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?