes was online, I had people writing campaign supplements, asking questions, and the like. All that was useful as it allow me to correct errors in the rules and expanded the game in different directions than I would take myself. It wasn't much, but it was more than what I had done alone.

By removing it I've turned my back on that. By the type of game it is (i.e. overly complex tactical crap), I've rejected any large scale application of those advantages out of the gate. Those are serious costs.

Costs I'm willing to bear in order to play the game I want, but costs even so.

Even with HERO I pay a similar price as I've modified the standards for construction greatly (and the rules slightly), making it effectively impossible for me to interact with the wider HERO community. I also hate Long with a passion, and that doesn't help either.

So special snowflake I am. And I'm happier that way than not. But I well know the price I paid for it.

Fact is, community matters to some people, or they wouldn't be so eager to see D&D contract or fail.

I say this as someone who really doesn't care much one way or the other.

When a radio station starts playing music you don't like anymore, that's not about community...

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd yeah, WoW beats all of this. Do you see me resenting WoW? No. I love WoW, because I know there's a whole generation of kids out there that get why gold pieces and hit points are cool. I can invite them into my COMMUNITY without denigrating theirs, or telling them they have to choose one over the other.

See, that doesn't surprise me because I know you're that kind of guy.

But the thing is, in this thread, a lot of things you wrote draw unnecessary lines and have a divisive vibe. Personally, I think you're just trying to fuck with annoying elitist twits but the particular words and sentences you used... it's also insulting to people who are not actually elitist twits and just happen to enjoy other games.

For the record, I get that games offer different perks and communities/support/etc... can be some of them. But frankly, I get just as many people at my table whether I use Everway (out of print for what? A decade?) or D&D3.x.

***************

On another note, I don't want to diss D&D3 (it's one of my favorite games) or the advantages of a community like d20 but I think you're giving too much credit to that stuff and not enough credit to yourself. I've read your interventions here and there for some time, enough to know you are resourceful as a GM, very enthusiastic about gaming, smart. You draw really cool illos and maps. You seem to have organizational skills. Imagination.

You think everybody who just desires to run a 3.5 group is going to receive an equal amount of interest? Because of the network externalities or whatever? I'll grant you that some gamers will look at a [insert favorite game] opportunity whatever the cost. They'd play with a guy who takes a monthly bath and is dumber than Paris Hilton. But lots of people are going to be attracted by a pleasant GM, pleasant environment, some enthusiasm and a good pitch.

Quite frankly, if you stayed close and offered to run a game of Fireborn or whatever other games I consider utter failures, I'd come.

On the other hand, there are people I would refuse to game with, flat out.

Well, thanks for that.

Your'e probably right that I was being overly divisive. Character flaw! I get cranky, and then I just want to screw with people.  So instead I went to the gym, then came home and took a nap.

Droog, you want to hear about my divorce?

Quote from: Abyssal MawDroog, you want to hear about my divorce?

Why not? Does it have anything to do with RPGs?