TheRPGSite

Just finished reading it, and I cant believe how awesome it is.

Let me define "awesome" first: a (moderatedly) simple game with fast character creation, little prep-time, evocative classes that are more than packages of powers, and a player-driven gameplay built-in on the rules. In other words: something very fitting for an adult with children that has not much time to spend prepping games, taking 2 hours creating chars or resolving long combats.

Maybe its too early to say it (didnt play it yet) but Im considering adopting it as my default game system from now on. Im that impressed.

So, anybody else have read it or played it? Am I the only to have this reaction ?

Yes, yes it is very good. It also delievers in actual play.

Did not like it.  Too much emphasis on sex and the mechanics were Swiney.

I've played it a couple of times. I liked it. The character classes were cool ad very evocative of the setting. The moves worked smoothly and were pretty good for delivering fast paced results. The way you so often get partial successes with setbacks made me feel like everything was a desparate scrabble for advantage--good in a post-apoc game. The History mechanic felt a little forced, though.  The sex moves, for all the heat they got, made relationships in the game feel like a commodity, worth more for the resources they provided than for any human comfort, which is again fitting to the genre. I like the conversation mechanics a lot, and I have since I first saw them in Storming the Wizard's Tower. They're simple and clever and work nicely in play.

It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author in the matter of that RPG, and people who compare it to Next Coming of Gygax.

Blergh. I am not exactly the Ultimate Foe of Storygames, but it's one of those pretentious pieces that make me want to nuke Forge into oblivion.

Also - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph, which automatically sends any RPG in my eyes into a nearest trash bin. Those Forge RPG Makers really must had had some terrible GMing experiences that they try to marginize the GM's role by all costs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author in the matter of that RPG, and people who compare it to Next Coming of Gygax.

Blergh.

Also - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph, which automatically sends any RPG in my eyes into a nearest trash bin.

Please show us on the doll where the storygamer touched you...oh wait, nobody cares.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;505045Please show us on the doll where the storygamer touched you...oh wait, nobody cares.

Says the lad who bothered to, oh wait, answer me?

:forge:

Of course, if you prefer that your character is good at shooting people because he just had sex with another character  rather then because he trained shooting guns, this is a game for you.

The sex mechanic, irony aside, I actually like - but I'm adapting it for a game in spirit of "Here I Stand" - PCs gain special XPs when they defend their Protestant or Catholic beliefs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author in the matter of that RPG, and people who compare it to Next Coming of Gygax.

Blergh. I am not exactly the Ultimate Foe of Storygames, but it's one of those pretentious pieces that make me want to nuke Forge into oblivion.

Also - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph, which automatically sends any RPG in my eyes into a nearest trash bin. Those Forge RPG Makers really must had had some terrible GMing experiences that they try to marginize the GM's role by all costs.

Gygax in his younger days came off pretty prescriptive and pretentious, so it'd be par for the course.

I was the GM for me group when I started experimenting with marginalizing my own role, long before I ever knew of the forge or any of this shitty gamer wars bullshit.

And you know what?  Some of my best sessions came out of experimenting with stuff like that.   Adherence to tradition for the sake of tradition annoys me just aw much as people trying to be edgy.

Quote from: Peregrin;505064Gygax in his younger days came off pretty prescriptive and pretentious, so it'd be par for the course.

I was the GM for me group when I started experimenting with marginalizing my own role, long before I ever knew of the forge or any of this shitty gamer wars bullshit.

And you know what?  Some of my best sessions came out of experimenting with stuff like that.   Adherence to tradition for the sake of tradition annoys me just aw much as people trying to be edgy.

There's a vast difference between marginalizing the role of a GM, spreading narrative power, and spreading rulings power, but that's really a topic for vast discussion and I'm too drunk for it. Long story short - I myself allow my players quite a vast narrative powers, and I usually make a ruling based on opinions of those around the table, but that doesn't mean I'm rediscovering RPGs.

Any RPG that tries to give me the "You must stick to the rules" bullshit, no matter the reasons, is not worth the paper it was printed on.

For you, maybe.

Quote from: Peregrin;505069For you, maybe.

You are free to choose wrong, stupid and pretentious GMing advice if you prefer. I will however at least try and warn people about it - because putting "Do not change the rules" is pretty much the Deadly Sin of RPGs. I've devoted 20 pages of arguing about this already, so I'll just link:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?607636-Systems-and-Genre-Missidentification

Happy reading. At least Peregrin you have enough class to not go full ad hominem on me after I "diss" the storygaming bollocks, like most of story crowd. I'm not some "anti - storey" crusader, but storygames are indeed a bastion of pretentious and transgressive content that disguises poor game design.

No class in trolling, no class indeed.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author in the matter of that RPG, and people who compare it to Next Coming of Gygax.

Blergh. I am not exactly the Ultimate Foe of Storygames, but it's one of those pretentious pieces that make me want to nuke Forge into oblivion.

Also - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph, which automatically sends any RPG in my eyes into a nearest trash bin. Those Forge RPG Makers really must had had some terrible GMing experiences that they try to marginize the GM's role by all costs.

So, Rincewind, you didnt like the game because..

1. you found its author´s writing pretentious

2. because he asks the reader to stick by the rules

Thats it?

If so, Ive read all the book and didnt find the author pretentious, nor got bothered with his "stick to the rules" advice (in fact, I found it very appropriate, since the game style the system is built upon dont seem to work with a more traditional "railroady / GM takes players by hand" kind of game). And I would find it a bit too hasty to judge a game based on those 2 thigns only. But YMMV and all that.

Now, I didnt found anywhere in the text a "narrative-sharing" feature at all, at least not in the same sense as those story-games where the players have the "right" to narrate/create what happens next from his hat. Am I right in this assessment ? The game dont contain this feature, right ? Because, to be frank, Im not very fond of this kind of thing. I prefer a more traditional approach.

Can someone confirm it for me ? :confused:

Quote from: silva;505082If so, Ive read all the book and didnt find the author pretentious, nor got bothered with his "stick to the rules" advice (in fact, I found it very appropriate, since the game style the system is built upon dont seem to work with a more traditional "railroady / GM takes players by hand" kind of game).

If you think this is what "classic" RPGs are about, then our conversation here is done.

Wait, wait, wait. "Railroady" and "the GM leads the players by the hand" are supposed to be "traditional" aspects of gaming now? What the fuck kind of nonsense is this? I must have misunderstood what you meant. I hope so.

I know what Ive read in various rpg books since my youth. And yes, the "railroading/GM takes players by hand through a (more or less) pre-planned adventure/chronicle/story" is a feature from most of them.


EDIT: yes Ben, youve heard it right.

Quote from: silva;505082Now, I didnt found anywhere in the text a "narrative-sharing" feature at all, at least not in the same sense as those story-games where the players have the "right" to narrate/create what happens next from his hat. Am I right in this assessment ? The game dont contain this feature, right ? Because, to be frank, Im not very fond of this kind of thing. I prefer a more traditional approach.

Can someone confirm it for me ? :confused:

In terms of parceling out the narration amongst the players, it seems fairly traditional, with final authority given to the GM.

Quote from: silva;505085I know what Ive read in various rpg books since my youth. And yes, the "railroading/GM takes players by hand through a (more or less) pre-planned adventure/chronicle/story" is a feature from most of them.


EDIT: yes Ben, youve heard it right.

Ok. How old are you, and what games come to your mind when you say this?

Hey silva. Not trying to scare you man. I'm just trying to understand where you come from to say something like this.

Thats ok Ben. Im 32 years old. From Rio, Brazil.

Began playing with the old Fighting Fantasy books (here in Brazil called "Aventuras Fantásticas") "Wizard from Firetop Mountain", "City of Thieves" and "Citadel of Chaos". Then met AD&D, Shadowrun, Gurps and Vampire, in this order. And later met a whole lot of systems.

And - if I remember correctly - all of the games cited above explain what is a roleplaying by suggesting the GM creates a story/plot/adventure for the players, with an expected "kick-off point" (the old man in the tavern ? ;) ) and forward "chokepoints", "milestones" or "scenes" (reminds me of a flowchart) and make the characters roll on. Yes, they cite that flexibility is important, and reacting to the characters decisions, and all that... but in the end it sounded more like an illusionist thing than anything else. Well... just look at all published adventures/modules in the industry - 99% of them are predominantly linear/railroady. Only a fraction of it involve some kind of freeform / sandboxy approach.

Quote from: Benoist;505087Ok. How old are you, and what games come to your mind when you say this?

I think it's something that was found in a lot of TSR era GM advice, especially in modules. I remember being particularly struck by it not too long ago, reading the sample adventures from the City of Greyhawk box set. They were very much pre-plotted stories that the GM led the players through. I also encountered this sort of attitude from many more traditional players, that the GM is the storyteller, and the players are characters in the story. It's something I've seen quite recently, hearing the details of a 3.0 campaign here on campus. The GM lead the players through a story, and the climax is planned out ahead of time. I suspect it might be a lot more common than you'd like to think.

my understanding of AW, from talking to the GM who ran the game I played in is that it has a lot of advice and methods for running a situational game, where you set up characters with built-in conflicting goals, and limited resources, and you play it out, with the GM following the players' lead and responding to their actions. That sounds pretty typical of other games by V. Baker, like Dogs in the Vineyard or In a Wicked Age. It has also struck me as very similar to the style that is touted at this site as "emulation".

Ah man I see what you're talking about and that sucks so bad... look. I really want to address this, the difference between an adventure scenario and a script, how to build a scenario without it being railroady, ... but I don't have the time, I'm on my cellphone, and I risk going on a rant if I answer right now. Later.

Unfortunately, many games published since the early 80s gave story-plot-based GM advice and published adventures in that vein. Since I didn't buy modules much (even the non-railroady early D&D dungeon modules), this wasn't something I really noticed, but it seems often to have been the case even for what I would have considered the early leader in "simulationist" systems, RQ/BRP. (Probably earliest in Call of Cthulhu, but certainly later in some Elric! and RQ3 modules.)

It's still mistaken to refer to the storified/scenified/illusionist style of GMing as "traditional"--and especially to link it to systems which didn't have any particular style baked-in mechanically, but I can understand why people would get the impression.

Just look at (again) The Keep on the Borderlands (Gygax, 1979), Griffin Mountain (Jaquays, Kraft, et.al., 1981), the Wilderlands of High Fantasy (Bledsaw & Owen, 1977), the original instructions not only for designing dungeons but also outdoor adventures in OD&D (Gygax, 1974), the various adventures published for Dragonquest (most around 1981, by such authors as Gerry Klug).

The earliest heavily scene-ified scenario/campaign I've found is Master of the Desert Nomads (Cook, 1983). Shadows of Yog-Sothoth (1982) is another candidate. There may be earlier ones (Desert of Desolation?, Hickman, 1977-1982; Against the Cult of the Reptile God, Niles, 1982); the point, though, is that scene-ification didn't become a major strain in publications until somewhat into the 80's.

Addressing the OP, I think AW has an uphill battle here due to ill-will between the author's fans and many of the posters here. But before you dismiss this as pure "tribalism", you only have to look to your own posts and consider that if you don't start by assuming that "storified is traditional", AW may look more like a correction to a path that's already off-course--or a solution looking for a problem.

Color me disinterested, but if forced to consider the game, my impression from skimming is that even though it doesn't have strong "player-empowerment", which is the usual mark of "story games", it does tell the GM to handle the game as an interactive story rather than an imagined reality, which makes it rather different from world-modeling-sandboxes with neutral GMing.

Quoteit does tell the GM to handle the game as an interactive story rather than an imagined reality, which makes it rather different from world-modeling-sandboxes with neutral GMing.

Elliot, I must disagree. From my reading, I found the author very clear about making the gameworld as real as a reality as possible, suggesting the players to act as his characters were real people living in this world, and respecting intra-world causality and logic.

QuoteIn terms of parceling out the narration amongst the players, it seems fairly traditional, with final authority given to the GM.

Thanks man. I m more happy now. ;)

I might be mistaken, true, but I've seen so many claims of the "traditional" or "immersive" properties of this or that Forge game, esp. from V. Baker, which just haven't panned out, that I just discount them heavily against the probability that the claims are coming from a perspective with which I have very little in common.

I gave a few specific reasons for my impression here (and in later posts to the same thread):  http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=457368#post457368

Quote from: silva;505009So, anybody else have read it or played it? Am I the only to have this reaction ?

You're not the only one. It's a really great game. This and Technoir have been consuming an increasingly large portion of my gaming consciousness over the past couple months. There's some seriously exciting stuff in these games and it really does stand up during play.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author in the matter of that RPG, and people who compare it to Next Coming of Gygax.

Yeah. We've already been over this. You haven't actually read the rulebook and whatever random ass corners of the internet you're pulling your quotes from are actually contradicted in the rulebook itself.

The fact that you keep repeating this nonsense after being explicitly corrected on it does not speak well of you.

QuoteAlso - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph,

Case in point. Rulebook says the exact opposite. It actually includes entire chapters dedicated entirely to modifying the rules and making custom moves.

Quote from: Benoist;505089Hey silva. Not trying to scare you man. I'm just trying to understand where you come from to say something like this.

For the past 25 years, I'd guess that at least 90% of the published modules have been of the "shut up and lemme tell you my fuckin' story" model. I think that sucks, but it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people consider that "traditional".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;505105I might be mistaken, true, but I've seen so many claims of the "traditional" or "immersive" properties of this or that Forge game, esp. from V. Baker, which just haven't panned out, that I just discount them heavily against the probability that the claims are coming from a perspective with which I have very little in common.

Apocalypse World does have some non-simulationist mechanics, but it's pretty firmly and steadily a traditional game. (And I say this as someone who pretty virulently argues that there is a rather huge and important distinction between STGs and RPGs that needs to be acknowledged.)

This is particularly true from the player's side of things. On the other side of the screens, AW shakes things up by giving the GM a very specific list of moves. And these moves are the full extent of what the GM does.

The temptation is to describe this as "constraining" the GM's power, but that's not really it: Baker is instead channeling the GM's power.

In a day and age where virtually every RPG just assumes that GMs are magically grown on trees, AW's approach of providing the GM with an actual structure for governing play is more than refreshing. It's needed.

I've decided to cut down the vitriol, and perhaps actually (maybe) help silva a bit. First though, I must feed my inner hater.

Anyone who claims that normal RPGs are all about catstringing neeeds to learn how to fucking GM rather then waste time posting on forums. And Apocalypse World is a cunningly constructed deceit, that when you read it between the lines, makes you sadly agree with Pundit.

Also Alexander - learn  to read between the lines then. I'm not going to do the job that elementary school teacher should've done for you. You pretty much prove my point with that channelling the GM's power bollocks. It's about as much channelling as those liar - pyramids are channelling life's energy. Baker is the bloody Archbishop of RAWtenbury.

Quote from: Benoist;505087Ok. How old are you, and what games come to your mind when you say this?

Like... all trad games for which there ever was a published adventure or that had a gamemastering section.

With that out of the way.

Silva, first of all - perhaps I lashed out too frantically, for which I apologise, but I had seen that shit too much lately on RPG.Net to not bring out one of my cannons.

Now - first of all, you must understand that prebought modules, just like RPGs, are not complete products. They are paints and easels. You as a GM make the initial sketch, but the players colour the painting with their decisions. I hope you will forgive me my pseudopoetical approach, but I like that metaphor. With prebought modules, you always should tailor with them - adjust them to the party, and create conflicts and moments of decisions in them. They can be fine suits, but you will need to tailor the hell out of them.

As for railroads in GMing - that is your duty as a GM to remove them. You need to make the players feel like THEY are the main stars of the evening, the bloody primadonnas, the big damn heroes/investigators/villains...whatever they wish to be.

Of course - being main stars does not mean being the most powerful beings of the game's world. Plenty of movies about Average Joe are a testimony to a fact that it's not needed to be a hero.

How do you do that? It's simple. You open the world for them. Start small - create a city, or a town perhaps, and few hundred miles around them. Put the villages on the map, a swamp and/or a forest perhaps. Some mysterious cursed ruins on an island, that people will warn them about when they ask them. Invent a plot, and imagine how the plot will play out if nobody special intervenes. Then think how to introduce players to that plot - I myself like the way of master Hitchcock, but there are many ways to do that. After the players discovered the intrigue or whatever, do NOT force them to pursue it if they do not desire so - but describe the consequences. If they had stolen a pile of gold from rogue's hideout that was going to be used for bribes necessary to abolish the King, you can be pretty sure that the thieves' guild will come knocking, with crossbows and poisoned daggers, to ask for their payment.

If the players will decide they'd rather take a boat and start living as tobacco farmers in Southamericus (sorry >.>) - fine. Perhaps the thieves' guild will come after them - perhaps not. Perhaps 5 years later. And after all, when they want to acquire tobacco farming land, the problems begin to pile up again - first there's a corrupt magistrate allied with a local tobacco tycoon, then there are rebels trying to secede the country from the Crown, and worst of all, an odd sort of worm seems to be plaguing the tobacco farms, and the only cure for it may be found in ancient ruins of Azteci.

And of course, if the players'd rather just farm tobacco then go adventuring in those damned ruins - then let them. Worms will eat their crops - or perhaps  they will not, and there are still many problems that just simple tobacco farmers will face, such as oppression from the Governor's tax - gatherers, bandits, bandit - rebels, opposing farmers, etc. etc.


So what I am  trying to say here is simple - just toss the players out into the world. Give them a small clue at first perhaps - like they are all a part of military unit. Nothing more then what's needed to just bind  the party at first. But after that? Just release those bloody Huns on your carefully crafted world and story, because, you see - it's not your story. It's theirs, and it's important to know that. Even in Call of Cthulhu or Trail of Cthulhu, or whatever other investigative game you are running, it's their story - if only a story about people who died to cosmic horror with their heads proud, or with heads low. Or perhaps they managed to escape the horror. Or perhaps they will never truly do so, as horror is part of them, in style of Shadow over Innsmouth.

And always, always listen to players' theories, players' input on the world, and players characters' histories - they will be full of NPCs for you.


If you will use Apocalypse World to do this to your players - sure, no problem with that. Just go and have bloody fun. But if someone tells me that I absolutely need AW to deliver this to my players, then I will ridicule such a person.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;505096Unfortunately, many games published since the early 80s gave story-plot-based GM advice and published adventures in that vein.

THE greatest irony in all this 'swine' bullshit is that so called story games such as Apocalypse World and Sorcerer actually have LESS emphasis on story than earlier so called traditional games which typically emphasized a MANDATORY story which either HAD to be followed, or couldn't be deviated from regardless of the player's actions. Neither of those two swine games have any scenarios in the form of a mandatory sequence of events or player choices, and at least one has rules specifically to prevent such, yet plenty of traditional games I know did.



Anyway, the rest of this is just me calling Rincewind1 on his bullshit, so feel free to ignore it.

Quote

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author in the matter of that RPG, and people who compare it to Next Coming of Gygax.

Blergh. I am not exactly the Ultimate Foe of Storygames, but it's one of those pretentious pieces that make me want to nuke Forge into oblivion.

Also - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph, which automatically sends any RPG in my eyes into a nearest trash bin. Those Forge RPG Makers really must had had some terrible GMing experiences that they try to marginize the GM's role by all costs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505159Apocalypse World is a piece that made me believe that Pundit actually MIGHT be right about Forge and all that comes from it.

Man I remember when your opinion of Apocalypse World was completely different back before being a persecuted minority became the next hip thing (which was about two weeks ago).

(* Quotes from RPG.NET, so you don't have to go there *)

Quote

Quote from: Rincewind1Warhammer's mechanics were deadly - you had to immerse yourself in that grim world, or die.

AW for example premiums sex between the characters in such a way, that it really becomes a must.

I like both games, but one favours freeform more, then the other.

Quote from: Rincewind1

Quote from: Dr_NickTable top gaming is a social hobby. No ammount of marketing is going to bring in new players if they have to learn to play the game from most of the guys I meet down at the local game shop.

If you are trying to suggest "grognards are killing the RPG industry and keeping it down", to quote AW - if you do it, do it.

Quote from: Rincewind1Plus, sometimes, it's just easier to grab Apocalypse World for a game about detailed interpersonal interactions in the times of Apocalypse, then to do the same in modded Traveller or BRP.

Quote from: Rincewind1Apocalypse World is rather borderline - it has a strong mechanic that support storytelling from the players' standpoint, but it also has certain effects of classical rpgs. And both are still RPGs - because despite the Immersion vs Story's Importance, in both examples you also sometimes think of a story, and sometimes think of the immersion.

Quote from: Rincewind1I for one found AW an interesting and well - written game

Also...

Quote from: Rincewind1;505071No class in trolling, no class indeed.

So says the one with the Sig calling him the biggest threat to GMs around :D

Hey look, it's Chaosvoyager to threadcrap again and tell us:

I am better then you.

I still find it a decent RPG. It's just cunts like you who claim it to be the God On Earth of RPGs, and claiming that "oldschool RPGs are only good for catstringing, yo" I despise. I even said here that there are parts of it I like. Hells, I'd buy Vinnie a beer, if it was not for the fact that catering to the likes of you probably makes him a hipster fuck as well.

And yes, I do consider it a RPG, and a decent one, except that whole "Thou Shall Play As Written" attitude - which discards it in my eyes. But I guess reading comprehension's too much to bother, ey? Not to mention that only an ass never changes opinions. There are great pearls there, but there are also crude turds, and I for one will protect someone from the smell of shit, if I can.

In fact, just to be fair - I will hurt something I love by saying that GUMSHOE's game, Esoterrorists, is also written in a pretentious manner - the whole "You were a rollplayer, now you are a roleplayer" crap is found there. Fortunately, Trail of Cthulhu can deliver a good game without jumping on high horse of hipstershit - and that's why I love it. There is a slight smell of I am better then yourism in it, but not as much as in AW or Esoterrorists, which is why I am also going to say - stay the hell away from Esoterrorists.

Also, here I say good things about AW and I am not ashamed of it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505047Says the lad who bothered to, oh wait, answer me?

:forge:

Of course, if you prefer that your character is good at shooting people because he just had sex with another character  rather then because he trained shooting guns, this is a game for you.

The sex mechanic, irony aside, I actually like - but I'm adapting it for a game in spirit of "Here I Stand" - PCs gain special XPs when they defend their Protestant or Catholic beliefs.

So without much further ado.

Learn how to fucking GM.

And cry harder. Your tears of frustration are icings of joy on the cake of my day. Maybe one day you will understand that you are just a more elitist 4venger, but I doubt it. Then again, it's the same problem with you people as with 4vengers, except in this case, I like some of the games - it's not game I spite, but the advocates of it.

To answer the OP:

I really enjoyed playing it. I wasn't the GM (or MC or whatever the rules call it), just a player, so I can't speak for how difficult or easy it is to run, but I had a whale of a time in the game.

The only thing I'd say is that the rules are very good for generating a fun narrative, but a bit creaky outside of that. If you're interested, I wrote a blog post about liking it (http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2011/09/wherein-i-drink-kool-aid.html) and another one about some problems I had with it (http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2011/10/when-story-games-go-bad.html).

Also, my group is 4 guys. Sex played absolutely no part in the game.

Quote from: noisms;505185Also, my group is 4 guys. Sex played absolutely no part in the game.

I am no prude, but I do have a slight problem RPing sex with a bunch of guys as well :P.

My suggestion - swap that rule. If you'd use AW to run a 30 Years War game, use it to mark points when a player defends his religious beliefs against actions of another player. If you are running in the default Apocalypse, swap it maybe for when a player is selflessly helping another player, since IMO the problem of "homo homini lupus est" is more important to post - apocalyptic fiction then "sex is commodity".

Quote from: Rincewind1;505186I am no prude, but I do have a slight problem RPing sex with a bunch of guys as well :P.

My suggestion - swap that rule. If you'd use AW to run a 30 Years War game, use it to mark points when a player defends his religious beliefs against actions of another player. If you are running in the default Apocalypse, swap it maybe for when a player is selflessly helping another player, since IMO the problem of "homo homini lupus est" is more important to post - apocalyptic fiction then "sex is commodity".

Or just ignore it, which is what we did. It's not essential. Or anyway we didn't notice, or care, that it wasn't there.

My feeling is that Vincent Baker put that in there because, you know, I'm Vincent Baker and ooh, edgy, etc.

Quote from: noisms;505187Or just ignore it, which is what we did. It's not essential. Or anyway we didn't notice, or care, that it wasn't there.

My feeling is that Vincent Baker put that in there because, you know, I'm Vincent Baker and ooh, edgy, etc.

Probably. Though as I said - I find that little snippet actually one of the few pearls that make AW worthy of being RPG, rather then a full - blown crappucino - an idea of rewarding a very specific type of interaction between players, and putting an emphasis on it in mechanics is hardly new, but good to know.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043Also - it's not terribly flexible, and of course like all true pigs, has the "THOU SHALL STICKETH BY THE RULETH" paragraph, which automatically sends any RPG in my eyes into a nearest trash bin.

We buy books to find out how to play particular games, and if the author knows that a particular thing doesn't work in their game, then I want them to tell me, in the book.

Not in a forum post, not ten years later in a piece of propaganda for a different game, not in an email, not through an unpleasant session-ruining surprise at my table, I want it in the book that I paid good money for.

Intentionally withholding that information, if the author knows it, just makes the book less usable for no real gain.

On-topic, I own AW but haven't had the spare time to run it. I really want to some time, though, because it looks like a great game.

There's an Atlantic Ocean space of difference between writing an advice that "Hey, you know, it might be not too great to change this and that because it may destroy a game", and writing "Play as written". RPGs should be always written with authors acknowledging the fact that people will, and should, modify the games to their liking. Anything otherwise is pretentiousness that's pure poison.

There was a rather good example given on RPG.net on this topic, of Night's Black Agents - Hite wrote that if it was up to him, nobody should play vampires in that game, BUT he understands that some players will try anyway - and he wrote guideliness to houseruling vampires in NBA.

Quote from: two_fishes;505092It has also struck me as very similar to the style that is touted at this site as "emulation".

Last time i looked, i can't remember 'sexy moves' being a PA genre trope.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505197Last time i looked, i can't remember 'sexy moves' being a PA genre trope.

Zombie Strippers is technically a zombie apocalypse movie :P.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505195There's an Atlantic Ocean space of difference between writing an advice that "Hey, you know, it might be not too great to change this and that because it may destroy a game", and writing "Play as written". RPGs should be always written with authors acknowledging the fact that people will, and should, modify the games to their liking. Anything otherwise is pretentiousness that's pure poison.

We could argue about this all week, but we're not going to get anywhere - I do agree with you, but I read AW as the former, and you read it as the latter.

That's fine.

Quote from: Ladybird;505203We could argue about this all week, but we're not going to get anywhere - I do agree with you, but I read AW as the former, and you read it as the latter.

That's fine.

Fair enough indeed - as I said, I liked AW before I read Forge's commentary on it. Talk about Lovecraftian warning about knowledge :P.

It is a gimmicky mechanic though. Just a bit better designed one.

I think it's a cracking read, with some excellent and cool rules and it has great atmosphere. The sex moves is a bit silly and 'meh', but they appear easily replaceable with a more general social type of rule/play. Also, it's a thing you can use to insert in your game heavily or lightly - it's very much a "the apocalypse is what you make it"-game.

I haven't played it yet, but a couple of groups I'm affiliated with have had great, and very varied, fun with it - from the very violent and actionpacked campaign to the very gritty, dirty and emotional stuff.

It's high on the list of games I would like to give a shot as a player.

Can somebody tell me about these "conversation mechanics" two_fishes mentioned earlier?  Trying to wrap my brain around that.  It sounds more specific and different from the usual "social mechanics" we sometimes see.

Does AW actually have rules for conversation?  [Mind: blown.]

Quote from: VectorSigma;505213Can somebody tell me about these "conversation mechanics" two_fishes mentioned earlier?  Trying to wrap my brain around that.  It sounds more specific and different from the usual "social mechanics" we sometimes see.

Does AW actually have rules for conversation?  [Mind: blown.]

It's all about the "moves" - if you want to narrate something to one of the players, you make a Move called "Separate Them".

It's a bit bizarre.

I don't know if I'd call them mind-blowing, but I think they're clever and useful. They're fairly simple, and would be easy to port to other games. The player rolls a skill-check (or a Move in AW). Depending on the degree of success, the player may ask the GM one or more questions from a list at any time during the conversation. The questions are things like (I'm lifting them from Storming the Wizard's Tower--the AW set might be different):

Ask if the person's lying;
Ask if the person knows more than she's saying;
Ask how the person feels about it;
Ask what it would take to make the person feel a particular way;
Ask what the person intends to do;
Ask what the person wishes your character would do

Ah, I see - thanks, two_fishes.  That makes more sense now.

It was "mind-blowing" as in "how the heck does that work and why would you need it". ;)

Quote from: silva;505091Thats ok Ben. Im 32 years old. From Rio, Brazil.

Began playing with the old Fighting Fantasy books (here in Brazil called "Aventuras Fantásticas") "Wizard from Firetop Mountain", "City of Thieves" and "Citadel of Chaos". Then met AD&D, Shadowrun, Gurps and Vampire, in this order. And later met a whole lot of systems.

I know silva IRL (fala moleque! :)) and he's about my age. Gaming-wise he's a child of the 1990s, like myself, so his notion of "traditional" harkens back to the age of AD&D 2e and the dawn of WW/oWoD, which coincided with the "big boom" of RPGs here in Brazil, rather than the 1980s.

This is a very pervasive attitude around these parts. I'm a funny one because I mostly stuck to BECMI/RC stuff instead of AD&D 2e, which featured an anemic supplement treadmill (it was all but impossible to find BECMI/RC D&D books around here back in the day) and definitely seemed to promote a less structured, more do-it-yourself attitude. I used to open the RC at the Mystara appendix, populate the towns and keeps with NPCs of my creation, and "entertain" the PCs between these places with wandering monster tables, which was as close to a hexcrawl as we could muster.

Many people in my group, when they GM, veer towards railroads. Some are even good at it, and can make for an entertaining ride. But me? I suck at scripting stuff. It requires extra prep time, something I don't have. I'm pretty good at improv, though, and I love it when PCs react in unforeseen ways with a scenario and force me to think on my feet.

So, while I'm in a different camp (I think), I totally get it where he's coming from.

I've played Apocalypse World; it's a great game. Post-apocalyptic is not my favorite genre, but you can do a lot with it aside from the standard Mad Max-style setting.

AW has proved eminently hackable, including the also-excellent old-school D&D-ish hack Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/).

Conversation Rules
I like these rules a lot; they make social interactions tactical in the same way that combat is. Two Fishes is right about how they work; you roll whatever the relevant stat or skill is, and the better you roll, the more ability you have to ask the GM whether or not the NPC in question is lying, what their intentions are, etc.  

You still have to role-play the conversation, but these rules add a game layer on top of it that reflects your character's social ability. So you an build a "social" character that has legitimate in-game abilities.

Sex Rules
This seemed weird to me at first, although it doesn't upset me in the way that it upsets some people. I don't mind if there is sex in RPGs. That said, they came up only once in my game, and very much in passing (ie - it was a PC and an NPC, and we didn't actually role-play the encounter), so if you don't like them, you don't have to use them.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505043It's all fun and games, until you read fucking pretentious writings of the author

To this I really have to say, so fucking what. People around here act like being pretentious is right up there with killing babies or something, but really, it's not, and if someone is pretentious, who cares? When you get right down to it, there's nothing actually horrible about being pretentious, it just means you're kind of annoying. Big deal. You can be pretentious and still be a good writer, artist, or whatever. A significant portion of the best writers and writers in the world are insufferably pretentious. It doesn't mean i'm gonna swear off their work. You can probably even be pretentious and still be a good and decent person.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505197Last time i looked, i can't remember 'sexy moves' being a PA genre trope.

It isn't, and it's stupid in the context of the game itself.

Each class exists for a specific role, a far more strongly defined role than in D&D. Why not have a special move tailored for just that class's motivations and role?

When you do X social action, you get Y Bonus.

Hardholder = "Special bonus when you stave off a threat to your authority."

Whatever. Interact with NPC/PC socially, convince them to aid or advance your role, and you get a future bonus.

Maybe even define it as a special "MC" Move: Challenge Their Role. Make it harder for them to do what they do best. If they overcome the challenge, they get the special bonus.

That's a killer rule. And apt, for what the character is supposed to be. "There are other hardholders in the world, but you are the Hardholder."

The Hardholder should get a special bonus for overcoming a threat to their being a Hardholder. The Angel should get a bonus for convincing someone to assist them in their Angel duties. And so forth.

Sex as a universal source of a special bonus for everyone is out of character for Post-Apocalyptic fiction. It's out of character for the characters. It's out of character for the game.

It's not just the squick factor, but the utter bizarreness of the mechanic. It was a poorly explained mechanical "WTF?", just thrown in.

It could have been done better, and should have been integrated better.

GM Move = challenge to your role.
Player overcoming challenge = gain special bonus.

Pow.

EDIT: As a previous poster said, this mechanic became an excuse to casually announce sex had been had, just to get the benefit.

That's what game mechanical bonuses do: encourage the players to engage in certain behaviors (or have their characters do so). So why not a mechanic to encourage players to be a better Hardholder or whomever?

Vince missed an opportunity for strengthening the characters' roles, in preference to encouraging declarations of meaningless, commodity sex. It was a mistake, from a strictly game design perspective.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505071You are free to choose wrong, stupid and pretentious GMing advice if you prefer. I will however at least try and warn people about it - because putting "Do not change the rules" is pretty much the Deadly Sin of RPGs. I've devoted 20 pages of arguing about this already, so I'll just link:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?607636-Systems-and-Genre-Missidentification

Happy reading. At least Peregrin you have enough class to not go full ad hominem on me after I "diss" the storygaming bollocks, like most of story crowd. I'm not some "anti - storey" crusader, but storygames are indeed a bastion of pretentious and transgressive content that disguises poor game design.

No class in trolling, no class indeed.

I think the issue here is that if you view RPG systems as serving a certain purpose (integrating with the GM's own "game design" and other plans) rather than existing as discrete methods of producing certain table dynamics, it won't work for you.  If you've ever listened to Crane and Sorenson's "Game Design is Mind Control" talk, you'll know what I'm talking about.  I saw their panel at PAX East 11, and it finally helped me understand why folks like Crane are so adamant about people playing their games RAW before attempting to modify them -- they view systems in a very different light than other people.

The rules are in place in a certain way for the reason.  Justin's statement about the GM moves "channeling" is I think very important.

However, if you prefer to modify your games to fit the social dynamic or "needs" of your own group, then I can see why it might bother you.

I decided against going deep into how fucked up I think the "railroads and GM-handling is traditional" take on role playing games is, because that is going to automatically lead to yet another debate about story gaming which frankly I don't think we need at this point.

What I'm going to do instead is post about stuff like "how to make a Cthulhu adventure that isn't a railroad" at some point. It's much better to talk about actual practice in RPGs anyway. All the discussion of theory gives me a bad taste in the mouth lately, like we're missing the fucking point of RPGs in the first place.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505159Also Alexander - learn  to read between the lines then. I'm not going to do the job that elementary school teacher should've done for you. You pretty much prove my point with that channelling the GM's power bollocks. It's about as much channelling as those liar - pyramids are channelling life's energy. Baker is the bloody Archbishop of RAWtenbury.

Like I said: There is an entire chapter of the book dedicated to giving advice to the GM on how to modify and change the rules. Trying to "read between the lines" to conclude that there's a secret "thou must obey the RAW" lurking behind all that "here's how you can change and modify the RAW to work for you" is nothing more you having your head stuck eight feet up your own ass.

It's like claiming that all the rules in OD&D about running and pacing a dungeon crawl is trying to castrate the GM. No, dumbass: It's providing a default game structure.

QuoteBut if someone tells me that I absolutely need AW to deliver this to my players, then I will ridicule such a person.

Just a reminder: Rincewind is talking about some random person on some other site that somehow implied that AW was the Holy Grail. This upset Rincewind so much that he's incapable of actually reading, playing, or even thinking about AW without becoming obsessed with this random, irrelevant bloke.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505197Last time i looked, i can't remember 'sexy moves' being a PA genre trope.

In play, we found that using the sex moves made the game feel a lot like an HBO show: Lots of "sexposition" (a la Game of Thrones).

With that being said, the sex moves are pretty much non-essential. You don't even really need to swap them out with something else: You can just ignore them.

Meh. I could troll you by going "Say Justin, when you channel your inert GM energies, do you use special crystals, like lightsabers, or just the mechanics of the game and smoke of black lotus? I just use, well, words to channel my "GMing energies", but I am always open for new information", but I don't feel like it.

The greatest trick someone call pull is to take the freedom of choice away, then persuade you you never needed it.  I'll take my own and others advice, and not give a fuck, concentrating rather on actual gaming stuff. Then again, if I do not understand indie RPGs and play them "wrong", I am apparently damaged like child that suffered from sexual harassment.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0

Re: restricts GM's or not.

Let's cut out all the back and forth and just go to the damn text. Even if we disagree on interpretations, these are real quotes from the real game.

Page 1 of the GM chapter:

QuoteThat’s you, the MC, Apocalypse World’s GM.

There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this.

AGENDA
• Make Apocalypse World seem real.
• Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.

Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no other. It’s not, for instance, your agenda to make the players lose, or to deny them what they want, or to punish them, or to control them, or to get them through your pre-planned storyline (DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I’m not fucking around).

It’s not your job to put their characters in double-binds or dead ends, or to yank the rug out from under their feet. Go chasing after any of those, you’ll wind up with a boring game that makes Apocalypse World seem contrived,

Does that seem constraining? Your choice as to what you believe. Let's grab a couple of more quotes.

QuotePlay to find out: there’s a certain discipline you need in order to MC Apocalypse World. You have to commit yourself to the game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the players’ characters. You have to open yourself to caring what happens, but when it comes time to say what happens, you have to set what you hope for aside.

The reward for MCing, for this kind of GMing, comes with the discipline. When you find something you genuinely care about — a question about what will happen that you genuinely want to find out — letting the game’s fiction decide it is uniquely satisfying.

And from another page in the GM section:

QuoteThe game’s rules will tell you things to say. When a player’s character goes aggro on someone and the player rolls 7–9, for instance, the rules give you a list of things to choose from. Choose one of them, and that’s what you say.

Have your own opinion. That's good. But base it on the stuff actually in the game, is all I'm saying.

The above are. Read them and make a decision.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505262Vince missed an opportunity for strengthening the characters' roles, in preference to encouraging declarations of meaningless, commodity sex. It was a mistake, from a strictly game design perspective.

Totally. The rest of the world sees it as a mistake from a game design perspective. Sadly, given Mr. Baker's philosophy, he doesn't. System matters, dude. If it's in there, it is meant to drive play.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Not so sure... the sex moves drove play a lot in the campaign I ran. Perhaps they are not great examples of post apocalyptic genre tropes, but they firmly established some character concepts for us.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505374Totally. The rest of the world sees it as a mistake from a game design perspective. Sadly, given Mr. Baker's philosophy, he doesn't. System matters, dude. If it's in there, it is meant to drive play.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

I'd say that it is certainly designed to drive play. It's every user's choice if you will use a part of mechanic, or not.

Except that AW is one of the many members of the Cult of RAW that plague the storygames. Thank goodness InSpectres doesn't have it.

Interesting point too - "Let's make a game about character interaction. What's one of the most intimate human interaction? Sexual intercourse. Hm. Let's make it meaningless by making it a mechanical flick.

*tap tap tap as it is keyed into Word.*

Genius."

Thank you for resting my case.

Apocalypse World has a very high level of metagame mechanics.  All the interpersonal mechanics are there in typical Forge fashion to give you in-game bonuses for roleplaying.  It's not a Storygame, but it's definitely not traditional from a sense of "immersing your character in a world", you simply spend too much time making decisions as a player.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505307This upset Rincewind so much that he's incapable of actually reading, playing, or even thinking about AW without becoming obsessed with this random, irrelevant bloke.

A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505374Totally. The rest of the world sees it as a mistake from a game design perspective. Sadly, given Mr. Baker's philosophy, he doesn't. System matters, dude. If it's in there, it is meant to drive play.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

The rest of the world meaning you and Daddy Warpig. I have played the game and when the sex moves came up in play they did what they were supposed to--they emphasized the scarcity of the setting, and the difficulty of making uncompromised human connections. They didn't compel us to describe the events in lurid detail. It was James Bond level of detail. But it did add an aspect to the game that would not have been present otherwise. They didn't become the focus of the game, either. It was a small but worthwhile addition.

Quote from: daniel_ream;505385A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Of course, if you don't like the genius of AW, you must be a fanatic of Anti - Swine crusade, and not just spite pretentious story games, while still enjoying the good ones.

QuoteThe rest of the world meaning you and Daddy Warpig. I have played the game and when the sex moves came up in play they did what they were supposed to--they emphasized the scarcity of the setting, and the difficulty of making uncompromised human connections. They didn't compel us to describe the events in lurid detail. It was James Bond level of detail. But it did add an aspect to the game that would not have been present otherwise. They didn't become the focus of the game, either. It was a small but worthwhile addition.

You can just visit a brothel in any RPG and have just as much of "cold, currency - based sex".

Quote from: two_fishes;505387The rest of the world meaning you and Daddy Warpig. I have played the game and when the sex moves came up in play they did what they were supposed to--they emphasized the scarcity of the setting, and the difficulty of making uncompromised human connections. They didn't compel us to describe the events in lurid detail. It was James Bond level of detail. But it did add an aspect to the game that would not have been present otherwise. They didn't become the focus of the game, either. It was a small but worthwhile addition.

Edit: Worthless drivel.

I had no idea that sex in an PA setting was part of the scarcity of PA play. It certainly hasn't leaped out at me from various media.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505393Edit: Worthless drivel.

I had no idea that sex in an PA setting was part of the scarcity of PA play. It certainly hasn't leaped out at me from various media.

Whatever. Keep on beating your drum.

Quote from: two_fishes;505395Whatever. Keep on beating your drum.

At least state your case. I'm not interested in you rolling over and offering your belly.

You said that "when the sex moves came up in play they did what they were supposed to--they emphasized the scarcity of the setting,"

Quote from: two_fishes;505387the sex moves came up in play they did what they were supposed to--they emphasized the scarcity of the setting, and the difficulty of making uncompromised human connections.

Because an Angel choosing to save a particularly damage human, one she hated, wouldn't.

Because the Chopper dealing with a rebellion in the ranks of his gang, wouldn't.

Because characters dealing with a threat to the core of their identity just couldn't, but a dry, "gimme my mechanical bonus" invocation of sex could.

My point isn't that sex itself is bad, it's that in this game it's a one-note mechanic. It's boring. Trite. Unimaginative.

There are plenty of other aspects of the characters and setting to explore.

So, let's go Rincewind's route: Make a mechanic based on a universal activity, suited to the setting. Something meaningful, not just sex.

(I'm guessing that was his thinking, based on his post about the mechanic of religious beliefs in his campaign, which he adapted from AW.)

Hey, how about something to do with the omni-present, undescribed psychic maelstrom lurking just out of sight of the character's minds?

"Open your mind to the maelstrom. On a 10+, get a bonus. On a 7-9, get a mixed success. On a failure, the MC takes as hard a shot as he wishes."

What? A setting dominated by a single, bizarre, overwhelming thing all the characters feel? A special mechanic relating to them trying to borrow determination or other power from it?

Couldn't that invoke the desperation and scarcity of the setting? "You're going to do what? Is that truly necessary?" "If I want to survive, it is."

Couldn't that also represent them discovering fundamental truths about the world they're in? Wouldn't that be more interesting than just: "I screw. Gimme a bonus."

Yes.

EDIT: The psychic maelstrom is a unique part of the setting, embedding it in a special character bonus makes it something that impacts all the character's choices. To use it or not. If you do, how to deal with the consequences. That's far more interesting than just sex.

Quote from: two_fishes;505387They didn't compel us to describe the events in lurid detail.

I don't care. The mechanic itself is just kinda skeevy.

And it misses a great chance to explore the setting, or the characters, or the role they've chosen to assume. All of those rock.

Missing all of them, in favor of "I fuck. How do my numbers get better?" is a mistake.

Quote from: two_fishes;505387It was a small but worthwhile addition.

It could have been better. And far less skeevy.

Nor am I interested in bothering with someone whose mind is made up and dismisses anything that contradicts his priors. But fine. All sorts of mechanics in the game emhasize the scarcity of resources in the setting. I played a hardholder and this was all over the place. The struggle to provide for the hardhold was a big driver of the play. This incuded the sex moves. Just as I said in my first response, the sex moves made sex into a commodity and made it more difficult to make uncompromised human connections.

The inclusion of sex moves just reinforce that the game is Swiney.

Quote from: B.T.;505404The inclusion of sex moves just reinforce that the game is Swiney.

You just do not understand the genius. I blame the White Wolf games that broke your mind, or your Gamist agenda.

I hazard a guess that sex isn't a resource. Salt, sure. Diodes? Absolutely. Fuck, wet-wipes. Perhaps.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505406I hazard a guess that sex isn't a resource. Salt, sure. Diodes? Absolutely. Fuck, wet-wipes. Perhaps.

Well, it can be used to magically generate salt, diodes, wet - wipes of what have you, as it's hardholder's bonus from having sex - he can "summon" 1 - barter as a gift to the character he just had sex with.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505406I hazard a guess that sex isn't a resource. Salt, sure. Diodes? Absolutely. Fuck, wet-wipes. Perhaps.

Like I said. Whatever.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505401EDIT: The psychic maelstrom is a unique part of the setting, embedding it in a special character bonus makes it something that impacts all the character's choices. To use it or not. If you do, how to deal with the consequences. That's far more interesting than just sex.

In fact, that's so interesting that I'm thinking of ways to include it in my "Storm Knights" campaign.

Hmm....

Well, i guess we come back to the unanswered question. Where in the PA genre is 'sex moves' a trope?

Rincewind suggested Zombie Strippers. Then again, i don't think that 1 movie is a trend, let alone a trope.

Where's your emulation then?

Quote from: One Horse Town;505416Well, i guess we come back to the unanswered question. Where in the PA genre is 'sex moves' a trope?

Rincewind suggested Zombie Strippers. Then again, i don't think that 1 movie is a trend, let alone a trope.

Where's your emulation then?

A Boy and His Doggystyle by Harlan Ellison

Quote from: misterguignol;505417A Boy and His Doggystyle by Harlan Ellison

Epic.

Canticle for Hefnerowitz. Bad one, I know - trying to find a 28 weeks later poster's parody, featuring a woman and that odd thingie you put a kid in when you take it out for a walk.

Relationships and sex in a world where your options are limited is definitely a driving force behind some subplots in The Walking Dead.

Also, to play devil's advocate a bit (since I haven't played the game so I don't know how the moves work in practice) I wouldn't say it's a human resource (aside from the ability to procreate), so much as it is a basic human need.  Plus, when there's a lot of tribalism, your options are limited, and people are just trying to survive, who you fuck and how that affects your relationship becomes a lot more important.

And would any of you consider all the T&A in GoT to be "skeevy?"  I don't see anyone complaining about that, or Boardwalk Empire, or The Walking Dead, or whatever else is currently playing on TV?

Boardwalk Empire is all about fade to black, and there's only 1 explicit scene that either blows your mind, or feels like a cheap trick. And BE is in no frigging way about sex.

As for sex scenes and SoIaF.....it's well known that they range from laughable through creepy to not terrible in Martin's writing. If you want to see how NOT to do sex scenes, read SoIaF - I like those series, but seriously, Martin needs a cold shower permanently installed over his head. Sex scenes are definitely SoIaF's weakest link. Also - it's again not really about sex.

Walking Dead...let me put it this way. Issue 6 of Polish series (each issue is 5 American issues, so those'd be 26 - 30 issues), can be summarised in this way:

Prisoners getting shot blah blah blah Sex sex blah blah blah sex blah blah blah sex blah blah blah blah sex sex blah blah blah blah blah punching the rapist murderer blah blah blah WE ARE THE WALKING DEAD.

And I really wish I was exaggerating. You can thank me for saving your time later.

I dunno about TV show, but Walking Dead the comic was mostly a boring exercise in boring writing, where sex was the only interesting thing happening in a whole set of issues, with good art. The only saving grace is the trip to that creepy town run by Governor and resulting storyline.

So in other words - if you base your work on sex, you best be

a) porn director
b) Marquis de Sade
c) Musician
d) Really good artist
e) Have a really good idea

Or you will fail.

This really reminds me of this tune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzfo4txaQJA

Quote from: Peregrin;505423Relationships and sex in a world where your options are limited is definitely a driving force behind some subplots in The Walking Dead.

Also, to play devil's advocate a bit (since I haven't played the game so I don't know how the moves work in practice) I wouldn't say it's a human resource (aside from the ability to procreate), so much as it is a basic human need.  Plus, when there's a lot of tribalism, your options are limited, and people are just trying to survive, who you fuck and how that affects your relationship becomes a lot more important.

And would any of you consider all the T&A in GoT to be "skeevy?"  I don't see anyone complaining about that, or Boardwalk Empire, or The Walking Dead, or whatever else is currently playing on TV?

That's all very nice, but my argument was based on two_fishes statement that the game fitted what he called the site's definition of emulation.

As an emulation of genre, i say it fails miserably.

Like much of the author's work, it seems to be titillation dressed in meaningful clothes. Something i know that you've decried in the past.

A lot of people seem really upset about the fact that sex is a part of AW's rules.

The game also includes rules for inflicting violence, intimidating people, pyschic powers, doing crazy stunts while driving, and so on.

Why is people having sex so particularly provoking? Is it because most RPGs don't talk about it? Is it because we're all pretty cool with describing violence or social conflict between characters, but not sex or romance?

Genre emulation. Keep up.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505426Like most of the author's work, it seems to be titillation dressed in meaningful clothes.

And it isn't even titillating. It's exactly as titillating as "4th fighter level. Time to take Weapon Specialization."

It reduces sex to boring game-speke. Just another way to powergame or min/max. (CharOp? Was that the new, trendy phrase I heard?)

That's gotta be a crime against sex itself. Sex should be sexy. (Not rape, not perversion, but sex.) Otherwise, what's the point?

Boring, trite, trivial, meaningless, "+1 to hit now, because I like boned her really well" sex.

Yeah, that's not any kind of accomplishment. If I was one of those hip young geeks, I'd say it was Made of Fail.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505432Yeah, that's not any kind of accomplishment. If I was one of those hip young geeks, I'd say it was Made of Fail.

Yep.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505431Genre emulation. Keep up.

In fact, let's take a quick look at the better works of the genre. I probably miss a fair bit of what I read/saw, but I am darn tired.

Books.

The Boy and his Dog - the boy chooses his dog over possible lay. Also the vast dehumanising of sex in the novel.

The Postman - Gordon Krantz bangs a girl whose husband's sterile at the beginning of the novel. No further lays as he's too busy fixing humanity instead.

No Truce with Kings - Son-in-law of main character fantasises about time with his wife, but it does not include sex - he just misses his wife. No sweet action in the novella.

Canticle for Leibowitz - in a way of behaviour truly unprecedented for Catholic monks, no sex in the book. Even from non - monk characters.

Works of P. K. Dick - guess what? Little or none sex when it comes to true post - apocalyptic works of his. DADOES isn't really post - apo but closer to cyberpunk, but even there the only sex scene serves a purpose of really showing that Deckard, after all, is human, and the supposedly "human" android is the least human of them all.

Movies:

Waterworld - a mandatory movie sex scene. Let's remember  though how well that movie was critically acclaimed.

Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Living Dead - guess whut, no sex, and the series only went downhill from there.

The Road - no sex.


Video Games.

Fallout & Fallout 2 - if I remember, you could get a shotgun wedding in one. Fallout 2 also had the infamous Porn Star thing in New Reno, which was (surprise surprise) why quite a lot of people despised New Reno. It was pretty awesome imo, even if pornstar thing was a bit stupid.

Fallout 3 - no sex.

Wasteland - no sex.

Quote from: Peregrin;505423And would any of you consider all the T&A in GoT to be "skeevy?"

Skeevy is this:

• We're sitting down to a game of D&D, and the new guy makes an otherwise interesting druid character and announces, at the end of char create, how much his druid loves his animal companion. I mean actually loves his animal companion.

Skeevy.

• Modern day "Call of Duty"-style game. Guy makes a sniper. 1st day in-country, he has his character go trolling for "underage prostitutes".

Skeevy.

(Both of these are hypotheticals, BTW.)

The pointless and bizarre insertion of sexual matters into an RPG's mechanics, where it makes no sense thematically or mechanically. The creation of mechanics for sex, and only sex, and nothing else but sex (sophomoric laugh), to no good purpose.

So pointless, that all the game's defenders repeatedly stress how it's easily ignored, only invoked for the mechanical benefits, and other "it really has nothing to do with the game" caveats.

If it has nothing to do with the game, why is it there? Oh, yeah. Prurient interest.

That is, skeeve. It's skeevy.

Quote from: BWA;505429Why is people having sex so particularly provoking?

Well, you recited all the Bohemian talking points, almost in exact numeric order.

What you didn't hit was the rest of the thread, where the real reasons (some) people object were listed.

Hint: They had nothing to do with your culturally condescending list. It has everything to do with sex-mechanics being a really stupid idea, from a game design standpoint.

As for sexuality in RPGs - I am more then open to the topic, and I make it no secret that I am a rather decadent bastard actually - but it doesn't mean I must tolerate foolishly transgressive material. I played once one half of the Jayne & Cersei twin - style duo in an intrigue DnD game - there was no explicit RPing, just a suggestion of such a backstory. The other player was a friend of mine, so I trusted her not to go overboard too. There was a certain epic storyline in that too, as my character was dying of consumption, and using his sister also as a source of life's energy (he was a necromancer), but it was a long and funny campaign. It fitted the setting, since we were playing in Sembia, which I find rather highly decadent.

In my ToC game, I allowed one of the players to play homosexual character, as I though the treatment of homosexuals in 30s England'd make an interesting side story. As it turned out, the player was joking - but I still took the idea, and made the son of one of heroes' gay. With a homosexual son and wife that hates him, you can expect the character prefers facing Mythos monstrocities while he chases for rare books around the London, rather then sit at home :P.

I can't wait when his son comes back from Oxford with a "special friend".

Quote• We're sitting down to a game of D&D, and the new guy makes an otherwise interesting druid character and announces, at the end of char create, how much his druid loves his animal companion. I mean actually loves his animal companion.

I swear this is like the only reason why anyone could wish to play a druid in D&D

Badum - tish.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505431Genre emulation. Keep up.

Except I never said genre emulation. That's something you're adding. There are plenty of elements in AW that don't fit neatly into the post-apoc genre, like the psychic maelstrom. What I said was:

Quote from: two_fishes;505092my understanding of AW, from talking to the GM who ran the game I played in is that it has a lot of advice and methods for running a situational game, where you set up characters with built-in conflicting goals, and limited resources, and you play it out, with the GM following the players' lead and responding to their actions. That sounds pretty typical of other games by V. Baker, like Dogs in the Vineyard or In a Wicked Age. It has also struck me as very similar to the style that is touted at this site as "emulation".

Which sounds to me an awful lot like this:

Quote from: RPGPundit;380632With a game that is about Emulation, however, where you suppose that NPCs as much as PCs have their own identities and personalities, that you are emulating a living world, then the answer to this kind of dilemma is obvious: you just keep emulating the world and see what happens.

Um, fuck.

Let's get back to genre emulation, or lack of.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505436Hint: They had nothing to do with your culturally condescending list. It has everything to do with sex-mechanics being a really stupid idea, from a game design standpoint.

It's hard to believe that the fact that it's SEX is completely irrelevant. Encumbrance rules were always a pretty bad game rule, but people rarely get worked up over them.

Sex is pretty rare in RPGs. In fact, looking at my game shelf, AW is the sole game that mentions sex. A few games touch on romance and/or physical beauty, but nothing anywhere close to AW's take on the subject.

So I can see why people are uncomfortable with it. I was, the first time I heard about it.

For those of you objecting to the inclusion of these particular rules, have you read or played the game? Because I think context matters.

I don't see how having sex to gain free commodities that are magically created by Narrative Need is helping emulation or immersion.

Also two_fish - if you do the art of selective quoting, you can quote the rest of the thread as well :P.

Quote from: RPGPundit;380828Well, not exactly; the thing is in the Swiney games, they like stuff like "relationship mapping", but all in the context of creating the story centered around the characters; there is an assumed kind of reactiveness going on, maybe in the better cases with a bit of retroactive activity in relation to the characters.

Emulation is when the GM envisions in his head, as things are actually going on, what other NPCs are doing and getting into as individuals without relation to the PCs, and is often not just not particularly prioritizing to the idea of "generating story" but can be downright detrimental to "story creation" as a goal since it removes a great deal of exposition from the audience (that is, the players).

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;505445Except I never said genre emulation. That's something you're adding. There are plenty of elements in AW that don't fit neatly into the post-apoc genre, like the psychic maelstrom. What I said was:



Which sounds to me an awful lot like this:

The um, fuck wasn't for you BTW.

You're right, but i'm saying it.

If you want emulation, then genre is in the top 2 things you should consider.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505449The um, fuck wasn't for you BTW.

You're right, but i'm saying it.

If you want emulation, then genre is in the top 2 things you should consider.

Well I was only making a point that I'm not some Captain Purist that will burn the sin of SEX in gaming with hot scolding iron and bonfires.

But mechanics of sex? Wasn't  that book of erotic adventures of w/e it was called ridiculed for just that stuff? And yet it becomes touch of genius when it's not a supplement for DnD.

better:
http://www.dungeon-world.com/

Quote from: BWA;505447For those of you objecting to the inclusion of these particular rules, have you read or played the game?

Read the goddamn thread. I directly quoted parts of the text. And repeatedly cite character classes and concepts from the game itself.

Had you read the goddamn thread, that might have suggested an answer to your question. Indeed, obviated the need for such a jerktastic query in the first place.

"Well have you read it", implies an obligation to read the game before criticizing it. It also places an obligation on you to read the goddamn thread before blindly asserting a deep insight regarding other's thoughts, objections, and motivations.

Quote from: BWA;505447It's hard to believe that the fact that it's SEX is completely irrelevant.

It's "hard to believe" because you didn't read the goddamn thread to find out what people's real objections were. Believe it or not, they're there.

Quote from: BWA;505447Because I think context matters.

Then read the goddamn thread. That's the context for this discussion.

Reading the goddamn thread is preferable to jumping in the middle of the discussion with no idea of what people are talking about, then trotting out your own idle speculations about what they might be thinking.

You don't have to guess why I disagree. I wrote it out explicitly, in the rest of the goddamn thread.

Which, BTW, you should read.

tl;dr: You didn't read the goddamn thread. You need to.

QuoteWhich, BTW, you should read.

I disagree, were it not for my knuckleheadness, I'd also escape this futile conflict.

Quote from: two_fishes;505445Except I never said genre emulation.

Except you did, in your very first post:

Quote from: two_fishes;505033The sex moves, for all the heat they got, made relationships in the game feel like a commodity, worth more for the resources they provided than for any human comfort, which is again fitting to the genre.

"Fitting to the genre" means they belong in the genre. Hence, they aid genre emulation.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505459Except you did, in your very first post:



"Fitting to the genre" means they belong in the genre. Hence, they aid genre emulation.

I stand corrected - and also with arms crossed.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505426That's all very nice, but my argument was based on two_fishes statement that the game fitted what he called the site's definition of emulation.

As an emulation of genre, i say it fails miserably.

Like much of the author's work, it seems to be titillation dressed in meaningful clothes. Something i know that you've decried in the past.

I've decried rape and dehumanizing acts getting called out in the rules, and I still wont touch Poisond.  I don't think AW is anywhere near that, though.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505434In fact, let's take a quick look at the better works of the genre. I probably miss a fair bit of what I read/saw, but I am darn tired.

"Hey, dudes! I found a fantasy book without any dragons in it! I think it's totally inappropriate for D&D to have dragons! They clearly don't belong in fantasy!"

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505436So pointless, that all the game's defenders repeatedly stress how it's easily ignored, only invoked for the mechanical benefits, and other "it really has nothing to do with the game" caveats.

"If you don't like dragons, just don't use 'em. There are lots of other things you can do in the game besides fight dragons."

"Well, obviously dragons are so pointless that even the game's defenders repeatedly stress how easy it is to ignore them. Obviously dragons were only included for the mechanical benefits of those who like killing reptiles. Fucking swine."

Quote from: Rincewind1;505316The greatest trick someone call pull is to take the freedom of choice away, then persuade you you never needed it.  

"Holy shit, dude! Did you see this? In OD&D Gygax told the GM he has to make a wandering monster check every turn! He's trying to trick us into giving up all our freedom of choice!"

QuoteThen again, if I do not understand indie RPGs and play them "wrong", I am apparently damaged like child that suffered from sexual harassment.

"Some guy on the internet who has nothing to do with D&D said stupid things! This must mean that D&D is a terrible game!"

Quote from: Rincewind1;505378Except that AW is one of the many members of the Cult of RAW that plague the storygames.

"Hey! D&D claims that PCs should never be allowed to kill dragons! That's bullshit!"

"Actually... the rulebooks seem to spend a lot of time talking about PCs killing dragons."

"Well, you have to read between the lines. D&D is one of the many members of the Cult of Auto-Killing PCs that plague roleplaying games."

Quote from: Rincewind1;505425Boardwalk Empire is all about fade to black...

Which, notably, is exactly how the sex mechanics in AW treat it.

Aw, crap. This is going to turn into another one of those threads where you pretend that a game manual mentioning sex is equivalent to a graphical description of sexual acts, isn't it?

I'm beginning to think that you should be seeing a therapist about this sexual hang-ups you've got.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505489

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505436So pointless, that all the game's defenders repeatedly stress how it's easily ignored, only invoked for the mechanical benefits, and other "it really has nothing to do with the game" caveats.

"Well, obviously dragons are so pointless that even the game's defenders repeatedly stress how easy it is to ignore them. Obviously dragons were only included for the mechanical benefits of those who like killing reptiles. Fucking swine."

In an attempt to disprove my statement you substantively misrepresent it. I never called anyone swine. Nor did I claim anything about Vincent's motives ("only included for"). So, you're full of garbage on those points.

Stripped of those irrelevancies, a plain English restatement of your sarcastic faux-analogy would reveal just how foolish it is. So let's do that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505489"If you don't like dragons, just don't use 'em. There are lots of other things you can do in the game besides fight dragons."

So, your faux-analogy, made up quotes are is based on the notion that "Sex moves are to AW as dragons are to Dungeons and Dragons". In this quote, the "correct quote", you claim that dragons are entirely optional. Which means the sex mechanics are entirely optional.

Which is exactly what I said. Yet, I'm wrong to have done so.

Your entire refutation of my statement, therefore is this: "The 'have sex to gain a bonus' mechanic is optional. And people pointing this out are wrong to say so. (Even though they're factually correct.)"

That's some real good argumentation there, Lou.

And to make it, you only had to cherry pick one specific sentence from the many posts I made. And ignore the context of that sentence. And then just make some shit up (aka "strawman fallacy").

Seriously, you couldn't find a single other thing I said that you could attempt to disprove? I've listed numerous reasons the mechanic was boring, suggested 3 separate mechanics which would have been better, and pointed out how even people like you say the mechanic is irrelevant to the game.

And you couldn't really disagree with any of that? Couldn't argue against any of it? This was the best you could do?

Man, when you're reduced to just making shit up to try and win an argument, you should stop and rethink the whole thing.

(Pre-emptive strike: "Now you're 'making shit up' and 'misrepresenting' what I said." Then next time, speak your argument in plain English. Because this faux-analogy, false quote schtick takes some cleverness. And, on this subject, you're not as clever as you think.)

Finally, the basis of your entire response to Rincewind and I is to claim that sex moves are to AW, as dragons are to a game called Dungeons and Dragons? Really? (And yet, they're also entirely optional?)

Dude, how did you not know you were screwed coming out of the gate? It's a colossal mistake to even attempt that argument.

Next time you rant against Rincewind, leave me out of it. And next time you try and argue against something I said, try not to rely so much on bad analogies and spurious claims about what I said.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505518So, your faux-analogy, made up quotes are is based on the notion that "Sex moves are to AW as dragons are to Dungeons and Dragons". In this quote, the "correct quote", you claim that dragons are entirely optional. Which means the sex mechanics are entirely optional.

Which is exactly what I said. Yet, I'm wrong to have done so.

You seem to have forgotten the part where you attempted to draw fallacious conclusions from your false-and-unspoken premise that "anything in a game that isn't mandatory must be there for prurient interests".

You also seem to be laboring under the impression that I'm taking anything you or Rincewind say seriously. But you've already proven that you're firmly entrenched in your ignorance and stupidity. Why on earth would I (or anybody else) take you illiterate buffoons seriously?

QuoteFinally, the basis of your entire response to Rincewind and I is to claim that sex moves are to AW, as dragons are to a game called Dungeons and Dragons? Really? (And yet, they're also entirely optional?)

Your unspoken premise here that "every session of D&D ever played has included a dragon" is also pretty hilarious, BTW.

I am still waiting for you to answer me Justin about those mystical energies of GMs that you somehow channel.

Say, is there an order of evil GMs that almost hunted down every GM that was capable of channelling those energies? Is there a dashing smuggler of RPGs from South America who believes that a fistful of dice at his side is better then all that hocus - pocus?

As Pseudo called you out before, you turn into a snivelling sarcastic worm once you can't prove a real counter - argument - which is why I don't really bother with you.

Fuck's sake, I read a thread on AW forums where people did not know what to do if you shoot a PC in the head in their sleep. I mean, you obviously can't kill them, because that'd go against the STORY!

All Baker's games are based on an idea that you need to be The Very Special Type Of GM to GM them, which of course helps sell them to those pitiful fools (fortunately, I just borrowed my copy from a friend of mine who is sadly a fool that buys all his junk), because you now get to be the REAL, ELITE GM.

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.

At this point, I think the purpose of the thread is fulfilled - the game seems to play as good as the reading sugests. Ive even convinced some of my pals here in Brazil to give it a try. Maybe later I post some playtest impressions.

Thanks again. ;)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505518Next time you rant against Rincewind, leave me out of it. And next time you try and argue against something I said, try not to rely so much on bad analogies and spurious claims about what I said.

As soon as Justin starts throwing repression and such nonsense about, he's basically got nothing to counter with. It's an old record, played often.

I wonder what genres 'sex moves' do emulate though. Mills & Boon, relationship melodrama and porn, i suppose.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505595As soon as Justin starts throwing repression and such nonsense about, he's basically got nothing to counter with. It's an old record, played often.

I wonder what genres 'sex moves' do emulate though. Mills & Boon, relationship melodrama and porn, i suppose.

Also grindhouse.

Of course I must be sexually repressed, if I find an idea of role - playing with a fellow friend of mine  that our characters have sex, while 3 other people are watching us. Or I must be repressed because I find the Magically Creating Barter sex move bloody silly.

Oh wait, that's just the ILLITERATE PLEBS AND PETTY BOURGEOIS  DOES NOT UNDERSTAND TRUE ART argument that I had been expecting. Still, 11th page before it came? New high score.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505576Fuck's sake, I read a thread on AW forums where people did not know what to do if you shoot a PC in the head in their sleep. I mean, you obviously can't kill them, because that'd go against the STORY!

Of course they bloody die. You shot them in the head. Forget the damage clock.

That's your story.

Quote from: Ladybird;505625Of course they bloody die. You shot them in the head. Forget the damage clock.

That's your story.

You are far too sane I am afraid.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505576Say, is there an order of evil GMs that almost hunted down every GM that was capable of channelling those energies? Is there a dashing smuggler of RPGs from South America who believes that a fistful of dice at his side is better then all that hocus - pocus?[...] people did not know what to do if you shoot a PC in the head in their sleep. I mean, you obviously can't kill them, because that'd go against the STORY!

Wait twenty years, then re-edit the scene so the PC shoots first.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505552You seem to have forgotten the part where you attempted to draw fallacious conclusions

Hey dude, I didn't "forget" anything—you did. That post was your argument. Your shot against my position. You choice to include or exclude anything I said. To agree with me or disagree with me about anything you wanted.

You disagree with this, and you left it out? Your bad, man.

You forgot. Not me.

Like I said, the next time you want to make an argument, just make the argument. Say exactly what you mean. Include that which you disagree with. Then say why its wrong. Explicitly, in plain English.

If this is genuinely something you disagree with, and want to make a valid case, you should back up, quote my damn post, and say why its wrong. Not in some mealy-mouthed, passive-aggressive faux-analogy fake quotes (with added making shit up), but in plain English.

That way, I'll know what you disagree with. And I'll know why. And I have the chance to disagree with you, or maybe even concede that I was wrong. If I was wrong.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505552But you've already proven that you're firmly entrenched in your ignorance and stupidity.

That's an interesting definition of stupidity. "Read the game, completely understood it, understood why weaknesses in the game design existed, proposed three separate solutions for the problem. Each of which was more suited to the characters, character roles, and setting than the official rules."

And let's not forget "entered an argument, used evidence, judgement, and logic to construct a case, clear and unambiguous English to present the case, and did it so well the gentleman calling me stupid had to resort to the Strawman fallacy and Ad Hominem fallacy to make a counterargument."

Basically, I kicked the game's ass. And yours. That's a level of achievement I'm comfortable with. And you should be uncomfortable with, as it calls into question who's the stupid one here.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505552Your unspoken premise here that "every session of D&D ever played has included a dragon" is also pretty hilarious, BTW.

Horsefeathers. Never said it, never implied it. Your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

And I'm the stupid one?

Quote from: silva;505588Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.

At this point, I think the purpose of the thread is fulfilled - the game seems to play as good as the reading sugests. Ive even convinced some of my pals here in Brazil to give it a try. Maybe later I post some playtest impressions.

Thanks again. ;)

I genuinely hope you have fun with it.

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

That's my motto.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505576I am still waiting for you to answer me Justin about those mystical energies of GMs that you somehow channel.

(1) You're now a self-admitted troll.

(2) The first person to refer to "GM powers" in this thread? That would be you, dumbass.

I had assumed you were using some rational definition of the term. But if you were actually talking about some new-age "mystical energy", then I'd suggest laying off the peyote before you post in public.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505664

QuoteYou seem to have forgotten the part where you attempted to draw fallacious conclusions

Hey dude, I didn't "forget" it—you did. That post was your argument. Your shot against my position. You choice to include or exclude anything I said. To agree with me or disagree with me about anything you wanted.

(1) I did, in fact, specifically reference that part of your post in my original, mocking reply.

(2) You just admitted you were attempting to draw a fallacious conclusion.

Since Rincewind is trolling himself and you've just admitted you were completely wrong in what you were claiming, I think we're done here.

Victory! :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505142The temptation is to describe this as "constraining" the GM's power, but that's not really it: Baker is instead channeling the GM's power.

In a day and age where virtually every RPG just assumes that GMs are magically grown on trees, AW's approach of providing the GM with an actual structure for governing play is more than refreshing. It's needed.

Tis seems your memory is as weak as your arguments, so I bolded the important part.

QED.

PS - still curious about that order of AW Knights, please enlighten me, unless you are afraid Lord V4der will come after you, continuing to execute Order 66.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505667I genuinely hope you have fun with it.

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

That's my motto.

As I am drinking, I might as well drink to that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505770(2) You just admitted you were attempting to draw a fallacious conclusion.

Your reading comprehension skills again failed you. More, a logical fallacy: taking one sentence of a section out of context and claiming it means something it doesn't.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505770Since Rincewind is trolling himself and you've just admitted you were completely wrong in what you were claiming, I think we're done here.

This is, in my experience, the natural end of every Internet disputation: the side lacking credibility, evidence, and intellectual coherence claiming a technical victory based on dubious assumptions, patting themselves on the back, and riding off into the sunset.

It's an art form as stylized and formalized as Kabuki (and almost never leads to honest debates of substantive issues). Bravo, sir, you are a master of Internet Debate Kabuki.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505791Victory! :jaw-dropping:

That's twice, in two different threads, you've said what I intended to (or did), in a far more succinct fashion.

Truth, now, you're going for a laconic Clint Eastwood or Buffy's Oz kinda vibe, aren't you?

If this continues, I may have to get bitterly envious. :p

I highly disagree on your oversimplification and villification of Kabuki, DW.

As for the victory part - a certain quote by the greatest military mind (according to another great military mind, Hannibal) comes to mind. The one about a few mores like this, and we're undone.

I'm still stealing that "Your game" line on the cover of GMPM.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505797Tis seems your memory is as weak as your arguments, so I bolded the important part.

The problem is that in English the word "channeling" can have a number of different connotations.  To we native English speakers, it was obvious in what sense Justin was using it.  Perhaps due to the language barrier, you've interpreted it in a way that really doesn't make any sense given the context.

Instead of asking Justin politely to explain what he meant by that use of the word "channeling" you chose to engage in juvenile mockery, dragging yet another thread down into the dungheaps of "Look at me! Look at me show how clever I am with my shallow and crude jibes!"

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this site is actually rpg.net's implementation of Dante's Inferno (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/06/suspension-ban-or-hellban.html) hellban.

Oh please. He started to hurl insults and snark at me with pretty much the first blow here, and you expected me to play a good sheep and turn the other cheek? The rest of the post about "rare GMs and how great AW is in giving power to even most moderate of them" rather clearly sets a premise that just asks to turn that statement about "channeling" into mockery. There was a dozen of words usable here, such as "magnifies", or perhaps "siphons" or "convey". But no, the one used is one that has the sublime note of "AW allows the GM to be the Pretty Unique Flower" to it. I usually presume that people use language in purposeful way, and not just type words randomly.

Of course, like a good knight, you ride in shining armour to the defence of your feudal. I've been using English daily since I was 6, so stuff your theory about native English speakers. I am pretty sure you are being right now borderline nationalistic - "hey look, he's Polish, so he must be shit at English, tally - ho!"

And of course, you included the mandatory I am better then rpg.site in your post. Big whooping surprise.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505818I highly disagree on your oversimplification and villification of Kabuki, DW.

I apologize, I didn't mean to vilify Kabuki. Though I can see why it came across like that.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505818I'm still stealing that "Your game" line on the cover of GMPM.

Go for it. It's a succinct distillation of my reaction to every single gaming thread I've ever participated in.

I'll argue mechanics and their efficacy. I'll argue fine points of setting construction. I'll even argue over which edition of D&D was the best. (3.0 with my House Rules, obviously. I'm not kidding.)

But when it comes to people's own campaigns:

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

(With the usually unvoiced coda: And fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. I try to limit my vulgarity.)

I'm hoping the sentiment will spread. I know it won't, but wouldn't it be nice if people could argue mechanics and when done, say "I wouldn't do it that way, but I genuinely hope you have fun in your games." The way some gamers get, it seems like they genuinely hope people who disagree will end up with a crappy game.

Yes, I know hoping for that attitude to spread is something straight out of the land of lollypop rainbows and sunshine kisses. But still...

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

I mean it. Take it with my blessings.

EDIT: And maybe a blurb on the inside about what it means, besides the obvious? I could contribute a paragraph.

(In addition to the lengthy, quality contribution I will also be sending your way, of course. Any day now.)

I am actually less of a "foe" to storygames and their like, then some here - I just hate the recent attitude that "classic RPGs are only good for catstringing, storygames are where's the real game at".

What's wrong with being sexually repressed, anyhow?  I thought this was 2012, where all lifestyles and life choices were valid.  :rolleyes:

P.S. Fuck Tangency.  Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Rincewind and Daddy, Im trying to understand your points here, but I don't think Im following.

You criticize the game for asking the reader to play strictly by the rules? That's it ?

If so, I don't think it's valid criticism. See, the author is explicit in saying that the game was created aiming a specific playing style and experience in mind, and that the rules are there to make those happen. He even offers a chapter full of advice on modifying the game, but makes it clear that if you do it, the game may not play as intended ( = may not reach its design goals anymore).  

So, suppose you create a game with an specific goal in mind, and rules designed from the ground up, and playtested for, reaching those goals. Wouldn't you inform it to the readers? Wouldn't you advice them that, if they want to reach the goals you had in mind when created the game ( = the very purpose of the game in first place), that they should stick by the rules, otherwise you don't guarantee that those could be achieved ?

Sorry If I took your points wrong though. If that's the case, I apologize.

That's all well and good, but I only give a shit about the author's design goals insomuch as they jibe with my at-the-table goals.

VectorSigma put it bluntly, but I will elaborate a bit more.

Ray Bradbury once left his class in UCLA after being told by his own student that the book he wrote, Fahrenheit 451, is about censorship and not about technology threatening literature. And while that student was a bit of a dick to argue with the author on the intent of his work, he was right, actually - the book is written in such a manner, that drawing a conclusion that it is about censorship is perfectly legit. In other words, Bradbury should take a stick out of his ass, and if he wanted people to think that Fahrenheit 451 was only about dangers of technology, he should've made that explicit in writing, not in the commentary.

And that is the problem - commentary. When you get a copy of Call of Cthulhu, it oozes a specific mood and theme of the game - you have Sanity mechanic, you have very deadly combat, you have monsters that have attacks like "Tentacle, 100% - kill 1d4 investigators". But do the creators of Call of Cthulhu bother to tell you, that if you use those rules straight - ahead to deliver a dungeon crawling game, you will probably not get a very good mechanic for it?

No, because writers of Call of Cthulhu do not presume they need to "comment" on their game - because commentary is where postmodern shit becomes postmodern art.

If you go on to rant in your work that "You know, you may not have fun if you do not play the game as I intended", then you either are trying to hide bad game design with a commentary, or are afraid that people, Gods forbid, may play your game wrong. If your game is good, it needs no commentary. GMing Advice is a place where you advice how to play your game - but if you try to persuade the player there's only one way to run it properly, then perhaps instead of trying to sell the game, you should just keep it on your own hard drive, as you are apparently the only one who will ever, truly, get it right?

And here's the kicker - if you have fun, you are playing it right. Doesn't matter if you tossed the sex mechanic out, or not. But for the love of Crawling Chaos, don't tell me that all the old school RPGs are good for catstringing, or that if you want to be a real roleplayer you need to have AW, or you will not deliver the true emotions from your players if you are not playing Sorcerer, or if you use Dogs In The Vineyard as a funny mechanic to play Jedis, rather then a setting for creating stories about Fighting Sin, you are playing the game wrong.

Because, I've had people scared shitless when I GMed Call of Cthulhu, and all I needed to achieve that was a bit of imagination, not a mechanic of RPing fear.

And if you want to understand why I utterly despise the pretentiousness of those "geniuses of RPGs" - I think I linked to Foul Ole Ron comparing people who played Sorcerer "wrong" to brain - damaged children earlier in this thread. Happy reading.

In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505142Apocalypse World does have some non-simulationist mechanics, but it's pretty firmly and steadily a traditional game.

We don't actually use words like "simulationist" seriously around here; its a nonsense word from a theory that has now been demonstrably proven false in just about every way. The fact that you do use such a word seriously implies to me that you probably couldn't tell what a regular RPG was if your life depended on it.

Quote(And I say this as someone who pretty virulently argues that there is a rather huge and important distinction between STGs and RPGs that needs to be acknowledged.)

This is particularly true from the player's side of things. On the other side of the screens, AW shakes things up by giving the GM a very specific list of moves. And these moves are the full extent of what the GM does.

Then AW is not an RPG, and this thread doesn't belong in the RPG section.

QuoteThe temptation is to describe this as "constraining" the GM's power, but that's not really it: Baker is instead channeling the GM's power.

No, he really isn't.  Baker despises GMs because he, like most Forge Swine, see them as fucking up the brilliance of the game-designer. How can he trust some sweaty prole to get his genius right?! Its a near-travesty that mere humans should be allowed to play his game at all, unless under his direct supervision, and since he can't do that, he has to instead try to institute rules that castrate GMs.

QuoteIn a day and age where virtually every RPG just assumes that GMs are magically grown on trees, AW's approach of providing the GM with an actual structure for governing play is more than refreshing. It's needed.

No, it really isn't. If anything, the diametric opposite is needed.

This thread is moved to "other games", since it is not discussing an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505181THE greatest irony in all this 'swine' bullshit is that so called story games such as Apocalypse World and Sorcerer actually have LESS emphasis on story than earlier so called traditional games which typically emphasized a MANDATORY story which either HAD to be followed, or couldn't be deviated from regardless of the player's actions. Neither of those two swine games have any scenarios in the form of a mandatory sequence of events or player choices, and at least one has rules specifically to prevent such, yet plenty of traditional games I know did.

That's not "irony", that is intentional based on the Forge Swine's hatred of the White-wolf Swine's methods; rooted in Ron Edwards frankly bizarre definition of what "story" actually is for him.  Now, THERE is an irony: that most Forge Swine, being enamoured with the brilliance of their Dear Leader, don't notice that the type of "story" they're creating isn't really what 90% of the literary world would consider meaningful story.   That's because Ron Edwards is a lunatic who probably thinks that most of the corpus of western literature is "brain damaging" or something.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;506080No, it really isn't. If anything, the diametric opposite is needed.

I agree. What needs to happen isn't to castrate GMs even more and trap them in a structural clusterfuck of rules and procedures right out the gate. What needs to happen is for game designers to remember the game isn't just the sum of its rules, and that pertinent advice included in the rules books, and a vibrant community of game masters helping one another, and of course a lot of personal practice, with all that includes of mistakes thereof, is what makes great GMs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505186IMO the problem of "homo homini lupus est" is more important to post - apocalyptic fiction then "sex is commodity".

Of course it is, to everyone but the "edgy" hipster degenerates at Storygames.  I guess we know what end of the spectrum they'd be falling at in the "are we nothing but animals?" apocalyptic scenario... of course, the fact that most of them despise civilization is nothing new, Vince Baker included.

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;505254To this I really have to say, so fucking what. People around here act like being pretentious is right up there with killing babies or something, but really, it's not, and if someone is pretentious, who cares? When you get right down to it, there's nothing actually horrible about being pretentious, it just means you're kind of annoying. Big deal. You can be pretentious and still be a good writer, artist, or whatever. A significant portion of the best writers and writers in the world are insufferably pretentious. It doesn't mean i'm gonna swear off their work. You can probably even be pretentious and still be a good and decent person.

No, if you were actually good for something and talked yourself up a lot, you'd be arrogant.  See, I'm arrogant.

"Pretentious" is when you're actually worthless, have no talent, are constantly and consistently wrong, have no discernible skills, lack any work ethic to speak of or any desire to improve yourself, and are basically a waste of oxygen, and yet go around making grandiose claims about your own magnificence.  You know, the Swine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;505445Which sounds to me an awful lot like this:

Except of course that when Vince Baker says it, he implies that stupid GMs can't be trusted to effectively do that emulating and must be constrained by the game designer, he actually believes that limiting the power of the GM will make it easier, and not harder, for the GM to realistically emulate the personalities and motivations of characters etc.

Which is of course bullshit. In no way will it create a better GM.  Its like if I told you to write a novel but you couldn't use the letter "e" anywhere in it. Its a stupid exercise who's central purpose becomes obeying the idiotic vision of the person who framed the exercise, and not actually maintaining an effectively emulated world.

RPGPundit

Quote from: two_fishes;506079In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

When an author essentially says "you're not allowed to game except in the way I tell you to", it makes logical sense that any normal person would tell him and his games to go fuck themselves.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;506094When an author essentially says "you're not allowed to game except in the way I tell you to", it makes logical sense that any normal person would tell him and his games to go fuck themselves.

RPGPundit

Personally, I am waiting for true Piero Manzoni of Forge, who will perform RPG's equivalent of Merda d'artista and say like he did "You won't call this a game".

And yet, they will.

Still Pundit, I do not think that a move to Other Games is deserving in case of Apocalypse World - it has many principal elements of RPGs, even if they are lost in the tones of pretentiousness. Ironically, by moving it here, you give Baker bullets to his gun - "look what a pretty flower I am, I created an RPG that's not an RPG, I re - invented the wheel, wee - hee!"

Quote from: Benoist;506083I agree. What needs to happen isn't to castrate GMs even more and trap them in a structural clusterfuck of rules and procedures right out the gate. What needs to happen is for game designers to remember the game isn't just the sum of its rules, and that pertinent advice included in the rules books, and a vibrant community of game masters helping one another, and of course a lot of personal practice, with all that includes of mistakes thereof, is what makes great GMs.

As I now took a walk while off shopping, I thought a bit on this, and came up with the following conclusion - the problem is, "indie" RPGs (the TRUE indie RPGs, at least) try to say "You don't need to be a good GM, you need good rules to be a good GM", which is stupid, because it should be other way around - "A good GM will  make the best even of worst of rules". The former will simply not work in  the long run.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506098As I now took a walk while off shopping, I thought a bit on this, and came up with the following conclusion - the problem is, "indie" RPGs (the TRUE indie RPGs, at least) try to say "You don't need to be a good GM, you need good rules to be a good GM", which is stupid, because it should be other way around - "A good GM will  make the best even of worst of rules". The former will simply not work in  the long run.

That's right. Hence, the main issue should be "how can games participate through their design in the formative experiences of decent GMs so they have the opportunity to become Great?", rather than cattering to some imaginary lowest common denominator like is way too often the case now, indie or not.

I'd use a bit simpler words of "Let's make this game work great for anyone who wants to actually try and be great at playing it", but you pretty much stated my mine, Benoist.

Still - this thread belongs to RPG discussion, IMO. Just because something's stupid, doesn't make it less of an RPG, sadly.

Quote from: two_fishes;506079In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

Nah. It's taking crackshots at Vinnie and Foul Ole Ron's luvvies that is just great fun.

Quote from: silva;506059Rincewind and Daddy, Im trying to understand your points here, but I don’t think Im following.

In my case, you're definitely not because I never joined the "Are GM's constrained?" argument, save only by quoting from the text and admonishing those with a position on either side to quote directly from the text when making their claims about what the game is or isn't.

My opinions were solely about the "sex for mechanical bonus" mechanic as a matter of game design. Morality had noting to do with it. And, people may disagree with my opinions, but they were clearly and explicitly stated in this thread:

• Criticism of, suggestions for two better mechanics to replace it. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=505262&postcount=49)

• Criticism of defense of the mechanic, and a third, even better replacement for it. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=505401&postcount=66)

• Commentary on how it reduces sex to a banality. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=505432&postcount=82)

• Why I think the mechanic is skeevy. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=505436&postcount=85)

• My hopes for your personal game, silva. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=505667&postcount=109)

(Each is in response to another poster. Read their quote first, to know what I was responding to. Context matters.)

That's it. I made other posts, but they were mostly smacking people for claiming I said things I never did, and claiming I believe things I don't believe.

The above are clear, easily understood, and most of all correct. The trifecta of cogency. Anyone who's slightly curious about my opinion on the "commit sex for a mechanical benefit" mechanic, need only read them for an analysis of the mechanic, why it fails, and 3 better ideas to replace it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506110Still - this thread belongs to RPG discussion, IMO. Just because something's stupid, doesn't make it less of an RPG, sadly.

I agree. A strangely structured RPG, but clearly an RPG. Opinions otherwise border on nuttiness. Moving the thread was an odd decision.

(Wait, isn't now when I'm supposed to get mad? Rage against the dying of freedom on the boards, vent contumely against the person of the Pundit, demand he do exactly what I want or he's just as evil as those other evil bastards on those other evil sites? That sounds like too much work. I decline.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;506156I agree. A strangely structured RPG, but clearly an RPG. Opinions otherwise border on nuttiness. Moving the thread was an odd decision.

(Wait, isn't now when I'm supposed to get mad? Rage against the dying of freedom on the boards, vent contumely against the person of the Pundit, demand he do exactly what I want or he's just as evil as those other evil bastards on those other evil sites? That sounds like too much work. I decline.)

I understand Pundit's joke here (well, at least I hope he did the move as a form of a joke :P), but it's needless fuel for the critics of RPG.site.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506161I understand Pundit's joke here (well, at least I hope he did the move as a form of a joke :P), but it's fuel for the critics of RPG.site.

There is a joke involved, but Pundit himself is quite serious.

I thought you'd sloped off after being caught in a lie. Now, that's what i call a joke.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506161I understand Pundit's joke here (well, at least I hope he did the move as a form of a joke :P), but it's needless fuel for the critics of RPG.site.

No joke involved. It may or may not be a "storygame" (I'm not who to judge that) but its clearly not an RPG if it breaks down in some of the most fundamental points of what an RPG is about and for.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;506181I thought you'd sloped off after being caught in a lie. Now, that's what i call a joke.

A lie implies intent to deceive.

Indeed it does, my good fellow. Indeed it does.

Well, it's ignorance then rather then lying, at best.

Quote from: One Horse Town;506201Indeed it does, my good fellow. Indeed it does.

Therefore no lie. An unintentional contradiction, fine. Daddy Warpig wins a point in teh gr8 interwebz war. Since i'm not interested in the war, he can have it.

Quote from: two_fishes;506210Daddy Warpig wins a point in teh gr8 interwebz war. Since i'm not interested in the war, he can have it.

What? Whoah! Don't drag me into this.

I wasn't trying to score a point. I just remembered that someone had claimed genre emulation.

I went back to re-read the thread, looking for who said it. I didn't know it was you. But it was.

Genre emulation was advanced as a defense of the mechanic, at least twice. (You, Peregrin.) So 1HT was perfectly on-topic to contradict that claim.

That's all I meant to establish. Which I did. It wasn't meant as, nor was it, a point against you.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;506224What? Whoah! Don't drag me into this.

I wasn't trying to score a point. I just remembered that someone had claimed genre emulation.

I went back to re-read the thread, looking for who said it. I didn't know it was you. But it was.

Genre emulation was advanced as a defense of the mechanic, at least twice. (You, Peregrin.) So 1HT was perfectly on-topic to contradict that claim.

That's all I meant to establish. Which I did. It wasn't meant as, nor was it, a point against you.

You better take a side, or else. We need no dissenters to break the line here.

This...is just fucking EPIC!

Quote from: Rincewind1;505182It's just cunts like you who claim it to be the God On Earth of RPGs

I did?

I don't remember saying that. Do you have any links?

Quote from: Rincewind1;505182And yes, I do consider it a RPG, and a decent one, except that whole "Thou Shall Play As Written" attitude

Yeah, didn't come across in your post for some reason. Go figure.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505205Fair enough indeed - as I said, I liked AW before I read Forge's commentary on it.

You do realize that this makes you the very definition of a pretentious hipster, don't you? How are other people's opinions more important than your OWN in what you like?

Quote from: Peregrin;505296If you've ever listened to Crane and Sorenson's "Game Design is Mind Control" talk,

Oooh yeah, THAT'LL go over well here :)

Quote from: Benoist;505304What I'm going to do instead is post about stuff like "how to make a Cthulhu adventure that isn't a railroad" at some point.

Excellent, because the main rulebook doesn't exactly provide a lot of guidance on this.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505358Let's cut out all the back and forth and just go to the damn text. Even if we disagree on interpretations, these are real quotes from the real game.

Hmm, seems reasonable...

Quote from: Apocalypse WorldIt's not, for instance, your agenda to make the players lose, or to deny them what they want, or to punish them, or to control them, or to get them through your pre-planned storyline (DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I'm not fucking around).

It's not your job to put their characters in double-binds or dead ends, or to yank the rug out from under their feet. Go chasing after any of those, you'll wind up with a boring game that makes Apocalypse World seem contrived,

OK, lets say that the line has been crossed, and these are unreasonable demands to make to a GM who should have the power to decide what their agenda is. I for one know that I would NOT willingly play in a game where any of the opposite agendas held true, yet I have sadly participated in games where their presence wasn't made clear to me either by the rules or by the GM.

Honestly, does anyone find these rules to be unreasonable? Really? How exactly are they cramping the GM's style, or limiting their ability to create setting and character?

Quote from: Rincewind1;505388Of course, if you don't like the genius of AW, you must be a fanatic of Anti - Swine crusade, and not just spite pretentious story games, while still enjoying the good ones.

I'll bet you that if you ever did share your GMing advice that it would be very similar to the advice given in Apocalypse World, with the difference being that somehow you're not a pretentious hipster.

But seriously, bullet point what you do and do not do as a GM so we can see.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505401Sex is a unique part of the setting, embedding it in a special character bonus makes it something that impacts all the character's choices. To use it or not. If you do, how to deal with the consequences. That's far more interesting than just sex.

Apparently, if you replace the word psychic maelstrom with sex it's just as correct. Weird.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505406I hazard a guess that sex isn't a resource. Salt, sure. Diodes? Absolutely. Fuck, wet-wipes. Perhaps.

You don't get out much, do you?

Quote from: Peregrin;505423Relationships and sex in a world where your options are limited is definitely a driving force behind some subplots in The Walking Dead.

ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?!?! Zombies and Post Apoc are like TOTALLY different genres!

Quote from: BWA;505429A lot of people seem really upset about the fact that sex is a part of AW's rules.

Cause it's ICKY! >_<

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505432That's gotta be a crime against sex itself. Sex should be sexy. (Not rape, not perversion, but sex.) Otherwise, what's the point?

You don't get out much do...

wait, I already used that one. Instead I'll just leave a link to The Walking Eye Actual Play Podcast (http://www.thewalkingeye.com/?p=1027).

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505436Both of these are hypotheticals, BTW.

Ya don't say. Coulda fooled me.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505446Let's get back to genre emulation, or lack of.

Because that is after all the premise of the thread.

No wait, it's the only point about this mess you were capable of arguing. Then by all means don't let me stop you :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;505830There was a dozen of words usable here, such as "magnifies", or perhaps "siphons" or "convey".

No. Those words are NOT synonyms for 'channel'. Also if you think the word 'channel' is pretentious...

...seriously, I can't think of a good metaphor for the level of crazy that is.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505832I apologize, I didn't mean to vilify Kabuki.

This, is fucking hilarious, and is so going into a Dying Earth game :)

I think you are taking your offense waaaay too seriously though. Regardless, this thread becomes a HELL of a lot more fun when you imagine all the posters as Kabuki characters, trying to vilify each other.

Quote from: silva;506059You criticize the game for asking the reader to play strictly by the rules? That's it ?

Yes.

Quote from: two_fishes;506079In other words, the author and/or some friends of the author said something on the internet that made you mad so you don't like his game anymore.

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;506080This thread is moved to "other games", since it is not discussing an RPG.

...

...bhwHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Quote from: RPGPundit;506082the type of "story" they're creating isn't really what 90% of the literary world would consider meaningful story.

So what? The situation is still far worse with traditional games and their linear adventures. But why do traditional games have so many adventures of that kind anyway? Seriously, it's endemic. There should be a rule against it.

Quote from: Benoist;506083What needs to happen isn't to castrate GMs even more and trap them in a structural clusterfuck of rules and procedures right out the gate.

So which set of RPG rules do this the 'least'?

Quote from: Rincewind1;506098"A good GM will  make the best even of worst of rules".

So why doesn't anyone ever say "A good player will make the best even of worst of rules"? No really, I wanna know.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;506224What? Whoah! Don't drag me into this.

Dude, you volunteered for the war the minute you started posting on theRPGsite. But stay focused soldier, and you'll make it through.

TL;DR version for those who want to save themselves their time:

I am better then you.

Putting words into my mouth, Chaosvoyager says:

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268"Sex is a unique part of the setting, embedding it in a special character bonus makes it something that impacts all the character's choices. To use it or not. If you do, how to deal with the consequences. That's far more interesting than just sex."

Apparently, if you replace the word psychic maelstrom with sex it's just as correct. Weird.

That's a one sentence fail. Here's the one sentence: "Sex is a unique part of the setting."

Now, correct me if my biology is off, but humans reproduce through sex. Right? Intercourse, sperm, egg, implantation, gestation, birth? That's actually still how it works, right?

So, and follow this closely, any campaign world featuring humans is, by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise, featuring a species that reproduces by sex.

So, once again follow me closely here, sex cannot be a unique part of AW's setting. Which is your claim.

It's a part of every setting with humans, so can't be unique to AW.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268Sex is a unique part of the setting.

One. Sentence. Fail.

OTOH, the psychic maelstrom is (fairly) unique to the AW setting, and very under-described, and could do with some fleshing out. Hence my suggestion, to actually flesh out the unique aspect of the setting.

But you couldn't deal with that suggestion on a substantive basis, could you? You had to try and get clever. And in so doing, launched yourself into a One Sentence Fail.

The other snippets of quotes from me fail for much the same reason.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268seems reasonable

No, it actually was reasonable. But that wouldn't give you the chance to snark. That said snark was pointless and stupid... well, that's just your fault.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268Instead I'll just leave a link to The Walking Eye Actual Play Podcast.

So what? Other people in this thread (and in an earlier thread), defenders of the game, have already cited how the sex mechanic turned sex into boring game-speke. (Others, like DS, disagreed. I read their comments, too.) I was commenting on their reports of their own games.

But, apparently, they must be wrong. Because, you know, podcast.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268Dude, you volunteered for the war

The war of calling two_fishes a liar? Because that's what I was talking about.

How did I volunteer for the war of calling him a liar, just by posting on the site? The claim is idiotic.

I never called him a liar, never imputed or implied he was one. So, again, this is a One Sentence Fail.

That's four times you quoted me, each time you either misquoted me,  avoided talking about the substance of my position, or both. Next time, drop the superiority complex and deal with the substantive issue. Or don't include me at all.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268This...is just fucking EPIC!

Man, sometimes I miss a "like this post" button.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268So which set of RPG rules do this the 'least'?

You mean the least GM castration? I think I'd nominate OD&D (1974) for that, partly by design, and partly by accident and/or tradition (like the fact that it's linked to Chainmail and basically is predicated on the notion you will act as a wargames referee and house rule the game as you go).

Quote from: Benoist;506329You mean the least GM castration? I think I'd nominate OD&D (1974) for that, partly by design, and partly by accident and/or tradition (like the fact that it's linked to Chainmail and basically is predicated on the notion you will act as a wargames referee and house rule the game as you go).

Don't bother Beno. By arguing with It you make an assumption that:

1) It does not come here only to troll.
2) It does not sniff glue, riding Itself of any thought.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268You don't get out much, do you?

Weirdo.

QuoteBecause that is after all the premise of the thread.

No, it was a refutation of Two Fishes statement that it was a PA trope.

QuoteNo wait, it's the only point about this mess you were capable of arguing. Then by all means don't let me stop you :)

Keep drinking that coolaid!

QuoteDude, you volunteered for the war the minute you started posting on theRPGsite. But stay focused soldier, and you'll make it through.

and you're different how, exactly?

Oh yes, you come here once a few months to say how above it you are.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;506154My opinions were solely about the "sex for mechanical bonus" mechanic as a matter of game design.

snap

Anyone who's slightly curious about my opinion on the "commit sex for a mechanical benefit" mechanic, need only read them for an analysis of the mechanic, why it fails, and 3 better ideas to replace it.

Ok Daddy, I got you wrong. I think I agree with you here. I dont find the "sex-rules" so bad really, but I also dont find it really inspiring mechanicaly nor thematically appropriate.  

Quote from: VectorSigmaThat's all well and good, but I only give a shit about the author's design goals insomuch as they jibe with my at-the-table goals.

Agreed.

Quote from: RincewindAnd that is the problem - commentary. When you get a copy of Call of Cthulhu, it oozes a specific mood and theme of the game - you have Sanity mechanic, you have very deadly combat, you have monsters that have attacks like "Tentacle, 100% - kill 1d4 investigators". But do the creators of Call of Cthulhu bother to tell you, that if you use those rules straight - ahead to deliver a dungeon crawling game, you will probably not get a very good mechanic for it?

No, because writers of Call of Cthulhu do not presume they need to "comment" on their game - because commentary is where postmodern shit becomes postmodern art.

This I cannot agree with.

If we were talking about boardgames or cargames, ok, I would agree, since in these type of games the rules tend to automatically translate into the playing-style. But with roleplaying-games its a differnt story. Everyone that has played a couple of games in this hobby knows that its a very common thing for a player to bring a whole package of playing assumptions and pre-conceptions (that he probably absorbed with his first games and groups) and replicate it to all games he meets thereafter, simply ignoring Gamemastering/How to Run the Game chapters - and thats OK for most games, really. EXCEPT for a game that adjudicates a very specific playing style, as is the case of Apocalypse World. So, in this case, I find not only valid, but mandatory, that the "commentary" on how to use these rules be present on the book.

So, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. ;)

*shrug* I tried to dissuade you, and you still buy into AW's theories. Go out and have fun with the game then, but expect no applause from me. You bought into the illusion of the Special Flower game. But if you have fun with it - good.

Quote from: One Horse Town;506343No, it was a refutation of Two Fishes statement that it was a PA trope.

No, you have a drum you like to beat, and you're using a comment I made in passing as an excuse to beat it. Here i'll make an actual assertion for your benefit. I think that the sex moves cheapen sex in the game. They make it into a commodity, and make it more difficult for the player to create sincere intimacy for their PCs. I think this is very fitting to the post-apoc genre. I wouldn't go so far as  to call it a trope of the genre, but it definitely fits my sense of what PA is all about. It fits with the whole question of whether or not people can maintain humanity and decency in the face of scarcity and the struggle just to survive. I'm sure you will disagree, but i'm equally sure that I do not care.

First you said it, then you denied it, then you admitted it, now you don't.

1, 2, 3, or 4?

Quote from: Rincewind1;506355*shrug* I tried to dissuade you, and you still buy into AW's theories. Go out and have fun with the game then, but expect no applause from me. You bought into the illusion of the Special Flower game. But if you have fun with it - good.

I'm sure he'll really enjoy the game, purely to spite you.

Quote from: two_fishes;506369I think that the sex moves cheapen sex in the game. They make it into a commodity, and make it more difficult for the player to create sincere intimacy for their PCs. I think this is very fitting to the post-apoc genre. I wouldn't go so far as  to call it a trope of the genre, but it definitely fits my sense of what PA is all about. It fits with the whole question of whether or not people can maintain humanity and decency in the face of scarcity and the struggle just to survive.

Ok, I admit it makes sense (in a Blindness way.. you know.. the book by Saramago ?).

But I dont think its mechanical counterpart makes sense and fits well with the system as a whole. It sounds forced to me.

Quote*shrug* I tried to dissuade you, and you still buy into AW's theories. Go out and have fun with the game then, but expect no applause from me. You bought into the illusion of the Special Flower game. But if you have fun with it - good.

Hey Rince, come on. You didnt even read the game, man. Try it. Who knows? Maybe you even like it.

Quote from: Ladybird;506374I'm sure he'll really enjoy the game, purely to spite you.

I thing you give me more credit then I deserve. I'd love nothing more then for this to be true, for as a certain genius of English language said - better bad press, then no press at all.

Then again, I'm no bloody Pope of RPGs to have to give out blessings and whatsonot, or for them to matter :P. But I will warn against the advice of AW and their ilk.

Quote from: silva;506352Ok Daddy, I got you wrong.

Thank you for being even-tempered enough to say that.

Quote from: silva;506352I think I agree with you here. I dont find the "sex-rules" so bad really, but I also dont find it really inspiring mechanicaly nor thematically appropriate.

And that's fine. Agree or disagree, you were both sincere enough to seek clarification, and well-tempered enough to listen when I said you misunderstood me. Both of those I appreciate very much.

And I'll say it again:

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

Enjoy AW, however you choose to play it. No matter what anyone says.

One nit: The other two quotes in your reply aren't from me. (I don't think. I don't remember saying them.) Without attribution, it makes it seem as if they are. If you have the time, I wouldn't mind clearing that possible misunderstanding up.

Quote from: silva;506376Ok, I admit it makes sense (in a Blindness way.. you know.. the book by Saramago ?).

Yeah I can see the connection. I do see a kind of theme running through a few of Vincent Baker's games. He often has mechanical temptations to do the wrong thing built into the game. In Dogs in the Vinyard it's violence. In Poison'd it's, I dunno, just everything, I guess. And then you see it here too. I think there's an implicit question asking the players, Will you do what's easy and benefitting you but wrong, or will you do what's difficult but right?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506268So what? The situation is still far worse with traditional games and their linear adventures. But why do traditional games have so many adventures of that kind anyway? Seriously, it's endemic. There should be a rule against it.

Regular games are not made to "tell stories", that is not their goal.  If story happens, it is a coincidental byproduct.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;506412Regular games are not made to "tell stories", that is not their goal.  If story happens, it is a coincidental byproduct.

I happen to agree with this.

But AW is still an RPG. :p

Quote from: Chaosvoyager

Quote from: BenoistWhat I'm going to do instead is post about stuff like "how to make a Cthulhu adventure that isn't a railroad" at some point.

Excellent, because the main rulebook doesn't exactly provide a lot of guidance on this.

Just saw this now. Yes, this touches my earlier point about the default linear/railroady playing-style suggested in the GM´s / "How to Play" chapters in most games. But then, as Butcher, Two-Fishes and Elliot Willen said, it was (is ?) kind of the norm in the industry (from mid-80s until now ?).

Here in Brazil the situation was worst. Without internet and Amazon, the hobby consisted of GURPs, AD&D and Vampire. I didnt knew more "sandboxy/open-ended" style games/modules like Griffin Mountain and Wilderlands of High Fantasy existed until the late-90s.

Quote from: silva;506472Just saw this now. Yes, this touches my earlier point about the default linear/railroady playing-style suggested in the GM´s / "How to Play" chapters in most games. But then, as Butcher, Two-Fishes and Elliot Willen said, it was (is ?) kind of the norm in the industry (from mid-80s until now ?).

Here in Brazil the situation was worst. Without internet and Amazon, the hobby consisted of GURPs, AD&D and Vampire. I didnt knew more "sandboxy/open-ended" style games/modules like Griffin Mountain and Wilderlands of High Fantasy existed until the late-90s.

I had not bought a single module outside Warhammer line, and yet I can easily grasp a concept of sandbox. It's really not that hard - 3e's DMB gives advice how to do it.

Call of Cthulhu is an investigative game, so obviously the sandbox willbe a bit limited (there is a finite amount of ways how you can analyse something, or pick up a clue), but it's doable. I'd need to read it's GMing advice section to give a specific commentary how well it supports it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506483I had not bought a single module outside Warhammer line, and yet I can easily grasp a concept of sandbox. It's really not that hard - 3e's DMB gives advice how to do it.

To someone who's not used to it, though, the concept will look daunting - I have to manage all these characters and groups? And decide how they react to each other? And how they react to the PC's? And how do I get all this across to them?

It's getting past that first step that's probably the hardest thing for people, because they don't yet know that it's not as complicated as it looks, and no amount of say "it's not that hard, really!" is substitute for them experiencing that it's not so hard.

I mean, to put it another way - when I got my course books, I flicked through the assignments and had no idea what any of it meant, and it all looked daunting. Now I've done the prep work, it's pretty simple, but I wouldn't have believed you if you had told me that four months ago.

Quote from: Ladybird;506509To someone who's not used to it, though, the concept will look daunting - I have to manage all these characters and groups? And decide how they react to each other? And how they react to the PC's? And how do I get all this across to them?

It's getting past that first step that's probably the hardest thing for people, because they don't yet know that it's not as complicated as it looks, and no amount of say "it's not that hard, really!" is substitute for them experiencing that it's not so hard.

I mean, to put it another way - when I got my course books, I flicked through the assignments and had no idea what any of it meant, and it all looked daunting. Now I've done the prep work, it's pretty simple, but I wouldn't have believed you if you had told me that four months ago.

Never said it's easy. Beginnings are always hard, no matter what you do. There's an old saying about shortcuts - take them too much, and you get lost.

That's why I decided to try and raffle the GMPM - because it is dangerous to go alone, and an additional sword's useful. I know there are many books on GMing advice out there, but people still wonder about catstringing and railroading - so it means that another stone should be thrown into that pot.

My personal advice would be simple - use that time when you ride the bus, or walk the dog, or w/e to think a bit about your game and your world. Or just dedicate 30 minutes a day, or 15, for it.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If you run your game "wrong" - it doesn't meant you shouldn't ever again GM. Learn from mistakes. I GMed my share of bad games, but I like to think I learnt from mistakes.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506516Never said it's easy. Beginnings are always hard, no matter what you do. There's an old saying about shortcuts - take them too much, and you get lost.

To drag things kicking and screaming back to the game at hand, I honestly think the encouragements stuff in AW - play to find out what happens, don't pre-plan a storyline, make characters lives not boring, address yourself to the characters, be a fan of the characters, etc - is good advice! And, y'know, read the text, don't just look at the bullet points.

QuoteYou knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If you run your game "wrong" - it doesn't meant you shouldn't ever again GM. Learn from mistakes. I GMed my share of bad games, but I like to think I learnt from mistakes.

But that's the thing, again, we know that. Someone just starting out? Might not. And that's the sort of thing that could demoralise someone out of GM'ing.

A "mistakes that a new GM is going to make, and how to fix them" chapter would be pretty much a necessity for a new GMing guide. Yeah, obviously the people who didn't have problems, didn't have problems - but there are more than enough stories of problem GM's and games to show that at least someone did. Everyone fucks up, and failures teach more than successes.

Quote from: silva;506472Here in Brazil the situation was worst. Without internet and Amazon, the hobby consisted of GURPs, AD&D and Vampire. I didnt knew more "sandboxy/open-ended" style games/modules like Griffin Mountain and Wilderlands of High Fantasy existed until the late-90s.

Amen, brother.

Holding on to the D&D RC, rather than "upgrade" to AD&D 2e, kind of protected me from the worst excesses of the age, though. Being a compilation of BECMI D&D, the RC's DM advice chapters still clung to a strong old school-ish ethos of exploration >>> storywank, do-it-yourself >>> buy our Dragonlance novels, etc.

Quote from: Ladybird;506618To drag things kicking and screaming back to the game at hand, I honestly think the encouragements stuff in AW - play to find out what happens, don't pre-plan a storyline, make characters lives not boring, address yourself to the characters, be a fan of the characters, etc - is good advice! And, y'know, read the text, don't just look at the bullet points.



But that's the thing, again, we know that. Someone just starting out? Might not. And that's the sort of thing that could demoralise someone out of GM'ing.

A "mistakes that a new GM is going to make, and how to fix them" chapter would be pretty much a necessity for a new GMing guide. Yeah, obviously the people who didn't have problems, didn't have problems - but there are more than enough stories of problem GM's and games to show that at least someone did. Everyone fucks up, and failures teach more than successes.

AW is terrible GMing advice, because it basically states "Play the right game, and do not worry - the game's design will do the job for you."

A veteran GM can handle that.

If a newbie starts with such piece....

May the Light Side protect his future players.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506705AW is terrible GMing advice, because it basically states "Play the right game, and do not worry - the game's design will do the job for you."

A veteran GM can handle that.

If a newbie starts with such piece....

May the Light Side protect his future players.

God forbid you play different games differently based on them describing their procedures to you rather than relying on subcultural indoctrination to figure out (or fuck up) your ability to GM.

And if you're really worried that there's something that's destroying a ton of people's ability to GM, you're a bit late, Rince.  d20 RPGA/Adventure-path stuff and White-Wolf already did that.  I haven't been able to play in a single game that wasn't GM-as-storyteller time.  Ever.  Really.  I almost succumbed to that shit but playing with one particularly hipster/artsy Vampire GM made me realize what shit it was and I modified my GMing accordingly.

Of course Peregrin, you can pretend that a system will handle good GMing for you.

But then stop calling yourself a GM, as you are nothing more then a calculating machine with a bit of imagination thrown in it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506723Of course Peregrin, you can pretend that a system will handle good GMing for you.

But then stop calling yourself a GM, as you are nothing more then a calculating machine with a bit of imagination thrown in it.

If it were a "system" in a pure mechanical sense, you might have a point.

Quote from: Peregrin;506724If it were a "system" in a pure mechanical sense, you might have a point.

The "GM" advice is carefully tailored to the game's mechanical system
The system may only work correctly if proper GMing advice, provided with the game, is used
Therefore, the game must be GMed in a very specific manner, which means that the GM is nothing else but a calculating machine for the mechanics.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506726The "GM" advice is carefully tailored to the game's mechanical system
The system may only work correctly if proper GMing advice, provided with the game, is used
Therefore, the game must be GMed in a very specific manner, which means that the GM is nothing else but a calculating machine for the mechanics.

All games have built-in assumptions about play, what is or isn't proper for a GM to do.  Some are more broad than others, but all proper games contain limits and goals, or they're not complete.  And in tabletop RPGs, the interaction between mechanics and the imagined space is often subjective, so pure calculation isn't possible.  A lot of it is based on gut feeling, even in something like AW.

The limits and goals -- the guiding posts for play -- are just more spelled out in AW than other RPGs.

Quote from: Peregrin;506728All games have built-in assumptions about play, what is or isn't proper for a GM to do.  Some are more broad than others, but all proper games contain limits and goals, or they're not complete.  And in tabletop RPGs, the interaction between mechanics and the imagined space is often subjective, so pure calculation isn't possible.  A lot of it is based on gut feeling, even in something like AW.

The limits and goals -- the guiding posts for play -- are just more spelled out in AW than other RPGs.

1) Even if what you said about built - in assumptions for a game was true, it still does not change the fact that AW is doing the equivalent of "you may be too stupid to run this game, so you must run it my way". In other words, it stealthily insults the reader.
2) A well - written game'd give away a "proper" way to play it, without going off with pretentious advice.
3) Even if a game is written for a very selective playstyles, it's still your damn free right to play it as you will, and the author should not try to hardcode some meaning of "failure" or "doing it properly" into the game - Call of Cthulhu's designed for hardcore Lovecraftian game, but nowhere in there will you find "Lol, fool" if you try to run it as a pulp adventure.
4) A good RPG, like a good boardgame, should allow at least a few playstyles (or in case of a boardgames - tactics/strategies).
5) Of course pure calculation isn't possible, but that is where the Forge school of design is headed. While 4e tried to turn a GM into a computer, Forge does the same - except less crunch, and more flavourful text.

It doesn't stealthily insult the reader, it's a procedurally complete game.  It may not be useful for you, but how it's worse than giving the reader a neutral task-resolution system with some vague advice on how everything should work is lost on me.  No more insulting than Trail of Cthulhu by telling people outright "Hey, there were some vague things that should've been spelled out more clearly about how you should design adventures.  Here are some procedures to help you do that better."

If you don't want a procedurally complete game and would rather design your own on top of whatever you're given, that's your right, sure, it's your table.  But just because someone dares to design a game that takes all of its procedures into account doesn't make it a bad game.  Different, but not bad.  The procedures will be inserted at some point, anyway, whether it's dictated by your own personal preferences or the text.

As for the Forge, it's prettymuch irrelevant at this point as an entity.  But I would like to know for you what separates a "GM as calculator" and "GM as referee."  Because in both classic tabletop play and something like AW, you're applying a set of procedures to respond to what players do in the game.  The only difference is that in one they're explicitly spelled out, and in the other you may sometimes apply your own when the system doesn't give you a clear answer.  But they serve the same exact function -- a means of adjudicating what happens.  That's not creativity, that's just deciding on how to resolve a conflict so you can move the game forward.

If you truly believe there is one way RPGs should be made, and that other approaches to game design are bad, wrong, or don't work, then I suggest you avoid a lot of games.  But IMO, there's room for both approaches to design.  Most video-gamers aren't bitching about how Mass Effect is an affront to gamerdom because it has clear goals for the player and a fairly linear story, or how Minecraft is better because you can do whatever the fuck you want with it.  They play and enjoy both games on their own terms.

QuoteIt doesn't stealthily insult the reader, it's a procedurally complete game. It may not be useful for you, but how it's worse than giving the reader a neutral task-resolution system with some vague advice on how everything should work is lost on me. No more insulting than Trail of Cthulhu by telling people outright "Hey, there were some vague things that should've been spelled out more clearly about how you should design adventures. Here are some procedures to help you do that better."

Trail of Cthulhu is just as much worthy of scorn for that, because it bases itself on a false assumption that a GM will be incompetent with a tailored mechanic. I like the system, and use it, but it's default premise is a load of bollocks, because a well - tailored scenario, combined with a good GM and creative and cunning party will never, ever, depend on one roll. Esoterrorists were certainly written in a way designed to ridicule Call of Cthulhu - Kenneth Hite just has much more class.

QuoteIf you don't want a procedurally complete game and would rather design your own on top of whatever you're given, that's your right, sure, it's your table. But just because someone dares to design a game that takes all of its procedures into account doesn't make it a bad game. Different, but not bad. The procedures will be inserted at some point, anyway, whether it's dictated by your own personal preferences or the text.

See, all this talk about procedures and whatsonot is the problem with AW - I'm not running procedures when I play the game.

I play the damn game. That's it. Me and my friends sit down, and play the game, using a set of rules to referee when there's a need to see if the character is capable of doing something, and neither me nor player can respond to that. Nothing more to it.

And even if we go into the Land of Big Words, and  talk about procedures in RPGs - it is impossible to design a complete procedurally RPG, for  the same reason it is impossible to paint a painting that'll be liked by everyone - because Experiences Will Vary. It is impossible to tailor RPGs rules to deliver the same form of experience to every users, and it's simple pretentiousness (it'd be arrogance, if it was at least written well), to do so.

If you still don't see that, I can't help you. You had believed a carefully tailored lie, and I am not paid to somehow save your "gaming soul". But I can  try to save another damn bastard from falling prey to it.

QuoteAs for the Forge, it's prettymuch irrelevant at this point as an entity. But I would like to know for you what separates a "GM as calculator" and "GM as referee." Because in both classic tabletop play and something like AW, you're applying a set of procedures to respond to what players do in the game. The only difference is that in one they're explicitly spelled out, and in the other you may sometimes apply your own when the system doesn't give you a clear answer. But they serve the same exact function -- a means of adjudicating what happens. That's not creativity, that's just deciding on how to resolve a conflict so you can move the game forward.

If you really make such a claim, then go and play a game under a competent GM.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506705AW is terrible GMing advice, because it basically states "Play the right game, and do not worry - the game's design will do the job for you."
A veteran GM can handle that.
If a newbie starts with such piece....
May the Light Side protect his future players.

You start learning to walk with crutches, you'll never put 'em down.  That's why I group ToC with AW as games that are solutions to problems that don't exist.

I've run games the way you describe "good" GMing.  My longest running campaign was a 3-year sandbox, and I've been running Basic D&D on and off the past several months.  You can talk down to me all you want and assume I don't get it, but then you're "falling prey" to the same pretensions you try to cast onto AW and Baker by assuming I can't tell what does and doesn't work for me at the table.

And if you think those are "big words", avoid any sort of principled game design class or discussion in more successful game fields, because those aren't big words at all.  The truth is that game are designed to produce certain behaviors in players.  You can try to pretend that's not true and that games shouldn't do that, or just ignore the game's goalposts and make up your own game as you go, but it's not some Forgist conspiracy, it's game design 101 shit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;506756You start learning to walk with crutches, you'll never put 'em down.  That's why I group ToC with AW as games that are solutions to problems that don't exist.

I can understand, CRKrueger - I played CoC for quite a few years before that. ToC just pointed the stuff I was doing mostly anyway, so I decided "Why the hell not just use it". A matter of personal preference, nothing else. CoC certainly handled combat better, before I modded ToC. Also the reason why I suggest that someone learns his game first with CoC, then moves onto ToC. But ToC, still, when you just use it's advice on scenario creation, runs about 1 Swine on scale of 5.

Quote from: Peregrin;506757I've run games the way you describe "good" GMing.  My longest running campaign was a 3-year sandbox, and I've been running Basic D&D on and off the past several months.  You can talk down to me all you want and assume I don't "get it", but then you're "falling prey" to the same pretensions you try to cast onto AW and Baker.

And if you think those are "big words", avoid any sort of principled game design class or discussion in more successful game fields, because those aren't big words at all.  The truth is that game are designed to produce certain behaviors in players.  You can try to pretend that's not true and that games shouldn't do that, or just ignore the game's goalposts and make up your own game as you go, but it's not some Forgist conspiracy, it's game design 101 shit.

People do not understand or "get" history or mathematics all the time - am I pretentious to correct them? Let's not spawn another generation of Special Flowers, shall we. You can see what Special Flowers generation in motion looks like when you go to RPG.net.

As for the second part - bollocks. Games are designed to provide tools for GM and players to emulate the world &/or the genre, as well as are basically a moderator between player's fiat and GM fiat. Providing an experience is the task of a GM.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506760People do not understand or "get" history or mathematics all the time - am I pretentious to correct them?

You're pretentious in assuming you know what's better for others when they have enough experience with actual play that they can decide for themselves what tools do or do not work for them.

This isn't a matter of hard facts, this is soft science.  There are a lot of opinions, and a lot of subjectivity.

QuoteAs for the second part - bollocks. Games are designed to provide tools for GM and players to emulate the world &/or the genre, as well as are basically a moderator between player's fiat and GM fiat. Providing an experience is the task of a GM.

Tools are not games.  Tools are tools.  Like I said, if you prefer to make up your own game as you go by filling in the gaps, that's your right.  Whatever dynamic you insert -- be it social or mechanical -- will influence behavior at the table.  But just because someone decided to put their GMing or approach to making that game down on paper does not make them pretentious.  

The fact that you find the text insulting, rather than just saying "It doesn't work for me" or even just "It's crap" says a lot.

Oh, and try to remember that I don't only play indie games.  I'm not trying to sell AW as some panacea for all role-playing.  Just defending its right to be its own thing.

QuoteYou're pretentious in assuming you know what's better for others when they have enough experience with actual play that they can decide for themselves what tools do or do not work for them.

This isn't a matter of hard facts, this is soft science. There are a lot of opinions, and a lot of subjectivity.

Bollocks. That is what Vinnie and Foul Ole Ron are trying to sell, what I am trying to do is to tell "be wary of what is written in AW".

QuoteTools are not games. Tools are tools. Like I said, if you prefer to make up your own game as you go, that's your right. But just because someone decided to put their GMing or approach to making that game down on paper does not make them pretentious.

The fact that you find the text insulting, rather than just saying "It doesn't work for me" or even just "It's crap" says a lot.

I see that you decided that few last attempts at logic were just a needless weight to your arguments, and went ramming speed into the Dumb Zone.

If someone puts their GMing approach as a game, and claims that it is the only proper way to run that game, it's pretty much the definition of pretentiousness.

And yes, I find the text insulting, because I value my taste. The fact that you do not says quite a bit more, then it says about me being insulted by the text.

The greatest irony is , that it did work  for me - but I don't need Papa Vinnie to guide me through my games, while almost hearing his sarcastic sneer if I dare to oppose his Papal Bull.

You are having fun? Then go and play AW, I don't care.

But don't try to claim that you are a good Game Master, or that only with AW you can deliver the truly complex relationship in gaming.

I'd even say - stop trying to call yourself a Game Master, if you only run AW and games designed with that school of thinking, because you aren't a Game Master. Game Master, like a composer, makes his own style, even styles. In AW, there's no part of being a composer - you are a musician. You choose to stick and play someone else's notes, rather then write your own.

Sure, musicians can get the tears from their audience with their music - but they aren't composers.

In the context that you're using it, I'd equate the composer to a game designer, in some ways.

And I never claimed that only AW could deliver the magic joo joo.  I just believe it exists as one form of game that I think is silly to make such a big deal out of, or to see as insulting.  It's just a game.  If you don't like something, do what a lot of people did when Gygax told them AD&D had to have uniformity and a certain adherence to remain D&D, and roll your eyes or ignore it, but don't take this shit so seriously that you feel your genius creative talent as a GM is being insulted.

Instead of getting bent out of shape about the way someone else is doing it, why not show the merits of your own approach through example, actual play, and some guidance as a mentor?  Make a blog or web-resource for GMs.  Write up some APs with commentary on your approach to GMing, or threads about how you've hacked ToC to work better.  Being an advocate for the things you think are cool is going to win more people over than shitting on someone else's ideas.  It works for the Evil Hat guys.  And if you want a perfect example of someone who didn't get a lot of fans because he was too busy bitching?  Ron Edwards.

QuoteIn the context that you're using it, I'd equate the composer to a game designer, in some ways.

A game designer in RPGs, is a tool maker, not a maker of final product, because that final product is experience. A PC game designer however, is indeed a bit like the composer, because he MUST tailor his game to deliver a specific experience - as unlike the tabletop RPG, there is no GM to on - the - fly adjust the game to the players. I've really said that countless times, about the RPG being just paints & easel, GM drawing a sketch, players colouring it, or the other way around - players drawing a sketch & GM colouring it.

QuoteAnd I never claimed that only AW could deliver the magic joo joo. I just believe it exists as one form of game that I think is silly to make such a big deal out of, or to see as insulting. It's just a game. If you don't like something, do what a lot of people did when Gygax told them AD&D had to have uniformity and a certain adherence to remain D&D, and roll your eyes or ignore it, but don't take this shit so seriously that you feel your genius creative talent as a GM is being insulted.

If Gygax'd do that right now, like Foul Ole Ron does, I'd sneer and laugh at him just as much. The entire Forge is trying to make The Big Mod- erm, The Big Deal (TM) out of it, and if you take one look at RPG.Net, they certainly seem to had succeeded, at least as far as the Internet's Vocal Minority is concerned. I don't get my panties in a twist too much - but I find the advice in AW terrible, especially to a new GM, so I perhaps foolishly try to protect them from it, or buying into the weasel - words and weasel - theories of Forge.

QuoteInstead of getting bent out of shape about the way someone else is doing it, why not show the merits of your own approach through example, actual play, and some guidance as a mentor? Being an advocate for the things you think are cool is going to win more people over than shitting on someone else's ideas. It works for the Evil Hat guys.

Someone failed his Reading check:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21651

I've already have about 40 pages of material for it, and that's not counting my possible input. I also plan to run a series of posts about how to run a tragedy in RPG, inspired by recent post - apo discussion.

You were saying, then?

Quote from: Rincewind1;506751See, all this talk about procedures and whatsonot is the problem with AW - I'm not running procedures when I play the game.

That's probably not actually true. Part of the problem with the RPG industry right now is that there is a large culture of assumed procedures for "how roleplaying games work" that aren't actually communicated in the rulebooks.

Obviously, this isn't a problem when you've already been indoctrinated in the sub-culture. But a new player picking up a game like Pathfinder is basically being tossed into the deep end... after being blind-folded, shackled, and stuffed inside a barrel.

What's particularly interesting about this is that the industry wasn't always like this. Despite the occasionally incoherent nature of its text, for example, OD&D was very explicit in the procedures the GM was supposed to follow: Here's how many dungeon levels you should prep. Here's the exact percentage of rooms that have monsters in them. Here's the exact percentage of rooms which should have treasure in them. Here's how you can determine what the treasure is. You're actually playing now? Great. Here's exactly how far people can move. Here's exactly how much they can do in a turn. Here's exactly how often you should check for wandering monsters. Here's how you determine if those monsters surprise the players.

And here's the thing: This procedure that Gygax describes? It is limiting, but it is also very effective. I made a point of using it for the first several sessions of OD&D that I ran (since I was explicitly trying to explore the original game as it was presented in those rulebooks). As time has passed, I've modified that structure in parts and abandoned it in others... but there's a reason why Gygax presented a procedure for play in OD&D.

This is pretty much identical to the approach that AW takes. Except, of course, AW is much more explicit about the fact that the GM should eventually start modifying and abandoning the structure presented as it suits their tastes and experiences.

Quote from: RincewindYou were saying, then?

If you can keep the negativity and swipes at other approaches to gaming out of it, then cool.

Just FYI, I don't venture out of the RPG subforum much.  I didn't attempt to use the reading skill in the first place, as most folks link to their blogs or tutorial type threads in their sigs.  :P

Quote from: Peregrin;506772If you can keep the negativity and swipes at other approaches to gaming out of it, then cool.

So instead of crying* about Big Bad Rincewind Being A Thread To GMing - send a submission for the GMPM. I'll gladly include it, if it won't be utter bollocks. I have no vendettas that I'll be pushing in that project. But remember - it should be content for GMs, not "How to design your games to deliver specific experience". You said you had a 3 years old campaign under your belt - surely you have experience to share.

I am actually not on that whole "100% IMMERSION! FUDGING IS LYING, STORY IS MURDER" etc. etc. boat, or on "TEH STORY IZ MUCHO IMPORTANTE" boat, or any other countless boats. And ironically, GMPM is for me exactly what you pointed out - instead of arguing on Internet boards about that damn AW and it's "poison", I write some material for it.**

And that failed Reading check was a joke - I am a sarcastic bastard, and I'm proud of it. But as you can see, even if you have a skill, you can fail on it, no matter what ToC*** says, and no matter how trivial it is ;).

*You didn't, but quite a few did, rather then proving me wrong by well, giving some GMing advice - which only adds more to me seeing their experience as GMs rather doubtful.

**Well, at least some of the time it actually works, but it definitely saves me from answering to the Longlist posts.

***I still love and use ToC, but I am aware of the pretentious bits, and just tossed them out. I just find it's mental shortcut better for me. No offence, Kruger.

Quote from: RPGPundit;506080We don't actually use words like "simulationist" seriously around here; its a nonsense word from a theory that has now been demonstrably proven false in just about every way. The fact that you do use such a word seriously implies to me that you probably couldn't tell what a regular RPG was if your life depended on it.

Oh, Pundie. You're so cute when you're stupid.

Quote from: Benoist;506083I agree. What needs to happen isn't to castrate GMs even more and trap them in a structural clusterfuck of rules and procedures right out the gate.

... and yet you hold up OD&D as the exemplar of what a game should look like. Despite the fact that OD&D does the exact same thing.

Although I'm excited to see the implementation of RPGSite's new "all discussions of OD&D will be moved to Other Games" policy.

Quote from: daniel_ream;505823The problem is that in English the word "channeling" can have a number of different connotations.  To we native English speakers, it was obvious in what sense Justin was using it.  Perhaps due to the language barrier, you've interpreted it in a way that really doesn't make any sense given the context.

You're giving him too much credit. He said it would be trolling if he deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote and then he went ahead and did it anyway in his next post. Like I said: Rincewind is a self-admitted troll. Not worth wasting your time on.

Ah, Justie (mind if I call you so? No? Well, too bad for you), if you were quarter as clever as you try to paint yourself, you would get that I was joking and riling you up for quite some time, and actually you know, not answer me, or at least say "ha ha, very funny", and went with the joke.

But guess who's telling "don't waste time on him" and yet wastes time, raging out with insults over a simple joke?

I'll give you a clue - it has an "O" in the middle and is three letters long.

AW is an rpg and thus this thread is in the wrong forum. Please rectify this in a sensible fashion. Im rather tired of this juvenile crap.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507318AW is an rpg and thus this thread is in the wrong forum. Please rectify this in a sensible fashion. Im rather tired of this juvenile crap.

We all are, but pundy has to keep the flames going because he thinks otherwise this place will slink into obscurity.

Of course he doesn't get that there is a lot of positive discussion here, too, as he wouldn't know positive if it jumped into his face.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507318AW is an rpg and thus this thread is in the wrong forum. Please rectify this in a sensible fashion. Im rather tired of this juvenile crap.

This forum was built on juvenile crap. Take it away and there wouldn't be much left, unfortunately.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506776So instead of crying* about Big Bad Rincewind Being A Thread To GMing - send a submission for the GMPM. I'll gladly include it, if it won't be utter bollocks. I have no vendettas that I'll be pushing in that project. But remember - it should be content for GMs, not "How to design your games to deliver specific experience". You said you had a 3 years old campaign under your belt - surely you have experience to share.

I am actually not on that whole "100% IMMERSION! FUDGING IS LYING, STORY IS MURDER" etc. etc. boat, or on "TEH STORY IZ MUCHO IMPORTANTE" boat, or any other countless boats. And ironically, GMPM is for me exactly what you pointed out - instead of arguing on Internet boards about that damn AW and it's "poison", I write some material for it.**

And that failed Reading check was a joke - I am a sarcastic bastard, and I'm proud of it. But as you can see, even if you have a skill, you can fail on it, no matter what ToC*** says, and no matter how trivial it is ;).

*You didn't, but quite a few did, rather then proving me wrong by well, giving some GMing advice - which only adds more to me seeing their experience as GMs rather doubtful.

**Well, at least some of the time it actually works, but it definitely saves me from answering to the Longlist posts.

***I still love and use ToC, but I am aware of the pretentious bits, and just tossed them out. I just find it's mental shortcut better for me. No offence, Kruger.

I'll think about submitting something.

As for the composer/musician bit, that may be a good way to make an analogy, although personally I'd say that games are more like a language/style for composition.  There are varying degrees of compositional "freedom" in different styles of music, but more freedom isn't necessarily better, as having constraints works to promote inspiration, much like choosing a specific style and key to play a jazz song in will inspire musicians to improvise in different ways.  Some musicians and composers may find certain styles constraining and seek to open up new areas of exploration (like how freeform jazz evolved out of classic jazz), but that's merely because they want to achieve a different effect with their music, not because it's an objectively better way to create it.

Maybe you find AW constraining, but I wouldn't say that necessarily limits how creative you can be with it.  The constraints may work to inspire a GM in ways that a more neutral baseline wouldn't have.

Quote from: Peregrin;507415Maybe you find AW constraining, but I wouldn't say that necessarily limits how creative you can be with it.

I admit you are correct here - I mean, you can play a same set of notes in a billion ways.

But I prefer the systems that also require you to write your own notes. And claiming that a system that basically "forces" you to sing on a written set of notes is "better" because no catstringing/player influence/better suited for specific stories etc. etc. is just silly beans. Not to mention an assumption that there is one proper way to play those notes. If someone prefers to play someone else's notes - alright. Cash's "Hurt" is x1000 better then the original - but he did not compose that song.

A GM should be a composer, not just a musician. At least, y'know, in the space of this metaphor.

I think the difference is I view AW's structure as choosing a particular tempo, scale, and style, rather than choosing the notes ahead of time.  They're just a particular set of constraints so that you produce music that has certain qualities to it.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with tweaking things if you want to, but you're not going to use the same methods to produce bebop jazz and progressive rock.

So the notes are like the fictional stuff you come up with, and the compositional constraints are the structure of the rules.  AW might give you the methods to create on particular kind of music, but I don't think it chooses the notes for you.

Quote from: Peregrin;507422I think the difference is I view AW's structure as choosing a particular tempo, scale, and style, rather than choosing the notes ahead of time.  They're just a particular set of constraints so that you produce music that has certain qualities to it.

That's actually the problem for me - see, if Cash had AW's advice when creating Hurt, would he make it a touching story about an old man looking back on his life, instead of a story about a guy loosing a girlfriend?

Of course, that's just making the metaphor even more convoluted, so let's cut that Gordian knot a bit.

By the very idea of mechanic, creativity in RPG, at least by a normal definition of creativity, is constrained - and that's alright. Because I am not looking for a creative venue as a storyteller in an RPG, but for immersing my players in the best experience possible. Of course, there IS a place of storytelling creativity in RPG, you just need to remember that the show's about  the players and their characters, not about your intentions for them.

So, since creativity is already quite restricted in RPGs, why restrict it further by making claims about needing a very specific kind of such creativity for a game? Even worse, instead of allowing a GM to experience mistakes, and forge his own opinion, there's a small attempt of forcing an opinion on a GM.

And that's all, really - a normal RPG gives you all the composing and singing advice you need. Some will do it better, some will do it worse. But to try and claim that there's One True Way to play a song/compose a song, because that's what genre requires - is a big no - no. I mean, musicians even probably claim that - but most of the true splendid works happen, when a guy takes the most obvious song from a genre, and shows how much of a different spin you can put on it.

QuoteAnd I don't think there's anything wrong with tweaking things if you want to, but you're not going to use the same methods to produce bebop jazz and progressive rock.

True - but that's what GM Advice is for. Nobody really expects you to run CoC the same way you run DnD, but there are many ways to run CoC as well. Some prefer Purist - style tragedies, some prefer a bit more Lumley.

I don't see it as a problem because I see AW as a way to play AW, not a way to play all post-apoc.  If I want to play something else, I'll choose another game, and if I want to personalize my experience, I'll choose something flexible.  Savage Worlds would do pulpy, tactical, shoot-em-up post-apoc way better than AW.

And I don't recall the AW text making a statement that it was the definitive way to play post-apoc, just that it was the author's way to play his game.

Like I said, there are more and less constraining styles.  Constraints serve a purpose if they're well thought-out, and sometimes will inspire more creativity than starting with more freedom.  It's a different type of tool, but I don't think it's any worse.  Game-canon in established settings can also be extremely constraining on both the GM and the players, but that can inspire loads of sessions.  AW gives you a bit more freedom in terms of the specific details of the game setting, but constrains the game in other ways.

QuoteTrue - but that's what GM Advice is for. Nobody really expects you to run CoC the same way you run DnD, but there are many ways to run CoC as well. Some prefer Purist - style tragedies, some prefer a bit more Lumley.

Remember that Baker and other designers of his ilk view that GM advice and textual explanation of play as part of the system, whether or not it's hard-coded in.  A lot of the stuff in AW is just GM advice hard-coded in because Baker decided to do it that way.  Again, possibly constraining, but it serves a purpose.  If Baker were trying to pitch me his game and was saying I could use it for multiple styles of post-apoc, or told me something like "This is Fallout done right," then I'd have an issue with it.

Quote from: Peregrin;507424I don't see it as a problem because I see AW as a way to play AW, not a way to play all post-apoc.  If I want to play something else, I'll choose another game, and if I want to personalize my experience, I'll choose something flexible.  Savage Worlds would do pulpy, tactical, shoot-em-up post-apoc way better than AW.

And I don't recall the AW text making a statement that it was the definitive way to play post-apoc, just that it was the author's way to play his game.

Like I said, there are more and less constraining styles.  Constraints serve a purpose if they're well thought-out, and sometimes will inspire more creativity than starting with more freedom.  It's a different type of tool, but I don't think it's any worse.


Remember that Baker and other designers of his ilk view that GM advice and textual explanation of play as part of the system.  A lot of the stuff in AW is just GM advice hard-coded in.  Again, possibly constraining, but it serves a purpose.

The problem with first two paragraphs is, that generally speaking, when someone sells a board game or roleplaying game - the rest of how you create your experience, is yours. If I want to get an experience that the author wishes me to get, I'll buy a novel, record or a painting. Even video games should only be half - half. It is a problem with for example, modern FPS games - there's practically no freedom, you have to play the game as the designer intended. Sure, the graphics are nice, but it doesn't change the fact that no longer you can explore levels and get lost for hours. I mean, I hated getting lost, but I loved being able to just run around. But I will agree that an idea of a very narrow system is not something bad in it's own accord - in fact, it can be great.

As for the last part - and that's the problem. How hard is their advice coded in the system?

In Warhammer, Fate Points are such a piece - a GMing advice hard - coded. In CoC, Sanity Points are such a thing. But you can discard both in both cases (well, in CoC that'd be a bit silly), without breaking the game engine, or breaking even genre emulation - without Sanity Points in CoC it'd be a bit harder, but you can just describe the effects of progressing madness, rather then keep a count of it. Some of people here probably dislike Warhammer's idea of "extra lives" - so remove it. One slash of a pencil, and it's gone.

In AW, I feel that trying to remove that GMing advice, would just leave you with no game at all. That does not make it a bad game in it's own,  neither does a fact that it provides a set of perhaps needless crutches make it a bad game. But those two combined with additional supposed "superiority" of it's design as compared to classic RPG, which is what most of Forge's lovers are arguing, and the general air of elitism from the creators themselves, is what I consider a truly sour mix. The first two pieces'd be already a mark of a not - so - great game design - the last two are nails in the coffin.

I'll get to discussing this with you tomorrow - I really need to wrap up my campaign plans for tomorrow.

No problem, and have fun.

The only issues I see with the discussion at this point are that I don't see AW as constraining as you do, at least not the point where I'd equate it with a FPS railroad, and especially not static media.  The other issue is that if you're going to be bringing in other mediums of games, then RPGs, at least trad RPGs, skirt the line of not really being procedurally complete games in most design frameworks, or at least leaving the game portion very vague (some games like early D&D, as Justin alluded to, are exceptions).  Perhaps that's a bonus for some people, but for others it's not.

IOW, task-resolution systems or combat systems or whatever subsystems a game gives you apart from it's GMing advice or assumptions about play aren't games.  The assumptions of play, the structure that is created by the designer and combined with those subsystems is what creates the game, so of course if you remove the GMing advice from AW it's going to not seem like a game.  Similarly if you took away the mechanics and dice from some groups playing trad RPGs, it may not affect their group at all because their game no longer hinges on the text, but exists apart from the mechanical bits.  The game is what happens at the table, and the rules are the means to inspire a particular intended dynamic.  Baker just concentrated on creating a discrete game with mechanics to serve it rather than creating lots of system tools that the GM then uses to create their own game through trial and error.  I don't think the game attempting to act as a baseline for the creation of that dynamic constrains it so much creatively that it's a worse way to go about running a game.

If you don't view games that way, that's fine, but after doing a lot of reading and trying out different games at the table, it's the most logical view for me.  If you view design-work as part of the creative process of being a GM, then yeah, AW limits that.  But I don't think it limits how creative you can be with the fictional stuff any more than any trad RPG.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507343We all are, but pundy has to keep the flames going because he thinks otherwise this place will slink into obscurity.

Of course he doesn't get that there is a lot of positive discussion here, too, as he wouldn't know positive if it jumped into his face.

I was looking for the thread, just to read it. I don't care about AW one way or the other enough to comment, nor does it appeal to me to purchase. But to decide to just reorganise threads under some premise of 'story games' is batshit crazy. Who knows what threads will end up where if some arbitrary decision about what constitutes roleplayings is going to be made at any point by one person.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507459I was looking for the thread, just to read it. I don't care about AW one way or the other enough to comment, nor does it appeal to me to purchase. But to decide to just reorganise threads under some premise of 'story games' is batshit crazy. Who knows what threads will end up where if some arbitrary decision about what constitutes roleplayings is going to be made at any point by one person.

You have been here for a couple of years, you must know that this already happened. Pundy has claimed sole authority on what constitutes a RPG for ages now.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507586You have been here for a couple of years, you must know that this already happened. Pundy has claimed sole authority on what constitutes a RPG for ages now.

The sad part is, I actually think Pundit would like AW, if it wasn't written by Vincent Baker.

Quote from: Ladybird;507600The sad part is, I actually think Pundit would like AW, if it wasn't written by Vincent Baker.

Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

Quote from: One Horse Town;507608Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

Especially magic, item - generating sex.

QuoteThe only issues I see with the discussion at this point are that I don't see AW as constraining as you do, at least not the point where I'd equate it with a FPS railroad, and especially not static media. The other issue is that if you're going to be bringing in other mediums of games, then RPGs, at least trad RPGs, skirt the line of not really being procedurally complete games in most design frameworks, or at least leaving the game portion very vague (some games like early D&D, as Justin alluded to, are exceptions). Perhaps that's a bonus for some people, but for others it's not.

Warhammer or Call of Cthulhu aren't procedurally incomplete, and neither they are leaving game portion very vague. And those two system have a certain idea of playstyle hardcoded into the very nature of them - and yet, that playstyle can 1) be adjusted with a little tampering with mechanics, if you really feel the need to, and 2) there is no suggestion that only one playstyle is good for that - I myself prefer a very down to the earth and gritty Warhammer, but at least as far as 1e went, there was certainly a possibility for classic dungeoncrawling campaign to be made.

QuoteIOW, task-resolution systems or combat systems or whatever subsystems a game gives you apart from it's GMing advice or assumptions about play aren't games. The assumptions of play, the structure that is created by the designer and combined with those subsystems is what creates the game, so of course if you remove the GMing advice from AW it's going to not seem like a game. Similarly if you took away the mechanics and dice from some groups playing trad RPGs, it may not affect their group at all because their game no longer hinges on the text, but exists apart from the mechanical bits. The game is what happens at the table, and the rules are the means to inspire a particular intended dynamic. Baker just concentrated on creating a discrete game with mechanics to serve it rather than creating lots of system tools that the GM then uses to create their own game through trial and error. I don't think the game attempting to act as a baseline for the creation of that dynamic constrains it so much creatively that it's a worse way to go about running a game.

Again - CoC, Warhammer, plenty of games, really, are designed with a certain specific playstyle and GMing style (Gritty medieval combat with a bit of black humour/a desperate and perhaps a bit futile struggle of humanity against Things They Were Not Meant To Know), but nowhere there you see an idea that one way of playing the game might be truly superior, that there's only one way to run it properly, because the Authors Wrote so. Sometimes it's all about the wording - "Here's my advice on how to play this" is different then "Here's my advice on how you should play this".

If you take dice & mechanics from most (and really, all) groups, they aren't really playing an RPG anymore - such a game is called amateur psychodrama (not to be mistaken with the form of therapy - it's pretty much same idea, except you aren't trying to discover someone's true self etc. etc.).

QuoteIf you don't view games that way, that's fine, but after doing a lot of reading and trying out different games at the table, it's the most logical view for me. If you view design-work as part of the creative process of being a GM, then yeah, AW limits that. But I don't think it limits how creative you can be with the fictional stuff any more than any trad RPG.

I think I'll just put my mind simply here - Rules
Which could be replaced with a random table of 101 Problems To Befall A Post - Apocalyptic Heroes.

I used D&D as an example.  CoC is relatively complete, because the game is layered on top of the sim engine (much in the same way you build a game out of the Unreal Engine, but the UE isn't a game unto itself, nor was making it game-design).

QuoteIf you take dice & mechanics from most (and really, all) groups, they aren't really playing an RPG anymore - such a game is called amateur psychodrama (not to be mistaken with the form of therapy - it's pretty much same idea, except you aren't trying to discover someone's true self etc. etc.).

Dicing mechanisms aren't games in and of themselves.  Their function is to add some objectivity to fuzzy subjective stuff and prevent arguments about what happens in the game.  And a game can exist apart from them.  What I meant was the mechanics (the functional game bits) have drifted away from the text and dicing mechanisms and into a social structure that is a different game than the one presented in the text.

As for being a narration and problem generating machine, that's what GMs do.  They provide adversity.  Sometimes it's in the guise of a "world" or exploration site with challenges (like D&D), and other times it's based on encounters that take place in explicit scenes (like a lot of White-Wolf scenarios).  But in all games GMs use the game structure to create adversity to make like interesting for the characters.  That is a creative process in and of itself, as is unraveling all of those bits in play with the players helping create the imaginary stuff.  I don't get why you're writing that off as pure machination.  If you don't like the metes and bounds for the GM set by the game, don't play it.  But just because someone decided "Hey, I'd like to read literature on composing bebop, not on composing 6 styles of jazz" it doesn't mean their endeavors are any less creative.

If you really view the traditional GM-does-whatever role as superior to all others in terms of creative output, then I don't think we're going to agree on anything anytime soon, though.  But I'm more worried about folks having an enjoyable time than I am reaching the pinnacle of GM-dom, so if you want to view the MoC in AW as something different, than that's your prerogative.  :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;506781if you were quarter as clever as you try to paint yourself, you would get that I was joking and riling you up for quite some time,

Did you somehow miss the posts where I noted that you were a self-admitted troll?

But it is nice of you to, yet again, admit that you're trolling. And I must congratulate you on your success: You keep getting suckers like Peregrin to bite again and again.

Quick question: Are you self-admitting to trolling in every thread you post to here on RPGSite, most threads you post to, some threads you post to, or just this one?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;507586You have been here for a couple of years, you must know that this already happened. Pundy has claimed sole authority on what constitutes a RPG for ages now.

the moving of threads seems to be a new thing.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507693the moving of threads seems to be a new thing.

It's been going on for a while, at least a year.

Quote from: One Horse Town;507608Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

* Opens AW.pdf *
* Searches for text string "emulat" *
* String not found *

It's not a claim the game makes, that was two_fishes back on page 1.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;507693the moving of threads seems to be a new thing.

If you use the New Posts feature, those measures are irrelevant because all threads are rpesented regardless the place they are.

Quote from: Ladybird;507704* Opens AW.pdf *
* Searches for text string "emulat" *
* String not found *

Precisely.

Quote from: One Horse Town;507715Precisely.

So, what's the conclusion that we've came to?

* AW does not do post-apoc genre emulation (I think we can all agree on this, right? The setting is post-apocalyptic, which I think we can also agree on?)
* AW does not claim to do post-apoc genre emulation

Hardly an earth-shattering revelation.

Quote from: One Horse Town;507608Totally! I think he's even gone on record in thinking that sex moves is great post apocalyptic genre emulation!

Why does being "great genre emulation" have anything to do with whether or not something is a role playing game or an "other game", or whether RPG Pundit will like it?

Quote from: boulet;507699It's been going on for a while, at least a year.

And it's idiotic and petty beyond belief. This fucking asinine inverse-snobbery about story-games and constant bickering between trolls is making this site a massive ballache. It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about anything without it devolving into either a rant against indie gamers or Part 37 in some long-running feud. It's even worse than The Big Purple, and that's saying something.

Quote from: Ladybird;507720So, what's the conclusion that we've came to?

* AW does not do post-apoc genre emulation (I think we can all agree on this, right? The setting is post-apocalyptic, which I think we can also agree on?)
* AW does not claim to do post-apoc genre emulation

Hardly an earth-shattering revelation.

and that i doubt Pundit would like it if it was written by someone else as he's mentioned emulation as a key to what he believes is an RPG.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;507687Did you somehow miss the posts where I noted that you were a self-admitted troll?

But it is nice of you to, yet again, admit that you're trolling. And I must congratulate you on your success: You keep getting suckers like Peregrin to bite again and again.

Quick question: Are you self-admitting to trolling in every thread you post to here on RPGSite, most threads you post to, some threads you post to, or just this one?

Oh, I am not trolling - trolling is arguing for sake of arguing, while I am a joker - joking for the sake of joking. Then again, always better to get hot and with steam running out of ears rather then laugh from a joke!

PS. I still had not read about those mysterious GM energies and how to channel them. Care to finally inform us?

QuoteDicing mechanisms aren't games in and of themselves. Their function is to add some objectivity to fuzzy subjective stuff and prevent arguments about what happens in the game. And a game can exist apart from them. What I meant was the mechanics (the functional game bits) have drifted away from the text and dicing mechanisms and into a social structure that is a different game than the one presented in the text.

Still, as I said - if you take all mechanic from RPG, it's psychodrama. Not an RPG.

QuoteAs for being a narration and problem generating machine, that's what GMs do. They provide adversity. Sometimes it's in the guise of a "world" or exploration site with challenges (like D&D), and other times it's based on encounters that take place in explicit scenes (like a lot of White-Wolf scenarios). But in all games GMs use the game structure to create adversity to make like interesting for the characters. That is a creative process in and of itself, as is unraveling all of those bits in play with the players helping create the imaginary stuff. I don't get why you're writing that off as pure machination. If you don't like the metes and bounds for the GM set by the game, don't play it. But just because someone decided "Hey, I'd like to read literature on composing bebop, not on composing 6 styles of jazz" it doesn't mean their endeavors are any less creative.

Here I disagree. GMs provide much more then just problems and narrations - at the very basics, they provide the antagonists, the people who will evoke a change in the heroes. GMing is a lot more then just providing opposition, but that's a really long talk. As for the latter - see a good RPG, imo, should put as little actual constraint on the GM, while providing him with as many useful tools, as possible.

QuoteIf you really view the traditional GM-does-whatever role as superior to all others in terms of creative output, then I don't think we're going to agree on anything anytime soon, though. But I'm more worried about folks having an enjoyable time than I am reaching the pinnacle of GM-dom, so if you want to view the MoC in AW as something different, than that's your prerogative.  

So do I, Peregrin. But the fact that I can have great fun playing something, does not make it

1) RPG
or
2) a Good RPG.

Apocalypse World, at best, is a poor RPG.

Quote from: One Horse Town;507724and that i doubt Pundit would like it if it was written by someone else as he's mentioned emulation as a key to what he believes is an RPG.

If you are not using an RPG for emulation, then what the hell do you use it for?

Quote from: Rincewind1;507725If you are not using an RPG for emulation, then what the hell do you use it for?

I think what was being talked about was "genre emulation", which isn't the same as plain emulation.

Apocalypse World arguably doesn't emulate the "post-apocalypse genre" (if such a thing exists), but it does emulate being somebody in a post-apocalyptic world.

As an aside, how did you go from being relatively positive about the game to saying it's "at best a poor RPG" in the space of one thread? On the first page you seemed to like it, and said you were only put off by the writings of the author on the Forge and the fact that people at story-games cum in their pants at the very mention of it. Now you seem to be of the view that it's rubbish. Make your mind up.

Quote from: noisms;507740I think what was being talked about was "genre emulation", which isn't the same as plain emulation.

Apocalypse World arguably doesn't emulate the "post-apocalypse genre" (if such a thing exists), but it does emulate being somebody in a post-apocalyptic world.

As an aside, how did you go from being relatively positive about the game to saying it's "at best a poor RPG" in the space of one thread? On the first page you seemed to like it, and said you were only put off by the writings of the author on the Forge and the fact that people at story-games cum in their pants at the very mention of it. Now you seem to be of the view that it's rubbish. Make your mind up.

First I'll start with a second paragraph:

2) Because it may be a decent game, but a bad Role Playing Game. Just like boardgames are awesome, but if you try to play them In Character, you probably will have a lot of fun, but at the same time, strictly speaking - the game will become terrible as far as strategy goes.

1) Actually, a strong presence of a GM would be much better to emulate being a person in Post - Apocalyptic World. Especially a really, really mean bastard of a GM. The kind that'll throw the encounters that aren't matched to the party's strength, but are made to represent an area that players just ventured into. And he won't give no special bonuses neither.

Because in Post - Apo, the world is out to get you, and it's not even trying. And you have to fight back.

But honestly, this had been going in circles. All my comments on this game were made either here, or earlier. If you play it and have fun - that's great. But is it an RPG, or is there a GM? That's debatable. I think it can be the former, but there definitely is no latter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;507743First I'll start with a second paragraph:

2) Because it is a decent game, but a bad Role Playing Game. Just like boardgames are awesome, but if you try to play them In Character, you probably will have a lot of fun, but at the same time, strictly speaking - the game will become terrible as far as strategy goes.

1) Actually, a strong presence of a GM would be much better to emulate being a person in Post - Apocalyptic World. Especially a really, really mean bastard of a GM. The kind that'll throw the encounters that aren't matched to the party's strength, but are made to represent an area that players just ventured into. And he won't give no special bonuses neither.

Because in Post - Apo, the world is out to get you, and it's not even trying. And you have to fight back.

You know what? That's a good point and a fair comment.

QuoteBut honestly, this had been going in circles. All my comments on this game were made either here, or earlier. If you play it and have fun - that's great. But is it an RPG, or is there a GM? That's debatable. I think it can be the former, but there definitely is no latter.

Only if you take a restrictive view of what a GM is. It's indisputably a role playing game, though. You play roles, and it's a game - dead simple.

Quote1) Actually, a strong presence of a GM would be much better to emulate being a person in Post - Apocalyptic World. Especially a really, really mean bastard of a GM. The kind that'll throw the encounters that aren't matched to the party's strength, but are made to represent an area that players just ventured into. And he won't give no special bonuses neither.

Because in Post - Apo, the world is out to get you, and it's not even trying. And you have to fight back.

But Rince, thats EXACTLY what the author suggests all over the text. Eg:

QuoteApocalypse World, page 96:

SAY THIS FIRST AND OFTEN
To the players: your job is to play your characters as though
they were real people, in whatever circumstances they find
themselves..  My job as MC is to treat your characters as though they were real people too, and to act as though Apocalypse World were real.

Are you sure youve read the game text, man ?

Quote from: noisms;507744Only if you take a restrictive view of what a GM is. It's indisputably a role playing game, though. You play roles, and it's a game - dead simple.

I'll go and be a bit of a bastard, and rely upon my Coke Pickles argument - if Coca Cola started selling pickles in cans branded Coca Cola, of the same size and shape as Coke cans, would we be eating pickles or drinking Coke?

If we do improv theatre, and roll a dice to select who gets what role, it's improved theatre or role - playing? We play roles, and it's technically a game.

Actually, I think I am rather less - restrictive about GM's role, then AW and the school of design it comes from. See, ironically, this all goes back to perhaps one of the most grog arguments - is a GM a "God", or should he be just a referee for the rules? Except now it's not about the emulation mechanics, but storytelling mechanics.

And you know, I could just don't give a damn about the case of misinterpreted game genre identity. People have fun playing it - grand. But the recent pushing down the throat an idea that this is how RPGs SHOULD be, that this is the One True Way we had always waited for, that this solves the problem with GMing, that this is where you can be a GM without any need for training, that this is where the players have true control over decisions of their characters, that  this are the RPGs where there's no railroading...while it is for me debatable if they are RPGs at all, is what gets my panties in a twist.

Quote from: silva;507746But Rince, thats EXACTLY what the author suggests all over the text. Eg:

Are you sure youve read the game text, man ?

I am pretty positive, yes. And that's RPG 101 - hardly a discovery, but good point, actually.

Then, after the author wrote that, he goes on about:

QuoteALWAYS SAY
• What the principles demand (as follow).
• What the rules demand.
• What your prep demands.
• What honesty demands.
Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and
pretty traditional way. e players’ job is to say what their
characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say
what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively;
and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and
surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything
about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned
world says and does except the players’ characters.
Always be scrupulous, even generous, with the truth. e players
depend on you to give them real information they can really use,
about their characters’ surroundings, about what’s happening
when and where. Same with the game’s rules: play with integrity
110 - APOCALYPSE WORLD and an open hand. e players are entitled to the full benefits
of their moves, their rolls, their characters’ strengths and
resources. Don’t chisel them, don’t weasel, don’t play gotcha.
If you’re playing the game as the players’ adversary, your
decision-making responsibilities and your rules-oversight
constitute a conflict of interests. Play the game with the players,
not against them.

What the rules demand? What the honesty demands? But I, the GM, are the rules. I am the honesty. Sometimes you will NOT know everything that will happen once you do something - Hercules in Disney movie didn't exactly know that the result of catching the disk would be that he'd collapse the village's agora. If the heroes meet a bunch of strangers in the desert, approaching them may result in shooting - and if the heroes kill them, it may turn out this had been an important diplomatic caravan from another town. But there's no way to know that. Hells - if they shoot someone, unless they later chop their heads off, they won't be 100% sure if they are dead or not. It's a piece of advice I picked up from my years of Call of Cthulhu - always stick to describing what characters see/feel/hear - what they know. No more, no less. I sometimes hid certainly modifiers from players, that will result on basis of their descriptions - sometimes to hinder them. But more often, to give them a pleasant surprise - they described how they aim for the orc's chieftain's head, I give them a +1 modifier for description to roll, as well as double damage if they roll really well without that modifier.

If AW is an RPG, it's one with GM's role very, very castrated.

And that's something I won't approve. Because as I had said countless times - people will be dicks, no matter the set of rules. Don't play with douchebags, and don't expect a set of rules to fix them - it'll be an illusion, which will shatter, sooner or later. If you don't trust the guy that GMs to give you supercool experience, that he will cheat you out of it one way or the other - don't play with him.

Quote from: Rincewind1;507750I'll go and be a bit of a bastard, and rely upon my Coke Pickles argument - if Coca Cola started selling pickles in cans branded Coca Cola, of the same size and shape as Coke cans, would we be eating pickles or drinking Coke?

If we do improv theatre, and roll a dice to select who gets what role, it's improved theatre or role - playing? We play roles, and it's technically a game.

But that's not what AW does, and it's a wee bit disingenuous to pretend it is.

You have a 'class', with stats, hit points and skills, though the terminology is different. You get some control over narration, but the MC is largely the one who tells you what's going on and decides how events unfold. It still feels pretty much like coke in a coke can to me. Unless I've been playing some other version of AW that you haven't.

Quote from: noisms;507753But that's not what AW does, and it's a wee bit disingenuous to pretend it is.

You have a 'class', with stats, hit points and skills, though the terminology is different. You get some control over narration, but the MC is largely the one who tells you what's going on and decides how events unfold. It still feels pretty much like coke in a coke can to me. Unless I've been playing some other version of AW that you haven't.

In Arkham Horror you have

1) Classes
2) Stats
3) Hit Points
4) Skills

Though as well, terminology is a bit different.

The board is largely the one which tells you what's going on and decides how events unfold.

Is Arkham Horror therefore an RPG, or a board game?

I understand what point you tried to make, but I am afraid I'll have to make just a similar one like I did back in 4e discussion - you have classes, but they don't give you an idea how good you are at various stuff, but rather what stuff you can do to advance the story, the hit - points, using the Countdown counter can lead to absurds if played RAW (again, a thread where I read about a gunshot to the head while sleeping, and how to treat it from MC perspective - with most advice being that a guy actually survived, because story), stats are very restrictive (why can't I be a Battlebabe which is bad at shooting and being pretty, but still considers himself a Battlebabe?), the MC doesn't just narrates, he uses moves, and it goes on and on and on.

And all the talk about how rules are supposed to give you the game you desire, only adds to my spite. Both game must be good, and a GM must be good. Or arguments how fudging is the Great Evil of GMing, and it should be just replaced with story - based mechanic. And the whole Cult of RAW, which is RPGs equivalent of Plagues of Egypt, being glorified in it's design.

But enough of that. I ranted all I needed. If you like AW and Forgies - play them. Just don't try to push them down my throat as the greatest thing since sliced bread. And for the note - I actually played them, and liked some (Well, Inspectres, at least). I tried DitV, and it was meh though.

Quote from: silva;507746Are you sure youve read the game text, man ?

This is a guy who claims that a rulebook which contains an entire chapter specifically dedicated to the GM changing the rules is, in fact, secretly insisting that the GM is not allowed to change the rules.

He's trolling you.

I've been trying to get an education in new games, and new styles of game lately. So I looked at some character sheets, or whatever they're called in the case of Apocalypse World, and... aaaargh. :confused: What a nightmare! :eek: It might be a great game, if you play it, but that scared me off, everything else aside.

Quote from: Rincewind1;507766In Arkham Horror you have

1) Classes
2) Stats
3) Hit Points
4) Skills

Though as well, terminology is a bit different.

The board is largely the one which tells you what's going on and decides how events unfold.

Is Arkham Horror therefore an RPG, or a board game?

A board game, because the thing telling you what's going on and deciding how events unfold is a fucking board, you tit.

Quote from: brunz;507916I've been trying to get an education in new games, and new styles of game lately. So I looked at some character sheets, or whatever they're called in the case of Apocalypse World, and... aaaargh. :confused: What a nightmare! :eek: It might be a great game, if you play it, but that scared me off, everything else aside.

5 stats, a hit point counter, a space for equipment, and a list of class abilities scared you off? What RPGs are you playing, exactly?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;507912This is a guy who claims that a rulebook which contains an entire chapter specifically dedicated to the GM changing the rules is, in fact, secretly insisting that the GM is not allowed to change the rules.

He's trolling you.

Keep on flying those banners, laddie. And difference - there's a chapter on adapting the rules for different settings. Not modding the rules themselves. But, I am still waiting for that mystical energies explanation.

Quote from: noisms;507971A board game, because the thing telling you what's going on and deciding how events unfold is a fucking board, you tit.

Exactly - GM in Apocalypse World has little more influence then board in Arkham Horror. In fact, a well - designed set of cards would probably easily replace a GM in AW.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508023Exactly - GM in Apocalypse World has little more influence then board in Arkham Horror. In fact, a well - designed set of cards would probably easily replace a GM in AW.

Have you seriously actually played it?

In-game it feels more or less exactly like any other RPG. The players have a bit more narrative control than in more 'trad' games, but not much.

Unless my MC was doing something incredibly wrong with the rules, which I doubt.

Quote from: noisms;508026Have you seriously actually played it?

In-game it feels more or less exactly like any other RPG. The players have a bit more narrative control than in more 'trad' games, but not much.

Unless my MC was doing something incredibly wrong with the rules, which I doubt.

I did play once, yes, and I did have fun.

Well, technically, by the author's intent, he was doing something wrong, probably ;). Just kidding.

I've really been more opposed to this game on a basic of certain idiotic and heretical ideas being spread in it about GMing and RPG design, rather then the game itself - which I think I had detailed in other my posts here.

I still stand by my decision then in AW, there's no GM but rather a narration/crisis generation parser, that could be replaced by a board game designed like Arkham Horror.

Quote from: two_fishes;506369No, you have a drum you like to beat, and you're using a comment I made in passing as an excuse to beat it. Here i'll make an actual assertion for your benefit. I think that the sex moves cheapen sex in the game. They make it into a commodity, and make it more difficult for the player to create sincere intimacy for their PCs. I think this is very fitting to the post-apoc genre. I wouldn't go so far as  to call it a trope of the genre, but it definitely fits my sense of what PA is all about. It fits with the whole question of whether or not people can maintain humanity and decency in the face of scarcity and the struggle just to survive. I'm sure you will disagree, but i'm equally sure that I do not care.

I have read this thread with great interest, and decided to acquire AW based on it. I get Rincewind's argument, and agree, but am able to ignore the Baker douche efectively enough to make use of AW anyway (and him being a douche doesn't mean he can't write a decent game).

I completely agree with two_fishes here in spirit, about sex being both de-humanized and turned into a commodity (see Book of Eli, where an offer of sex was used as an attempted bribe), however I completely agree with DW that the "sex moves" mechanic is completely pointless and would be much better off as one of DW's variants. The sex "commodity" can be handled quite effectively in the RPing without any mechanic needed. It can also be handled indirectly by the conversation mechanic when used cleverly.

I'd also like to say that IMO DW pretty much made everyone his bitch in this thread. I find it very refreshing to see his argument style and I am resolved, and I'm not being sarcastic at all, to try to imitate it in the future, only with more profanity (because my inner teenager needs to have fun too).

Silva, I think AW is nowhere near as great a game as the various BRP games, but it's not a bad game at all and if it trips your triggers then rock on brother. The "indie/storygame (although I don't think AW is one completely)" that rocks my world is Freemarket by Luke Crane and Jared Sorenson. I think Luke Crane is a douche too (Sorenson seems nice though), but he writes damn good games too, so I get over it and hand over the cash :D

Just my pocketful of change on the thread.

Quote from: Sigmund;520272The "indie/storygame (although I don't think AW is one completely)" that rocks my world is Freemarket by Luke Crane and Jared Sorenson. I think Luke Crane is a douche too (Sorenson seems nice though), but he writes damn good games too, so I get over it and hand over the cash :D

Just my pocketful of change on the thread.

I'd like to know more about this game.

Quote from: Rincewind1;508032I did play once, yes, and I did have fun.

Well, technically, by the author's intent, he was doing something wrong, probably ;). Just kidding.

I've really been more opposed to this game on a basic of certain idiotic and heretical ideas being spread in it about GMing and RPG design, rather then the game itself - which I think I had detailed in other my posts here.

I still stand by my decision then in AW, there's no GM but rather a narration/crisis generation parser, that could be replaced by a board game designed like Arkham Horror.

I play arkham horror as an RPG and Escape from colditz , I give each little wooden man a backstory... Winger won't go down a tunnel because he got trapped when he was a kid in a cave etc ....

I have a very inclusive RPG defintion that stretches from the murder mysteries I write for hotels all the way to Talisman, escape from Colditz and Arkham Horror of course I draw the line at 4e D&D :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;520486I play arkham horror as an RPG and Escape from colditz , I give each little wooden man a backstory... Winger won't go down a tunnel because he got trapped when he was a kid in a cave etc ....

I have a very inclusive RPG defintion that stretches from the murder mysteries I write for hotels all the way to Talisman, escape from Colditz and Arkham Horror of course I draw the line at 4e D&D :)

If you tried that tunnel stuff, I'd be all like "Bitch stop pretending you're an elf we loosing game".

Quote from: DWYour entire refutation of my statement, therefore is this: "The 'have sex to gain a bonus' mechanic is optional. And people pointing this out are wrong to say so. (Even though they're factually correct.)"

I don´t think sex moves are there to give you a mechanical bonus for having sex. Some of them do, but many of them not. In fact, the driver, the chopper, and the operator, all of them have moves that make sex something to avoid. The hardholder has a sex move that´s only good for the other one involved. The battlebabe has a sex move that cancels any sex move, so sex doesn´t trigger any bonus for them. Those are... 5 playbook (classes) for whom sex doesn´t provide a bonus. If you want, we may annalise each sex move.

I think sex moves only highlight how each archetype (playbook) relates to sex, as they all do in a special way.

I don´t think the sex moves emulate the PA genre, but then again, neither do the rest of the rules. It´s a game set in a PA setting. To look for VB´s fiction inspirations, the lasts pages contain games and movies/books that shaped AW.

As for the solution you propposed (turning sex moves into different things that reinforce how is or should be each archetype), Dungeon World does something like this with its alignments. But I´d preffer if they weren´t in AW. I think it´s design purpose that AW doesn´t have any "personality mechanics": players run their characters as they wish, nothing guides them toward playing a "caring" angel or a ruthless gunlugger, as long as they commit to run their characters as if they were real.
So your solution, while not bad at all, would feel awkward to me given what I most like about the game.

But anyway, the sex moves are hardly "core" to the game. I´ve run AW like... 15 times, sex only happened 3 or 4 sessions, and the game didn´t break. In fact, in half of the sessions, the sex appeared because the player wanted it, and he was playing a battlebabe, so he didn´t get any bonus out of sex.
VB itself says that nothing´s wrong if players prefer to stay away from PC-sex.

On the other subjects, I´ve found AW to be quite the opposite to a GM-constraining game. It only gives very good advice to how to GM without railroading or playing against-the-players. When I´m the GM, it feels like any other RPG (RPG, yeah, not "other game").

I don´t really get why is this discussed in "other games" :S

Quote from: Khimus;527445On the other subjects, I´ve found AW to be quite the opposite to a GM-constraining game. It only gives very good advice to how to GM without railroading or playing against-the-players. When I´m the GM, it feels like any other RPG (RPG, yeah, not "other game").

I don´t really get why is this discussed in "other games" :S

Most seminal indie games (Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Shadow of Yesterday, Burning Wheel) are just regular RPGs who may difer on the GMing advice, which tends to be very precise and oriented to achieve a certain kind of game. But when you run them, indeed, they're regular RPGs.

Don't try to understand the subforum classification, it makes no sense.

Quote from: Sigmund;520272I think Luke Crane is a douche too (Sorenson seems nice though), but he writes damn good games too, so I get over it and hand over the cash :D

Just my pocketful of change on the thread.

Have you met and/or interacted with Luke IRL?  Because I saw both Luke and Sorenson over the weekend, and judging from my brief time taking part in their panels and seeing them around the indie booths, they seemed like stellar dudes who just want to spread their love of games.

I can also confirm that even if his games are weird, V. Baker is a generally polite and chill human being who does not eat babies for breakfast or wants to destroy other people's fun.

Then again, Real-Life has a way of keeping the Sanity Meter within normal constraints.

QuoteMost seminal indie games (Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Shadow of Yesterday, Burning Wheel) are just regular RPGs who may difer on the GMing advice, which tends to be very precise and oriented to achieve a certain kind of game. But when you run them, indeed, they're regular RPGs.

Don't try to understand the subforum classification, it makes no sense.

Well, it makes sense when you consider a lot of trad games (a lot, not all) are the same game in different guises or with different colored buttons.  So a forum for adventure-gaming and another for the full gradient of possible design.  ;)

Quote from: Peregrin;528380Then again, Real-Life has a way of keeping the Sanity Meter within normal constraints.

Who would have thought about it, huh? ;)

QuoteWell, it makes sense when you consider a lot of trad games (a lot, not all) are the same game in different guises or with different colored buttons.  So a forum for adventure-gaming and another for the full gradient of possible design.  ;)

Ha! :D

Actually, the stupid division into subforums of bullshit ceases to be a problem when you use the New Posts button, as it presents you with threads regardless wich subforum they belong to.  So it's not a big deal for me.