Quote from: Imperator;260260Again, I disagree. There are very light-rules games that wouldn't be disputed as non-RPGs around here, or as Swine games or whatever. Level of crunchyness has never been a criteria that has been wielded around here.

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that there is no difference between Sorcerer and AD&D, because they are both RPGs.  I am not disputing that, but once you get past that bit, it is very much the complexity and detail in the rules that make them exceptionally different games.

They are different in a variety of ways, but that's not what prompted the move of this thread, I'm sure. I suspect it's that the targeted thread had drifted toward full-on GNS disputation.

Ironically this would make a lot of Pundit's rants Off Topic, although many of them are confined to his forum, and in any case it makes little difference to me since I read this site more or less "flat" by clicking on the New Posts button at the top of the page.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;260293They are different in a variety of ways, but that's not what prompted the move of this thread, I'm sure. I suspect it's that the targeted thread had drifted toward full-on GNS disputation.

Most likely.  While useful at times, I don't find the classification very applicable in broad terms.

Quote from: StormBringer;260286If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that there is no difference between Sorcerer and AD&D, because they are both RPGs.  I am not disputing that, but once you get past that bit, it is very much the complexity and detail in the rules that make them exceptionally different games.

Yes, you get my point. That is opposite to the teachings of the Pundarg and some others that claim that those are not RPGs by being Forgie and shit. Of course, they are different from AD&D, the same way that Paranoia is very different from RQ. But there's no more difference, and as such moving this to Off - Topic is retarded.

Aditionally, I do as Elliot does, and I suspect many around here do: I click New Posts, so the subforum is irrelevant.

Quote from: Imperator;260247That's a fucking load of bollocks. The original D&D, by your line of reasoning, was not an RP, because it had a very simple and limited system, and some fluff. Actually, Edwards say in Sorcerer that he tries to emule the spirit of old school games in that.

I never said that they weren't RPGs.  I only said that they were different than the games I play.  You insisted they weren't, I was correcting you.

I don't play OD&D.  I think it's stupid.

Quote from: JackalopeYes, but this thread isn't about D&D, it's about story games people.

Quote from: Imperator;260257I disagree. It was about some people analysis on Old School games...

Some people?  Which people?  Story Games people.

Quote from: Jackalope;260406Some people?  Which people?  Story Games people.

Were you channeling Dr Seuss?

Quote from: Jackalope;260406Some people?  Which people?  Story Games people.

So what if they are Story Games people ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;260406Some people?  Which people?  Story Games people.

What difference does that make? They were discussing OD&D.

They were discussing it in terms of rpg theory.

rpg theory is not rpgs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;260419They were discussing it in terms of rpg theory.

rpg theory is not rpgs.

So move it to the Design & Development section of this board.

Edit. And what about J's new thread in the RPG section. Shouldn't it be in the Design Forum or should it be in OT ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: noisms;260415What difference does that make? They were discussing OD&D.

Yes, and this thread isn't about OD&D, it's about them discussing OD&D.   That isn't actually discussion about gaming, it's discussion about discussion of gaming.

I guess in the end it's a bit of a non-story unless people actually want to engage with the ideas presented. noisms just threw it out there as a provocation, if you ask me.

Or prove me wrong, noisms. What do you actually think of the ideas in the thread, beyond 'These guys talk too much GNS'?

Quote from: David R;260422So move it to the Design & Development section of this board.

Pundit's position is that rpg theory has not led to the development of any rpgs. I'm inclined to agree. Everyone, Forgers included, makes the game first and then applies theories to it afterwards. rpg theory's an analysis tool, not a design tool.

So maybe with that perspective it should go in The Craft of Gameplay. I dunno.

Quote from: David RAnd what about J's new thread in the RPG section. Shouldn't it be in the Design Forum or should it be in OT ?

The one about Tim Cain's comments on CRPGs vs RPGs? I dunno. We have to see how the discussion goes. Let's be honest, the original post does not always determine what the thread is about. Mine's the only reply. Threads that drop into oblivion with few replies tend not to get moved about...

Quote from: droogI guess in the end it's a bit of a non-story unless people actually want to engage with the ideas presented. noisms just threw it out there as a provocation, if you ask me.

I agree. And that's the usual reason here for tossing out links to discussions in story-games forum, to stir up scorn for story-games.

I don't think there really are any ideas to engage with for that thread. But to be fair, let's have another look...

filler comment: The first dozen posts are mostly just "yay!"

needs elaboration: komradebob hints at GM Fiat being more or less accepted according to age group, but doesn't elaborate (presumably his ideas are familiar to regular readers of story-games?)

worth discussing? Valamir says that really Old School is all about miniatures wargaming with referees, so that the Viking Hat GM model comes from that.

filler comment: Georgios says there's no such thing as Old or New School, but that it's all good GMing advice anyway.

All your base are belong to us comment: banukei says that "modern game design" is totally better than all this, but doesn't elaborate exactly how or why. Perhaps on story-games New Is Bestest is just assumed?

GNS roxxorz comment: Meserach offers some semi-filler comment that the Viking Hat GM model requires a better GM than other models, then muddies the waters with GNS.

After that it just descends into the occasional bit of "ZOMFG i was totally oppressed by a GM like this" drowned out by GNS babbling, which as usual descends into its proponents arguing what exactly what it all means.

So out of all that, I think that unless we want to have a GNS Definition War, the only things worth contending with are,

• is the Viking Hat GM model just the bastard child of wargaming referees?
• is komradebob right that different age groups have different attitudes to GM Fiat?

Well, I know komradebob personally and he and I have chatted about this. And I'm not sure whose idea it is mostly, his or mine, but I agree with it for the most part. I'd mix in not only age group, but era when the person started gaming; however, the essence of it is that younger/newer players seem to want/need clearer delineations of authority, and are less willing to depend on trust to prevent abuse of power, preferring overt power-sharing.

On the other hand, this may be more of an Internet trend. And other factors may also have a hand in people's attitudes to "GM Fiat", such as whether they commonly play with people they know, or with relative strangers.

Related to the Internet and stranger issues, and era of one's entrance to the hobby, I think, is the fact that there are now people out there whose seminal (and often ongoing) RPG experiences included MUDs, chat/forum-based gaming, and "simming". I think the younger you are, the more likely this is to be the case, and if you've done this sort of thing, it's both more likely that you've gamed a great deal with strangers, and that you talk about gaming on the Internet.