So I'm reading through the so-called "White Box" edition of D&D. This thing is totally crazy. The authors seem to be completely obsessed with taking control of the game world away from the GM. The entire game is built around this ridiculously rigid game structure: You will make a wandering monster check every turn. One turn out of every hour requires a rest. Even something like the reactions the NPCs have to the PCs is controlled through a mechanic! Ditto for running away from monsters.
He's a message for Messrs. Gygax and Arneson: We are tired of these old non-solutions for non-problems that come out of sloppy Forge-thinking. Scared of how RPGs are currently played? They somehow don't work for YOU, even though they work for millions? Got upset once because your GM suddenly surprised you with a non-standard wandering monster check? You think the only way to solve these problems is to castrate the GM?
Wrong!
Ideologically, it makes no sense: it's a desire to allow game-designers to take away control of RPGs from Game-Masters, it's the typical mentality of someone who now thinks of themselves as the "gamemaster to the world" and doesn't want lesser geniuses messing up the perfection of their own system or setting.
Stop trying to put shackles on the GM with these kinds of explicit game structures, folks. Or at least stop trying to claim that your dirty story game is an RPG. Your lies and deceit are transparent to all true-thinkers.
Thankyou for your productive and interesting contribution to this forum which will enhance the tenor of discussion here immeasurably.
If you would actually like to talk about story games Justin, rather than act out, I find carry a game about war to be a good one. You can make the new thread yourself, even.
(http://www.ndpdesign.com/storage/thumbnails/10230125-12339911-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1306104731023)
Quote from: Justin Alexander;665365So I'm reading through the so-called "White Box" edition of D&D. This thing is totally crazy. The authors seem to be completely obsessed with taking control of the game world away from the GM. The entire game is built around this ridiculously rigid game structure: You will make a wandering monster check every turn. One turn out of every hour requires a rest. Even something like the reactions the NPCs have to the PCs is controlled through a mechanic! Ditto for running away from monsters.
He's a message for Messrs. Gygax and Arneson: We are tired of these old non-solutions for non-problems that come out of sloppy Forge-thinking. Scared of how RPGs are currently played? They somehow don't work for YOU, even though they work for millions? Got upset once because your GM suddenly surprised you with a non-standard wandering monster check? You think the only way to solve these problems is to castrate the GM?
Wrong!
Ideologically, it makes no sense: it's a desire to allow game-designers to take away control of RPGs from Game-Masters, it's the typical mentality of someone who now thinks of themselves as the "gamemaster to the world" and doesn't want lesser geniuses messing up the perfection of their own system or setting.
Stop trying to put shackles on the GM with these kinds of explicit game structures, folks. Or at least stop trying to claim that your dirty story game is an RPG. Your lies and deceit are transparent to all true-thinkers.
While I admire the attempt to try and generate a more holistic view of RPGs, I do think that there can be important distinctions between games in terms of how they play. Now, like many such definitions, there is a real issue with grey cases. It can also be the case that the way that particular players and groups interact with the rules can be as important as the rules themselves.
OD&D was a loosely developed dungeon exploration game. But people took it in all sorts of directions. In some ways, the lack of rules and the modularity of the system led to a lot of amateur game design that gave each table a distinctive feel.
I don't think story game is a good use of pejorative. I have tried story games and I didn't dislike them but I prefer traditional RPGs. But, even within the traditional RPG sphere, I have preferences for some systems over others because they make certain styles of play easier or more difficult.
In fact, the within genre differences can be larger than between genre. It could be perfectly possible for a game of Dungeon World to play closer to OD&D than a game of 4th edition D&D does.
Quote from: Votan;665368While I admire the attempt to try and generate a more holistic view of RPGs, I do think that there can be important distinctions between games in terms of how they play. Now, like many such definitions, there is a real issue with grey cases. It can also be the case that the way that particular players and groups interact with the rules can be as important as the rules themselves.
OD&D was a loosely developed dungeon exploration game. But people took it in all sorts of directions. In some ways, the lack of rules and the modularity of the system led to a lot of amateur game design that gave each table a distinctive feel.
I don't think story game is a good use of pejorative. I have tried story games and I didn't dislike them but I prefer traditional RPGs. But, even within the traditional RPG sphere, I have preferences for some systems over others because they make certain styles of play easier or more difficult.
In fact, the within genre differences can be larger than between genre. It could be perfectly possible for a game of Dungeon World to play closer to OD&D than a game of 4th edition D&D does.
I think the point is this bit
I have tried story games and I didn't dislike them but I prefer traditional RPGs could more accurately be termed
I have tried games that use a varying amount of 'storygame' mechanics but I prefer 'tradditional' mechanics more.
Storygames aren't so much a thing as much as mechanical device used to resolve a gaming situation. So some mechanics hinge on a 'interacting in a shared narative space usually to replicate genre or drive the game in interesting directions'. Some games have a lot of these mechanics so can clearly be called Storygames but others have a handful of them and the rest is very much tradditional design. The question comes with where the line is drawn (or the question comes with why draw a line and what fucking difference does it make anyway but I digress). Now where that line sits is very much a matter of personal opinion.
But we have had this argument so many hundreds of times ...... YAWN
A reasonable trolling attempt but should have talked more about the things in game that are there just to soak up issues generated in other parts of the game and so break immersion. HP mechanism leads to surplus of healing potions and miracluous priests but peasantry still living in disease ridden poverty, etc... clearly storygame mechanisms to try and emulate genre at expense of creating a truly immersive game world.
Quote from: jibbajibba;665373HP mechanism leads to surplus of healing potions and miracluous priests but peasantry still living in disease ridden poverty, etc... clearly storygame mechanisms to try and emulate genre at expense of creating a truly immersive game world.
Not to mention the three act structure they stuff down your throat with the leveling and "world" mechanics. Dungeon to hexcrawl to land ownership. It's transparent Forge-think to force that kind of progression onto every single game.
Sometimes, I really miss the glory days of Usenet, when the fish were so thick in the water, they'd jump in the boat and club themselves to death with an oar. And the trolls really had some spirit!
I'll give that a 0.5 on the Troll-O-Meter.
Prolix.
Not enough bile.
See me after class.
Cheers!
I also hear it is rife with dissociated mechanics of various kinds.
Good concept, meh thread, lukewarm comments. Mine included.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;665365So I'm reading through the so-called "White Box" edition of D&D. This thing is totally crazy. The authors seem to be completely obsessed with taking control of the game world away from the GM. The entire game is built around this ridiculously rigid game structure: You will make a wandering monster check every turn. One turn out of every hour requires a rest. Even something like the reactions the NPCs have to the PCs is controlled through a mechanic! Ditto for running away from monsters.
He's a message for Messrs. Gygax and Arneson: We are tired of these old non-solutions for non-problems that come out of sloppy Forge-thinking. Scared of how RPGs are currently played? They somehow don't work for YOU, even though they work for millions? Got upset once because your GM suddenly surprised you with a non-standard wandering monster check? You think the only way to solve these problems is to castrate the GM?
Wrong!
Ideologically, it makes no sense: it's a desire to allow game-designers to take away control of RPGs from Game-Masters, it's the typical mentality of someone who now thinks of themselves as the "gamemaster to the world" and doesn't want lesser geniuses messing up the perfection of their own system or setting.
Stop trying to put shackles on the GM with these kinds of explicit game structures, folks. Or at least stop trying to claim that your dirty story game is an RPG. Your lies and deceit are transparent to all true-thinkers.
I tend to view rules as tools for the gm to use as they see fit, not shackles.
Butthurt level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!
:)
You all should just allow Justin & Pundit to talk it out. It'd be like an Ouroborous of assholishness.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;665365So I'm reading through the so-called "White Box" edition of D&D. This thing is totally crazy. The authors seem to be completely obsessed with taking control of the game world away from the GM. The entire game is built around this ridiculously rigid game structure: You will make a wandering monster check every turn. One turn out of every hour requires a rest. Even something like the reactions the NPCs have to the PCs is controlled through a mechanic! Ditto for running away from monsters.
He's a message for Messrs. Gygax and Arneson: We are tired of these old non-solutions for non-problems that come out of sloppy Forge-thinking. Scared of how RPGs are currently played? They somehow don't work for YOU, even though they work for millions? Got upset once because your GM suddenly surprised you with a non-standard wandering monster check? You think the only way to solve these problems is to castrate the GM?
Wrong!
Ideologically, it makes no sense: it's a desire to allow game-designers to take away control of RPGs from Game-Masters, it's the typical mentality of someone who now thinks of themselves as the "gamemaster to the world" and doesn't want lesser geniuses messing up the perfection of their own system or setting.
Stop trying to put shackles on the GM with these kinds of explicit game structures, folks. Or at least stop trying to claim that your dirty story game is an RPG. Your lies and deceit are transparent to all true-thinkers.
See what happens when we post while drunk children.
I didn't LOL, but I did chuckle a little.
Amusing, but completely inaccurate as a description of white box D&D.
Hard to see this thread as anything but a troll on Pundit though.
(http://i.qkme.me/3qji0p.jpg)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;665685(http://i.qkme.me/3qji0p.jpg)
In all fairness, who DOESNT want to slap Robin?
Robin's awesome.http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UdBcnRFN4Vg
Quote from: Bill;665771In all fairness, who DOESNT want to slap Robin?
Holy slap on a stick, Batman!
Quote from: Bill;665771In all fairness, who DOESNT want to slap Robin?
I expect that Robin likes it that way, too.
And the bear said, "You ain't here for the huntin', are you?"
Yes, OD&D is a shitty storygame.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;666470Yes, OD&D is a shitty storygame.
I hear Dungeon World is way better.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;666470Yes, OD&D is a shitty storygame.
You ain't kiddin.
Last time I ran a session there was precious little the PCs had at thier disposal to influence the narrative. Antagonist npcs refused to act appropriately for thier expected roles per genre conventions and protagonists died at the most random inconvenient times. They had no sense of dramatic timing.
How dare the fighter run out of hit points against a scrub hobgoblin. The rest of the party had to end the scene early and the big bad didn't get any screen time. The overall plot was utterly ruined.
Quote from: Benoist;666471I hear Dungeon World is way better.
Like, WAY better. It revolutionizes gaming in a way that make other games look like pretentious indie games. And the DM advice really helps you get that failed novel--er, game story moving. If only it had sex moves like AW does, it would be perfect!
Anyone trying to deny the narrativism of Dave Areseon is deluded. Face it, 'storygames' are not new and your stupid for thinking they are.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668458Anyone trying to deny the narrativism of Dave Areseon is deluded. Face it, 'storygames' are not new and your stupid for thinking they are.
Bonus points for the "
your stupid" error.
Quote from: Zachary The First;668466Bonus points for the "your stupid" error.
:rotfl:
Coffee spit on the keyboard. What every Friday need to start off right.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?286043-Dave-Arneson-Blackmoor-and-Me!
Quote2) Saving Throws did not exist. Instead of rolling the die, you had to defend to the other player via a short story WHY your character would survive what was coming at him. The player's voted and the DM was the tie-breaker.
don't really have time to dig up the rest but anecdotes of Arnesonian experiments are all over the place. Dude thought outside the box, like
telling a
story in place of saving throws.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668500http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?286043-Dave-Arneson-Blackmoor-and-Me!
don't really have time to dig up the rest but anecdotes of Arnesonian experiments are all over the place. Dude thought outside the box, like telling a story in place of saving throws.
Diceless resolution mechanics are not the same thing as narrative mechanics.
ZOMG!!! He used the the word story. It was a situation first, mechanics second kind of resolution. It was the same kind of resolution that the DM does all the time in OD&D, just expanded to cover the saving throw.
For modern theorywankers it is extreme " mother may I" D&D, with the other players getting to weigh in on how awesome or lame your description of your actions were.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;668504Diceless resolution mechanics are not the same thing as narrative mechanics.
ZOMG!!! He used the the word story. It was a situation first, mechanics second kind of resolution. It was the same kind of resolution that the DM does all the time in OD&D, just expanded to cover the saving throw.
For modern theorywankers it is extreme " mother may I" D&D, with the other players getting to weigh in on how awesome or lame your description of your actions were.
Which is what a majority of these arguments come down to. It also is not mother may I because the player making the 'save' is appealing to his fellow players, not the DM.
You can keep denying it but it won't make it go away.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668511Which is what a majority of these arguments come down to. It also is not mother may I because the player making the 'save' is appealing to his fellow players, not the DM.
You can keep denying it but it won't make it go away.
It doesn't matter if the decision belongs to the DM or the group as a whole. Its still resoulution via the fiat of a deciding authority vs the game mechanics saying you succeed at X.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;668524It doesn't matter if the decision belongs to the DM or the group as a whole. Its still resoulution via the fiat of a deciding authority vs the game mechanics saying you succeed at X.
It does matter. He also made players tell a story during a session. I've seen that used as an argument for story gaming, why shift the goal posts.
You'll note that nowhere did Arneson's way of running a game of whatever he was running (it wasn't D&D) end up as part of the actual rules of D&D. Hmm... I wonder why that would be?
Quote from: RPGPundit;668538You'll note that nowhere did Arneson's way of running a game of whatever he was running (it wasn't D&D) end up as part of the actual rules of D&D. Hmm... I wonder why that would be?
It was D&D and probably the same reason why Gary Gygax's affinity for hiding behind a filing cabinet didn't end up in the rules. Personal taste, which is to say Arneson liked to story game, it's not new and has been in rpgs since birth.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668538You'll note that nowhere did Arneson's way of running a game of whatever he was running (it wasn't D&D) end up as part of the actual rules of D&D. Hmm... I wonder why that would be?
Arneson was known to experiment. He was kind of an idea guy. The rules of his game at that time at least were not set in stone, and changed from session to session. It was very much inspired by his previous experiences with Braunstein games, running the Napoleonic game, Diplomacy variants and so on. From all the accounts I could read and listen to from people who were there at the time, it sounds like there was an organic, emergent quality to it all. This was a time where the ideas were brewing, not only Dave's mind you, but Gary's also, as his article on Chromatic Dragons preceding the game shows, and all around them two also, ideas which in the end would be distilled to take the shape of the OD&D framework (which was intended as a starting point, not an end. The notion that OD&D was envisioned as a game where procedures had to be followed with a RAW approach is dumb, on its face, to anyone who has any idea what the miniatures wargaming hobby was like at this time, in particular, and anyone who has any idea what the OD&D rules and their relationship - or lack thereof - to the Chainmail rules looks and was like, or it should appear as such, in any case).
I actually agree that the misunderstanding that role playing games should somehow replicate stories like the Lord of the Ring's goes back at the very inception of the hobby. Rob Kuntz's article explaining how the D&D framework is not intended to produce such results in the columns of The Dragon some time later shows that clearly. And how could it be any other way? LOTR and fantasy war gaming were a big part of D&D's starting DNA after all. It was only natural for people who wanted to replicate the Battle of the Five Armies "realistically, just as it appears in The Hobbit!" to then bitch about how magic users didn't replicate Gandalf "right", or ... how the game didn't replicate the narrative of the Lord of the Rings "accurately".
But reinterpreting Dave Arneson's (nice misspelling of the name, by the way) words retroactively to interpret him saying he agreed with Ron Edwards' "narrative agenda" bullshit and all that jazz? That's priceless. Honestly.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668542It was D&D and probably the same reason why Gary Gygax's affinity for hiding behind a filing cabinet didn't end up in the rules. Personal taste, which is to say Arneson liked to story game, it's not new and has been in rpgs since birth.
Dig a little more and check out Braunstein then get back to us. Please explain to us how open ended rules, intended to allow players the freedom to perform any action concerns itself in any way with "the narrative".
Quote from: Benoist;668546But reinterpreting Dave Arneson's (nice misspelling of the name, by the way) words retroactively to interpret him saying he agreed with Ron Edwards' "narrative agenda" bullshit and all that jazz? That's priceless. Honestly.
Oh, like how you reinterpreting my words to say that I was saying Arneson had anything to do with Edwards? That's your hard on. Arneson liked to story-game, it's not new. The end.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;668547Dig a little more and check out Braunstein then get back to us. Please explain to us how open ended rules, intended to allow players the freedom to perform any action concerns itself in any way with "the narrative".
I don't have to. It's pretty well documented. Read Benoist post. I find the implication because it's "organic" and not "codified" that it's somehow less of a story-gaming spirit to be laughable.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668548Oh, like how you reinterpreting my words to say that I was saying Arneson had anything to do with Edwards? That's your hard on. Arneson liked to story-game, it's not new. The end.
Look. It's not my fault if you don't understand the relationship between (1) what you construe as "story" here and where story games actually come from, and (2) Ron Edwards, the Forge, and GNS theory. What I wrote would actually make sense if you knew.
Quote from: Benoist;668551Look. It's not my fault if you don't understand the relationship between (1) what you construe as "story" here and where story games actually come from, and (2) Ron Edwards, the Forge, and GNS theory. What I wrote would actually make sense if you knew.
No but it's your fault for (1) thinking your connotations are correct above all else and (2) that Ron Edwards etc were onto something new.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668552No but it's your fault for (1) thinking your connotations are correct above all else and (2) that Ron Edwards etc were onto something new.
Your position is just pathetically inaccurate for anyone who cares to think for a second. Just see there. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=668556#post668556)
Quote from: Benoist;668561Your position is just pathetically inaccurate for anyone who cares to think for a second. Just see there. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=668556#post668556)
and yet you have provided proof yourself that this phenomena has been around since Rob Kuntz addressed it.
You can interpret things anyway you want but it's still just an interpretation. The only thing is, you're claiming yours to be supreme which is an exercise in stupidity. But hey, as long as you got your echo-chamber right.
You should have warned me you were reading in diagonal: I wouldn't have bothered answering to you then. That partially explains how you'd come to the conclusion that there's no significant difference between Arneson and Edwards. You should try harder.
I know some words may seem big and everything, but come on, I know you can do it.
Til then, ciao bello!
Quote from: Benoist;668567You should have warned me you were reading in diagonal: I wouldn't have bothered answering to you then. That partially explains how you'd come to the conclusion that there's no significant difference between Arneson and Edwards. You should try harder.
I know some words may seem big and everything, but come on, I know you can do it.
Til then, ciao bello!
Oh yes. This is where you put words in my mouth and run away like a girl. The spirit in which "story-games" "started" has pre-dated Edwards, even the GNS theory pre-dated Edwards. That is not the same as "Arneson and Edwards are the same". As I said, that's your hard on.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668542It was D&D and probably the same reason why Gary Gygax's affinity for hiding behind a filing cabinet didn't end up in the rules.
I would pay cash money for an edition of D&D that required this as part of the core rules.
What everyone fails to see that if we bend it all in the same tale - spinning as Kanye's doing, it basically proves that even Gygax was against the Swine, as he cast away Arneson as he saw him trying to insert swinery experimentation into his RPGs.
Quote from: Rincewind1;668581What everyone fails to see that if we bend it all in the same tale - spinning as Kanye's doing, it basically proves that even Gygax was against the Swine, as he cast away Arneson as he saw him trying to insert swinery experimentation into his RPGs.
Yeah, I guess that would fit the stupid world-view here. Which makes Lorraine Williams the ultimate swine, above Edwards, as she tried to abolish 'trve kvlt' rpgs forever by fucking over Gygax.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668588Yeah, I guess that would fit the stupid world-view here. Which makes Lorraine Williams the ultimate swine, above Edwards, as she tried to abolish 'trve kvlt' rpgs forever by fucking over Gygax.
QuoteKanye Westeros
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 64
Join Date: Jan 2013
Please tell us more about the "worldviews of RPGsite", seeing how you are obviously such a long time purveyor of "our" "culture". Maybe later you can host a "I Was an RPGsite Poster" Q&A on RPG.net for bonus fans. (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/emot-allears.gif)
Quote from: Rincewind1;668600Please tell us more about the "worldviews of RPGsite", seeing how you are obviously such a long time purveyor of "our" "culture". Maybe later you can host a "I Was an RPGsite Poster" Q&A on RPG.net for bonus fans. (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/emot-allears.gif)
Why? I mean, you thing a join date is an indication of something.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668602Why? I mean, you thing a join date is an indication of something.
I 'thing' that registration/post amount matters, when you want to talk about group mentality of a certain place.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/79v9w.png):"I'll have you known that as a man who has worked in a restaurant for a month, I know everything about leading such an enterprise".
Quote from: Rincewind1;668605I 'thing' that registration/post amount matters, when you want to talk about group mentality of a certain place.
Yeah, because people have only been reading forums as long as their join dates.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668606Yeah, because people have only been reading forums as long as their join dates.
No, but without participation, your knowledge of mentality of a group is on par of someone who pretends to know everything about his favourite team's players lives based on games watched & occasional read of Gossip Girl.
Quote from: Rincewind1;668607No, but without participation, your knowledge of mentality of a group is on par of someone who pretends to know everything about his favourite team's players lives based on games watched & occasional read of Gossip Girl.
...oh dear.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668500don't really have time to dig up the rest but anecdotes of Arnesonian experiments are all over the place. Dude thought outside the box, like telling a story in place of saving throws.
Actually, it was
making an argument, known in wargames circles nowadays as a "matrix game" (which seems an odd name to me, but so be it).
Both Justin Alexander and Kanye Westeros seem way out in left field as to what "story game" means around here, or for that matter to Edwards and his crew.
I'm not keen on either categorization, but satire and parody fall flat when they miss the mark of their intended referents.