Quote from: Benoist;606179Thank you. I see that now. The part where they define role playing as creating a tale and spinning a story really turns me off, however. Now that doesn't stop some RPGs using the same rhetoric to actually be traditional RPGs, like say Vampire, but that's the kind of pitch that really makes me cringe right off the bat.

Isn't that what traditional D&D is anyway?  Not trying to be an ass, seriously.

I always thought that the big objection in the Trad gaming crowd against storygame RPGs was against mechanics used to control things like scene framing, outside control of narrative, and other such, like what Marvel Heroic Roleplaying does.  I mean, all D&D DMs and players I've met are into story, they just want it to be uncontrolled by mechanics, actor vs author stance kinda stuff.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606186Wow, I haven't used any bad words. I must have touched a truth nerve.

Well. Each time you guys are circle-jerking, like on the Apocalypse World thread, about how above all that you are and that there's really no difference between story games and role playing games bla bla blah I want to tell the lot of you to shut the fuck up. Some people like myself DO see a difference, and it DOES matter to take pleasure gaming for us.

So the bullshit about how I don't get to define the game as an RPG or not or whatnot, you keep it to yourself. When I actually play the game, I do categorize it and I do take pleasure or not at the game table based on my own criteria. Thank you very much.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606186Anyway, that doesn't matter. I'll happily buy you the PDF when the game is released if you would do a review of the game here.  $30 is worth getting your view of TBZ and seeing how a proponent of a particular view of the OSR movement and your view of traditional gaming.  You down with that, Benoist?

I'd love to take you up on that offer, but I am busy with my own game design already.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606187FVB, what about the scene framing mechanics and the Passion/Relationship mechanics, or the emotion matrix? I can see where some uber-hardcore Trad gaming folks might find that questionable.

I dunno what kind of territory hard-core trad gaming folks have staked out, but the emotion matrix struck me as effectively being the offspring of reaction tables, which I recall from D&D, albeit here they're also used for PCs, and which I've seen time and time again over the last thirty-plus years.  The scene-framing mechanics simply formalize a lot of what goes on in normal games (although I was shocked to discover how much they predict what Robin Laws is doing over in Hillfolk these days) and the Passion/Relationship mechanics don't seem so revolutionary to me.  

The things that made me go "Wow" and which I'd never, ever seen before are the damage mechanic, the reverse death-spiral, and a few other things.  But the emotion-matrix and personality stuff was just a very efficient use of things I've been seeing since Champions.

Unless you're going to censor my output here, like they might try to do at other boards, I'll express myself as I see fit. Unless I am in violation of board rules, I will express myself as I see fit.  Of course, feel free to cuss me out and call me wrong, or engage me in debate. That's why I'm here!

Also, I don't recall being in any Apocalypse World threads :idunno: AFAIK, AW is a Storygame RPG and that's that.

But, if you're working on you're own design, that is cool.  When you're time frees up, let me know, and I will buy you the PDF.  I'm also interested in how a true-way OSR'er would 'save' TBZ from it's swinish self.

Also, wanna start a thread on what you are working on, or point me to a pre-existing one?  I'm always interested in new RPG work.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606192I dunno what kind of territory hard-core trad gaming folks have staked out, but the emotion matrix struck me as effectively being the offspring of reaction tables, which I recall from D&D, albeit here they're also used for PCs, and which I've seen time and time again over the last thirty-plus years.  The scene-framing mechanics simply formalize a lot of what goes on in normal games (although I was shocked to discover how much they predict what Robin Laws is doing over in Hillfolk these days) and the Passion/Relationship mechanics don't seem so revolutionary to me.  

The things that made me go "Wow" and which I'd never, ever seen before are the damage mechanic, the reverse death-spiral, and a few other things.  But the emotion-matrix and personality stuff was just a very efficient use of things I've been seeing since Champions.

Great nuggets, FBV.  Would you characterize TBZ as a trad game, a storygame, or somewhere inbetween?

Reverse death spiral is something a lot of RPGs need.  L5R and the Storyteller games's mechanics go contrary to their in-setting fluff because of Death Spiral.

I want to see more Japanese TRPGs translated by the Trad crowd.  Games like Meiyuu Kingdom stink OSR with a twist and I'd love to a japanese view of the classic D&D experience.  There were Japanese editions of D&D released, and I'd like to see how the ran with it.

Quote from: Benoist;606175Well, I'll just repeat myself: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

YOU do not get to redefine anything, ESPECIALLY not Role Playing Games on this board. Believe it or not, I was actually asking out of interest, to see whether it'd be worth my time to have a look at TBZ. But your fucking childish attitude regarding the role playing games versus story games divide, which is real, since these two type of games simply don't have the same object and purpose, is simply put fucking ridiculous. Thanks for being such a butthurt bitch about it, douchebag!

So you can indeed move on now, and go fuck yourself.

Holy shit, you're sensitive.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606192I dunno what kind of territory hard-core trad gaming folks have staked out, but the emotion matrix struck me as effectively being the offspring of reaction tables, which I recall from D&D, albeit here they're also used for PCs, and which I've seen time and time again over the last thirty-plus years.  The scene-framing mechanics simply formalize a lot of what goes on in normal games (although I was shocked to discover how much they predict what Robin Laws is doing over in Hillfolk these days) and the Passion/Relationship mechanics don't seem so revolutionary to me.  

The things that made me go "Wow" and which I'd never, ever seen before are the damage mechanic, the reverse death-spiral, and a few other things.  But the emotion-matrix and personality stuff was just a very efficient use of things I've been seeing since Champions.

I was sweating for an answer with my poor English skills, but the above sums it up nicely.

The Emotion Matrix, besides not being so binding as it sounds, has sparked a lot of roleplaying opportunities that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

And the übermunchkin among us is spending hours (even at the office) designing new mecha, shiki, archetypes and studying the mechanica section to make his PC the ultimate killing machine.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606197And the übermunchkin among us is spending hours (even at the office) designing new mecha, shiki, archetypes and studying the mechanica section to make his PC the ultimate killing machine.

I'm very interested in this aspect of the game.  I really like how it gives you tools to design new stuff (martial arts, ninja powers, etc) right out of the box.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606195Great nuggets, FBV.  Would you characterize TBZ as a trad game, a storygame, or somewhere inbetween?

I'm the wrong guy to ask, because there's clearly been a lot of defining going on by various sides, and I'm not read up enough on the foundational philosophical documents.  To me, it's a traditional roleplaying game, because I play it -- I know that sounds pat, but it seems a reasonable enough definition as any.  I can't define a traditional RPG, "but I know it when I see it," to quote Justice Potter.  

At the same time, an equally reasonable examination (AFAICT) reveals that, "It's been translated by Andy K, who runs Storygames.com, and so it's a storygame."  

I mean, to me, traditional roleplaying games are large and contain multitudes.  Barring certain anomalies like Universalis or something, I think half of what people call storygames or indie RPGs are actually traditional RPGs, and the rest is tribalism.  Maybe I'm just not aware of the boundaries.

Quote from: Frundsberg;606197And the übermunchkin among us is spending hours (even at the office) designing new mecha, shiki, archetypes and studying the mechanica section to make his PC the ultimate killing machine.

The first weekend I had a copy, all I did was grind out crunch.  I think I made Stormbringer first, then dhampirs, then I built Soul Reapers as a splat and made Kenpachi Zuraki.

I'll go over the landmarks for the sake of you sensitive guys who are offended about I dunno what the fuck exactly but hey I'm here sitting at home tonight playing through SRW Z for the second time already and Rand is cliche as fuck.

To preserve your sanity I will not split the quotes, but will reply in bold.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1488721. The vast majority of gamers are having fun gaming.

TBZ rather stresses the fun part in many places.

2. The vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played.

Um, yeah.

3. D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks. You don't have to say it is the "best" RPG, but you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG.

Thank you note to David Arneson and Gary Gygax in the first page. I'll just leave it at that.

4. Given number 3 above, it is self-evident that games that have a broad spectrum of playstyles (as D&D does) are by definition successful games. Any theory that speculates that games must be narrowly-focused to be "good" games is automatically in violation of the Landmarks. Note that this doesn't mean that you must say narrow-focus games are "bad", or that narrow-focused games can't be considered appropriate, only that you cannot suggest that gamers don't want to play in RPGs that have a broad spectrum of playstyle, because they obviously do want to play exactly those kinds of games.

I don't think it's that narrowly focused to be honest. I mean yeah it's hyper Asian fantasy whatever that is but with all the setting hacks in the works it will prove to be rather versatile. There is certainly nothing uniquely hyper or Asian about the core resolution mechanic.

5. Conflicts do arise in gaming groups; these conflicts are usually the product of social interaction between the players and not a problem with the rules themselves. The solution to these problems is not to "Narrow the rules", but to broaden the playstyle of a group to accomodate what the complaining players are missing. Thus, it is a Landmark that all correct gaming theories, if they deal with "player dis-satisfaction" at all, must focus the nature of that dissatisfaction on the rules ONLY to suggest that a given rules-set is too narrow; and even then only because it is a symptom of an interpersonal social conflict within a group.

Wait, what?

6. Given point #3, above, any gaming theory that suggest that the GM should get disproportionately more or less power than they do in D&D in order for a game to be "good" is inherently in violation of the Landmarks. The vast majority of players enjoy a game where the GM has power over the world and the players over their characters; and while a theory can suggest ways that GMs and Players can experiment with interactively creating the setting, it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do (except for the "power" to walk away from a game).

I would say the GM has about as much power as in D&D if not more in some aspects. Sure the players get some input over showing up in scenes but the GM can veto that. And while players can influence each other character's emotion matrix rolls (and so can GM) it's neither here nor there. The setting is created by GM alone.

7. Any gaming theory that tries to divide gamers into specific criteria of "types" must make it clear that this is only one kind of categorization, and not an absolutist and literal interpretation that is a universal truth; it is only one form of categorizing gamers.

No types to be seen anywhere.

8. Any theory that suggests, therefore, that its "types" are mutually exclusionary in gaming groups is in violation of the Landmarks. Individual people can end up being mutually exclusive to each other, unable to play in the same group, etc; but that is because of individual personal issues, not because of an issue of playstyle.

See above.

9. Any gaming theory that suggests that a significant element of what many players find entertaining is in fact a "delusion" or unreal, or that the gamers themselves don't know what they're doing or what they're thinking, or what they want from gaming, is in violation of the landmarks.

Jesus fucking Christ it's not written by Ron Edwards okay. Ron Edwards was not yet a "thing" when this game was written. His ideas were not considered by the original authors on account of lacking time machines and/or general interest.

10. Given points #9 and #1, the suggestion that so-called "immersion" is not a real or viable goal in an RPG, or that "genre emulation" is not a viable priority in a game, is in violation of the Landmarks.

None of that shit in TBZ.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193Unless you're going to censor my output here, like they might try to do at other boards, I'll express myself as I see fit. Unless I am in violation of board rules, I will express myself as I see fit.  Of course, feel free to cuss me out and call me wrong, or engage me in debate. That's why I'm here!

Trust me: if I have to tell you something as a mod/admin, you'll know. I'll tell you that much, and you'll be warned. Don't become one of these people who just takes everything as being the threat of a ban. This is not RPGnet here.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193AFAIK, AW is a Storygame RPG and that's that.

Lose the "RPG" part and yes, I agree. AW seems to be a story game. Not a role playing game.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193But, if you're working on you're own design, that is cool.  When you're time frees up, let me know, and I will buy you the PDF.  I'm also interested in how a true-way OSR'er would 'save' TBZ from it's swinish self.

I'm an old-schooler yes, and a gamer. I can't say I'm happy with the way the "OSR" has become this sort of sticker that's put on people's heads according to the type of games they want to play though. Strikes me as cliquish, to be honest.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606193Also, wanna start a thread on what you are working on, or point me to a pre-existing one?  I'm always interested in new RPG work.

I'd love to talk about it of course, but cannot yet.

Quote from: vytzka;606196Holy shit, you're sensitive.

Depends. I'm a big believer in the way a good "fuck you" makes one feel better at times, and I appreciate the RPG Site for being able to get it out of my system when I feel the need for it. This was one of those times.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;606199I'm very interested in this aspect of the game.  I really like how it gives you tools to design new stuff (martial arts, ninja powers, etc) right out of the box.

TBH, except the archetype thing I've mentioned, the other ones (shiki, mecha, mechanica) are just purchase and customize processes. But the rules are flexible and intuitive enough to easily come up with new stuff.

To hit on one part of the Emotion Matrix that people might overlook, yes, people can influence a character's feeling for a character or an NPC when they first choose them, but it's explicitly economic -- "I think it would be cool if you viewed this character as a rival, here's a reward for doing so."  You can turn down the reward.  It's mainly an economic exchange for coolness.  I think it's neat, personally.  But it's certainly not mandatory.