SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Apocalypse World: really awesome or am I missing something here ?

Started by silva, January 14, 2012, 05:55:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rincewind1

#180
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.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Peregrin

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.
"In a way, the Lands of Dream are far more brutal than the worlds of most mainstream games. All of the games set there have a bittersweetness that I find much harder to take than the ridiculous adolescent posturing of so-called \'grittily realistic\' games. So maybe one reason I like them as a setting is because they are far more like the real world: colourful, crazy, full of strange creatures and people, eternal and yet changing, deeply beautiful and sometimes profoundly bitter."

Rincewind1

#182
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.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Peregrin

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.
"In a way, the Lands of Dream are far more brutal than the worlds of most mainstream games. All of the games set there have a bittersweetness that I find much harder to take than the ridiculous adolescent posturing of so-called \'grittily realistic\' games. So maybe one reason I like them as a setting is because they are far more like the real world: colourful, crazy, full of strange creatures and people, eternal and yet changing, deeply beautiful and sometimes profoundly bitter."

Rincewind1

#184
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?
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Justin Alexander

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.
Note: this sig cut for personal slander and harassment by a lying tool who has been engaging in stalking me all over social media with filthy lies - RPGPundit

Peregrin

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
"In a way, the Lands of Dream are far more brutal than the worlds of most mainstream games. All of the games set there have a bittersweetness that I find much harder to take than the ridiculous adolescent posturing of so-called \'grittily realistic\' games. So maybe one reason I like them as a setting is because they are far more like the real world: colourful, crazy, full of strange creatures and people, eternal and yet changing, deeply beautiful and sometimes profoundly bitter."

Rincewind1

#187
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.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Justin Alexander

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.
Note: this sig cut for personal slander and harassment by a lying tool who has been engaging in stalking me all over social media with filthy lies - RPGPundit

Rincewind1

#189
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.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Ghost Whistler

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.
"Ghost Whistler" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Parental death, alien battles and annihilated worlds.

DominikSchwager

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.

noisms

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.
Read my blog, Monsters and Manuals, for campaign ideas, opinionated ranting, and collected game-related miscellania.

Buy Yoon-Suin, a campaign toolbox for fantasy games, giving you the equipment necessary to run a sandbox campaign in your own Yoon-Suin - a region of high adventure shrouded in ancient mysteries, opium smoke, great luxury and opulent cruelty.

Peregrin

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.
"In a way, the Lands of Dream are far more brutal than the worlds of most mainstream games. All of the games set there have a bittersweetness that I find much harder to take than the ridiculous adolescent posturing of so-called \'grittily realistic\' games. So maybe one reason I like them as a setting is because they are far more like the real world: colourful, crazy, full of strange creatures and people, eternal and yet changing, deeply beautiful and sometimes profoundly bitter."

Rincewind1

#194
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.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed