TheRPGSite

Luke agreed to answer some of my (and I suppose also other) questions here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121893&postcount=127).

Quote from: AlnagNevertheless for the matter of facts. I would like to hear some facts about you, your motivations, your methods, reactions to your methods and your opinion on "dark side" of the forge/indie movement and such things. We can open new topic for that, because this one is seriously derailed. You can of course request something similar from me, if you wish...

Please respect the nature of the thread and try not to derail it from its Questions & Answers nature. If you want to comment, do it elsewhere.

Neat! I'll answer what I can to the best of my ability. Alnag, please try to read my posts charitably and I'll do the same for yours -- let's try to assume the best of each other. We are fighting with a language barrier and it'd be shame to let that get in the way.

-L

1) So, well... as far as I am able to perceive, you claim, that there is no war (war between Forgies and say the rest of the RPG gaming world, or traditional players or whatever is the proper name). How would you describe the situation then?

2) You publish a game and not only one, if I am correct. What were your motivations for doing so? There are plenty of games out there, why to make a new one? Why bother? Why dilute already quite diluted hobby?

3) I've often note claims of some people, that only indie games produce inovations to otherwise stanganting RPGs? How do you feel about this? What is you position?

That might be a good start I guess. Sorry for any mistakes. It is my first Q&A in english :)

1) Well, I've been friends with Ron, Matt S, Clinton, Ralph, Mike, Jake, Jared, Vincent, Em, Tony, Matt W, etc. since 2003. I've organized the Forge Booth for Gencon twice. I'm a moderator at the Forge. So I've got an insider's view. And I can tell you, we don't sit around talking about how we're out to get you guys. If anything, we think it's funny how militant and angry some of the reactions are.

We're just a circle of friends doing what we love.

2) In five years, I've published 2 games (not including the revision), one anthology, 3 supplements and helped produce Judd's Dictionary of Mu. (I think it amounts to 10 books in all.) I decided to publish out of sheer bravado -- like many others, I felt like I had a new perspective to offer. I think Burning Wheel is still a fresh take on fantasy gaming.

3) I don't know about that. I don't think anyone is the only source of anything. I do think the culture of small press and "indie games" is currently an innovator in the hobby and industry. I know for a fact that designers at big houses are playing small press games (and enjoying them). I also feel that, outside of the small press stuff, tabletop RPGs seemed to have stopped experimenting in the late 90s and early 00s. I see a lot of games with a new cool setting draped over the same basic rules structure. But that last part is only my opinion.

How's that?

Nice, thak you. Let's follow with some of the new directions derived from your answers then...

4) I must admit, I hesitate, how to formulate this question. Why do you think, the negative response is funny? What is the funny part, because I don't get it. To me, it is more sad, if anything. Also, do you have (have you had) some urge to react to it somehow?

5) yet in reaction to answer one... and what is it, you actually love?

6) Also, some people might have a feeling, that some proponents of indie-movement are elitists. (Hence the denomination "swine", I guess). That they perceive themselves as better than rest of the players. Do you think that you are eltist? Or do you think, that there might be this feeling in indie-movement or someone in particular?

7) That is quite impressive amount I guess. So, it was a bravado that made you publish these games. What is it now, that drives you to publish new versions and/or supplements (I've heard about some Japanese one, I think). Is it still bravado or something else? Any new motives appears during that time?

8) What do you think, are the reasons for that lack of experimentations of big houses? Also, I've heard that claim about designers at big houses playing small press games and also opposite frome some of these designers. Any acutal evidence for that?

9) I must ask in reaction to nr. 3... what is you personal opinion of d20 movement and its impact on a hobby, experimentation, inovation, small press and big houses etc.?

Ok! More answers.

4) I think it's funny because we're being accused of being these evil people waging a war to destroy fun, but I hang out with the accused all the time.  I've worked in film, television and advertising; I know evil. They're not evil. The furor of the accusations is pretty amusing from where I'm sitting.

5) I love making and playing tabletop roleplaying games, and playing games in general.

6) There are elitists in every group. I get called an elitist all the time, 99% of the time it's on the internet. Doesn't bother me at all. My actions speak for themselves. In the end, if I'm remembered as an elitist, then so be it. I try to share my experience and knowledge and help publishers get started on the right foot all the time.

7) It's really not that many books. I'm sure Clash and Bill have produced more in the same amount of time. I keep doing it because I love it. I want to keep pushing and experimenting and playing games!

8) Pure speculation: The RPG industry thought it was dead in the post-Magic, post-Pokemon world. It had fallen into a comfortable place prior to Magic and Pokemon and when that world got rocked, things must have looked pretty grim. As it turns out, it was just a shake up and things are bad, but it's certainly not the end.

8b) I'm friends with Mike Mearls and I know he's played Inspectres and I'm pretty darn sure he looks forward to his annual OctaNe game at GenCon every year. Black Hat Matt (of White Wolf fame, don't recall his last name) sat down and played Burning Empires with me at Origins and we had a good time. Ken Hite (formerly of SJG) loves Burning Wheel and Sorcerer. Peter Adkison (former CEO of WotC) played Bill White's Ganakagok (how's that for obscure) at Origins and loved it. He also comes to the Forge Booth every year and pretty much buys one of everything.

9) That's a mighty big question. I think the short answer is "I think DnD, d20 and OGL are great!" I don't think it had an effect on experimentation and innovation, at least not the radicial stuff that I'm thinking of. I think it had a great effect on publishing houses big and small.

How's that?

So your position then, Luke, is that there is absolutely no just cause in the negative reactions people give out to the Forge and the Forge's games/mentality? There is no elitism going on in the "indie Movement"?  There is no condemnation going, whole or partial, open or implied, of regular roleplayers?

If that is so, then I'd be very interested to hear your explanation of WHY you think these reactions happen.  I mean, your prior comments indicate that you DO in fact acknowledge that they exist, that a lot of people online are upset with the Forge for SOME reason; so what do you think that reason is?

RPGPundit

Luke> Have you considered releasing a toolkit addendum to Burning Empires that would let players bust open some of the more setting-specific details (for example, the bonuses given to either side during the world burner or the skill list) to make it a generic sci-fi RPG?

Luke, I know you don't really discuss future releases, but what would say Burning Wheel will be looking at in terms of support in terms of stuff published by you in the near future (outside of your GC release)?  It's a game that has a lot of fan material already; do you see plenty more out there for you personally to do with it?

Q: Where did you get those bitchin' red eyeglass frames? :D

Pundit,
It's an oddly framed question. I could answer it with a broad "of course there might be cause," but that's not productive.

I think the Forge as a faceless group is an entirely benign entity. I think that group has made and is in the process of making roleplaying games better and more fun.

I think that there are individuals within the group who are caustic or indigestible. Their opinions seem radical and exclusive, but this is the case within any group. Especially a group dedicated to change and experimentation. It's also natural to react in a hostile manner to change and radical ideas.

I do not think mainstream games and gamers are an aggreived party in the Case Against the Forge. The people I know who have come out of the Forge movement are generally open-minded and wish to see all rp gaming prosper. The faceless group of individuals who congregated at the Forge are not in concert to bring down Wizards and establish a new world order. But tabletop RPGing is on the slide. So there's a lot of room for growth and change.

Pseudo,
Yep. Not on the BWHQ table at the moment, but it's definitely on the To-Do list.

Zach,
At least two more "core" books for BW.

James,
Lenscrafters!

thanks, guys.
-L

Have you considered other setting-specific applications? For example, you have Burning Wheel for fantasy and Burning Empires for sci-fi, but have you considered a modern detective (or espionage or whatever) version?

In Burning Empires, it is mentioned that the game is meant to be a competition between the GM and the players.  Yet, some aspects of the game (for example, difficulties and award points) break entirely if the GM is antagonistic.

Is the game truly supposed to be a competition with the GM constrained and using every tool available to him to cause his opponents to fail, or is the GM supposed to take it easy on the players (like most games)?

What was the highest level you played a D&D character to?

I think, we are touching some interesting stuff. I hope it is not too harsh for you. ;-)

10) about that evil accusations... I think, one of the reasons for perceiving the Forge as evil is the common nature of "Forge attack". Let me explain. Once the discussion for one of the Forge-proponents became to harsh, he suddenly summons 2d6 others to help him. Or so it seems... it makes an impression of conspiracy. Do you think this is happening? And if so, is it conspiracy or maybe natural impact of the character of Forge community? Or maybe it is just in the eye of beholder?

11) about helping other publisher... so you are not scared of possible competition? Do you percive the RPG market as competition at all? Does your possible rivals stimulate you to making better stuff or not?

12) yet about innovations... 7ème Cercle, Alderac Entertaiment Group, Atlas Games, Eden Studios, Fantasy Flight Games, Green Ronin Publishing, Guardians of Order, Pelgrane Press or Rackham... Big Houses or Small Presses? Innovative or traditional in last years?

13) and yet another about innovations... do you think your games are innovative? Which parts do you suppose are the most innovative? Where did you inspired, where does the ideas come frome? What were your RPG inspirations?

14) about pushing... do you think one can be pushing and experimenting so much, that he leaves the RPG field altogether and start to doing something completely new? Maybe without noticing first? Is it possible, that your or some other games you know are actually near to this?

Nevertheless I must say your answers are impressive so far. Maybe it will in the end offer some middle ground to find a common standpoint. Well, we will see...

Quote from: lukeI think the Forge as a faceless group is an entirely benign entity. I think that group has made and is in the process of making roleplaying games better and more fun.

Here's a hint: The "better" part is Why They Hate You.  It is the assumption of superiority; if Forge games are "better", it means current games are "Worse".  If Forge Games are "more fun", it means current games, the games people love, are "less fun".  Its got nothing to do with shadowy conspiracies, your conspiracy is right out in the open: to make what you consider "better" games, attacking and condemning current games in the process.
Its that superiority complex that creates the reaction against the Forge.

RPGPundit

Question for Luke:

At the back of my copy of BW (Revised Edition), there's two lists of games credited as influences. For the first edition, they are all classic, old-school things, from D&D to Runequest to Cyberpunk. For the Revised Edition, they're all Forge games. Glancing between my copy of the core rules and the Monster Burner (which, if I'm right, isn't Revised Edition material), I can't see that there's much of a difference in the rules sets. In fact, I find the Burning Wheel rules to be very "traditional" in their approach (but in a good way).

So, cheeky question: is it the case that the first set of influences are the games that actually influenced the design, and the second set are games written by people who helped your PR?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineLuke> Have you considered releasing a toolkit addendum to Burning Empires that would let players bust open some of the more setting-specific details (for example, the bonuses given to either side during the world burner or the skill list) to make it a generic sci-fi RPG?

I'd buy a copy of Burning Vampires (specifically, the faction warfare thing from burning empires retooled for white wolf).












Oh look, its already been done!

http://www.burningvampires.com/

no, wait I don't think... er... what is that?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHave you considered other setting-specific applications? For example, you have Burning Wheel for fantasy and Burning Empires for sci-fi, but have you considered a modern detective (or espionage or whatever) version?

Pseudo,
Well, I've done Herbert-esque space opera, apocalyptic present and Heian era Japan, so I'd say anything's possible. There's no plan for those setting books. It's really whatever captures our imagination in between other projects.

Hgjs,
Burning Empires really is a competitive game in which the GM is supposed to push the players hard and try to win. It's intended to be a very gentlemanly and sportsmanlike competitive. You're supposed to shake hands, root for your opponent and help him up when he's down. The one flaw in it, which I think you can perceive, is that the GM still sets the difficulty for many tests. He could feasibly set all his obstacles low and the players' high. But that violates the spirit of fairness that I described above. And there are guidelines for setting obstacles, so if the players think he's fucking around, they can call him on it. And, hell, if someone's just being downright mean, you can always walk.

Sett,
If I'm not mistaken, I played a 24th level Barbarian named Oswald, and an 18th level Cavalier named Domidor, but my favorite character ever was a 9th level assassin/9th level illusionist named Sleer played in Lanhkmar. I probably still have the character sheets.

Alnag,
10) We're a community. We look out for each other. Aside from that, I don't understand why folks are so threatened by a group of people chiming in to talk about stuff they love. Boosters of small press and obscure games are vastly outnumbered both in real life and on the internet. I think the perception comes from the cliquishness of the gaming community. MY type of fun is ok. But LARPers, they're the worst. Or german boardgamers or small press types or whatever. No one's under threat, but we all like to point fingers.

11) I'm not scared about competition. If I help spur a better game into production, that's good for everyone. There's very little competition at this level. Jake Norwood and I proudly sold Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel alongside each other at Gencon 03 and 04.

12) Some big and small. Most stick to traditional modes for RPGs, but there's definitely been innovation and experimentation on all levels. Esoterrorists leaps to mind.

13) I can't really answer this one. It's not up to me to say. Paranoia 1st Ed, Marvel Superheroes, WEG Star Wars and Shadowrun 1st Ed probably had the biggest impact on my designs.

14) Sure, anything's possible. But my games are designed for gamers, for hardcore rp gamers.

Pundit,
I understand why you might be angry about that, but no one's attacking. Any perception of attack or denigration is on your side. I never mentioned "more fun" or "less fun" (in this context). I simply believe in progress and, that by learning from our mistakes and triumphs in the past, we can produce better designs in the present. I'm ashamed to admit that I'm an optimist in this part of my life.

Warthur,
I stole linked tests from Sorcerer, positioning from Riddle of Steel, the clarifications about conflict resolution from Inspectres and Dogs, and general awstruckedness from Master. I designed the Duel of Wits for Jason Roberts, of FVLMINATA, for a game he was producing that never got made. I stole it back and published it.

Eric,
All yours if you want it!

-L

Quote from: lukeWarthur,
I stole linked tests from Sorcerer, positioning from Riddle of Steel, the clarifications about conflict resolution from Inspectres and Dogs, and general awstruckedness from Master. I designed the Duel of Wits for Jason Roberts, of FVLMINATA, for a game he was producing that never got made. I stole it back and published it.

That's actually quite interesting, because it's not the elements which I'd have guessed you'd have taken from the Forge games; the only part of Burning Wheel I can point at and say "That's a Narrativist innovation" are Beliefs, Instincts and Traits, and the Artha rules, and even then they're only weakly Narrativist.

So your answer here is the same tired Forge standard: "It is entirely the Regular Gamers' fault if they hate us, we haven't done anything wrong at all and shouldn't do anything about it, they just "hate our freedom"".

If most people here wouldn't believe President Bush saying those things about muslims, why would anyone believe you saying that about the Forge's detractors?

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Where there's hundreds of people pissed off at you for years, odds are there's a justification for that beyond "they just don't get us".  Maybe its YOU who don't get US.

I'm trying to say this to you in a calm and friendly fashion, just this once, to respect the spirit in which this thread was intended, Luke. As a piece of honest advice to you and the entire Forge: you guys need to engage in some serious introspection, and then some serious cleaning up of your act, if you want to stop being so despised and mistrusted. You need to look at your own arrogance, and the way that your (pseudo-)intellectualism has managed to make you non-communicators with the regular gamer.  

If, IF,  your goal really is to make "better games" that ANYONE can enjoy, and not just to be a mutual appreciation society of sycophantic poseurs, then this is something you really want to address. Because what would be the point of making all these "great leaps forward" with your games if the WAY you make these games, and the image you all project to the gaming public at large is one that makes them want to reject you and anything you do?

RPGPundit

Luke, why do you think there are so few Forge games like Burning Wheel?

Campaign-grade games that plant myriad roots in a game world by way of extensive lifepaths and setting-specific subsystems, and so give people something to do for more than an evening or two?

Once upon a time there was RoS, and that's it. A road not taken--why? Deliberate design choice? People too lazy? Flimsy McNar games all they can come up with?

Answers along the lines of "Can't speak for others" or "But there's this guy in Idaho who's been running a MLWM campaign for a millennium now" will be scoffed at as Phony Tony-style evasiveness.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityLuke, why do you think there are so few Forge games like Burning Wheel?

Campaign-grade games that plant myriad roots in a game world by way of extensive lifepaths and setting-specific subsystems, and so give people something to do for more than an evening or two?

I know it's against the spirit of the thread to throw in my own thoughts, but I've thought about this for a long time.  

Many of the Forge games are small because that's the untapped market, so to speak.  Forge games are incredibly well tied to a system, and in effect, are supposed to work like board games: we play it for a night, and put it on the shelf.  This is so we don't have to play the same game over and over when we really want to play something else for a night or a few nights.

Quote from: joewolzForge games are incredibly well tied to a system, and in effect, are supposed to work like board games: we play it for a night, and put it on the shelf.  This is so we don't have to play the same game over and over when we really want to play something else for a night or a few nights.

This should, in theory (hee), be a license to print money. Pay out RPG prices for a game that you only play in one offs or a few times before moving on. Even better if the buy-in for the players is so great that it is better for the players to get copies of the books as well (i'm looking at you BE!) and you should be made. If they appealed to enough people...Jury's still out on that one innit!

Edit: Shit. Just realised this is alnaq & Luke's q&a thread. Apologies for the threadcrap. Please ignore.

I know that, Joe, and that is the problem right there: the huge dissonance between the claim to thematic depth on one hand, and the practice of discard-after-use on the other. Can you do justice to the experience of Vietnam in one night? Yep, according to Carry, you can.

Warthur,
All of those elements were in the original Burning Wheel. We definitely cleaned them up and focused them in Revised though. Revised is the game that BW should have always been.

Pundit,
I'm not saying it's anyone's fault. But, my friend, feelings aren't facts. Just because you're angry, upset or lonely doesn't make your statement true. Pointing fingers and leveling blame accomplishes what? Nothing but perhaps letting you rest on your own false sense of superiority. You want change, then work for it. I actually respect the fact that you had to will to start a forum site for like-minded souls. It's an accomplishment.

And if there are hundreds of people frothing with hate, that's their problem. They should go play games they enjoy. Because there are thousands of people who have found these games and enjoy them.

But more than that, I'm out among the gamer community a lot. I do between 6 and 10 conventions a year. I personally interact with hundreds of gamers a year. I run panels at nearly every con I go to including Origins and Gencon. The reaction that we get is far from a pitchfork-wielding frothing mob. It's much more like Mark's reaction. And if people don't like what we're saying or selling, that's fine. They're free to go their own way. I'm certainly not going to label them "swine" and declare war on them.

Pierce,
I think Joe's right. I think the greatest innovation of the small press stuff was creating games that can be learned and played in their complete form in one night. The vast majority of RPGs pre 2000 were designed to be played over multiple sessions, even if they were relatively light. I think rigorously paring a game down so it can be enjoyed in a single sitting is an attractive and worthy goal. It's a new and fresh idea.

But for me, like I said, I built BW for hardcore gamers. I look for people who want more from their games, not less. ;) And I suspect we'll be seeing a return to longer term play. I know of two games in development from noted small, focused game author's that are designed for long to midterm play.

One Horse,
I think that Burning Empires is a good bargain for the money, even if each player in the group buys a copy. If you only play once, you've probably played for 36-45 hours. That comes to $1.00 to $1.25 an hour for fun. It's hard to find fun that cheap these days. Movies in NYC are $11. That's over $5 an hour!

-L

Quote from: lukeBut more than that, I'm out among the gamer community a lot. I do between 6 and 10 conventions a year. I personally interact with hundreds of gamers a year. I run panels at nearly every con I go to including Origins and Gencon. The reaction that we get is far from a pitchfork-wielding frothing mob. It's much more like Mark's reaction. And if people don't like what we're saying or selling, that's fine. They're free to go their own way. I'm certainly not going to label them "swine" and declare war on them.

QuoteTis true enough.  I had a great time.  Frankly, I didn't enter DexCon with a predisposed concept about Indie games.  I went there to learn more about it and to try them out with an open mind.  I was, I'll admit, somewhat skeptical in fact because I'm more of the traditionalist GM myself.  But since people are into Indie games I figure it behooves me to expand my horizons and see for myself what the hubbub is about.   The guys at DexCon 10 - Indie Explosion! were, as I said, fun to be around, and 'crackling' with creativity and enthusiasm.  To me, that's a really great.  Even if I don't necessarily agree with the thrust of their philosophy, I can still respect them for their zeal and joy of the art.  And at this point I think the Indie guys are actually onto something with their games - for people who want to play that style.  There's nothing wrong with it per se, and the games I played and witnessed were indeed really fun, and great role playing.  If I might say so as well, I thought Luke's performance as a gamesmaster, honestly and not to kiss ass here, was magnificent.  He's a real talent who obviously loves what he does.  It was great to watch.  Ok, nuff said on that.  I'm hoping you guys won't kill me with 'sychophant-butt-kisser' accusations for saying so.  It was my experience, that's all.  

However, there is the question of the fledgling market of Indie Games and the fact that they in competition for the players of traditionalist RPGs.  This is a real world fact about Market Share, and the Indies guys are trying, as they should, to increase theirs.  No doubt about it. Nothing wrong with that, per se.  

However, there are ways of competing for market share that are honest, friendly and cool, and ways that are sneaky, subversive and uncool.  I don't know how you could quantify the impression of coolness vs. uncoolness realistically, however, Luke, it seems that people here are saying "WE feel like your guys have been uncool."   That's legit.  Its the feeling they have.  And I agree with you, one can't necessarily account for or control other people's feelings.  But if there ever was a time to clear the air and really open hearts and minds, this is probably it.  That's my guess.   My suggestion is that the issue of market share and marketing styles be openned up for discussion because in a lot of ways I think that's one of the big bones of contention.  

Inreasing one's market share is an important underlying cause of both the tactics that have been employed in the past (according to and by some) and perception of those tactics by your actual target audience - other Gamesmasters.  I made this point before you arrived at the Panel so I'll repeat it again here:  The Indie RPGs target audience needs to be the GMs because GMs are the ones who most often bring the game to the table, not the players.  Marketing research would be required to prove that, and it is my hunch, but I think it makes sense and is something the Indie folks should give ample consideration to.   And pissing off the main target audience, even if you have Great Games, is not the best strategy in the world.  Just something to think about.  And I don't mean to be offensive, but to simply say it in plain engrish.  It's one of the reasons why I think it behooves the Indie guys to enage the traditionalists in just the manner you're donig here.  Reasonably and with an open mind to the problems and their possible solutions.

So on that point I agree with Pundit.  Now is your best shot for making people see past the smoke and fire to the heart of your intentions.  I believe those intentions are multi-fold.  1) make great games 2) have fun 3) make a splash in the market 4) win fame and honor for yourself and your community.  Nothing wrong with those goals.  

Perception may not be everything, but it is *almost* everything when it comes to getting yourself the good graces of those with whom you wish to collaborate.

These two communities, I think, have a lot to offer each other.  If only the hate would diminish.  We all, after all, love RPGs.  And it helps none of us with the wider world (our real target market) if people who might be interested in exploring RPGs come here and find a shooting war going on, constantly, with fire and brimstone falling from the sky.  Ya know what I mean?

I think there's been a lot of vitriol and bad stuff in the past, perhaps on both sides, perhaps mostly from one... I don't really know at this point since I'm new to the scene.  Based on my reception from theRPGNet crew however, my hunch is that the vitriol is coming from the few enormously vocal dissenters and that has actually managed to cause a schism that has drawn everyone else into the war, or made it seem so anyway.   However, I will say this, whomever started this shooting war and for whatever reasons they did, perhaps now would be a good time to put the nuclear-tomahawks down for a bit and talk.  That's why I'm excited about the spirit of this post.  Two days ago I would have told my pals that such a conversation was neigh on *totally impossible*.  Yet here you guys are, having a pretty reasonable discussion about your viewpoints and differences.  Lets hope it goes somewhere positive and creates some new ground for collaboration and engagement.  It would be good for all of us.

- Mark

Mark,
I appreciate your comments, but I really don't want this to turn into a general discussion thread.

-L

QuoteI understand why you might be angry about that, but no one's attacking. Any perception of attack or denigration is on your side. I never mentioned "more fun" or "less fun" (in this context). I simply believe in progress and, that by learning from our mistakes and triumphs in the past, we can produce better designs in the present. I'm ashamed to admit that I'm an optimist in this part of my life.

*sighs*

Please, for the betterment of all mankind, repeat after me:  

RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!  RPGS ARE NOT TECHNOLOGY!

They are a subjective medium for which "progress" is a useless term because it implies an objective rubric.  There is no objective advancement in the medium of RPGs.  If there were I wouldn't have to deal with so many RC fans telling my my version of D&D is crap.

Hi Luke,

I have some questions. Apparently there are folks who think a war is going on.

Can you explain; how helping and encouraging people to make their own games via seminars or personal discussions, explaining exactly what the financial landscape is so your competitors know how to price their games (http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show013.mp3), working for free or cheap to get your competitors game on the market, is helping your side in the trenches? I mean couldn't people on the other side use this information to make their own games? Are you an Indie traitor? Also will you explain how you are able to take your personal time to do all these things to help people and still have time to foster your valuable elitism?

Thanks in advance.

You're not facilitating good dialogue, here, Clyde.

Luke, for the record: I'm not satisfied with your answer because it's partly evasive.

JESUS, that was a pretty good example of a forgie stealther.

"hey Luke, please let me give you an opportunity to abuse their community and turn this into a big advertising opportunity for the gang!"

Here's my question just to be on topic: I acknowledge that some of my questions are obnoxious. Still, I need to ask them.

Not too many people show up at these panels, did I get this right? (I've asked this three times in other fora.) Mark was the only attendee of this particular panel, wasn't he? And that's not unique, is it? Attendance by non-cultists at your panels is generally low, isn't it?

Has the brain damage/gamer-hatred thing and the controversial forgie blogs of say.. 2005... helped or hurt the forgies as a community? I think in many ways you guys are still paying for them.

Has anyone encouraged the most obnoxious elements of the forgies from within to... just shut up?

Do you think people are watching themselves now, making sure they post the really hateful stuff behind little closed forums more than before? (Thats slightly related, I guess)

Why is Indie gaming so stuck in the 90s?

Does "System Matters" accounts for why only an extreme minority of the audience seems to enjoy forgie style games?

Could System Matters account for why certain games are loved by a wide audience and others are not?

If a new-to-gaming outsider is "tricked" or cajoled into trying a game, and plays it a total of once, and never again.. does that mean that the game has successfully reached the outside audience? Does that person then become an example of a new kind of gamer? Remember, they only play once, and never again. Is that person part of this hobby?

You don't seem to have played a version of D&D seriously (as in-- a campaign lasting longer than say.. 6 sessions) later than AD&D2. Can you confirm this?

Warthur's question about why the dedications/influences changed is interesting to me. Why did the old influences have to be removed? I can see why you added the new ones, but you removed the old ones...?

What do you think of the term "trad"? Or for that matter "forgie"?

Do you have a regular gaming group?

Do you believe in campaigns?

Do you think Ron is done after this year?

[edit: let me reword: thanks for Alnaq and the other posters, who actually had some interesting questions to ask, and thanks to Luke for taking the time to answer them.
Now, seeing that this thread is about to turn into an ugly flamewar, I think I'm out of here.]

And thanks to you, Bobo & Clyde, for nudging some more people towards thinking the paranoia about board invasions by fanboi rat packs ain't one after all.

Luke,

When you look at BE and BW, how much do you look at and think, "I could have done this this way instead" or think about changing up mechanics?  Do you forsee future revisions of either of those products?  How often do house rules pop up at your table, and are they an important part of your development process?

And guys, come on.  Luke's taking his good time to answer questions here--can we keep the attacks and crap out of it for a change?  Back on target, please.

Jeez, did Bobo just show up to excuse Luke from the thread?

Look, either he's here to answer the questions or to specifically leave certain questions unanswered or partially unanswered. Which is itself, a sort of an answer. I'm fully prepared to not get back answers for my questions, and believe it or not, although Luke himself seems to think he's a big swine, he's a minor offender in the grand scheme, and everyone knows it. The real big fish don't even design games.

Don't derail this. You got a question, post it.

Quote from: Bobo, the Carpenter[edit: let me reword: thanks for Alnaq and the other posters, who actually had some interesting questions to ask, and thanks to Luke for taking the time to answer them.
Now, seeing that this thread is about to turn into an ugly flamewar, I think I'm out of here.]

I wish I had a screen capture of the original - did anyone capture it?

Because this...ahem...individual just came in, tossed a grenade, then got freaked when people called him on it.  Then he did the bravest thing he could.  Instead of leaving the original and adding, he removed the offending text and bolted.

I too am thankful for luke actually answering questions.  But part of the problem is that he's only answering certain questions.  I blame this partially on, for example, the way in which the question is asked (see some of the commetns by Maw).  But it leaves me considering why he won't answer a perfectly legitimate question that would put quite a bit to rest.

For example:

Quote from: Abyssal MawWarthur's question about why the dedications/influences changed is interesting to me. Why did the old influences have to be removed? I can see why you added the new ones, but you removed the old ones...?

Now I know Monsieur Crane answered - to a point.  He skillfully avoided the true question - what happened to the orginal influence?  Is he saying that the second edition (or revised, or what have you) was so different that it was no longer influenced by the original list? That seems...odd...

If the healing is really desired, and I think VBWyrde and Analq and Luke could make some headway (my god, Pundit was almost human!), some of the tougher questions need to be answered along with the ones that promote the games.

Otherwise, it's a nice PR thread - which is fine and great - but nothing more. Perhaps my expectations were wrong when this split off from the other thread.

QuoteI wish I had a screen capture of the original - did anyone capture it?

You mean this?   (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/J_Arcane/bobosnark.jpg)

Quote from: Bobo, the CarpenterYou know, reading this thread I realized that I'd take forgite elitistic escapades over frothing, paranoid hate rants any time.
Thanks to the other posters, who actually posted some questions worth the time it took to type them, and thanks to Luke for taking the time to answer them.

I think maybe it'd be a good idea to put a self-imposed halt on the questions until Luke gets around to answering them again. Otherwise they'll just build up and we'll end with a typical flame-thing.

I didn't have anything to do with this Q&A session, or anything, but because I'd prefer to see healthier relations (and because I like Burning Wheel), I'd prefer to see questions asked in good faith (and continue to hope Luke returns in kind). Please don't try to bait, trap, or ask leading or barbed questions. I'm thinking more of Clyde and less of Maw, though I'm leery of some of Maw's questions, myself. (Though would love to see others answered, so.)

Quote from: J ArcaneYou mean this?   (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/J_Arcane/bobosnark.jpg)

Yeah, that's it. I shouldn't have let myself be goaded. Well, it's more of a wet cracker than a grenade, but still I felt the need to go back and reword it in a slightly politer fashion.
Now, if the actual Q&A got going again, that would be worth staying.

Quote from: Thanatos02I think maybe it'd be a good idea to put a self-imposed halt on the questions until Luke gets around to answering them again. Otherwise they'll just build up and we'll end with a typical flame-thing.

I didn't have anything to do with this Q&A session, or anything, but because I'd prefer to see healthier relations (and because I like Burning Wheel), I'd prefer to see questions asked in good faith (and continue to hope Luke returns in kind). Please don't try to bait, trap, or ask leading or barbed questions. I'm thinking more of Clyde and less of Maw, though I'm leery of some of Maw's questions, myself. (Though would love to see others answered, so.)

I admit that every one of my questions is a trap. But I also honestly want someone to answer them. Some of them. Any of them.

J Arcane,
"RPGs are not technology." There, I said it. However, this doesn't mean they can't grow and change and become more refined and better at what they do.


Clyde,
Funny, but not helpful. Come on, man.


Pierce,
I'm not being evasive. If you'd like to ask a more pointed question, go for it. I've answered every single question as directly as I could.


Abyssal,
1. Attendance varies. That particular panel was problematic since there were room change problems. It got split in half, so there were about a half dozen folks languishing in another room. For our half, there were two attendees, Don and Mark, one podcaster, and a handful of designers. It was actually kind of fun to be able to focus just on one idea for a couple of hours. I've done panels for 50 people, but the usual number is about a dozen attendees. Most of the attendees are members of the "unconverted" as you would say.

2. I really can't answer about controversy helping or hurting. I know the controversy certainly made you and a lot of other people mad. But as far as I know, sales at IPR have been steadily increasing since its inception. What's your criteria for benefit or detriment?

3. You may have noticed that we can be pretty critical about each other's work.

4. I try to actively post my hate right here on the rpgsite. Do you have a real question you're not asking?

5. Stuck in the 90s? Because we miss the teen pop of New Kids on the Block and Ren and Stimpy was the best cartoon ever. Seriously dude, do you have an actual question here or are you just foaming?

6. Forge style games are in the minority because they are small press games with runs of hundreds or low thousands, they don't advertise, and all marketing is word of mouth. The gaming community as a whole is rather small, compared to say one genre/type of music, so even small voices like that can make a big splash.  Regardless, their minority status stems from their relatively new position on the scene and small marketing presence.

7. System Matters is an essay written by Ron Edwards which proposes the idea that the individual bits and bobs of a roleplaying game effect the outcome of that game. For example, if you have mechanics for sword fights in your game, you'll probably have sword fights during play. That essay cannot be used to account for anything other than itself. Personally, I think it's a very accurate and simple observation. Would you like to rephrase that question?

8. Dude, what are you really trying to say? Don't be cagey or clever, just ask whatever it is you're trying to ask. You're not going to catch me in some rhetorical trap.

9. I played Advanced Dungeons and Dragons from 1987 to 1997. The two longest campaigns lasted 3 years and 4 years. I never played AD&D 2e. I spurned it! Fah, revised rules and game balance, fah! Nor have I played more than a handful of D&D 3.X sessions.

10. Page 303 of the Burning Wheel Revised Edition contains the Gameography. It is broken into two lists, one for the "classic" edition and one for revised. I did this because BW Classic didn't contain a gameography and I wanted to be very clear about my sources and influences.

11. I  think there are traditional gamers and non-traditional gamers, but it's probably a false dichotomy. Most "non-traditional" gamers I know still play Shadowrun or D&D or whatever. So I don't really have an accurate definition of "trad." Forgie's a term of convenience, and ultimately meaningless. It is often used as a slur by people who really don't understand that the Forge is just a forum website that hosts a booth at Gencon every year and nothing more.

12. I have four regular gaming groups. I  run one Burning Empires game, one BW Blossoms Are Falling game and play in two other regular Burning Wheel games. I also belong to an extended network of gamers and try to play in other games when I can. Unfortunately, the playtesting schedule for Burning Wheel and my other projects is so rigorous, I rarely get a chance.

13. The longest campaign I've participated in lasted 12 years, played once a week on Sundays for at least 42 weeks out of each year. It started as an AD&D campaign and we converted it to Burning Wheel in 1998. Since 2005 I've been running short and medium term campaigns -- 6-12 sessions. We're in the process of trying to set up something longer term right now.

14. Is Ron cooking or something? Should we turn him over? I don't understand the question.


Zach,
Of course I have my small regrets, but honestly, I'm often surprised by how well my games work for me in play. I come away from play very satisfied. I'll often exclaim, surprised, "Holy shit, that totally worked!" And that's all I can really ask!

I have no idea about revisions. We're very, very careful to play the games exactly as written. It's a great temptation to continue modifying the rules set as we go, but that's not really fair and the game would break down. It's much better just to play by the rules so every thing's fair. Every so often, we'll even get into an argument about an interpretation or a strict reading. Sometimes they shout me down and make me do it how they think it reads. It's crazy, but kind of cool, too.

James,
I think I answered your question in point 14 above. If you have additional questions, please ask them. Try to phrase them as directly as you can. I'm not trying to be evasive.

-L

QuoteJ Arcane,
"RPGs are not technology." There, I said it. However, this doesn't mean they can't grow and change and become more refined and better at what they do.

Congratulations.  You illustrated your ability to miss the point most adequately.  

There's no objective "refinement" or "better" in a subjective medium.  YOU may like it better, but that means fuck all for the rest of humanity.  

It really is a simple concept, but given your stated allegiances I'm not surprised that it escapes you so readily.

About that gameography - how did your style of play change over time and with different games?
This is something I have wondered about. BW revised strongly supports a very specific style of play, and Burning Empires actually codifies that into black-on-white rules. Is that the way you used to play even before BW classic was revised or back when you still played D&D?
Or did something significantly change between classic and revised, reflected in the gameography?

Thanks, Luke (if you were referring to me, there's, like, 10 James' around here) and I think you meant answer #10.  I can't confirm or deny the answer as I don't have either copy, I'll leave that to Warthur was it?

No, what gets dodgy for me are answers like the following (I'm going to include the question for easier reference):

Quote from: Abyssal MawHas anyone encouraged the most obnoxious elements of the forgies from within to... just shut up?

Quote from: luke3. You may have noticed that we can be pretty critical about each other's work.

I'm sure it's true, but it doesn't answer the question.

I seem to recall...Clinton Nixon, I think...distanced himself for a while as he was not pleased with the brain damage remarks.

But are people saying to the PTB - Mr. Edwards - that he does not help the idea of small press empowerment by mixing it up with Theory? If not, why not? If so, why?

Quote from: J ArcaneCongratulations.  You illustrated your ability to miss the point most adequately.  

There's no objective "refinement" or "better" in a subjective medium.  YOU may like it better, but that means fuck all for the rest of humanity.  

It really is a simple concept, but given your stated allegiances I'm not surprised that it escapes you so readily.

Wow, J.  You're sounding positively Pundy! :eek:

No matter how much I agree with your point.

Quote from: James J SkachWow, J.  You're sounding positively Pundy! :eek:

No matter how much I agree with your point.

Sometimes the shoe really does fit.  The confusion of the subjective and the objective is one of the hallmarks of Forge theory, and one of it's core flaws.  

It's not exclusive to them, but it's certainly unsurprising nonetheless.

Luke - Do you think that the Forge would benefit from more robust debates and less moderation?

Regards,
David R

Here's another question:

One of the more interesting criticisms of Burning Empires is that its lifepath system is not as versatile or diverse as many would like. Specifically, it can often be difficult to realise certain character concepts that seem like they would fit well into the world (two quick examples I've personally had trouble with: Vaylen demagogues and Church theologians/scholars). Do you have any plans to revise, supplement or change the lifepaths, or recommendations about how to do so?

Here are the sample chars from my PbP to illustrate the point:

Wencelas Nam, Vaylen infiltrator, was originally intended to be a demagogue, but I found it difficult to realise that concept and switched him over to being a more militant character with good social skills: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116609&postcount=118

Cormyn Bane, Inquisitor, was originally intended to be a theologian and intellectual who worked behind the scenes to manipulate church doctrine and operations. I found myself unable to realise the concept without either making him a high official of the church (Dregus or higher) or an inquisitor. I settled for Inquisitor: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=116308&postcount=109

The thread for the PbP itself: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6315

These are specific examples from my game, but the complaint is actually something I've heard from others. As is, the lifepaths seem to need some patching. Any plans for that patching?

So first let me thank you to those, who are actually asking questions and to luke, who is answering them. The rest of you... make your comments in a different thread. Please!

Now for the new set of questions...

15) What do you think influences the outcome of the game more? The particular players, the system used or something else?

16) Did you noticed that some of the gamers (Forgies or not) are able to express their love their game only by denouncing some other game against which they claim, theirs is superior? Might there be the roots of "the war" and some bad blood recently? And if so, how to cure it?

17) Some claim, that GNS theory is primarily intended for game design. As a game designer, did you benefit directly from the theory? If so, can you be specific about some concepts derived from it?

All for know, I guess...

My apologies folks. The war and elitism thing seems so silly I couldn't stop the sarcasm. I'll stay out of the rest.

Edit- Actually I'd like to try to be a good citizen, I feel bad....

Luke,

Why do you think there exists a significant group of people who seem to be angry about story/indie games? What do you find on target about their position? What do you think is based on misunderstanding?

Quote from: Thanatos02I think maybe it'd be a good idea to put a self-imposed halt on the questions until Luke gets around to answering them again. Otherwise they'll just build up and we'll end with a typical flame-thing.

I didn't have anything to do with this Q&A session, or anything, but because I'd prefer to see healthier relations (and because I like Burning Wheel), I'd prefer to see questions asked in good faith (and continue to hope Luke returns in kind). Please don't try to bait, trap, or ask leading or barbed questions. I'm thinking more of Clyde and less of Maw, though I'm leery of some of Maw's questions, myself. (Though would love to see others answered, so.)

The problem is that Luke is a busy guy with a lot of projects and stuff from what I can tell and what he's said, and the unstructured nature of this Q&A thread is something that can just lead to infinite questions being asked, and too quickly for him to respond to adequately.  Though Luke himself can say if this is so, I do have a suggestion for you guys.

Why not start a separate thread called "The Twelve Questions for Luke" or some such and debate and decide what 12 of your Best, most pertienent and decisive questions are.   Then post them in a "Q&A: Luke Crane - Finale" or some such.   Then let him answer the 12 to his satisfaction.  When he gives the signal then you guys should come in and comment and counter question, etc.   That way you will get the best questions in, and get the best most complete answers from Luke, without this sort of running on ad infinitum.  

I hope this is a good suggestion.  If not, please ignore.

- Mark

J Arcane, James,
Do you feel like I'm being dismissive and insulting? Is now the time of the discussion when we can be dismissive and insulting? I would love to be dismissive and insulting, so you let me know. I promise you won't like it if I'm dismissive and insulting to you.

James,
As far as I know, we call bullshit on each other when we don't like what someone is saying. I don't have any specific examples. Slightly more specifically, some people agree with Ron, and some people don't. That's it. I get the feeling you think there's a secret order of hooded publishers casting spells. There's not. There's not much more than what you see on the internet.

David,
I think the Forge is an amazing effort. Ron and company have create a place where productive, focused dialog is the norm and sniping, trolling and flamewars aren't allowed. That's pretty cool in my book. I don't always agree with the moderation, and I've said so in the past, but on the whole I think it's much more positive than negative.

Pseudo,
The lifepaths are what they are. They're not 1000% universal. They're deliberately directed and focused. As for your two specific queries, I think they're handled in the basic text: Archivist, Custodian and Interpreter are three scholarly LPs in the Theocracy. I thought that Cult Leader and/or High Official would satisfy the requirements for Vaylen demagogues.

No plans of patching the lifepaths. They don't need it. All of my games ask that the players come to them and look at them for what they are, not for what they wished they'd be. I try to be as expansive as possible, but the nature of the lifepath system means I have to stay pretty focused.

Alnag,
15) Outcome can mean at least two different things. If outcome means "Had a good time with my friends," then obviously it depends heavily on the players. If outcome means, "built an intense story around killing sinners who sinned with murder" then the system is primary in fostering the outcome. In most games that I know, those goals are separate but intertwined. We want to have fun, but we want to tell a really fucking cool story, therefore I say those two halves -- player and game -- are equally important.

16) I think lots of people say stupid shit on the internet, Forgies, story-gamers, you, me, whatever. I think that maybe someone said that "my game's the best evar." Ok, hell, I've said it. I do not think that someone being excited about their game is the cause for war. Nor do I think saying stupid shit in general is casus belli. If it was, Uruguay would be a crater by now, trust me. The simplest to "fix" this is two fold: first, don't take it all too seriously. Laugh it off and return to playing awesome games. Second, if you encounter something you don't like on the internet, give that person the absolute most charitable reading you can muster. If it's still offensive to you, ask them about it. Declaring war doesn't foster dialog, promote understanding or help.

17) I have benefited directly from the work that Ralph, Ron, Vincent, Mike H, et omnes have done. The difference between BWC and BWR is marked. BWR is a tighter game and more fun to play. However, GNS in an of itself is a very small facet of all of the RPG theory work that they've done. But to answer your question, after bashing heads with Ralph Mazza for a couple of months, I was better able to express "conflict resolution" in my game -- task, intent, success and failure.

Clyde,
I think I addressed all this in answering Pundit's questions.

-L

Question for Luke: Have you ever considered coming up with a non-lifepath character gen system for Burning Wheel? I'd love to have a setup where I can just get a bunch of points and throw them into the skills and attributes I want my character to have and come out with a reasonably balanced character, and it would make it easier for me to convince people who are leery of the lifepaths to play - even better, the lifepath system will still be there as a handy reference for what to buy if you want your character to be competent at his job.

(That, incidentally, is one of the big problems I have with the lifepath system as it stands: it automatically assumes that people are competent at their day jobs, which really isn't necessarily true at all. It would be nice to have the option of playing a character who'd had a bunch of jobs but dicked around during all of them and picked up a bunch of unrelated skills, like a soldier who sucked at basic training but ended up making crazy money gambling with his fellow NCOs...)

Personally, I'd rather see the backside of Scripted combat than lifepaths, it being the biggest bar to entry for me.  But I'm pretty sure that's not in the offering.

So, if I have a question at all its probably: Why in the name of the Seven Devils of Kimon did you think scripted 'only eight options' combat was a good idea???

Okay, scratch that: Why, in the name of the Seven Devils of Kimon, did you think rigorously regimented 'scripted combat' with such limited choices was superior to more traditional, more freeform combat?

 Mind you I only have BE so if the implementation is vastly different in BW you'll have to explain how/why.

Actually, luke, you give yourself too much credit if you think being dismissive and insulting will be felt.  I mean, my glasses, when I wear them, are silver.  So why should I care what some goof in red glasses thinks?

Please note, I'm calling J Arcane out about claiming allegiances - something very pundity. That's not dismissive. OK, so I said I agree with J's post; it would have been more accurate to say I agree with the underlying idea, perhaps not the delivery. I do agree that you seem to have..I dont' know, a blindspot?...about "better" and "progress." But in the spirit of the thread, I'll reposition it as a question.

Do you think it is possible to objectively say that the games that sprung from the "indie" movement (the quotes are not scare quotes, it's to indicate a rather fluid term) are better than what came before?

Do you think it is possible to objectively say that about any two games?

NOTE: please do not use the rhetorical approach, as I've seen here before (not necessarily from you that I recall), of bringing up repugnant games scrawled on a napkin as proof that one game can be objectively better than another.

If it's not too much trouble I do have two questions you can get around to when it suits you, Luke.

#1. Your games seem very professional, but I always wondered; ever since I heard the issue with the ashcan front et al., how does your publishing/organization situation effect your playtesting or final product outcome? (Are you satisfied with it, for example?)

#2. I had a second question, but I forgotted it.

Quote from: Warthurlike a soldier who sucked at basic training but ended up making crazy money gambling with his fellow NCOs...)

Nice!  That's pretty much exactly the character I'm playing (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=45026) in my current campaign :)

Warthur,
The answer to your first question is: That's why I published the Monster Burner. Seriously, if you don't want to use the LPs, just use the Monster Burner.

As for your second, I believe you can do exactly that. You only have to open your required skills, you don't have to advance them. You can use your other points to focus on secondary skills or skills from some oddball lifepath you took.

Spike,
I never said BW was superior to anything. I personally like games that give me tactical choices. I don't enjoy the "I go, you go -- hit/miss" style conflicts any more. BW/BE conflicts are tactical and tense and they force the players to engage in the game and think.

James,
Perhaps I misread your comment, then. Regardless, I think BWR is objectively better than BWC, but that's because I've seriously studied them both. In passing, I think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion. I also think that Inspectres is better designed than most games out there. It's mechanics interface perfectly with its stated intent. There's nothing missing and there's nothing extraneous. It is a completely functional game in every respect.

I do believe that game design is an art and also a skill. There are films and books which are formally and technically better than other films and books. This doesn't speak to how people enjoy art, simply how a piece of work is built.

Thanatos,
I talk about this a lot in the podcast interviews I do. I think I address it specifically  here (http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show006.mp3), but I'm not 100% sure.

In brief: I playtest my stuff as much as I can, but i'm never worried about getting it perfect. At some point you have to let go of your babies. Anyway, I have a good team here that really pushes me to make our books as tight as they can be before we go release them. We start with concept discussions, then I write them, then we playtest them, then they get edited, we test some more, then edited some more, and more editing and then we release them.

It's a learning process. I'm constantly modifying the way we do things around here so we can do more, better, faster.

-L

Quote from: lukeSpike,
I never said BW was superior to anything. I personally like games that give me tactical choices. I don't enjoy the "I go, you go -- hit/miss" style conflicts any more. BW/BE conflicts are tactical and tense and they force the players to engage in the game and think.

-L

I'm not suggesting you said that BW was superior or not. I'm suggesting you felt that the scripted combat was superior to other methods of combat, else you wouldn't have gone with it.  I still want to know why, but you attempted to answer so I'll address it.

Y'see, to me, scripted combat isn't really all that tactical. In BE its obviously more abstracted, because you are dealing with units rather than individuals and the 'corner him and stab him in the face' rule was an utter cop out in its simplicity.  If anything it feels like a card game, only you only get eight cards and so does the other guy.  Very limited.  Sure, it may force people to think, but more than other types of combat rules? Not so sure.

Mind you, this is a big issue for me, one of my many unfinished projects is an attempt to bring in the sort of dynamic action you see in anime and kung fu movies to the actual table, so I've been putting thought into the subject quite a bit.

Quote from: lukeJames,
Perhaps I misread your comment, then. Regardless, I think BWC is objectively better than BWR, but that's because I've seriously studied them both. In passing, I think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion. I also think that Inspectres is better designed than most games out there. It's mechanics interface perfectly with its stated intent. There's nothing missing and there's nothing extraneous. It is a completely functional game in every respect.

I do believe that game design is an art and also a skill. There are films and books which are formally and technically better than other films and books. This doesn't speak to how people enjoy art, simply how a piece of work is built.

A damn fine answer.  I don't agree with it one whit, but a nice direct answer. Thanks!

Can I followup on something you said to someone else? In answer to Spike, you said:

Quote from: lukeI never said BW was superior to anything. I personally like games that give me tactical choices. I don't enjoy the "I go, you go -- hit/miss" style conflicts any more. BW/BE conflicts are tactical and tense and they force the players to engage in the game and think.

Do you think GURPS forces players to engage in the game and think?  D&D? Amber?

Ok, it's really three questions...

Quote from: lukeWarthur,
The answer to your first question is: That's why I published the Monster Burner. Seriously, if you don't want to use the LPs, just use the Monster Burner.

Excellent! (And obvious, now I come to think of it.) Thanks for that.

QuoteAs for your second, I believe you can do exactly that. You only have to open your required skills, you don't have to advance them. You can use your other points to focus on secondary skills or skills from some oddball lifepath you took.

Hmm, perhaps I should look at the lifepaths more closely too.

Spike,
Don't know what to tell you. It is tactical, in so far as it demands decision making based on imperfect information and provides a series of choices that are substantively different.

I'm sure as you work on your designs you'll see that you've got to limit people's choices, but limits also provide ground for hard choices and imaginative play.

As for Close Combat in Burning Empires, I was just trying to represent what goes on in the comics. Firefights are huge tactical affairs, close combat is quick and dirty.

James,
One of my absolute most favorite things about this medium is that is a thinking man's game. It engages the brain in ways that most other game media do not. This applies to D&D or GURPs or whatever. Burning Wheel simply takes a different approach to the tactical elements of the medium -- it requires that the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess for the moment, much like poker.

-L

QuoteIn passing, I think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion.

And yet there's a fairly vocal group of people who prefer the older editions and think the latest one is crap.  I'm not one of them, mind, and I tend to find that group annoying.  

You're using muddled language here.  Either you THINK it's better, or it's objectively better. Those are not the same thing.  You have an opinion on the matter, one I happen to share, but that's not the same thing as an objectively proven fact.  

There's no such thing.  It's a subjective medium, and your and my opinion have more to do with our personal tastes than any objective measurement of quality.  

However, the difference between you and I, is that apparently I'm actually capable of recognizing this, while you are either unwilling or unable to do so.  

Indeed, from an objective standpoint, I am forced to concede that there are aspects of the older editions that could be appealing to some, such as quicker character generation, or a more independent nature to the rules that makes houseruling and modification easier.  I may not find those traits appealing, but plenty do, and neither of us are objectively correct in any sense, it's all a matter of taste.

I have seen enough new editions and new game fads and darlings in my time to realize that for every new development you or I might think are great, there's plenty of others who think it sucks.

The failure to recognize this fact has more to do with the general hostility levelled at the Forge than any other element of it's behavior.  It is the fundamental root of that dissatisfaction, and the failure to understand it will doom that dissatisfaction to continue.

So I say again, RPGs are not technology.  There is no objective "progress" in the medium of RPGs.  There is new, there is different, but there is never a proven better.  Ever.  And never will be.

Luke-

Any game more complex than a coin toss will by nature involve some measure of tactics.  The scripted combat is as simple as a this :you and your opponent each have eight cards numbering from 1 to 8. Each even numbered card is red.  Each turn you throw down a card, high numbers win, black cards beat red cards, draws are 'no winner'.

that's about it. Lots of room for thinking and strategy, but it also can lead to people drawing more or less at random. Its an imperfect analogy, sure. You can, for example, throw down the same card time after time, and obviously the best card to throw in the card game is the black 7, which isn't obviously the case in the RPG.

I've seen 'blind declare' combat before, but I don't think they did 'three turns' which could theoretically make you a remote observer, much like a playstation game I once had where you sent out preprogrammed robots.. the goal being to make good programs, but the fights were deadly dull. Watch two stupid machines duke it out with no direct input. Its theory, of course, as I haven't seen it play out yet.

As for the cornering rule: Emulation is a fine goal as far as I can tell, but this might be a case of taking it too far.  I think if I gathered each reference to 'corner him and shoot him in the face' together they would be longer than the actual rule.   I imagine that even the huge tactical firefights don't take up that many actual panels if the focus of the comic is on the characters, but if you reduced all combats down to a single opposed dice pool check more people would howl.

As for my own work: Its here more or less. I've focused on freeing up options as much as possible, possibly too much, but hey, its a fun mental exercise to figure out how to make it work.  How do you make options meaningful when  you can do almost anything?

Quote from: lukeJames,
One of my absolute most favorite things about this medium is that is a thinking man's game. It engages the brain in ways that most other game media do not. This applies to D&D or GURPs or whatever. Burning Wheel simply takes a different approach to the tactical elements of the medium -- it requires that the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess for the moment, much like poker.

Thanks Luke!

Since I don't own BW and BE, I'm curious how it does what you say, that is, require the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess.  I'm wondering if you can help me by contrasting it with something (with which I'm familiar) like D&D. Honestly curious.

Quote from: James J SkachThanks Luke!

Since I don't own BW and BE, I'm curious how it does what you say, that is, require the user operate on imperfect information and make his best guess.  I'm wondering if you can help me by contrasting it with something (with which I'm familiar) like D&D. Honestly curious.

I can help out at least with the BE side of things, which I don't think is THAT different.

Scripted combat means you have for combat (or social combat) eight options, your opponent has the same eight.  These options interact with each other in various ways, some are more powerful against others, some are weaker. You don't know what your opponent (the GM usually) picked until the turn resolves.

Each sides pick three moves in a row, which I think is mixed. Some good, some bad.

If it's not too specific, how is Scripted Combat supposed to work. I read Burning Wheel, but just couldn't figure out how a combat was supposed to go operating like that.

(If someone else knows, I can accept a PM or another thread could be started. Scripting is a major issue behind me halting a Planescape modification - besides the amazing amount of work I found it to be.)

Quote from: Thanatos02If it's not too specific, how is Scripted Combat supposed to work. I read Burning Wheel, but just couldn't figure out how a combat was supposed to go operating like that.

(If someone else knows, I can accept a PM or another thread could be started. Scripting is a major issue behind me halting a Planescape modification - besides the amazing amount of work I found it to be.)

Well, Burning Empires has, as I recall offhand, a checksheet with three columns on it. each participant marks one item off of each list and then everyone 'turns them over' and resolves.

After everything is resolved, start over.  Luke, I'm sure, was the target of that, but I'm bored and stuck working late... so Nah!:p

Quote from: SpikeWell, Burning Empires has, as I recall offhand, a checksheet with three columns on it. each participant marks one item off of each list and then everyone 'turns them over' and resolves.

After everything is resolved, start over.  Luke, I'm sure, was the target of that, but I'm bored and stuck working late... so Nah!:p

I was just trying to figure out how combat would be accomplished by anything except guessing.

Quote from: Thanatos02I was just trying to figure out how combat would be accomplished by anything except guessing.

If you still need help with it I can explain next time you're over.  Paul and I ran through a few test combats one evening, which really cleared things up for me.

Hey, I didn't want this to turn into a BW lovefest, but here goes:

All major conflicts in BW and BE use this method:

A "round" or exchange is divided into three segments called volleys.

In each volley, the player has a series of action options available to him.

Actions are Strike, Countestrike, Point, Close, Suppressive Fire, Take Cover, Feint, Dismiss, Withdraw, etc.

Each player in the conflict chooses one or more action in each of the three volleys at the start of the exchange. The volleys are announced in order, one at a time. Actions for each volley are then revealed and resolved simultaneously.

On paper, it seems like a guessing game. It's not.

In play, there are myriad details which help you guess what your opponent's next choices will be. Factors include:

1) Pure predictability -- people tend to act in predictable manners and make choices in patterns.

2) Skills/abilities limit choices and favor others -- certain characters will just be better at certain actions than others, so players can be relied upon to choose what benefits them most.

3) Certain actions chain -- certain actions favor a follow up with another specific action. Aggressive Stance is usually followed with Strike, for example. And an attacking maneuver is usually placed following a defensive one.

4) Equipment limits options -- weapon speed, ammunition and other factors influence choices. So if you're paying attention to what your opponent is doing, you can see that if he's out of ammunition, he's probably not going to be shooting.

All of those factors can weigh into the decision of what actions to choose. The information is imperfect because, despite all those factors, a player may do something less effective or risky, but unexpected.

J Arcane,
You're right. You are smarter than me and better than me because your opinion is more right than mine. Clearly.

-L

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the scripted combat either. I can live with the general idea, but the implementation didn't quite grab me.

So, Luke, anyone ever tried variants to the current version? Two phases would be one of the most obvious ones. This could take some influences from the TRoS game.
Or a different granularity of combat, replacing the current maneuvers with shorter or longer combat actions. Maybe it would be fun turning up the scale to the old D&D one minute combat round... Or even shorter stabs, punches, making the scripted phases into rather fast combos.

Alternative systems would be nice for some kind of companion (or to emphasize the style of add-on games). The nice thing about the rules is that due to the toolkit approach it wouldn't looked to artificial. That's what I liked about Spycraft 2.0 and what I like about Burning Wheel, although as I said before, I'm not too happy about the implementations. (Not to speak of my general distrust of social interaction rules)

Well Sosthenes, Jake Norwood, designer of Riddle of Steel, recently said this to me about BW:

Quote from: Jake NorwoodI've physically fought with swords for a pretty long time now. I've seen the worlds absolute best living swordsmen in action, and BW does a remarkably good job at modeling the relationship of speed, positioning (footwork), and the chaos of thinking a few moves ahead. It's got it's gamey bits, but it's also shockingly accurate. A lot more goes into a fight other than "being good at it," oddly.

I like Burning Wheel and Burning Empires. I like the way they work. I have no plans on changing them any time soon.

-L

I never asked you to change anything, I just wondered whether -- in the course of designing BW -- you ever tried other options -- or know of players who've done that. Ranged combat is basically a simplified version of melee, so I thought that it's rather likely that someone mixed up things a bit. No fan of house rules?

And please don't get started with the accuracy discussion. That's been bad enough with GURPS and martial arts in the past ;)

Sorry.

I have playtested many, many variants of the system. The current incarnations are the ones I find more satisfying.

-L

Sosthenes, you may want to check out the BW houserule forum (http://burningwheel.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25).

Thanks, Brantai. No wikis? ;)

EDIT: Found it. (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page)

QuoteJ Arcane,
You're right. You are smarter than me and better than me because your opinion is more right than mine. Clearly.

:rolleyes:

18) So inspired by -E. elsewhere, do you think (even a little bit), that there si a "cult" of the traditional GM, that is corrosive to the hobby?

19) Do you think, that there are some "incoherent" games out there, that lead to power struggle and if so, can you offer some examples?

20) And finally do you think, you were brain damaged by gaming? And if so, is it permanent brain damage or just temporary trauma? ;)

1. Since 2005, how many story games have there been that have broken new ground in the manner of their forebears? Isn't there a dramatic disproportion between that originary inventiveness and the current scene of variation, refinement, and ticking off the genre boxes; and why is that not proof that the story games paradigm has exhausted itself already?

2. Nicotine Girls don't sell. Photos of DexCon, Camp Nerdly and so on prove that story gamers are gamers as we know them. Given this, why has the project of breaking out of the ghetto thematically and rules-wise, of reaching an entirely new audience of nongamers, not been a resounding failure?

And if it has been one: what solid, supra-anecdotal evidence--beyond "my g/f wouldn't touch D&D but she's all over 1001 Nights"--inclines one to say: "so far"?

As an amusing aside, I should mention that I was going to buy a copy of Nicotine Girls when I stopped.

"Weren't you going to get that?" asked my girlfriend.
"Yeah, but I play it every day when I get up, so I think I'll pass this time." I said.

It's too much like my actual life for me to really want a copy. x_x

Alnag,

18) There is a subset of roleplaying gamers who believe that the GM player has special rights and privileges -- that he is more powerful, more influential and more important than the other players.* These gamers believe the GM's job is to simultaneously take no shit from uppity players while also guiding them through his story with a fatherly hand. In this style of play it is the players' twofold job to give the GM shit and get out from under his screw, while docilely accepting "his story." This group often intimates that the GM is "god" in the game and replete with special powers and not to be angered. For evidence of this type of thinking, I direct you to RPG.net.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=337030&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=328634&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=336887&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=328812&highlight=GM
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=336864
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=342059&highlight=GM
etc. and so on.

None of these assumptions are universally true. The GM is simply another player with his own particular duties. The rules indicate what those duties are. His role is no more important than anyone elses. He is not god, though some rules sets grant him supernumerary power over rules and players.

It has been my experience that new players entering into the hobby are put off by the cult-like hazing ritual involved in some groups which entails repeatedly having your input shot down by the GM. Ideas rejected and assumptions flaunted until the player accepts the power of the GM. Many new players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaborative storytelling. I have witnessed the disappointment of these players when they find the game is instead a weird patriarchal social group focused on one person's interpretation of the mechanics. I believe that, as the hobby continues to shrink, this is bad for all parties involves. To point to the old original ways and snarl, "But this is how it started and how it will end!" is to miss the point. People are leaving the hobby in droves. Stores are closing, sales are dropping. There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." It is possible for hobbies to die.

I define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

19) Alnag, I honestly don't understand the question.

20) Of course I've been brain damaged by gaming. Look at me. I even publish my own games -- the worst sign of brain damage there is.

*I think it's also worth noting that when asked directly, nearly every rational human being will answer questions about what the GM does using some form of "he's the facilitator of fun" at the table. This is not useful. It doesn't describe what is actually happening in play. Hell, railroad sessions can be fun, but that doesn't obviate what I'm talking about.


Pierce,
1) I'm not familiar with all of the small press stuff released since 2005 and I agree that there are peaks and valleys in development. I do not agree that one valley is an indicator of exhaustion. Just because I can't predict something, doesn't mean something unpredictable will not happen. Also, from my standpoint, I'm never interested in the cutting edge. I'm always more interested in games that refine the cutting edge and serve it back to the early majority. Personally, I think 2005 was a good year for these types of games, even if they were refinements and not innovations -- Polaris, Mountain Witch, Breaking the Ice, Bacchanal, Truth and Justice and my favorite, With Great Power, make an impressive list of functional, different, playable games.

2) Why hasn't the effort to reach nongamers been a failure? I don't know. My particular games sell to gamers and hardcore gamers at that. I don't know who plays my friends' games. Beyond hearing anecdotal evidence of small press games being used to introduce nongamer spouses, girlfriends, friends and parents I've got nothing on this one. However, I suspect that in a few years, IPR may have some sales trend data to support or debunk our gut instincts.

Thanatos,
Nicotine Girls is available for free on the web: http://halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html

Quote from: lukeThere is a subset of roleplaying gamers who believe that the GM player has special rights and privileges -- that he is more powerful, more influential and more important than the other players.* These gamers believe the GM's job is to simultaneously take no shit from uppity players while also guiding them through his story with a fatherly hand. In this style of play it is the players' twofold job to give the GM shit and get out from under his screw, while docilely accepting "his story." This group often intimates that the GM is "god" in the game and replete with special powers and not to be angered. For evidence of this type of thinking, I direct you to RPG.net.
.
.
.
None of these assumptions are universally true. The GM is simply another player with his own particular duties. The rules indicate what those duties are. His role is no more important than anyone elses. He is not god, though some rules sets grant him supernumerary power over rules and players.

It has been my experience that new players entering into the hobby are put off by the cult-like hazing ritual involved in some groups which entails repeatedly having your input shot down by the GM. Ideas rejected and assumptions flaunted until the player accepts the power of the GM. Many new players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaborative storytelling. I have witnessed the disappointment of these players when they find the game is instead a weird patriarchal social group focused on one person's interpretation of the mechanics. I believe that, as the hobby continues to shrink, this is bad for all parties involves. To point to the old original ways and snarl, "But this is how it started and how it will end!" is to miss the point. People are leaving the hobby in droves. Stores are closing, sales are dropping. There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." It is possible for hobbies to die.

I define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

So, I'm curious.

If this is "how it started," but it "is not particularly good for the hobby," then how did the hobby grow for many years, including a constant influx of players from various age groups (don't have a sense about gender)?

It seemes to be a bit of a conundrum to acknowledge that this is the power structure that was in place for many years - essentially from the beginning of the hobby, and certainly during it's explosion of growth in the late 70's early 80's - and then say that it's the same power structure that's now destroying the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are people who like to tinker with the power structure and I'm cool with that - play on.  I'm just lost when it comes to trying to explain this as some response to the decline in the hobby.

Quote from: lukeThanatos,
Nicotine Girls is available for free on the web: http://halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html

I should note that my memories are not always true, eh? >.>
I should change 'bought' to 'save on harddrive for further use'... :downs:

James,
It's only my opinion. I simply submit that the "old ways" have seemed to have ossified and, given the amount of shrinkage, certainly aren't helping.

-L

Quote from: lukeJames,
It's only my opinion. I simply submit that the "old ways" have seemed to have ossified and, given the amount of shrinkage, certainly aren't helping.

-L

You figure it hurts to have multiple ways of DMing/running/playing games? For example, would you say that the old method of DMing is universally bad, or simply that it becomes bad when abused? (Or some other answer, naturally.)

I'm speaking as a DM, myself. But I'm pretty sure I'm not slapping my players with my dick when I'm running it. (Er, metaphorical dick-slapping. I'm *very* sure I'm not slapping in any kind of literal sense.)

Quote from: James J SkachSo, I'm curious.

If this is "how it started," but it "is not particularly good for the hobby," then how did the hobby grow for many years, including a constant influx of players from various age groups (don't have a sense about gender)?

It seemes to be a bit of a conundrum to acknowledge that this is the power structure that was in place for many years - essentially from the beginning of the hobby, and certainly during it's explosion of growth in the late 70's early 80's - and then say that it's the same power structure that's now destroying the hobby.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are people who like to tinker with the power structure and I'm cool with that - play on.  I'm just lost when it comes to trying to explain this as some response to the decline in the hobby.

Well, the traditional power structure hasn't changed and remains the most overwhelmingly popular mode of play -- and (because of its ubiquitous popularity), the most successful mode for bringing people into the hobby.

Given the absence of evidence that power structure has anything to do with the growth or shrinkage of the hobby, wouldn't it be just as logical to assume that some other factor (like the proliferation of games with less effective power structures and therefore less effective mechanics) is responsible for any measurable shrinkage?

Could the indie revolution be responsible for driving people away?

I certainly wouldn't make that claim without evidence -- but if I chose to, I'd expect folks who like indie games to take some degree of umbrage...

But then, I'm weird that way, huh?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: lukeNone of these assumptions are universally true. The GM is simply another player with his own particular duties. The rules indicate what those duties are. His role is no more important than anyone elses. He is not god, though some rules sets grant him supernumerary power over rules and players.

Is this part your opinion, or is this a fact?

Quote from: lukeIt has been my experience that new players entering into the hobby are put off by the cult-like hazing ritual involved in some groups which entails repeatedly having your input shot down by the GM.

OK, so this is your experience and, I assume, you have found a group of like-minded (experienced) folks.  Is that a fair picture?

Quote from: lukeMany new players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaborative storytelling.

Is it safe to assume that this is your opinion and not fact; that you have no specific statistical information showing that "many players enter the hobby thinking, wrongly, that it involves collaboration storytelling?" If you had to guess, given this is an assumption, what percentage of new players would you think enter the hobby with this thinking? To even extend the direction of thought, what percentage of people do you think were existing players that were not getting the kind of collaborative storytelling they always wanted?

Quote from: lukeI have witnessed the disappointment of these players when they find the game is instead a weird patriarchal social group focused on one person's interpretation of the mechanics.

• Is weird an objective assessment?  I mean, I don't necessarily disagree given your description, but isn't weird and bit...subjective?
• Is the game a weird patriarchal social group, or is the social group a weird patriarchal social group?  If it's the latter, might I suggest Kyle's Cheetoism?
  

Quote from: lukeI believe that, as the hobby continues to shrink, this is bad for all parties involves. To point to the old original ways and snarl, "But this is how it started and how it will end!" is to miss the point.

I've seen a lot of people yell the first part of the conjunction; I've not seen to many people who snarl the second. Do you think if people truly thought the GM power structure was a threat to the hobby, they would continue?

Quote from: lukePeople are leaving the hobby in droves. Stores are closing, sales are dropping. There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." It is possible for hobbies to die.

Is it opinion or fact that all of these assertions, while true, are driven from the "traditional" GM power structure?

Quote from: lukeI define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

I'm not so picky.  I define it as a constant influx of players. But at least we agree on that!

Quote from: Thanatos02I'm *very* sure I'm not slapping in any kind of literal sense.)

There was that once...

I dick slap my players all the time...so much so I need a cigarette afterwards. BTW I use my viking hat as an ashtray.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BrantaiThere was that once...

It doesn't count if you're drunk or in college.

Quote from: lukePeople are leaving the hobby in droves. (...) There will certainly be a hardcore of players who never stop playing, but that is not particularly "good for the hobby." (...)I define "Good for the hobby," in this case, as a constant influx of players from various age groups and both genders who try and buy a variety of games.

Well... who am I to know that. So...

21) Do you have any factual evidence, that people are leaving the hobby in droves. And if so, that this is not a common state - eg. it is happening since the beginning. And finally, that this is cause by the "traditional GM approach".

22) To put it very directly, as proposed by -E: "Do you think that the role of the traditional GM, with absolute in-game authority, is damaging to the hobby?"

23) and also by -E: "Do you think rules-sets that give the GM absolute in-game authority inherently cause social problems for most people who play traditional games?"

Quote from: luke19) Alnag, I honestly don't understand the question.

I will try to rephrase my question than. Ron Edwards coins the term Incoherent game. See here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/) for example.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAlso, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as the best-known examples.

This expression was adopted by the Forge community (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search2). So the question is. Do you accept this "expression" as yours. Do you think it has some merit?

Isn't it suspicious, that the most successful games* (see above) are called incoherent? Doesn't it sound much like "sour grapes".

*I define successful game here simply by the amout of players. More players mean more successful.

Quote from: luke20) Of course I've been brain damaged by gaming. Look at me. I even publish my own games -- the worst sign of brain damage there is.

24) I understand it, that sign of brain damage is publishing of your own games. What are some other signs? Also if brain damage leads to publishing of one's own games, isn't it possible, that the Forge and other "designer-oriented" pages are gathering of brain-damaged players and the rest of the hobby is normal?

Luke, I have a followup on this:

Quote from: lukeThese gamers believe the GM's job is to simultaneously take no shit from uppity players while also guiding them through his story with a fatherly hand.

Do you think that "guiding players through his story" is an essential characteristic of GMs in "traditional" games

1) in the historical sense? That is, it's how things were always done until recently?

2) in the structural sense? That is, it's a necessary consequence of the mechanics and advice contained in most RPGs published before the last few years?

I realize there might be some exceptions to "always" and "most", but if your answer is "yes" to (1) or (2), could you give a sense of whether the exceptions would be better characterized as "a significant minority" or "isolated cases"?

Thanatos,
No. I'm simply saying that we have some bad habits. In light of the waning sales and dying companies, I think self-examination is a good thing.

James,
1) This is a fact.

2) Uh, sure.

3) Purely anecdotal. However, before you go ballistic about how I can't scientifically prove anything, there is precious little hard user data on anything in this hobby. We have limited sales figures, an outdated study by Ryan Dancy/WOTC and that's about it. Everything in this hobby is done by observation. gut instinct and bravado.

4) The patriarchism I observe is present in some groups. I don't know where it springs from, but I suspect, like many things, it's source is external to the game and it's application is reinforced by text within the game.

5) People do not always act in their own best interest. Regardless, I do not think that this one bad habit will be the downfall of the hobby. It's one bad habit out of many. This one is worth examination because it engenders exclusionary behavior (and reinforces negative stereotypes). And before you jerk knees over that, think for a moment just how small the RPG hobby is. It is a niche and as a whole we practice exclusionary behavior.

6) See above. I never claimed that this particular bad habit was the root of all evil. Merely that it does exist and it certainly isn't helping.

Alnag,
21) There are, unfortunately, no exit interviews for people who give up. However, we do have a plethora of additional evidence at our disposal. First, the demise of various companies, Wizards Attic, Osseum, Guardians of Order and numerous others over the past few years. Second, Green Ronin and Palladium nearly went under last year and had to plead with their fans to keep them in business. This is not a good sign. Third, some numbers:

2004: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=133
2005: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=186

Things are not going well.

22) Yup.

23) Nope.

19.2) I agree with Ron. Games can have incoherent agenda -- professing to be about one thing while actually representing something else in their mechanics and rules. It's a pretty common flaw.

Remember, I also believe games can objectively improve over time through experimentation and development. Therefore, it's possible to have small improvements and advancements that are, ultimately, imperfect. White Wolf's claim that their games were about storytelling was an improvement in and of itself. It slammed the idea of "story" to the fore. Obviously, many people were interested in that. The lack of mechanical support for that claim was problematic.

But quality or efficiency of design do not determine popularity. Imperfect things become popular all the time. I'll leave examples up to your imagination.

And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compare White Wolf's success with small press games. White Wolf was born into a very different gaming market for one. And their objectives as a company were and are markedly different -- notably, they were a company with a marketing and advertising budget. And it's often marketing and advertising that make something popular, not quality. Small press games are mostly designed for design's sake and no marketing beyond word of mouth is undertaken.

24) Other signs of brain damage include drooling, obsessively touching my keys, banging my head against the wall, rocking back and forth and clutching myself while screaming "GRENADE" over and over again. It is absolutely possible that we're the crazy ones and you're all normal. In fact, I honestly hope that's the case.


Eliot,
1a) Yup. But, you know, I don't know where the "story" concept was introduced exactly. The mechanic underpinnings for the behavior are there in the repetition of Rule Zero in various important texts -- like the AD&D DMG.

1/2) I'm certain that it was not universal in the past. Lots of games have glimmers and hints of power-sharing mechanics or at least non-autocratic rules. These self-same games often undermine the power-sharing by including rules that grant the GM ultimate authority over rules, story and fun. Whatever is being published now did not spring from nothing. It has grown from the traditions of 30 years of gaming.

-L

[This is all one question, rephrased in several different ways, hopefully for clarity.]

Well hang on a second there, Luke. I mean thanks for your answer, but ultimate authority isn't the same as unbridled prerogrative, is it? Does it even imply a particular responsibility in itself?

Do you think it's an essential characteristic of "traditional" RPGs to make the GM responsible for "telling the story"? Or to put it another way, is it possible to temper the power to interpret, change, or ignore rules with the responsibility to do so fairly, with restraint, and in a manner that allows the players to guide play in a significant way, instead of leading them through "the story"?

(Again let's not get hung up on the inevitable problem of "how often is often?" But as before I'd appreciate distinguishing historical practice and actual games-as-written.)

Quote from: lukePurely anecdotal. However, before you go ballistic about how I can't scientifically prove anything, there is precious little hard user data on anything in this hobby. We have limited sales figures, an outdated study by Ryan Dancy/WOTC and that's about it. Everything in this hobby is done by observation. gut instinct and bravado.

I get it.  I understand there's little in the way of statistical information. It's why so many people can claim so many things on so many apsects of gaming. Have I gone ballistic on any of your answers? I'll save that for later...

But what struck me is that the bolded portion is a curious statement. The outdated study was based on a survey from 1999, released in 2000.  The copyright on the GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory essay is 2001.  So the GNS article was copyrighted only a year after the outdated study was released. System Does Matter was last updated in early 2004.

When the study was done, in 1999/2000, the gaming industry was already in contraction. This was before The Forge, but after Threefold from the usenet crowd.

Is the idea of GM Power being damaging to the hobby a later development? Is that why the study can be claimed to be "outdated?"

I'm no historian of RPG's, and so it probably requires somebody with more knowledge than I on the timeline...

Quote from: lukeThanatos,
No. I'm simply saying that we have some bad habits. In light of the waning sales and dying companies, I think self-examination is a good thing.

-L

Thanks. I understand that it's a 'softball', but that is always the impression I got from you. To put a point on it, I never felt that Burning Wheel or its ilk excluded, unconditionally, ever playing D&D again. For me, it just means that it's a different structure that creates a different playstyle that may be more appealing to some, while less appealing to others.

Eliot,

1) Nope, not unbridled prerogative. But power always implies responsibility. Just look at the standard reaction to what's a GM's job? The inevitable answer is "to facilitate fun." Seems rational and healthy, but in practice a GM's job is much more complex.

2) Like I said, I don't know where the "story" part came into the equation. On my shelf at the moment I've got the AD&D DMG granting the GM (or DM) the power to ignore any rule that gets in his way, then 15 years later something like Fading Suns gleefully urging the GM to murder any players who fuck up his story. It's a part of gamer culture, though.

And of course it's possible to use power responsibly. But the major conceit that a lot of contemporary game designers take is that you don't have to grant overarching powers to one player in order to make sure game and "story" go smoothly. Rules that do grant that power point to weak design. It's possible to design robust rules sets that clearly outline everyone's role, and are completely functional systems without having to give one player the huge temptation to break the rules as he sees fit.

James,
Are you asking why the study is outdated? It's outdated because it was done at the end of an RPG crash -- when Pokemon and Magic ruled the swamps -- and before the booming release of DnD 3.0 and DnD 3.5. It is outdated because we've had a phenomenal RPG hit in the form of World of Warcraft -- but no one's certain of its actual impact.

Also, I love how you've turned my assertion "There's a group of hardcore assholes with a bad attitude in our hobby who aren't helping" into "GM power is damaging to the hobby." Very conservative talking points of you.

Quote from: lukeAre you asking why the study is outdated? It's outdated because it was done at the end of an RPG crash -- when Pokemon and Magic ruled the swamps -- and before the booming release of DnD 3.0 and DnD 3.5. It is outdated because we've had a phenomenal RPG hit in the form of World of Warcraft -- but no one's certain of its actual impact.

Which are all valid issues.  But it's a bit of misdirection as we were talking about your anecdotally-based belief that there were people coming to looking for collaborative storytelling and finding this "weird" GM power issue. The things you bring up that make it outdated having nothing to do with that, do they?  Am I missing a connection between Magic and Pokeman and WoW and the GM power.player Empowerment issue?

Quote from: lukeAlso, I love how you've turned my assertion "There's a group of hardcore assholes with a bad attitude in our hobby who aren't helping" into "GM power is damaging to the hobby." Very conservative talking points of you.

Perhaps this will clear things up as to where I "turned your assertion" into something it's not.

Quote from: Analg22) To put it very directly, as proposed by -E: "Do you think that the role of the traditional GM, with absolute in-game authority, is damaging to the hobby?"

Quote from: luke22) Yup.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm reading your answers to get a picture. If what you meant when you said "Yup," was "There's a group of hard-core assholes with a bad attitude in our hobby who aren't helping," I'm sorry for misintepreting.  I don't think it was a great stretch though.

So which is it - is it a group of people who GM a certain way, or is it the fact that there are games that provide the GM with absolute in-game authority?

And please, please, please, don't take this as confrontational.  I'm just trying to get clarification.

Luke,

You have a pretty range of literary works you cite as inspiration/influence re:  BW or mention in the game's text.  Are there any of these (Brust, The Iliad, Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, for one) that you believe BW would be more well-suited for, as well as perhaps some of these it would be less ideal for in regards to running a game inspired by that story/general setting?  Are there any kind of fantasy/fantasy-related titles you enjoy you have a hard time seeing how they'd mesh with BW?

Quote from: lukeAnd of course it's possible to use power responsibly. But the major conceit that a lot of contemporary game designers take is that you don't have to grant overarching powers to one player in order to make sure game and "story" go smoothly. Rules that do grant that power point to weak design. It's possible to design robust rules sets that clearly outline everyone's role, and are completely functional systems without having to give one player the huge temptation to break the rules as he sees fit.
.
.
.
It's outdated because it was done at the end of an RPG crash -- when Pokemon and Magic ruled the swamps -- and before the booming release of DnD 3.0 and DnD 3.5.

You've stated:

Quote from: lukeI think D&D 3.X is objectively a better game than AD&D. It's cleaner, more cohesive and gets to the core of what D&D is about in a more efficient fashion.

You've also answer affirmative so that it's not out of the realm of interpretation to believe you think "that the role of the traditional GM, with absolute in-game authority, is damaging to the hobby."
So:
Is DnD 3.5, though cleaner and more cohesive than previous versions, still a weak design (as it grants the kind of power you've described to one player)?
Assuming DnD 3.5 grants this kind of absolute in-game authority, but it caused a "booming release," is this not counter to what should have been the response given your conclusion that this very structure is damaging the hobby?

Quote from: lukeI wear my stripes proudly. I'm not going change what I believe or preach to satisfy the answers to your questions.

In reaction to this (in Kudos/Comments):

25) Is there anything, you can imagine to happen, that would make you change what you belive or preach? (I mean believe in relation to RPGs). Be it some trustworthy research, opinion of someone, some new RPG, some strange twist in your life?

Quote from: lukeFun is utterly subjective and it's not a measure of anything objective.

26) Reading this and some other posts as well... how do you feel about scientific approach to games and fun? Do you belive it is possible or just scientific gibberish? (By scientific I mean things such as psychology...)

27) Don't you think, that the game design with one leading player (that is GM) is successful (or popular or continuing in existence), because it is natural for human societies (small groups) to create this kind of pattern?

28) Isn't the "ultimate power of GM" actually less about breaking of the rules and more about social issue of group trust, that he will not abuse it?

29) How would you react to the situation in which players after testing refuse the expanded powers and demanded the return to traditional gaming model? (Acutally happened to one of my acquaintance... FATE vs. Wheel of Time d20.) Are they braindamaged, if they want "GM to have the ultimate power?"

I recently read this (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/gametext/dnd1.html) from the  "Dungeons & Dragons Dungeons Master's Guide" first edition, by Gary Gygax (copyright 1979):

QuoteIn many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might with to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

Quote from: LukeAnd of course it's possible to use power responsibly. But the major conceit that a lot of contemporary game designers take is that you don't have to grant overarching powers to one player in order to make sure game and "story" go smoothly. Rules that do grant that power point to weak design. It's possible to design robust rules sets that clearly outline everyone's role, and are completely functional systems without having to give one player the huge temptation to break the rules as he sees fit.

#1 - What is particularly interesting to me is that the GM is explicitly granted "Rights" in D&D which could lead to abuse, should the GM be less than cool.   Understood.  I've played with both cool and uncool GMs.  I know the score.  

However, I, as a GM, never subscribed to this rule at all.  From the beginning of my game I played a "I don't cheat policy" GMing position, meaning that I always go with the dice, and if a Character (even a favorite NPC) dies in the process, I chalk it off as the nature of the game, and we moved on and roll a new Character.  (This lends an Aura of Potential Death to each game, and causes my players play more carefully).  In the process I *think* this substantially reduces the "GM is God" effect.   I've always gotten positive feedback from my players on this point.  

Question:  Luke, given the fact that a GM can override the 'GM Fiat' aspect of the D&D rules, would you say that a "The GM Won't Cheat Policy" (even if the dice are hidden (yes, trust required)) is sufficient to offset the "weak design" which I think you are suggesting is inherent in the D&D rules (see above quote)?   If not, do you think there is anything could could be done to keep D&D essentially intact and at the same time reduce or eliminate the need for 'Player Empowerment'?  

#2 - The way I Gamesmaster is to have control over the Back Story (history, political situation, and background for the world and campaign), while the Players have full control over their Characters actions, feelings, and reactions to in-world events.  I also, as Gamesmaster control the NPCs, and the Players control any NPCs that are part of their Group, which could potentially be any number (if they have an army lets say).   In other words they control the Protagonists and I control the Antagonists of the story, and through our interactions within the Setting the Plot is created forming a cumulative collaboration of Setting + Plot, or Narrative as you prefer to call it.  In my view the boundary of Authority over story is well defined, and therefore leads to a mutual collaboration between the GM and Players, neither having more control over the resulting Narrative (story) than the other.  Would you say that this is sufficient to offset or eliminate the need for 'Player Empowerment'?

#3 - Do I have the causes for the need for 'Player Empowerment' defined correctly?  Are there others?  

- Mark

James,
1) Those examples were cited to point to a decline in playership for RPGs that changed the landscape of the hobby/market and made even our most recent data points tenuous at best.

2) Both. In the face of the innovative competitive elements that I described above, what was good for the past is not necessarily good for the future. When RPGs hit the mass hobby market in the late 70s and early 80s, they were the hot new innovation. They blew all of the other hobby products out of the water. The wargamers wept as their players were siphoned off to kill orcs mano-a-mano. Wargames took decades to recover. It was only through innovation and adaptation that they did. Admittedly, some stuck to their traditional punched-chit roots, but many did not. And punched-chit wargaming is still a niche compared to what it was in the 70s.

So now, 25 years later, RPGs are facing a similar crisis. Sticking to our guns and doing the same thing over and over again will inevitably appeal to a smaller and smaller group of potential players. Change, development and progress are what's called for in times like this.


Zachary,
I personally like Earthsea and Lankhmar for Burning Wheel settings. Though Earthsea is best served using Spirit Binding or Art Magic rather than straight up Sorcery from the BWR. Ken Hite and I have bandied the idea of a Burning Iliad about. I think it'd work, but it'd take some work on my part. Thomas Covenant probably wouldn't work so well in Burning Wheel. I cite Donaldson more for inspiration and mood.

I'd love to get the licenses for Dark Sun and Planescape, too. I think they'd go nicely with the BW rules set. But that's never going to happen.

James Part 2,
1) 3.5 has it's weak elements. GM Fiat is one of them. Play speed is another one. But on the whole, it's a more robust and consistent set than previous iterations.

2) I think my response to you above answers this second question. Let me know if you need more.

Alnag,
I like your sequentially numbered questions

25) I am certain that my beliefs and observations about the gaming industry will continue to grow and change as I learn more about how games are designed and marketed and have more experience watching my own games grow.

26) I think (real) Game Theory is fascinating. A game is just a set of behaviors encouraged by probabilities, decisions and guidelines of the rules set. (Rules can be written or unwritten, btw) All of this can be studied to discern what kind of guidelines produce certain decisions. I do not think that RPGs have ever been studied in a manner that could be called scientific. They were not developed along scientific means and I doubt they'll be rigorously studied any time soon. What we have is a collection of expert opinions on how the games work. They may be  wrong, but they are a starting point. In fact, many studies and science begin as expert opinions which are later "proved" by scientific method.

27) I believe that the power dynamics of human interactions are far more nuanced that a single model father/leader type.

28) The "ultimate power of the GM" is a concept derived from older gaming texts in which the Game Master or Dungeon Master player is granted access to a special rule that allows him to ignore or change rules as he sees fit. It seems like a logical guideline for a type of game as broad reaching as a roleplaying game. However, once you factor in interpersonal power dynamics and plain old human nature (to want your own way) and the rule becomes problematic. And, as further designs have shown, it's unnecessary.

29) Some people like to play different types of games. Your friend has a preference and he knows what that preference is. That's a good thing. He should stick to what he likes. In fact, 90% of the "Forge Theory" has been developed for just that purpose -- to help people identify what it is they like about roleplaying games so that they can seek them out and play them in a manner they enjoy.


Mark,
1) No. It's in the rules. It's part of the game. Players could, in fact, turn to you and start yelling at you for not ignoring rules -- if they got into a tough scrape, for example, and you didn't hand-wave it away. Just because you ignore a rule, doesn't change the original design and intent of the game.

2) I'd say that's one way to play the game. It's a traditional way, too. It's not evil or anything, but neither does it offset or eliminate the need for alternate styles of play.

3) You've pretty much asked for an essay with this last one. I'm not sure how to answer it, really. Player Empowerment is some weird buzz-phrase. And you know what? I don't know exactly what it means. All I want is strong game design in which players all have roles to play and recourse to a neutral set of rules that no one player can break at his whim. I'm flailing here. Can you rephrase the question?

Thanks for the reply Luke.  I've seen the phrase 'Player Empowerment' bandied around, and am curious as to what it means to those who first used it.  To my mind it implies that the the Players are given control over those areas which in Traditional D&D type games were the domain of the Gamesmaster - specifically those items I mentioned, Back Story and control of the Rolled Outcomes.   If I am correct in this assessment then I imagine that Player Empowerment has advantages and disadvantages.  

Advantages:
- the players have more control over the story, thereby exercising more creativity.
- the gamesmaster is not as burdenned with the sole responsiblity to concieve of great back story.
- the game may be more entertaining if all of the participants are good story tellers.

Disadvantages:
- the element of surprise and sense of being in Another World is diminished, as the players actively participate in creating that world as they play.
- the story may have a tendency to be more fragmented or aimless with more than one Story Guide.
- the Gamesmaster carries more of the burden of responsibility to create a good back story (for those who are interested in back story, which isn't everyone).

I feel that the selection of which style depends largely on the nature of the group of people playing.  If you have a Great Story Teller in the Gamesmaster, who has in mind a fantastic back story full of suprises and amazing histories, politics and fiction, then it may well behoove the group to play a more traditional style of GMing, as described above.   On the other hand if the entire group is comprised of increadible world weavers then sharing the back story can be a wonderful thing.  That's my sense of things so far.  However, I am still exploring the Indie Games and realise that I'm only at the beginning of that road, having just completed my first reading of any Indie game system, 'Dogs in the Vineyard'.

As for rephrasing my #3 question... what I was wondering is whether or not you think that my assessment is generally on target in terms of what Player Empowerment, so-called, is trying to address, and if not, what you think are the other factors.   Of course if nothing jumps out at you then I think it's good enough to leave that question behind.

Three questions regarding Burning Empire:

What is the goal of the game?
How does BE facilitate that goal?
How does BE reward that behavior?

- Mark

Mark,
The advantages you describe are reasonable assessments of some of the small press RPGs that have emerged in the last decade. I think you should explore the disadvantages yourself with the games that you purchased. The games certainly have their disadvantages, but I think you might be surprised as to what they are.

As for your three questions, I'll answer them. But did you want to ask me the same three questions I asked you? Those are slightly, but notably, different.

What is the goal of the game? To allow the players to create a narrative arc that mimics the tone, style and feel of the Iron Empires comic books.

How does BE facilitate that goal?
Burning Empires enforces a narrative in three ways: by dedicating all of the action to the perspective of characters and providing means for those characters to grow and change through play; by ensuring that the game has an indeterminate, but absolute, end point; and by mimicking the comic book structure with a finite scene economy the players must navigate in order to accomplish their goals for their characters before the narrative comes crashing to a close.

How does BE reward that behavior? Burning Empires rewards players for accomplishing goals through their characters. These rewards can be used in future scenes to accomplish greater goals. More than that, Burning Empires rewards cooperative play -- groups that work cooperatively have greater control over the speed at which they reach the end point of the game.

What I asked you was: What is your game about? How is your game about that? How does your game reward players for engaging what it is about?

Burning Empires is about consequences. It is about consequences because it drives players to state goals and take action. In the game, these actions always have ramifications with which the players must contend. The players are rewarded for engaging their goals in a variety of ways -- for simply playing into them, for accomplishing them and for breaking them.

Goal of the design and premise of the game are two different things.

1) Would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?
2) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with friends vs. playing with strangers?
3) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with strangers vs. playing with friends?

Quote from: lukeMark,
The advantages you describe are reasonable assessments of some of the small press RPGs that have emerged in the last decade. I think you should explore the disadvantages yourself with the games that you purchased. The games certainly have their disadvantages, but I think you might be surprised as to what they are.

As for your three questions, I'll answer them. But did you want to ask me the same three questions I asked you? Those are slightly, but notably, different.

What is the goal of the game? To allow the players to create a narrative arc that mimics the tone, style and feel of the Iron Empires comic books.

How does BE facilitate that goal?
Burning Empires enforces a narrative in three ways: by dedicating all of the action to the perspective of characters and providing means for those characters to grow and change through play; by ensuring that the game has an indeterminate, but absolute, end point; and by mimicking the comic book structure with a finite scene economy the players must navigate in order to accomplish their goals for their characters before the narrative comes crashing to a close.

How does BE reward that behavior? Burning Empires rewards players for accomplishing goals through their characters. These rewards can be used in future scenes to accomplish greater goals. More than that, Burning Empires rewards cooperative play -- groups that work cooperatively have greater control over the speed at which they reach the end point of the game.

What I asked you was: What is your game about? How is your game about that? How does your game reward players for engaging what it is about?

Burning Empires is about consequences. It is about consequences because it drives players to state goals and take action. In the game, these actions always have ramifications with which the players must contend. The players are rewarded for engaging their goals in a variety of ways -- for simply playing into them, for accomplishing them and for breaking them.

Goal of the design and premise of the game are two different things.

Hey Luke,

Aha.  Well, yes you got me.  I wanted to ask you the same ones you asked me because I wanted another example of how such questions get answered, so that, of course, I could continue to refine my own.   I'm curious as to what the difference between Goal and Premise is.  Would you mind elaborating a bit?  Thanks.   Also, from what I saw of Burning Empires it looked like a really challenging game, and seemed in some way almost like a poker game where the Players had to guess/estimate what you're moves would be each turn, and derive counter moves (I understand moves is not quite the right word here, more like 'decisions' or 'tactics' or 'strategy' maybe).   Overall the role playing was, I thought, really great among the Players, in particular the stalwartness of the Captain vs the Homicidal loyalty of the crew member defending the honor of his Lord.  Very cool.  What I wasn't sure of was whether or not the rules themselves were facilitating that high quality Role Playing in some way, or if your Players are just pretty damn awesome role players.   If it's the rules that are doing it, could you elaborate a bit on how?   That would be great.   Thanks again.  

:)
Mark

Quote from: TonyLB1) Would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?
2) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with friends vs. playing with strangers?
3) What (if anything) do you see as the advantages of playing with strangers vs. playing with friends?

Tony,
1) I roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble about once a month.

2) Play with friends has a comfort level -- I'm doing something I enjoy with my friends. It's very simple in that regard.

3) Play with strangers is great because it takes you out of your comfort zone. I very often hear players complain to each other after my games, "You would have never done that at home [in our game]!" In my games at least, playing with strangers seems to lift certain boundaries so the participants can try something new or explore different gaming territory. Often to great effect. My own personal play experiences seem to back this up. I'm sure part of it is playing a one-shot con game, but I'm certain that the other part of is those comfort zones are broken and no one is expecting anyone to behave in a certain way. So the dude who's all kill-crazy in his home group can sit down and push his inner romantic diplomat, or something, etc., etc.

Mark,
Goal is the mechanical design goal of the game. Premise are the themes/stories I want those mechanics to address in play.

My games encourage investment in characters and situation via the player priority and player reward system known as Beliefs and Artha. I described them in my answers to you above. They are not some panacea for roleplaying -- we still have our bad sessions -- but they reward players for dramatic investment in an ongoing cycle.

-L

Quote from: luke. I'm sure part of it is playing a one-shot con game, but I'm certain that the other part of is those comfort zones are broken and no one is expecting anyone to behave in a certain way. So the dude who's all kill-crazy in his home group can sit down and push his inner romantic diplomat, or something, etc., etc.
-L

Could you elaborate on that?  I know, hard question since you lay it out pretty clearly above but:

I haven't been to a Con in 15 years, give or take, though I have played RPG's with strangers at other types of conventions (Sakura Con had a regular BESM table when I went a few years ago... )

But when I play with my semi-regular group I am MORE likely to stretch my wings with a new character, not less. When I sit down with a 'new group' I almost always make a 'fighter'. Doesn't matter what the game is, my dude is the hardcase.  This holds true for exploring new other games (WoW, Eve-Online, I focus on combat first, later characters are more interesting... I know, in WoW, every character fights all the time, not the point. I play a FIGHTER first...)

Later characters push those boundaries back. In my D&D group my second character was a cleric, more importantly, his driving goal (something my first, fighter, lacked....he was all about the adventure) was to promulgate the faith, build a grand temple and his primary reaction to humanlike NPC's in the dungeon was diplomacy and poselytizing... stuff I had never done in an RPG before, stuff that normally doesn't appeal too much to me.

But I did that with players I knew, was comfortable with. Not strangers.

So your expirence and mine are at odds.

Quote from: SpikeSo your expirence and mine are at odds.

Every other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

Quote from: joewolzEvery other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

Great. That makes me the freak. Ah well, I'm used to it....

Quote from: joewolzEvery other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

I can't think of another person with whom I've gamed, or myself, that are not in line with Spike...so...there ya go...

Quote from: Spike... stuff I had never done in an RPG before, stuff that normally doesn't appeal too much to me.

But I did that with players I knew, was comfortable with. Not strangers.

This is why I only game with friends. (Strangers throw me of my game)

Regards,
David R

(I want to encourage you all to come to the commentary thread to discuss this, this is the Q&A thread. )

Spike, I don't think there's too much to elaborate on. I'm fine if our experiences differ.

Quote from: joewolzEvery other gamer I've known well enough to talk about this, and myself, are also completely at odds with you, Spike.

Not me.

Luke,

The study and its relevance is, quite honestly, a digression I was mistaken to chase.

Let me see if I can come at it this subject another way...

Here's where the confusion comes in for me. Before and during the contraction, GM Fiat is included in the best-selling game, D&D 2nd Edition. Then, D&D 3.0 is released and is very successful. It also includes GM Fiat. It would seem to me that GM Fiat is not a factor in whether or not a specific game is successful (both version of D&D had it and were successful), or if it damages the overall hobby (D&D 3.0, and subsequently 3.5, helped a revival a contracting industry). So, honestly, no, your answer doesn't help.  I'm specifically asking:

• How does your belief that GM Fiat is damaging to the hobby account for games like D&D 3.x that include GM Fiat  and helped revive the hobby from a horrible contraction?
• Would not the releases of D&D 3.0 and 3.5, both of which included GM Fiat, have damaged further the already-contracting hobby?
• Can you help me understand what, no matter how instinctual or anecdotal, leads you to the conclusion that people were coming to the hobby in search of collaborative storytelling were finding, instead, this GM Fiat weirdness and being turned off the hobby?
• Can you help me understand what, no matter how instinctual or anecdotal, leads you to the conclusion that GM Fiat, both it's existence in rules and its existence by a subset of assholes, damages the overall hobby?
• Is a game that excludes GM Fiat objectively better than a game that includes GM Fiat?
• If so, can you help me understand why?

I'm trying to form a theory (for lack of a better word) for the source of hostilities and I'm hoping my understanding of your thought process will help me pin it down better – all with the goal of, perhaps, facilitating a better, less hostile, discussion.

I know it is pie in the sky, but if Tony and I can do it on a one-to-one basis...who knows. Then I'll go down in history as The Person Who Brought the Peace on Proper. I'll put it on my tombstone.

And please allow me to clarify – I have no problem with designing games without the GM role or GM Fiat. I applaud anyone who wants to go out and experiment with existing structures and try to find new ways of doing things – no matter what the field.

Thanks,
Jim

Luke, I understand that rules can be written to alleviate some bad habits but can't a game just as easily describe the bad habits and how to use the rule structure to avoid them?  It seems like a games can be designed from experience in play vs. games can be learned how to play from experience argument.  Is the former done to encourage new gamers into the hobby or to encourage older gamers back into the hobby?  Is the hardest sell for these games for people that have shared these experiences and corrected them or ones that have never had these experiences with the game they are using?

Hi James,

I agree with your initial point. I'll go through the questions.

1) The hobby is in a continuing state of contraction at the moment. But more than that, compared to all other hobbies, RPGing is small. Tiny. I think it is worth looking at some of the sacred cows of the hobby and questioning them. I know that the death this particular sacred cow isn't going to liberate us from our niche status all alone. But questioning basic group power dynamic stirs up a very emotional response in many gamers. Given how small the hobby is, I have to wonder if this attitude and perhaps what it was born from isn't limiting us in some way.

2) I think I folded this into my answer above, but just to reiterate. 3.X  was the best thing to happen to the hobby in over a decade. But all it really did was revitalize a jaded fan base and alleviate (albeit massive) pent up demand.

3) Just mostly a gut feeling that I get when passing from  non-gamer groups to gamer groups.

4) It's just bad game design. Giving one player the ability to supersede the rules in high energy and emotional situations is a recipe for that player getting his way. Once players figure out that there's a rule to end all rules, the game becomes more about manipulating that player in order to get access to that rule than playing the game. At least that's been my experience in the extended play groups I'm involved in.

5) That's a bit of a loaded question. Maybe. One bad rule doesn't necessarily ruin a great game, and omitting one bad rule doesn't necessarily make a game great.

I suspect you found these answers unsatisfying. But while I may seem evasive, look at it more like this: I'm well aware that my opinions are not universal facts. This doesn't mean I'm not going to try to change the world.

Gunslinger,
Why go half measures? Why not just put clear instructions into the game text that says, "You play like this." Are accessibility and ease of use bad?

I don't understand how the idea of games designed from experience is opposed to learning how to play from experience. Can you rephrase that?

Luke,

Thanks for the answers.  I didn't find them all unsatisfying.  In fact, little by little, I'm getting down to it.  So again, Thanks.

A few comments and followups.

Quote from: luke1) The hobby is in a continuing state of contraction at the moment. But more than that, compared to all other hobbies, RPGing is small. Tiny. I think it is worth looking at some of the sacred cows of the hobby and questioning them. I know that the death this particular sacred cow isn't going to liberate us from our niche status all alone. But questioning basic group power dynamic stirs up a very emotional response in many gamers. Given how small the hobby is, I have to wonder if this attitude and perhaps what it was born from isn't limiting us in some way.

Fair enough.  Good Luck with your search.  But just to let you know one thing.  I don't think it's that actual questioning that sturs up the emotional response.  I think, perhaps, it's the idea that the answer already exists and that answer is "GM Fiat is bad/corrosive/damaging to the hobby/game/rules."  Which may seem to you to make perfect sense and be backed up by your experience.  But to others who have completely different experiences, it's not a far leap to infer that you are saying they are playing a shitty game and all that implies (and have been for 20 or 30 years); this includes the implication that they are participating in a badwrongfun game.  I think that is where the emotion comes in.

Quote from: luke2) I think I folded this into my answer above, but just to reiterate. 3.X  was the best thing to happen to the hobby in over a decade. But all it really did was revitalize a jaded fan base and alleviate (albeit massive) pent up demand.

But, you would have to admit, then, that the pent-up demand was for a game with GM Fiat, right?  I mean, I don't want this to come across as some kind of gotcha.  But that jaded can base and their pent-up demand were looking for a game that included GM Fiat.  We'll never know, but do you think a game without GM Fiat would have revitalized those jaded fans and alleviated pent-up demand?

Quote from: luke3) Just mostly a gut feeling that I get when passing from  non-gamer groups to gamer groups.

Interesting. Can yo expand a bit on this? Were the non-gamers the ones looking for collaborative storytelling?  If so, why did they come to RPG's to find it?

Quote from: luke4) It's just bad game design. Giving one player the ability to supersede the rules in high energy and emotional situations is a recipe for that player getting his way. Once players figure out that there's a rule to end all rules, the game becomes more about manipulating that player in order to get access to that rule than playing the game. At least that's been my experience in the extended play groups I'm involved in.

5) That's a bit of a loaded question. Maybe. One bad rule doesn't necessarily ruin a great game, and omitting one bad rule doesn't necessarily make a game great.

First, it wasn't meant as a loaded question. Second, the two answers together are a bit amusing to me.  I say this because the answer to 4 is so emphatic. It's bad design! I would assume the answer to 5 would then be "Yes." So I'll try to clarifiy in the hopes that it helps the discussion.

I'll start with #4 - You say it's bad design as an assertion - an objective truth. The description that follows seems to contradict that.  I mean, the things you describe could happen, and have apprently happened to/for you.  But what about all of the other evidence from people that suggests the conclusion is not foregone? How does that evidence, as anecdtoal and instictual as yours, inform your opinion?

As for #5 - Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that two games are alike in every way except that one includes GM Fiat.  I don't know if it could happen, but let's assume. What would your answer be then? Can you help me understand why?

Quote from: lukeWhy go half measures? Why not just put clear instructions into the game text that says, "You play like this." Are accessibility and ease of use bad?

Personally, I don't think there's a problem with that at all. Clear instructions. Of course, players get told exactly how to play all the time by DMs, so I don't know what all the fuss is about from people who claim to support DMs. I don't really see Burning Wheel, for ex, as disempowering.

Quote from: lukeWhy go half measures? Why not just put clear instructions into the game text that says, "You play like this." Are accessibility and ease of use bad?

Luke,

Are you saying that GM Fiat reduces accessiblity and ease of use?
Are rules that include GM Fiat inherently unclear in their instructions?

Thanks,
Jim

Assume a game where the GM can (and does) Fiat almost anything.  Assume that this is not some failure state of the game, but rather is how it's designed to play ... it's a game of social interaction/manipulation.  Amber in some styles, for instance, plays very like this.

(4) What goals do you think this type of play would serve very poorly?
(5) What goals do you think this type of play would serve very well?

Paranoia is another example.

Quote from: lukeI don't understand how the idea of games designed from experience is opposed to learning how to play from experience. Can you rephrase that?

There are games where the designer has hardwired mechanics to avoid pitfalls/bad habits from their experiences of running and playing.  Many people feel that the designers are imposing their preferences into the game.  It seems to me, that the players that oppose these games are the ones who've learned how to use their experiences to model their game to avoid pitfalls/bad habits in their playing group.  The game is deciding "play like this" as opposed to group deciding "play like this".  I hope that's clearer.  

QuoteAre accessibility and ease of use bad?

No.  It seems to be two different methodologies to achieve the same goal.  Having fun playing a game with a group of people.  Are having mechanics to avoid pitfalls/bad habits done to encourage players back into the hobby who've had bad experiences and/or to keep new players in the hobby from avoiding those bad experiences?  

Good.  Bad.  I'm the guy with the gun.

Here's another question for Luke:

A while back we had a thread about innovation in RPGs. I'd like to ask you the question posed on that thread: What do you think are the most interesting innovations in RPGs being worked on right now? Design/presentation, mechanics, setting, business model, anything counts.

Hi James,

2) It's kind of the only show in town. So yeah, was pent-up demand for a product that I think is flawed. That doesn't make it right, or mean that there's no room for change.

I think the situation would have been exactly the same regardless of the content of the rules of the game.

3) RPGs have a reputation for being a storytelling medium. It's a misconception, I know. I'm going to have to answer this one in-depth at another time when I have more time. I'm a bit rushed now and all of the answers I've written for it so far suck.

4) I don't know where you're going with this. I'm saying that one rule does not a game make.

5) But a game without an inherently flawed, half-baked rule is going to be a better design than one with it.

James

Yes, fiat reduces accessibility.
No, but fiat can muddy the waters when a player wants recourse to the rules and another player can say, "We're not playing with that rule now."

Tony,
"Goals" is really tripping me up. Amber has it, Paranoia has it, Dying Earth has it. It's explicit in those texts if I'm not mistaken.  

4) I think it would serve my goals poorly. If players could ignore rules at a whim in any of my games it would be grossly unfair. I design very tight currency mechanics. Each mechanic happens for reason. Sometimes that reason may not be clear until further down the line. Changing mechanics due to preference or lack of understanding breaks the currency cycle and essentially makes the whole process pointless.

5) Obviously, this type of play has served cliquish, small group adventure gaming quite well.

Gunslinger,
I think the designer is best judge on how get his game going. While playtesters help find loopholes and players often find unexpected strategies, the designer usually has spent more time researching how the game works. He's not trying to inflict his will on the group and tell them they're wrong. He's simply laying down a play process that, if followed, will bear fruit.

Do you get mad at Richard Borg and tell him to get off your back when you play Memoir? Do you get upset with James Ernest for telling you how to play when he outlines rules to a cheap ass game?

EDIT:
Pseudo,
I think it's the short form game -- a roleplaying game that can be learned and played to its conclusion in one evening. That seems like a tremendous innovation to me.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrinehave you considered a modern detective (or espionage or whatever) version?

This is a good idea, Luke. Use the old Flying Buffalo game MSPE as a template and used a stripped-down version of the BW system with a cool gun version of the range and cover rules as the main combat system. I think your basic mechanical framework would handle this genre very well.