Anyone seen this ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/15/introducing-torchbearer-the-new-indie-dungeon-crawler-from-the-creators-of-burning-wheel/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/15/introducing-torchbearer-the-new-indie-dungeon-crawler-from-the-creators-of-burning-wheel/)
Color me VERY interested.
Bean-Counting the RPG, Limited Character Choice the RPG, Bandwagon the Jumpening RPG.
Take your pick. :D
Intense and clausthrophobic experience the RPG.
I took mine. (At least I hope it ends like that :D )
Reinventing the (Burning) Wheel: the Forgist Resource Management Game.
I quite liked Burning Wheel... really disliked Burning Empires and was kinda meh on Mouse Guard...
I'll be interested to see where this falls on that little spectrum.
Quote from: Piestrio;648998I quite liked Burning Wheel... really disliked Burning Empires and was kinda meh on Mouse Guard...
I'll be interested to see where this falls on that little spectrum.
Supposedly it's based on Mouse Guard which is a big turnoff to me. I played MG a couple of times with my group and absolutely hated it.
Dismissed Mouse Guard on its premise alone (playing with rats? Wtf ?? ), so I dont know how it looks like. Though if the description is accurate, its more a "hardcore survival sim" or something, which sounds cool to me.
I hope it doesnt have abstract mechanics like fate points, etc. And I hope its also not a "storygame" on dungeons.
Edit:
Reading a bit more, it seems a "very low magic" kind of game. No "create food" or "heal wounds" at all. Fuck, this is giving me a fighting fantasy "Deathtrap Dungeon" vine, that grim exploration where even mundane objects like a rope or a torch gets immensely important.
Quote“In Torchbearer,” indie game designer Luke Crane tells me, “you’re a bunch of murder hobos exploring improbable ruins because you can’t get real jobs.”
This is an incredibly succinct way of describing old-school tabletop dungeon crawlers. And that’s exactly what Torchbearer is aiming for—with a twist.
A game of dungeon crawling for all those of you, who never understood dungeon crawling!
D&D Hipster Edition.
QuoteThis is an incredibly succinct way of describing old-school tabletop dungeon crawlers. And that's exactly what Torchbearer is aiming for—with a twist.
Uh, what twist?
It's as if these guys are completely ignorant of Arneson & Gygax's
Dungeons & Dragons, Crowther & Woods'
Colossal Cave Adventure, and 40 years of the history of games!
Or is that merely what they presume of their audience?
Quote from: Rincewind1;649014A game of dungeon crawling for all those of you, who never understood dungeon crawling!
D&D Hipster Edition.
Uber-focused "coherent" resource management reduced to the absurd "what's in my backpack/in my hand right now" for people who really hate D&D but kinda would want to play it while pretending they play the latest Forge "cutting edge design" instead.
Quote from: Benoist;649018Uber-focused "coherent" resource management reduced to the absurd "what's in my backpack/in my hand right now" for people who really hate D&D but kinda would want to play it while pretending they play the latest Forge "cutting edge design" instead.
Or those who wish to engage in such activity "ironically". Henceforth it ought be known as the Hipster's D&D. Surprised he did not invite Heinsoo to help him write another love letter or something.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649014A game of dungeon crawling for all those of you, who never understood dungeon crawling!
I preferred X-Crawl for that sort of thing.
"Why are we raiding this dungeon again?"
"Because it's televised and we're getting prize money for it."
Although, no lie, I would enthusiastically run Dungeon Crawl Classics without hesitation. It's awesome enough to make me overlook Race-As-Class, which I'm really not a fan of.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649021Or those who wish to engage in such activity "ironically".
Yeah that too.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;649023I preferred X-Crawl for that sort of thing.
"Why are we raiding this dungeon again?"
"Because it's televised and we're getting prize money for it."
Although, no lie, I would enthusiastically run Dungeon Crawl Classics without hesitation. It's awesome enough to make me overlook Race-As-Class, which I'm really not a fan of.
Heck, I would actually run/play X-Crawl. The premise IS interesting, though I don't know jackshit about the game beyond that.
DCC RPG is awesome. It deserves to be played. Hard.
Quote from: RicewindOr those who wish to engage in such activity "ironically".
Or those actually interested in an underground survival simulation purged from wargame bullshit idiossincrasies.
Like me. :cool:
Quote from: silva;649026Or those actually interested in an underground survival simulation purged from wargame bullshit idiossincrasies.
Like me. :cool:
LOL. I think you just like to take jabs at "the man" because you resent the fact people might actually like D&D and not bite into whatever you define as "superior role playing". So I detect a strong irony in coming up with this thread in the first place.
Quote from: silva;649026Or those actually interested in an underground survival simulation purged from wargame bullshit idiossincrasies.
Like me. :cool:
I've never allowed a bit of logic to stop me from having a good argument/lynching. And come on, you knew what and where you posted, now take your medicine. ;)
On a more serious note - why not BRP then? You are rather fond of RQ, as I understand, and BRP is just a bit more complicated in places, a bit more simplified version. And for torch rules - just use 1 minute of real time = 1 dungeon minute. Until players declare for a time skip, that's a decent enough abstraction.
Quote from: Benoist;649027LOL. I think you just like to take jabs at "the man" because you resent the fact people might actually like D&D and not bite into whatever you define as "superior role playing". So I detect a strong irony in coming up with this thread in the first place.
Or maybe he wants to discuss a game he's interested in. We're not OS Secret Taliban Base. We may point and laugh, but at least I am also willing to talk. But mostly point and laugh.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;649023I preferred X-Crawl for that sort of thing.
"Why are we raiding this dungeon again?"
"Because it's televised and we're getting prize money for it."
Although, no lie, I would enthusiastically run Dungeon Crawl Classics without hesitation. It's awesome enough to make me overlook Race-As-Class, which I'm really not a fan of.
Heh, I don't like dungeon crawls that much, truth be told. But I neither dislike them - they are just things that I sometimes like to do, but I have other preferences. But they are also quite simple and fun to run, just lengthy to prepare.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649028Or maybe he wants to discuss a game he's interested in. We're not OS Secret Taliban Base. We may point and laugh, but at least I am also willing to talk. But mostly point and laugh.
I don't think we are either, and we shouldn't be: this is the RPG Site, not K&K Aleshouse. But based on silva's usual postings, there is a definite irony in him professing his hate of OS D&D but at the same time being very excited at the idea of playing an "underground survival simulation" because Luke Crane came up with a Forge reductio ad absurdum on the very same theme.
Quote from: Benoist;649030Luke Crane came up with a Forge reductio ad absurdum on the very same theme.
Is that supposed to be the "twist?" I'll believe it when I see it.
I've seen enough over the decades not to see any "reductio ad absurdum" here. Maybe you're reading between the lines on the basis of acquaintance with Mr. Crane's previous work?
Quote from: Rincewind1On a more serious note - why not BRP then? You are rather fond of RQ, as I understand, and BRP is just a bit more complicated in places, a bit more simplified version. And for torch rules - just use 1 minute of real time = 1 dungeon minute. Until players declare for a time skip, that's a decent enough abstraction.
RQ is like a platonic love for me. Conceptually I love it to bits, but in practice I find it a little too complex for my (current adult life) tastes.
Though I aint sure if this game will be on the lighter side of rules than RQ (as I said, dont know Mouse Guard nor Burning Wheel).
Quote from: BenoistI don't think we are either, and we shouldn't be: this is the RPG Site, not K&K Aleshouse. But based on silva's usual postings, there is a definite irony in him professing his hate of OS D&D but at the same time being very excited at the idea of playing an "underground survival simulation" because Luke Crane came up with a Forge reductio ad absurdum on the very same theme.
WTF? I like apples, you guys like oranges. I express my thoughts and you express yours, and we respect each other. I keep frequenting this forum because I like the folks around here. The day I must kiss the foot of a Gygax statue or em obliged to participate in the anti-forge crusade, Im outta here. if you can live with that, good. If not, its your problem, not mine.
Yeah, I love you too. Keep sticking it to the man, dude! :)
What's supposed to be the big deal here?
Note what's where? Holmes ed. Basic D&D.
Everything you wanted to know about spelunking but were afraid to ask? AD&D Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.
That's just a couple of bookends, really. In between, there's a whole lot more, both in p&p and digital.
Quote from: Phillip;649048What's supposed to be the big deal here?
Note what's where? Holmes ed. Basic D&D.
Everything you wanted to know about spelunking but were afraid to ask? AD&D Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.
That's just a couple of bookends, really. In between, there's a whole lot more, both in p&p and digital.
You forget that D&D causes brain damage. That's why the Intellectual Gamer avoids it.
Quote from: silva;648984Anyone seen this ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/15/introducing-torchbearer-the-new-indie-dungeon-crawler-from-the-creators-of-burning-wheel/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/15/introducing-torchbearer-the-new-indie-dungeon-crawler-from-the-creators-of-burning-wheel/)
:rotfl:
Luke Crane: The Whoring.
Quote from: Benoist;648994Reinventing the (Burning) Wheel: the Forgist Resource Management Game.
The parade of gamers who will twist themselves into pretzels rationalising how this is SO MUCH BETTER than
D&D promises to be epic.
Fuckin' storygamers.
Silva, Burning Wheel was more fiddly then RQ6 with the specific systems for Fight!, the Battle of Wits!, and the BITS "we'll mandate roleplaying through mechanics". Mouse Guard simplified it, but kept the BITS really and added the weird seasonal turns to make it seem more like the comic book.
It's a shame they are dumping the Lifepath system, that was the coolest thing about BW.
I may be wrong, but I can't help but see this as a way to both suck up OSR money at the same time as laughing at it. Then again Thor struck me as less of a Forgey narrative guy then Crane, so who knows. Still, based on MG leaves me pretty uninterested. If I wanted to dungeoncrawl full sim I could do it already with Harnmaster, Rolemaster, or RQ6 without a D&Dism in sight.
Quote from: Phillip;649048What's supposed to be the big deal here?
Speaking for myself (I dont know how the game will turn out, its just expectations at this point) I think the big deal is exactly the same people have for a "OSR Shadowrun" - a premise tied to a implementation that do not pleases those people. (Damn, even I am a Shadowrun fan and agree another system can do better for its premise)
D&D wargaming influences always bothered me. If a game can capture the "suffocating" vibe of dungeon crawling with different mechanics (specially ones that promote even more that suffocation) it can be very interesting in my eyes.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649069Silva, Burning Wheel was more fiddly then RQ6 with the specific systems for Fight!, the Battle of Wits!, and the BITS "we'll mandate roleplaying through mechanics". Mouse Guard simplified it, but kept the BITS really and added the weird seasonal turns to make it seem more like the comic book.
Well, thats sad. I dont see myself (or my group) learning and running another complex game nowadays.
Thanks for the info, Krueger.
Silva, you keep mentioning the wargaming roots of D&D, I assume by that you mean Hit Points and Armor Class. Have you ever looked at games like D20 Conan, Judge Dredd or Star Wars that handled them completely differently?
Quote from: Benoist;648994Reinventing the (Burning) Wheel: the Forgist Resource Management Game.
*Chokes* That's great! I fully agree.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649014D&D Hipster Edition.
Hipster D&D? Sign me up.
I tried to read Burning Wheel, once, and my eyes were glazing over by page 2.
In any case, I'd give this (or Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World) a fair shake at the gaming table (as a player, naturally). I'm actually happy that Crane & co. have wised up to the joys of Fantasy Fucking Vietnam and are going about it their own way.
A "conflict log" on the character sheet? Seriously.
:rolleyes:
This should be a blast to watch people sing praises about.
Is burning wheel a game? I thought it was just a character creation simulator.
Quote from: The Traveller;649121Is burning wheel a game? I thought it was just a character creation simulator.
:rotfl:
That's certainly the part of the game that left the best impression on me. :D
(The rest of the game suffered lots from "complicated for complicated's own sake", "weird words used for weirdness' sake" and generally, well, the rules not being that well written. Allthough I did like many of the game's ideas, and even some of the jokes, and vastly prefer it to Mouse Guard (blecchhhh)).
Gotta say this though, the elves and orcs in BW are among the better takes I've seen.
Real pity the rules couldn't be a tiny bit more streamlined, or something.
Quote from: The Ent;649145:rotfl:
That's certainly the part of the game that left the best impression on me. :D
(The rest of the game suffered lots from "complicated for complicated's own sake", "weird words used for weirdness' sake" and generally, well, the rules not being that well written. Allthough I did like many of the game's ideas, and even some of the jokes, and vastly prefer it to Mouse Guard (blecchhhh)).
Gotta say this though, the elves and orcs in BW are among the better takes I've seen.
Real pity the rules couldn't be a tiny bit more streamlined, or something.
:pundit: You seeThe rules are so complicated to weed out those unwashed enough to play and ensure that everyone has the same importance to the plot, and GM can not just kill your fun by taking your character away from you. :pundit:
I thought there already was a game to play when you wanted to pretend to be someone playing D&D (Dungeon World, although the double-dip meta-"humor" of Hackmaster "4e" goes a long way in that direction too).
Quote from: Exploderwizard;649117A "conflict log" on the character sheet? Seriously.
:rolleyes:
This should be a blast to watch people sing praises about.
Yeah, "Angry" and "Afraid" are states just "Exhausted" and "Hungry/Thirsty".
Big Purple weighs in . . .
QuoteInstead of measuring in terms of distance, light sources are measured in terms of how many people they provide illumination for. This is sensible, and a good narrative adaptation. They also burn out in a number of "turns". It seems that "turns" will be the most important method of marking time in the dungeon. I'm guessing that it'll have to do with taking actions in the dungeon. Again, I love the abstraction here. It speaks to a game where the minutiae and boring details aren't there.
QuoteIt harkens back to old days but not in a bad way.
QuoteI now have Dungeon World for my epic story-based tales, so having something else for the other end would be cool.
QuoteEach phase has its own mechanics and dynamics. The heart of the game is the adventure phase, where the players engage with the GM's adventures. Each test you make eats up valuable turns. Once a certain number of turns has passed, you get a condition, starting from the relatively innocuous hungry/thirsty, but spiralling quickly towards serious consequences. It's a race against time, and your equipment and skills are the only things that will get you out alive.
QuoteStuff like this is exactly what I want from a dungeon crawler. I wonder, though – how is death handled? Is there a real danger of not coming back out of the hole? The descriptions so far sure make it sound so, and dungeon crawling needs real danger, I think.
QuoteI was looking at the character sheet, going "wait, so you have to carouse and make use of your loot before you level up?" This makes a lot more sense.
:rotfl:
Oh, and the best for last.
QuoteI'm so happy Thor and Luke are making a game that scratches the other D&D itch for me. We wrote Dungeon World to be narrative-driven dungeon adventure and Torchbearer is all inventory management and time-tension. It's fantastic, because now I can play either kind of D&D and be assured a good time. Well, as much as any rule set can assure anything, anyway.
Got that? Two different games that ape
D&D so that he could enjoy playing
D&D.
How far up their own asses have these guys crawled?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649206Big Purple weighs in . . .
? So I could have a torch that works for up to 5 people even if those people are in a 15 meter spread?
That makes no sense. And who the hell wants to keep track of hunger on a by turn basis? Did you have rations for food today? Yes? OK, move on. What next, keeping track of unshaven status and crotch rot progression on an hourly basis?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649206How far up their own asses have these guys crawled?
But, but, it has
turns.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649213But, but, it has turns.
"Keeping track of time in the dungeon (or on any other type of adventure) is sometimes difficult, but it is at least as important as the accurate recording of time in the campaign. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the standard time breakdown is ten one-minute rounds to the turn, and six turns to the hour. All referees should keep a side record of time on a separate sheet of paper, marking off the turns as they pass (melees or other actions which result in fractional turns should be rounded up to make complete turns)." - 1e
AD&D DMG, p. 38, sub-head "TIME IN THE DUNGEON"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;649212That makes no sense. And who the hell wants to keep track of hunger on a by turn basis? Did you have rations for food today? Yes? OK, move on. What next, keeping track of unshaven status and crotch rot progression on an hourly basis?
I'm always careful to make sure my PC's crotch is shaven before entering the dungeon. No rot grubs.
Quote from: KenHR;649219I'm always careful to make sure my PC's crotch is shaven before entering the dungeon. No rot grubs.
Should go and post that in the "Adventurer's Advice" thread.
"Always shave your crotch before entering dungeon"
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649217"Keeping track of time in the dungeon (or on any other type of adventure) is sometimes difficult, but it is at least as important as the accurate recording of time in the campaign. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the standard time breakdown is ten one-minute rounds to the turn, and six turns to the hour. All referees should keep a side record of time on a separate sheet of paper, marking off the turns as they pass (melees or other actions which result in fractional turns should be rounded up to make complete turns)." - 1e AD&D DMG, p. 38, sub-head "TIME IN THE DUNGEON"
Indeed! The bit you quoted seemed to me that the guy thought it was some radical new idea. I have no idea where some people have been gaming all these years sometimes.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649222Indeed! The bit you quoted seemed to me that the guy thought it was some radical new idea. I have no idea where some people have been gaming all these years sometimes.
I think the more important question is, why one of the most...minutiae, obvious and unnecessary rule, is suddenly hailed as some great feature. Most of the time you can just measure the time "in general". Playing an RPG is not working in a pharmacy, if you steal or add 3 to 10 minutes of a spell time outside of combat because you noted the passage of time "in general" rather than tick by tick, nobody will die in real life.
If time plays an important role in my game, I just grab a chicken egg timer.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649222Indeed! The bit you quoted seemed to me that the guy thought it was some radical new idea. I have no idea where some people have been gaming all these years sometimes.
I'd like to know how many people singing this game's praises also derided the "You cannot have a meaningful campaign unless strict time records are kept" passage in the DMG.
Quote from: KenHR;649219I'm always careful to make sure my PC's crotch is shaven before entering the dungeon.
Real adventurers go Brazilian.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649222I have no idea where some people have been gaming all these years sometimes.
Y'know, hanging out on forums can be really revealing. That
DW asshat aside, I'm at a point where I can actually understand how this might sound 'new' to some gamers. Even gamers who played 1e often didn't read or understand many - hell, MOST - of the rules in the game; they used a bit of Basic, a bit of
AD&D, and a lot of improvisation to smooth it all out.
If nothing else, I've learned how my experiences and expectations differ - sometimes profoundly and fundamentally - from other gamers. If this helps them get their dungeon crawl on, Gawd bless 'em and I hope they carry enough torches to make it back to daylight.
That won't stop me from mocking them a little bit, though.
Quote from: KenHR;649226I'd like to know how many people singing this game's praises also derided the "You cannot have a meaningful campaign unless strict time records are kept" passage in the DMG.
I suspect a great many people who are interested in this game have no experience whatsoever with gaming in (or from) that era.
Time measurement, resource tracking, tough decisions about what to take or leave, and death that occurs even when narratively inappropriate are new concepts to a surprising number of gamers.
I'm pretty sure 70s TSR D&D-esque rpg Empire of the Petal Throne had rules abstracting light sources into how many adventurers they supply with light.
It just goes to prove that the VAST majority of the game's critics don't know what they are talking about, either because they've never read and/or played it in the first place, or it was so long ago that they forgot pretty much everything they thought they knew at the time to substitute it with some heavily biased stereotype thereof.
I'm banned from TBP, but how much you wanna bet if you replied in that that thread, "Wow, just like what I've been playing this whole time with AD&D", you'd get sanctioned for threadcapping?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;649232I'm banned from TBP, but how much you wanna bet if you replied in that that thread, "Wow, just like what I've been playing this whole time with AD&D", you'd get sanctioned for threadcapping?
There is no bookie in the world naive enough to take that bet.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;649228Time measurement, resource tracking, tough decisions about what to take or leave, and death that occurs even when narratively inappropriate are new concepts to a surprising number of gamers.
If they don't want to wait on
Torchbearer, I know another game they could try in the meantime. Here's a sample . . .
Quote from: 1e AD&D DMG, p. 225, sub-head "APPENDIX O: ENCUMBRANCE OF STANDARD ITEMS"As an example, Dimwall the magic-user and Drudge the fighter have prepared for a dungeon expedition. Dimwall, besides his normal clothing, has strapped on a belt with a large pouch on it. Into this and his robe, he tucks his material components (minimal encumbrance). He also places in his pouch a potion bottle, a mirror, some garlic and belladonna, and his tinderbox. At his right side hangs a dagger and sheath and four more daggers are on a bandolier slung across his chest. Over all these belts, he puts his backpack. In his pack goes a hand axe (for chopping, not fighting), 3 flasks of oil, a candle, 3 small sacks, 1 large sack, and 7 torches. lashed in a bundle to the pack is 50' of rope. At his left side, hanging from his belt, are a leather scroll case and his purse, filled with 20 gold pieces. He holds a staff in his right hand and a torch in his left. He is now ready to travel, with a total encumbrance of 689 g.p.
Meanwhile, his companion, Drudge, has strapped on his splint armor. He wears 2 belts around his waist; his longsword hangs from one. On the other belt he places his quiver with 40 bolts, a cocking hook, and a dagger. He slips on his backpack, already loaded with 10 spikes, one week's iron rations, and a flask of oil. To the bottom of the pack he has strapped 50' of rope. Hanging on the rear of the pack i s his heavy crossbow. Around his neck he wears a holy symbol. Finally, he straps his large shield on his left arm, fits his helmet, and takes his lantern, ready to go with a total encumbrance of 1117 g.p.
During their adventures, Dimwall and Drudge find 800 gold pieces in a troll's treasure horde. Dimwall can carry 400 gold pieces in his large sack and another 300 gold pieces in his small sacks. Dimwall leaves his torches and staff, since he must have his hands free. Then he fastens a small sack to his belt and, using two hands, carries the large sack over his shoulder. Drudge eats part of his iron rations and throws the rest away, along with his spikes and oil. He places the remaining bags in the bottom of his pack and then pours the loose coins on top of them. Encumbrance for Dimwall is now 889 gold pieces and 1222 gold pieces for Drudge.
As they leave, Dimwall and Drudge meet the troll. There is little time to react, so Drudge must quickly drop his lantern (possibly putting it out) and attack. As he does this, Dimwall must drop the large sack (probably scattering coins about), unsling his pack, and start digging for his oil. By the time he finds it, the troll may have killed them both!
:)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;649228I suspect a great many people who are interested in this game have no experience whatsoever with gaming in (or from) that era.
Time measurement, resource tracking, tough decisions about what to take or leave, and death that occurs even when narratively inappropriate are new concepts to a surprising number of gamers.
It's just striking me as funny because that passage in particular was a focal point of derision aimed at AD&D back in the day at RPGnet...I think even before it was purple.
Forgist or not, it made Forbes. That's a good sign from a sales perspective, even if it pisses off the old guard.
Quote from: KenHR;649238It's just striking me as funny because that passage in particular was a focal point of derision aimed at AD&D back in the day at RPGnet...I think even before it was purple.
Shit goes in cycles.
This game might make old school dungeon crawling cool again for the kids.
....and then soon after that be mocked yet again when the next fad du jour comes along.
Quote from: KenHR;649238It's just striking me as funny because that passage in particular was a focal point of derision aimed at AD&D back in the day at RPGnet...I think even before it was purple.
In all fairness, most of those old posters don't post very much anymore. It's like the circle of life. The new crew of people aren't old enough to have played AD&D and only believe it's this horrible thing because that's what they were told, and in funny irony, a "new" game comes out they all love that has many of the same things that AD&D had.
Lesson: Don't hate or love something just because your "elders" told you so. Experience it for yourself or at least read it first.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649156:pundit: You seeThe rules are so complicated to weed out those unwashed enough to play and ensure that everyone has the same importance to the plot, and GM can not just kill your fun by taking your character away from you. :pundit:
:rotfl:
Well it's better do those things. I mean the (nice) character creation rules can let me make say a baker* w/o either fighting, stealth/thief, Magic or people skills while players B, C and D make a Knight, a wizard and a superbadass elf...my character
better be as important!!! Especially considering the combat system...
*=or better yet, an ex-slave ex-PoW leper who's not good at
anything :D
Quote from: Exploderwizard;649242Shit goes in cycles.
This game might make old school dungeon crawling cool again for the kids.
....and then soon after that be mocked yet again when the next fad du jour comes along.
To me, RPGs and storygames focused mostly and/or purely on dungeoncrawling are a bit redundant. D&D and RQ handles that well enough, and Descent and Diablo/various Nethack variants really squeeze most of what's left in the genre as it is. It's beating a dead horse, and there are plenty of other venues to be mined.
When was last one "realistic" post - apocalyptic rpg? I'd like to see would be a new Post Apocalyptic RPG, with decent mechanics and which wouldn't be funny & zanny in the Mutants Riding Rocket Elephants On Highways, but like Fallout or Postman - gritty world where man fights another man while rebuilding society, with also decent amount of black and normal humour. I feel like there haven't been really a new PA Rpg in this vain for quite some time. I'm using BRP for my needs right now, but I would not be impartial to some cleaned - up version of Fallout RPG. The Sawyer's version is so fiddly you may just shrug and grab Aftermath! while you're at it - it's more fiddly, yeah, but fiddleness fits better all in all.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649248What I'd like to see would be a new Post Apocalyptic RPG, with decent mechanics and which wouldn't be funny & zanny in the Mutants Riding Rocket Elephants On Highways, but like Fallout or Postman - gritty world where man fights another man while rebuilding society, with also decent amount of black and normal humour. I feel like there haven't been really a new PA Rpg in this vain for quite some time. I'm using BRP for my needs right now, but I would not be impartial to some cleaned - up version of Fallout RPG.
Other Dust.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;649240Forgist or not, it made Forbes.
Yes that caught my attention too, but it's not in any kind of a prominent position on the site as far as I can see, rather some backroom personal blog thing. Still, Forbes is pretty good, there are lessons to be learned from this.
Incidentally from a thread a while back I couldn't pick up any shared narrative mechanics in DW, so are they now making fairly standard issue RPGs and calling them storygames - instead of making shared narrative games and calling them RPGs?
It's like some sort of a mental Möbius strip.
Quote from: The Ent;649249Other Dust.
Seeing as it's for SWN, I assume it's also retro - D&D mechanics based? I personally find D&D mechanics to be best fit for D&D (so a general mash - up of fantasy stuff), some high fantasy action and some sword & sorcery stuff. I am not a big fan of levels & hitpoints, at least not in D&D style. I found SWN interesting, but not my cup of coffee because of the retro D&D stuff.
Quote from: The Traveller;649250Yes that caught my attention too, but it's not in any kind of a prominent position on the site as far as I can see, rather some backroom personal blog thing. Still, Forbes is pretty good, there are lessons to be learned from this.
Incidentally from a thread a while back I couldn't pick up any shared narrative mechanics in DW, so are they now making fairly standard issue RPGs and calling them storygames - instead of making shared narrative games and calling them RPGs?
It's like some sort of a mental Möbius strip.
I am quite torn between my dislike of heavily - narrativist RPGs (I like RPGs with light genre emulation/literary narration mechanics - such as Warhammer & Call of Cthulhu, who feature such mechanics to enforce the feel of the game/genre emulation), and a human wish for personal success. Crane's got good press - he avoided most of the indie bollocks war, he did not commit such foolishness as Foul Ole Ron did, he's going back and forth to every convention he can get his hands on, and he understands the exposure of his systems - PA gave him good free advertising in his strips.
On the latter issue - actually it's a bit of a no. See, because normally keeping precious track of all those torches and emotions would be such a pain, that the only way to execute such a notion effectively is with narrativist mechanics. So it's still the same old story.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;649240. . . even if it pisses off the old guard.
Why would you even begin to imagine anyone would be 'pissed' about this?
Mordantly amused at the fawning faddishness of it? Definitely. But 'pissed?' What the fuck would I have to be pissed about?
Quote from: Rincewind1;649253Seeing as it's for SWN, I assume it's also retro - D&D mechanics based? I personally find D&D mechanics to be best fit for D&D (so a general mash - up of fantasy stuff), some high fantasy action and some sword & sorcery stuff. I am not a big fan of levels & hitpoints, at least not in D&D style. I found SWN interesting, but not my cup of coffee because of the retro D&D stuff.
I see, then I won't try to push it :D (Other Dust is basically SWN except post-apoc - they're 100% compatible, essentially the same game with different classes, mutations, monsters, etc).
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;649240Forgist or not, it made Forbes. That's a good sign from a sales perspective, even if it pisses off the old guard.
Pissed off? Dude I think it's fucking hilarious.
Imagine going to the beach and taking a friend. Before you get there, that friend dons a bathing cap, noseclips, enough sunblock to survive a gamma ray burst, goggles, fins, water-wings and a life jacket, then sits under a beach umbrella the whole time and when you ask him when he's going to get in the water he looks at you like you've lost your mind and says "
In the
water? Are you
brain damaged? There's no fun to be had in that! I just wanted the
experience of being a beach-goer."
Wouldn't you think that was a laugh riot? 'cause I sure would, and that's what the guys who designed this game and people who'll play it are doing. :D
Oh! Almost forgot, for the Goons: GRAR YOU DON'T TAKE ELFGAMES SERIOUSLY ENOUGH GRAR ME BIG MEAN GROGNARD GRAR!!!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649255Why would you even begin to imagine anyone would be 'pissed' about this?
Mordantly amused at the fawning faddishness of it? Definitely. But 'pissed?' What the fuck would I have to be pissed about?
It's the internet. When you say "fuck" people point the finger and tell you how angry you surely are.
The level of effete snobbery in this thread has reach such great heights that Al Gore called, he wants his schtick back.
Seriously, I had no awareness of this game before, but this asinine overreaction has piqued my interest. If douche-bags are salivating this much to demonstrate their superiority over this product and everyone and thing involved with it, maybe it does have something to offer after all.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649253Crane's got good press - he avoided most of the indie bollocks war, he did not commit such foolishness as Foul Ole Ron did, he's going back and forth to every convention he can get his hands on, and he understands the exposure of his systems - PA gave him good free advertising in his strips.
I don't really think about that stuff, products succeed or fail on their own merits and it doesn't bother me if the author is a nice guy or an unconscionable bastard. :D Although I do draw a line when you're talking about things like maid. Ick.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649253On the latter issue - actually it's a bit of a no. See, because normally keeping precious track of all those torches and emotions would be such a pain, that the only way to execute such a notion effectively is with narrativist mechanics. So it's still the same old story.
Well I was more talking about DW. It's like watching the evolution of RPGs all over again in a microcosm.
First you start out with shared narrative games which are much more closely related to old school wargames than RPGs, then you have people bringing out something much closer to RPGs and calling them shared narrative games, without any of the distinguishing features of shared narrative games.
Quote from: Mistwell;649263The level of effete snobbery in this thread has reach such great heights that Al Gore called, he wants his schtick back.
Seriously, I had no awareness of this game before, but this asinine overreaction has piqued my interest. If douche-bags are salivating this much to demonstrate their superiority over this product and everyone and thing involved with it, maybe it does have something to offer after all.
By all means! Knock yourself out!
Quote from: Mistwell;649263The level of effete snobbery in this thread has reach such great heights that Al Gore called, he wants his schtick back.
Amazing isn't it?
At its core, it seems that they've taken some basic concepts the designer thought interesting and built what looks to be nicely focused mechanics to represent them.
The result doesn't sound like anything I'd be remotely interested in, but I don't see any reason to break out the pitchforks and torches over it. But this crowd loves them some pitchforks and torches for anything not OSR.
Fuck, I've got no emotion invested in this shit. It's gaming. I've got better things in which to invest my emotion.
I just think it's funny that the effete snobs at RPGnet are enchanted by exactly the sort of thing they thought was repugnant last week.
RIF
Quote from: thedungeondelver;649259Oh! Almost forgot, for the Goons: GRAR YOU DON'T TAKE ELFGAMES SERIOUSLY ENOUGH GRAR ME BIG MEAN GROGNARD GRAR!!!
Don't call pigs from the forest ;).
(http://cdn.jointherealm.com/sigil/24ba9a1e-7b55-44c2-9ca6-4f02f53db790_1366921427_thumb_s.png)
Quote from: Mistwell;649263The level of effete snobbery in this thread has reach such great heights that Al Gore called, he wants his schtick back.
Seriously, I had no awareness of this game before, but this asinine overreaction has piqued my interest. If douche-bags are salivating this much to demonstrate their superiority over this product and everyone and thing involved with it, maybe it does have something to offer after all.
You know Mistwell, for the Lady of the Lake to appear and allow you to drink from the Holy Grail of Gilles de Breton, you need to ride out on the actual quest. "Monsters" defeated on the Internet don't count for the Quest, I'm afraid.
(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2050523_99060203110_BretQuestKnight1_445x319.jpg)
Quote from: The Traveller;649265I don't really think about that stuff, products succeed or fail on their own merits and it doesn't bother me if the author is a nice guy or an unconscionable bastard. :D Although I do draw a line when you're talking about things like maid. Ick.
Well I'm of a different mind on the last piece - if a game tackles problematic issues, but is well done and interesting, I may be interested. I despise controversy for controversy's sake though.
QuoteWell I was more talking about DW. It's like watching the evolution of RPGs all over again in a microcosm.
First you start out with shared narrative games which are much more closely related to old school wargames than RPGs, then you have people bringing out something much closer to RPGs and calling them shared narrative games, without any of the distinguishing features of shared narrative games.
That's something I'd agree actually - I mean AW is really a more interactive Choose Your Own Adventure book from players perspective, and provides for a GM who's afraid to take the training wheel's off from his RPG
Quote from: gleichman;649270Amazing isn't it?
At its core, it seems that they've taken some basic concepts the designer thought interesting and built what looks to be nicely focused mechanics to represent them.
The result doesn't sound like anything I'd be remotely interested in, but I don't see any reason to break out the pitchforks and torches over it. But this crowd loves them some pitchforks and torches for anything not OSR.
When I am sometimes foolish enough to click the "view post" thing, I start to believe more and more that
1) If Forge did not exist, we would need to invent it and
2) You use/used to despise Ron Edwards not because you disagree with him, but because he got there first and you can't forgive him that.
We're sorry that we find a notion of using a protractor for better RPG silly and laughable. I'm sure there is a forum dedicated to protractors, where such notions won't be ridiculed.
Quote from: Benoist;649268By all means! Knock yourself out!
RPGsite's Seal of Disapproval?
Quote from: Rincewind1;6492721) If Forge did not exist, we would need to invent it.
That's one of the best things I've seen posted this month, seriously.
Quote from: KenHR;649271I just think it's funny that the effete snobs at RPGnet are enchanted by exactly the sort of thing they thought was repugnant last week.
I think it's rather clear that what that game does is significantly different mechanically than what D&D does. That they've rejected the D&D method and selected one of their own is the cause for the of disgust here- not the actual play.
Personally if I was to do it all, I'd rather do it their way instead of the OSR 'wave the fairy wand' and call it done method. Theirs almost sounds fun.
Quote from: Mistwell;649263The level of effete snobbery in this thread has reach such great heights that Al Gore called, he wants his schtick back.
Seriously, I had no awareness of this game before, but this asinine overreaction has piqued my interest. If douche-bags are salivating this much to demonstrate their superiority over this product and everyone and thing involved with it, maybe it does have something to offer after all.
(http://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/white-knight.jpeg)
Quote from: KenHR;649271I just think it's funny that the effete snobs at RPGnet are enchanted by exactly the sort of thing they thought was repugnant last week.
*
ding!*
To be honest? I might check Torchbearer out myself. Well if the skill/xp system is more intuitive than Burning Wheel's. Nowhere near believing I'd love or Even play it but - I'm a system junkie. :D
Quote from: Rincewind1;6492722) You use/used to despise Ron Edwards not because you disagree with him, but because he got there first and you can't forgive him that.
Oh I disgree with him. It just so happens that I also disagree with most of this entire board as well. I'm that excluded middle everyone talks about but fails to actually understand.
The thing that ixnays it for me is
1. No Lifepath system, the best thing from Burning Wheel.
2. The highly abtract and metagamey Phase System from Mouse Guard looks like it made it in.
3. The way the turns, lighting, resources, mental mechanics are shaping up, it looks like a game where anything that in something like Hero or Harnmaster would be somehow a simulation, in this game is abstracted for the purposes of narrative metagame.
In other words, it's not a game where you roleplay a dungeoncrawler, it's a narrative game about dungeoncrawlers.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649272You know Mistwell, for the Lady of the Lake to appear and allow you to drink from the Holy Grail of Gilles de Breton, you need to ride out on the actual quest. "Monsters" defeated on the Internet don't count for the Quest, I'm afraid.
(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2050523_99060203110_BretQuestKnight1_445x319.jpg)
You couldn't even be bothered to find one wearing entirely white armor? Pshaw. Come on man. Here, these are a bit better:
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110626032951/uncyclopedia/images/e/e5/Knights-in-white-satin-moody-blues.gif)(http://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/white-knight.jpeg)
Quote from: gleichman;649281Oh I disgree with him. It just so happens that I also disagree with most of this entire board as well. I'm that excluded middle everyone talks about but fails to actually understand.
Going by your posts:
You are no middle.
You are an extremist as well, and from what I remember, quite an elitist (now you remark how snobby we are, but you act quite snobbier than we do in 99% of your posts), but I'll give you that - you disagree with him quite a lot. But I have a glaring notion that you'd reach similar conclusions as he did, just from a different path. So what you represent is neither A nor B, but C. But not the middle. A man who speaks about the absolute value of miniatures and the importance of literature emulation, is not the middle.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649282The thing that ixnays it for me is
1. No Lifepath system, the best thing from Burning Wheel.
2. The highly abtract and metagamey Phase System from Mouse Guard looks like it made it in.
3. The way the turns, lighting, resources, mental mechanics are shaping up, it looks like a game where anything that in something like Hero or Harnmaster would be somehow a simulation, in this game is abstracted for the purposes of narrative metagame.
In other words, it's not a game where you roleplay a dungeoncrawler, it's a narrative game about dungeoncrawlers.
Well yeah those are strikes against it.
A kinda meta game about dungeoncrawlers
could be fun mind, but only as a break from other Games (like once a Year or something).
Quote from: The Ent;649287Well yeah those are strikes against it.
A kinda meta game about dungeoncrawlers could be fun mind, but only as a break from other Games (like once a Year or something).
I sort of view this like the Outdoor Survival board game, A Game About Wilderness Skills (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1511/outdoor-survival), which OD&D used as it's wilderness map and endorsed some rules for outdoor exploration and survival.
This, to me, is sort of a mini-game of Dungeon Survival, A Game About Dungeon Skills. Torches, encumbrance, bulk fitting through tight spaces, food, water, shelter, all that stuff becomes the focus rather than the side-issues of the adventure.
I might play it once or twice, sort of like I'd play Outdoor Survival once or twice.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649282The way the turns, lighting, resources, mental mechanics are shaping up, it looks like a game where anything that in something like Hero or Harnmaster would be somehow a simulation, in this game is abstracted for the purposes of narrative metagame.
The whole belief and instincts together with the dice pool kills it for me. Well, a lot of things kill it for me.
However I saw nothing there that would prevent me from role-playing a character- only those things that would make the character one I wouldn't want to role-play.
Quote from: Mistwell;649289This, to me, is sort of a mini-game of Dungeon Survival, A Game About Dungeon Skills. Torches, encumbrance, bulk fitting through tight spaces, food, water, shelter, all that stuff becomes the focus rather than the side-issues of the adventure.
Seems an narrow thing to focus on doesn't it? I think this likely reflects the swapping of roles between designer and author, Crane wasn't so focused on a single aspect as this seems to be.
Plus I noted an air of condescension about the whole thing with the murder hoboo part phrase indicating it's more of a parody than not. Of course the subject is worth a parody or two, but I doubt it will be funny. The subject just doesn't seem fun as really they're focused on the more depressing and boring elements of the concept.
Quote from: gleichman;649275I think it's rather clear that what that game does is significantly different mechanically than what D&D does. That they've rejected the D&D method and selected one of their own is the cause for the of disgust here- not the actual play.
Personally if I was to do it all, I'd rather do it their way instead of the OSR 'wave the fairy wand' and call it done method. Theirs almost sounds fun.
This.
Sold.
Burning Wheel has powered some very memorable gaming moments at my table as has Mouse Guard.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649272Don't call pigs from the forest ;)
I shouldn't worry about it, some dastardly character dropped a lit cigarette in the forest and now all that's left is the deeelicious smell of roasted long pig, mon.
Quote from: silva;649300This.
A good rule of thumb is, if you find yourself agreeing with Gleichman it's time to take a long hard look in the mirror. No offence, Gleichman.
Quote from: The Traveller;649304A good rule of thumb is, if you find yourself agreeing with Gleichman it's time to take a long hard look in the mirror. No offence, Gleichman.
I would think making up flat lies about a person and spreading them would be a greater cause to look in the mirror Traveller- but you seem to have skipped that completely resolving that hate is warm enough at night.
I like that better actually, the world needs petty evils such as yours so we are reminded where the large ones come from.
Quote from: The Traveller;649304I shouldn't worry about it, some dastardly character dropped a lit cigarette in the forest and now all that's left is the deeelicious smell of roasted long pig, mon.
I'm not your mon, lad. I'd not be that swift to scratch it all off - how can you kill that which has no life?
In other news: So I think we are slowly reaching conclusion that this will be a heavily narrative D&D for all those who hate/dislike D&D?
Still on ignore brian.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649308how can you kill that which has no life?
Touché.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649308D&D for all those who hate/dislike D&D?
Isn't that what pretty much all these variants have been over the years? /sarcasm ;) :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;649073Silva, you keep mentioning the wargaming roots of D&D, I assume by that you mean Hit Points and Armor Class. Have you ever looked at games like D20 Conan, Judge Dredd or Star Wars that handled them completely differently?
Actually I did. But, while I found some good things about them, in the end theyre still too rooted on the war/board/videogamey elements of their parents - classes & levels, unrealistic/faery tale lethality, too much focus on tactical combats and monsters and powers, etc (I think the keyword here is "gamism"). Besides that, at least in Conan case, I cant erase the sensation that its one more attempt at shoehorning a setting/fiction in a system that do not fits it, a pattern I never liked in D&D.
Luke Crane is an interesting designer. If you like scifi RPGs, Burning Empires is a really great toolbox of ideas and subsystems even if you never use the game. I have been wanting to run Burning Empires with Traveller for some time because it would be rocking. There are great ideas in that book.
And hell, Luke should have damn well done a Traveller version. It would have expanded his audience tenfold.
I think that Torchbearer just might be full of interesting stuff for my OD&D games too. I like the emphasis on exploration. I like how the emphasis isn't heroes, but desperate men sneaking into dark holes.
However, I think Luke has missed his calling. He should not be making RPGs, he should be making hybrid RPG/boardgames or hybrid RPG/card games. In his zeal to confine RPGs, he is missing the benefits of those other game mediums.
I would be so much more interested in Torchbearer: the Boardgame, and I think much of the Butthurt Brigade over here would actually enjoy such a boardgame.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649308In other news: So I think we are slowly reaching conclusion that this will be a heavily narrative D&D for all those who hate/dislike D&D?
I hope thats not the case. I would like to see a Runequest-like grittiness but with a lighter and simpler system, more or less like what Unknown Armies did with CoC.
(except if you consider Unknown Armies a narrative game)
Quote from: SpinachcatI would be so much more interested in Torchbearer: the Boardgame, and I think much of the Butthurt Brigade over here would actually enjoy such a boardgame.
That would be awesome.
Quote from: silva;649312classes & levels, unrealistic/faery tale lethality, too much focus on tactical combats and monsters and powers
DW and AW use many of these too.
Quote from: silva;649314(except if you consider Unknown Armies a narrative game)
Considering it came out in 1998, not likely.
Quote from: gleichman;649297Seems an narrow thing to focus on doesn't it? I think this likely reflects the swapping of roles between designer and author, Crane wasn't so focused on a single aspect as this seems to be.
Plus I noted an air of condescension about the whole thing with the murder hoboo part phrase indicating it's more of a parody than not. Of course the subject is worth a parody or two, but I doubt it will be funny. The subject just doesn't seem fun as really they're focused on the more depressing and boring elements of the concept.
Probably. But, it might be fun to get that level of simulation going from exploring a dungeon...to get an even better sense for the desperate danger of engaging in that environment just from the time spent in it. A couple times. Maybe.
Quote from: silva;649314I hope thats not the case. I would like to see a Runequest-like grittiness but with a lighter and simpler system, more or less like what Unknown Armies did with CoC.
(except if you consider Unknown Armies a narrative game)
Not much more than I consider CoC a narrative game. I do not consider such things as Fate Points or Sanity Points as "narrative taboo bollocks" - such tools, while bordering between fully IC and a bit of an OOC meter, are necessary for good emulation. You could add a stat called "Dedication" in D&D, since that's what the game is often about - people going into the dark and dangerous place, motivated by their greed, ambition, helpfulness, zeal, belief, etc. etc, and they are trying to get those riches and defeat those monsters, to get somewhere in life - henceforth the higher their dedication, the more hitpoints under -10 they could live, for example. Or you could burn these points for a reroll. Or you may not use it at all - see, what I like about the "toolbox" games, is that you can often just throw some stuff out, or throw some stuff in, and it still all clicks. A lot of storygames or heavily narrative RPGs feel that if I take some stuff out, I'll be left with a hollow shell.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649313I would be so much more interested in Torchbearer: the Boardgame, and I think much of the Butthurt Brigade over here would actually enjoy such a boardgame.
I probably would, if it was a board game! And I love how you brave defenders mistake us for this guy:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScsMiSKbPjffGWY2Ot_2S0sVoiB3ItETerXW5gRaJsRxN0J8DpcQ)
While we're really these :
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2XNvRqsArxqkw3yOAO94E-dHgRriMdeOiDskMw8ld0gssWDJmow)
But if you have that much of a problem with people taking shots at your liked performer...perhaps you need to call...the Frogfather?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnC4_DKtYWc
Best Muppets parody ever, in my opinion.
I have a hard time calling the Burning Wheel a Story game. The game has very few force narrative mechanics. While Mouse Guard and Burning Empires has more narrative control, making both Story Games, I found Burning Wheel to be very traditional. I ran a Sandbox Burning Wheel not too long ago, and it played nothing like a story game.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649313I have been wanting to run Burning Empires with Traveller for some time because it would be rocking. There are great ideas in that book.
Traveller is cited by Christopher Moeller as one of the inspirations for
Iron Empires, so using
Traveller to run the universe of
Burning Empires which was inspired by
Traveller has a pleasantly ourobouros feel about it.
Quote from: Mistwell;649318Probably. But, it might be fun to get that level of simulation going from exploring a dungeon...to get an even better sense for the desperate danger of engaging in that environment just from the time spent in it. A couple times. Maybe.
Not for me. I tried an old fashion dungeon crawl a while back as a sort of 'way-back machine' for my group- so boring, we didn't even make it through the first sesson.
Running out of light and dying from hunger or the cold would not improve that experience. Unless we actually ran out of light and died from hunger or the cold in the real world, that would make it just a bit better.
Quote from: Benoist;649311Isn't that what pretty much all these variants have been over the years? /sarcasm ;) :D
Don't that have 4e for that?
Quote from: The Traveller;649317DW and AW use many of these too.
..while swapping the archaic wargamey number crunching by rules that tap directly to the in-game fiction.
QuoteI would be so much more interested in Torchbearer: the Boardgame, and I think much of the Butthurt Brigade over here would actually enjoy such a boardgame.
Interesting, thats what Ive always thought about D&D.
(that is, until I actually played Baldurs Gates and saw how crap its tactical combat gameplay was, and went running back to Jagged Alliance, UFO and Rainbow Six)
Quote from: silva;649329..while swapping the archaic wargamey number crunching by rules that tap directly to the in-game fiction.
No offence, but I don't see how crunching the number of torches and rations is better than crunching the numbers of gold pieces I can carry.
I found the abstract system from LotFP, once I've improved it a bit to my needs (that is, OSRIC/AD&D stats rather than 0e ones), fitting me just perfectly when it comes to D&D. Think I might've even posted them on this forum somewhere.
Quote from: silva;649329..while swapping the archaic wargamey number crunching by rules that tap directly to the in-game fiction.
No, they just substitute tables for number crunching. Tables are an easy to use interpretation of number crunching, remember. And 'archaic' games use plenty of tables too.
It's as I said, the shared narrative community are slowly, painfully, working themselves round to the conclusions that everyone else reached in the 70s.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649331No offence, but I don't see how crunching the number of torches and rations is better than crunching the numbers of gold pieces I can carry.
I found the abstract system from LotFP, once I've improved it a bit to my needs (that is, OSRIC/AD&D stats rather than 0e ones), fitting me just perfectly when it comes to D&D. Think I might've even posted them on this forum somewhere.
I think you got it wrong. I was referring to Apocalypse World. In Torchbearer case, I think the inventory/reources number crunching may work better.
QuoteNo, they just substitute tables for number crunching. Tables are an easy to use interpretation of number crunching, remember. And 'archaic' games use plenty of tables too.
Youre half-right. The right part is that yes, they use tables. The wrong part is that, differently from the old games that use tables for finding out results, Apocalypse World use tables for choices.
Quote from: silva;649335I think you got it wrong. I was referring to Apocalypse World. In Torchbearer case, I think the inventory/reources number crunching may work better.
Ironic that you mention it, because for me, after some deliberation amidst my year of wondering, while drinking heavily, I had come to a realisation that Apocalypse World's mechanics are, as I said, basically a bit more complicated and "ending - less" Choose - Your - Own - Adventure book. You have preset outcomes of your rolls, you roll better you choose more of those outcomes - the only difference is that you/GM describe the paragraph, rather than just read it out loud. So to me, AW is more archaic in it's design than the older RPGs.
Traveller, to come back to one of your earlier posts - you perhaps may not care about the creator when buying the product. I, in 95%, do neither. But quite a lot of people do. It is important to have a good press, and I think we've both seen people destroyed or coming under heavy fire because of a charge, whether real or trumpeted.
Quote from: silva;649335Youre half-right. The right part is that yes, they use tables. The wrong part is that, differently from the old games that use tables for finding out results, Apocalypse World use tables for choices.
In your haste to disdain 'archaic' games you completely overlooked that the current shared narrative darlings are basically exactly the same. No, not basically, they are by any objective measure exactly the same.
I mean what, do you think designers put tables into 'archaic' games for the good of their health? No, they were put in there to enable choices, aka finding out results. DW doesn't enable narrative gaming, it doesn't have a narrative bone in its body.
Give it up, embrace roleplaying. :D
Yup, exactly.
Maybe thats the reason I like it. I loooove those archaic choose-your-own-adventure books. In fact, Ive just finished King of Dragon Pass, a pc game that mixes this kind of interactive storytelling with civlization-like strategy. Highly reccomend.
About the archaic.. well, I think my archaic is just better than yours. :D
Quote from: silva;649339Yup, exactly.
Maybe thats the reason I like it. I loooove those archaic choose-your-own-adventure books. In fact, Ive just finished King of Dragon Pass, a pc game that mixes this kind of interactive storytelling with civlization-like strategy. Highly reccomend.
Huh.. I apologize for the archaic. :P
KoDP is fun, yes, but I much prefer the Fall from Heaven for my civilization needs, and PI's historical sandbox games (esp Crusader Kings 2 had a huge impact on my jaw) ;). Which I suppose speaks about my preferences quite well ;). I will admit though that I'd like a mix between the two - a fantasy setting with some form of a storyline/huge event going in the back, while with a strong sandbox strategy feel to it. It's why I loved New Vegas so much - because there is a huge thing going around, you are part of that thing by the hand of fate...but at the same time, you're free to explore the world for as long as you like, doing whatever you like, until you decide to answer the call of New Vegas.
Quote from: silva;649339Yup, exactly.
Maybe thats the reason I like it. I loooove those archaic choose-your-own-adventure books.
Well, make sure you spread the good word and let the rest of the shared narrative community hear of your epiphany, for fear they release any more dodgy shared narrative games.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649340KoDP is fun, yes, but I much prefer the Fall from Heaven for my civilization needs, and PI's historical sandbox games (esp Crusader Kings 2 had a huge impact on my jaw) ;). Which I suppose speaks about my preferences quite well ;). I will admit though that I'd like a mix between the two - a fantasy setting with some form of a storyline/huge event going in the back, while with a strong sandbox strategy feel to it. It's why I loved New Vegas so much - because there is a huge thing going around, you are part of that thing by the hand of fate...but at the same time, you're free to explore the world for as long as you like, doing whatever you like, until you decide to answer the call of New Vegas.
Crusader Kings 2 is awesome. How is this Fall from Heaven like ? Never heard of it. (BTW, Alpha Centauri is still the best Civ game for me).
About New Vegas, I let it pass while playing Stalker Misery. But Im planning to go back to it soon. From what I hear, its the more faithful to the old Fallouts 1 and 2, right ?
Quote from: The TravellerWell, make sure you spread the good word and let the rest of the shared narrative community hear of your epiphany, for fear they release any more dodgy shared narrative games.
:rotfl:
Wtf? Im not a member of some shared narrative brotherhood or something you modafacka.
Quote from: silva;649347Wtf? Im not a member of some shared narrative brotherhood or something you modafacka.
Doesn't make your ass any less nailed to a wall, baby. :p
Quote from: silva;649347(BTW, Alpha Centauri is still the best Civ game for me).
Bah! Alien Crossfire all the way. All the coolness of Alpha Centauri, plus more projects and weapon options and the like. Just better.
(Except for the intro cinematic. The intro to Alpha Centauri was classic, the intro to Alien Crossfire fairly cheesy.)
Quote from: silva;648984Anyone seen this ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/15/introducing-torchbearer-the-new-indie-dungeon-crawler-from-the-creators-of-burning-wheel/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/15/introducing-torchbearer-the-new-indie-dungeon-crawler-from-the-creators-of-burning-wheel/)
Color me VERY interested.
My reaction is the same as when I read GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 1, it good but you (the author) are kinda of missing the point of why people want to play your system.
I.E. I don't want your system to emulate D&D, I want to use your system 'as is' to go dungeon crawling and I will live with the implications. Which for GURPS means 150 pt dungeon exploration is more like a series of stealth raids to avoid getting injured.
The same with Burning Wheels, make a dungeon and send Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard/etc characters through it and see how it works. Don't make your game work like D&D.
Because in the end when people want to play D&D they are going to play D&D and not something like it.
Quote from: silva;649347Crusader Kings 2 is awesome. How is this Fall from Heaven like ? Never heard of it. (BTW, Alpha Centauri is still the best Civ game for me).
About New Vegas, I let it pass while playing Stalker Misery. But Im planning to go back to it soon. From what I hear, its the more faithful to the old Fallouts 1 and 2, right ?
It is very much awesome, and yes - it draws a lot of unused stuff from Van Buren as well. Powder Gangers, The Burned Man (Joshua Graham), some towns, New California Republic versus Brotherhood of Steel conflict, the list could go on and on.
It is a genuine evolution of the timeline from Fallout 2 - except they have (finally? It nagged me a bit even in Fallout 2, though Enclave made for quite a believable, if somewhat terrible, foe) let the "you are saving the Post Apocalyptic World" plotline to rest this time, instead engaging full - time into what I love the most about post apocalypse - the genuine problems of people who had rebuilt/are rebuilding the society, and are again committing the same mistakes that those before them committed. In the words of Pearlman, War truly never changes, and it certainly did not change in Nevada. If you like Postman - the novel - and/or Canticle for Leibowitz, you will love the themes of New Vegas. I'd even say that, in a way, New Vegas' main storyline - that, of it's titular city - draws heavily from the fantasy trope of a Dragon Sitting On It's Horde, with two nations - "adventurers" fighting for it.
The world is really a huge sandbox, with a very high level of verisimilitude. The whole Post Apocalyptic Western mood got to me so much, that for 80% of the game, until I got some really awesome armour, I was constantly wearing cowboy outfit and hat, using Magnum .44 and Winchester despite having better choices.
And yes, as for the factions themselves...we have a full time grey area this time, and you can join whoever you want. NCR is of course closer to white, and Caesar's Legion much, much closer to black, but they aren't monochromes of neither colour. NCR is being shown as people who rebuild the wasteland quite like the old America, but they are also a bureaucratic institution, with large taxes, which is really ruled more by a military junta that's struggling against and in times, alongside oligarchs such as brahmin baron, and cracking down heavily on people trying to upset this balance, rather than a genuine democracy.
Caesar's Legion on the other hand is a neo - feudal organisation, ruled by a skilled demagogue, which is engaging in horrible acts of slavery and degradation - but at the same time, they are also cracking heavily on drugs and booze, rebuilding the places they conquer, joining the tribes into one big culture, eschewing some advances of the old world but also embracing some, and bringing technological advantages to the backwards tribes. And their iron - handed methods keep the lands they conquer safer than NCR's trade routes, which causes trade within their territory flourish. You can see they could be quite a bit like Vandals or Goths, so to speak - people who would tear down the remnants of the Old World (NCR), and replace it with something different - not necessarily better or worse, just different.
There's also of course Mister House - a genius capitalist responsible for [well I won't spoil you the surprise ;)], who wishes to lead New Vegas to a full capitalistic, free - marketed glory under it's enlightened despotism, vaults of pre - War technology and vast knowledge...but at the same time, there is a very important clue to that character - his snow globe collection. You can't help but get a feeling that he treats New Vegas like a huge snow globe, where he wishes to keep the Old World preserved.
And there is of course...You. Which for me was perhaps the best part of the game, though not the endgame I pursued (I sided with the Fat Cat, obviously), but yes, you can also stake your own claim to New Vegas.
Most importantly perhaps - you can feel genuine realism of all the NPCs involved in this conflict. Master was believable, Enclave in F2 - I feel a bit less about them, but they still had a reasonable motivation for their plot. Enclave in F3...well, that felt like a reheated hot dog. Especially because their plan was straight out of Cobra Villainy Handbook, and as much as I like Liberty Prime, the whole ending was just...meh for me.
Ah yes, and in all my praise for F:NV I forgot about Fall From Heaven - if you love dark fantasy and like civilisation IV, you will love it. Every faction, and there's quite a few of them, plays completely different. And there's even a nation ruled by an insane God - King powerful psyker, which looks and acts like Joker from Batman started his own nation.
Quote:rotfl:
Wtf? Im not a member of some shared narrative brotherhood or something you modafacka.
Well, that's what you'd say if you were a member of Brotherhood of Narrative, wouldn't you?
Quote from: The Traveller;649348Doesn't make your ass any less nailed to a wall, baby. :p
Come on. Humble In Victory, Gracious In Defeat.
Quote from: gleichman;649297Plus I noted an air of condescension about the whole thing with the murder hoboo part phrase indicating it's more of a parody than not. Of course the subject is worth a parody or two, but I doubt it will be funny. The subject just doesn't seem fun as really they're focused on the more depressing and boring elements of the concept.
Spot on.
Quote from: estar;649350Because in the end when people want to play D&D they are going to play D&D and not something like it.
You're missing the point. The audience are people who wouldn't touch D&D with a ten foot bat penis. The OSR however, has limelight and mindshare and so the new front of the Memetic War is opened.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649376You're missing the point. The audience are people who wouldn't touch D&D with a ten foot bat penis. The OSR however, has limelight and mindshare and so the new front of the Memetic War is opened.
Well, at least now that there
will be a game all about dying in a ditch full of shit, some people will stop calling WFRP that game.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;649240Forgist or not, it made Forbes. That's a good sign from a sales perspective, even if it pisses off the old guard.
Forbes??? It's so weird. Why Forbes???
But hot damn, kudos to Luke Crane for the PR.
Quote from: The Ent;649287A kinda meta game about dungeoncrawlers could be fun mind, but only as a break from other Games (like once a Year or something).
Exactly why it would be more fun as a boardgame that you broke out every few months.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649421Forbes??? It's so weird. Why Forbes???
But hot damn, kudos to Luke Crane for the PR.
Forbes has had a "geek" section for a while now.
QuoteForbes??? It's so weird. Why Forbes???
But hot damn, kudos to Luke Crane for the PR.
It's the "contributors" section, which is nothing but people's personal blogs made to look like official Forbes news posts. I could write a "news" story on Forbes if I could be arsed to.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649421Forbes??? It's so weird. Why Forbes???
But hot damn, kudos to Luke Crane for the PR.
Almost anyone can have a blog there. It doesn't mean anything other than some blogger there blogged about it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649378Well, at least now that there will be a game all about dying in a ditch full of shit, some people will stop calling WFRP that game.
I will never stop calling WFRP that game.
It is very sad to see the schizophrenic love-hate relationship these people have with RPGs. Seriously, a few months ago Luke Crane was posting APs from his Moldvay's game and praising both the game and B2 to high heaven. No they're adoing the effort of designing a game that will do exactly the same thing D&D did if you only could be bothered with using the actual rules. Or MERP. Or RQ.
Well, we'll see. The guy has very good ideas and I like BW, some things from it I have used in other games. Wait and see.
Quote from: J Arcane;649424I could write a "news" story on Forbes if I could be arsed to.
Start arsing yourself!
Here's the thing guys. I get it that "any blogger" can spew on Forbes.com, but I imagine such knowledge isn't commonplace to most gamers. Just imagine if you had a small game in the FLGS where you quoted a review on Forbes.com on the back? That's useful PR.
Quote from: CRKrueger;649376You're missing the point. The audience are people who wouldn't touch D&D with a ten foot bat penis. The OSR however, has limelight and mindshare and so the new front of the Memetic War is opened.
And yet they are focusing on some of the very things about D&D that cause many not to touch it with a ten foot pools. And yes I realize that there is a possibility that they could have a new take on resource management that would be fun.
Having a bunch of gaming friends who are big fans of Burning Wheel I get the appeal of the system. Based on that I think it is would be more interesting to see what would result they playtested a campaign where they explore a dungeon using their core rules. Then publish the result. Not only they would be taking advantage of the OSR Meme, the result will also be a Burning Wheel derived RPG.
For example you take a Burning Wheels fantasy campaign, do a conversion of the A-series modules (Slaver series) and run your players through it. Or Judges Guild Dark Tower. What would be the result?
While I am not familiar enough with Burning Wheels to guess. With GURPS it turned out that stealth raids was the most effective way of coping with a big dungeon. First recon places where we could get the drop on the inhabitants without kicking over the ant hill,and execute the ambush. Even with that, usually we had to withdraw after a few encounters to recuperate.
Dealing with dungeons with other RPGs also had their own distinct ebb and flow.
I believe you are overthinking this too much.
Look, it's more a cult of personality thing. Many hardcore indie people will play anything as long as the proper persons allow them to do so. See, AW (which is a fucking traditional game as hell), DW, and so on.
So now Crane gets out a game on dungeoncrawling focused on obsessive minutia about encumbrance, and encumbrance is cool now because the right person says so.
Nothing more.
Quote from: Imperator;649437It is very sad to see the schizophrenic love-hate relationship these people have with RPGs. Seriously, a few months ago Luke Crane was posting APs from his Moldvay's game and praising both the game and B2 to high heaven. No they're adoing the effort of designing a game that will do exactly the same thing D&D did if you only could be bothered with using the actual rules. Or MERP. Or RQ.
Well, we'll see. The guy has very good ideas and I like BW, some things from it I have used in other games. Wait and see.
It not schizophrenic to have a critical opinion as long as it based on careful consideration. And like I said in my previous post that it is possible that they could design something new and novel.
For example I wasn't sold on the DCC RPG by Goodman Games. It seemed to me something better handled by a supplement to D&D. That it would take a lot of work (both design and promotion) to make it a success. And you know what?! the Goodman Team did put in the work and had a successful product. Which may well be the case for Torchbearer.
Quote from: StormBringer;649433I will never stop calling WFRP that game.
:rant:
Quote from: estar;649456While I am not familiar enough with Burning Wheels to guess. With GURPS it turned out that stealth raids was the most effective way of coping with a big dungeon. First recon places where we could get the drop on the inhabitants without kicking over the ant hill,and execute the ambush. Even with that, usually we had to withdraw after a few encounters to recuperate.
That's how I always imagined a realistic dungeon crawl would go.
Quote from: Crabbyapples;649323I have a hard time calling the Burning Wheel a Story game. The game has very few force narrative mechanics. While Mouse Guard and Burning Empires has more narrative control, making both Story Games, I found Burning Wheel to be very traditional. I ran a Sandbox Burning Wheel not too long ago, and it played nothing like a story game.
Shhh. You must hat teh story gamez.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649459:rant:
Odd reaction seeing as haven't you written for a supplement that was a campaign taking place mostly in a ditch full of goo? That is, sewers? ;)
Quote from: Eisenmann;649481Shhh. You must hat teh story gamez.
I play storygames. I dislike the notion they are an RPG, however, as that brings a problem of mixed expectations at the table. I know of at least 1 player who, have been "raised" on storygames, now expects same thing from every single other RPG. Henceforth I believe in importance of the distinction.
But hey, tell yourselves what you need to believe the Big Bad Taliban at RPGsite preach.
Quote from: Imperator;649457I believe you are overthinking this too much.
Look, it's more a cult of personality thing. Many hardcore indie people will play anything as long as the proper persons allow them to do so. See, AW (which is a fucking traditional game as hell), DW, and so on.
So now Crane gets out a game on dungeoncrawling focused on obsessive minutia about encumbrance, and encumbrance is cool now because the right person says so.
Nothing more.
Pretty much.
It's the same reason Exalted existed. Powergaming was badwrong in the WW days, but along comes Exalted and it's A-OK all of a sudden to do all that badwrongfun stuff we weren't supposed to be doing with oWoD, but it's OK because it's a "storytelling game."
Quote from: Rincewind1;649494I play storygames. I dislike the notion they are an RPG, however, as that brings a problem of mixed expectations at the table. I know of at least 1 player who, have been "raised" on storygames, now expects same thing from every single other RPG. Henceforth I believe in importance of the distinction.
Ditto. I don't play any story game at the moment, but I could conceivably do so and enjoy it as long as I was aware of what the game is from the start and felt like playing such a game when I'd get the invite. It's indeed a problem of expectations and cross-pollination in game design. The distinction is useful to know what's what to not act like an oblivious fuckwit as GM assuming everything's the same and therefore running games that will clash with some players' expectations, nor wreck traditional role playing games as a designer by changing them into story games because "it's all the same". Well. No. It's not.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649494I play storygames. I dislike the notion they are an RPG, however, as that brings a problem of mixed expectations at the table. I know of at least 1 player who, have been "raised" on storygames, now expects same thing from every single other RPG. Henceforth I believe in importance of the distinction.
But hey, tell yourselves what you need to believe the Big Bad Taliban at RPGsite preach.
Whatever dude.
Quote from: Eisenmann;649502Whatever dude.
I see that unlike the other Jehova Witness of Forge, you lack even the most basic of wit.
Quote from: estar;649458It not schizophrenic to have a critical opinion as long as it based on careful consideration. And like I said in my previous post that it is possible that they could design something new and novel.
For example I wasn't sold on the DCC RPG by Goodman Games. It seemed to me something better handled by a supplement to D&D. That it would take a lot of work (both design and promotion) to make it a success. And you know what?! the Goodman Team did put in the work and had a successful product. Which may well be the case for Torchbearer.
Sure thing Rob, but there are some things that sound to me more like stereotyping than critical analysis, as the murder hobos cliché, which is the retardest IMO.
I think that they may do a good job. I have nothing against the design: I was talking more about the reaction on indie gamers, specially after some threads of concern-trolling on how D&D is evil because murder hobos.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649494Odd reaction seeing as haven't you written for a supplement that was a campaign taking place mostly in a ditch full of goo? That is, sewers? ;)
Hey, my chapter had folks tackling a cult made up of people called Karl, and taking to the stage pretending to be pigs! Can't get more glamorous than that.
Quote from: One Horse Town;649506Hey, my chapter had folks tackling a cult made up of people called Karl, and taking to the stage pretending to be pigs! Can't get more glamorous than that.
It's a Man's Life in the Imperial Sewerjack Association.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649504I see that unlike the other Jehova Witness of Forge, you lack even the most basic of wit.
Badum-tshh.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649504I see that unlike the other Jehova Witness of Forge, you lack even the most basic of wit.
I see that you don't know about the search function here.
Luke Crane on twitter: "Finally! The RPG Site wipes its greasy, cheato-stained fingers on the latest news about #Torchbearer. http://t.co/Gvx01KcFiK"
Link to post and comments: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke/status/327458856684883968
Hi guys! :)
Quote from: Luke Cranegreasy, cheato-stained fingers
Such razor quip, we are undone! (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/kCHn6.png)
We've got cheeto stains and murderhobos, let's see if he goes for basements and neckbeards next. After all, real roleplayers drinks Pabst, wear flannels and listen to the Wombats as they game(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/pZthA.gif)
I'll meet you guys later, I need to go to the grocery. I really don't like cheetos or potato crisps, but noblesse oblige.
Edit: Truth be told, if I am to wipe anything with D&D hipster edition, I'm certain that it'd be not fingers for me.
Quote from: Benoist;649529Luke Crane on twitter: "Finally! The RPG Site wipes its greasy, cheato-stained fingers on the latest news about #Torchbearer. http://t.co/Gvx01KcFiK"
Link to post and comments: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke/status/327458856684883968
Hi guys! :)
We had about 70 guests over here yesterday viewing this thread. I wondered where all the new guests were coming from. :D
I expect his highly-manicured, nail-varnished fingers are very excited!
Quote from: Benoist;649529Luke Crane on twitter: "Finally! The RPG Site wipes its greasy, cheato-stained fingers on the latest news about #Torchbearer. http://t.co/Gvx01KcFiK"
Link to post and comments: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke/status/327458856684883968
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpspft8tzJ1qchccko1_500.gif)
The whole affair is blatantly trying to ride on D&D's coat tails (Ds and Ds was ixnayed as a name for this opus because of legal concerns) while also attempting to capitalise on the success of Dungeon World, since he's apparently unable to come up with a compelling setting or game by himself, and this place is a major D&D bastion, so I'd have expected a more stirring insult, even given the limitations of twitter. That's the point of such pot shots.
Plus that's a pop at nerdy stereotypes in general, so he's basically alienated a lot of his potential customers in one stroke. Not only lacking in the creativity/originality department and weak at witty repartee, but none too smart on top of all that. I've never heard of this guy previously and don't expect to hear much about him in future, but this particular knock kneed run for the sun is going to be entertaining to watch.
*munches cheetos*
I did find their suggestion to make an "Amber Dice Game" pretty funny.
QuotePlus that's a pop at nerdy stereotypes in general, so he's basically alienated a lot of his potential customers in one stroke.
Not really. His fanbase are exactly the kind of un-self-aware "less nerdy than thou" types who never realize when the joke's on them.
It's Nirvana syndrome. The lyrics are dripping with contempt, but the fans are mostly oblivious to it.
The difference is Crane is far too self-important to risk depriving the world of his "genius" by eating a mouthful of buckshot.
One of the admins or moderators should write to the man responsible for D&D Hipster Edition's appearance on Forbes' blogosphere, and send him a link here for a material on "Old time RPG players in outrage about new rpgs". So we can have some press on Lucky Luke's account.
Quote from: The Traveller;649568The whole affair is blatantly trying to ride on D&D's coat tails (Ds and Ds was ixnayed as a name for this opus because of legal concerns) while also attempting to capitalise on the success of Dungeon World, since he's apparently unable to come up with a compelling setting or game by himself, and this place is a major D&D bastion, so I'd have expected a more stirring insult, even given the limitations of twitter. That's the point of such pot shots.
Plus that's a pop at nerdy stereotypes in general, so he's basically alienated a lot of his potential customers in one stroke. Not only lacking in the creativity/originality department and weak at witty repartee, but none too smart on top of all that. I've never heard of this guy previously and don't expect to hear much about him in future, but this particular knock kneed run for the sun is going to be entertaining to watch.
*munches cheetos*
You assume his primary customer base is not composed of people who play RPGs for the deep creative story creation process, maan.
I've read some of the tweets related to #D&DHipsterEdition. Here was my favourite:
Quote@skinnyghost 14h
Played some #torchbearer tonight. Poor characters got their asses beat on. They got a bag of copper and I could see tears of joy.
Hyperbole or not, I believe any notion that this game is anything but an ironic, pseudo - counter cultural statement on D&D is gone.
Hmm, I like PBR, Cheetos, and encumbrance. But this game sounds like a convoluted chore. It sounds like "Spelunking: the Dithering," a poseur's attempt to mock with no life in its satire.
When your 'coolness' becomes a joyless, high maintenance job, you're obviously so far away from cool anymore you cannot recognize your own self-inflicted misery.
Rolling dice, eating cheetos and arguing about rules while pretending to be an elven princess are inherently ridiculous, we don't need some scrawny goateed commie hipster making up a whole string of bullshit to do it.
What we do is ridiculous. This is what makes it fun. I always knew this, but meeting McCracken (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25717&) reminded me of it.
If you take roleplaying games seriously, you end up with something depressing, twisted and stupid, like Poison'd or rpg.net. And yet feel yourself superior to other gamers. Fuck I hate that. You're just a geek like the rest of us.
I look forward to playing a demo of this game.
Is it D&D Hipster Edition? Yeah, probably. But that might not keep if from being really fun.
In 2001 and interesting small press RPG showed up called Tomb Reavers. The game had a great concept. You were dirty peasants in an oppressive regime in a stratified society. There was no social mobility and nobody needed any heroes. So the peasants just ate their gruel in sadness....except for you and your crazy ass buddies. You guys robbed the tombs of the dead!
Dungeoneering gear is illegal and no peasant could swagger around big dick style in armor and weapons. So instead, you guys snuck out a night, scrambled to enter a tomb with its guardian monsters, traps and tricks, rob it or die and then if lucky, hide your loot from the authorities until you were successful enough to buy your way up the social ladder (aka endgame).
Here's a review by Clinton R. Nixon.
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7287.html
I also really enjoy the DCC funnel. There is something really fun about playing the bumbling fools desperately trying to survive, as a counterpoint to many other games where my PC is a badass or where winning is 90%+ assured.
If Torchbearer can give me that experience, it may be great fun. If its a stilted irony fest, then fuck it. But I won't really know until I get to play a demo.
But I still think it should be a boardgame.
I think the whole teasing of D&D as an insider trying to be an outsider is so insular against something so marginal as to be a pointless effort against a powerless thing. Like shooting fish in a barrel; too much power against impotent things, so tightly packed you can't possibly miss. To do such in the end just looks sad because it is ridiculous.
And the tragedy of this is that the "shooting" effort is rather impotent as well. Ribbing "game design exploration" through encumbrance and lighting rules? That's like using a water pistol to shoot fish in a barrel. Ironic on multiple levels perhaps, but humorless through its needless and self-aware complexity. Brevity is the soul of wit, people.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649632I look forward to playing a demo of this game.
Is it D&D Hipster Edition? Yeah, probably. But that might not keep if from being really fun.
In 2001 and interesting small press RPG showed up called Tomb Reavers. The game had a great concept. You were dirty peasants in an oppressive regime in a stratified society. There was no social mobility and nobody needed any heroes. So the peasants just ate their gruel in sadness....except for you and your crazy ass buddies. You guys robbed the tombs of the dead!
Dungeoneering gear is illegal and no peasant could swagger around big dick style in armor and weapons. So instead, you guys snuck out a night, scrambled to enter a tomb with its guardian monsters, traps and tricks, rob it or die and then if lucky, hide your loot from the authorities until you were successful enough to buy your way up the social ladder (aka endgame).
You really need to check out 'I Sell the Dead', a brilliant movie whose plot could have been lifted from the above.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649632I look forward to playing a demo of this game.
Is it D&D Hipster Edition? Yeah, probably. But that might not keep if from being really fun.
In 2001 and interesting small press RPG showed up called Tomb Reavers. The game had a great concept. You were dirty peasants in an oppressive regime in a stratified society. There was no social mobility and nobody needed any heroes. So the peasants just ate their gruel in sadness....except for you and your crazy ass buddies. You guys robbed the tombs of the dead!
Dungeoneering gear is illegal and no peasant could swagger around big dick style in armor and weapons. So instead, you guys snuck out a night, scrambled to enter a tomb with its guardian monsters, traps and tricks, rob it or die and then if lucky, hide your loot from the authorities until you were successful enough to buy your way up the social ladder (aka endgame).
Isn't this what Warhammer is about, if you tackle the social strata of the setting with a heavy hand? ;p
Quote from: The Traveller;649634You really need to check out 'I Sell the Dead', a brilliant movie whose plot could have been lifted from the above.
There's also
Burke & Hare.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649632In 2001 and interesting small press RPG showed up called Tomb Reavers. The game had a great concept. You were dirty peasants in an oppressive regime in a stratified society. There was no social mobility and nobody needed any heroes. So the peasants just ate their gruel in sadness....except for you and your crazy ass buddies. You guys robbed the tombs of the dead!
Dungeoneering gear is illegal and no peasant could swagger around big dick style in armor and weapons. So instead, you guys snuck out a night, scrambled to enter a tomb with its guardian monsters, traps and tricks, rob it or die and then if lucky, hide your loot from the authorities until you were successful enough to buy your way up the social ladder (aka endgame).
Here's a review by Clinton R. Nixon.
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7287.html
That sounds really fun!
Unfortunately, I can find no way to obtain it.
Quote from: The Traveller;649634You really need to check out 'I Sell the Dead', a brilliant movie whose plot could have been lifted from the above.
That's a fun movie! I recommend I Sell the Dead to all fans of Warhammer.
Quote from: Rincewind1;649636Isn't this what Warhammer is about, if you tackle the social strata of the setting with a heavy hand? ;p
Yes. You can definitely do it with Warhammer 1e if you limit the careers to those only peasants could achieve. You would have to make the social strata tighter and calm down the outside threats to the Empire.
In Tomb Reavers, the concept was you had to go looking for trouble to find it. It isn't a monster filled world, instead Tomb Guardians are mostly bound to the individual tomb. The threats in the outside world would be town guards, jealous merchants, suspicious nobles and other humans who suspect that you are trying to upset the "natural order" of the Empire.
It would play fine with RuneQuest as well. What Tomb Reavers did nicely was design a CR style chart for dungeon creation and had built in world concepts for why some dungeons were "low level", aka belonged to lesser nobles who could not afford the luxuries such as really powerful magic traps and major monsters.
Quote from: Mistwell;649707That sounds really fun!
Unfortunately, I can find no way to obtain it.
It was on Jhkim's website previously. He posts here so shoot him a PM.
hey guys, you could, you know just... not play the game ever maybe. i mean, if it's that painful and all that. i mean do you guys carry around a blacklist of shit you're not supposed to play because it doesn't meet a set of ridiculous non-criteria?
And so, the butthurt begins.
Welcome to the adult swim.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649842And so, the butthurt begins.
i mean... not really? i don't play any of crane's stuff but i'm also not a d&d guy either? i just don't get the outcry, it makes no sense. just don't... play it? get mad about something else?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649842Welcome to the adult swim.
what
Quote from: casek;649838hey guys, you could, you know just... not play the game ever maybe. i mean, if it's that painful and all that. i mean do you guys carry around a blacklist of shit you're not supposed to play because it doesn't meet a set of ridiculous non-criteria?
I was on the bus to Dublin a couple of weeks back, it's much cheaper than driving when you look at tolls and fuel costs etc, and there was this American guy sitting behind me chatting up one of his countrywomen. He said the word "like" on average once every 7 seconds for a solid half an hour. I know because I calculated it as a matter of scientific interest, using a stopwatch and the back of an envelope.
I read the above post in the voice of that man.
Anyway it feels like more of an atmosphere of mild ennui than any particular rage. Nobody really cares.
Quote from: The Traveller;649850I was on the bus to Dublin a couple of weeks back, it's much cheaper than driving when you look at tolls and fuel costs etc, and there was this American guy sitting behind me chatting up one of his countrywomen. He said the word "like" on average once every 7 seconds for a solid half an hour. I know because I calculated it as a matter of scientific interest, using a stopwatch and the back of an envelope.
I read the above post in the voice of that man.
Anyway it feels like more of an atmosphere of mild ennui than any particular rage. Nobody really cares.
you got me down to a tee except for the part where i didn't say like at all, nor did i do anything to imply that i speak with the cadence of the aforementioned "american"
are you called the traveler because you take the bus a lot?
and just for funsies, if we're playing characters now, i'm imagining your post read aloud in a voice that fits the stereotypes often assigned to people who play the sort of games we both apparently enjoy.
calling it ennui is really, really downplaying it. you've got 16 pages here. i ask why and then a few of you were instantly defensive. just goofing, right?
Quote from: casek;649852you got me down to a tee except for the part where i didn't say like at all
Never said you did.
Quote from: casek;649852nor did i do anything to imply that i speak with the cadence of the aforementioned "american"
American in this case is a state of mind, my friend.
Quote from: casek;649852are you called the traveler because you take the bus a lot?
Well that and it's one of the walking demons of a rambunctious group of Mongolian shamans, which caught my fancy.
Quote from: casek;649852you've got 16 pages i here. i ask why and then a few of you were instantly defensive. just goofing, right?
I can't speak for BV, but it looks like sixteen pages of mild ennui to be honest. Hoping for some dramatic responses to obvious internet flamebait to spice up the weekend but generally meh. Benoist's thread on EP mashed up with CP2020 is much more entertaining, you should pitch in! That shit is fucking awesome.
Quote from: casek;649838hey guys, you could, you know just... not play the game ever maybe. i mean, if it's that painful and all that. i mean do you guys carry around a blacklist of shit you're not supposed to play because it doesn't meet a set of ridiculous non-criteria?
Nope.
I just don't play shit I don't like, and respond to insulting drivel in kind.
This is insulting drivel. As is your post.
Therefore, I mock both accordingly, and fart in your general direction.
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QSo0duY7-9s#t=96s)
Quote from: casek;649838hey guys, you could, you know just... not play the game ever maybe. i mean, if it's that painful and all that. i mean do you guys carry around a blacklist of shit you're not supposed to play because it doesn't meet a set of ridiculous non-criteria?
Some of us want to play it, others do not. Don't pigeon hole the entire board because you're looking for drama.
Quote from: The Traveller;649856mild ennui
Speak for yourself. For me ridiculing stuff and taking cheap potshots at things I don't like is pretty damn serious. After all:
(http://images.wikia.com/klocuch/pl/images/3/38/Internet-serious-business.jpg)
I'd also love to hear what are the valid "criteria", if we're judging the game by the "non - criteria".
Quote from: Benoist;649859"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QSo0duY7-9s#t=96s)
Double irony :D.
Quote from: Mistwell;649860Some of us want to play it, others do not. Don't pigeon hole the entire board because you're looking for drama.
But...but...but therpgsite is EVILbadWRONG!!111!
Quote from: Rincewind1;649887Speak for yourself. For me ridiculing stuff and taking cheap potshots at things I don't like is pretty damn serious.
Quite right, let's not be taking the piss. This is my war face:
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20434000/ngbbs4b1ad0079b742.jpg)
Toughest chin in Hollywood. You pass.
Rest of you:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7Mm-IhstrRnL9MZQs2H8lhs5I9CY2c1vJj21pDUwWk3FEVwZW7w)
Quote from: Piestrio;649888But...but...but therpgsite is EVILbadWRONG!!111!
We are?
[claydavis]Shieeeeeeet.[/claydavis]
Also I forgot to say that the first brave warriors are storming the walls of RPGsite, to drive the infidels away and to gain riches and forgiveness in the eyes of Storygaming, as promised by Pope Grus the First.
Quote from: casek;649848i just don't get the outcry, it makes no sense. . . . get mad about something else?
There is no outcry. No one is mad.
Watching Luke Crane, that Sage guy, and the other guy re-invent
D&D for gamers who for years professed their hate for
D&D makes us point and laugh at the silliness and sycophancy of it all.
If
you don't see the humor in it, hey, no problem. If you think
we shouldn't see the humor in it, fuck you.
Quote from: The Traveller;649890Quite right, let's not be taking the piss. This is my war face:
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20434000/ngbbs4b1ad0079b742.jpg)
Groovy.
My war face is right over there, pilgrim.
This "fight" doesn't deserve more than War Crotch.
Gotta save War Face for important shit.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;649892There is no outcry. No one is mad.
Watching Luke Crane, that Sage guy, and the other guy re-invent D&D for gamers who for years professed their hate for D&D makes us point and laugh at the silliness and sycophancy of it all.
If you don't see the humor in it, hey, no problem. If you think we shouldn't see the humor in it, fuck you.
As one of those that always professed my hate for D&D and now finding this "re-invention" interesting (as was the Dungeon World one), I must ask:
So wat? Whats the problem with that?
What always bothered me in D&D wasnt its premise, but its
execution. Thus, a game that preserves the premise but with a different execution sounds cool to me. Its the same case as Shadowrun really - a lot of people say its execution is an unecessarily complex one, that dont promote its themes at all, and would like to see a total reboot.
So why is Shadowrun (or any other game really) passive of re-invention, but D&D not ? Why the outcry when the criticism is on D&D ?
Quote from: silva;649923As one of those that always professed my hate for D&D and now finding this "re-invention" interesting (as was the Dungeon World one), I must ask:
So wat? Whats the problem with that?
What always bothered me in D&D wasnt its premise, but its execution. Thus, a game that preserves the premise but with a different execution sounds cool to me. Its the same case as Shadowrun really - a lot of people say its execution is an unecessarily complex one, that dont promote its themes at all, and would like to see a total reboot.
So why is Shadowrun (or any other game really) passive of re-invention, but D&D not ? Why the outcry when the criticism is on D&D ?
I, and I assume for the most, we, laughed when it was done to Warhammer. And I'd laugh when it'd be done to Shadowrun, though I agree it's execution is byzantine.
Edit: Also this
Quote from: CRKrueger;649926In this case, the game isn't trying to re-do the premise with a better execution, it's sneeringly laughing at the premise itself.
Quote from: silva;649923So why is Shadowrun (or any other game really) passive of re-invention, but D&D not ? Why the outcry when the criticism is on D&D ?
In this case, the game isn't trying to re-do the premise with a better execution, it's sneeringly laughing at the premise itself.
Quote from: silva;649923What always bothered me in D&D wasnt its premise, but its execution.
The problem is that you know *FUCK ALL* about both the premise and execution of the game. You keep talking about how much you hate-hate-hate the "wargaming roots of the game" but don't have any significant first-hand experience of OD&D nor AD&D First Ed whatsoever, having not either read them nor played them by your own admission. All you're doing on D&D threads is repeat ad nauseam the propaganda of competitors to AD&D from the 80s and 90s you were drinking as a kid like the ultimately sweet kool-aid that answered all your prayers and frustrations, not knowing how ridiculous it sounds to keep waving that banner around today.
Then, you turn around and praise games aping D&D in completely truncated, absurd manners with Forge meta-game mechanics and moves and bullshit, just because Luke Crane and Sage what-the-fuck-is-his-name deserve a blowjob for being "indie" and "oh-so-edgy".
And you wonder why some of us are laughing?
Come on man. That right here is the irony of it all.
Quote from: silva;649923What always bothered me in D&D wasnt its premise, but its execution.
I would be very interested in a thread where you discussed this.
I am a big OD&D fan, a proud OSR member, and I am open to seeing its flaws or what doesn't work for somebody else as long as your argument makes sense. For instance, +1 AC for shields makes no sense if you ever did any melee fighting like SCA. The shield is crazy important except in D&D. Even in my own retrowhatever, I am fighting with giving shields their due vs. going along with "tradition".
Quote from: silva;649923Thus, a game that preserves the premise but with a different execution sounds cool to me.
Me too, as long as its done well. Unfortunately, too often I see people making RPGs when instead they should be making boardgames.
Quote from: silva;649923Why the outcry when the criticism is on D&D?
Messing with a geek's childhood toy = murder of their memories
AKA, the reaction of 30+ and 40+ crowd to Phantom Menace.
More information about the game: http://www.dorkadia.com/2013/04/22/luke-crane-ready-to-kickstart-torchbearer-old-school-dd-burning-wheel/
QuoteThough I've been snuck a few exciting details, I hadn't heard much about Luke Crane's new Moldvay-inspired Burning Wheel game. While it was called "Dungeoneers & Dragonslayers", Crane (editor) and Thor Olavsrud's (writer) have rebranded their game as "Torchbearer". A fitting name for a game that promises to be an adaptation of the Mouse Guard system that trades the emulation of brave little mice for the emulation of the choking darkness. According to Forbe's two spreads on the game, we have every reason to be exited for the next book in the Burning Wheel library.
Old School Bean Counting
Using charming RPG.net verbage, Crane and Olavsrud set out to create a game that allows you to be fantasy "murder hobos" out to make a buck by delving into dangerous environs. While this is the shared goal of most fantasy RPG designers, most modern fantasy systems lack the tools necessary to make the dungeon itself a palpable presence at the table. Delves end up more like the tabletop version of Peter Jackson's Mines of Moria or a game of Rogue: glossed-over uninteresting interstitial passages linking big set piece caverns. The systems are much more about the "dragon" rather than the "dungeon".
Not so in Torchbearer, says Olavsrud. Quoting his interview with Forbes, Olavsrud "...wanted to make a game where caving and dungeoneering felt like a big deal. [W]here your character could be cold and wet and feel the oppressive weight of the dark." In Torchbearer your all-too-few inventory slots must be split between armor, spellbooks, food, and water. Getting lost and running out of food will kill as surely as any attack roll. Torches are consumed at a steady rate, running out of light in the middle of an encounter forces the would-be-heroes to run automatically. The dungeon itself is omnipresent in the system, a mechanically backed-up nemesis.
This unavoidable bean counting is a brave design choice that shows that Torchbearer has an modus operandi: scare the shit out of players as they delve. As a DM, that sounds very appealing.
New School System
The system is described as "Advanced Mouse Guard and Dragons". The system is not a simple "rules-lite" adaptation of old school games; the gaming scene hardly needs another one of those. Instead, Torchbearer retools Mouse Guard' system to determine the fate and fortunes of treasure hunting murder hobos. It employs a beefed up version of the Conflict system, conditions, and fail-forward mechanics to convey its stories. There are no hit points, no d20s, no experience points. This game is not just an "old school revival", it stays true to its Burning Wheel roots.
But Torchbearer does meet its inspiration half-way by introducing levels and classes, features that have heretofore been absent from Burning Wheel games. It attaches these concepts to the reward-feedback-loop that already exists within Mouse Guard. Acting in accordance to your Beliefs, digging yourself into interesting predicaments with Traits, and using your wises to help allies will allow you to level up. The strict Player/GM Turn structure from Mouse Guard exists within Torchbearer, but it makes more sense within the trappings of dungeon delving adventurers rather than adventuring mice. The player turn is the "going back to town" part of the D&D game that we're all familiar with, while the GM turn is the dungeon itself. It's a brilliant marriage that will hopefully work well.
Ready to Kickstart
Even after just these two Forbes articles, I'm extremely excited to see Torchbearer in its final form. The creators estimate that it's "85% finished". Crane revealed in his interview that he's getting ready to Kickstart the game's publication in the next few months. I already have a wad of bills ready to toss at this Kickstarter, we'll keep you posted when it goes live.
Oh and the lulfest RE: theRPGsite goes on on Luke Crane's twitter: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke
With special potshots at J Arcane and the like.
Quote from: Benoist;649959Oh and the lulfest RE: theRPGsite goes on on Luke Crane's twitter: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke
With special potshots at J Arcane and the like.
Free advertising is free advertising.
He just linked every single one of his fans to a post with Arcana Rising's Kickstarter proudly advertised.
No publicity is bad publicity, and I get some of my best feedback from story-games folk. ;)
Quote from: J Arcane;649960Free advertising is free advertising.
Heh. What I was thinking in regards to the RPG Site, too. Luke Crane wants to laugh at the Site, by all means, keep bringing more people to our forum! Thank you! Very much obliged!
...and Luke gets more followers on Twitter. It's made of passive-aggressive win, this.
I will be supporting the kickstarter once it launches, as Torchbearer can only be better written, edited and more easily playable than the mess that is AD&D 1st edition, at least for a person who weren't around back in the days of yore.
And because Luke's not a fat, badly dressed dork. Obviously.
Quote from: Benoist;649959Oh and the lulfest RE: theRPGsite goes on on Luke Crane's twitter: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke
With special potshots at J Arcane and the like.
I didn't get any potshots taken at me, must be losing my touch. I'll have to talk about it in my next Forbes article.
I wonder does the moron think he's actually achieving something.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;649983It's made of passive-aggressive win, this.
If by win you mean hang a sign around your neck that says "I am neither able to put together a decent game system nor setting, so I'm going to try and upset whatever I imagine theRPGSite to be and hope some money falls out the other end cos daddy needs a new pair of shoes".
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;649983I will be supporting the kickstarter once it launches,
Another anti-free-market commie, great.
Goddamnit,
this is how the economy works:
- make something
- sell it, or watch it fail miserably
Not the other way around. Kickstarters are welfare payments, except that most welfare recipients are worthy and not as vain.
QuoteAnd because Luke's not a fat, badly dressed dork. Obviously.
It's true, he's scrawny.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649998It's true, he's scrawny.
He's also not the author. Stan Laurel is.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;649983It's made of passive-aggressive win, this.
Wait... can I get in on some of this action?
Give me a sec...
...got it. Ahem:
Yeah, it's a new game and that's good because the OSR is bad. It's like 'old', man, it's right there in the title. Times have moved on, and old is, like, the same as it used to be. How can it be good when it never got newer?
(Did I do that right? Other than not saying "fuck" even once, and getting the apostrophes right in all my contractions. Oh, and capitalizing the start of sentences. Other than all that, did I do okay?)
Quote from: One Horse Town;650000He's also not the author. Stan Laurel is.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Stan_Laurel.png/230px-Stan_Laurel.png)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;650002(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Stan_Laurel.png/230px-Stan_Laurel.png)
:D
I meant Luke's sidekick. Can never remember his name. Such is the fate of sidekicks.
Quote from: Spinachcat;649931For instance, +1 AC for shields makes no sense if you ever did any melee fighting like SCA. The shield is crazy important except in D&D. Even in my own retrowhatever, I am fighting with giving shields their due vs. going along with "tradition".
What do you think shields ought to do?
(And, as regards the OSR, exact clones have all been done. Maybe something new is worth producing.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650019What do you think shields ought to do?
(And, as regards the OSR, exact clones have all been done. Maybe something new is worth producing.)
In Stone Horizons you can use shields in two ways, either as an aid to parrying attempts or taking the damage of a blow. The first is a free action when you parry, the second is a Reflexive (quick) action - which you get one of a round.
Parry Damage Threshold
Small Shield +1 die 3 points
Medium Shield +2 dice 6 points
Large Shield +3 dice 9 points
Parry attempts are stat + skill, so typically 5 dice for a beginning character - so shields help a lot. Each success achieved in parry reduces damage taken by one point.
The damage threshold is the amount of damage a shield can take before it becomes useless - the advantage being that it can soak up more damage automatically, rather than relying on gaining successes if you parry.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649998Another anti-free-market commie, great.
Goddamnit, this is how the economy works:
- make something
- sell it, or watch it fail miserably
Not the other way around. Kickstarters are welfare payments, except that most welfare recipients are worthy and not as vain.
You're going to have to get used to it, as it looks to be here to stay. And it's quite capitalistic. In fact it is borrowing concepts from the stock market.
I playtested an earlier version of Torchbearer.
I got that opportunity at an interesting time - I was feeling a bit sick of my own GMing style! I normally play very character-focused gaming: in BW, the game is something of a collision between the player goals and the GM's shtick. Because of the (potentially) very fast pace of play, these can evolve very rapidly (as the characters evolve).
While I enjoy the results of this very much, I was starting to yearn for situations where the players would be doing more reasoning about the game world, which happens to be what Torchbearer is all about. So much so, that running it was initially rather unsettling.
Inventory is the core of the resource system, because space is at a premium. All the dungeoneering and survival gear you need to survive the adventure plus the treks to and from town is bulky, and you've only got two hands. Sacks don't float magically along side you, you have to carry them, and that uses up a hand (two, for large sacks). At the same time, it's chunky enough (as you can probably tell for the posted character sheet) that it handles fairly quickly - nobody's adding up coin-weights or anything like that.
I noticed the table chatter was quickly dominated by questions of who had a free hand to hold a second torch, who had extra oil, how everyone was doing for food. The "conditions" are all very serious. Missing a meal when you need one, is bad, and it gets worse from there. Equipment changes hands constantly.
As a GM who was used to being in control of the level of difficulty, it was a little alarming - the players knew, far more than I did, just what a tight spot they were in. I might confront them with what seemed like a modest logistical problem, only to kick off a torrent of debate about how they were going to make sure there was light at both the top and the bottom end of the climbing rope.
Dungeoneering has the same sort of feeling as underwater cave diving - you are in an environment you cannot survive, except by virtue of what you bring with you.
The players liked my 'dungeon' quite a bit. I had taken a page from the pacing approach I'd seen in LOFP's "Death Frost Doom", and again in a 1PDC entry, "Zombie Elves": the 'monsters' appear quite late, after the PCs have gotten nervous, worn down, and past the point of easy retreat. The parts I hoped would be creepy worked wonderfully, which was very gratifying.
The highlight of the adventure still stands out in my mind. The players had rapelled down into a flooded chapel where the crypt lord sat in his slimy chair. The precious treasure the players sought was glinting at them from under the water's surface. At this point, the lord (who was not a threat in and of himself) banged his ceremonial gong, calling forth his crypt servants. The players didn't know what these were, but they began to hear the distant splashes of undead emerging from their niches.
This kicked off the most tense moment I can remember in a while - the players suddenly had some brutal decisions to make, and no time to make them. How long should they spend pulling these rotted sacks from under the water? What could they do without? Tomas was Exhausted and Afraid, would leaving the tinderbox be a death sentence? The spare oil? The rope? Could they do without some of their remaining food? Now practiced with the system, the players knew that leaving these things behind might be a death sentence - their angst was genuine. Super intense!
We played three adventures, essentially. We recruited some two more players, and the four of them returned to the dungeon that had so nearly kicked their asses, overcame it and hauled out the rest of the loot on a hacked-together sled. They then journeyed to a locale pointed to by some journals in their haul. I mixed up the challenges for that one, and we played it out to a fairly satisfying conclusion.
The players learned some neat tricks - the skill system has have some interesting synergies built into it. Soon the players had figured out they could save on money (which is always in short supply) by hunting, preserving the food, and using the halfling's cooking skills to stretch their rations even further. Of course, all this takes time, and the wilderness is a scarcely safer place than the dungeon. There is, however, sunlight, which relieves a tremendous amount of pressure.
When I played the game at a con, I learned that I'd been giving out a fraction of the treasure, which would have relieved some of the sense my players had of slowly being ground into the dust by injuries, exhaustion and poverty.
These challenges are baked pretty deeply into the system, so I'm really curious how the game evolves as the PCs become more powerful.
Do you map your dungeon in Torchbearer?
What form does the dungeon take in your notes? How do you organize it before hand, for which particular benefits in the game?
Quote from: Benoist;649959Oh and the lulfest RE: theRPGsite goes on on Luke Crane's twitter: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke
With special potshots at J Arcane and the like.
What a douche. And I say that as someone who has enjoyed his games (ran a very successful year long Burning Wheel campaign).
Well the guy does something well for some people, apparently. I mean, there are people who appreciate Burning Wheel and its avatars out there, including you, right? So from a basic game design standpoint, the guy must be doing something right. And I say that without snark, really.
Quote from: Benoist;649961Heh. What I was thinking in regards to the RPG Site, too. Luke Crane wants to laugh at the Site, by all means, keep bringing more people to our forum! Thank you! Very much obliged!
It's just his marketing angle. Being a prima-donna douchebag hipster pisses some people off and makes others drool, but either way he gets press on both sites like this that'll mock him for it, and story-gamer sites who'll drool over how clever he is.
It's not a bad gig if you can pull it off.
Shields are very important in fight, yes - especially if you are going against archers/crossbowmen, they can mean the difference between life and death. 3e got closer to the importance of shield than 1e did, certainly.
Quote from: J Arcane;650060It's just his marketing angle. Being a prima-donna douchebag hipster pisses some people off and makes others drool, but either way he gets press on both sites like this that'll mock him for it, and story-gamer sites who'll drool over how clever he is.
It's not a bad gig if you can pull it off.
Should we counter with "Crane Please Do A Cobain" 'movement', then? :rolleyes:
[edit: Please don't actually, I don't want to be sued]
Quote from: Rincewind1;650065Shields are very important in fight, yes - especially if you are going against archers/crossbowmen, they can mean the difference between life and death. 3e got closer to the importance of shield than 1e did, certainly.
Should we counter with "Crane Please Do A Cobain" 'movement', then? >,<
Only if you want to help his career.
Besides, I wasn't suggesting he should, only that he'd never do it. ;)
Quote from: J Arcane;650066Only if you want to help his career.
Besides, I wasn't suggesting he should, only that he'd never do it. ;)
True, given our reputation, it'd only probably cause entire RPG.net to get him an Anti - Depression fund or something.
I was more thinking along the lines of this meme:
[image removed by moderator]
[edit: Please don't actually, I don't want to be sued]
Quote from: Rincewind1;650065Shields are very important in fight
I have no doubt. I was just wondering what they thought shields should do.
Your response, for example, if I were to guess, indicates that shields can be used as mobile cover against missile fire — the scene in 300, as an example.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650021In Stone Horizons you can use shields in two ways, either as an aid to parrying attempts or taking the damage of a blow.
Blocking the blow, turning a blow aside, mobile cover, secondary melee weapon — all of that makes sense (to my largely-untutored mind). What else?
There's always someone who takes it too far.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650081I have no doubt. I was just wondering what they thought shields should do.
Your response, for example, if I were to guess, indicates that shields can be used as mobile cover against missile fire — the scene in 300, as an example.
Blocking the blow, turning a blow aside, mobile cover, secondary melee weapon — all of that makes sense (to my largely-untutored mind). What else?
You've got it right. As for the cover against missile fire - if you see an arrow going your way, or someone pulling/aiming at you, what are you going without a shield?
Quote from: One Horse Town;650082There's always someone who takes it too far.
Glad to take the honours. Though I'll use :rolleyes: next time to denote that I was mostly joking on his perceived "rivalry" with RPGsite.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;649998Another anti-free-market commie, great.
Goddamnit, this is how the economy works:
- make something
- sell it, or watch it fail miserably
Not the other way around. Kickstarters are welfare payments, except that most welfare recipients are worthy and not as vain.
It's true, he's scrawny.
You're not serious, are you? Because Kickstarter is actually a good way how to showcase that community funding can work in a free enterprise system.
I thought D20 Conan did a good job breaking AC into Parry AC and Dodge AC and shields were +4 Parry, +1 Dodge. In Mazes & Minotaurs, the breastplate is worth +4 and the shield +2 which feels right by comparison.
My retrowhatever is a pure vanity project to codify how I view OD&D and how I've played it over the years. I know the market is beyond saturated, but so is the micro-beer market and yet every month some dude comes out with his new brew. If I get a "yeah, that's tasty" from the OSR community, that would be far beyond my expectations.
Quote from: fuseboy;650025I playtested an earlier version of Torchbearer.
Thank you for that review!
Quote from: fuseboy;650025So much so, that running it was initially rather unsettling.
Explain.
Quote from: fuseboy;650025Missing a meal when you need one, is bad, and it gets worse from there.
How long are these expeditions?
How many meals are assumed per day and what constitutes a meal? AKA, how much foraging / hunting has to be done to feed 6 adults? Does the game get into details like 1 Rabbit = 1 meal, 1 Deer = 12 meals?
Also is "meal" both food and drink?
And did anyone say "Blue Wizard needs Food!" at any point?
Quote from: fuseboy;650025Dungeoneering has the same sort of feeling as underwater cave diving - you are in an environment you cannot survive, except by virtue of what you bring with you.
That sounds good.
Quote from: fuseboy;650025These challenges are baked pretty deeply into the system, so I'm really curious how the game evolves as the PCs become more powerful.
This is my question too. The challenges of a 1st level adventurer in Old School D&D fade to a great degree by 4th level where wealth and magic can solve many of the problems. Even if the monsters are tougher, the dungeoneering aspect can be somewhat overcome in an easier manner.
Quote from: fuseboy;650025Inventory is the core of the resource system, because space is at a premium. All the dungeoneering and survival gear you need to survive the adventure plus the treks to and from town is bulky, and you've only got two hands. Sacks don't float magically along side you, you have to carry them, and that uses up a hand (two, for large sacks).
ROPE (or leather strap) has not been invented yet, eh?
Hey, the thread just got interesting. Should shields be given an extra bonus versus medieval missile weapons due to the air gap between most of the user and the shield, or is that too much? The idea of becoming immune to most arrows and bolts by hiding behind a couple of inches of wood is a bit worrying, balance wise.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650097Explain.
How long are these expeditions?
How many meals are assumed per day and what constitutes a meal? AKA, how much foraging / hunting has to be done to feed 6 adults? Does the game get into details like 1 Rabbit = 1 meal, 1 Deer = 12 meals?
And did anyone say "Blue Wizard needs Food!" at any point?
This is my question too. The challenges of a 1st level adventurer in Old School D&D fade to a great degree by 4th level where wealth and magic can solve many of the problems. Even if the monsters are tougher, the dungeoneering aspect can be somewhat overcome in an easier manner.
By 'unsettling', I meant that it was a surprise to find that as the GM, I was only one source of the challenges that the players faced, so initially it felt like I wasn't in control of what was happenign. Many dangers were boiling up out of the mechanics, whether my 'it's dramatically appropriate time to mention that they're running low on oil' instincts said so or not.
I suppose you could say that the mechanics are designed to make sure that the central challenges of the game actually occur. It's easy to ignore encumbrance in D&D (I usually did), but Torchbearer character sheets don't let you. You can't carry anything without saying where you're putting it (because that's where you write it down), so unless you really deviate and start writing equipment down on note paper, you're using the encumbrance rules.
Time in Torchbearer is abstract. One 'turn' is the time it takes to do something meaningful that's resolved with a single test (or extended conflict mechanic). In some ways, I really like this - it makes it really easy to keep track of light expenditure and hunger, which the GM does on the test log sheet. I suspect it also gave rise to some of the players' reasoning about how to use their time: however long it takes, you know the impact to your food and light reserves of deciding to trying to get a chest open or whatever.
BW and MG are both games that, in different ways, discourage you from playing out every 60-minute increment of time, you just skip to the highlights. I like the fast pacing this produces. (I really loathe questions like, "What are the rest of you doing while Bartle sharpens his sword?" I'd much rather skip to the next event where either the GM or the players have something to enact that they care about.)
Torchbearer is similar in this respect - you track turns diligently, but the actual hours or days that slip by are much more plastic. One turn's worth of orienteering might get you through a single natural cavern with a confusing layout, or an entire labyrinth - that's up to the GM.
This caused some furrowed brows outside the dungeon, where interesting events are naturally spaced further apart in time.
Being in town is similar. Torchbearer has a simple mechanic where your lifestyle expenses ratchet up for each piece of business you conduct in town. The costs are biting and the penalties for coming up short are painful - but the benefits of splashing out are hooked into the rest of the mechanics. (Staying in nice accommodations, for example, can help you restore some of the nastier conditions like Sick and Exhausted.)
So.. how long are the expeditions? I think in all three cases, the adventuring forays were generally resolved in around 16-20 turns. But then, dungeons aren't the massive things that they are in D&D, where PCs can fight their way through a dozen encounters in a row, they're more like the layout you'd expect in a movie - a few logistical problems, a few baddies, a few surprises, and some loot.
And yes, during one of my games, someone did make a Gauntlet joke. :)
Quote from: Phillip;650129ROPE (or leather strap) has not been invented yet, eh?
There are satchels, which are a little like sacks on a strap. Players are encouraged to come up with inventive ways to haul out more shit than they would normally be able to carry, there's a whole skill for that.
Quote from: The Traveller;650138Hey, the thread just got interesting. Should shields be given an extra bonus versus medieval missile weapons due to the air gap between most of the user and the shield, or is that too much? The idea of becoming immune to most arrows and bolts by hiding behind a couple of inches of wood is a bit worrying, balance wise.
On the other hand, "balance - wise", a ranged weapon usually gives you 2 - 3 rounds of fire before your target usually gets to you :P. I liked the notion of what WFRP 2e did. -10 to BS when trying to shoot at someone carrying a shield. It exists also in BRP to a degree (Shield gives an actual cover, I believe).
Of course, the shield itself may splinter from the impact force as well. In systems without item HP, or when one'd wish to simplify that, I'd go with "one critical hits damages, second destroys" practice.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650142Of course, the shield itself may splinter from the impact force as well. In systems without item HP, or when one'd wish to simplify that, I'd go with "one critical hits damages, second destroys" practice.
I trim down armour as it gets penetrated anyway, for a couple of reasons, so I guess things like bodkinhead arrows do work mechanically. I treat cover and armour seperately though, like most systems.
I think the utility against missiles is really the biggest draw of a shield. Not that it isn't also good against hand-to-hand weapons, but there are modes of fighting that can (from what I've heard, more than personally tried) best the sword-and-board man.
Quote from: fuseboy;650025I playtested an earlier version of Torchbearer.....
The highlight of the adventure still stands out in my mind. The players had rapelled down into a flooded chapel where the crypt lord sat in his slimy chair. The precious treasure the players sought was glinting at them from under the water's surface. At this point, the lord (who was not a threat in and of himself) banged his ceremonial gong, calling forth his crypt servants. The players didn't know what these were, but they began to hear the distant splashes of undead emerging from their niches.
This kicked off the most tense moment I can remember in a while - the players suddenly had some brutal decisions to make, and no time to make them. How long should they spend pulling these rotted sacks from under the water? What could they do without? Tomas was Exhausted and Afraid, would leaving the tinderbox be a death sentence? The spare oil? The rope? Could they do without some of their remaining food? Now practiced with the system, the players knew that leaving these things behind might be a death sentence - their angst was genuine. Super intense!
Awesome. Its exactly what Im looking for in this game.
Thanks for sharing the experience.
Quote from: The Traveller;650143I trim down armour as it gets penetrated anyway, for a couple of reasons, so I guess things like bodkinhead arrows do work mechanically. I treat cover and armour seperately though, like most systems.
Well, bodkin arrows "technically" work - bows weren't really very good against armour, bodkin arrows or not. You had to be at a relatively close distance for the arrows to pierce even chainmail with padding underneath. So the "Arrows Wave" attack, as seen in the films, was effective against unarmed opponents. Against heavily armoured ones, it all came down to the discipline of the unit - they had to wait until enemy came close enough and not break the ranks. Not to mention that longbows weren't exactly a sniper's weapon at distance.
Of course, that also depended on a bow - the famed Longbows had certainly more packing power, but even then, it is somewhat assumed that the French knights who fell during battles against the English were looking like hedgehogs, because the armour did a fair job of protecting them, at least over the large distance.
In the end, crossbow was cheaper or relatively expansive to produce, and easier to train with and packed a larger punch over a larger distance. And later of course, firearms were even cheaper and easier to train*.
But in the realm of RPG's abstractions, yes, bodkins would work.
*Contrary to the often depicted view, as per WFRP for example, firearms were actually cheaper in production than crossbows and bows. Bows required very good wood, which was often a domain of nobleman's forestry rights, and crossbows required wood practically just as good, and a lot of fiddly parts - the wood just had to age a bit quicker, I believe. And on the other hand, until the advent of flintlock mechanisms, the firearms were, for the most part, metal - wooden tubes which did not require such quality of work, nor the long wait for the weapon to be done.
Quote from: Phillip;650145I think the utility against missiles is really the biggest draw of a shield. Not that it isn't also good against hand-to-hand weapons, but there are modes of fighting that can (from what I've heard, more than personally tried) best the sword-and-board man.
Well, two handed weapons on the other hand nigh - guaranteed that you'd be chopped to bits if the man holding it hit you, and that played an important reasoning when faced against them. Then again, two - handed swords, until Landsknechts, were mostly a dominion of cavalry (aka knights) as well - speed and good armour allowed you to, for the most part, ignore danger of the arrows.
Get a pilum in your shield, you toss the shield.
Get a pilum in your gut, you toss your cookies.
Fuseboy: you haven't answered my question so I am going to ask again: how do you organize/prep the dungeon in this game? Do you map it? What are the guidelines provided by the game about this?
Quote from: fuseboy;650025- their angst was genuine.
Probably the most descriptive statement of Luke Crane ever.
Quote from: fuseboy;650140Time in Torchbearer is abstract.
Help me understand this. Time is abstract, but light and food exists for X number of turns?
I am getting this image of adventurers constantly eating Ritz crackers going down dungeon hallways. Is food really a code word for endurance? AKA, how long does their body's energy keep them active between meals?
"I'm too hungry to open that chest" sounds very odd. But we did have a Food counter for turns in the Ultima computer game.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650081Blocking the blow, turning a blow aside, mobile cover, secondary melee weapon — all of that makes sense (to my largely-untutored mind). What else?
My homebrew uses opposed d20 attack rolls. A shield will add another die to the defense roll, from d2 to d8, so they can be quite effective. They also make it easier to get a riposte (if defense die is a natural 20, get a riposte if your modified total beats the attack by 10 or more).
Quote from: fuseboy;650025I playtested an earlier version of Torchbearer.
I played BECMI and AD&D back in the day, preferred AD&D. But, I would suspect that the majority of adventuring I did fell into what was common back then: fight bad guys, find treasure, level up.
Now I read Benoist and Estar talking about their dungeon crawling (Ben with OD&D, Estar with GURPS) and I'm really intrigued. I don't know if that model of adventuring is something I'd enjoy, but I'd like to have been given the chance.
So, I'd like to know — is what fuseboy describes something like your ideal playing style? If not, what are the differences and similarities?
More importantly: Where is there a well-written, succinct article on this style of play? I don't mean something scattered through dozens of posts in a thread about something else, I mean a concentrated description of the play style, appeal of the play style, and suggested methods for DM's and players to engage in the mode.
Has it been written? If not — why not?
I really want to find out about it, but don't know where to begin.
("Read AD&D DMG" (or some other entire game manual) isn't a good answer, IMHO. That is not a concentrated article about this style, so doesn't qualify.)
Quote from: Benoist;650156Fuseboy: you haven't answered my question so I am going to ask again: how do you organize/prep the dungeon in this game? Do you map it? What are the guidelines provided by the game about this?
My bad.
The GM's section has a checklist/process for making a dungeon that has some interesting ideas in it, about how the dungeon came to be a dungeon, what changes it's endured over the ages, as well as guidance on the appropriate amount of treasure, etc.
You can draw a map if you like - I had sketchy maps of mine, but as the game isn't about players drawing a map of the GM's descriptions, the GM could potentially get by without a map for a linear dungeon.
Old habits die hard, so I kept a few aspects of the dungeon vague until play, but it's entirely fine to be quite concrete ahead of time. You could play the game using most of the dungeons submitted to the one-page dungeon contest, for example.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650169Help me understand this. Time is abstract, but light and food exists for X number of turns?
Light lasts for a certain number of turns, but turns aren't a specific length of time. A torch lasts two turns - say, enough time to get everyone across a troublesome gap in a ruined bridge and then decipher the runes scratched into the wall on the far side. (Not very long!)
Hunger is similar - every four turns, hunger gnaws. If you don't eat, you get the Hungry/Thirsty condition. If you're already Hungry/Thirsty when that happens, then you get successively worse conditions, which are no joke. By the time that happens, you've probably already got other conditions, so missing meals is done with heavy heart.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650197So, I'd like to know — is what fuseboy describes something like your ideal playing style? If not, what are the differences and similarities?
I love fantasy horror, so the "dungeon as a scary place" is very important to me and how I run OD&D and how I enjoy fantasy adventures.
What Fuseboy is describing sounds interesting, but I am not grasping what Torchbearer is offering me that DCC's funnel with encumbrance rules would not offer. Or any other low level, low magic RPG.
His description of Torchbearer sounds a lot like my "Dirty Peasants in Danger" convention game for Warhammer 1e where instead of Trollslayers and Elf Marines, the PCs are a collection of gutsy village folk in deep doo-doo who crawl into the darkness in search of their missing children.
I would buy Torchbearer: the Boardgame in hot second. Daring tomb robbers with their spears and torches eating rats on stick sounds fun, but outside of boardgames, I don't want that rigid turn concept.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650206I love fantasy horror, so the "dungeon as a scary place" is very important to me and how I run OD&D and how I enjoy fantasy adventures.
What Fuseboy is describing sounds interesting, but I am not grasping what Torchbearer is offering me that DCC's funnel with encumbrance rules would not offer. Or any other low level, low magic RPG.
His description of Torchbearer sounds a lot like my "Dirty Peasants in Danger" convention game for Warhammer 1e where instead of Trollslayers and Elf Marines, the PCs are a collection of gutsy village folk in deep doo-doo who crawl into the darkness in search of their missing children.
I would buy Torchbearer: the Boardgame in hot second. Daring tomb robbers with their spears and torches eating rats on stick sounds fun, but outside of boardgames, I don't want that rigid turn concept.
You're not far off, because truth be told, a lot of storygames seem to have very board - games inspired mechanics, and for a good reasons. Board games' abstractions are simply fitting, and since they are much more abstract than your usual RPGs, they are much easily balanced - for the price of abstraction way above typical levels.
Yeah, shared narrative games are much closer to wargames than regular RPGs on several levels.
From fuseboy's description, sound like you could plug in Torchbearer on top of the dungeon-crawling RPG of your choice with a little work, as a specialized subsystem to manage time and resources.
Quote from: The Butcher;650227From fuseboy's description, sound like you could plug in Torchbearer on top of the dungeon-crawling RPG of your choice with a little work, as a specialized subsystem to manage time and resources.
It does sound that way, which always begs my usual question of "why is this an entire game rather than a (system-neutral?) supplement?".
(Followed by the standard answer, which is "some folks think everything works better as an entire new game".)
Meh, I'm gonna go back to working on space ninjas.
Quote from: VectorSigma;650231Meh, I'm gonna go back to working on space ninjas.
Same thing. But it's golden barges travelling between worlds, here (bonus points to those who get the reference).
Quote from: The Traveller;650223Yeah, shared narrative games are much closer to wargames than regular RPGs on several levels.
Can you elaborate on this? I never got that impression out of shared narratives once. When you say war games the first thing that comes to mind are miniatures, dice, and tape measurers and that makes me think more of D&D than anything else.
Quote from: casek;650234Can you elaborate on this? I never got that impression out of shared narratives once. When you say war games the first thing that comes to mind are miniatures, dice, and tape measurers and that makes me think more of D&D than anything else.
Strict rules adherence and structure drives play.
(All FREX)
Wargame: First we move, then we fight, then we rally (etc...)
Boardgame: First I move, then you move, then we play cards, then we ...
Storygame: First we have a "narrator turn" then we have a "drama scene" then I decide "How far am I willing to go?" then we determine stakes, then we... etc...
RPG: What should we do now?
An RPG provides tools to make your own game happen whereas a storygame (and war and board games) provide a much stricter out-of-the-box "game" to play.
This isn't a bad thing, BTW, I like some storygames (I most recently ran Dread, and it was pretty awesome) but it's dumb to pretend Mouseguard is the same thing as Runequest.
Mouseguard play is driven by the rules (they deliberately "addresses a theme" to put it in wank terms), they make Mouseguard "About" something (struggle against overwhelming odds, etc...)
Runequest play is driven by the group. It's only "about" what the players and GM make it about (that's not to say the rules don't
inform gameplay, they do, but they don't drive it.)
Quote from: The Traveller;650223Yeah, shared narrative games are much closer to wargames than regular RPGs on several levels.
I'm thinking more Eurogames, really.
Quote from: fuseboy;650205Light lasts for a certain number of turns, but turns aren't a specific length of time. A torch lasts two turns - say, enough time to get everyone across a troublesome gap in a ruined bridge and then decipher the runes scratched into the wall on the far side. (Not very long!)
Hunger is similar - every four turns, hunger gnaws. If you don't eat, you get the Hungry/Thirsty condition. If you're already Hungry/Thirsty when that happens, then you get successively worse conditions, which are no joke. By the time that happens, you've probably already got other conditions, so missing meals is done with heavy heart.
Could we say "turns" here are equivalent to scenes/situations ?
Quote from: silva;650253Could we say "turns" here are equivalent to scenes/situations ?
Any time you test, that's a turn. I can imagine scenes that contain multiple tests, so.. no?
Quote from: Benoist;650047Well the guy does something well for some people, apparently. I mean, there are people who appreciate Burning Wheel and its avatars out there, including you, right? So from a basic game design standpoint, the guy must be doing something right. And I say that without snark, really.
Sure. I encourage you to give BW a try, or at least a read. It is a very interesting fantasy game, with some good ideas. If the game is too rules-heavy for you, at least there are some ideas you can snag. And it is traditional as hell.
Also, some persons are annoyed by the writing style, but that's too personal to judge.
Quote from: The Butcher;650227From fuseboy's description, sound like you could plug in Torchbearer on top of the dungeon-crawling RPG of your choice with a little work, as a specialized subsystem to manage time and resources.
Yeah, I got the same impression. OTOH, as I have always used encumbrance rules in RQ by-the-book, I don't find this Torchbearer experience to be nothing new.
I mean: whenever I have run an underground delve, be it in RQ or D&D or CoC or whatever, all these things are tracked.
Quote from: Piestrio;650235Strict rules adherence and structure drives play.
Runequest play is driven by the group. It's only "about" what the players and GM make it about (that's not to say the rules don't inform gameplay, they do, but they don't drive it.)
This is an excellent and actually useful description and distinction.
Quote..as I have always used encumbrance rules in RQ by-the-book, I don't find this Torchbearer experience to be nothing new.
I mean: whenever I have run an underground delve, be it in RQ or D&D or CoC or whatever, all these things are tracked.
I got the impression its not just a matter of encumbrance/bulk rules though, but the sinnergy of it with the "conditions" (Hungry, Afraid, Exhausted, etc) which trigger certain reactions under certain circumstances (afraid + no light = runaway, etc).
Sorry, since both members of the free marketing beaureau seem intent on turning the thread into an advertisement for this idiot shouldn't it be elsewhere?
Quote from: fuseboy;650205Light lasts for a certain number of turns, but turns aren't a specific length of time. A torch lasts two turns - say, enough time to get everyone across a troublesome gap in a ruined bridge and then decipher the runes scratched into the wall on the far side. (Not very long!)
Hunger is similar - every four turns, hunger gnaws. If you don't eat, you get the Hungry/Thirsty condition. If you're already Hungry/Thirsty when that happens, then you get successively worse conditions, which are no joke. By the time that happens, you've probably already got other conditions, so missing meals is done with heavy heart.
And you just unsold me on the game.
If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?
Quote from: jeff37923;650300And you just unsold me on the game.
If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?
Ding! Ding!
Quote from: jeff37923;650300If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?
I once had a conversation with Pundit on the issue of what people would become adventurers - if I remember correctly the conclusion was something like:
1) Way above-average/exceptional people become adventurers
2) Below-average/unemployable/desperate people also become adventurers
The adventurers in this game would seem to belong mainly in group 2).
Quote from: The Ent;650316.. what people would become adventurers
1) Way above-average/exceptional people become adventurers
2) Below-average/unemployable/desperate people also become adventurers
That's pretty funny and spot on.
I also think, that, most of the time, playing characters from group two is more fun and intriguing. "You don't have to be insane and desperate to go down a deadly dungeon, but it sure helps".
It's also very DCC, innit?
Just an aside on this being a game for people who don't like d&d. Here's a little quote...
Sorta like 3.5 except the resource management being time-consuming is intentional rather than a side effect of bad design.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650197More importantly: Where is there a well-written, succinct article on [the OSR Dungeoneering] style of play?
No takers? So no one has written a good, concise description of Gygaxian dungeon-crawling ("fantasy fucking Vietnam"), and why it's awesome, and how to do it?
Seriously?
Whoah — server bork. My post was magically transported back in time. It's 5 hours later than the time stamp indicates.
Sounds like a game I'd really like to try.
Quote from: jeff37923;650300And you just unsold me on the game.
If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?
I gotta agree. Are these just the weakest torches ever? Do these people not only need three meals a day, but upwards of ten meals, or else they get fatigued? What is this, the Gauntlet video game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_%281985_video_game%29)? "Barbarian needs food, badly!"
Weird. The time stamp on this message is 5 hours earlier. I can post to the middle of the thread :)
Quote from: silva;649923What always bothered me in D&D wasnt its premise, but its execution. Thus, a game that preserves the premise but with a different execution sounds cool to me.
Really?
Quote from: silva;566722Not everyone want to waste time and neurons with resource management. ;)
You are exactly the sort of pretentious douchebag that I'm laughing at right now.
Quote from: Mistwell;650349I gotta agree. Are these just the weakest torches ever? Do these people not only need three meals a day, but upwards of ten meals, or else they get fatigued?
That is strange. You would think that a game so focused on resource management would nail down, accurately, the burning time of torches and the daily food requirements for an average adventurer. At least make it less hand-wavey vague and illogical. I would think that fatigue from physical exertion would have a far greater impact (more conditional penalties) while spelunking than a little rumble in the tummy.
Quote from: jeff37923;650300And you just unsold me on the game.
If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?
Yeah, it sounds like a bunch of mechanics in search of a theme, which just got pasted on at the end.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;650357Really?
You are exactly the sort of pretentious douchebag that I'm laughing at right now.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650197More importantly: Where is there a well-written, succinct article on [the OSR Dungeoneering] style of play?
No takers? So no one has written a good, concise description of Gygaxian dungeon-crawling ("fantasy fucking Vietnam"), and why it's awesome, and how to do it?
Seriously?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650367No takers? So no one has written a good, concise description of Gygaxian dungeon-crawling ("fantasy fucking Vietnam"), and why it's awesome, and how to do it?
Seriously?
Player's Handbook, page 100+. See page 107-109 in particular.
Quote from: EntI once had a conversation with Pundit on the issue of what people would become adventurers
You mean only in fantasy gaming context, right ? Because I wouldnt say "adventurers" actually exist in real life in the way you put.
Quote from: silva;650293I got the impression its not just a matter of encumbrance/bulk rules though, but the sinnergy of it with the "conditions" (Hungry, Afraid, Exhausted, etc) which trigger certain reactions under certain circumstances (afraid + no light = runaway, etc).
Mate, RQ 3 covers all those things but for the Afraid condition. Hunger, thirst and exposure. Being afraid is something you roleplay. Fighting in the dark is something that kills you. You do not get to flee, probably.
Quote from: jeff37923;650300And you just unsold me on the game.
If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?
Yeah, it is surprising. Some metabolism right there :D
Quote from: silva;650369You mean only in fantasy gaming context, right ? Because I wouldnt say "adventurers" actually exist in real life in the way you put.
Well, not as described by the rules of
Torchbearer because they'd all be too busy eating to get anything accomplished.
Quote from: jeff37923;650376Well, not as described by the rules of Torchbearer because they'd all be too busy eating to get anything accomplished.
It's a fatbeard simulator!
Quote from: silva;650369You mean only in fantasy gaming context, right ? Because I wouldnt say "adventurers" actually exist in real life in the way you put.
Of course, in fantasy gaming context. :D
Quote from: KenHR;650377It's a fatbeard simulator!
:D
"Torchbearer: Fatbeard Simulator"
Quote from: ImperatorMate, RQ 3 covers all those things but for the Afraid condition. Hunger, thirst and exposure. Being afraid is something you roleplay. Fighting in the dark is something that kills you. You do not get to flee, probably.
Again, I think it may be a matter of execution. Its not
what those games do, but
how they do it. The "conditions" in Fatbeard Simulator ( :p ) seem to behave significantly different - and result in significantly different outputs - from the ones in Gurps or RQ, specially if you consider the compulsory nature of its triggers.
In this respect it reminds me of more "thematic" games like Unknown Armies and Pendragon, where the mental traits actually dictate behaviours on the players, instead of merely suggesting them.
"Fatbeard Simulator" sounds like the storygame to rule them all...:D
(either that or a game like Munchkin, except hardcore! :D)
Quote from: The Ent;650397"Fatbeard Simulator" sounds like the storygame to rule them all...:D
Ok, you take a beer from the freeze and go back to your chair.
Take the condition "Exhausted".
Quote from: silva;650399Ok, you take a beer from the freeze and go back to your chair.
Take the condition "Exhausted".
First you must successfully save vs. PBR or you take the "Hipster" condition.
Quote from: Benoist;650368Player's Handbook, page 100+. See page 107-109 in particular.
Which is exactly what I said would be an unsatisfactory answer. And it is.
That
Player's Handbook cite won't do anything to tell my why
you (or anyone else) love Gygaxian D&D. It's a cop-out.
Can it truly be that no one in the OSR has tried to describe or evangelize their favorite mode of play? Not one person has tried to encapsulate what they enjoy about Gygaxian dungeon raiding, and why, and explain that to anyone else? That they can't even even point to someone else who's done that?
I'm not saying the OSR is bad or wrong for loving 70's and early '80's D&D. But they
seem to be clannish and mute on anything else other than the superiority of their mechanics.
And that's not what interests me. It's the mode of play, not the mechanics of the game.
Is anyone among the OSR going to take a swing at being an advocate or ambassador?
Or is really, truly just about the mechanics? Just about loathing 3e's ascending AC and three saves and feats, and not at all about spreading excitement for what fun OD&D can be?
I love
Torg (as people may have gathered). And I have often explained what I love about the game as a whole, and each of the realms. And I've presented mechanics to improve those aspects in play.
Not because I hated
Masterbook (
Torg's "4e"). But because I loved
Torg.
It shocks me that no one in the OSR has done this. Even after I specifically invited people to sell me on the idea —
show me why you love it. I want to understand.
Come on, guys, someone must have done this. Surely, in the last, what, 7 years? At least once?
One blog post? One manifesto? ("Loving the Old School Dungeon.") One board thread? One board comment? No one?
That's disappointing and puzzling. I truly don't get it.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406Can it truly be that no one in the OSR has tried to describe or evangelize their favorite mode of play? Not one person has tried to encapsulate what they enjoy about Gygaxian dungeon raiding, and why, and explain that to anyone else? That they can't even even point to someone else who's done that?
I dipped a toe (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24053) in these waters previously. Some good information in there.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406Which is exactly what I said would be an unsatisfactory answer. And it is.
Not for me. Have you
really bothered to open your 1e AD&D PH today and read the part entitled "Successful Adventures"?
That's page 107 and 109, again, along with the surrounding context.
Because it seems to me you haven't. It provides the advice you asked for, and explains why some people would like to play these kinds of games for anyone with eyes to see.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406It's a cop-out.
Huh? No, it isn't. Not for me anyway.
Hulks and Horrors contains a fair bit of text as well explaining not just how old-school sandbox gaming is fun, but why.
You can get it for free right now too, if you follow the links on the Arcana Rising KS.
There's also all those guys who wrote "old school primers," or the glowing blog and forum posts from recent converts like James M. or myself.
Just because you haven't read shit doesn't mean it isn't out there, and it's not anyone else's responsibility to educate you on the matter.
Frankly I don't know what the hell you're screaming about, but it seems irritatingly close to a shoe-drop moment where you then claim that this supposed absence of such material is some kind of proof of something or other.
Quote from: silva;650395Again, I think it may be a matter of execution. Its not what those games do, but how they do it. The "conditions" in Fatbeard Simulator ( :p ) seem to behave significantly different - and result in significantly different outputs - from the ones in Gurps or RQ, specially if you consider the compulsory nature of its triggers.
Not so much, mate.
If you are too fatigued in RQ, you will endure rising penalties to everything until you drop. This is going to severely limit your shit. No need of taking away the control of your PC, you will be resting on your own accord. It's just roleplaying your PC. If the GM asks you in RQ how your stuff is distributed on your PC, you will develop a slot system in a natural manner. You just have to imagine yourself there. Like pretending you are your PC.
I am always OK with doing things a la Pendragon because Pendragon is one of the bestest games ever known to man, but I hardly consider that reinventing the fucking wheel. All those things already existed, It's just that some people now can allow themselves to like them, because it's designed by the right person.
Quote from: Imperator;650412I am always OK with doing things a la Pendragon because Pendragon is one of the bestest games ever known to man, but I hardly consider that reinventing the fucking wheel. All those things already existed, It's just that some people now can allow themselves to like them, because it's designed by the right person.
Well, if thats your take on the matter, so be it. I dont share it, but respect it nonetheless. ;)
Note that, by your argument, Unknown Armies may be also considered to try "re-inventing the wheel". And this, in my opinion, didnt impede it of being a great game by itself.
I think it would be best served to have a 'bored' condition.
What, i have to count my tea-leaves again? *flounce*
Quote from: silva;650415Well, if thats your take on the matter, so be it. I dont share it, but respect it nonetheless. ;)
Stop it, will you?
This whole thread was started in the hope that you would be able to rub theRPGSite's nose in Luke Crane getting a game talked about in a Forbes blog. Don't get all pissy when you see it backfiring in your face.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;650357Really?
You are exactly the sort of pretentious douchebag that I'm laughing at right now.
Ha!
I think i might have to nominate this for post of the year. :rotfl:
Quote from: jeff37923;650417Don't get all pissy when you see it backfiring in your face.
He keeps getting his ass handed to him and for some reason comes back for more. I think it's some sort of weird fetish.
Quote from: jeff37923;650417Stop it, will you?
This whole thread was started in the hope that you would be able to rub theRPGSite's nose in Luke Crane getting a game talked about in a Forbes blog. Don't get all pissy when you see it backfiring in your face.
Well, Im not on a rpg crusade as some guys around here. I will continue discussing with anyone genuinely interesting in discussing the game (Imperator, Daddy, etc), but I wont enter any fights.
Sorry if the frustrates you. ;)
Quote from: K Peterson;650359That is strange. You would think that a game so focused on resource management would nail down, accurately, the burning time of torches and the daily food requirements for an average adventurer. At least make it less hand-wavey vague and illogical. I would think that fatigue from physical exertion would have a far greater impact (more conditional penalties) while spelunking than a little rumble in the tummy.
and that's why this is a narrative game. There is resource management, but the resources aren't tied to anything concrete, like the resources they are supposed to simulate. That's because there is no structured time. Everything is based on a "turn", well how long is a turn? It depends.
Previously, how any other game has handled the situation is exactly like how someone in the real world would. Look at the amount of food left, look at the amount of light sources left, take in rate of use and know that you had two days to get out of the caves or you're dead. That's pressure, drama, conflict, whatever you want to call it, the struggle for survival.
By making the turns relative, and resources dissociated from time and realistic rates of resource consumption, the game dissociates the struggle of the player from the struggle of the character. Resource management becomes a metagame, instead of the natural byproduct of your character using resources.
You're not roleplaying the character, you're using narrative metagame to tell the story of a dungeoncrawler. As Spinachcat said, this might be a fun boardgame. As a Narrative Quasi-RPG, bleah.
I wonder why Pundit didnt enter here yet saying something like "thats it folks, party is over. Moving to other games". :D
Quote from: silva;650427I wonder why Pundit didnt enter here yet saying something like "thats it folks, party is over. Moving to other games". :D
Maybe because that's what you've been waiting for from the very start.
Quote from: silva;650427I wonder why Pundit didnt enter here yet saying something like "thats it folks, party is over. Moving to other games". :D
The Pundit's busy. Meanwhile it's fun taking apart the necksters* and their flailings towards relevancy.
*
neckbeards who think they are hipsters, thoroughly pitiable
Quote from: The Traveller;650409I dipped a toe (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24053) in these waters previously. Some good information in there.
Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll give it a read.
EDIT: Actually, I already read that thread, back when it was new, including the links to, e.g., Philotemy's site. But I do appreciate the response.
Quote from: Benoist;650410That's page 107 and 109
That wasn't written by you, so won't tell me why
you love
your play style.
Some information that might: how do you normally play? What do you look for in a session? How were you introduced to it, and what made you realize it was too compelling to quit?
Why do you love your playstyle? That's what I'd like to know.
I've said it three times in a row: I don't want page cites to a 30 year old manual. I want to know what
you think.
Quote from: J Arcane;650411Hulks and Horrors contains a fair bit of text as well explaining not just how old-school sandbox gaming is fun, but why.
That's great, but not what I'm asking about. I'm looking for the Gygaxian dungeon-crawling. A primer on it, why its adherents like it, what they feel enhances or detracts from it, how other people can get started on it. What dungeons are particularly suited to it, classic or recent?
All the basic stuff you'd normally expect fans to write.
Quote from: J Arcane;650411There's also all those guys who wrote "old school primers," or the glowing blog and forum posts from recent converts like James M. or myself.
Great. That seems like it might be something like what I asked for. Links to your blog (not in your sig), his blog, anything else?
Quote from: J Arcane;650411Frankly I don't know what the hell you're screaming about
Wow. "Screaming"? Around
here? That was almost a love letter to the OSR, by the usual standards.
Quote from: J Arcane;650411it seems irritatingly close to a shoe-drop moment where you then claim that this supposed absence of such material is some kind of proof of something or other.
I've already "dropped the shoe": I said that all I read on this board from OSR people is how shitty other games are. Even after I asked — politely, over a week ago — what they loved about Gygaxian dungeoncrawling ("fantasy fucking Vietnam"), all I read are people venting about other people's games, and how immoral the players thereof are.
And what did that prove, to me? "It
seems a little clannish..." That's the shoe I dropped.
And you're offended? Blogger, please.
Quote from: J Arcane;650411it's not anyone else's responsibility to educate you on the matter.
"I'm intrigued by Gygaxian dungeoncrawling. Where can I learn more?"
"I don't have to tell you shit!"
You're right, you don't. You don't have to respond at all. But you did. And, instead of actually answering the sincere question I asked, you just bitched.
I'm not trying to argue against your hobby... I just wanted some basic information. And
that's how you respond?
That's how you respond to someone's repeated and sincere requests for some basic information about the thing you love? That's how you respond to the curious, the uninitiated, those who actually
want to hear some old war stories?
"Tell me why you love it. I might love it, too."
"I don't have to tell you shit!"
"Clannish" seems far too mild a description for that kind of response. Hostile, insular, xenophobic... all of those are in the ballpark.
But welcoming, eager, and helpful, it isn't.
I don't see the use in getting bent out of shape over some guy making a game like this. A bit unclear on what it is bringing to the table that is genuinely new. It just sounds like what he is adding is a simplified and abstract resource management method (which doesn't strike me as all that terrible or all that brilliant). The one big concern I have when I read the promotional material in Forbes is it sounds like the guy is a serious real-world caver and he built the game to simlate the real thing. My experience with games written by experts or enthusiasts of a subject like that is they sometimes over-engineer or solve problems people who just play the game don't have (don't know if he did that here but that would be my concern). If he loves spelunking and made a game real spelunkers can admire, i do think that is cool. There may be a lot of people curious what a dungeon crawling hame written by such a person would play like (and perhaps they hope to get a window into the hobby as well). For me it doesn't look on first glance like he offering something I needed (i've been fine with how resource management and exploration works in most games i've played, so I dont need much more in the way of rules there).
On the other hand if he has found a good solution to the perennial problem of encumberance rules, then I wouldn't mind taking a look at the system and see what ideas he came up with.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650431That wasn't written by you, so won't tell me why you love your play style.
Some information that might: how do you normally play? What do you look for in a session? How were you introduced to it, and what made you realize it was too compelling to quit?
Why do you love your playstyle? That's what I'd like to know.
We've talked about this before and you know my answer about it.
Here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466
This is just the beginning.
QuoteI'm not trying to argue against your hobby... I just wanted some basic information.
People who want honest answers don't tend to go on the attack.
My work is up for those who want to read it.
The fact that you don't seem to understand that talk about old-school sandbox play is
directly relevant to Gygaxian dungeoncrawling and why it's cool just further demonstrates your clear disinterest in honest understanding rather than what you always do: preach to an audience of yourself.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650431But welcoming, eager, and helpful, it isn't.
You know we get along pretty well, i presume?
Well, if that's a given, then hopefully you'll accept my as-close-to-neutral comment at face value. :)
You did come off as somewhat incredulous that no-one had decided to answer your questions. It was a bit entitled - as if folk should have written a nice dissertation for you. A bit dance-monkey-dance.
That might have put a nose or two out of joint.
Either that or it's simple RPGsite mating season and everyone is marking their territory. ;)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650431That's great, but not what I'm asking about. I'm looking for the Gygaxian dungeon-crawling. A primer on it, why its adherents like it, what they feel enhances or detracts from it, how other people can get started on it. What dungeons are particularly suited to it, classic or recent?
.
I am not a huge dungeon crawl guy or a huge Gygax follower. But I have to say when I went back and re-read the 1E DMG, it added a lot to my game for exploration. It is a bit hard to put my finger on it. Part of it is a grew up playing D&D so all those little rules on explortion and the accompanying advice was familiar even if I had clouded many of the details. But part of it is the enthusiasm and having someone talk about it as if its something the reader has no understanding of. There's a newness to it that get's you excited to start populating hexs and dungeon hallways even if that really isn't your thing. But primarily the the way turns and encounters work made me comfortable as a gming running a style that really isnt my natural approach (there are procedures in place, and that makes it easy for me). I do think the book has some downsides to it, is unclear and not well organized in places. But this is one area that I think its reputation for quality is well deserved.
That said, I dont think you have to take the Gygax approach. When I ran my last D&D campaign I went for a more old school exploration style that I started out on. I drew on the 1E dmg, on the 2E dmg and on the 3E dmg, then added in my own material and procedures that worked for me,
Quote from: One Horse Town;650436Either that or it's simple RPGsite mating season and everyone is marking their territory. ;)
*takes a piss on Dan's shoe* :D
Quote from: J Arcane;650434just further demonstrates your clear disinterest in honest understanding
:confused:
"Okay, I might like to read your blog. What's the link?"
"You're lying!"
What?
Look, let me restate this again, very simply:
Gygaxian dungeoncrawling isn't something I've been exposed to. What do fans find appealing about it?
Simple question.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650439:confused:
"Okay, I might like to read your blog. What's the link?"
"You're lying!"
What?
Look, let me restate this again, very simply:
Gygaxian dungeoncrawling isn't something I've been exposed to. What do fans find appealing about it?
Simple question.
Gee, I can't imagine why I might assume that someone who's already been directed not just to a blog, but a free and complete
game but refuses to take the offer might not be discussing in good faith ... :rolleyes:
Quote from: silva;650415Well, if thats your take on the matter, so be it. I dont share it, but respect it nonetheless. ;)
:hatsoff:
QuoteNote that, by your argument, Unknown Armies may be also considered to try "re-inventing the wheel". And this, in my opinion, didnt impede it of being a great game by itself.
I disagree.
UA is not trying to imitate Cthulhu, or be a game about Mythos for people who hates the Mythos, or anything like it. It is just a game that uses a solid and well tested engine with a few clever tweaks to do something pretty original. They didn't try to be ironic about shit, or make the "good" version of anything. UA it's its own. I can't say the same about Torchbearer.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650436You did come off as somewhat incredulous that no-one had decided to answer your questions.
I was. Here's why:
This board is full — full to bursting — with posts about how shitty other people's game systems are. By a lot of people,
some of them OSR Gygaxian fans.
Despite that, some of what they said about the play style I found intriguing.
I asked. Politely. Got no response.
Other threads. Other OSR "you're game system is garbage and everyone who played it is a loser".
I asked again, for basic information. Got no response.
More threads. More lengthy posts about why other people's games systems were shit. 0 posts about what they loved about their own game.
An entire thread on dungeoncrawling. Maybe a play style resembling OSR, maybe not — a topic I've been wondering about for weeks.
I asked. Got one response (CRKrueger, I believe), which was illuminating and appreciated, but which didn't answer my question.
And a lot of posts, shitting on other people's systems.
All the energy in the world for partisan bitching... not one line about why their own game is awesome. Isn't that a little odd?
Quote from: One Horse Town;650436It was a bit entitled - as if folk should have written a nice dissertation for you.
I wasn't asking for a dissertation crafted for me. Even just links to something was acceptable.
But instead of posting links... "Game system X sucks!"
Yes, I find that strange.
I'm a devotee of a system. ("Devotee" is far too mild, honestly.) At the drop of a hat, I could tell you why I love the setting, tolerate the system, and what people can do to make their game more interesting.
I've written about this, on a site. (In my sig.) I've written hundreds of thousands of words of it.
And not one link from people who love
their game?
Yeah, the endless bitching about other people's games aggravated me. And when I was genuinely interested in theirs... I got ignored or smacked down.
And the combo irritated me. And I post when I'm motivated. And irritation does motivate me.
And I really would like to understand. But...
Quote from: One Horse Town;650436Either that or it's simple RPGsite mating season and everyone is marking their territory. ;)
Maybe that's it.
EDIT: to OHT — I'll admit my emotional response may have been unjustified, but it is irritating to ask a sincere question, and get no response, then ask it again more forcefully, and get heckled by people just for asking. It's Seinfeldian: "No link for you!"
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650446I was. Here's why:
This board is full — full to bursting — with posts about how shitty other people's game systems are. By a lot of people, some of them OSR Gygaxian fans....
.
People just might be cagey.
I am pretty sure Benoist and Estar have posted on this subject somewhere here. Benoist had a nice mega-dungeon thread that I believe went into some of what you are looking for. Estar has tons of blog entries on old school gaming. They are worth checking out.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650448People just might be cagey.
That may be. I don't talk politics or personal beliefs for the same reason.
Estar has always come across as a sincere, level-headed guy. Maybe I'll PM him and ask for some tips.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650446I asked. Politely. Got no response.
Actually, you got over two pages of responses to your "fantasy fucking Vietnam" thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25684).
I didn't answer it because, personally, I don't really think of campaign dungeon campaigns as "fantasy fucking Vietnam," except ironically or flippantly, nor do I think of it as "Gygaxian dungeoncrawling," since my influences go beyond what EGG wrote on the subject
You keep asking [strike]stupid[/strike] jargon-laced questions without knowing what it is you're asking, so don't blame others for not playing along.
When people have posted about these topics for years now, that the information you seek is literally a search away on this forum, that multiple people such as myself and J Arcane have addressed your very same point before by providing links and discussion and downloads to their games and whatnot, and that you come back on this thread with the same rant like none of that ever took place, YES, for sure, you might find people a dash touchy about the finger pointing, Daddy Warpig.
Daddy, just out of cusiosity, but what do you expect to find on a esy about dungeons or something like that ? Sorry, but Im also not understand what youre looking for exactly.
Do you look for something more or less like this : "I love shadowrun because it allows me to shoot people in the face for money in a gray-colored cyberpunk world full of supernatural mysteries and horrors".
The depressing part about his little segue is that the shared narrative contingent are so unschooled in the the normal cut and thrust of adult discussions, since such pursuits are actively discouraged among their echo chambers, that they will no doubt believe they've sowed discontent among the Emmanuel Goldsteins.
It's one of those very rare situations that make me question my belief in humanity, due in no part to those discussing in good faith.
Quote from: silva;650458Do you look for something more or less like this : "I love shadowrun because it allows me to shoot people in the face for money in a gray-colored cyberpunk world full of supernatural mysteries and horrors".
Why did I like
Shadowrun?
I ran into the game at a Waldenbooks in Layton, UT. It was brand new, so all that was on the shelves was the 1st printing rulebook, the GM screen, and the first novel. ("Never Deal with a Dragon", IIRC.)
I loved the setting: orks, elves, and other fantasy races in a cyberpunk world, along with a Matrix, cyberware, drones, and other really cool stuff, most of which I hadn't encountered before. (I got into cyberpunk because of
Shadowrun.) It set off bright lights in my skull.
I couldn't afford it, so when I went back to my high school, I made my own little setting, complete with cyber-minotaurs and CHUDS. (Hey, I was in high school.) We only played once — a dungeon crawl, no less, a courier making a run through tunnels under the city.
(The mechanics I came up with used 4d6, roll under. (All I could remember of the system was that you rolled several d6's.) I was amused to find out, a couple of years later, that it was pretty similar to GURPS.)
After graduation, I had enough money to actually buy it, and me and my D&D friends began playing (me as DM). I got DNA/DOA and ran it. Again, it was cool. I bought everything for first edition and a lot for second. We played the hell out of it, that summer before I went off to college.
What sold me on the system was the setting. (Which, in retrospect, is how all my games went — I love settings first, and learn systems later.) The adventure template was well described and easy to endlessly iterate: get job, legwork, cool run, get paid. Even sessions that weren't actual Runs were easy to imagine: you're crooks, the cops and the corps are your enemies. Don't get caught.
It was effortless and fun. We didn't have to agonize over mechanics or setting details. Just play it.
I still love fantasy+cyberpunk. Dragons owning corps, city shamans, bug spirits, all the weird idiosyncrasies of an organic magic system lying alongside cyberware and high tech. It speaks to me.
I haven't played
Shadowrun in years. And I contributed to the "Shadowrun Returns" Kickstarter, before sudden financial problems forced me to withdraw my pledge. But just this month, a few days before pre-orders were closed, I spent $75 of my last $120 to pre-order the collector's edition.
See, Jordan Weisman, the original designer, is making the game, and it looks really cool. It looks like it could be a throwback to the days when just flipping through the rulebook could inspire a high school kid to make his own (crappy) setting and (crappy) system just to play something like it.
Not a fan of Burning Wheel at all; I could never figure out what I was supposed to do with it. I bought Mouse Guard because the book looks great and the art is cool, but otherwise seems kind of boring. From the description given in the article/post and in this thread, it doesn't really seem like an RPG, but more of an exercise in resource management.
The notion of "turns" was brought up several times in a derogatory manner (i.e. turns do not necessarily denote any specific passage of time), but it seems exactly like how boardgames treat turns to me. Nothing wrong with that at all, but again, that's really not an RPG.
I'll probably support the KS just to see what all the fuss is about...
Oh, hay, first post.
Quote from: Brad;650466Oh, hay, first post.
Welcome to the adult swim.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406It shocks me that no one in the OSR has done this. Even after I specifically invited people to sell me on the idea — show me why you love it. I want to understand.
Come on, guys, someone must have done this. Surely, in the last, what, 7 years? At least once?
One blog post? One manifesto? ("Loving the Old School Dungeon.") One board thread? One board comment? No one?
That's disappointing and puzzling. I truly don't get it.
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2012/06/old-school-renaissance-primer.html
Quote from: Paka;650476http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2012/06/old-school-renaissance-primer.html
Thank you. :hatsoff:
Late to the clusterfuck.
I understand the historical motives behind the widespread bitterness that sometimes seems to taint everything on these boards (I swear to board the colour scheme should be Bilious Green), but guys? There are better ways to get the kids off of your lawn, than crapping on it.
Quote from: The Traveller;650409I dipped a toe (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24053) in these waters previously. Some good information in there.
Some really good posts on this thread.
Quote from: Paka;650476http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2012/06/old-school-renaissance-primer.html
This is the must-read introductory text, I think.
For meatier reading, the OD&D-powered musings of our own Philotomy Jurament, collected in PDF here (http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf) for your reading pleasure.
Quote from: The Butcher;650495Late to the clusterfuck.
I understand the historical motives behind the widespread bitterness that sometimes seems to taint everything on these boards (I swear to board the colour scheme should be Bilious Green), but guys? There are better ways to get the kids off of your lawn, than crapping on it.
:rolleyes:
They have their own lawn, and it's pretty big from what can be seen. We're not trying to get on their lawns, by pretending how RuneQuest can be used to create superior works in spirit of Bierce, that'd be created by shared creative work.
Quote from: silva;650395Again, I think it may be a matter of execution. Its not what those games do, but how they do it. The "conditions" in Fatbeard Simulator ( :p ) seem to behave significantly different - and result in significantly different outputs - from the ones in Gurps or RQ, specially if you consider the compulsory nature of its triggers.
In this respect it reminds me of more "thematic" games like Unknown Armies and Pendragon, where the mental traits actually dictate behaviours on the players, instead of merely suggesting them.
If players don't want to roleplay the condition, nothing'll force it. You are supposed to roleplay your alignment/cult/sanity etc. etc. If you don't, work on the roleplaying.
I see we're past "Mechanics trying to fix the GMs", we're fully into "Mechanics trying to fix the Role Playing" territory.
Quote from: The Traveller;650460The depressing part about his little segue is that the shared narrative contingent are so unschooled in the the normal cut and thrust of adult discussions, since such pursuits are actively discouraged among their echo chambers, that they will no doubt believe they've sowed discontent among the Emmanuel Goldsteins.
It's one of those very rare situations that make me question my belief in humanity, due in no part to those discussing in good faith.
I assure you I am a rightful and honest bastard. And I do care a bit about "THE LAW(N)". Not because I adhere to some One True Wayism, but because I see more and more people who put the "=" in between storygames and RPGs, and -that- causes the thing that most champions of RAW scream about - the dissociated expectations. Because someone raised on InSpectres or Sorcerer or TSoY will have a vastly different expectations than someone raised on Warhammer, D&D and CoC, and part of that vastness is because those games are practically whole different genres, rather than shadows of one.
I also have a certain stone to grind against the "de - GMisation", ever so present, but that's my private stone, and that is my "True Wayism", and that's something I do not impose on people. Heck, I use various "narrative" tricks - I just use the tricks, not go the full monty.
Quote from: Rincewind1If players don't want to roleplay the condition, nothing'll force it. You are supposed to roleplay your alignment/cult/sanity etc. etc. If you don't, work on the roleplaying.
I see we're past "Mechanics trying to fix the GMs", we're fully into "Mechanics trying to fix the Role Playing" territory.
While I find this style perfectly valid, I must remember you there are rpgs that dont follow it, instead actually imposing/forcing reactions on the players ( aka "Mechanics to fix the Role Playing).
You dont consider Pendragon and Unknown Armies "rpgs", because of that ?
Quote from: silva;650498While I find this style perfectly valid, I must remember you there are rpgs that dont follow it, instead actually imposing/forcing reactions on the players ( aka "Mechanics to fix the Role Playing).
Except if you dont consider Pendragon and Unknown Armies "rpgs", of course.
You are dodging. If the player does not feel like role - playing the mechanics, nothing short of a brute standing behind him with a spiked bat will force him to role - play them. Sanity in CoC can be just as much used to impose and/or force the reaction, as the much greater sanity mechanics in UA. It all depends on the role - player. You won't fix the player with roll of a dice or a number on his character sheet.
I understand you may retort that "Yes, but they are penalties & mechanic changes that cause some decisions to be impossible" - perhaps, indeed. But if a player is dull enough, he'll loose a hand in the fight and continue to declare attacks as if his character is not bleeding to death, if you'll let him.
Helps to roleplay are fine, whether mechanical or not. But there is also a problem if they do not intervene with roleplaying too much, and whether they are done for good, or for mechanic's sake.
Rince, I think we´re talking different things.
I dont see the point in "fixing" players. I dont consider engaging in rpgs as a form of art or activity that must be perfected or something. I think rpgs are entertainment. Each player should have fun the way he wants, as long as he dont make the game unfun for the others in the group.
So, while I think the capacity to relate to and interpret his character apropriately helps, I dont consider it mandatory to the point of calling a player "broken" - in fact, I had a lot of friends who played exactly like that, didnt care much for interpreting his characters mental states at all. If the system imposed it on them, fine, they went with it. If not, whatever. ANd thats a perfectly viable playing stance in my eyes.
Quote from: silva;650504Rince, I think we´re talking different things.
I dont see the point in "fixing" players. I dont consider engaging in rpgs as a form of art or activity that must be perfected or something. I think rpgs are entertainment. Each player should have fun the way he wants, as long as he dont make the game unfun for the others in the group.
So, while I think the capacity to relate to and interpret his character apropriately helps, I dont consider it mandatory to the point of calling a player "broken" - in fact, I had a lot of friends who played exactly like that, didnt care much for interpreting his characters mental states at all. If the system imposed it on them, fine, they went with it. If not, whatever. ANd thats a perfectly viable playing stance in my eyes.
Well, therefore I find the notion of "This is a mechanic (not just talking about Torchlight here) that makes a player compulsory to certain feelings" is a bit silly. A mechanic or a keyword or some sort of alignment/traits system may and will probably help, yes - but it'll not automatically make an RPer out of someone, nor will it force someone to play, if they choose to ignore. How often did you see people think they could get away with all those negative traits on their character sheets, that they put there for bonus creation points? And 99% of the times it wasn't even on purpose - they just put so many stuff there, they were not able to role - play it properly.
My notion is, that a mechanic won't do the GM's job for him, nor the Player's job. The Sanity mechanics in UA, while quite cool, I agree (though I think one could shorten them to 3 rather than 5, personally I found the Stability/Sanity of Trail of Cthulhu a decent enough stuff, but for CoC genre of course), won't give player enough clues, if he's unwilling to take them, and they certainly won't build the mood and behaviour, on their own, for the GM.
Quote from: Imperator;650445I disagree.
UA is not trying to imitate Cthulhu, or be a game about Mythos for people who hates the Mythos, or anything like it. It is just a game that uses a solid and well tested engine with a few clever tweaks to do something pretty original. They didn't try to be ironic about shit, or make the "good" version of anything. UA it's its own. I can't say the same about Torchbearer.
Yes, UA reminded me much more of the X-Files or Dresden Files (except much darker, even moreso than the books), or Blair Witch Project The Video Game Part 1, or various other games where you played as a secret society devoted to keeping a lid on paranormal activites. Except you may not even get a society to back you up.
Quote from: silva;650458Im also not understand what youre looking for exactly.
Fair question.
I'm trying to expand my horizons. I've done a lot of fantasy gaming, and read a lot of fantasy games. Even so, there's some gaps.
People praised the Gray Box Forgotten Realms. So, I'm reading it. People lauded the Palladium fantasy world. So, I'm reading 2e. And people praised OD&D, in particular the Gygaxian dungeon. Which game I've already read, and played.
Obviously, they got — or were taught — something different than what I experienced. I wanted to learn something new.
So I asked.
Quote from: The Butcher;650495Some really good posts on this thread.
Yes, that's what got me interested. Didn't quite find what I was looking for.
I was hoping for something along the lines of:
"The classic dungeon is more than just a storehouse for monsters to kill and treasure to take. It is an opponent. Better, it's an challenge. You approach a dungeon like a team of SEALS would approach an enemy compound. Planning, caution, and intelligence are your chief assets. The goal of a dungeoncrawl isn't the survival of an individual character; it's the conquest of an obdurate foe — the dungeon and the challenges within — through canny play."
And so forth. What is the attitude, what are the goals, where does the fun lie, what methods do you use, how do you approach it, and so forth.
Quote from: The Butcher;650495For meatier reading, the OD&D-powered musings of our own Philotomy Jurament, collected in PDF here (http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf) for your reading pleasure.
Thank you, very much. Downloaded.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650431Why do you love your playstyle? That's what I'd like to know.
I will post a personal OSR "manifesto" thread sometime this week. I am happy to talk about why I love dungeons.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650436Either that or it's simple RPGsite mating season and everyone is marking their territory. ;)
And that's why I brought my War Crotch.
Quote from: silva;650504I dont see the point in "fixing" players.
Bob Barker disagrees. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_NT7tqUyks)
Quote from: Spinachcat;650538And that's why I brought my War Crotch.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Spinachcat;650538I will post a personal OSR "manifesto" thread sometime this week. I am happy to talk about why I love dungeons.
And I will be more than happy to listen. Thank you.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650515People lauded the Palladium fantasy world. So, I'm reading 2e.
God no, you're doing it all wrong! ;) Just kidding, of course. 2e is best for setting information, but the rules consist of the current ill-conceived patchwork that passes for Palladium's house system. 1e features the embryonic Palladium system (think AD&D 1e with d100 skills) which looks clunkier but I've actually found more playable.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650515Yes, that's what got me interested. Didn't quite find what I was looking for.
I was hoping for something along the lines of:
"The classic dungeon is more than just a storehouse for monsters to kill and treasure to take. It is an opponent. Better, it's an challenge. You approach a dungeon like a team of SEALS would approach an enemy compound. Planning, caution, and intelligence are your chief assets. The goal of a dungeoncrawl isn't the survival of an individual character; it's the conquest of an obdurate foe — the dungeon and the challenges within — through canny play."
And so forth. What is the attitude, what are the goals, where does the fun lie, what methods do you use, how do you approach it, and so forth.
If I may be so bold as to quote myself on that same thread:
Quote from: The Butcher;582585"Dungeon", in D&D terms, is shorthand for the place where D&D's magic happens -- where PCs interact with secrets, traps and puzzles, and with the setting's history; where monsters are fought and treasure acquired; in short, the go-to destination for adventurers seeking their fortune, which is the essence of D&D.
Clark Ashton Smith's Mount Voormitradeth ("The Seven Geases"), Fritz Leiber's House of Angarngi ("The Jewels in the Forest"), Robert E. Howard's lost city of Xuchotil ("Red Nails") and of course, Tolkien's Lonely Mountain ("The Hobbit") are some of the source fiction (pulp fantasy) templates for the D&D dungeon. See also our own Philotomy Jurament's "The Dungeon as a Mythic Underworld" essay (can't find a link right now, I'll link it up later).
The name "dungeon" probably originates with Gary Gygax's Castle Greyhawk dungeons; though Dave Arneson probably did it first, I suppose Gary did codify the idea and shape it into its modern form.
And regarding methods, I once started a thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21636) on the subject (more specifically, about megadungeons), and there was plenty of good advice all around, but I consider Benoist's epic "show, don't tell" response (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466#post504466) the most comprehensive and consistent read on the subject I've ever encountered.
Is that anything like what you're looking for? I'm pretty sure I could expand on this, though I'm sure the real grognards which frequent these forums would do a far better job of it.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650515Thank you, very much. Downloaded.
Glad to be of service. :)
Quote from: Rincewind1;650496:rolleyes:
They have their own lawn, and it's pretty big from what can be seen. We're not trying to get on their lawns, by pretending how RuneQuest can be used to create superior works in spirit of Bierce, that'd be created by shared creative work.
:rolleyes: right back at ya.
It's the constant standing assumption of bad faith, the enduring conviction that every time someone asks about dungeon-crawling it's an open declaration of war on all that is good and holy about RPGs. That's where these threads lose me.
Also, it's not "their" lawn, or mine, for that matter. Old school D&D and its retro-clones, are out there for anyone who wants to reach out and make them their own. However, the cultural reference frame that made these games so mind-numbingly obvious and awesomely popular back in the day, has shifted; and people (myself included) often need someone to point out that the "wacky" parts are not wacky at all, but intentionally and carefully engineered pieces of game design.
I understand that everyone's tired of sparring with people arguing in bad faith, but I don't really see the point of having a community if we're going to circle the wagons every time someone asks about the play style that seems to be most popular with forum goers here.
Quote from: The Butcher;650570And regarding methods, I once started a thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21636) on the subject (more specifically, about megadungeons), and there was plenty of good advice all around, but I consider Benoist's epic "show, don't tell" response (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466#post504466) the most comprehensive and consistent read on the subject I've ever encountered.
Much,
much seconded. The megadungeon thread might well be the best rpg thread I've read. Certainly in the top 3. Fantastic, great thread. A must-read.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650496And I do care a bit about "THE LAW(N)". Not because I adhere to some One True Wayism, but because I see more and more people who put the "=" in between storygames and RPGs, and -that- causes the thing that most champions of RAW scream about - the dissociated expectations. Because someone raised on InSpectres or Sorcerer or TSoY will have a vastly different expectations than someone raised on Warhammer, D&D and CoC, and part of that vastness is because those games are practically whole different genres, rather than shadows of one.
What makes RPGs different is the feeling of being there, a hotline direct to that very primal part of humanity which allows us to imagine we really are swinging on ropes through a violet-hued jungle. RPGs cleverly put a structure on this phenomenon which allows us to share our imagination with others in a useful way, the rules and the dice, while letting people hold on to their own imaginings, and sheer fucking awesome was born.
I mean give me a pencil, some paper, and a dice, and I can bring a group of people anywhere we can imagine, and really be there in many ways. Incredible! This is what makes RPGs different from every other kind of game or sport.
Enter ronnie and forgers. They didn't get the imagination part of the game, or possibly were offended by it in some sort of demented cargo cult version of rationalism, see the link in my sig below for more information about them.
From their bottoms fell shared narrative games, which aren't about being there, they are about a) sharing power which didn't really exist in the first place (which attracted some serious nuts) and b) trying to create some sort of novel, turning RPGs into a collaborative writing tool, which in effect made everyone into a general marshalling armies around a board. AKA wargames.
That is all.
And the thing is, they're crap. Even as different games, they aren't fun. The bits they borrowed from RPGs are kind of fun, but they were forced to turn to transgressionism to keep anyone interested, like talentless shock jocks, see Maid for reference.
Now what we're seeing is the release of purely standard issue RPGs under the banner of shared narrative gaming, as more and more of their community come to realise that the point of playing games is fun and shared narrative games aren't fun. Dungeon World is the only such game that I've really looked at, but it's the definitive example of what's happening. New old school from the necksters.
Such a spectacular and bizarre amount of effort to end up exactly where they started is singularly deserving of the Gary Busey Ovation award:
(http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/MaCID.gif)
Quote from: The Traveller;650586Now what we're seeing is the release of purely standard issue RPGs under the banner of shared narrative gaming, as more and more of their community come to realise that the point of playing games is fun and shared narrative games aren't fun.
Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.
To say otherwise strays into that "brain damage" zone where fans of other games somehow must be defective for enjoying those games. I get wanting different names for Traditional RPGs vs. Narrative RPGs, but I can't get aboard denigrating people for their choice of fun.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650588Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.
Amen!
And it is perfectly possible to enjoy both type of games.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650588Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.
To say otherwise strays into that "brain damage" zone where fans of other games somehow must be defective for enjoying those games. I get wanting different names for Traditional RPGs vs. Narrative RPGs, but I can't get aboard denigrating people for their choice of fun.
A better way to put it might be to say that they weren't designed with fun aforethought. The whole hilarious cul de sac started out with foul ol ron trying to figure out a way to game without roleplaying, or without engaging that human part of his brain which delights in RPing. Most of the elaborations ever since have been attempts to codify this concept. If people have fun while doing that, why not I guess. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
Quote from: The Butcher;6505702e is best for setting information,
Which is, honestly, what I'm looking for, right now. Setting information, and different approaches to fantasy gaming.
Even something like "a dungeoncrawl is a lot like a shadowrun mission" (if true) would have helped.
On that note...
Quote from: The Butcher;650570And regarding methods, I once started a thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21636) on the subject (more specifically, about megadungeons), and there was plenty of good advice all around,
I tried to read the individual post you linked too, and though undoubtedly full of great advice, it's dense with "here's how you implement the idea", but not why it's appealing. It's "How to Make a Stereo in Your Garage", not "The Beauties of Modern Jazz". What to do, not why to do it.
But, I'll go back and read the thread from the beginning. If I have any questions, I'll ask.
Again, thanks.
Quote from: The Butcher;650572It's the constant standing assumption of bad faith, the enduring conviction that every time someone asks about dungeon-crawling it's an open declaration of war on all that is good and holy about RPGs.
So, I tripped over this assumption?: "Ask about dungeoncrawling = undercover SA Goon, tolling for quotes for Grognards.txt."
That may be a good assumption for newbs, who instantly begin to provoke and denigrate (while pretending to be asking a question), but not for someone who's been here for over a year, launched his own mega-thread excoriating storygames, who has a firm record of 1200 posts of sincere discussion, disagreement, and agreement, and whose anti-Ron post has been sigged by a long-time board member.
If that's someone you respond to as if they were an SA Goon sockpuppet, you really need to dial the defensiveness back. You can justify it however you want, but attacking people for asking a question is never a good idea.
(And the whole "if you were sincere, you'd already know" meme is, frankly, fucking bizarre.)
Quote from: The Traveller;650591A better way to put it might be to say that they weren't designed with fun aforethought. The whole hilarious cul de sac started out with foul ol ron trying to figure out a way to game without roleplaying, or without engaging that human part of his brain which delights in RPing. Most of the elaborations ever since have been attempts to codify this concept. If people have fun while doing that, why not I guess. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
People did find simming fun, long before the Forge.
Simming existed long before Ron, he just ran in that direction (ignorantly, without knowing what simming was) out of a loathing for roleplaying. (He genuinely thought people hated playing in character, as he did.)
Simmers who used RPG mechanics even existed before Ron. He just tried to port that idea back into the RPG community, and convert all RPG's into sim-games. It was foolish, wrongheaded, and he used a lot of intellectually dishonest rhetoric and tactics to do so.
In other words, I think your declaration is false on its face — people do enjoy simming, and have for a long while now. Those same people enjoyed sim/RPG hybrids.
But RPG's are not sim-games, and never were, and never can be.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650599In other words, I think your declaration is false on its face — people do enjoy simming, and have for a long while now. Those same people enjoyed sim/RPG hybrids.
I'm not talking about sim games, but rather about shared narrative games. They don't make for good literary collaboration tools, they don't make for good RPGs, they possibly make for good sim games, but if you wanted that you'd just play a sim game.
I think we're pretty much on the same page however.
Quote from: The Traveller;650591A better way to put it might be to say that they weren't designed with fun aforethought. The whole hilarious cul de sac started out with foul ol ron trying to figure out a way to game without roleplaying, or without engaging that human part of his brain which delights in RPing. Most of the elaborations ever since have been attempts to codify this concept. If people have fun while doing that, why not I guess. But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
I am pretty sure YOU are the one that lost sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is not the original intent of the designers of those games. The bigger picture is "Are people having fun playing the games?" That's the big picture dude, not the small one. It's a game, not a movement or a cause, just a fucking game. The small picture is dwelling on author names and imagined or real intents...most people truly could not give a shit about those things, and if you left author names off those games most players would never notice, nor could they give a damn for some intent concerning RPGs.
At the point where you are more concerned with who the author is, and what their intent might be, more than whether or not people are having fun playing those games, then you've lost sight of the bigger picture. For players, the point of the game is to have fun playing the game. If it accomplishes that goal, not much else matters, no matter how butthurt you are about the author and their intent.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650588Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games.
Is anyone actually disputing this point? I hate those sorts of games, but I know people who really enjoy them. Anyone who thinks narrative games aren't "fun" doesn't have to play them. It's like sitting down at the poker table in Caesars Palace and bitching about the idiots wasting their time playing craps. And not even playing poker. That's probably the worst part about it: most of the vocal "outrage" against narrative games is from people who don't even play rpgs anymore. Their hobby is simply complaining about the Balkanization of rpgs. Weak.
Quote from: Brad;650673Is anyone actually disputing this point? I hate those sorts of games, but I know people who really enjoy them. Anyone who thinks narrative games aren't "fun" doesn't have to play them. It's like sitting down at the poker table in Caesars Palace and bitching about the idiots wasting their time playing craps. And not even playing poker. That's probably the worst part about it: most of the vocal "outrage" against narrative games are from people who don't even play rpgs anymore. Their hobby is simply complaining about the Balkanization of rpgs. Weak.
If you were playing RPGs, you wouldn't have time to type that.
And it's not Baklanizations of RPGs, it's pretending to be a part of a country while really trying to carve your own there. Something that may be better served if they'd have the courage and just sail to their own colony - something that some of Storygames seem to do, at the very least.
Quote from: The Butcher;650572:rolleyes: right back at ya.
It's the constant standing assumption of bad faith, the enduring conviction that every time someone asks about dungeon-crawling it's an open declaration of war on all that is good and holy about RPGs. That's where these threads lose me.
Also, it's not "their" lawn, or mine, for that matter. Old school D&D and its retro-clones, are out there for anyone who wants to reach out and make them their own. However, the cultural reference frame that made these games so mind-numbingly obvious and awesomely popular back in the day, has shifted; and people (myself included) often need someone to point out that the "wacky" parts are not wacky at all, but intentionally and carefully engineered pieces of game design.
I understand that everyone's tired of sparring with people arguing in bad faith, but I don't really see the point of having a community if we're going to circle the wagons every time someone asks about the play style that seems to be most popular with forum goers here.
I call :rolleyes: and raise you :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Don't put me into the conflict I care nothing about, because I never defended the sanctity of dungeons as portrayed by D&D. I don't even like dungeons that much - they are fun, sure, but not the pinnacle of RPG design by any means. My gripe isn't about OSR or dungeons. It is about the dissonance between storygames and RPGs, and the attempt to sell rap records labelled as heavy metal, so to speak. I like some storygames (well, alright, one - Fiasco). And yes, I don't find that just a tempest in a teapot, because as I said, the dissociation between expectations learned from playing those games and assuming they are RPGs, is much greater than even dissociation between Sandboxers and Heavy Plot gamers. There's also another problem there - the criteria to judge the usefulness/quality of an RPG are becoming useless, if we pretend storygames are RPGs. Because the usual criteria of an RPG are how well the system handles what it tries to emulate, a thin balance between too high abstraction, balance of character's usefulness and too little verisimilitude. Storygames have usually a perfect balance, but at a cost of complete abstraction.
Traveller - I agree with most. Except the "crap" part. That's the matter of taste. I'd rather put it that way - they deserve their branch. But their branch isn't our branch.
Quote from: Mistwell;650666I am pretty sure YOU are the one that lost sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is not the original intent of the designers of those games. The bigger picture is "Are people having fun playing the games?" That's the big picture dude, not the small one. It's a game, not a movement or a cause, just a fucking game. The small picture is dwelling on author names and imagined or real intents...most people truly could not give a shit about those things, and if you left author names off those games most players would never notice, nor could they give a damn for some intent concerning RPGs.
At the point where you are more concerned with who the author is, and what their intent might be, more than whether or not people are having fun playing those games, then you've lost sight of the bigger picture. For players, the point of the game is to have fun playing the game. If it accomplishes that goal, not much else matters, no matter how butthurt you are about the author and their intent.
Actually he is right for the most part. The whole "shtick" of Crane and Forge in general, was built around the notions of "evil GMs" for the most part. Wasn't Burning Wheel originally marketed as a "system where there will be no GM sadist"? Or a system built around the experience of playing with a bad GM?
This whole behaviour is one of a leech. You need those who do badly in the hobby, to fuel your own products, by pretending they are a solution.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650682If you were playing RPGs, you wouldn't have time to type that.
True, but I'm in fact playing a narrative-based game where I type out messageboard posts.
Quote from: Brad;650685True, but I'm in fact playing a narrative-based game where I type out messageboard posts.
Good one :D.
Mistwell, White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650682Actually he is right for the most part. The whole "shtick" of Crane and Forge in general, was built around the notions of "evil GMs" for the most part. Wasn't Burning Wheel originally marketed as a "system where there will be no GM sadist"? Or a system built around the experience of playing with a bad GM?
This whole behaviour is one of a leech. You need those who do badly in the hobby, to fuel your own products, by pretending they are a solution.
Way to entirely miss the point dude. I was responding to the question of "What is the big picture here?"
It does not matter what the intent of the author is, in the big picture. Who cares if you or he is correct, if people are having fun playing those games? Why is author intent more important to you than whether or not people enjoy playing those games, when talking about the issue of the big picture?
It's just a game. If people like playing them, then cool. We can debate the minutia, but let's not lose sight of the real big picture here - that people enjoy playing them, and that's a good thing. It's good that gamers enjoy playing games, and if those are the types of games some people like to play, then it's good they have those games out there to play. That's the most important issue - though admittedly it's far less sexy a topic for discussion on a message board that author intent and that sort of stuff.
Quote from: jeff37923;650707Mistwell, White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law.
The position of "If some gamers enjoy playing those types of games, that's a good thing and the big picture" is not a vile position that is lacking support. It's the majority position.
If you're butthurt that people enjoy playing a type of game that you do not enjoy, that's your issue, and you're the one defending the indefensible. I don't know why you feel the need to white knight old school D&D players, tilting at some imagined threat from author's intent behind storygames, but old school D&D people do not need your protection - particularly when you're a Taveller player to begin with with littler interest in old school D&D anyway. They will have fun playing their games just fine, without you bravely sticking up for them against some relatively obscure storygame author's perceived intent.
Quote from: Mistwell;650666It's a game, not a movement or a cause, just a fucking game.
Mate, these types of game were most certainly part of a movement or cause when they
first started coming out of the Forge.
The missionaries were on every forum in the land. It was the main reason for this board being set up.
Now, there's a Mexican standoff and in most corners a live and let live attitude.
The fact that the blurb for this game touches on phrases that have long been used to disparage traditional gaming by these douches, shows that some of these 'whiter than white, what war?' types are loading up their muskets and giving us both barrels.
See, this is Mistwell engaging in sucking up. Luke Crane's game was witten about in Forbes, ohmifuckinggod Forbes, so it must obviously have worth and merit. Since Mistwell believes that associating with that which he percieves as having worth and merit will elevate his own social status, he defends the game against all enemies real or imagined.
Good Luck with the social climbing, O White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law. We will be watching, and cheering you on inside of your mind, from afar.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650682Wasn't Burning Wheel originally marketed as a "system where there will be no GM sadist"? Or a system built around the experience of playing with a bad GM?.
Yes.
Well AFAIK.
The skill system, at least, bears this out. You check your skill
once (per encounter or "scene" or whatchacallit), that's it. Wich I really like. The rationale given is that if you say have to check stealth/climbing/riding/swimming/etc every 10 rounds, say, or at any rate keep checking said skill throughout an encounter, then the PC
will fail sooner or later (well unless the skill is 100% in wich case it's meaningless but y'know).
I like this, and will most likely use it in other systems.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650720Mate, these types of game were most certainly part of a movement or cause when they first started coming out of the Forge.
The missionaries were on every forum in the land. It was the main reason for this board being set up.
Now, there's a Mexican standoff and in most corners a live and let live attitude.
The fact that the blurb for this game touches on phrases that have long been used to disparage traditional gaming by these douches, shows that some of these 'whiter than white, what war?' types are loading up their muskets and giving us both barrels.
Yarp. This game is so worthy of getting pointed to,and laughed at.
Quote from: Imperator;650445I disagree.
UA is not trying to imitate Cthulhu, or be a game about Mythos for people who hates the Mythos, or anything like it. It is just a game that uses a solid and well tested engine with a few clever tweaks to do something pretty original. They didn't try to be ironic about shit, or make the "good" version of anything.
Neither Fatbearder, Ramon. The author stated its inspiration for creating the game was capturing the "suffocating" experience he got from his real life exploration of natural caverns, that most games lack or dont focus on in his opinion. This is as valid a goal as any other in my view.
But even if the author goals was to try and "fix" something that in his view was broken, whats the problem with that ? Im a huge Shadowrun fanboy but I pray everyday that someone comes up with a better system that "fixes" it. And even if I loved it 100%, why botter with people trying to adapt its premise to a system of his liking ?
Another example is the Heroquest rpg. Its clearly an attempt at a Glorantha roleplaying game that matches the vision of its creator better than Runequest could. So, yes, we can say its a "fixing" of Glorantha. So its also passive of reprovation or hatred because of that ? I dont think so.
EDIT:
This made me thinking... have you guys wondered what the opinion of Gygax and Arneson would about these "re-imaginings" of their games ? Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Torchbearer, etc ? Perhaps they would feel actually good and honored to see the game they invented being adapted to a multitude of styles and sub-styles, instead of getting pissed off as some people around here do.
Quote from: silva;650727This made me thinking... have you guys wondered what the opinion of Gygax and Arneson would about these "re-imaginings" of their games ? Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Torchbearer, etc ? Perhaps they would feel actually good and honored to see the game they invented being adapted to a multitude of styles and sub-styles, instead of getting pissed off as some people around here do.
Gygax and Arneson would be wondering why this dumb fuck Luke Crane wasn't just playing D&D in the first place.
Did Arneson or Gygax actually writed about/emitted opinions on other rpgs ? Im curious.
Quote from: silva;650727This made me thinking... have you guys wondered what the opinion of Gygax and Arneson would about these "re-imaginings" of their games ? Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Torchbearer, etc ? Perhaps they would feel actually good and honored to see the game they invented being adapted to a multitude of styles and sub-styles, instead of getting pissed off as some people around here do.
How would that affect anything? Why would their attitudes have anything to do with others' tastes? They'd probably think the Forgites were full of hot air anyway...because they were grown-ups who understood that these are games.
Anyway, EGG didn't like "amateur thespian" play and there are tons of posts by him on various Q&A threads around the internet where he advocates for "role assumption" over acting in play.
Not too sure Gygax'd hate Torchbearer though. I mean he liked stuff that screwed PCs (especially incautious ones!) over every now and then, I mean see say Tomb of Horrors :D
Interesting, KenHR. Thanks.
Other thing Im curious about is the design process of D&D - why they chose Dx over DY, or whay they chose "Armor Class", "Levels", etc. Does something like that exists ?
By the way, I would be curious to see something similar for other games too. If you guys know it, please point me to it. ;)
Quote from: jeff37923;650730Gygax and Arneson would be wondering why this dumb fuck Luke Crane wasn't just playing D&D in the first place.
Nonsense; Gygax would be gently attempting to steer the conversation onto the subject of Lejendary Adventures.
Quote from: The Ent;650735Not too sure Gygax'd hate Torchbearer though. I mean he liked stuff that screwed PCs (especially incautious ones!) over every now and then, I mean see say Tomb of Horrors
:D
Still on the "designers notes" point, I remember coming across some link where Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin described some of the "whys" and "hows" of designing Runequest, but I dont remember where it is now. If someone do, let me know.
Quote from: Planet Algol;650738Nonsense; Gygax would be gently attempting to steer the conversation onto the subject of Lejendary Adventures.
LOL True. Along with a pun or two along the way. :D
Quote from: silva;650736Interesting, KenHR. Thanks.
Other thing Im curious about is the design process of D&D - why they chose Dx over DY, or whay they chose "Armor Class", "Levels", etc. Does something like that exists ?
By the way, I would be curious to see something similar for other games too. If you guys know it, please point me to it. ;)
You might want to look into getting a copy of Playing At the World, which even my most jaded friends have praised; it's on my wishlist at Amazon. The author's blog (same title) is interesting for historical points like this, as well.
I know there is a paragraph in the PHB about the term "level," where Gygax indicated that alternate terms were proposed. Monsters have a "rank," classed characters have "order," spells have "power," etc. But the sheer number of terms was determined to be too cumbersome as opposed to using "level" in multiple senses.
Quote from: silva;650732Did Arneson or Gygax actually writed about/emitted opinions on other rpgs ? Im curious.
What I'm often talking about, that the goal of an RPG isn't to "create a story" or anything like that, that the substance of the game itself isn't a "story", but that the story if there's one is the stuff that you can tell other people at the bar in RL after the game has been played, is actually something that comes from E. Gary Gygax, discussed on two occasions, one time on ENWorld, I'm pretty sure, and the other probably on the LA discussion boards.
I could never find the posts back, but I'm not the only one remembering it (Rich Franks did also, along with the gentle jokes about "thespies" in RPGs), so... yeah.
Quote from: Benoist;650747What I'm often talking about, that the goal of an RPG isn't to "create a story" or anything like that, that the substance of the game itself isn't a "story", but that the story if there's one is the stuff that you can tell other people at the bar in RL after the game has been played, is actually something that comes from E. Gary Gygax, discussed on two occasions, one time on ENWorld, I'm pretty sure, and the other probably on the LA discussion boards.
I could never find the posts back, but I'm not the only one remembering it (Rich Franks did also, along with the gentle jokes about "thespies" in RPGs), so... yeah.
I remember reading those as well, Gygax basically saying "When we called it a role-playing game we didn't mean immersing yourself in a role, but playing your role on the team." Quarterback, artillery, medic. Very much in line with 4e's class roles.
That actually makes me want to read LA again and play it. Damn you, Gary! :D
Quote from: Brad;650685True, but I'm in fact playing a narrative-based game where I type out messageboard posts.
[keanu] Whoa. [/keanu]
Quote from: jeff37923;650721See, this is Mistwell engaging in sucking up. Luke Crane's game was witten about in Forbes, ohmifuckinggod Forbes, so it must obviously have worth and merit. Since Mistwell believes that associating with that which he percieves as having worth and merit will elevate his own social status, he defends the game against all enemies real or imagined.
Good Luck with the social climbing, O White Knight of the order of Skarka's Law. We will be watching, and cheering you on inside of your mind, from afar.
Jesus Christ you are fucking retarded. My comment was not even about this game and I don't even know who Luke Crane even is...no, nevermind. You're just not intelligent enough to comprehend what I was saying anyway, so why bother?
Quote from: One Horse Town;650720Mate, these types of game were most certainly part of a movement or cause when they first started coming out of the Forge.
The missionaries were on every forum in the land. It was the main reason for this board being set up.
Now, there's a Mexican standoff and in most corners a live and let live attitude.
The fact that the blurb for this game touches on phrases that have long been used to disparage traditional gaming by these douches, shows that some of these 'whiter than white, what war?' types are loading up their muskets and giving us both barrels.
Missed my point. Again, when answering the question of "what is the big picture" the answer is not "it's a movement". I mean, if you want to give more power to that movement by making it seem more important than it is...well go on with your bad self. But the big picture is just "are people enjoying their games?" That's it. Because the topic is "games", that's the most important big picture issue. The rest is mostly bullshit that a few guys like to talk about on internet message boards when they are bored. You might care what their original intent was, you might care if they view it as a movement, but none of that means fuck-all to answering the question about the big picture concerning tabletop games.
Me, they're not my type of game, and I don't play them, and I don't care one whit who makes those games and what their names are. I don't give a shit about their movement, and I don't think their movement is the important issue. You seem to think it's really important. Well, OK then, you go one giving them what they want, and keep telling everyone how their movement is more important than whether or not people enjoy the games they choose to play.
Quote from: Mistwell;650792You might care what their original intent was, you might care if they view it as a movement, but none of that means fuck-all to answering the question about the big picture concerning tabletop games.
The big picture concerning tabletop games isn't of interest here. I don't care about a big picture that includes poker and snakes and ladders, both of which are tabletop games, it's an irrelevancy.
Quote from: Mistwell;650792Me, they're not my type of game, and I don't play them, and I don't care one whit who makes those games and what their names are. I don't give a shit about their movement, and I don't think their movement is the important issue. You seem to think it's really important. Well, OK then, you go one giving them what they want, and keep telling everyone how their movement is more important than whether or not people enjoy the games they choose to play.
As far as I'm concerned, shared narrative games aren't fun. That may be subjective but it probably represents the opinions of quite a lot of people. We can talk about the flop that was 4e and its connections to shared narrative/forger theories, we can compare sales figures and find out that DW is doing really well compared to anything else baker has ever been involved in, we can go back and forth for a hundred posts, but it wouldn't matter.
The big picture is one of a fairly inoffensive hobby blighted by a person and company who couldn't or wouldn't understand roleplaying and wanted to
destroy it, doing his level best to bamboozle, bully, and bluster others into believing the same. The curtains only fell back at the end with his 'brain damaged' comments, but the frankenstein monster still has a few lurches left in it.
You understand this, the idiot wanted to destroy the hobby.
You know I posted on the forge when I first left the silent majority and decided to look up RPG discussion forums online? The forge is a cemetary. Moving on to the pirhana tank that is rpgnet, I was struck by how fractured and balkanised the hobby was online, but one particular group stood out as being an incessant cause of trouble, the shared narrative contingent.
Go back to the earlier discussions, around 2002, and see how different and more relaxed the atmosphere was then. Note I'm banned from nowhere, I can post where I like as I like; I deliberately chose to kick that site's dust from my heels and come here after I had an exchange with the admins which convinced me they cared almost nothing about RPGs.
But that's just one man's experience. The reality remains as I outlined earlier, shared narrative games are a step back struggling to take the same step forward that everyone else took thirty years previously. I'm not calling anyone names for enjoying shared narrative games, just highlighting a few realities that might not suit the more aggressive among them, and there's no shortage of those despite that grognards.txt was broken, its golden boy humiliated, and that the forge remains a ruin.
Quote from: Mistwell;650789and I don't even know who Luke Crane even is...
Psst, read the thread.
It's totally in the thread.
Quote from: The Traveller;650805The big picture concerning tabletop games isn't of interest here. I don't care about a big picture that includes poker and snakes and ladders, both of which are tabletop games, it's an irrelevancy.
As far as I'm concerned, shared narrative games aren't fun. That may be subjective but it probably represents the opinions of quite a lot of people. We can talk about the flop that was 4e and its connections to shared narrative/forger theories, we can compare sales figures and find out that DW is doing really well compared to anything else baker has ever been involved in, we can go back and forth for a hundred posts, but it wouldn't matter.
The big picture is one of a fairly inoffensive hobby blighted by a person and company who couldn't or wouldn't understand roleplaying and wanted to destroy it, doing his level best to bamboozle, bully, and bluster others into believing the same. The curtains only fell back at the end with his 'brain damaged' comments, but the frankenstein monster still has a few lurches left in it.
You understand this, the idiot wanted to destroy the hobby.
You know I posted on the forge when I first left the silent majority and decided to look up RPG discussion forums online? The forge is a cemetary. Moving on to the pirhana tank that is rpgnet, I was struck by how fractured and balkanised the hobby was online, but one particular group stood out as being an incessant cause of trouble, the shared narrative contingent.
Go back to the earlier discussions, around 2002, and see how different and more relaxed the atmosphere was then. Note I'm banned from nowhere, I can post where I like as I like; I deliberately chose to kick that site's dust from my heels and come here after I had an exchange with the admins which convinced me they cared almost nothing about RPGs.
But that's just one man's experience. The reality remains as I outlined earlier, shared narrative games are a step back struggling to take the same step forward that everyone else took thirty years previously. I'm not calling anyone names for enjoying shared narrative games, just highlighting a few realities that might not suit the more aggressive among them, and there's no shortage of those despite that grognards.txt was broken, its golden boy humiliated, and that the forge remains a ruin.
I think you've edged into the same brain damage territory that they did though.
You were responding to this:
"Shared narrative games are very fun for fans of shared narrative games. Even though I don't enjoy them, there are gamers who have tremendous fun with those games. To say otherwise strays into that "brain damage" zone where fans of other games somehow must be defective for enjoying those games. I get wanting different names for Traditional RPGs vs. Narrative RPGs, but I can't get aboard denigrating people for their choice of fun."
And your response was, essentially, it doesn't so much matter if people have fun with those games, because there was a nefarious intent behind their creation, and it's that intent that is the big picture we should take from all this, not the fact that some people have fun with those games. And you've continued down that road, with total focus on intent of the original authors of this stuff.
But, then you admit those original authors lost. Their forum is a wasteland. So why do you care SO MUCH about that, at the expense of simply being happy for the people who found games they like? You really do sound like you're dancing around saying that anyone who likes those games just isn't wired right. How are you any better than those authors? Why are you using the sins of those authors a decade ago as a justification to be completely dismissive of the fact that some people like those kinds of games now? It's OK that people like types of games you and I do not like. It's a good thing when gamers find games they enjoy. Can't you be happy for them, without all the rest of this wankery?
Quote from: VectorSigma;650829Psst, read the thread.
It's totally in the thread.
I get from the thread that some people think he is important to the storygame movement on some level (and that he is an asshole). Aside from that, I don't really know why they think he is important. And I suspect, even if you listed games he's authored, I probably would not recognize most of them. I do own Mouse Guard though (because I am a fan of the comic books), and I saw that connected to this, so maybe he wrote that? For some reason I thought Dave Peterson authored that.
[Edit - Looked it up, and yes, Crane is an author on Mouse Guard. So, I do own something he wrote. Never played it, seemed like a pain in the ass system, but nice artwork!]
Quote from: Mistwell;650792Missed my point. Again, when answering the question of "what is the big picture" the answer is not "it's a movement". I mean, if you want to give more power to that movement by making it seem more important than it is...well go on with your bad self. But the big picture is just "are people enjoying their games?" That's it. Because the topic is "games", that's the most important big picture issue. The rest is mostly bullshit that a few guys like to talk about on internet message boards when they are bored. You might care what their original intent was, you might care if they view it as a movement, but none of that means fuck-all to answering the question about the big picture concerning tabletop games.
I like FATAL, I enjoy it, and I can show 5 people who will like it, therefore we are "people".
Your move.
Quote from: Mistwell;650831And your response was, essentially, it doesn't so much matter if people have fun with those games, because there was a nefarious intent behind their creation, and it's that intent that is the big picture we should take from all this, not the fact that some people have fun with those games. And you've continued down that road, with total focus on intent of the original authors of this stuff.
Not so much. I've already mentioned that the 'fun' comments were subjective with considerable weight behind them, and I've no difficulty with that. The rest is quite seperate.
Quote from: Mistwell;650831But, then you admit those original authors lost. Their forum is a wasteland. So why do you care SO MUCH about that, at the expense of simply being happy for the people who found games they like? You really do sound like you're dancing around saying that anyone who likes those games just isn't wired right. How are you any better than those authors?
It sounds like you're running with someone else's comment and taking it to unintended conclusions, an ill advised ad absurdum. As for the rest, at this point if you need it said there's no point in saying it.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650834I like FATAL, I enjoy it, and I can show 5 people who will like it, therefore we are "people".
Your move.
Uh, cool? I am happy you found a game you like.
I never really looked into FATAL, so if there is some otherwise obvious joke inherent in your comment, it went over my head.
Quote from: Mistwell;650839Uh, cool? I am happy you found a game you like.
I never really looked into FATAL, so if there is some otherwise obvious joke inherent in your comment, it went over my head.
QuoteJoin Date: Feb 2006
And you never looked into FATAL. Yeah. Right. Not even a curious google. Please, invent your stories better for defending causes.
You are the one mistaking the point. It isn't about people enjoying the games or not, it's about people thinking that they are RPGs, and how storygames are, in a bizarre way, closer to board games than RPGs (which were based on wargames/boardgames) nowadays - while supposedly more "modern" RPGs.
But you are pulling "But but democracy! Popularity!" as if democracy was the testament of quality. If such, D&D would be the best RPG ever, and I think many of us agree it is way too flawed for such - it's popularity and simple mechanics are it's main point (or only saving grace, take your pick).
And yes, it does matter who the authors are. Not who, but why they are authors of such games. The whole movement was started to try and flip the meaning of RPGs, to allow for creation of easy, self - contained games that'd be only good for one thing and one thing only in most cases. And as I said before, many of those authors base their "shtick" on fighting "crusades", such as "what's wrong with RPGs? GMs/Bad GMs/Bad Players".
And I am not the first one to point that out to you, nor the last one. You are either thick for real or on purpose.
I just have to laugh.
Quote from: Eisenmann;650843I just have to laugh.
At what, if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious.
Quote from: The Traveller;650844At what, if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious.
At the recursiveness that is the purple vibe that's reactionary to the purple vibe.
Quote from: Eisenmann;650846At the recursiveness that is the purple vibe that's reactionary to the purple vibe.
I'm not really seeing that. Here you can talk about anything, you might not like the answers, but hey, life isn't comfortable. The purple vibe is getting banned for almost no reason, the er, chocolate brown vibe is getting banned for being a complete utter prick (cf BT et al).
Quote from: The Traveller;650847I'm not really seeing that. Here you can talk about anything, you might not like the answers, but hey, life isn't comfortable. The purple vibe is getting banned for almost no reason, the er, chocolate brown vibe is getting banned for being a complete utter prick (cf BT et al).
The banning thing is certainly a large component, but it's not the whole.
That said, the vibe seems to be resonating on what Ron Edwards said once upon a time. When did he say these things? When was The Forge founded? I honestly have no idea. I have an account there for The Riddle of Steel and Agon.
Quote from: Eisenmann;650849The banning thing is certainly a large component, but it's not the whole.
I see what you're saying, but really the chilling effect of mods gone wrong on internet discussions cannot be overstated.
Quote from: Eisenmann;650849That said, the vibe seems to be resonating on what Ron Edwards said once upon a time. When did he say these things? When was The Forge founded? I honestly have no idea. I have an account there for The Riddle of Steel and Agon.
There have been a lot of specifics in this thread, plenty of facts put forth. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss all of these with a 'well that was a few years back' handwave.
The difference is, that when you say "Woman, stay where you belong and make me a sandwich" once or twice in space of a few years, you're not sexist, you're just having rawdy time with mates most likely.
But if you say these words a few times a day, for a space of 2 - 4 years, you may indeed, and most likely are a sexist.
To quote from Prachett, "Mad Lord Snape was not hanged because he ordered Poor Jimmy Willkins'* figgin to be nailed to the door. That was just the drop that overflew the cup/"
Foule Ole Ron and the rest of his closest sycophants aren't based on one time issue. It was a systematic campaign that took over a few years, and still is ongoing, except for the most time, it's relative calmness or everyone's in their trench, while the No Man's Land seems to be occupied by a lot of people playing football.
*quote's kind of that, I think I borrowed the book (feets of clay) where it's in.
Quote from: The Traveller;650851There have been a lot of specifics in this thread, plenty of facts put forth. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss all of these with a 'well that was a few years back' handwave.
I'm just not sure if what he said is all that relevant to the current crop of games being developed. By my estimation, if it is, it's N-orders back.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650720The fact that the blurb for this game touches on phrases that have long been used to disparage traditional gaming by these douches, shows that some of these 'whiter than white, what war?' types are loading up their muskets and giving us both barrels.
Both barrels of a plastic popgun from the dollar store. Let's keep some perspective here and listen to Douglas Adams!
"For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across - which happened to be the Earth - where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog."
Quote from: jeff37923;650721Luke Crane's game was witten about in Forbes, ohmifuckinggod Forbes, so it must obviously have worth and merit.
The Forbes thing looks good. Can't deny its good PR for Luke.
Quote from: silva;650732Did Arneson or Gygax actually writed about/emitted opinions on other rpgs ? Im curious.
Gygax ranted like a loon in the early Dragon magazines. You can find them on //www.archive.org
Quote from: silva;650736Other thing Im curious about is the design process of D&D - why they chose Dx over DY, or whay they chose "Armor Class", "Levels", etc. Does something like that exists ?
//www.dragonsfoot.org has stickied threads in their forum from Gygax and other various TSR authors and lots of the questions people ask are about their early thoughts as they developed the game. Unfortunately, there answers you seek aren't neatly presented there, but the threads are worth reading.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650841And you never looked into FATAL. Yeah. Right. Not even a curious google. Please, invent your stories better for defending causes.
I don't know what to tell you man. I've never, not even one time, Googled it. I have seen the word mentioned here, but it never made me curious enough to look into it. I don't know why you think everyone thinks like you about these sorts of things, but I don't. I play D&D (various editions), and I own a handful of other RPG books, mostly d20 based. Other than when I was a kid, I've literally not played anything other than D&D or a d20 based game for the last 20 years. Oh, and don't confuse my join date with active participation. I joined originally because of the vague affiliation with some Nutkinland folks, then took many years off, then eventually found my way back here. I'd say it's the past 2 years I've really been posting here. In that time, I cannot recall participating in a FATAL conversation.
So, if FATAL is some crappy game that only 5 people in the world enjoy, I am happy for those 5 people and I have no beef with it. I don't care who its author is, what sort of movement it's associated with, what the author's intent with it was, or any of that, as much as I care that there are 5 people who enjoy that game, and that is a good thing. Gamers (no matter how many) finding the right game for them is a good thing - more important than these other issues, to me.
QuoteYou are the one mistaking the point. It isn't about people enjoying the games or not, it's about people thinking that they are RPGs, and how storygames are, in a bizarre way, closer to board games than RPGs (which were based on wargames/boardgames) nowadays - while supposedly more "modern" RPGs.
No really, that was in no way the argument I was responding to. Not even kinda sort of. That issue is raised often, but it was not raised with this big picture side issue we're discussing. Not even vaguely touched in the "big picture" issue I was replying to. It is not my duty to keep you up with the conversation - you don't get to just assume you know what people are talking about and then tell them they're wrong when it turns out they're not talking about what you think they are talking about. Your job is to keep up, or not respond. Why you chose to respond anyway, though you obviously had not read what you were responding to, I do not know.
QuoteBut you are pulling "But but democracy! Popularity!" as if democracy was the testament of quality.
No, I am not. I didn't mention quality at all. You're just building a vapid strawman there fella. I already said I don't like those kinds of games. Christ, you really didn't read anything you were responding to, did you?
QuoteIf such, D&D would be the best RPG ever, and I think many of us agree it is way too flawed for such - it's popularity and simple mechanics are it's main point (or only saving grace, take your pick).
To me, D&D is the best RPG ever, despite the flaws. To you obviously it's not. OK, cool, live and let live. However, it should not offend you that I think it's the best RPG ever.
QuoteAnd yes, it does matter who the authors are. Not who, but why they are authors of such games. The whole movement was started to try and flip the meaning of RPGs, to allow for creation of easy, self - contained games that'd be only good for one thing and one thing only in most cases. And as I said before, many of those authors base their "shtick" on fighting "crusades", such as "what's wrong with RPGs? GMs/Bad GMs/Bad Players".
And I am not the first one to point that out to you, nor the last one. You are either thick for real or on purpose.
Or I just disagree with you, and it bothers you so much that you sink to the very same "brain damage" language that others have said is the greatest sin of these storygame assholes. Tell me, how on earth can you think you're better than them, given you think people who don't view the issue the same as you are either thick or trolling? Have you considered, just for a moment, the possibility that I just don't agree with your assumption that intents and movements and definitions of what kind of game things are classified as, are more important than whether there are some people who like them?
To me, I prioritize "gamer geeks finding a game they like, and playing it" over pretty much anything else. I've seen that MAID game mentioned here a lot lately, it sounds horrible to me, but if people like to play that shit, more power to them, I am happy for them. But, it seems for you, the outrage over it's existence, the intent behind it, a movement associated with it, authors of it, all that shit is more important than whether players like playing it. And that seems ass-backwards to me. Those are all minor ancillary issues for me. Our priorities are different, that's all you're noticing here. I am not trolling to thick about it, we just disagree about what's most important when discussing these issues. Can you cope with someone viewing it different than you, or am I brain damaged if I don't agree with you?
Quote from: Mistwell;650792the answer is not "it's a movement". I mean, if you want to give more power to that movement
Yeah...
If you're gonna fill the role of devil's advocate, as least try to get it right.
Quote from: Eisenmann;650855I'm just not sure if what he said is all that relevant to the current crop of games being developed. By my estimation, if it is, it's N-orders back.
Maybe you're right, if andy and company can manage to heel their dogs perhaps they can avoid meeting the goons' fate. Time will tell.
Quote from: Mistwell;650858I don't know what to tell you man. I've never, not even one time, Googled it. I have seen the word mentioned here, but it never made me curious enough to look into it. I don't know why you think everyone thinks like you about these sorts of things, but I don't. I play D&D (various editions), and I own a handful of other RPG books, mostly d20 based. Other than when I was a kid, I've literally not played anything other than D&D or a d20 based game for the last 20 years.
So for the most of your life, you played exactly one game. Good to see that you have a lot of material to recall when discussing games.
QuoteNo really, that was in no way the argument I was responding to. Not even kinda sort of. That issue is raised often, but it was not raised with this big picture side issue we're discussing. That issue was not even vaguely touched in the "big picture" issue I was replying to. It is not my duty to keep you up with the conversation - you don't get to just assume you know what people are talking about and then tell them they're wrong when it turns out they're not talking about what you think they are talking about. Your job is to keep up, or not respond. You failed.
You purposefully try to shift the argument to some bizarre standpoint of yours, and claim that "Hey guys discussion is moot because, people enjoy those games, maaaan". And I'm the one who does not get the thread. Cute, but this is not kindergarten.
QuoteNo, I am not. I didn't mention quality at all. You're just building a vapid strawman there fella. I already said I don't like those kinds of games.
:D.
The argument "but people enjoy those games" is exactly an argument that "those things have their own worthy because there is a number of people which considers them worthy", which is precisely an argument that "because democracy is good therefore this is good". And it's not entirely true. The whole point of a discussion - and it's not just games, it's also literature - is to find a game/literary work, that most people, will agree that it is of good quality, because.
And the problem with storygames and the whole revisionism of Foul Ole Ron is, that they tried to shift the whole perception to their side, and to make themselves the ultimate judges & juries of RPGs - while turning RPGs into Storygames.
A man needn't construct strawmen in your presence, since you do a good enough job to make your own. Perhaps to not feel alone.
QuoteTo me, it's the best RPG ever, despite the flaws. To you obviously it's not. OK, cool, live and let live. However, it should not offend you that I think it's the best RPG ever.
It doesn't, but yet you defend the same people who, would they hear this, would smirk and call you a pleb.
QuoteOr I just disagree with you, and it bothers you so much that you sink to the very same "brain damage" language that others have said is the greatest sin of these storygame assholes. Tell me, how on earth can you think you're better than them, given you think people who don't view the issue the same as you are either thick or trolling? Couldn't it be I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEIR INTENT AND MOVEMENT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER PEOPLE LIKED THEIR GAMES?
Calm down.
Also quote me when I said that I'm better than them. Because I'm talking precisely about you. You are always remaining obtuse and ignorant to any counter - points made, always remarking "but but but", like a duck. So quote me when I said that traditional gamers are better than storygamers. Go ahead.
But now you will flip and say "But no you see, because you said I'm thick you think storygamers are worse people than traditional gamers".
Quote from: One Horse Town;650860Yeah...
If you're gonna fill the role of devil's advocate, as least try to get it right.
So I can't discuss Hippism or Feminism without empowering the movement?
Quote from: Rincewind1;650862So I can't discuss Hippism or Feminism without empowering the movement?
Knock yourself out on a political board.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650864Knock yourself out on a political board.
I don't intend to, I was more about the absurdity of the claim that it is best not to discuss a movement, lest one gives it strength.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;6508685 individuals who enjoy playing FATAL?
I dispute the assertion that you are people. :)
Alright, you've got me.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650834I like FATAL, I enjoy it, and I can show 5 people who will like it, therefore we are "people".
5 individuals who enjoy playing FATAL?
I dispute the assertion that you are people. :)
Quote from: Rincewind1;650862So for the most of your life, you played exactly one game. Good to see that you have a lot of material to recall when discussing games.
I have a good group of players, they just want to play D&D or variations on D&D. At GenCon I played some Mutants and Masterminds. I own some d20 books. I own a couple of non-d20 books (like Mouse Guard, and some really old stuff like Star Frontiers and Marvel Superheros and Maybe Traveller, if I can find it some day in my stuff), but really, I cannot even get people to play a non-D&D game in my group, much less a non-d20 game. We did play Old School Hack, once, and I loved that. But, you work with what you have. I have a good group of players, who only want to play D&D. I don't think our group is that unusual.
QuoteYou purposefully try to shift the argument to some bizarre standpoint of yours, and claim that "Hey guys discussion is moot because, people enjoy those games, maaaan". And I'm the one who does not get the thread. Cute, but this is not kindergarten.
No jackass, I am not even the one who made the argument to begin with. Spinachcat made the argument. The Traveller disagreed with him. Daddy Warpig agreed with Spinachcat. Then I also agreed with Spinachcat. Now you're jumping in, no clue what we're even talking about, and telling us we're all wrong because we're talking about something entirely different from what the 3-4 of us are talking about.
I didn't say the rest of the discussion is moot - I'm participating in a sub-discussion here, so are some others, and no matter how much you want that sub-discussion to be about other shit, it really isn't, and you cannot make it about that other shit. You go have your "storygames are not RPGs" discussion all you want, nobody is trying to stop you from talking about that. But I am not involved with that discussion, and none of this stuff you're replying to right now is about that issue.
QuoteThe argument "but people enjoy those games" is exactly an argument that "those things have their own worthy because there is a number of people which considers them worthy", which is precisely an argument that "because democracy is good therefore this is good". And it's not entirely true. The whole point of a discussion - and it's not just games, it's also literature - is to find a game/literary work, that most people, will agree that it is of good quality, because.
Not really. I am not looking for "what is objectively a high quality type of RPG". I'm not sure that thing exists, as I think this is a very subjective topic, but I am still fine with people liking something that I think is shit. Even if I think it is objectively shit, I am *STILL* OK with people liking it. I think Brittany Spears music is objectively shit, and it does not bother me that some people liked it. I am perfectly secure in the things I like, without being offended that people like stuff I think is shit (subjectively or objectively shit).
Why are you so bothered that people like something you think is objectively shit?
QuoteAnd the problem with storygames and the whole revisionism of Foul Ole Ron is, that they tried to shift the whole perception to their side, and to make themselves the ultimate judges & juries of RPGs - while turning RPGs into Storygames.
Yes, Ron sucks. OK, we've established that. So?
QuoteA man needn't construct strawmen in your presence, since you do a good enough job to make your own. Perhaps to not feel alone.
It doesn't, but yet you defend the same people who, would they hear this, would smirk and call you a pleb.
Cool. They're free to think of me as a pleb. I am still happy for them that they found a game they enjoy. In case you hadn't noticed, I don't give a shit if I am popular, particularly among a crowd who like a type of game I do not play and I have no interest in playing. I can support gamer geeks, ALL gamer geeks, even if they like games I do not like, and even if they think poorly of me for not liking their games. I am just not into the "divide gamer geeks up and make them war against each other" thing.
QuoteCalm down.
Also quote me when I said that I'm better than them. Because I'm talking precisely about you. You are always remaining obtuse and ignorant to any counter - points made, always remarking "but but but", like a duck. So quote me when I said that traditional gamers are better than storygamers. Go ahead.
You started this very post by explaining how those games are objectively worse. Who the fuck do you think your kidding?
QuoteBut now you will flip and say "But no you see, because you said I'm thick you think storygamers are worse people than traditional gamers".
No, I am saying you think the intents of the authors, the movements of the authors, the identities of those authors, and that sort of stuff, is MORE IMPORTANT than the fact that some people like those types of games. Which is why I say you think you're better than the storygamer players - because you discount the fact they like those types of games so much, you're willing to prioritize their enjoyment of games they like below such inane bullshit as "authors intent a decade ago".
Imagine if I said "some people like D&D, and that is a good thing" and you freaked your shit out saying "But Gygax was an evil shit and we should make sure we keep that in mind when discussing the bigger picture of D&D - that Gygax was an evil shit, that's the most important thing". Would I be wrong, if that were the context, in saying you think you're better than D&D players if you prioritize them liking D&D below your dislike for Gygax?
I see you enjoy putting things in my mouth, Mistwell, rather than discuss the points, so go on and fill out my lines for me.
QuoteYou started this very post by explaining how those games are objectively worse. Who the fuck do you think your kidding?
Except I didn't.
QuoteWhy are you so bothered that people like something you think is objectively shit?
Except I'm not, I like some of those things myself, and those I consider of poor quality I consider subjectively
QuoteNo, I am saying you think the intents of the authors, the movements of the authors, the identities of those authors, and that sort of stuff, is MORE IMPORTANT than the fact that some people like those types of games. Which is why I say you think you're better than the storygamer players - because you discount the fact they like those types of games so much, you're willing to prioritize their enjoyment of games they like below such inane bullshit as "authors intent a decade ago".
Except I don't. Our "fight" is with the movement, not the enjoyment of the games. Try to keep up.
QuoteImagine if I said "some people like D&D, and that is a good thing" and you freaked your shit out saying "But Gygax was an evil shit and we should make sure we keep that in mind when discussing the bigger picture of D&D - that Gygax was an evil shit, that's the most important thing". Would I be wrong, if that were the context, in saying you think you're better than D&D players if you prioritize them liking D&D below your dislike for Gygax?
I'm not a believer of Gygax, so don't put that in my mouth neither. He said a lot of crazy things, and I have little respect for a lot of his views on RPGs.
If you can prove otherwise to those points, quote where I said that I objectively did any of those things you accuse me of.
Quote from: Rincewind1;650874I'm not a believer of Gygax, so don't put that in my mouth neither. He said a lot of crazy things, and I have little respect for a lot of his views on RPGs. If you can prove otherwise to those points, quote where I said that I objectively did any of those things you accuse me of.
I gave you a hypothetical example (the Gygax one), which any high-school educated kid would comprehend was a hypothetical for example purposes only and not an actual example of real facts, and you actually think I was accusing you of being that example?
Shit dude, apparently it's not that you didn't follow the prior conversation, it's that your really don't understand. Maybe you're tired? Drunk? So pressed for time you are just skimming? I don't know, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just a blathering idiot (I've seen you not be an idiot before), but you have some good excuse for your inability to engage in a conversation today.
You let me know when you're up to talking again, and I am fine continuing this conversation.
Quote from: Mistwell;650876I gave you a hypothetical example (the Gygax one), which any high-school educated kid would comprehend was a hypothetical for example purposes only and not an actual example of real facts, and you actually think I was accusing you of being that example?
Shit dude, apparently it's not that you didn't follow the prior conversation, it's that your really don't understand. Maybe you're tired? Drunk? So pressed for time you are just skimming? I don't know, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just a blathering idiot (I've seen you not be an idiot before), but you have some good excuse for your inability to engage in a conversation today.
You let me know when you're up to talking again, and I am fine continuing this conversation.
:D.
I ask you to quote me on tje other 3 things you actually accuse me of saying, and your answer is "You're drunk and stupid"?
Quote me. Go on, make my day.
Especially quote me where I
Quoteexplaining how those games are objectively worse. Who the fuck do you think your kidding?
Quote from: Mistwell;650870I have a good group of players, they just want to play D&D or variations on D&D. At GenCon I played some Mutants and Masterminds. I own some d20 books. I own a couple of non-d20 books (like Mouse Guard, and some really old stuff like Star Frontiers and Marvel Superheros and Maybe Traveller, if I can find it some day in my stuff), but really, I cannot even get people to play a non-D&D game in my group, much less a non-d20 game. We did play Old School Hack, once, and I loved that. But, you work with what you have. I have a good group of players, who only want to play D&D. I don't think our group is that unusual.
Alright, fair enough. What works for you and all that, I went a bit too far with that one. But I think it's worth experimenting with games.
Quote from: Brad;650466Not a fan of Burning Wheel at all; I could never figure out what I was supposed to do with it. I bought Mouse Guard because the book looks great and the art is cool, but otherwise seems kind of boring. From the description given in the article/post and in this thread, it doesn't really seem like an RPG, but more of an exercise in resource management.
The notion of "turns" was brought up several times in a derogatory manner (i.e. turns do not necessarily denote any specific passage of time), but it seems exactly like how boardgames treat turns to me. Nothing wrong with that at all, but again, that's really not an RPG.
Luke Crane's career seems to be driven by the question
Why can't we make RPGs pose the same choices as euro games?It seems pretty clear to everyone who actually plays RPGs that the answer is twofold:
A) Euro games engage the analytical part of the brain and not the imaginative. People play those two different kinds of games for entirely different reasons, in much the same way that people swim and play darts for entirely different reasons. You don't swim laps to unwind with your buddies over a few beer, and you don't play darts as part of a cardiovascular health regimen. Unless you're a fucking halfwit.
B) Euro games are far better at posing those analytical resource management choices because they distil the game down to only those choices. Any game that adds 200 pages of chrome and setting detail and sub-systems onto a euro game is just a really shitty euro game.
Mind, I haven't read Burning Wheel in its entirely. I did spend about 10 minutes flipping through the Gold Edition at my FLGS. When I got to the part where you write down dialogue choices and engage in some sort of sub-system to determine the outcome of conversations, I knew that the whole system is just an exercise in gaming theorywank and slammed the book shut. The conversation duel is fine in the Dying Earth RPG, as it's the main system of a rather humorous, light game. But in a game with massively complex character generation and combat, it's just overkill from a designer who needs a discrete system for every aspect of his game world.
Crane is one of those douchebags who has cultivated the notion that DMs can't be trusted, and need their actions and choices circumscribed in the same way players' are. The fair adjudicator and interpreter doesn't exist is his RPG universe. That's probably the most toxic concept to emerge from the Forge.
Quote from: Haffrung;650906Luke Crane's career seems to be driven by the question Why can't we make RPGs pose the same choices as euro games?
That's succinct, and further reflection leads me to believe it's accurate. After I posted in this thread, I re-read Burning Wheel and can safely say it's not an rpg; at least not an rpg in the way I understand one to be. While that doesn't make it a bad game, it certainly doesn't make it a better game, either.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650857The Forbes thing looks good. Can't deny its good PR for Luke.
Superficially, yes, it does look good. That is why Mistwell is sucking up by White Knighting for
Torchbearer.
Quote from: jeff37923;650938Superficially, yes, it does look good.
Just about anyone can get a Forbes blog, sign up here:
http://blogs.forbes.com/help/how-do-i-become-a-contributor/
Quote from: The Traveller;650939Just about anyone can get a Forbes blog, sign up here:
http://blogs.forbes.com/help/how-do-i-become-a-contributor/
Hence the "superficially" qualifier.
Perhaps there's a difference between anyone can apply and anyone can get a blog at Forbes?
Seems to me that there's a big hole in their gaming coverage that a few here could fill. Sign up!
Quote from: Haffrung;650906Luke Crane's career seems to be driven by the question Why can't we make RPGs pose the same choices as euro games?
Thus my "mechanics in search of a theme" comment. I think you've nailed it in this post, really.
Quote from: Haffrung;650906Luke Crane's career seems to be driven by the question Why can't we make RPGs pose the same choices as euro games?
It seems pretty clear to everyone who actually plays RPGs that the answer is twofold:
A) Euro games engage the analytical part of the brain and not the imaginative. People play those two different kinds of games for entirely different reasons, in much the same way that people swim and play darts for entirely different reasons. You don't swim laps to unwind with your buddies over a few beer, and you don't play darts as part of a cardiovascular health regimen. Unless you're a fucking halfwit.
B) Euro games are far better at posing those analytical resource management choices because they distil the game down to only those choices. Any game that adds 200 pages of chrome and setting detail and sub-systems onto a euro game is just a really shitty euro game.
Mind, I haven't read Burning Wheel in its entirely. I did spend about 10 minutes flipping through the Gold Edition at my FLGS. When I got to the part where you write down dialogue choices and engage in some sort of sub-system to determine the outcome of conversations, I knew that the whole system is just an exercise in gaming theorywank and slammed the book shut. The conversation duel is fine in the Dying Earth RPG, as it's the main system of a rather humorous, light game. But in a game with massively complex character generation and combat, it's just overkill from a designer who needs a discrete system for every aspect of his game world.
Crane is one of those douchebags who has cultivated the notion that DMs can't be trusted, and need their actions and choices circumscribed in the same way players' are. The fair adjudicator and interpreter doesn't exist is his RPG universe. That's probably the most toxic concept to emerge from the Forge.
That indeed is an awesome post, Haffrung.
Quote from: Eisenmann;650846At the recursiveness that is the purple vibe that's reactionary to the purple vibe.
I have long suspected that this site is actually rpg.net's implementation of the Sartre-ban.
Some unconnected thoughts, after reading some of the linked materials.
- Justin Alexander's essay on goals in dungeoneering (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1900/roleplaying-games/treasure-maps-the-unknown-goals-in-the-megadungeon) very much addressed one of the disconnects. The default mode for most people, with regards to dungeoneering, was "clear the dungeon". (This is the mode most video games also take.) But that's not the only mode, isn't the mode in Gygaxian dungeoncrawling (from what I gather), and is fucking boring. Gygaxian dungeoncrawling is not about "clearing the dungeon", despite it being the most common mode.
- There's a lot of posts on how to build a good dungeon, and many, many posts from people aghast that anyone could possibly be ignorant of the Gygaxian mode, but not a lot of posts about "here's why we find dungeons fun".
- Something I might find useful: "So you want to run a dungeon." This would be an article that describes the Gygaxian mode, what to expect from playing in a dungeon, and why people find it enjoyable.
- Some questions that might be illuminative is: What would you expect from a DM who said "I'm running a Gygaxian dungeon." What would the typical session be like? What should the GM do to fulfill your expectations? What would be automatic fails — other than mechanics. (Assume stock 1e AD&D, only the PHB, DMG, MM.)
I'll continue reading.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;582785You plotted expeditions, brought lots of people with you, and retreated or laid low when things got too hot. It wasn't so much an "invasion" as it was a "raiding party". Get in, grab the goods, get out.
Cool. Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Give me some more of this.
What did you do, why did you do it, and what about it thrilled you?
Assume I know nothing about the Gygaxian mode, start with the most elemental, simple pieces and explain it to me. That's the kind of article I'm looking for.
Quote from: The Butcher;582816Most "What's the deal with dungeons???" threads consist of someone asking what's so fun about dungeoneering, and then shooting down all arguments presented.
And that's NOT what I want to do. This isn't a "convince me you're really having fun" question, it's an actual "I've never played that way, what's it like?" query.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;651055What would you expect from a DM who said "I'm running a Gygaxian dungeon."
That the referee is a pretentious douchebag.
The kickstarter is now up (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/burningwheel/torchbearer). And funded. that didn't take a whole lotta time.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651064That the referee is a pretentious douchebag.
It's funny cuz it's true.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651065The kickstarter is now up (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/burningwheel/torchbearer). And funded. that didn't take a whole lotta time.
In for $35...I can't hate the game without reading it, can I?
Quote from: Brad;651070In for $35...I can't hate the game without reading it, can I?
When has that stopped anyone on the internet?
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651065The kickstarter is now up (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/burningwheel/torchbearer). And funded. that didn't take a whole lotta time.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
- P.T. Barnum
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651065The kickstarter is now up (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/burningwheel/torchbearer). And funded. that didn't take a whole lotta time.
"A dungeon crawl roleplaying game and love letter to Basic D&D."
The "love letter" thing again? :rolleyes:
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651065The kickstarter is now up (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/burningwheel/torchbearer). And funded. that didn't take a whole lotta time.
Quote from: Brad;651070In for $35...I can't hate the game without reading it, can I?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
- P.T. Barnum
Quote from: jeff37923;651075"There's a sucker born every minute."
- P.T. Barnum
A lot of people spend money on things bad for their health; e.g. I spent more money last night at the pub.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;651055Justin Alexander's essay on goals in dungeoneering (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1900/roleplaying-games/treasure-maps-the-unknown-goals-in-the-megadungeon)...
An appeal to simple greed. Nice. I like the honesty of it.
Quote from: Brad;651079A lot of people spend money on things bad for their health
Waitaminute.
You are saying that spending money on Luke Crane's games is a health hazard?
Damn, and you're a supporter too! :D
And who knows, someday they may even be able to make money from their own ideas instead of riding on the coat tails of actual innovators.
But I doubt it.
Just out of interest has this crane character had any interactions with the RPG site, as he claims long enmity from these quarters? I've never heard of him previously to be honest, and doubt he'll be making the headlines anywhere anytime soon.
Quote from: The Traveller;651111And who knows, someday they may even be able to make money from their own ideas instead of riding on the coat tails of actual innovators.
But I doubt it.
Just out of interest has this crane character had any interactions with the RPG site, as he claims long enmity from these quarters? I've never heard of him previously to be honest, and doubt he'll be making the headlines anywhere anytime soon.
Yeah, he used to post here.
Things got heated when he called people retarded for wanting to change an aspect of his game - Burning Empires, i think.
But, of course, we're the meanies.
Quote from: One Horse Town;651113Yeah, he used to post here.
Things got heated when he called people retarded for wanting to change an aspect of his game - Burning Empires, i think.
But, of course, we're the meanies.
Oho! Sounds juicy! Any chance of a link, the search function isn't giving me the goods.
It isn't quite my bag, but I like the idea of a MouseGuard-powered dungeon survival game where fright, hunter, dehydration and emotion are weighted attributes.
Quote from: jeff37923;651100Waitaminute.
You are saying that spending money on Luke Crane's games is a health hazard?
Damn, and you're a supporter too! :D
Maybe he was talking about something else.
Currently Smoking: Conspiracy Longcut + Nonsense Supreme
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;651115It isn't quite my bag, but I like the idea of a MouseGuard-powered dungeon survival game where fright, hunter, dehydration and emotion are weighted attributes.
What's so special about "MouseGuard-powered?"
Afraid XX%, hungry XX%, dehydrated XX%: certainly can be fun, but the reason I can say that is because it's a long, long way from being any XX% New Under the Sun.
Quote from: The Traveller;651114Oho! Sounds juicy! Any chance of a link, the search function isn't giving me the goods.
Start here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=291780#post291780).
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651065The kickstarter is now up (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/burningwheel/torchbearer). And funded. that didn't take a whole lotta time.
Cool. I think Ill get the 35 bucks level.
Quote from: TomatoMaloneCurrently Smoking: Conspiracy Longcut + Nonsense Supreme
:D
EDIT:
And a new blog on Forbes is up (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/01/burning-wheel-creators-launch-torchbearer-kickstarter-drive/). This time about the kickstarter, and showing new art.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651141Start here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=291780#post291780).
Thanking you sir, thanking you. So basically a monomaniacal rules lawyer, albeit one who was antagonised into parading his dickishness across the internet. Not someone I'd have round for tea and cake or would have any interest in gaming with, a purveyor of off-colour gaming systems who nailed his flag to the wrong mast. Honestly he seems like an icon of the dead end that is shared narrative gaming reduced (or advanced) to aping the efforts of his betters.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651141Start here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=291780#post291780).
So he was another victim of therpgsite's One True Wayism and resulting dogpile. Nice to know that I'm not the only one.
Pity I don't like his games.
Quote from: jeff37923;650938Superficially, yes, it does look good.
Superficial marketing is damn fine marketing.
Quote from: The Traveller;650939Just about anyone can get a Forbes blog, sign up here:
Then a Trad RPG fan needs to get a Forbes blog because Team Crane has got themselves a voice in what many people would consider "the mainstream press" - regardless of the "realities" of how easily anybody could do it.
I have no doubt that being on Forbes is contributing to the success of Crane's kickstarter.
Quote from: The Traveller;651111And who knows, someday they may even be able to make money from their own ideas instead of riding on the coat tails of actual innovators.
Coat tails can be very profitable. The market has plenty of examples where the innovators are less profitable than the IP squatters and the "me too" products.
Quote from: Spinachcat;651191Superficial marketing is damn fine marketing.
Right up until the point that the consumer realizes that the product does not work as advertised. For this instance, it will be where the consumer realizes that
Torchbearer is not the fun they were looking for.
Quote from: jeff37923;651195For this instance, it will be where the consumer realizes that Torchbearer is not the fun they were looking for.
Careful now, you'll have the are we havin' fun or what brigade on you.
ARE WE HAVING FUN OR WHAT!!?
not so much no...
WAHT!!
er, please put down that spoon
FUN FUN FUN, AHAHAHAH!!
yeah fun, okay let's have fun *runs for the door and almost makes it*
Quote from: jeff37923;651195Right up until the point that the consumer realizes that the product does not work as advertised. For this instance, it will be where the consumer realizes that Torchbearer is not the fun they were looking for.
For $35, the only fun I'm looking for is being able to say, "This fucking sucks." And have evidence to support it.
Quote from: jeff37923;651195Right up until the point that the consumer realizes that the product does not work as advertised. For this instance, it will be where the consumer realizes that Torchbearer is not the fun they were looking for.
You know what's going to happen: people dissatisfied with the end result will blame the original concept Luke Crane hacked beyond the point of recognition, and thus the ultimate suckage of D&D as a concept, as opposed to his particular (and their) ineptitude. "I should have known reheated D&D would have sucked all along!!"
Quote from: jeff37923;650938Superficially, yes, it does look good. That is why Mistwell is sucking up by White Knighting for Torchbearer.
If you keep it up, I may well start a Forbes blog, write about the fatbeard phenomenon, and use you as an example.
QuoteYou know what's going to happen: people dissatisfied with the end result will blame the original concept Luke Crane hacked beyond the point of recognition, and thus the ultimate suckage of D&D as a concept, as opposed to his particular (and their) ineptitude. "I should have known reheated D&D would have sucked all along!!"
Nah.. Dont think so. Most of the game characteristics were clearly stated from the start (Mouse Guard-based, Burning Wheel author, "conditions" with triggers, etc). The only one to blame if the game dont goes as intended is the author/designer ( and If someone buys Torchebearer expecting to have D&D, the one to blame is himself).
Quote from: Mistwell;651245If you keep it up, I may well start a Forbes blog, write about the fatbeard phenomenon, and use you as an example.
Just him? You have a LOT of people around here to use as example.
'So, remember all that resource management stuff I said I hated? Now I love it!' (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?687220-Recommend-Me-an-inventory-management-game-(sorta))
Comedy gold.
Quote from: Brad;651070In for $35...I can't hate the game without reading it, can I?
Pretty sure there are lots of folks, some here, who think you can :)
Quote from: silva;651249Just him? You have a LOT of people around here to use as example.
Yeah but I
like most of the other folks. Jeff has a bug up his butt about me lately, and he's starting to push it. I don't know what his issue is, but eventually I am going to respond in kind if he won't back off. And he won't...bullies never do, until you bloody their nose (metaphorically speaking).
Quote from: Benoist;651074"A dungeon crawl roleplaying game and love letter to Basic D&D."
The "love letter" thing again? :rolleyes:
I'll quote/paraphrase from the last one:
QuoteAhahahha, nerds and their love letters to fucking games.
QuoteIt's like proving to your wife you love her...by shagging another broad.
Quote from: The Traveller;651157Thanking you sir, thanking you. So basically a monomaniacal rules lawyer, albeit one who was antagonised into parading his dickishness across the internet. Not someone I'd have round for tea and cake or would have any interest in gaming with, a purveyor of off-colour gaming systems who nailed his flag to the wrong mast. Honestly he seems like an icon of the dead end that is shared narrative gaming reduced (or advanced) to aping the efforts of his betters.
I read those links. He could open a hardware store. I guess we can observe his works in RPGs as a sort of a test subject, to see how far you can go when waving your penis with one hand and keeping a cigarette in the other.
Also, since we've established I believe that this is a clear - cut Storygame, why it isn't in Other Games yet?
Quote from: Rincewind1;651255Also, since we've established I believe that this is a clear - cut Storygame, why it isn't in Other Games yet?
Probably because it's a meaningless distinction that most people don't really care about to the point that Other Games is mostly used to discuss video games.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;651276Probably because it's a meaningless distinction that most people don't really care about to the point that Other Games is mostly used to discuss video games.
Actually, we use it mostly to discuss storygames. (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/stewart.png)
Quote from: gleichman;651167So he was another victim of therpgsite's One True Wayism and resulting dogpile. Nice to know that I'm not the only one.
But no one clambers up on the cross so quickly or efficiently, so you still have that going for you.
In regards to Torchbearer, I point to the quote by Cranewings in my sig.
Quote from: silva;651249Just him? You have a LOT of people around here to use as example.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I deduce this not only from your constant presence on this and other internet RPG boards, but from your description of "coming all over yourself" in relation to a shared narrative game about trains. You need to get yourself a girlfriend, buddy, or a boyfriend or whatever, before you make medical history due to a terminal case of calluses.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651250'So, remember all that resource management stuff I said I hated? Now I love it!' (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?687220-Recommend-Me-an-inventory-management-game-(sorta))
Comedy gold.
They aren't even being ironical there.
Quote from: The Traveller;651303They aren't even being ironical there.
They rarely are...
Quote from: Rincewind1;651255Also, since we've established I believe that this is a clear - cut Storygame, why it isn't in Other Games yet?
What makes Torchbearer a clear-cut story game, in your opinion?
Quote from: The Traveller;651303Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I deduce this not only from your constant presence on this and other internet RPG boards, but from your description of "coming all over yourself" in relation to a shared narrative game about trains. You need to get yourself a girlfriend, buddy, or a boyfriend or whatever, before you make medical history due to a terminal case of calluses.
3/10. Try harder.
Specially coming from the guy who 90% of the posts are gratuitous ad hominem or fanatical non-sensical bullshit.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651255.
Also, since we've established I believe that this is a clear - cut Storygame, why it isn't in Other Games yet?
I think people are increasingly lowering the bar for what gets labeled story game. It is starting to become the bin any game people dont like gets tossed into. I am not really seeing it in this case. This game is certainly as a modern vibe but that doesn't make it a story game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;651384I think people are increasingly lowering the bar for what gets labeled story game. It is starting to become the bin any game people dont like gets tossed into. I am not really seeing it in this case. This game is certainly as a modern vibe but that doesn't make it a story game.
I agree. This is certainly an uber-focused "coherent" Forge game, no question about it, but that doesn't automatically make it a story game. For it to be an actual story game, you'd have to show us how that game's actual purpose is not to emulate a world with the participants immersing therein, but rather to collaborate as a co-author to the creation of a story, narrative, or piece of fiction, along with rules tools that are supposed to help achieve this purpose.
So, if this game involves some type of narrative tools and focus, show it to us. Otherwise, the thread stays here.
Quote from: silva;6513713/10. Try harder.
Specially coming from the guy who 90% of the posts are gratuitous ad hominem or fanatical non-sensical bullshit.
Struck a nerve, eh? :D Have a look through the threads I've started and point out to me the gratuitous ad hominem ones or "fanatical non-sensical [sic] bullshit" ones. Go on, there are quite a few. No? Looks like you're slinging the mud now buddy.
Quote from: Benoist;651370What makes Torchbearer a clear-cut story game, in your opinion?
1) Heavily focused and dissociated, board - game style resource mechanics.
2) Player Characters do not serve as player characters, but as characters around which the story of entering dangerous dungeon is created, rather than an experience of a dangerous dungeon.
3) As it was noted, the dungeon is created on the fly to facilitate the story of a dangerous dungeon, rather than a consistent part of the world.
4) Absurd time tracking, which only makes sense in context of abstraction for literature & drama, rather than "realism" or "verisimilitude"
5) Reward loop, if based upon Mouse Guard, is very storygamy, because it entirely depends on how dramatic your decisions were, rather than how competent your actions were.
There's probably more, but I don't care enough to ponder about them.
Yes, I know it's kind of the grey area. But for me, this is at least one step past the hazy line between heavily narrative RPG and just a storygame. Apocalypse World is more of an RPG than this, and it gets moved constantly.
Quote from: Rincewind1;6514221) Heavily focused and dissociated, board - game style resource mechanics.
Dissociated mechanics don't make a story game. 4e D&D is not a story game. It's a game that borrows from eurogames and video games and a whole bunch of influences, people might not like it, but it's a tabletop RPG.
Quote from: Rincewind1;6514222) Player Characters do not serve as player characters, but as characters around which the story of entering dangerous dungeon is created, rather than an experience of a dangerous dungeon.
OK That's much closer to the mark. Citation needed. Where in the game or the way it's been talked about by Luke Crane, or players who have experienced the game, does it say that?
Quote from: Rincewind1;6514223) As it was noted, the dungeon is created on the fly to facilitate the story of a dangerous dungeon, rather than a consistent part of the world.
That's another good point, if you can back it up. Citation needed.
Quote from: Rincewind1;6514224) Absurd time tracking, which only makes sense in context of abstraction for literature & drama, rather than "realism" or "verisimilitude"
Hm. I see the logic here, but that's thin. See 1). It's not because a mechanic is dissociated that it necessarily results in a storygame. 4e has dissociated mechanics. People certainly can explain them using narrative logic, but not necessarily. Same thing here.
Quote from: Rincewind1;6514225) Reward loop, if based upon Mouse Guard, is very storygamy, because it entirely depends on how dramatic your decisions were, rather than how competent your actions were.
Citation needed.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651422Yes, I know it's kind of the grey area. But for me, this is at least one step past the hazy line between heavily narrative RPG and just a storygame.
It *is* a spectrum, and there *are* grey areas, yes. Provide me with primary references of what you are talking with points 2, 3 and 5, and we'll see.
Quote from: silva;6513713/10. Try harder.
Specially coming from the guy who 90% of the posts are gratuitous ad hominem or fanatical non-sensical bullshit.
Damn, it looks like you don't like your schilling thread blown up. It makes you whine like Mistwell.
It's all in fuseboy's and original sales pitch. If you don't want to move it, don't. I'll just cite one, since I don't feel like being called full of shit.
3)
Quote from: fuseboy;650205The GM's section has a checklist/process for making a dungeon that has some interesting ideas in it, about how the dungeon came to be a dungeon, what changes it's endured over the ages, as well as guidance on the appropriate amount of treasure, etc.
You can draw a map if you like - I had sketchy maps of mine, but as the game isn't about players drawing a map of the GM's descriptions, the GM could potentially get by without a map for a linear dungeon.
Old habits die hard, so I kept a few aspects of the dungeon vague until play, but it's entirely fine to be quite concrete ahead of time. You could play the game using most of the dungeons submitted to the one-page dungeon contest, for example.
That's where you read between the lines. The dungeon doesn't matter, because what matters, is that a story of a chilling dungeon comes out.
And really, I don't feel like writing for Wikipedia today.
And if a stand's being made on Torchlight, AW threads should be brought back to RPG discussion. Because they are an RPG, even if a primitive one.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651433It's all in fuseboy's and original sales pitch. If you don't want to move it, don't. I'll just cite one, since I don't feel like being called full of shit.
3)
That's where you read between the lines. The dungeon doesn't matter, because what matters, is that a story of a chilling dungeon comes out.
And really, I don't feel like writing for Wikipedia today.
I think you are reading too much into it here. I am not seeing story game. Running things on the fly and making up dungeons as you go (even rolling them randomly as you go) is something you see in normal RPGs.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651433It's all in fuseboy's and original sales pitch. If you don't want to move it, don't. I'll just cite one, since I don't feel like being called full of shit.
3)
That's where you read between the lines. The dungeon doesn't matter, because what matters, is that a story of a chilling dungeon comes out.
And really, I don't feel like writing for Wikipedia today.
I get where you're going with this, and I think there's a doubt as well, but I will not move the thread just because of this quote alone. It includes this: "The GM's section has a checklist/process for making a dungeon that has some interesting ideas in it, about how the dungeon came to be a dungeon, what changes it's endured over the ages, as well as guidance on the appropriate amount of treasure, etc."
Which sounds to me like questions which can be answered from the point of view of the world (aka role playing), rather than the understanding of the game as an exercise in story-building. If you can show me how this game construes the act of play as story-building, then I'll reconsider.
Quote from: Benoist;651386For it to be an actual story game, you'd have to show us how that game's actual purpose is not to emulate a world with the participants immersing therein, but rather to collaborate as a co-author to the creation of a story, narrative, or piece of fiction, along with rules tools that are supposed to help achieve this purpose.
Bingo!
Quote from: The Traveller;651303but from your description of "coming all over yourself" in relation to a shared narrative game about trains.
There is a cool setting and great concepts in that Ghost Lines RPG. I am not going to use the narrative system, but the setting is an easy port over to something else. And I hope the authors expand the setting because there is something very cool there. Ghosts + Trains + Steampunk? Yeah, that's fresh enough to get my interest.
I am toying with a T&T conversion.
So thank you Silva for spooging about Ghost Lines! If you find anything else equally interesting please creampie this forum again!
RPG aren't just for pornstars!
Quote from: Benoist;651386For it to be an actual story game, you'd have to show us how that game's actual purpose is not to emulate a world with the participants immersing therein, but rather to collaborate as a co-author to the creation of a story, narrative, or piece of fiction, along with rules tools that are supposed to help achieve this purpose.
I think I've played a game like that before.
There one player who was the main author, of sorts, the executive producer, who designed dungeons and played all the NPCs. And then the rest of us, helped direct the flow of the events by making choices and acting out key parts of the events that transpired. And there were mechanics that helped us along in the resolution of these events, like instructions on what dice to roll to determine success or what the function of a wizard's spell was. It was a lot of fun, what was the game called again...?
Dungeons and Dragons, perhaps? I think that's it.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;651546Dungeons and Dragons, perhaps? I think that's it.
Oh, I remember that game. It become more fun once one got out the straight jacket that was the dungeon...
I've played other Story Games too back in those days, like Champions and Dragon Quest, and even wrote one of my own.
I love me some story games. If they're good enough, you can even get really intense character immersion and world discovery going too!
Quote from: TomatoMalone;651546I think I've played a game like that before.
There one player who was the main author, of sorts, the executive producer, who designed dungeons and played all the NPCs. And then the rest of us, helped direct the flow of the events by making choices and acting out key parts of the events that transpired. And there were mechanics that helped us along in the resolution of these events, like instructions on what dice to roll to determine success or what the function of a wizard's spell was. It was a lot of fun, what was the game called again...?
Dungeons and Dragons, perhaps? I think that's it.
Yeah, who can forget that moment as a player deciding that the sub-chief of the Hill Giants was a traitor, and spending ally points to bring him onside in the big fight in the feasting hall. Or reaching consensus around the table that Keraptis was a mourning widower and we could achieve a secondary relationship goal by marrying him off to a succubus we decided lived at the bottom of the ziggurat where Blackrazor was kept. Good times!
'Torchbearer' Launches On Kickstarter, Brings Survival Back To Dungeons (http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/05/01/torchbearer-kickstarter/) (emphasis added - BV)
My unintentional irony meter just went nova.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651555'Torchbearer' Launches On Kickstarter, Brings Survival Back To Dungeons (http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/05/01/torchbearer-kickstarter/) (emphasis added - BV)
My unintentional irony meter just went nova.
The true irony will be when someone steals the entire Tomb of Horrors, changes the name, and slaps "Powered by Torchbearer" on top of it.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651557The true irony will be when someone steals the entire Tomb of Horrors, changes the name, and slaps "Powered by Torchbearer" on top of it.
I'm giving real consideration to stealing torchbearer, changing the name, and slapping "Powered by the Tomb of Horrors" on it.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651555'Torchbearer' Launches On Kickstarter, Brings Survival Back To Dungeons (http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/05/01/torchbearer-kickstarter/) (emphasis added - BV)
My unintentional irony meter just went nova.
Jeff was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
Quote from: Benoist;651567Jeff was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
I'm actually quite curious and might back it.
That said the smugness and hipper than thou attitude is REALLY off putting.
Quote from: Piestrio;651582I'm actually quite curious and might back it.
That said the smugness and hipper than thou attitude is REALLY off putting.
Oh, you know I'm not your mom. If you do back it, I hope you are satisfied in the end, and get a lot of fun at your game table out of this game.
I just know that, as far as I'm concerned, it isn't for me, and that its marketing is a crock of shit. An insulting crock of shit, actually.
(Reads the description of this forum) Pundit's going to move the thread not because TB is a storygame, but because it's not a traditional RPG.
Quote from: CRKrueger;651601(Reads the description of this forum) Pundit's going to move the thread not because TB is a storygame, but because it's not a traditional RPG.
Well it's definitely NOT a traditional RPG. That's a good point you're bringing up...
Luke Crane's game now has an article about it on MTV.com?
Forbes? MTV? Gotta give him mad props for his PR skillz.
Yeah, yeah, anybody can be on Forbes and MTV now...except that's not what's happening. Luke Crane, not a trad designer, is getting interviewed and it is his project, not a trad project, that is getting all the PR thunder.
So my fellow kewl kidz, let's spend less time bitching about Mr. Crane and more time learning from him so we can promote our own favorite style RPGs.
But again, I'm not bearing Torchbearer until its a boardgame.
HEY RPG PUNDIT! If you are reading this giant trainwreck of a thread, contact both the Forbes and MTV authors and get them a copy of Lords of Olympus and Arrows of Indra. Both are "unusual enough" to be worth their attention.
Quote from: Benoist;649959Oh and the lulfest RE: theRPGsite goes on on Luke Crane's twitter: https://twitter.com/Burning_Luke
With special potshots at J Arcane and the like.
He's still a bitch! LOL
From the Kickstarter:
"But if you're ready to sink your teeth into a good game that will reward you for mastering the system over 10 or 20 sessions, this is the game for you."
I don't feel I have truly 'mastered' AD&D after 20 years.
Quote from: StormBringer;651610I don't feel I have truly 'mastered' AD&D after 20 years.
Same here.
Quote from: Spinachcat;651607Luke Crane's game now has an article about it on MTV.com?
Forbes? MTV? Gotta give him mad props for his PR skillz.
Yeah, yeah, anybody can be on Forbes and MTV now...except that's not what's happening. Luke Crane, not a trad designer, is getting interviewed and it is his project, not a trad project, that is getting all the PR thunder.
So my fellow kewl kidz, let's spend less time bitching about Mr. Crane and more time learning from him so we can promote our own favorite style RPGs.
But again, I'm not bearing Torchbearer until its a boardgame.
HEY RPG PUNDIT! If you are reading this giant trainwreck of a thread, contact both the Forbes and MTV authors and get them a copy of Lords of Olympus and Arrows of Indra. Both are "unusual enough" to be worth their attention.
I totally agree on this. Yeah, everyone can be on Forbes: well, get on Forbes. Promote your favourite games there.
Quote from: StormBringer;651610From the Kickstarter:
"But if you're ready to sink your teeth into a good game that will reward you for mastering the system over 10 or 20 sessions, this is the game for you."
Fer fuck's sake, the guy should just design euro games.
Quote from: Haffrung;651616Fer fuck's sake, the guy should just design euro games.
Mastered over 10-20 sessions doesn't sound very Eurogamey to me. More like ol' school Avalon Hill
(Goddamn Empires in Arms...) :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;651607Luke Crane's game now has an article about it on MTV.com?
Holy Fuck!
The same entertainment giant that brought us
Jersey Shore is talking about
Torchbearer! We should all strive to be noticed by such an august venue! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Spinachcat;651607Luke Crane's game now has an article about it on MTV.com?
Link? It's turning into a good example of how to work social media alright. Mind you we've no real idea where the traffic is coming from, he might have taken out an ad in the NYT for all we know.
Quote from: StormBringer;651610over 10 or 20 sessions
I don't know if you're really meant to master a game, nomenclature notwithstanding. Understand it sure, but mastery in this sense is more like something Mr GC might say.
Quote from: Imperator;651615I totally agree on this. Yeah, everyone can be on Forbes: well, get on Forbes. Promote your favourite games there.
There's a good deal more going on under the hood I reckon. One backwater blog isn't bringing all that attention.
Quote from: The Traveller;651624There's a good deal more going on under the hood I reckon. One backwater blog isn't bringing all that attention.
I think that they are astroturfing interest in this game. They have done it before far too many times.
Quote from: jeff37923;651626I think that they are astroturfing interest in this game. They have done it before far too many times.
They ain't astroturfing thirty grand with 28 days left to go.
Quote from: jeff37923;651621Holy Fuck!
The most holy of fucks indeed.
Jersey Shore was a financial juggernaut known across the globe. Love MTV or hate it, there is no doubt that MTV.com is a good site to be promoted by.
Quote from: The Traveller;651624Link?
http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/05/01/torchbearer-kickstarter/
Quote from: jeff37923;651626I think that they are astroturfing interest in this game. They have done it before far too many times.
Astroturf marketing can work mighty fine.
Quote from: Spinachcat;651628http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/05/01/torchbearer-kickstarter/
Oho,
he works at kickstarter, no wonder it ended up on the staff picks page. That by itself is going to be worth a lot of coverage. Plus if anyone's going to know where the traffic comes from in previously related projects its him. That puts a different slant on things indeed. Still, 22 likes and no comments on the MTV page...
If it is mostly fans of mouse guard and so on I'd expect things to die down a lot over the coming few days and stay quiet till the end, if not there may be something to be learned from the marketing.
Hmm, the Forbes blog seems to have been picked up by a horde of news aggregators like this (http://markets.ibtimes.com/ibtimes/news/read/23956250/new_%27burning_wheel%27_rpg_%27torchbearer%27_sets_its_sights_on_gen_con_release_date) and this (http://world.topnewstoday.org/world/article/5534101/) that just repeat content as it appears. That might be part of it.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651619Mastered over 10-20 sessions doesn't sound very Eurogamey to me. More like ol' school Avalon Hill (Goddamn Empires in Arms...) :)
Since most Eurogames are easy to learn but hard to master, I'd say that it is a valid point ;).
Quote from: The Traveller;651631Oho, he works at kickstarter, no wonder it ended up on the staff picks page. That by itself is going to be worth a lot of coverage. Plus if anyone's going to know where the traffic comes from in previously related projects its him. That puts a different slant on things indeed. Still, 22 likes and no comments on the MTV page...
I love the most the "I work for the company but but but I'm still totally like, anxious I won't get accepted. Totally."
I'd also like to note that this is a case of "In the land of blind, a man with one - eye is king". Since 99% of game designers either don't know jack about business, don't care about RPGs really seriously anymore, don't want to engage that much or they have actually a bad head for business, when you have a semi - competent guy going on with hardcore viral marketing, he gets results.
Well, good on him. May he afford his beer of choice in plenty. And may his game afflict/bring joy to the tween MTV crowd as intended.
Quote from: Opaopajr;651668Well, good on him. May he afford his beer of choice in plenty. And may his game afflict/bring joy to the tween MTV crowd as intended.
Stop being so fucking reasonable. This is war, dammit.
Quote from: Opaopajr;651668Well, good on him. May he afford his beer of choice in plenty. And may his game afflict/bring joy to the tween MTV crowd as intended.
Pabst is pretty cheap as I understand.
Quote from: KenHR;651671Stop being so fucking reasonable. This is war, dammit.
It is? Shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
On a little of a more serious note - it is a bit. Yes, it's a petty one and between hardcore nerds, but there is a "war for gamers' souls" going on, and the discussion we have here is just one of the splints of it. In Vidja Gamez world, where the money's pretty darn serious, the war's much more showing between the Gameplay vs Story vs Filmlike, to name the few.
Quote from: jeff37923;651621Holy Fuck!
The same entertainment giant that brought us Jersey Shore is talking about Torchbearer! We should all strive to be noticed by such an august venue! :rolleyes:
Forbes and MTV (even if it the geel division on the website) are pretty high profile and a god way to get the word out. It won't translate into mainstream success, but it will get broaden their reach. Other game companies shouldn't scoff at the notion of doing PR in these venues just because of the game or person involved. Looks like a smart move on their part to me.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;651619Mastered over 10-20 sessions doesn't sound very Eurogamey to me. More like ol' school Avalon Hill (Goddamn Empires in Arms...) :)
True. But I don't see a system-wonk hipster like Crane being much interested in anything so pedestrian and old-school as a historical wargame. His stuff would fit better in the overwrought, over-designed Vlaada Chvátil puzzle game category.
Quote from: Haffrung;651677True. But I don't see a system-wonk hipster like Crane being much interested in anything so pedestrian and old-school as a historical wargame. His stuff would fit better in the overwrought, over-designed Vlaada Chvátil puzzle game category.
I'd say Mage Knight or that game about being a dungeon overlord that I can't recall off hand, with their mechanics, made me feel more immersed in the world than BW did.
Well, one must pick their battles. And he who chooses to tease away the money of rabid fans of modern MTV (those who actually check its website for lifestyle picks. I mean, honestly, modern MTV?), with this spelunking mini-game... obviously can't be all that bad. My enemy's enemy, or perhaps my enemy's well-intentioned friend leading them down "the path of good intentions", and all that.
How could I not wish success on something so fortuitous as that? ;)
Edit: Heh, I'd happily supply the handbasket, too. Does Torchbearer need player visual aids like torch tokens? I think I can rustle up a repackaging of matches for only a 1000% markup.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;651675Forbes and MTV (even if it the geel division on the website) are pretty high profile and a god way to get the word out. It won't translate into mainstream success, but it will get broaden their reach. Other game companies shouldn't scoff at the notion of doing PR in these venues just because of the game or person involved. Looks like a smart move on their part to me.
Jeff is just jealous because an author he does not respect garnered more attention in a few short days than Jeff has gotten for everything he's written in his entire life. So he's going to denigrate the quality of that attention, while privately wishing he'd get even half the same.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651674. . .there is a "war for gamers' souls" going on . . .
No, you fucking buffoon, there isn't.
There are gamers with differing preferences, and game designers trying to meet those preferences.
What makes the hype surrounding
Torchbearer noteworthy is not some ridiculous imaginary roleplayer-jihad, but rather the spectacle of gamers who last week were decrying dungeon crawling and resource management pissing all over themselves like excitable puppies at it this week.
You drop the average IQ of this site precipitously every time you touch your keyboard, you pile of pigshit. You may want to see to that.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;651682No, you fucking buffoon, there isn't.
There are gamers with differing preferences, and game designers trying to meet those preferences.
What makes the hype surrounding Torchbearer noteworthy is not some ridiculous imaginary roleplayer-jihad, but rather the spectacle of gamers who last week were decrying dungeon crawling and resource management pissing all over themselves like excitable puppies at it this week.
You drop the average IQ of this site precipitously every time you touch your keyboard, you pile of pigshit. You may want to see to that.
We're still above your IQ on average, and that's fine by me.
Just because you cry and scream in that there isn't one, doesn't change that. A conflict for taste is always going on. But be your usual dumb arse, and confuse two very different things, a perceived jihad with an actual cultural conflict in games per se, that the RPGs are just a minor part of, but where the whole thing began. Basic rules of consumerism applying to entertainment, that's been there since the first bard man telling the stories around the campfire was paid for it with a meal.
Or to speak on your level:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTap7_gPc8i4StSuvEa_2mFADeFZtifKgELe4E2zdr4wDoe12h5)
Girls girls, it's OK, you're both pretty.
Quote from: Rincewind1;651674On a little of a more serious note - it is a bit. Yes, it's a petty one and between hardcore nerds, but there is a "war for gamers' souls" going on, and the discussion we have here is just one of the splints of it. In Vidja Gamez world, where the money's pretty darn serious, the war's much more showing between the Gameplay vs Story vs Filmlike, to name the few.
*shrug*
They're games. I've had incredible experiences with RPGs that I would never be able to duplicate with any other form of gaming. I've learned a lot about language, social dynamics and such playing and reading RPGs. I have fun applying social science and shit to my campaign settings and geek out over maps and population distribution spreadsheets. I learned to program the fuck out of Excel because of RPGs. But in the end, it's a hobby. It's a pastime. Other people game for different reasons. I might not understand their reasons or agree with their approaches, but what the hell, they're having fun.
I guess I'm with BV. The hipsterish vibe that drips from everything to do with Luke Crane and others like him is worthy of mockery. But then anyone who takes this shit too seriously is.
Quote from: Mistwell;651681Jeff is just jealous because an author he does not respect garnered more attention in a few short days than Jeff has gotten for everything he's written in his entire life. So he's going to denigrate the quality of that attention, while privately wishing he'd get even half the same.
Your analysis has cut me to the quick. I must now go and commit ritual seppuku by falling on my keyboard because my secret is out. Goodbye cruel world! I was unmasked by the White Knight! Heed his words with caution lest you suffer my same fate!
So who is Sgt. Barnes and who is Sgt. Elias?
Is Pundit Elias and Crane Barnes?
Does that make the rest of us Pvt. Talyor?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Platoon_posters_86.jpg/220px-Platoon_posters_86.jpg)
Quote from: Drohem;651724So who is Sgt. Barnes and who is Sgt. Elias?
Is Pundit Elias and Crane Barnes?
Does that make the rest of us Pvt. Talyor?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Platoon_posters_86.jpg/220px-Platoon_posters_86.jpg)
That's how storygamers look when they're laughing at you, man.
::cocks rifle, fires at the ground::
DANCE, MOTHERFUCKER! DANCE!
Quote from: The Traveller;650805You understand this, the idiot wanted to destroy the hobby.
And failed. All they did was create a niche for people who like their way of gaming.
Quote from: The Traveller;651111And who knows, someday they may even be able to make money from their own ideas instead of riding on the coat tails of actual innovators.
Innovators are rarely the people who make the money. It's the people who innovate on the basic ideas who make the money.
Quote from: apparition13;651738And failed. All they did was create a niche for people who like their way of gaming.
If highlighting the right wing cult that resulted in shared narrative games makes some people uncomfortable, maybe they should be looking a little more closely at what they decide to get involved in.
Quote from: apparition13;651738Innovators are rarely the people who make the money. It's the people who innovate on the basic ideas who make the money.
So what you're saying is that innovators don't make money, innovators make money.
I see.
Quote from: jeff37923;651701Your analysis has cut me to the quick. I must now go and commit ritual seppuku by falling on my keyboard because my secret is out. Goodbye cruel world! I was unmasked by the White Knight! Heed his words with caution lest you suffer my same fate!
LOL touche'.
Quote from: The Traveller;651739If highlighting the right wing cult that resulted in shared narrative games makes some people uncomfortable, maybe they should be looking a little more closely at what they decide to get involved in.
Woah hey wait a second there motherfucker. RIGHT WING cult? Sorry, that's just wrong.
First, this is entirely apolitical. I am sure those games attract people of all political persuasions, nor were they motivated by ideological political considerations that are characterized as left or right wing.
Second, if one were forced to characterize the concept of enforcing "equality" over all else as a value for gaming, which is what storygames attempt to do by decreasing the "power" of the GM while increasing the "power" of the players so that they are all
"equal" in power over the "story" they are all "jointly telling", one would characterize that as a more socialist (and therefore left-wing) concept than anything else. Though, again, I think it is
ridiculous to make this political at all.
WTF is with the wingnuts trying to make this battle about politics? First FASERIP with his "Obama D&D" comment about 5e being too storygame for him, and now you with your "right-wing cult" about storygames? Leave your political psychosis at the door mang, this is about games and not your pet political theories and political psychologies.
Quote from: Mistwell;651742WTF is with the wingnuts trying to make this battle about politics?
A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Quote from: Mistwell;651742Woah hey wait a second there motherfucker. RIGHT WING cult? Sorry, that's just wrong.
Oh get fucked you greasy skidmark, your first interaction with me was to claim I was a dickhead based on my avatar. You've managed to maintain about that monotone level of dialogue ever since so I guess kudos for being consistent at least.
Quote from: Mistwell;651742First, this is entirely apolitical. I am sure those games attract people of all political persuasions, nor were they motivated by ideological political considerations that are characterized as left or right wing.
Interesting, I've often felt that the shared narrative, er, narrative was one of gaming mimicking the marxist evolution from feudalism to socialism, a single pivot of power changing to shared power. Yes, that is completely ignorant on numerous levels, I never claimed they were smart.
Quote from: Mistwell;651742Second, if one were forced to characterize the concept of enforcing "equality" over all else as a value for gaming, which is what storygames attempt to do by decreasing the "power" of the GM while increasing the "power" of the players, one would characterize that as a more socialist (and therefore left-wing) concept than anything else. Though, again, I think it is ridiculous to make this political at all.
A rose is a rose etc. Totalitarianism is the pervasive influence of the state in all aspects of life, and given the addiction to personality cults evinced by the necksters among other things it's not at all far off conceptually.
Quote from: Mistwell;651742WTF is with the wingnuts trying to make this battle about politics? First FASERIP with his "Obama D&D" comment about 5e being too storygame for him, and now you with your "right-wing cult" about storygames? Leave your political psychosis at the door mang, this is about games and not your pet political theories and political psychologies.
As coherent as usual I see. A 'wingnut' is an extremist from either wing, I'm an extremist from the centre. As for political psychologies, if it barks like a duck and looks like a dog, well you see where I'm going with this.
Quote from: The Traveller;651747Oh get fucked you greasy skidmark, your first interaction with me was to claim I was a dickhead based on my avatar.
I'm sorry, but I don't recall that (I am sure it happened, I just honestly do not remember). What was your avatar that made me insult you for it?
QuoteYou've managed to maintain about that monotone level of dialogue ever since so I guess kudos for being consistent at least.
Interesting, I've often felt that the shared narrative, er, narrative was one of gaming mimicking the marxist evolution from feudalism to socialism, a single pivot of power changing to shared power. Yes, that is completely ignorant on numerous levels, I never claimed they were smart.
A rose is a rose etc. Totalitarianism is the pervasive influence of the state in all aspects of life, and given the addiction to personality cults evinced by the necksters among other things it's not at all far off conceptually.
As coherent as usual I see. A 'wingnut' is an extremist from either wing, I'm an extremist from the centre. As for political psychologies, if it barks like a duck and looks like a dog, well you see where I'm going with this.
Well, while I disagree with your position, I appreciate you had some cogent reasoning behind it.
I disagree that totalitarianism and personality cults are inherently right-wing in nature (which I believe is what you just implied, when tying it back to your right-wing cult comment). Off the top of my head, all of the following are left wing totalitarians who had personality cults: Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il (and both his father and son), and Mao. And of course I could name as many that were right-wing in nature. Personality cults and totalitarianism are not a right-wing or a left-win thing, they can come in both flavors.
Knock it off with the politics, please.
Quote from: Mistwell;651749I'm sorry, but I don't recall that (I am sure it happened, I just honestly do not remember). What was your avatar that made me insult you for it?
I suspect you thought I was a hipster. I don't care about hipsters any more than I cared about goths, hippies, moshers, candy ravers, or the connoisseurs of classical music, but it seemed the most likely reason. The actual avatar was Dr Steel, which is a very different message. You can find his work on youtube.
Quote from: Mistwell;651749I disagree that totalitarianism and personality cults are inherently right-wing in nature (which I believe is what you just implied, when tying it back to your right-wing cult comment). Off the top of my head, all of the following are left wing totalitarians who had personality cults: Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il (and both his father and son), and Mao. And of course I could name as many that were right-wing in nature. Personality cults and totalitarianism are not a right-wing or a left-win thing, they can come in both flavors.
Yes but you failed to consider that this was a tactic calculated to incense the shared narrative crowd who are no doubt paying attention to this thread, as OHT mentioned earlier, and has been previously used as a successful behaviour adjuster since they notably identify with the left. Whether that leads to them joining the discussion, becoming even more radicalised and hence increasing the coverage of this site, or changing their minds, makes little difference.
Of course it's kind of fucked now I had to explain it.
Quote from: The Traveller;651753I suspect you thought I was a hipster. I don't care about hipsters any more than I cared about goths, hippies, moshers, candy ravers, or the connoisseurs of classical music, but it seemed the most likely reason. The actual avatar was Dr Steel, which is a very different message. You can find his work on youtube.
Yes but you failed to consider that this was a tactic calculated to incense the shared narrative crowd who are no doubt paying attention to this thread, as OHT mentioned earlier, and has been previously used as a successful behaviour adjuster since they notably identify with the left. Whether that leads to them joining the discussion, becoming even more radicalised and hence increasing the coverage of this site, or changing their minds, makes little difference.
Of course it's kind of fucked now I had to explain it.
Well fuck dude, my bad. Had I know you were just trying to tweak their noses I'd have joined in.
Quote from: Mistwell;651754Well fuck dude, my bad. Had I know you were just trying to tweak their noses I'd have joined in.
Well maybe next time.
Quote from: Mistwell;651741LOL touche'.
Yeah, my keyboard turned out to not be sharp enough anyways.
Quote from: Mistwell;651754Well fuck dude, my bad. Had I know you were just trying to tweak their noses I'd have joined in.
See what you get for White Knighting at the drop of a hat? Ditch the horse and lance, come walk with us for a change.
Quote from: The Traveller;651753I suspect you thought I was a hipster. I don't care about hipsters any more than I cared about goths, hippies, moshers, candy ravers, or the connoisseurs of classical music, but it seemed the most likely reason. The actual avatar was Dr Steel, which is a very different message. You can find his work on youtube.
Yes but you failed to consider that this was a tactic calculated to incense the shared narrative crowd who are no doubt paying attention to this thread, as OHT mentioned earlier, and has been previously used as a successful behaviour adjuster since they notably identify with the left. Whether that leads to them joining the discussion, becoming even more radicalised and hence increasing the coverage of this site, or changing their minds, makes little difference.
Of course it's kind of fucked now I had to explain it.
I'm glad we're having avatar drama, we can compare our ponies next. But yes, I'm afraid you dissected that frog, Traveller. It was a good attempt though!
Since I have overestimated the intelligence of Internet Tough Guy(s), and no Ken, I don't mean you, who wanted to show how cool and adult they are when it comes to gaming, and they are totally the cool, not too nerdy nerds, I'll elaborate what I mean by the "war" allegory. Because I didn't mean Forge vs Trad RPGs or any of that, I meant much bigger picture.
There is a "cultural war" going on in the background of entertainment business, and for good reasons. A lot of money rides on it, and in capitalism, investor is key. When a man wants to know where putting his dollar will give him the most dollars back, when it comes to the entertainment industry, he has a lot of things to choose, from sports through films to yes, games. And people responsible for their brands of entertainment, want those bucks going their way - to earn a living, as well as, in some cases, send a message. Or even for the industry itself to exist. And entertainment is of course, very important to us. It's only mindless fun if one decides it to be mindless. I'm not saying that every person who watches films should grab a camera and become a director, but we can often see that if we engage in entertainment on more than just "first" level, we begin to develop or at least train some skills - and nowhere is this more apparent than in active forms of entertainment, such as sports and tabletop games.
But yes, even if, RPGs don't matter like that, right? I mean, they are riding on the tiniest of pieces of culture, where revenue is counted in millions only by WoTC. While board games may now be a staple of family life in Germany, where it's normal to play not even just monopoly but such games as High Voltage on Sunday, RPGs are (at least supposedly, I'm still split on the whole issue) in the drain, at least compared to the "glory days".
Well, that's true, but there is one sliver of light.. Because next to p&p RPG is the cousin that grew out and turned out to be a multimillionaire - video games. We can see the same problems in video game business, except alongside few unique to their own (such as graphics race, video games as their own medium, etc etc). The problems are between video games as medium for storytelling, or as for making your own story, or as a medium to explore the worlds, or as a medium to engage in film like action...etc. etc. We've been through all that stuff in RPGs already, and in terms of Sandbox, video games have both lost the way for a good while, and are both only catching up to what paper RPGs could do ages ago. Not to mention that video game designers often played or at least heard of RPGs (Fallouts? Halo level designers? Whole BioWare?), though probably nowadays this is much less common than it used to be. Some questions that the video game industry is asking itself, were already answered in RPGs. Most importantly - whether games serve to tell a story, or to allow an user to create their own, and if so, how - should they enforce a genre emulation, or should the story come organic from gameplay.
And there are millions of dollars riding on the choices here, whether people prefer to have the story told to them (Mass Effect), play and witness the story in a cinematic manner (Call of Duty), or for the story to be emergent from gameplay (Elder Scrolls). And while perhaps in the tail end of the whole discussion, but the RPGs are still there. If only because more and more games feature "RPG - like "elements, and the video game RPGs are still doing quite good. And since a lot of video game designers had RPG experience, and they will, as well as vice versa, the trends in both mediums will react to each others.
Quote from: Drohem;651724So who is Sgt. Barnes and who is Sgt. Elias?
Is Pundit Elias and Crane Barnes?
Does that make the rest of us Pvt. Talyor?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Platoon_posters_86.jpg/220px-Platoon_posters_86.jpg)
I'd say we're more the crowd in the hospital from Born On the 4th of July.
Quote from: jeff37923;651781See what you get for White Knighting at the drop of a hat? Ditch the horse and lance, come walk with us for a change.
It's a difficult habit to break. Particularly since I think there is a lot of use that comes from playing Devil's Advocate, which is the kinder way of saying White Knight.
I think Penn, of Penn and Teller, expresses it well here (starting around 3:50 and going to about 4:50).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14q_1NlhE9I&feature=youtu.be&t=3m53s
Benoist already asked that people stop with the politics. If you want to discuss that stuff either open a thread in Pundit's subforum, where it will sink or swim on his judgment, or go to rpg.net.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;651798Benoist already asked that people stop with the politics. If you want to discuss that stuff either open a thread in Pundit's subforum, where it will sink or swim on his judgment, or go to rpg.net.
Is that in response to me posting a small section of a video that explains the benefits of playing devil's advocate, because there tangentially happens to be politics also in the video?
Quote from: Mistwell;651800Is that in response to me posting a small section of a video that explains the benefits of playing devil's advocate, because there tangentially happens to be politics also in the video?
I think it's in general response of the politicisation of this thread. We've been laying it pretty thick here.
Quote from: Mistwell;651800Is that in response to me posting a small section of a video that explains the benefits of playing devil's advocate, because there tangentially happens to be politics also in the video?
no, it wasn't.
Did I not say, ditch the armor and lance?
Quote from: jeff37923;651809Did I not say, ditch the armor and lance?
Can't say precisely why, but I am somewhat reminded of The Knight in Rusty Armour.
If the tabletop RPG scene is so worthless economically, who bought 5.3 million dollars worth of Reaper figures and Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles?
Quote from: CRKrueger;651818If the tabletop RPG scene is so worthless economically, who bought 5.3 million dollars worth of Reaper figures and Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles?
I think the myth of the glory days of TSR mostly causes this view.
Quote from: CRKrueger;651818If the tabletop RPG scene is so worthless economically, who bought 5.3 million dollars worth of Reaper figures and Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles?
Wargamers playing
Warhammer and
Warlord.
Quote from: CRKrueger;651818If the tabletop RPG scene is so worthless economically, who bought 5.3 million dollars worth of Reaper figures and Dwarven Forge dungeon tiles?
Good question!
I play Warhammer and I don't see people using non-GW figs very often and the dungeon tiles aren't usable in Warhammer Fantasy Battles, unless you are playing Mordheim (or other squad level skirmish game) and thats a small subset of the WFB crowd.
So I am betting most of that 5M came from RPGers.
Quote from: The TravellerSo what you're saying is that innovators don't make money, innovators make money.
I see.
Innovator 1 (the creative type) comes up with an idea for a product, but it goes nowhere. Innovator 2 (the entrepreneurial type with business acumen) steals the idea and makes a mint. Tl, dr: it's the guys riding the coattails who make the money.
Quote from: apparition13;651865Innovator 1 (the creative type) comes up with an idea for a product, but it goes nowhere. Innovator 2 (the entrepreneurial type with business acumen) steals the idea and makes a mint. Tl, dr: it's the guys riding the coattails who make the money.
So you think crane is going to earn more than WotC from this?
Is there a reason we're giving free publicity to someone who has contempt for gamers?
WOW, 50 PAGES ALREADY?!? You people must really love this game :)
I'd love to troll it but I'm pressed for time. Can anyone sum things up?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651884Can anyone sum things up?
Luke Crane is a poo poo head, but he has mad marketing skillz.
He has taken a cool idea for a boardgame and made what sounds like a lame RPG out of some strange love/hate/wank/spank for Classic D&D.
Except he didn't write it.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;651883Is there a reason we're giving free publicity to someone who has contempt for gamers?
Agitated boredom. This forum needs another lightning rod topic for us all to count coup and preen how clever we are. Thus my support of moving this into another forum, like the Pundit's.
Perhaps we can then go back to work giving free publicity towards the other party that has contempt for gamers, Hasbro.
Quote from: Opaopajr;651891Perhaps we can then go back to work giving free publicity towards the other party that has contempt for gamers, Hasbro.
Hasbro doesn't have contempt for gamers, they have indifference. A man does not hate an ant, he just accidentally steps on it and thinks nothing of it. They are wealthy and succesful, so compared to them we're not important enough for them to hate. Crane (and his buddies) is just a geek like the rest of us, he's on our scale, so he can hate us. He's pretentious, in the Jeff Rients' threefold theory (http://jrients.blogspot.com.au/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html) sense of the word. He has a laser-like focus on pretension, in fact, which is what makes his games inferior. If he added some stupidity or retro to them they'd be improved.
Quote from: Spinachcat;651887Luke Crane is a poo poo head, but he has mad marketing skillz.
Nah I'm betting most of the initial surge was the BW fanclub++. If it tops $50k over the next three weeks it might be worth a closer look, but the pace has already slowed.
Christ, WTF did I get myself into...
QuoteWhat Kind of Game Is This?
Torchbearer is a roleplaying game. And it’s part of the brand of games Burning Wheel HQ has been producing for over ten years. It’s about making difficult choices. And it involves exploring the world and your character through the game rules and systems.
This is a hard game. It’s not a simple game. There are many moving parts and it’s not possible to experience the whole game in one or even two sessions. If you prefer lighter games, there are many other excellent choices available for you designed by our friends. If you’re ready to sink your teeth into a good game that will reward you for mastering the system over 10 or 20 sessions, this is the game for you.
Quote from: Brad;651926Christ, WTF did I get myself into...
You know you can change your pledge at any time, right? ;)
Quote from: The Traveller;651868So you think crane is going to earn more than WotC from this?
More than Arneson. And more than Edwards as well.
WotC ate TSR after it had already kicked Gygax, and then got eaten by Hasbro. WotC was not the RPG innovator, that was the guys in the 70s who came up with RPGs.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;651884WOW, 50 PAGES ALREADY?!? You people must really love this game :)
I'd love to troll it but I'm pressed for time. Can anyone sum things up?
You're a drive-by asshole?
Quote from: apparition13;651930More than Arneson. And more than Edwards as well.
WotC ate TSR after it had already kicked Gygax, and then got eaten by Hasbro. WotC was not the RPG innovator, that was the guys in the 70s who came up with RPGs.
There's a long chain of innovation and compensation involved with D&D, some people got compensated, some didn't do as well, but to say that 'true innovators' whatever they might be get burned while everyone else makes money is nonsense. Dungeons and dungeoneering are the heart and soul of D&D, this torchbearer thing is the definitive example of someone riding on the coat tails of their betters.
Something like Eclipse Phase is far more original and as such has reaped the rewards.
Quote from: The Traveller;651933this torchbearer thing is the definitive example of someone riding on the coat tails of their betters.
I would argue its someone riding on the coattails of other people, who themselves rode on the coattails of their betters (while screaming and throwing poo).
Quote from: The Traveller;651900Nah I'm betting most of the initial surge was the BW fanclub++. If it tops $50k over the next three weeks it might be worth a closer look, but the pace has already slowed.
Again, this is a case of "One - eyed man ruling kingdom of blind". Because almost nobody cares/works much for/on marketing in RPG industry, as Crane manages to get some of it going, it's suddenly actually semi - effective.
Quote from: Brad;651926Christ, WTF did I get myself into...
Well, you can't say we did not warn you ;).
Quote from: jeff37923;651931You're a drive-by asshole?
More like a drivel - bygone asshole. He just [Gotye] ain't the Jehova Witness that I used to know.[/Gotye]
Quote from: The Traveller;651868So you think crane is going to earn more than WotC from this?
Quote from: The Traveller;651933There's a long chain of innovation and compensation involved with D&D, some people got compensated, some didn't do as well, but to say that 'true innovators' whatever they might be get burned while everyone else makes money is nonsense. Dungeons and dungeoneering are the heart and soul of D&D, this torchbearer thing is the definitive example of someone riding on the coat tails of their betters.
Something like Eclipse Phase is far more original and as such has reaped the rewards.
Re. bold: Here's a nice little article on Forbes about how much nonsense it is. It's title?
Pioneers die broke. (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/1223/258.html) There is absolutely no reason to expect any different outcome in RPGs than there is in other industries.
Quote from: apparition13;652020Re. bold: Here's a nice little article on Forbes about how much nonsense it is. It's title? Pioneers die broke. (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/1223/258.html)
Oh, well allow (http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/amazon-dyson-billionaire-ent-billionaires08-cx_pm_0306billionaireinventors.html) me to retort (http://www.asylum.com/2010/01/11/9-dumb-inventions-that-made-people-stupidly-rich/). And the first one is a Forbes article.
Not that you're doing anything but trying and failing to dodge the point, which is that you're comparing WotC and predecessors to some poor abused inventor and torchbearer to IBM or something. I don't know what you'd have to be smoking to reach a place mentally where that makes sense or in any way resembles reality, but you can keep it.
No, crane's effort is like a knock off movie (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164290/Inside-world-knock-mockbuster-movies-try-confuse-viewers.html), which is trying to capitalise on the success of others in a cheap and distinctly smalltime way. And they rarely make much. Simples, sorry about your strange narrative!
Quote from: The Traveller;651933but to say that 'true innovators' whatever they might be get burned while everyone else makes money is nonsense.
Quote from: apparition13;652020Re. bold: Here's a nice little article on Forbes about how much nonsense it is. It's title? Pioneers die broke. (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/1223/258.html) There is absolutely no reason to expect any different outcome in RPGs than there is in other industries.
Quote from: The Traveller;652044Oh, well allow (http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/amazon-dyson-billionaire-ent-billionaires08-cx_pm_0306billionaireinventors.html) me to retort (http://www.asylum.com/2010/01/11/9-dumb-inventions-that-made-people-stupidly-rich/). And the first one is a Forbes article.
Your original statement was that the idea that innovators get screwed over is nonsense. I showed some evidence it is not nonsense, that is does happen. The fact that it happens to some innovators does not mean that it happens to all.
By analogy, you said "no one gets cancer", I said "here are some examples of people who got cancer", you said "look at all these people who didn't get cancer, so you're wrong".
QuoteNot that you're doing anything but trying and failing to dodge the point, which is that you're comparing WotC and predecessors to some poor abused inventor and torchbearer to IBM or something. I don't know what you'd have to be smoking to reach a place mentally where that makes sense or in any way resembles reality, but you can keep it.
Once again, WotC was not the innovator here, it was Arneson, Gygax, and their players. Arneson got squat, Gygax made a decent living for a while. TSR innovated itself into a takeover by WotC (whose innovation was Magic, which is why they had the capital for a takeover), and Hasbro bought them out. Buying out the guys who bought out the guys who kicked the innovators to the curb isn't innovation.
QuoteNo, crane's effort is like a knock off movie (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164290/Inside-world-knock-mockbuster-movies-try-confuse-viewers.html), which is trying to capitalise on the success of others in a cheap and distinctly smalltime way. And they rarely make much. Simples, sorry about your strange narrative!
Star Wars is partly based on some Japanese properties. Friends was based off a UK sitcom. As is the US version of Being Human. Elementary, Sherlock, and the recent Holmes movies are all capitalizing on ACD. There are plenty of successful "knockoffs"*.
*If Crane had named Torchbearer "Dungeoneers and Dragons" your knock off article would have a point. He didn't, it doesn't, he's not trying to confuse anyone that his product is D&D.
Quote from: apparition13;652056Your original statement was that the idea that innovators get screwed over is nonsense. I showed some evidence it is not nonsense, that is does happen. The fact that it happens to some innovators does not mean that it happens to all.
By analogy, you said "no one gets cancer", I said "here are some examples of people who got cancer", you said "look at all these people who didn't get cancer, so you're wrong".
I'd have thought the context was pretty clear from the preceding words "There's a long chain of innovation and compensation involved with D&D, some people got compensated, some didn't do as well". I mean it takes a bit of work not to understand that, but you managed it alright.
Quote from: apparition13;652056*If Crane had named Torchbearer "Dungeoneers and Dragons" your knock off article would have a point. He didn't, it doesn't, he's not trying to confuse anyone that his product is D&D.
Possibly you missed how the original name for the project was Ds & Ds, but they decided against it for legal reasons. Not because it wasn't a knockoff but because they were afraid of being sued. Dungeon World is what I'd call an homage in many ways. This tripe is a cynical cash grabbing knockoff, and really obviously so.
Quote from: The Traveller;652064This tripe is a cynical cash grabbing knockoff, and really obviously so.
That's pretty much what Gary Gygax said about every RPG that came after D&D. And in some ways, he's right. Tunnels &Trolls, RuneQuest, Palladium Fantasy, Chivalry & Sorcery and all the other early 80s RPGs were all riding the coattails of his creation. Traveller and Champions may have used his RPG idea, but at least they did it in different genres.
Of course, the most successful coattail riders are the video games that took all of Gary's ideas and made billions.
Quote from: The Traveller;652064I'd have thought the context was pretty clear from the preceding words "There's a long chain of innovation and compensation involved with D&D, some people got compensated, some didn't do as well". I mean it takes a bit of work not to understand that, but you managed it alright.
Great, we agree. Yay.
QuotePossibly you missed how the original name for the project was Ds & Ds, but they decided against it for legal reasons. Not because it wasn't a knockoff but because they were afraid of being sued. Dungeon World is what I'd call an homage in many ways. This tripe is a cynical cash grabbing knockoff, and really obviously so.
Lots of projects have place-holder titles, place-holder art, place-holder music, place-holder whatevers, until the creators come up with the actual titles, art, music, etc.
Near as I can tell this is Crane and buddies wondering what the heck this OSR stuff is all about, grabbing B/X and giving it a try, RAW naturally because they like rules, and deciding that this sub-system that a lot of people ignore is the core of the experience, so "let's build a game around that".
I don't see it so much as a cynical cash grabbing knock off as a missing the point by focusing on one tree in the forest* (resource management in the dungeon) and writing a game that does that and only that. I'll admit I'm curious to see what they came up with. Not funding the kickstarter curious, just curious. And since I'm from the "house rule it as you're reading it" school, if there's anything I can rip off in there I will, and if there is, the first thing on the chopping block is the arbitrary length turns.
*Storygamer goes to a concert, and writes a game about the struggles of selling merchandise. Storygamer goes to a soccer game, and spends the whole match watching the assistant refs running in straight lines at the side of the field waving flags. Storygamer goes to a tennis match and decides it must be a form of group neck-exercising. Storygamer plays B/X and decides it's a game about tracking torches and rations. Which is fine if that's what floats your boat; I don't get it, but whatever.
Quote from: apparition13;652110Lots of projects have place-holder titles, place-holder art, place-holder music, place-holder whatevers, until the creators come up with the actual titles, art, music, etc.
Yeah but he specifically said it was changed for legal reasons:
QuoteFor a long time the game had a working title of Dungeoneers & Dragonslayers, or "Ds & Ds." This was meant to evoke the original dungeon crawler, but was later changed to avoid any possible legal conflicts.
Quote from: apparition13;652110Near as I can tell this is Crane and buddies wondering what the heck this OSR stuff is all about, grabbing B/X and giving it a try, RAW naturally because they like rules, and deciding that this sub-system that a lot of people ignore is the core of the experience, so "let's build a game around that".
I dunno, he learned at the knee of ron edwards and still recounts fondly the wisdom of the bane of the brain damaged ones. I mean check out this gem (http://www.gnomestew.com/treasuretables/interviews/interview-with-luke-crane/):
QuoteWell, I picked up on this from listening to Ron Edwards. He's excellent at analyzing PLAYERS at the table, and he's taught me a lot.
Often a turtle is reacting to some other abuse in the past where his participation in the game was ruthlessly crushed by the GM. But in such a way that the player still wants to play, but is terrified of offering any meaningful input, because he just assumes the GM is going to shit on him.
The other side of turtles is the "My Guy" syndrome. As in, "My guy wouldn't do that." Which is complete bullshit. But these players are tough to crack.
I've actually had players take up the Captain character in "The Gift" and say, "I'm not going to do anything, I like the character as he's written." Why do they even fucking play the game, then? Are they gamer voyeurs? I never understood willfully NOT participating in game because of something you perceive (WRONGLY) on the character sheet.
It's every player's responsibility to get into the mix with his priorities. Yes, responsibility. It's the player's main job at the table: Put something on the line so we can all say, "cool!" My demos are meant to be training for that type of behavior.
I mean first of all Ichabod did it occur to you that 'turtles' aren't reacting to past GM abuse but are intimidated by the raving lunatic shouting at them to get involved at the game table? The second part doesn't even make any sense, 'my guy wouldn't do that'? That's what roleplaying is, stepping into character, getting immersed.
No, doesn't seem like the apple fell far from the tree at all.
Quote from: Spinachcat;652100Traveller and Champions may have used his RPG idea, but at least they did it in different genres.
Not just different genres, but radically different systems as well. Give credit to that at least.
Quote from: Luke CraneI look like a complete fucking goober
I’m a bully, I’m hyper competitive and I adore the use of “force” and “illusionism”
The most honest words by Beast Indie Game Designer ever said.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/nixon.png)
Quote from: The Traveller;652113Yeah but he specifically said it was changed for legal reasons:
I dunno, he learned at the knee of ron edwards and still recounts fondly the wisdom of the bane of the brain damaged ones. I mean check out this gem (http://www.gnomestew.com/treasuretables/interviews/interview-with-luke-crane/):
I mean first of all Ichabod did it occur to you that 'turtles' aren't reacting to past GM abuse but are intimidated by the raving lunatic shouting at them to get involved at the game table? The second part doesn't even make any sense, 'my guy wouldn't do that'? That's what roleplaying is, stepping into character, getting immersed.
No, doesn't seem like the apple fell far from the tree at all.
That's really interesting.
I checked out the con game 'The Gift' that he talks about and reading it makes a lot of Burning Wheel suddenly come into focus.
The Gift is downloadable here http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#The_Gift (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#The_Gift)
Its set up as a diplomatic incident between a noble elf prince (a PC) and a noble dwarf prince (another PC), with the other PCs also high ranking aides to each side. The Beliefs and Instincts of the characters are set up to cause as much antagonizing and bitching between the PCs as possible i.e. one of the elves explicitly hates dwarves, a dwarf has a grudge against another dwarf, the elf prince has some traits about loving his mithril armour which would otherwise be a useful 'gift' to smooth over the diplomatic mess and so on.
:hmm: It seems BW has all its convoluted subsystems for diplomacy because they're designed to be used by players, against other players.
Translating the interview, "My Guy" players who don't like having what they're character does dictated by the dice roll (i.e. other player's social combat results). I expect "turtles" are just players who don't get into massive player-vs-player douchebaggery. The con game looks like it flat-out doesn't work unless all the PCs are at each others throats.
tl;dr: the Burning Wheel rules actually make sense when you realize Burning Wheel is a game by douches for douches.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652121That's really interesting.
I checked out the con game 'The Gift' that he talks about and reading it makes a lot of Burning Wheel suddenly come into focus.
The Gift is downloadable here http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#The_Gift (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#The_Gift)
Its set up as a diplomatic incident between a noble elf prince (a PC) and a noble dwarf prince (another PC), with the other PCs also high ranking aides to each side. The Beliefs and Instincts of the characters are set up to cause as much antagonizing and bitching between the PCs as possible i.e. one of the elves explicitly hates dwarves, a dwarf has a grudge against another dwarf, the elf prince has some traits about loving his mithril armour which would otherwise be a useful 'gift' to smooth over the diplomatic mess and so on.
:hmm: It seems BW has all its convoluted subsystems for diplomacy because they're designed to be used by players, against other players.
Translating the interview, "My Guy" players who don't like having what they're character does dictated by the dice roll (i.e. other player's social combat results). I expect "turtles" are just players who don't get into massive player-vs-player douchebaggery. The con game looks like it flat-out doesn't work unless all the PCs are at each others throats.
tl;dr: the Burning Wheel rules actually make sense when you realize Burning Wheel is a game by douches for douches.
You know what's a good competitive highly diplomatic game?
Game of Thrones Board Game.
And it has no rules for diplomacy save one for Support action >,<
In other words, BW would work best as a board game, except often board games achieve the PvP epic diplomacy without so much hassle.
So in yet other words, if BW was a person, he'd be a Timetable manager - someone much more complicated than a machine, but whose job can be better handled by a computer script.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652121:hmm: It seems BW has all its convoluted subsystems for diplomacy because they're designed to be used by players, against other players.
Translating the interview, "My Guy" players who don't like having what they're character does dictated by the dice roll (i.e. other player's social combat results). I expect "turtles" are just players who don't get into massive player-vs-player douchebaggery. The con game looks like it flat-out doesn't work unless all the PCs are at each others throats.
All while nero fiddles away merrily at the top of the table.
For a group vociferously dedicated to seeing off dick railroady GMs they seem to be doing an awfully good impression of dick railroady GMs.
Quote from: The Traveller;652123All while nero fiddles away merrily at the top of the table.
For a group vociferously dedicated to seeing off dick railroady GMs they seem to be doing an awfully good impression of dick railroady GMs.
When you stare into the Abyss...
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652121the Burning Wheel rules actually make sense when you realize Burning Wheel is a game by douches for douches.
Well, there is something to that. If you read the sidebars in the first printing as well as checked out the forums back in the day, it was very apparent that a lot of the rules baked into Burning Wheel were due to problems at the table. The BW crew is a bunch of NY guys who seem to be friends always arguing and taking shots at each other. Get into gaming and not only does Crane want to avoid being accused of fudging something out of revenge for some earlier disagreement, but
he actually admits he wants to eliminate the ability of himself to do that.
So we get a game with lots of rules constraining everyone even the GM. Once again, the new school shows that one of the primary foci of their game design is fixing and limiting bad behavior.
Quote from: CRKrueger;652134Once again, the new school shows that one of the primary foci of their game design is fixing and limiting bad behavior.
...and yet somehow creating stunningly worse behaviour in the process.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652121The con game looks like it flat-out doesn't work unless all the PCs are at each others throats.
So Amber Diceless, then.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652121That's really interesting.
I checked out the con game 'The Gift' that he talks about and reading it makes a lot of Burning Wheel suddenly come into focus.
The Gift is downloadable here http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#The_Gift (http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads#The_Gift)
Its set up as a diplomatic incident between a noble elf prince (a PC) and a noble dwarf prince (another PC), with the other PCs also high ranking aides to each side. The Beliefs and Instincts of the characters are set up to cause as much antagonizing and bitching between the PCs as possible i.e. one of the elves explicitly hates dwarves, a dwarf has a grudge against another dwarf, the elf prince has some traits about loving his mithril armour which would otherwise be a useful 'gift' to smooth over the diplomatic mess and so on.
:hmm: It seems BW has all its convoluted subsystems for diplomacy because they're designed to be used by players, against other players.
Translating the interview, "My Guy" players who don't like having what they're character does dictated by the dice roll (i.e. other player's social combat results). I expect "turtles" are just players who don't get into massive player-vs-player douchebaggery. The con game looks like it flat-out doesn't work unless all the PCs are at each others throats.
tl;dr: the Burning Wheel rules actually make sense when you realize Burning Wheel is a game by douches for douches.
There is nothing douchey about a game where players are negotiating against each other. That game is called Diplomacy. There is a version played competitively in college called Negotiation, and a similar one I played in law school for family law. Not sure why you'd be butt hurt about the concept - except that it's not necessarily what I would describe as an RPG. Certainly not a traditional RPG. But inherently just for douches? Sounds like badwrongfun to me.
One of these days I should dig up an old Negotiation rules set from college. Each player got a character with certain known interests, and certain secret interests. Scoring was particularized to each individual, as not everything was worth the same to everyone else, and nobody really knows who wins until the deal is done and you tally the scores based on each player's personal scoring chart. It was a blast!
Quote from: Mistwell;652148There is nothing douchey about a game where players are negotiating against each other. That game is called Diplomacy. There is a version played competitively in college called Negotiation, and a similar one I played in law school for family law. Not sure why you'd be butt hurt about the concept - except that it's not necessarily what I would describe as an RPG. Certainly not a traditional RPG. But inherently just for douches? Sounds like badwrongfun to me.
Sancho! My armor!
Quote from: Mistwell;652148One of these days I should dig up an old Negotiation rules set from college. Each player got a character with certain known interests, and certain secret interests. Scoring was particularized to each individual, as not everything was worth the same to everyone else, and nobody really knows who wins until the deal is done and you tally the scores based on each player's personal scoring chart. It was a blast!
So they are set up to backstab and fuck each other over in accordance to the rules. Sounds like douchebaggery to me.
I'd rather just play a hand of
Munchkin instead. At least then I know that the game I am playing is not trying the hide the fact that Player-killing is part of the game.
Quote from: Mistwell;652148Not sure why you'd be butt hurt about the concept - except that it's not necessarily what I would describe as an RPG. Certainly not a traditional RPG. But inherently just for douches? Sounds like badwrongfun to me.
I'm butthurt at Crane describing people as "turtles" if they don't get into backstabbing or buttfucking everyone else in the game, if you must know.
Damned if I can find the link now, but which I was trying to find the gift link originally there was a thread where Crane described his 'best ever' session of the gift as one where the elf ranger character killed someone on their own side for negotiating with the dwarves and then got wasted themselves.
We've slit a few throats* of party members in Warhammer, and we managed to do so without Betrayal micro mechanic.
*Once it was a necromancer who went too far with his class diseases, one developed open mutations and one was actually a former party member who ran off with the loot once and opened business with his ill - gotten grains.
Quote from: jeff37923;652150Sancho! My armor!
So they are set up to backstab and fuck each other over in accordance to the rules. Sounds like douchebaggery to me.
I'd rather just play a hand of Munchkin instead. At least then I know that the game I am playing is not trying the hide the fact that Player-killing is part of the game.
Fuck that I am describing a type of game I personally have enjoyed. He's saying those games are inherently douchey because he doesn't think they would be fun to play. That ain't white knighting, that's par for the course for discussions on RPG boards.
You need to stop being so lazy and turning to such a limited set of responses to my posts. An awful lot of gamers are not particularly fond of Traveller, and I strongly suspect if I said Traveller sounded like a game only douchebags would play, you wouldn't feel like you were white knighting if you explained in response why you like those games.
There is nothing hidden about the fact that it's a competitive game, in the ones I am describing. It's expressly a competition you're participating in. Yes, you are backstabbing and fucking each other over - you know, like the game Diplomacy, or Pit, or even Settlers of Catan. That might not be your thing, and it's not my thing
for traditional RPGs, but it absolutely can be a lot of fun to play.
BTW, Harvard Negotiation School provides an example of the type of game I am referring to, starting on page three of this (http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/teach/corburn.pdf). Sadly they do not provide the confidential scoring chart, and manage to describe what sounds like a very boring set of facts.
This William Shatner and the Warner Theater negotiation (http://www.willamette.edu/modules/simbank/html/sample_simulation.pdf) does have the scoring charts for each player.
Unfortunately both of those are incredibly dry in their facts setup. There are some really fun ones out there that take place in space, concerning war, involving pirates, all sorts of far more interesting fact scenarios. This one is about Ancient Greece and the Peloponnesian War (http://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/athens-melos-role-play-the-workable-peace-ancient-greece-and-the-peloponnesian-war/).
This genre of games is called Negotiation Role-Play Simulations, I believe. There are also Negotiation War Game simulations.
Quote from: Mistwell;652154Fuck that I am describing a type of game I personally have enjoyed. He's saying those games are inherently douchey because he doesn't think they would be fun to play. That ain't white knighting, that's par for the course for discussions on RPG boards.
You need to stop being so lazy and turning to such a limited set of responses to my posts.
You just stated that you enjoy games where you fuck over your fellow Players. Exactly what I would expect from a suck-ass White Knight social climbing piece of shit.
Quote from: Mistwell;652154There is nothing hidden about the fact that it's a competitive game, in the ones I am describing. It's expressly a competition you're participating in. Yes, you are backstabbing and fucking each other over - you know, like the game Diplomacy, or Pit, or even Settlers of Catan. That might not be your thing, and it's not my thing for traditional RPGs, but it absolutely can be a lot of fun to play.
But if the rules for the RPG were set up up to support Players fucking each other over in game, you'd be all over it.
Quote from: Mistwell;652154BTW, Harvard Negotiation School provides an example of the type of game I am referring to, starting on page three of this (http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/teach/corburn.pdf). Sadly they do not provide the confidential scoring chart, and manage to describe what sounds like a very boring set of facts.
This William Shatner and the Warner Theater negotiation (http://www.willamette.edu/modules/simbank/html/sample_simulation.pdf) does have the scoring charts for each player.
Unfortunately both of those are incredibly dry in their facts setup. There are some really fun ones out there that take place in space, concerning war, involving pirates, all sorts of far more interesting fact scenarios. This genre of games is called Negotiation Role-Play Simulations, I believe.
So you are showing us something that you hope looks like this incredibly fun game where you backstab and fuck over your fellow Players instead of working together as a unified group to overcome the challenges set before you. Fucking A, you are pathetic.
Quote from: jeff37923;652157You just stated that you enjoy games where you fuck over your fellow Players. Exactly what I would expect from a suck-ass White Knight social climbing piece of shit.
Yes Jeff, it's called most board games. While some board games are cooperative, most are not. Ever liked the game Chess Jeff? I am pretty sure you agreed with me that Junta is a fun board game - that is explicitly about fucking over your fellow players.
QuoteBut if the rules for the RPG were set up up to support Players fucking each other over in game, you'd be all over it.
Naw like I said it's not my thing for RPGs. Unless you call these Negotiation Simulators RPGs, which I think is quite debateable. They are much closer to being board games, though you do assume a role.
QuoteSo you are showing us something that you hope looks like this incredibly fun game where you backstab and fuck over your fellow Players instead of working together as a unified group to overcome the challenges set before you. Fucking A, you are pathetic.
Jeff, if you are saying you've never enjoyed a competitive board game in your life, then I am calling you a liar. And if you are saying competitive games where you fuck over your fellow players like Diplomacy and Pit are only for pathetic people, then I am calling you a douchebag who believes in onetruewayism and badwrongfun.
You've dug a hole for yourself here Jeff, by being so absolutist. If you're the kind of guy who never likes any sort of game which is explicitly competitive in nature, then I think you're going to be very alone. And since you're a guy who loves to have a pack of guys backing him up and making sure he feels like he's part of the cool kids group, I bet that's gonna sting even worse. Because you probably just implied every single person on this board is pathetic in your opinion for ever having enjoyed a competitive game of any kind.
Quote from: Mistwell;652159Yes Jeff, it's called most board games. While some board games are cooperative, most are not. Ever liked the game Chess Jeff? I am pretty sure you agreed with me that Junta is a fun board game - that is explicitly about fucking over your fellow players.
Naw like I said it's not my thing for RPGs. Unless you call these Negotiation Simulators RPGs, which I think is quite debateable. They are much closer to being board games, though you do assume a role.
Jeff, if you are saying you've never enjoyed a competitive board game in your life, then I am calling you a liar. And if you are saying competitive games where you fuck over your fellow players like Diplomacy and Pit are only for pathetic people, then I am calling you a douchebag who believes in onetruewayism and badwrongfun.
You've dug a hole for yourself here Jeff, by being so absolutist. If you're the kind of guy who never likes any sort of game which is explicitly competitive in nature, then I think you're going to be very alone. And since you're a guy who loves to have a pack of guys backing him up and making sure he feels like he's part of the cool kids group, I bet that's gonna sting even worse. Because you probably just implied every single person on this board is pathetic in your opinion for ever having enjoyed a competitive game of any kind.
See, all of this is your desperate attempt to weasel out of the fact that you have been trying to White Knight for
Torchbearer because you believe that any fucked up game that gets a mention in Forbes or MTV.com is on in which you want to be associated. Tell us more about your desire to be one of the cool kids.
I, as especially demonstrated by my behavior, do not give a fuck about what other people think. If they are being stupid, then I will call it out. Just like I am calling you out on your pathetic attempt to insinuate yourself into whatever group you believe will most help your social climbing.
Come on, tell us more about how you wish to hump Luke Crane's leg in appreciation for his genius.
Quote from: Mistwell;652148There is nothing douchey about a game where players are negotiating against each other. That game is called Diplomacy. There is a version played competitively in college called Negotiation, and a similar one I played in law school for family law. Not sure why you'd be butt hurt about the concept - except that it's not necessarily what I would describe as an RPG. Certainly not a traditional RPG. But inherently just for douches? Sounds like badwrongfun to me.
It's not an RPG, it's an RPG convention scenario. And competitive convention scenarios have been around pretty much as long as conventions have been. I had the books; I sold them off. There were things I liked (the "lifepaths", the the black/grey/white dice pools were interesting, there were interesting takes on elves/dwarves/monsters), some I didn't (the conflict scripting, artha, implementation of beliefs and instincts). Ultimately it wasn't for me, but it wouldn't be that hard to houserule the storygamey bits out. Harder than with Sorcerer, but doable.
Quote from: jeff37923;652150So they are set up to backstab and fuck each other over in accordance to the rules. Sounds like douchebaggery to me.
Diplomacy is like Risk, just with more talking before attacking each other.
I knew two very competitive Diplomacy guys who used to travel around to national cons for Dipolomacy tourneys and interestingly enough, at the highest level of competition, its less about douchebaggery versus very smart gamesmanship.
However, low level Diplomacy games are very backstabby.
The War College at many conventions will host some form of Negotiation Simulation, like playing out the Cuban Missile Crisis with Team USA vs. Team Russia.
There was an interesting Viking RPG called RUNE where players scored points by kicking ass and making life harder for other PCs. So you were supposed to screw them over, but not so much that they got killed because then you got even more screwed.
RUNE was also GM vs. Player too, but the caveat that the GM lost huge points if any of the PC's died. Encounters were built with points and you could get more monsters by providing more treasure.
I don't think RUNE worked great, but it was fun the two times I played with a bunch of cutthroats.
Quote from: Spinachcat;652180Diplomacy is like Risk, just with more talking before attacking each other.
I knew two very competitive Diplomacy guys who used to travel around to national cons for Dipolomacy tourneys and interestingly enough, at the highest level of competition, its less about douchebaggery versus very smart gamesmanship.
However, low level Diplomacy games are very backstabby.
So what? It still sounds like douchbaggery.
Quote from: Spinachcat;652180The War College at many conventions will host some form of Negotiation Simulation, like playing out the Cuban Missile Crisis with Team USA vs. Team Russia.
No convention I have ever been to has had a "War College". What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: Spinachcat;652180There was an interesting Viking RPG called RUNE where players scored points by kicking ass and making life harder for other PCs. So you were supposed to screw them over, but not so much that they got killed because then you got even more screwed.
RUNE was also GM vs. Player too, but the caveat that the GM lost huge points if any of the PC's died. Encounters were built with points and you could get more monsters by providing more treasure.
I don't think RUNE worked great, but it was fun the two times I played with a bunch of cutthroats.
So you enjoyed fucking over your fellow Players, do you want recognition for that? OK, congrats on being an asshole at conventions. May I suggest a game of
Poison'd next?
Jeff, you are starting to make me look polite and evenhanded.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652152I'm butthurt at Crane describing people as "turtles" if they don't get into backstabbing or buttfucking everyone else in the game, if you must know.
Damned if I can find the link now, but which I was trying to find the gift link originally there was a thread where Crane described his 'best ever' session of the gift as one where the elf ranger character killed someone on their own side for negotiating with the dwarves and then got wasted themselves.
Quote from: Mistwell;652154There is nothing hidden about the fact that it's a competitive game, in the ones I am describing. It's expressly a competition you're participating in.
I think these get fairly close to what the real problem is - it doesn't sound as though crane made it clear what the premise of the game was before kicking it off at cons. The penny didn't drop even for BSJ who I would reckon as among the more knowledgeable in game systems in most places, until the author's behaviour was taken into account.
The real problem is the personality behind the game, which is a pretty unusual situation, but he sounds like the kind of guy who gets off on bullying and browbeating players into doing things his way, from the interview above. Many of his comments are incoherent self contradicting Amway-spokesperson type affirmative calls to action, but he's somehow managed to embody his personality in a game as well.
This reflects a lot of the difficulties with the shared narrative crowd in general in my experience, if a group could be said to have a shared personality. Also it explains why they have such difficulty seperating authors from their products, if the rest of their icons are anything like this nut.
So while the game may be a not-particularly-good diplomacy simulator (I've heard plenty of people say they liked the cooperative chargen better than the system), not making the premise perfectly clear in the first place and then telling players they are doing it "WRONG" comes off as crane being the worst kind of dick GM possible, and that's without getting into his missionary zeal for his self contradicting message.
I personally love political machinations in games, as long as everyone is aware and on board with it naturally. But this sounds like a stilted filtration system to a very organic process. Dealing is a part of life and can be very fun.
Mapping out attitudes and relationships is fine. But turning them into pushable buttons to make others your dancing marrionettes just sounds tedious. To then give every player that responsibility, and not disclose its secret competitive nature, sounds like an exercise in frustration.
Someone profits from this, but it's obviously not those "outside the know." That much opacity over a game's basic premise speaks of a deliberate bait and switch agenda. Or stumbling direction, in which case speaks against their vision as a designer.
Quote from: jeff37923;652184So what? It still sounds like douchbaggery.
Backstabbing & Negotiation in boardgames is part of the game, written in to the rules or not. It's a competition. RPG's tend to disintegrate with that behavior. LARP's tend to fit somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: jeff37923;652184No convention I have ever been to has had a "War College". What the fuck are you talking about?
He's talking about things like The National Security Decision Making Game. Review here. (http://fortressat.com/gaming-scene-toc/2683-origins-session-report-3-national-security-decision-making-game)
So this is a short story-game about screwing people over in a dungeon setting? I LOATHE story games but this sounds like fun if it's a different game every session. IE: more like a boardgame than an RPG.
Quote from: bryce0lynch;652209Backstabbing & Negotiation in boardgames is part of the game, written in to the rules or not. It's a competition. RPG's tend to disintegrate with that behavior.
It strikes me that Crane is the kind of guy who could never grasp that RPGs aren't competitive. Not only that, he assumes every other DM or players is a douchebag as well. If you want to be a great innovator in a field, you need to understand the core principles underlying the traditional model, even if you're trying to transform that model. If Crane don't understand the role of a fair-minded GM who strives to facilitate fun for everyone, I can't see how he can design a worthwhile RPG.
Quote from: Haffrung;652218It strikes me that Crane is the kind of guy who could never grasp that RPGs aren't competitive. Not only that, he assumes every other DM or players is a douchebag as well.[...] If Crane don't understand the role of a fair-minded GM who strives to facilitate fun for everyone, I can't see how he can design a worthwhile RPG.
Exactly! Certainly that Costikyan lad never produced anything worth playing.
Quote from: Opaopajr;652192I personally love political machinations in games, as long as everyone is aware and on board with it naturally.
Me too.
Quote from: Haffrung;652218It strikes me that Crane is the kind of guy who could never grasp that RPGs aren't competitive. Not only that, he assumes every other DM or players is a douchebag as well. If you want to be a great innovator in a field, you need to understand the core principles underlying the traditional model, even if you're trying to transform that model. If Crane don't understand the role of a fair-minded GM who strives to facilitate fun for everyone, I can't see how he can design a worthwhile RPG.
Luke Crane on game design, from right here on this very forum.
Quote from: luke;291691Yes, it's a game. Players of the game should have to abide by the rules of the game. Abiding by the rules makes for clear-cut decisions and easy play.
Also, the expectation that the rules are contained and "unbroken" has a knock-on effect. It encourages designers to write better rules and express them in a clear manner.
Quote from: luke;291849Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house? "Here, in my house, the knight doesn't move in an L pattern. He moves how and when I say he moves."
Rules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior. I understand that you yourself are too dumb to understand this, but I think this concept is self-evident to most people: You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.
When you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."
You and Pundit and company have a complex about the "power of the GM" and how he's special and he has more power than any other player in an RPG. You go on and on about swine, but this is the most swinish behavior of all in gaming.
RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.
Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.
I'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.
This isn't about play style. This isn't about preference. Don't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."
So, there's that.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652231So, there's that.
:rotfl:
This explains quite a bit. An rpg designed by someone who completely misses the point of rpgs.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652231So, there's that.
Aside from the gratuitous insults, I completely agree with Luke there.
Quote from: silva;652237Aside from the gratuitous insults, I completely agree with Luke there.
(http://www.adventuresofadamnfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/jack1-550x229.jpg)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652231So, there's that.
Luke Crane: Designing "RPGs" for people who hate RPGs.
Quote from: Benoist;652243Luke Crane: Designing "RPGs" for people who hate RPGs.
I'd think that this guy would have a lot more success designing boardgames, because his design ethos is firmly planted in that style of game. Instead, he's intent on emasculating the role of GM... to level the playing field?? So that everyone abides by the laws of the fatbeard game designer who simply knows better?
Quote from: K Peterson;652245I'd think that this guy would have a lot more success designing boardgames, because his design ethos is firmly planted in that style of game. Instead, he's intent on emasculating the role of GM... to level the playing field?? So that everyone abides by the laws of the fatbeard game designer who simply knows better?
I think he's more trying to say that GMs should dominate and terrify their players in the proper manner, according to the rules, not in an ad hoc fashion. That these aren't competitive powergames seems to have sailed right by him.
Quote from: silva;652237Aside from the gratuitous insults, I completely agree with Luke there.
Me too, except I also agree with the gratuitous insults :-P
I'm actually more of a boardgamer than an RPG player. I was one of the first couple hundred members of Boardgamegeek. I'm well acquainted with a lot of the long-standing pundits and reviewers of hobby boardgames. I've played and rated hundreds of boardgames, and participated actively in boardgame forums for 15 years.
And I don't think I've come across a single boardgamer who wants RPGs to be more like boardgames. Or has complained because RPGs don't have tight enough rules, or are vulnerable to DM tyranny. Boardgamers understand that RPGs are a completely different kind of game, that enable a completely different kind of experience at the table. So why is it so hard for some RPG designers to understand the difference?
I'll say it again: a complex RPG designed to adopt the mechanics of a modern boardgame is just a really shitty boardgame. If you're ignoring the principle innovations in modern boardgame design - elegance, brevity, tempo of choice, transparency - you're missing the entire point. Even the competitive angle misses the mark - among adventure boardgames cooperatives are the dominant mode of play.
If there was any evidence that Crane genuinely understands boardgame design, his efforts to design an RPG on the same principles might have some value as a curiosity - an amusing exercise in theorywank. As it stands, it's clear enough that he doesn't understand the appeal of RPGs or boardgames.
Quote from: soviet;652254Me too, except I also agree with the gratuitous insults :-P
Soviet says - "What war?" and there he is again! :rotfl:
I'm pretty convinced this should be moved, so moved it is.
Quote from: Haffrung;652259If there was any evidence that Crane genuinely understands boardgame design, his efforts to design an RPG on the same principles might have some value as a curiosity - an amusing exercise in theorywank. As it stands, it's clear enough that he doesn't understand the appeal of RPGs or boardgames.
Considering that this game looks like a take on Munchkin without the tongue-in-cheek humor and an extra helping of record keeping, I'd say you are right on the money.
Quote from: Haffrung;652259I'm actually more of a boardgamer than an RPG player. I was one of the first couple hundred members of Boardgamegeek. I'm well acquainted with a lot of the long-standing pundits and reviewers of hobby boardgames. I've played and rated hundreds of boardgames, and participated actively in boardgame forums for 15 years.
And I don't think I've come across a single boardgamer who wants RPGs to be more like boardgames. Or has complained because RPGs don't have tight enough rules, or are vulnerable to DM tyranny. Boardgamers understand that RPGs are a completely different kind of game, that enable a completely different kind of experience at the table. So why is it so hard for some RPG designers to understand the difference?
I'll say it again: a complex RPG designed to adopt the mechanics of a modern boardgame is just a really shitty boardgame. If you're ignoring the principle innovations in modern boardgame design - elegance, brevity, tempo of choice, transparency - you're missing the entire point. Even the competitive angle misses the mark - among adventure boardgames cooperatives are the dominant mode of play.
If there was any evidence that Crane genuinely understands boardgame design, his efforts to design an RPG on the same principles might have some value as a curiosity - an amusing exercise in theorywank. As it stands, it's clear enough that he doesn't understand the appeal of RPGs or boardgames.
While I can claim no expertise such as yours, I've played at least one board (on average) game every Saturday for the past 5 years. And I do agree with you that I have completely different expectations from board games, that I have from RPGs. But I do think that one hobby can learn a bit from the other, and vice versa - just not too much, so to speak. For example, I'd say that when it comes to "Realm Management", some board - game style rules would be nice in RPGs. Something abstract, coherent, but allowing for also exploring things that, for the lack of "space", can not be explored in board games.
Quote from: One Horse Town;652260Soviet says - "What war?" and there he is again! :rotfl:
I'm pretty convinced this should be moved, so moved it is.
There is no war, it's just us thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking there is a conflict.
I'm surprised two_fish hasn't emerged from the woodworks yet. What happened to him?
Quote from: One Horse Town;652260Soviet says - "What war?"
Who is it that you imagine you're at war with? What will victory look like?
Quote from: soviet;652273Who is it that you imagine you're at war with? What will victory look like?
Personally I'd settle for some semblance of civility from the shared narrative gang and an acceptance that they aren't playing RPGs. Then they can do their thing and the rest of the world can do its thing, everybody wins. As I mentioned earlier though it appears that bona fide traditional RPGs are appearing under the shared narrative brand, like DW, so if those took over and dwarfed the rest of the crap I'd call that a win.
Quote from: bryce0lynch;652209So this is a short story-game about screwing people over in a dungeon setting? I LOATHE story games but this sounds like fun if it's a different game every session. IE: more like a boardgame than an RPG.
No, it's a long, rules heavy RPG that has story-game elements. The competitive bit comes from a convention scenario, you don't need to play it that way. It's a bit like reading Tomb of Horrors (also a convention scenario) and deciding that's the only way D&D was meant to be played.
Quote from: The Traveller;652275Personally I'd settle for some semblance of civility from the shared narrative gang and an acceptance that they aren't playing RPGs. Then they can do their thing and the rest of the world can do its thing, everybody wins. As I mentioned earlier though it appears that bona fide traditional RPGs are appearing under the shared narrative brand, like DW, so if those took over and dwarfed the rest of the crap I'd call that a win.
This is the thing though, there isn't a clear distinction between storygames and not, because it's a (very blurry!) spectrum. Even on this site people are split as to whether Dungeon World is a storygame or not, and this very thread took 555 posts before the mods decided that Torchbearer was a storygame.
Quote from: soviet;652282This is the thing though, there isn't a clear distinction between storygames and not, because it's a (very blurry!) spectrum. Even on this site people are split as to whether Dungeon World is a storygame or not, and this very thread took 555 posts before the mods decided that Torchbearer was a storygame.
That is true of anything though. At a game shop, some products could sit on several different shelves, but you make a judgment call based on the store's system. There will always be games in the midde that get debated, and not everyone will agree on the classification. But that doesn't mean there is less of a distinction between the games occupying the far ends. And just because a game you like ends up on a different shelf doesn't mean you can't play it. Personally i am not that interested in these distinctions or the debates surrounding them.
We could debate this stuff all day though. Really I'd be interested in hearing mre about the mechanics of the this game and whether they came up with anything that might be useful to dungeon crawls. Also curious what the response to torchbearer is in places like story-games.com, enworld or rpg.net, if anyone knows (is it getting any traction outside the storygame crowd?).
Quote from: soviet;652282This is the thing though, there isn't a clear distinction between storygames and not, because it's a (very blurry!) spectrum. Even on this site people are split as to whether Dungeon World is a storygame or not
I don't think so. The last DW thread was moved to this forum by the Pundit for reasons best known to himself, but I doubt there's any confusion over what it is among those who don't care who was involved in its production.
It's easy to distinguish a shared narrative game from an RPG. There are three main tells, although they are basically the same thing:
1. A lack of surprise and hence a lack of adventure. When the narrative is discussed beforehand springing things on the players is impossible.
2. Control of the setting beyond what a character would reasonably have, if you find yourself as a player arbitrarily inventing an elf army which swings to your rescue, you're playing a shared narrative game. Connected to this is the dissociation from your character that emerges from being able to control and manipulate any number of entities within the game structure - this is why shared narrative games are closer to wargames or boardgames than RPGs.
3. RPGs are
being there in a way that engages the imagination beyond the lizard brain. When I play a game
I am there, and this is the conundrum that broke ron's mind, the purity of engagement which he was unwilling or unable to comprehend, leading to him calling people like me, people like the members of this forum and others "brain damaged".
If a game doesn't check one or more of these boxes, odds are it isn't a shared narrative game.
Then we add into the mix what appear to be genuinely fucked up individuals like Luke Crane who aren't able to maintain intellectual integrity for the span of a single sentence while raining abuse on their perceived enemies like a drunken bum and we have the shambles that is the shared narrative community, in short.
Quote from: soviet;652282and this very thread took 555 posts before the mods decided that Torchbearer was a storygame.
They may have had other reasons for leaving it in the main forum for a while, just something to consider.
Quote from: Haffrung;652259I'm actually more of a boardgamer than an RPG player. I was one of the first couple hundred members of Boardgamegeek. I'm well acquainted with a lot of the long-standing pundits and reviewers of hobby boardgames. I've played and rated hundreds of boardgames, and participated actively in boardgame forums for 15 years.
And I don't think I've come across a single boardgamer who wants RPGs to be more like boardgames. Or has complained because RPGs don't have tight enough rules, or are vulnerable to DM tyranny. Boardgamers understand that RPGs are a completely different kind of game, that enable a completely different kind of experience at the table. So why is it so hard for some RPG designers to understand the difference?
I'll say it again: a complex RPG designed to adopt the mechanics of a modern boardgame is just a really shitty boardgame. If you're ignoring the principle innovations in modern boardgame design - elegance, brevity, tempo of choice, transparency - you're missing the entire point. Even the competitive angle misses the mark - among adventure boardgames cooperatives are the dominant mode of play.
If there was any evidence that Crane genuinely understands boardgame design, his efforts to design an RPG on the same principles might have some value as a curiosity - an amusing exercise in theorywank. As it stands, it's clear enough that he doesn't understand the appeal of RPGs or boardgames.
I think even if this kind of evidence was provided, people would probably disregard it anyway. WotC have proven they are more than capable to straddle both arenas but still get blasted for 'bad design'.
I'm also more of a board/card game player but on the flipside, Luke's rant makes more sense to me. Perhaps this is a dialectical issue? I don't know.
Quote from: K Peterson;652245I'd think that this guy would have a lot more success designing boardgames, because his design ethos is firmly planted in that style of game. Instead, he's intent on emasculating the role of GM... to level the playing field?? So that everyone abides by the laws of the fatbeard game designer who simply knows better?
Basically. Stuff like this...
Quote from: LukeFatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby.
Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.
If you accept his premise that the traditional GM role is one of a megalomaniacal power-trip, then there's some key thoughts that naturally come from that premise.
1. People who enjoy traditional gaming must enjoy being the abused in a dysfunctional power relationship (Ron Edwards "Brain Damage" comment).
2. Games must not allow traditional GM roles, therefore they must have definite structure to curtail the GM as much as the players. (Cult of the Designer, Cult of RAW).
3. Storygaming. If there is no GM who plays the entire rest of the world with authority, then how do you actually determine the outcomes of things for which there is no hard mechanical rule? Conflict Resolution instead of Task Resolution, Shared Narration Metagame vs. in-character immersion.
They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;652319They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.
I don't think so. Even the most nightmarish game would be hard pressed to accept someone like crane as GM. I think it's more about unbelievably bad GMs convincing people that their way is normal.
Quote from: CRKrueger;652319Basically. Stuff like this...
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.
If you accept his premise that the traditional GM role is one of a megalomaniacal power-trip, then there's some key thoughts that naturally come from that premise.
1. People who enjoy traditional gaming must enjoy being the abused in a dysfunctional power relationship (Ron Edwards "Brain Damage" comment).
2. Games must not allow traditional GM roles, therefore they must have definite structure to curtail the GM as much as the players. (Cult of the Designer, Cult of RAW).
3. Storygaming. If there is no GM who plays the entire rest of the world with authority, then how do you actually determine the outcomes of things for which there is no hard mechanical rule? Conflict Resolution instead of Task Resolution, Shared Narration Metagame vs. in-character immersion.
They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.
I'd also add here, that the whole GNS/Treefold was often criticised (and rightfully so, in my opinion), because what Foul Ole Ron was really doing there, was trying to show that Narrativism is the superior way. As part of trying to redefine RPGs to storygames, of course.
Quote from: CRKrueger;652319Basically. Stuff like this...
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.
.
The whole "macho patriarchal power trip" thing was definitely quite odd. Don't really know much about Luke Crane, but I see this sort of mindset elsewhere (almost entirley on the internet) and I don't get it. I mean if someone wants to play games where the GMs authority is more evenly distributed i have no objection, but I don't get the insistance that people who want a more traditional GM role are somehow on a perverted power trip or just want players to suffer. It is the assumption about our motives or goals that drives me a bit nuts.
I've bumped into the occassional bad GM, but usually knew right away this wasn't someone I'd want to game with past a single session. And when a Good GM makes a questionable call, you either move on or raise and objection and move on....it isn't a game shattering event anymore than a ref call at a sporting event.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652231Luke Crane on game design, from right here on this very forum.
Originally Posted by luke
Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house? "Here, in my house, the knight doesn't move in an L pattern. He moves how and when I say he moves."
Rules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior. I understand that you yourself are too dumb to understand this, but I think this concept is self-evident to most people: You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.
When you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."
You and Pundit and company have a complex about the "power of the GM" and how he's special and he has more power than any other player in an RPG. You go on and on about swine, but this is the most swinish behavior of all in gaming.
RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.
Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.
I'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.
This isn't about play style. This isn't about preference. Don't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."
Eh??
So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
Can we have a link to that thead?
Quote from: CRKrueger;652319Basically. Stuff like this...
...started the whole "Show me on the mini where the bad-GM touched you." meme.
If you accept his premise that the traditional GM role is one of a megalomaniacal power-trip, then there's some key thoughts that naturally come from that premise.
1. People who enjoy traditional gaming must enjoy being the abused in a dysfunctional power relationship (Ron Edwards "Brain Damage" comment).
2. Games must not allow traditional GM roles, therefore they must have definite structure to curtail the GM as much as the players. (Cult of the Designer, Cult of RAW).
3. Storygaming. If there is no GM who plays the entire rest of the world with authority, then how do you actually determine the outcomes of things for which there is no hard mechanical rule? Conflict Resolution instead of Task Resolution, Shared Narration Metagame vs. in-character immersion.
They can claim it's about lots of things, but what it comes down to is, the entire storygames movement is a reaction to bad GMs.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Quote from: xech;652327Eh??
So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
Can we have a link to that thead?
Clicking the little arrow next to the name of the person quoted, on top of the quote (as you can see next to your name in the quote I made of you in this post above), sends you to the original comment.
In this particular instance (Luke's), here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=291849#post291849
Quote from: xech;652327Eh??
So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
Can we have a link to that thead?
Sure (http://www.therpgsite.com/search.php).
Quote from: xech;652327So what about the rpgamers saying of rulings over rules?
What about it?
Quote from: jeff37923;652162See, all of this is your desperate attempt to weasel out of the fact that you have been trying to White Knight for Torchbearer because...
This is a recurring problem with you. For whatever reason, you suck at following the flow of a message board thread. That, or you love strawmans. Either way, if you look back, none of this that you're replying to here was in response to Torchbearer. This part was specifically about Burning Wheel. Now, I know you want it to be about Torchbearer, I know that makes your non-responsive responses seem more rational to others who might not have bothered to read the whole thread, but that's not what happened here. Someone made a comment about Burning Wheel, I responded, and now you're pretending I am white knighting Torchbearer - which frankly had nothing at all to to with my comment.
Quoteyou believe that any fucked up game that gets a mention in Forbes or MTV.com is on in which you want to be associated. Tell us more about your desire to be one of the cool kids.
Again, we're not even talking about that game, and I have never mentioned Forbes or MTV. Nice strawman.
QuoteI, as especially demonstrated by my behavior, do not give a fuck about what other people think. If they are being stupid, then I will call it out. Just like I am calling you out on your pathetic attempt to insinuate yourself into whatever group you believe will most help your social climbing.
Come on, tell us more about how you wish to hump Luke Crane's leg in appreciation for his genius.
I've never said anything positive about Crane. I've certainly never called him a genius. I did not even know who he was before this thread. AND ANYONE WHO EVEN VAGUELY FOLLOWED THIS THREAD KNOWS THAT. So which is it Jeff, are you a liar, or just horrible at reading comprehension?
Would you two kiss already?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652325The whole "macho patriarchal power trip" thing was definitely quite odd. Don't really know much about Luke Crane, but I see this sort of mindset elsewhere (almost entirley on the internet) and I don't get it. I mean if someone wants to play games where the GMs authority is more evenly distributed i have no objection, but I don't get the insistance that people who want a more traditional GM role are somehow on a perverted power trip or just want players to suffer. It is the assumption about our motives or goals that drives me a bit nuts.
I've bumped into the occassional bad GM, but usually knew right away this wasn't someone I'd want to game with past a single session. And when a Good GM makes a questionable call, you either move on or raise and objection and move on....it isn't a game shattering event anymore than a ref call at a sporting event.
Such is also my opinion on the matter. There's also a whole bizarre approach that viking hat GM = NO DISSENT AT THE TABLE.
I once, and quite recently, got into a nearly half an hour long argument about law and whether or not you could threaten to commit someone to a mental hospital because they refuse to be examined by a doctor. In the end, we've reached a stalemate, but I've also conceded that this may be a valid threat. It's not perhaps the most heartwarming tale, but after that, we just went on with the game. I'm a human. I can make mistakes when I GM. I may get knuckleheaded, I may think you're wrong, but we can just...talk about that.
Somewhat ironically, lately I've been mostly seeing those "story - orientated" GMs use the "I'm the GM I'm right" argument more than I do.
Quote from: Rincewind1;652349Would you two kiss already?
Such is also my opinion on the matter. There's also a whole bizarre approach that viking hat GM = NO DISSENT AT THE TABLE.
I once, and quite recently, got into a nearly half an hour long argument about law and whether or not you could threaten to commit someone to a mental hospital because they refuse to be examined by a doctor. In the end, we've reached a stalemate, but I've also conceded that this may be a valid threat. It's not perhaps the most heartwarming tale, but after that, we just went on with the game. I'm a human. I can make mistakes when I GM. I may get knuckleheaded, I may think you're wrong, but we can just...talk about that.
Somewhat ironically, lately I've been mostly seeing those "story - orientated" GMs use the "I'm the GM I'm right" argument more than I do.
My approach has always been to hear players out and even seek their input when I don't know something (i.e., if a player knows about something in real life and its relevant to a judgment I have to make, I will pick his brain before deciding). I am also okay admitting when I made bad call. I am far from a perfect GM, but have never ever had complaints from players about this kind of stuff.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652345What about it?
Video game rpgs are popular. So rpgs are popular. But video games are limited as of "I took an arrow in the knee".
Individual GMs give players the possibility to travel to places, meet persons and beasts that video game rpgs cant. How is that? Because individual GMs, depending on players' actions, are designing the game on the spot, aided by a proper ruleset to help them organize the task (of course players are communicated with those rules, understand and accept them and thus reason and communicate their actions upon them). Rules are there to help GMs organize their game and not as something to play -in contrast to video games where rules are already designed and given to players to follow and play them rules out -or should I say "commands" instead of "rules" if I were to use the right terminology. This is what "rulings over rules" means and it is in total contrast with what Luke were saying over there.
I believe that Luke thinks of rpgs as if they were boardgames which is not something right, at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652325The whole "macho patriarchal power trip" thing was definitely quite odd. Don't really know much about Luke Crane, but I see this sort of mindset elsewhere (almost entirley on the internet) and I don't get it. I mean if someone wants to play games where the GMs authority is more evenly distributed i have no objection, but I don't get the insistance that people who want a more traditional GM role are somehow on a perverted power trip or just want players to suffer. It is the assumption about our motives or goals that drives me a bit nuts.
Those kind of statements say a heck of a lot more about the person making them than they do about the group they're criticizing. If a woman were to say "no group of women can be friends long before someone tries to sleep with someone else's husband," the natural response is to feel either pity or contempt for her - not to regard all women as disloyal friends.
I think Luke is criticising a specific rhetorical reaction rather than painting a whole group of people as 'macho patriarchal power trippers'. I find it pretty reasonable to suggest that, if we accept the premise that the DM can be seen as a player and the rpg as a game, the DM should be held to ruleset like the players and not the arbiter of said rules.
I think it's just a difference in opinion, as the original role of the DM was to be exactly that, but I don't see any problem with the other side of the argument either.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652391I think Luke is criticising a specific rhetorical reaction rather than painting a whole group of people as 'macho patriarchal power trippers'. I find it pretty reasonable to suggest that, if we accept the premise that the DM can be seen as a player and the rpg as a game, the DM should be held to ruleset like the players and not the arbiter of said rules.
I think it's just a difference in opinion, as the original role of the DM was to be exactly that, but I don't see any problem with the other side of the argument either.
I think it is totally reasonable to suggest that power be distributed differently or the GM's responsibilities redefined. If that is what you like, that is what you like. Not one thing wrong with someone saying that. But the passage I read was not just proposing one style of play or a new approach to GMing, it was an all out attack on people who like the traditional Gm role and it was quite frankly a post dripping with hate. Now, that might not be a reflection of Mr. crane's current position. Obviously the post was made in the heat of an internet argument and people say things they dont really mean in those, but I don't think the post itself is defensible at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652400I think it is totally reasonable to suggest that power be distributed differently or the GM's responsibilities redefined. If that is what you like, that is what you like. Not one thing wrong with someone saying that. But the passage I read was not just proposing one style of play or a new approach to GMing, it was an all out attack on people who like the traditional Gm role and it was quite frankly a post dripping with hate. Now, that might not be a reflection of Mr. crane's current position. Obviously the post was made in the heat of an internet argument and people say things they dont really mean in those, but I don't think the post itself is defensible at all.
I don't think the post itself in anyway diminishes the point though. Which is why I was trying to redirect away from "Luke Crane is a poophead because he insulted me".
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652391I think Luke is criticising a specific rhetorical reaction rather than painting a whole group of people as 'macho patriarchal power trippers'. I find it pretty reasonable to suggest that, if we accept the premise that the DM can be seen as a player and the rpg as a game, the DM should be held to ruleset like the players and not the arbiter of said rules.
The problem with that approach is it kneecaps what many regard as the primary appeal and strength of RPGs - the flexibility of a human moderator. If you can't find a fair-minded and flexible moderator, then I suppose you could bind all of the players alike to the rules set, and still enjoy a kind of truncated RPG experience. But if I were going to play an RPG without a dynamic human moderator, I'd just as soon solo a Fighting Fantasy gamebook.
Quote from: Haffrung;652409The problem with that approach is it kneecaps what many regard as the primary appeal and strength of RPGs - the flexibility of a human moderator. If you can't find a fair-minded and flexible moderator, then I suppose you could bind all of the players alike to the rules set, and still enjoy a kind of truncated RPG experience. But if I were going to play an RPG without a dynamic human moderator, I'd just as soon solo a Fighting Fantasy gamebook.
I'm not sure I agree. It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players. If you mean flexibility in the creative sense then I definitely disagree. Having a ruleset to work within does not hinder creativity. Then again, I'm the type of person who responds well to working within parameters as I tend to get paralysed and overwhelmed otherwise.
However, why does it make it any less of an rpg experience? This seems a bit mean spirited as you're talking an opinion and trying to make it a fact.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413I'm not sure I agree. It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
Stop imposing that most GMs are dysfunctional beings who, given the slightest authority when having fun with friends (this is an important distinction, as getting real authority for serious activities is different), will use it to destroy everyone else's fun.
If you don't trust your GM, leave the table. And really, if people leave your table en - masse, you don't have exactly anyone to play with anyway.
Every, and I swear, every time the role of GM at the table is discussed, people start behaving like as if you have just won over the heart of Germans with aggressive rhetoric.
QuoteIf you mean flexibility in the creative sense then I definitely disagree. Having a ruleset to work within does not hinder creativity. Then again, I'm the type of person who responds well to working within parameters as I tend to get paralysed and overwhelmed otherwise.
Except that a strict adherence to some ruleset will hinder creativity, both on players' and GM's side. There are just situations in an RPG that a ruleset will have trouble emulating on the fly, as per the most famous "kicking sand in the eye during fight". Which is why most storygames' feature mechanics, where the characters' abilities are more focused around his capabilities within the narrative medium, rather than the actual abilities - as suddenly you can narrate the action however you want, since the chances of failing/passing the check remain the same.
Quote from: Rincewind1;652415(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
Stop imposing that most GMs are dysfunctional beings who, given the slightest authority when having fun with friends (this is an important distinction, as getting real authority for serious activities is different), will use it to destroy everyone else's fun.
I didn't say anything about GMs being dysfunctional beings. I said, games with rulesets for GMs tend to set up a framework in which it is harder for GMs to be dicks. That's not a reflection on anybody, stop imposing you're own rhetoric onto mine.
QuoteExcept that a strict adherence to some ruleset will hinder creativity, both on players' and GM's side. There are just situations in an RPG that a ruleset will have trouble emulating on the fly, as per the most famous "kicking sand in the eye during fight". Which is why most storygames' feature mechanics, where the characters' abilities are more focused around his capabilities within the narrative medium, rather than the actual abilities - as suddenly you can narrate the action however you want, since the chances of failing/passing the check remain the same.
For some people but it is not because of the ruleset, it is because some people find parameters limiting. To assert that as universal is silly, which is the essence of my point here. I should also point out, that excluding or belittling people who prefer working within limitations is quite dogmatic and I fail to see how implying that those people's games are somehow any less of an rpg is a reasonable assertion.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players.
'We must protect innocent players from dickhead referees and their ball-kicking
rulings!'
So, what's it like to be an abject failure as a human being, Kanye? Be specific - this is for posterity, y'know.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652427'We must protect innocent players from dickhead referees and their ball-kicking rulings!'
So, what's it like to be an abject failure as a human being, Kanye? Be specific - this is for posterity, y'know.
I infer
must, you did. If you're asking for why I prefer GM rules, that's a twofold answer. I'm a grad student, so I have very little time to think or work on my own philosophy of 'rulings'. I find having a clear structure to follow saves time and I can focus on putting together a game quicker. It is largely why I prefer the focus of Moldvay to the toolbox of advanced. The second is, I don't usually get to play with people who are friends. I usually play in a club setup and so I have no idea who will be turning up from fortnight to fortnight. Rules help minimise arguments that rulings are prone to spark, especially with people who are not your friends.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652405I don't think the post itself in anyway diminishes the point though. Which is why I was trying to redirect away from "Luke Crane is a poophead because he insulted me".
I dont think the point was any good either. The insult and the point are intertwined in this case (i.e. do it my way or you are an asshat gm on a power trip). If he has a point about how his approach is great for x, y or z reason, its entirely lost by his attempt to make it a badwrongfun issue.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652432I dont think the point was any good either. The insult and the point are intertwined in this case (i.e. do it my way or you are an asshat gm on a power trip). If he has a point about how his approach is great for x, y or z reason, its entirely lost by his attempt to make it a badwrongfun issue.
If that were true, then 99.9% of these discussions are lost to badwrongfun arguments. It's just white noise, I guess you can either read between the lines or disregard it completely but I find his point salient.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652405I don't think the post itself in anyway diminishes the point though. Which is why I was trying to redirect away from "Luke Crane is a poophead because he insulted me".
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652440If that were true, then 99.9% of these discussions are lost to badwrongfun arguments. It's just white noise, I guess you can either read between the lines or disregard it completely but I find his point salient.
In your opinion what point is he expressing?
To me, his point seems to be a false choice between "playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip"
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652445In your opinion what point is he expressing?
QuoteRules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior.
QuoteRPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.
I think this is the most important part of his rant. I agree with the premise that RPGs are games and games have rules and the GM is just another player. Rules are rules and it is reasonable to expect all players to agree to play by a set of them.
I understand some people view the GM as more important than just another player and I understand this comes from early war-games (as arbiter) and early D&D (when the DM literally needed to build the ruleset themselves). I never had to do that and I prefer clear statements on my role in a game.
Although I don't necessarily agree we
have to protect players from bad GMing behaviours, largely because I think most groups are friends and as such you don't need such precautions, I don't see any harm in attempts to limit the abuse of the rules, on either side. It's why I agree with balance because I think limiting one player taking advantage of the system to be a good thing and if everyone at the table were to take these liberties then it makes the game arbitrary. If the GM is another player, as I believe, then I don't see the harm in doing the same for that side of the table.
I choose to ignore the rest of his rant as just a continuation of people arguing over the true objective essence of games, which I view as a stupid and impractical debate.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652450I think this is the most important part of his rant. I agree with the premise that RPGs are games and games have rules and the GM is just another player. Rules are rules and it is reasonable to expect all players to agree to play by a set of them.
I understand some people view the GM as more important than just another player and I understand this comes from early war-games (as arbiter) and early D&D (when the DM literally needed to build the ruleset themselves). I never had to do that and I prefer clear statements on my role in a game.
Although I don't necessarily agree we have to protect players from bad GMing behaviours, largely because I think most groups are friends and as such you don't need such precautions, I don't see any harm in attempts to limit the abuse of the rules, on either side. It's why I agree with balance because I think limiting one player taking advantage of the system to be a good thing and if everyone at the table were to take these liberties then it makes the game arbitrary. If the GM is another player, as I believe, then I don't see the harm in doing the same for that side of the table.
I choose to ignore the rest of his rant as just a continuation of people arguing over the true objective essence of games, which I view as a stupid and impractical debate.
Frankly, your post seems more polite but also appears to have many of the same assumptions. I think there is nothing wrong with assigning the same kind of status to a player as a GM of you like, but I also dont agree with the suggestion that treating the GM as a different role (it really isnt about being special) than the player is somehow bad or a relic of the past. There are valid reasons for giving the GM power to overide rules (and we've discussed them endlessly on other threads so not going to go into that here) or to devise on the fly rulings. It isn't the only way to play, I respect your right to play the game how you want, but there is nothing wrong with it and it has value.
One point i would disagree with is about rpgs being special. I think rpgs and board games are very different and one of the things that can make an rpg experience so much more enjoyable is the ability of the people at the table to go beyond what is in the book or the pieces on the board.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652452Frankly, your post seems more polite but also appears to have many of the same assumptions. I think there is nothing wrong with assigning the same kind of status to a player as a GM of you like, but I also dont agree with the suggestion that treating the GM as a different role (it really isnt about being special) than the player is somehow bad or a relic of the past. There are valid reasons for giving the GM power to overide rules (and we've discussed them endlessly on other threads so not going to go into that here) or to devise on the fly rulings. It isn't the only way to play, I respect your right to play the game how you want, but there is nothing wrong with it and it has value.
One point i would disagree with is about rpgs being special. I think rpgs and board games are very different and one of the things that can make an rpg experience so much more enjoyable is the ability of the people at the table to go beyond what is in the book or the pieces on the board.
I never said it was bad or wrong, just that I understand its roots. I'm unconvinced about it's validity or value but that is only in relation to me. Just because I take the opposite opinion, does not mean I'm saying the opposite side is wrong, bad, or stupid.
Boardgames and RPGs are different but RPGs are not special. They offer a different experience or I should say, they have the ability to offer a different experience. That doesn't make them special, just different.
Why do you think that it's not possible to have a similar experience without going beyond books and pieces?
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652454Why do you think that it's not possible to have a similar experience without going beyond books and pieces?
For me, having ome flexibility with the rules is crucial to that experience. I can't speak for others. It is also one of the strengths of the medium in my opinion.
My point is the game exists beyond the rules themselves. Youbare not at the table to exerience the thrill of rolling a d20 and adding numbers to it so you can compare the result against a difficulty rating. You are there to experience the thrill of being a barbarian stabbing at some or orcs or plotting against the local thieves guild. A board game is very much about the pieces and what they represent. RPGs go beyond that, and I do think that makes them special. I have never encountered another type of game that does for e what RPGs do in the way they do it.
All that said i am fine with you playing the game however you like. As I said before, i don't think there is anything wrong with variety in hobby. But this debate about rulings verus rules is getting old. Really I would be interested in knowing more but the torchbearer mechanics.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652456My point is the game exists beyond the rules themselves. Youbare not at the table to exerience the thrill of rolling a d20 and adding numbers to it so you can compare the result against a difficulty rating. You are there to experience the thrill of being a barbarian stabbing at some or orcs or plotting against the local thieves guild. A board game is very much about the pieces and what they represent. RPGs go beyond that, and I do think that makes them special. I have never encountered another type of game that does for e what RPGs do in the way they do it.
I don't think that it does. I think the game is informed by the rules. If the game existed independent of the rules then the rules themselves would be arbitrary. Why debate Runquest and D&D? What's behind taste in rulesets when the game exists independently?
I'm following what you're saying about boardgames but I just see you expressing a uniqueness about RPGs, boardgames are unique as well, so are video games. That doesn't make RPGs special, otherwise all games are special for the unique experiences they deliver.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652463I don't think that it does. I think the game is informed by the rules. If the game existed independent of the rules then the rules themselves would be arbitrary. Why debate Runquest and D&D? What's behind taste in rulesets when the game exists independently?
I'm following what you're saying about boardgames but I just see you expressing a uniqueness about RPGs, boardgames are unique as well, so are video games. That doesn't make RPGs special, otherwise all games are special for the unique experiences they deliver.
I never said rules don't matter. I said the end, the purpose of gaming isnt the mechanics, it is what the mechanics are intended to help you achieve. I tend to play games pretty much RAW. But there are cases where I feel it is important to allow the GM to overide, adjust (when the mechanics produce results that are internally inconsistent or are unbelievable for example). The ability to make choices and decisions not covered by the rules, is one of the things that makes role playing so great in my opinion.
I am not interested in debating you. We both have opinions on the matter and are unlikely to change each others mind.
I wasn't implying that you said rules don't matter but whatever, c'est la vie.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652468I wasn't implying that you said rules don't matter but whatever, c'est la vie.
Okay. I may have misunderstood you. Then were you saying you are at the table strictly for the mechanics? Because my point that you were responding to is that isn't why I am there. I mean I like good mechanics that support the sort of play I want, but I am not there for the die rolls themselves. I'm there for to experience things from my character's point of view. Whereas with a board or card game, I am very much there to interact with the mechanics themselves. Thus my statement the game exists beyond the mechanics.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652473Okay. I may have misunderstood you. Then were you saying you are at the table strictly for the mechanics? Because my point that you were responding to is that isn't why I am there. I mean I like good mechanics that support the sort of play I want, but I am not there for the die rolls themselves. I'm there for to experience things from my character's point of view. Whereas with a board or card game, I am very much there to interact with the mechanics themselves. Thus my statement the game exists beyond the mechanics.
I'm a casual gamer. I play one game fortnightly and it it very much focused on rules and pieces. That doesn't mean we don't view or act from a character basis though. Which is why I asked, why do you think it's not possible to do that with rules and pieces.
From my point of view, this is your dichotomy. I'm not strictly there for mechanics and minis, tokens etc but I'm not there strictly for character experience either. This either/or line doesn't exist to me. I like rolling dice, playing with minis, and roleplaying all equally. The experience would seem incomplete otherwise.
This is true for boardgames and cardgames though. I play Gloom in the same manner, I play digxit in a similar style, I also play BSG from my role as well. To me, I enjoy all these things together.
What I was getting at is, I don't think the game exists beyond rules or pieces. I think rules and pieces either inform or enhance what is going on the game. I'm not saying that the experience of each game is the same but that I approach each game in a similar manner.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413I'm not sure I agree. It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players. If you mean flexibility in the creative sense then I definitely disagree. Having a ruleset to work within does not hinder creativity. Then again, I'm the type of person who responds well to working within parameters as I tend to get paralysed and overwhelmed otherwise.
I mean the flexibility to deal with uncommon situations without resort to a massive, comprehensive rules-set. If the players decide to commandeer a merchant ship, light it on fire and send it into the port of the Fell City of Ost, a GM can just make up what happens, using his judgement and imagination, without referring to rules on sea movement rates, burning ships, and how much structural integrity a wharf has. And he can tailor the response of the Mariners Grim to the current strength of the party and the context of the campaign, rather than be constrained by rules governing their response.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413However, why does it make it any less of an rpg experience? This seems a bit mean spirited as you're talking an opinion and trying to make it a fact.
Well, it's a different experience. And one that forsakes a major strength of the format. To the extent that a strongly codified game lacks that strength, it also takes on more of the characteristics of a boardgame - ends up doing the same things a boardgame can do, only worse.
Quote from: The Traveller;651624I don't know if you're really meant to master a game, nomenclature notwithstanding. Understand it sure, but mastery in this sense is more like something Mr GC might say.
In the sense that there is a steep learning curve. I have learned much, even fairly recently, from some of the outstanding gamers here, from a select few blogs, and G+ posts here and there. Not only from a technical standpoint, but in the way rules can be interpreted and combined. I would agree, mastering a game in the context of it being 'solved' is unheard of for anything more complex than tic-tac-toe.
Quote from: The Traveller;651747Interesting, I've often felt that the shared narrative, er, narrative was one of gaming mimicking the marxist evolution from feudalism to socialism, a single pivot of power changing to shared power. Yes, that is completely ignorant on numerous levels, I never claimed they were smart.
This would be an interesting topic. Are the narratives shared in a more or less equal manner, or is there a cult of personality, even at the micro- level of individual groups?
Quote from: StormBringer;652493This would be an interesting topic. Are the narratives shared in a more or less equal manner, or is there a cult of personality, even at the micro- level of individual groups?
Good question, you'd have to analyse a range of shared narrative groups to find out - I'm guessing the more 'hardcore' groups would probably have a self identified alpha figure, while people just playing for fun wouldn't.
How prevalent this is in the shared narrative community is a seperate issue, my guess is quite prevalent. This is based on the vocal internet community of course, but I don't think there's much of a community outside the internet, unlike RPGs.
Which then raises the question of how exactly that hobby could view itself as egalitarian in any way, since as per crane's clear comments (not what he meant to say, or someone's interpretation of it, what he actually said) it's his way or the highway. Not a whole lot of sharing going on there. And yet he's held up as a poster boy by that group.
I saw something similar on rpgnet a while back, someone started a thread complaining in a here-we-go-again tone about a player who had the temerity to try and keep character secrets from the rest of the group and from the GM-person. Apparently
several hours were spent trying to bully and cajole this girl into sharing her secret. It took twelve pages of sympathetic noises before someone suggested this might not have been a good thing.
I mean sure there are dicks in all walks of life, but it's not often you see being a dick baked into a game and made a copperfastened requirement.
Quote from: Benoist;648994Reinventing the (Burning) Wheel: the Forgist Resource Management Game.
Yes, fucking fantasy vietnam, seems like!
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652431The second is, I don't usually get to play with people who are friends. I usually play in a club setup and so I have no idea who will be turning up from fortnight to fortnight. Rules help minimise arguments that rulings are prone to spark, especially with people who are not your friends.
Normal people settle disagreements as a matter of course. Those who can't casually throw out accusations of misanthropy and cower behind rigid social structures to cover their failings.
Thank you for confirming that you are, in fact, a failure as a human being.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652578Normal people settle disagreements as a matter of course. Those who can't casually throw out accusations of misanthropy and cower behind rigid social structures to cover their failings.
Thank you for confirming that you are, in fact, a failure as a human being.
This is at the heart of things right here. I play in games at gamedays and often I will be playing with folks that I don't know very well. Somehow, we all manage to play together and have a good time because being a dick to someone just because you aren't already close friends isn't a high priority impulse.
This is the kind of shit you learned early on in grade school. Basic social interaction. Those who failed to learn these lessons have no business playing rpgs.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;652605This is the kind of shit you learned early on in grade school. Basic social interaction. Those who failed to learn these lessons have no business playing rpgs.
"I'm an asshole. It says so on my character sheet." (And it did, too.)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652578Normal people settle disagreements as a matter of course. Those who can't casually throw out accusations of misanthropy and cower behind rigid social structures to cover their failings.
Yes.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652578Normal people settle disagreements as a matter of course. Those who can't casually throw out accusations of misanthropy and cower behind rigid social structures to cover their failings.
Thank you for confirming that you are, in fact, a failure as a human being.
Hm, ironic, you're the one who is throwing out accusations here. I think a lot of this stuff is self-projection, maybe you should talk to someone.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652578Normal people settle disagreements as a matter of course. Those who can't casually throw out accusations of misanthropy and cower behind rigid social structures to cover their failings.
This.
Quote from: Rincewind1;652415There are just situations in an RPG that a ruleset will have trouble emulating on the fly, as per the most famous "kicking sand in the eye during fight".
Torg. Trick. It's a skill.
(I know, the exception to the rule.)
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652645Hm, ironic, you're the one who is throwing out accusations here. I think a lot of this stuff is self-projection, maybe you should talk to someone.
Just because one side is acting like a two year old having a sugar rush tantrum doesn't mean the other side isn't, too.
Quote from: taustin;652670Just because one side is acting like a two year old having a sugar rush tantrum doesn't mean the other side isn't, too.
Ok, please point out to me where I have accused anybody of being a misanthropist or what in my posts, in your opinion, makes me a cowardly, dysfunctional person? I'll try not to act like a two year old in the future but I have to understand where you are getting this impression from first.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652729Ok, please point out to me where I have accused anybody of being a misanthropist or what in my posts, in your opinion, makes me a cowardly, dysfunctional person?
You disagreed with them. And that's their typical response.
Quote from: gleichman;652731You disagreed with them. And that's their typical response.
It's really not that you shatter our worldview. It's just that you are being an obnoxious cunt.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652645Hm, ironic, you're the one who is throwing out accusations here. I think a lot of this stuff is self-projection, maybe you should talk to someone.
Thank you dr Westeros, Internet MD.
Okay rincewind, how am I being an obnoxious cunt?
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652737Okay rincewind, how am I being an obnoxious cunt?
:rolleyes:
Read under whose quote it is, please. And I really already said on the subject here to you what I wanted, and it's obvious we will not agree, so why bother.
Why bother? So you can drop your passive-agressive attitude? Is that asking too much.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652739Why bother? So you can drop your passive-agressive attitude? Is that asking too much.
Oh no worries, I'm full on aggressive. But your experience - and I also game with random people - about importance of rules, is completely different than mine. So I have no interest in a conversation, because I am not going to move, and neither are you.
PS. Pretending to be a victim and calling out for stopping being so aggressive is passive - aggressive behaviour, Doc.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652645Hm, ironic, you're the one who is throwing out accusations here. I think a lot of this stuff is self-projection, maybe you should talk to someone.
Nice try, but I'm not the one claiming that people are so abjectly dysfunctional that they can't play a game together unless they're already good friends.
Quote from: Rincewind1;652741Oh no worries, I'm full on aggressive. But your experience - and I also game with random people - about importance of rules, is completely different than mine. So I have no interest in a conversation, because I am not going to move, and neither are you.
PS. Pretending to be a victim and calling out for stopping being so aggressive is passive - aggressive behaviour, Doc.
Have it your way. I guess when you don't understand the difference between retaliation and aggression life can be very confusing.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;652742Nice try, but I'm not the one claiming that people are so abjectly dysfunctional that they can't play a game together unless they're already good friends.
That makes two of us. I claimed that although I don't believe it to be a necessity, I don't see the harm in it either.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652431Rules help minimise arguments that rulings are prone to spark, especially with people who are not your friends. (emphasis added - BV)
You don't trust others to play fair.
Your weasel words don't disguise that.
I don't assume other people are socially defective. You do.
Wow, your comprehension is really bad. Weasel words? Are you a Lacanian or something? I guess if you're not going to take me on my word, you know where I explicitly outline my thoughts after Bedrock misinterpreted my opinion, and ascribe your own opinions then ignore list for you.
Please stay on topic or at least have something to say. If you can't comment intelligently on subject don't derail the thread.
I am still waiting to find out about the mechanics of the system. I looked at the video again and my impression is it isn't quite for me. But there isn't a lot to go on.
Well, perhaps I was indeed too hasty in judging this a storygame, since I can't find conclusive proof.
When the game is out, and someone I know will buy it, I may give it a read to see whether I was in the right or in the wrong.
How easy would it be to use this map from that thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466) to run a Torchbearer exploration game?
What would I need to do to be able to do it?
(http://enrill.net/images/play-by-posts/maps/volcano/Bandit-level-C05.jpg)
Quote from: Benoist;653572How easy would it be to use this map from that thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466) to run a Torchbearer exploration game?
What would I need to do to be able to do it?
(http://enrill.net/images/play-by-posts/maps/volcano/Bandit-level-C05.jpg)
I just re-read both the forbes articles to see if there was an answer to this question, but most of the details about mechanics and play keep referring back to mouseguard or burning wheel (which I have never read) so not really sure. But from what I could gather there is a skill called dungeoneering and it looks like you use this to navigate passage ways and safely move through tight areas. I am guessing at the very least, you would need to assign DCs to various choke points on your map and people would need to roll to bypass them. But the second article mentions some stuff that makes me think it could be more abstract. They use a lot of language that probably makes sense if you played mouseguard, but I unclear on what the system is going to do.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;653578I just re-read both the forbes articles to see if there was an answer to this question, but most of the details about mechanics and play keep referring back to mouseguard or burning wheel (which I have never read) so not really sure. But from what I could gather there is a skill called dungeoneering and it looks like you use this to navigate passage ways and safely move through tight areas. I am guessing at the very least, you would need to assign DCs to various choke points on your map and people would need to roll to bypass them. But the second article mentions some stuff that makes me think it could be more abstract. They use a lot of language that probably makes sense if you played mouseguard, but I unclear on what the system is going to do.
Yeah see, I know that's not your fault at all, because the information is scarce and thoroughly unclear, but none of that makes any sense to me. It's like the people who've played this game are completely avoiding a specific, clear answer to that question. I.e. how does the exploration actually work? Can I use a standard dungeon map with the game? If so, what do I need to add or modify to be able to use it? Do the specifics of the mapping matter AT ALL in the unfolding of the game, i.e. does it make a difference in the game play at all if I use a map or none at all?
I haven't had any clear answer to that yet. I'd like the people who know the game to actually put some specifics on the table.
Quote from: LukeMapping is something we were very concerned with. We love mapping in Basic D&D, but the procedure doesn't fit well within Mouse Guard or Burning Wheel's structure. So we devised this compromise: The GM has a secret hidden map of the adventure area and describes it piecemeal to the players as they explore. The player whose character has the highest Cartography skill keeps a list of features and areas. Once they have a reasonable list and a moment to catch their breath, the players can make a Cartography test to draw an accurate map. If they do so, then they can navigate those areas freely without taking up a turn of time. If they fail...well...I'll leave the possibilities to your imagination.
Quote from: ThorDraw a map of your dungeon (or whatever), make some notes about monsters, traps, geographical features, etc. and you're good to go for several sessions. There's a pretty good section in the game that walks you through the steps. Or you can grab your favorite One-Page Dungeon, make a few notes and go.
Source (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?684142-Torchbearer-Anyone-know-much-about-it-UPDATE-Kickstarter-Live)
Quote from: LukeThe GM must prep! You have to sketch a dungeon/adventure area and populate it. We wanted to move away from hex- or square-based maps, so our dungeons are more about the sketches divided into descriptive areas. Also, TB dungeons are tiny compared to D&D dungeons. A little sketch in Dro's moleskin took us months to explore. It's much more about the features and description you add than distance or even rooms.
Source (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?13238-Torchbearer-new-game-from-Thor-and-Luke-Merged&p=131822#post131822)
Quote from: Benoist;653580Yeah see, I know that's not your fault at all, because the information is scarce and thoroughly unclear, but none of that makes any sense to me. It's like the people who've played this game are completely avoiding a specific, clear answer to that question. I.e. how does the exploration actually work? Can I use a standard dungeon map with the game? If so, what do I need to add or modify to be able to use it? Do the specifics of the mapping matter AT ALL in the unfolding of the game, i.e. does it make a difference in the game play at all if I use a map or none at all?
I haven't had any clear answer to that yet. I'd like the people who know the game to actually put some specifics on the table.
I could have sworn that - somewhere - I read that TB mapping was very abstracted. That 'locations' were defined more in a flow-chart manner, rather than defining the spaces between. But, I don't see that in the Forbes article or with a quick Googling. Perhaps it was in a Purple thread.
Perhaps this StoryGames thread (http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/17454/lets-talk-about-torchbearer-nee-dungeoneers-dragonslayers-bwhqs-advanced-backpack-simulator/p1) could shed some light.
Quote from: Benoist;653572How easy would it be to use this map from that thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=504466) to run a Torchbearer exploration game?
What would I need to do to be able to do it?
Benoist, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the map as you discuss it in the thread (no time to catch up just at the moment, though it looks interesting), but creating a map like this is a normal part of prepping for Torchbearer.
There are a few ways to use a map like this - you could stock it like a published D&D dungeon: numbered rooms, specific monsters (named, numbered and statted), traps with specific difficulty levels and effects, maneuvering challenges (climbing, squeezing, swimming) all worked out ahead of time.
You don't
have to do that. To a certain extent, many of the difficulty levels emerge from the rules. Each skill, for example, has guidelines for how difficult things are, so your prep could merely say, "rocky, vertical slope" and then you could look up how tough that is if the players actually try to ascend. That's what I did while playtesting.
Strictly speaking, the GM could simply ad lib the dungeon with no prep at all, as long as he was willing to cough up encounters and obstacles on the fly. Or, if the dungeon was stocked by factions that are highly mobile, it might make sense to stat them up but hold encountering them in reserve for failed tests and not allocate them to particular rooms.
So, some comments about the map itself. The actual decomposition into ten foot squares and specific distances isn't necessary for Torchbearer. The duration of food and hunger is in terms of significant tests, rather than hours, and light illuminates a number of characters, rather than a radius.
Secondly, the players themselves don't draw a map. Characters draw maps using the Cartography skill, and well-drawn maps let parties navigate quickly (which reduces pressure on resources).
Now, I think this is a large for a Torchbearer game. I suspect players would be tempted to draw a map just to keep track of their options (e.g whether they've explored everything) and if it's densely stocked (e.g. something to do in each room), then they'd most likely need to make several excursions into the dungeon, resupplying in between.
Is this the sort of information you're looking for?
Quote from: K Peterson;653632I could have sworn that - somewhere - I read that TB mapping was very abstracted. That 'locations' were defined more in a flow-chart manner, rather than defining the spaces between.
You can do this if you want to. As I said above, specific distances don't matter that much. Because combat isn't grid-tactical, and distances don't matter that much, if there's a warren-like region of Umber Hulk tunnels, it's fair to describe it as "location 19, abandoned hulk warren - Ob 3 Pathfinder test to traverse it" rather than draw out all the squiggles.
Well, so far Torchbearer got 1/10th of Exalted 3e's money.
It speaks a lot when, as you are a "Posterboy" for indie/new wave RPGs, you have less rabid fandom than a game like Exalted. I mean...seriously. Exalted.
Quote from: Rincewind1;655962Well, so far Torchbearer got 1/10th of Exalted 3e's money.
It speaks a lot when, as you are a "Posterboy" for indie/new wave RPGs, you have less rabid fandom than a game like Exalted. I mean...seriously. Exalted.
Hey, Exalted fandom are pretty rabid.
They used to be, anyway. Might've changed, I dunno.
So, just got another preview PDF from the Kickstarter...oddly enough, these pretentious fucks might end up making a good D&D-like dungeon-crawling RPG after all, even if they hate D&D.
Quote from: fuseboy;653913Is this the sort of information you're looking for?
Kinda sorta. Is there a default prep methodology included in the game? If so, what is it?
Quotes from said advice would be great.
Quote from: Benoist;657278Kinda sorta. Is there a default prep methodology included in the game? If so, what is it?
Quotes from said advice would be great.
Yes, there's a suggested approach for adventure building. In the revision I have, it runs to about six pages, so it's fairly brief. I have to imagine you'd find it fairly basic given your own treatise on the subject.
For adventure locales specifically, there's a multiple choice/checklist that has you envision the layout, purpose and inhabitants of a site when it was still being used for its original purpose. You then ruin it, imagine the new inhabitants, the changes they make and so on, before making sure you've established why adventurers want to go there in the first place and why nobody's plundered it already.
I hadn't noticed this before now, but it seems to encourage the GM to think in terms of problems rather than specific skill challenges, leaving that to occur during play.
QuoteEach area of your adventure should present a unique problem to the players. ... As the players explore the problems, they'll ask questions. Those questions and your answers will allow you to develop specific obstacles inside the problems.
There's a sinkhole blocking entrance to an underground temple. The players want to build a rope bridge across it. This is an obstacle for dungeoneering. If they wanted to simply leap the gap, that would be an obstacle for health. If they wanted to search for a hidden way around, that'd be an obstacle for scout. Thus each problem contains many potential obstacles.
The advice on setting difficulty level is basically system-specific (with obstacle numbers and so on) but I do enjoy this bit of advice:
QuoteThe problems in the area should fall into one of three tiers ... There should be one problem that is simply too much for the players to handle: A creature high on the Order of Might; a creature with Nature of 10 or higher; obstacles rated at 6 and up.
The rest is about twists and ramping up pressure, the role wandering monsters play (in Torchbearer, they're generally complications brought in as a result of failure at something), how to work out the right amount of loot and so on.
Quote from: Brad;657025So, just got another preview PDF from the Kickstarter...oddly enough, these pretentious fucks might end up making a good D&D-like dungeon-crawling RPG after all, even if they hate D&D.
Well, I was wrong. This game is far more pretentious than Dungeon World. And it's not an RPG, either.
Quote from: Brad;670070Well, I was wrong. This game is far more pretentious than Dungeon World. And it's not an RPG, either.
It's got a GM, players, PC, dungeons, monsters, maps, torches, skills, swords, fire, spells, divine magic, gods, towns, innkeepers, inns, and, well, pretty much everything I've ever known an RPG to have.
How do you figure it isn't an RPG? :confused:
PS - How is it pretentious? What is Dungeon World?
Do you yearn to follow the cries of the gulls to the sea and journey west beyond all knowledge or are you prepared to live a life of struggle and grief?
[*
]If you yearn to journey west, increase your Nature by one.
- If you do not yearn for the west, you may replace or increase your home trait with Fiery, Curious or Restless.[/I]
This is in an actual thing someone published and got money for.
I read it. It's just Burning Wheel with a
Sack (Small, Burlap) over its head.
Quote from: Zak S;670124Do you yearn to follow the cries of the gulls to the sea and journey west beyond all knowledge or are you prepared to live a life of struggle and grief?
[*]If you yearn to journey west, increase your Nature by one.
- If you do not yearn for the west, you may replace or increase your home trait with Fiery, Curious or Restless.[/I]
Sounds like a Tolkien reference to me.
Quote from: Zak S;670124This is in an actual thing someone published and got money for.
And that's bad because...?
Quote from: Zak S;670124I read it. It's just Burning Wheel with a Sack (Small, Burlap) over its head.
I like Burning Wheel. Torchbearer sounds like a game I'd be interested in.
Quote from: Zak S;670124Do you yearn to follow the cries of the gulls to the sea and journey west beyond all knowledge or are you prepared to live a life of struggle and grief?
[*]If you yearn to journey west, increase your Nature by one.
- If you do not yearn for the west, you may replace or increase your home trait with Fiery, Curious or Restless.[/I]
This is in an actual thing someone published and got money for.
I read it. It's just Burning Wheel with a Sack (Small, Burlap) over its head.
Wow, it sounds like a Choose your own adventure playbook.
Quote from: Zak S;670124Do you yearn to follow the cries of the gulls to the sea and journey west beyond all knowledge or are you prepared to live a life of struggle and grief?
[*]If you yearn to journey west, increase your Nature by one.
- If you do not yearn for the west, you may replace or increase your home trait with Fiery, Curious or Restless.[/I]
This is in an actual thing someone published and got money for.
And.. ?
It dont look so different from Traveller lifepath character creation (the one where you can die - yeah, someone charged people money for that), nor AW moves structure in a more macro-scale.
More nonsense from the middle-class skindeep socialists of the world. Let's introspect. It's all very first year arts degree.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;670246More nonsense from the middle-class skindeep socialists of the world. Let's introspect. It's all very first year arts degree.
You mean like Tolkien? The guy who wrote prose like that all the time?
Yeah, I fucking hate that commie hack.
Quote from: KJDavid;670253You mean like Tolkien? The guy who wrote prose like that all the time?
Yeah, I fucking hate that commie hack.
Tolkien wrote an RPG?
Quote from: Imperator;670199Wow, it sounds like a Choose your own adventure playbook.
Correct, except it seems to have added boredom.
Whats that Zak´s passagem about, really ?
Its in character creation, or some mid-game choice ?
Quote from: KenHR;670258Tolkien wrote an RPG?
Prose implies RPG?
Interesting.
Burning Wheel spins fast,
Everything is faggot man,
I journey west now
*bows*
QuoteLosing a character sucks. When the inevitable happens, give the player a moment to absorb and perhaps release any emotions that resulted from the incident.
Yes, we wouldn't want another Black Leaf incident.
QuoteIf the primary character is made hungry and thirsty, then all helpers are made hungry and thirsty. There's no lesser condition, so the least condition applies!
So if I'm hungry, my lackeys are hungry, too? Automatically?
QuoteArcanists use a mental inventory system just for spells. At first level, the spell inventory consists of a single slot used to hold a first circle spell. When arcanists cast a spell, it is removed from the inventory until they have the opportunity to replenish their mental inventory during the camp or town phase (see Memorizing Spells below).
Magicians expand their spell slots with each level they gain. Rangers have a choice of leveling benefits: They expand their mental inventory when they choose a spell as a leveling benefit; or if they choose the elven level benefit, they do not gain the spell or the extra mental inventory.
This is a lot better than shitty Vancian magic, that's for sure.
Quote from: Brad;670319This is a lot better than shitty Vancian magic, that's for sure.
:rotfl:
What the fuck is this? Is it really from the game?
Quote from: Benoist;670348What the fuck is this? Is it really from the game?
Are you really surprised? It sounds like something from AW :D.
Quote from: Benoist;670348What the fuck is this? Is it really from the game?
It's from this game called Stock Keeper: Inventory Management. You have lists of stuff on a ledger and decide where and when to send it. Eventually your stores are depleted and you must "rest in an inn" (a euphemism for "contact your distributor") to replenish them.
Quote from: silva;670265Whats that Zak´s passagem about, really ?
Its in character creation, or some mid-game choice ?
Character creation. Determining starting Nature stat for an elf.
Quote from: Brad;670319Yes, we wouldn't want another Black Leaf incident.
Holy crap.
QuoteLosing a character sucks. When the inevitable happens, give the player a moment to absorb and perhaps release any emotions that resulted from the incident.
[/I]
I just thought I'd put it there again because it's really funny.
Quote from: Zak S;670435
I just thought I'd put it there again because it's really runny.
There there Zak, I know you're just upset about the last time you lost a character and are lashing out.
Have you considered therapy?
Quote from: Piestrio;670436There there Zak, I know you're just upset about the last time you lost a character and are lashing out.
Have you considered therapy?
Well I've thought about it carefully, actually, and I've decided the best response would be to join a web community populated largely by other people having trouble dealing with the fact that they lost characters in games.
Then I'll write my own game, and it'll have lots of rules to make 100% sure that if anyone ever loses a character playing, that death will have
meaning and will therefore be special and hippie, like the yearning of the gulls as they soar westward.
Perhaps then, one day, I may find peace.
QuoteEvents in the camp phase are driven by the players. The camp phase does not use turns and conditions are not assigned as time passes.
Instead, the players spend checks they've accumulated during the adventure phase to make tests to recover, repair, reequip, regroup or research. Tests in camp are slower paced than those in the adventure phase. They're not moment to moment actions, but rather longer activities like cooking a meal, sleeping off your hurts or drawing a map.
When you spend a check, your friends can help you make your test, even if they don't have any checks themselves. Checks are earned by using your traits against yourself, as described in the Traits chapter.
Once all checks are spent or discarded, the adventure phase recommences.
Yes indeed, the new age of gaming is here. Now instead of wasting time fighting orcs, you roll dice to see how well a meal is cooked or if you slept through the night.
QuoteIf you lost, but took points off your opponent's disposition, you don't come away empty-handed. You compromise with your opponent.
Seriously, what in the fuck...
QuoteLosing a character sucks. When the inevitable happens, give the player a moment to absorb and perhaps release any emotions that resulted from the incident.
GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...
THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be
HUNGRY and
THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so
CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be HUNGRY and THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!
(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
Whoa. Problematic.
Quote from: Zak S;670439Well I've thought about it carefully, actually, and I've decided the best response would be to join a web community populated largely by other people having trouble dealing with the fact that they lost characters in games.
Then I'll write my own game, and it'll have lots of rules to make 100% sure that if anyone ever loses a character playing, that death will have meaning and will therefore be special and hippie, like the yearning of the gulls as they soar westward.
Perhaps then, one day, I may find peace.
It's for the best. You need to come to terms with...
the incident.
Quote from: Zak S;670455Whoa. Problematic.
I just realized that "problematic" serves the same rhetorical function among keyboard crusaders as "controversial" does for evangelical christians.
Now THAT's hilarious.
Quote from: Piestrio;670462I just realized that "problematic" serves the same rhetorical function among keyboard crusaders as "controversial" does for evangelical christians.
Well it makes sense. They are, at heart, the same people.
In the '20s they all would've been crusaders in the eugenics-and-prohibition business.
Quote from: Brad;670440Yes indeed, the new age of gaming is here. Now instead of wasting time fighting orcs, you roll dice to see how well a meal is cooked or if you slept through the night.
Seriously, what in the fuck...
Played the game last night and had a blast. Fought orcs, lost my 10' pole when i had to ditch it to get my sword out, almost drowned by a moss slime while submerged in pitch black waters. Beaten and bloody we made it to camp. You better believe I started cooking. We needed to eat. My halfling had already missed second breakfast.
I've got the 'mildly disappointed' condition.
When i'm next in the 'Talking to People' Phase, they'll have to live with my frown, dammit!
Quote from: KJDavid;670253You mean like Tolkien? The guy who wrote prose like that all the time?
I'm no great Tolkien fan, but... seriously? This writing is comparable?
Seriously?Is this like how when the mods silence someone on rpg.net's Tangency Open it's just like when they shot MLK?
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be HUNGRY and THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!
(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
Is this real? I mean, what the fuck.
I think it's called "parody", Kanye.
You are unable to detect humour. I take it you are either American or German?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;670582I'm no great Tolkien fan, but... seriously? This writing is comparable?
Seriously?
Is this like how when the mods silence someone on rpg.net's Tangency Open it's just like when they shot MLK?
No, it's writing reminiscent of things Tolkien wrote, which isn't out of place in an RPG.
Which seems pretty obvious.
Seriously.
WTF MLK or the RPG.net stormtroopers have to do with this, I have no idea.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;670584Is this real? I mean, what the fuck.
Look, I like Torchbearer, but that was pretty funny. It's like a Jack Chick tract.
I meant the quoted text in the post not the dialogue guys.
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be HUNGRY and THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!
(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
:rotfl:
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be HUNGRY and THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!
(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
This is a thing of beauty.
Quoting some Tolkien-esque prose:
QuoteCamp Type
There are three types of camp: a typical camp, an unsafe camp and a dangerous camp.
There are two general areas in which you can make camp: the wild and underground.
When you wish to make camp, the location is usually self- evident based on your environment: either you’re above ground or you’re under it. If you’re staying at the mouth of a cave, taking shelter from the elements, that’s usually a wilderness camp. But if you’re completely enclosed, that’s an underground camp.
See? The Hobbit makes sense now! The dwarves were in a wilderness camp, NOT an underground camp as they thought. It was also dangerous instead of typical or unsafe. Totally explains the goblin attack.
Quote from: Benoist;670348What the fuck is this? Is it really from the game?
I don't know, man... :idunno: Fucking hipster games!
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
(...)
Hilarious!
Any more updates on this game?
So if you didn't back the kickstarter is there any way to look at this game?
Quote from: Piestrio;674798So if you didn't back the kickstarter is there any way to look at this game?
Only if your purse has 3 slots open.
Quote from: One Horse Town;674848Only if your purse has 3 slots open.
I didn't see it in time. Mainly because my torch only had enough light for my friends, but not me. :)
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;670644I don't know, man... :idunno: Fucking hipster games!
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/nixon.png)
Quote from: Piestrio;674798So if you didn't back the kickstarter is there any way to look at this game?
All the KS supporters got a PDF of the game.
Which means I have a PDF of the game.
Quote from: Brad;675265All the KS supporters got a PDF of the game.
Which means I have a PDF of the game.
Ah, so no general release yet?
Do you know what the time frame is looking like?
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be HUNGRY and THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!
(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
I love this. I really do.
Quote from: Piestrio;675280Ah, so no general release yet?
Do you know what the time frame is looking like?
The print proofs came back two weeks ago; so I can't see it taking that much longer.
Quote from: Brad;675528The print proofs came back two weeks ago; so I can't see it taking that much longer.
They did make a raft of proofreading/errata changes in the wake of the print proofs they shared, but from Luke Crane's tweets it sounds like the final layouts are with the printer now. So yeah, definitely soon I think.
You can get it here: http://www.burningwheel.com/store/index.php/torchbearer-pdf.html
I guess they initially hadn't planned on distributing it yet, but the link got out so they said "eh, whatever, go ahead and tell people about it."
I've picked it up but haven't really read through it yet - I'm kind of interested, BW is a game I've always wanted to like more than I do, and the BW crew played a *ton* of Basic D&D (for like a year and a half), so it'll be interesting to see what they make of it.
Quote from: robiswrong;678538and the BW crew played a *ton* of Basic D&D (for like a year and a half),
Gosh!
:rotfl:
Depending on the actual frequency they played (say, a week in and week out), a year and a half can indeed be a *ton* of gaming.
Quote from: robiswrong;678538I've picked it up but haven't really read through it yet - I'm kind of interested, BW is a game I've always wanted to like more than I do, and the BW crew played a *ton* of Basic D&D (for like a year and a half), so it'll be interesting to see what they make of it.
Torchbearer, which is very different than BW, is a mechanically intense way of making sure your game is about social outcasts struggling with dungeoneering logistics. I really enjoy that part of it; I've never played a game where, during character generation, we're looking around anxiously to make sure someone had taken Cooking skill.
As a GM, it was a little surprising; it felt like I wasn't in control of the threat level in the way I'm used to being. The loss of a satchel, or a tumble down a hillside can be an unexpectedly big problem compared to 'epic fantasy' expectations, in the same way that you don't want to twist an ankle or lose your drinking water on a walking tour through Alaska. It will hurt you, and the pain will last. Adventurers aren't remotely "at home" in a dungeon, they're operating, like scuba divers, at the sufferance of their preparations and good fortune.
I have never seen a party looking so beaten up and miserable as my playtest group, crawling away from the ruined monastery. Even fighters with 10% of their hit points left are cheerful compared to Exhausted or Sick torchbearer PCs.
I did enjoy how the logistics prompt a lot of player-to-player conversation that's about the challenge at hand. How equipment is distributed, who's going to hold the torch, who's going to go first, all of that matters, and there's a constant table chatter about this that arises from the players having an unambiguous sense of what's important in the game world.
My last session was the first where I was a player rather than GM, and I enjoyed playing with an experienced party. Whenever we camped, we instinctively started looking for fresh water, updating the map, preparing poultices for injuries. We were wiser than we've been in the past, and we made sure that we had a good campsite, an accurate map, and plenty of supplies before we made our first foray into the dungeon. When you stumble out, injured and exhausted, this makes a huge difference as to how (and whether) you get back home safely.
I like how towns are handled, I think it's a clever way to make sure that the party doesn't slip out of the game's central focus through 'accidental zooms'; you get in and get out, wiser and poorer. The overarching sequence of game phases (of which 'town' is one) will seem overbearing to some. This is not a game where you can do a side quest of urban intrigue; at least not without some friction.
I really do like monstrous "dispositions", which are gauges of how hard monsters (or whatever) are to deal with in various ways. These map to conflict goals. After playing years of battlemap D&D in which "a plan" was nary to be seen, it's really neat fighting monsters where your tactical goal is a primary concern. Whether you intend to merely drive off the monsters, capture, or attempt to slaughter them affects how tough the combat is its lethality, which I enjoyed.
Having said that, I'm not in love with the main conflict resolution system. It forces some interesting tactical choices, and I think the way weapons are handled is great (daggers aren't just short, sucky swords), but overall it's a bit to detached from the specifics of what individuals are trying to do for my taste, like resolving combat with a game of tic tac toe (I exaggerate). There's a strong temptation to just stop talking about the game world and play it out mechanically.
I will definitely drag it out from time to time, but it's not likely to become a mainstay for general-purpose fantasy gaming. I can imagine having a stable of characters that we keep set to one side, and when we feel like intensely troubled dungeon crawling, we'd bust it out and see if we can level them up.
Quote from: silva;678546Depending on the actual frequency they played (say, a week in and week out), a year and a half can indeed be a *ton* of gaming.
Maybe, depending on your perspectives on campaign lengths and having a deep-dive into a game system. But it doesn't seem that impressive a period of time for writing a dedication, or
love letter, to the source material.
If someone said to me, "
They've played Call of Cthulhu (or RuneQuest)
for a year and a half! So they've done enough research to justifiably produce a love letter!", well, I'd be dubious. Seems more like casual flirtation, to me.
Hmmm.. yeah, that makes sense K.
Oh, and Im loving the cards idea.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/250509/posts/494144/image-265181-full.jpg?1369831819)
Quote from: K Peterson;678556Maybe, depending on your perspectives on campaign lengths and having a deep-dive into a game system. But it doesn't seem that impressive a period of time for writing a dedication, or love letter, to the source material.
If someone said to me, "They've played Call of Cthulhu (or RuneQuest) for a year and a half! So they've done enough research to justifiably produce a love letter!", well, I'd be dubious. Seems more like casual flirtation, to me.
Exactly. Three decades on, I am still learning new information about the games I enjoyed back then. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, games more complicated than tic-tac-toe (RPGs broadly and AD&D specifically) cannot possibly be 'mastered' in a year and a half. Even if that was daily exposure and use of the system, I doubt one could claim much more than 'proficiency' implementing the rules.
Quote from: K Peterson;678556Maybe, depending on your perspectives on campaign lengths and having a deep-dive into a game system. But it doesn't seem that impressive a period of time for writing a dedication, or love letter, to the source material.
If someone said to me, "They've played Call of Cthulhu (or RuneQuest) for a year and a half! So they've done enough research to justifiably produce a love letter!", well, I'd be dubious. Seems more like casual flirtation, to me.
You should read Luke Crane's discussion of basic D&D on G+. I pretty well agree with what he says about it.
And by "a ton" I had more meant that they were playing it heavily for that time period, not that it's a long period of time, compared to those that picked up their boxed set in '80 and never stopped playing that game. So, yeah, bad choice of words.
Quote from: robiswrong;678617You should read Luke Crane's discussion of basic D&D on G+. I pretty well agree with what he says about it.
How about a link?
I know that he's in to Moldvay Basic. Last year, he hosted a panel at Pax Prime called "The D&D You Never Knew", where he apparently gushed about Moldvay Basic. I went to Pax, but on a prior day, and so didn't attend the panel. I probably wouldn't have attended anyway - because it was the edition I "knew" and started gaming with. I didn't need the enlightenment.
https://plus.google.com/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5
One of the things I like about Torchbearer is that you can succeed at a cost. You might fuck up your roll to kick down the door, but the DM can let you succeed by making you fatigued. It seems a good mechanic to represent a hopeless, despondent world in which the heroes are forever beaten down.
Still not yet willing to part with the $30 or whatever to buy the game. I'll probably come around in time.
Regarding Luke's commentary on D&D, he just doesn't fully "get" it.
QuoteHeaven forfend we get into an in-character argument at the table, the game is utterly silent on that resolution. Might as well knife fight.
Do you need rules for arguing in real life?
When you're a shit roleplayer, gamer and DM, you need rules for everything.
Okay, so I grabbed torchbearer.
I'll make an effort to read it this weekend and post my thoughts.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205Regarding Luke's commentary on D&D, he just doesn't fully "get" it.
Do you need rules for arguing in real life?
No, but the lack of those rules can lead to a couple of negatives:
1) It can be hard to play a charismatic/manipulative/expert negotiator character if you, yourself, are not charismatic/manipulative/etc.
2) In-character discussions can end up stopping the game for flippin' hours.
3) It's too easy for the most bull-headed/least willing to compromise person to drive the game due to their lack of compromise and the implicit social contract.
A game doesn't need these types of things, but I don't think it's an inherent badness.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205One of the things I like about Torchbearer is that you can succeed at a cost. You might fuck up your roll to kick down the door, but the DM can let you succeed by making you fatigued.
Is that something the GM comes up with or can the player make that choice? If the GM proposes it, can the player refuse like Compels, etc.?
Quote from: CRKrueger;679485Is that something the GM comes up with or can the player make that choice? If the GM proposes it, can the player refuse like Compels, etc.?
No, if there's a failure, the GM decides what happens next; if that's a condition (Exhausted, etc.) or a loss of gear, it happens. (I mean, players can whine, of course.)
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205Do you need rules for arguing in real life?
It's generally considered a good idea if you want to reach the best outcome. Of course, not if you just want to yell at each other.
Quote from: Noclue;679510It's generally considered a good idea if you want to reach the best, and pacific, outcome. Of course, not if you just want to yell at each other.
Added just a small detail. :D
The original D&D set (and 1E AD&D, with its long list of factors) rules devote more attention to interpersonal reactions than to many other things. If you want to apply those to PCs, you're free to do so; most people, in my experience, prefer to use their own discretion in role-playing.
A line must be drawn somewhere so that there's actually a point in having human players as opposed to mechanical dice rollers, and -- barring extraordinary forms of influence such as charm spells -- this seems generally to be well over that line. I see players on occasion by their own choice using a dice roll to settle a question of how Character X would respond, but that's different from having it imposed on them.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;679205One of the things I like about Torchbearer is that you can succeed at a cost. You might fuck up your roll to kick down the door, but the DM can let you succeed by making you fatigued. It seems a good mechanic to represent a hopeless, despondent world in which the heroes are forever beaten down.
A single kick causing fatigue? Weird, but I wouldn't call immediate success in return "hopeless."
In old D&D, if you fail your 1/3 (or whatever) chance of immediate success, you just need to keep working at it until you get the door open. That could be tiring, but basically the cost is time and noise.
QuoteA single kick causing fatigue? Weird, but I wouldn't call immediate success in return "hopeless."
It's not literally a single kick; it's an abstraction. But the success is usually at a cost. You rarely get exactly what you want. The conditions imposed gradually gnaw away at your character--Hungry and Thirsty reduces your disposition (hit points), Injured and Sick reduce your dice pool, and so on.
Quote from: Phillip;680177In old D&D, if you fail your 1/3 (or whatever) chance of immediate success, you just need to keep working at it until you get the door open. That could be tiring, but basically the cost is time and noise.
That's only really a cost if you have something time sensitive going on or something nasty reacts to the noise. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of repetitive rolling until the door is open.
My good friend Patrick has been working on something like this for D&D for ages, called The Veins of the Earth (http://falsemachine.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Veins) (http://falsemachine.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Veins). It is crazily wonderful and strange, and has the added bonus of not being tacked onto the ridiculously fiddly Burning Wheel system.
This I like:
QuoteBut don't tell the GM what skill or ability you
use! Your description of your character's actions should fit
entirely within the context of what happens in the game
world.
Seconded.
It's like Apocalypse World in that you gotta lead with the fiction. If you say "I search for traps" the GM is gonna respond with "Cool! So how you doin' that?"
Kinda obvious right, but players looking at their sheets for skills to use Is A Thing.
I like that during character creation you're allowed to take as much equipment as you like (and can carry). It's amusing to see players loading their characters up with tons of rope, iron spikes, tinderboxes, and torches to account for redundancy.
Quote from: Noclue;680275That's only really a cost if you have something time sensitive going on or something nasty reacts to the noise. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of repetitive rolling until the door is open.
Quite so! The probabilities of time taken (which feeds directly into such things as torches and spells running out) and arrival of wandering monsters (a significant risk of high costs) could theoretically be consolidated into a single dice roll.
Inexperienced GMs especially have a tendency to call for repetitive rolls that don't really add interest.
Quote from: Phillip;682739Quite so! The probabilities of time taken (which feeds directly into such things as torches and spells running out) and arrival of wandering monsters (a significant risk of high costs) could theoretically be consolidated into a single dice roll.
Inexperienced GMs especially have a tendency to call for repetitive rolls that don't really add interest.
So, the way Torchbearer addresses this is by the GM deciding if 1) you get the door open but suffer an ongoing condition, or 2) you don't get the door open and something unexpected happens. There isn't a null result option.
But, that works in Torchbearer, where the focus is on struggling in the face of adversity, more than on overcoming challenges. In a game that is more of a contest, simply not overcoming the challenge is a valid option.
Quote from: Phillip;682739Quite so! The probabilities of time taken (which feeds directly into such things as torches and spells running out) and arrival of wandering monsters (a significant risk of high costs) could theoretically be consolidated into a single dice roll.
Indeed. As if the DM could call for a roll to open the door and a failure could abstractly represent one of these negative things occurring: it takes you a considerable amount of time to open the door (your torch may die soon), it exhausts you (forcing you to consume rations), it makes a lot of noise (attracting a wandering monster), and so forth.
Quote from: Phillip;682739Inexperienced GMs especially have a tendency to call for repetitive rolls that don't really add interest.
The problem is that repetitive rolls will *eventually* hit whatever success/failure condition is actually there.
In most of the BW-esque games, the idea is to figure out what the interesting consequence is, and just roll for that directly, rather than dragging it out. That way you can also keep the math working right.
The trick is that in old-school D&D, the time it took to try things *was* the cost, combined with resource consumption and the chance of a random encounter.
Quote from: robiswrong;683199The trick is that in old-school D&D, the time it took to try things *was* the cost, combined with resource consumption and the chance of a random encounter.
And in some, but not all, modes of playing, if the GM didn't have anything nasty prepped for the players in that area, that was pretty tough luck for him. That's the setup.
Just got my hardcover today. Must say, very nice looking book. Sort of retro, reminds me of the original Monster Manual. No comment on the contents yet (I'll read through it later), but this will definitely look nice on my bookshelf.
Okay, my official two word review: shit sandwich.
Quote from: Brad;697838Okay, my official two word review: shit sandwich.
Why?
Quote from: Brad;697838Okay, my official two word review: shit sandwich.
I feel like you probably could've come to that conclusion without spending money on it.
Quote from: J Arcane;697849I feel like you probably could've come to that conclusion without spending money on it.
Most people here did so without seeing any part of the game, never mind spending money on it.
Quote from: daniel_ream;697869Most people here did so without seeing any part of the game, never mind spending money on it.
Don't mistake me: I don't accuse him of bias.
I think most people have a better sense than anyone about what they will enjoy and not enjoy, and they are rarely wrong.
I just don't understand ignoring that and buying it anyway.
Quote from: J Arcane;697849I feel like you probably could've come to that conclusion without spending money on it.
Most likely, but if I spend the money on something I'm in a better position when I say it sucks vs. someone saying it based on less evidence.
I stand by my assertion that the book looks very nice and has high production values; the content is just a waste of time.
Quote from: Brad;697894Most likely, but if I spend the money on something I'm in a better position when I say it sucks vs. someone saying it based on less evidence.
Yeah, but the only people that matters to are people on the internet, and who cares about them?
Quote from: J Arcane;697896Yeah, but the only people that matters to are people on the internet, and who cares about them?
THE INTERNET!
In all seriousness, I had purchased Mouse Guard and wanted to see if the gripes I had about the system were fixed. Unfortunately not.
Quote from: Brad;697901THE INTERNET!
In all seriousness, I had purchased Mouse Guard and wanted to see if the gripes I had about the system were fixed. Unfortunately not.
Ahh. That makes sense. And hell, everyone once in a while, I'm wrong about a thing, I just find that even when taking into account confirmation bias, most people have a pretty good idea what they do and do not like.
I think that's why the whole 'what about the new gamers!' argument comes up online so much. Because no matter how much you try, you really can't tell someone what they will like better than they can tell themselves.
Quote from: Brad;697838Okay, my official two word review: shit sandwich.
Could you be enticed to say more?
Because the pitch
a characterdriven dungeon-survival game, running on grime, blood and fear is pretty stellar. How did they manage to mess it up?
Is at least the bread palatable, or is it shit all the way through?
Is there worthwhile stuff for me to steal from it?
Quote from: Zachary The First;670452GM: Oookay, and that's....(rolls) 28 more points of damage from the poison, plus the Ogre's attack. With an agonized yawlp, Gladius the Ranger passes from this mortal realm. Derek, roll up another....Derek, you ok, man?
Derek: I just...man....
Player 1: It's ok man. We're here for you.
Player 2: We totally understand if you need a minute to absorb this.
Player 1: Yeah, release those emotions. You're among friends. We will talk this out with you, brother, however long it takes.
Derek: I just...I gotta get out of here. This....this...THIS SUCKS.
(Exits the basement, openly sobbing)
Player 1 (to GM): YOU ASSHOLE! You know how what the rulebook says about Absorb/Release time!
Player 2: Yeah, man, it's like you have enough torchlight for the three of us, but never Derek. Resource manage, man--that's what we're here for. And couldn't he have just compromised with the Ogre? Huh? Where's the character-driven play in that?
Player 1: And now he's left! It's been like, 2 minutes, dude! When has he eaten last? He could be HUNGRY and THIRSTY up there!
GM: Well, dammit, how was I supposed to do anything? He didn't give me enough time! And besides, I was trying to calculate how much rope was needed given the number of turns, and then I couldn't remember if his Elf yearned for gulls or wanted grief, and my therapist says I'm still working out my own issues from when you killed my Fighter with that Ennui Golem, so CUT ME A GODDAMN BREAK!
(The group stares angrily at one another, before being interrupted by the sound of a single muffled gunshot from up above).
This is so funny I had to quote it again. Apologies :D
Quote from: Brad;697838Okay, my official two word review: shit sandwich.
More details, please.
Or pack it up, mail it to Uruguay, and give the Pundit an early Xmas present. That resulting review would be entertaining as all hell.
Quote from: baragei;697956Could you be enticed to say more?
Because the pitch a characterdriven dungeon-survival game, running on grime, blood and fear is pretty stellar. How did they manage to mess it up?
Is at least the bread palatable, or is it shit all the way through?
Is there worthwhile stuff for me to steal from it?
If you want to extend the sandwich analogy, the bread is exquisite (speaking of course about the actual covers themselves). High production values, cover art is definitely old school and evokes the right mood. As I stated initially, you could put this right next to your circa 1977 Monster Manual and it'd look like it belonged. Production values inside, same thing: very high. The layout is clean, the editing is good...but the game itself sucks.
Think of it this way...you see a Whopper commercial on tv. It looks great. But you have a sneaking suspicion it'll taste like crap due to having eaten at Burger King a couple years ago (when I got Mouseguard). Still, you're hopeful they might have fixed those problems. You see another commercial and are convinced to fund the building of a Burger King close to your house (Kickstarter) so you can try the new Whopper. When it opens, you get the Whopper. It looks BETTER than on television. After opening the wrapper and taking a bite, you can distinguish flavors you enjoy...but for some reason they just don't go together. Also, there's a large dollop of dog shit right in the middle that destroys any chance you might have to enjoy the Whopper (the forced narrative aspect). There's really no way to scrape off all the shit because it has permeated throughout the Whopper, so you wrap it back up and put it under glass to look at, not eat.
Quote from: Brad;698181If you want to extend the sandwich analogy...
I don't. How about some actual cogent criticism instead of a tired analogy?
Quote from: Brad;698181If you want to extend the sandwich analogy, the bread is exquisite (speaking of course about the actual covers themselves). High production values, cover art is definitely old school and evokes the right mood. As I stated initially, you could put this right next to your circa 1977 Monster Manual and it'd look like it belonged. Production values inside, same thing: very high. The layout is clean, the editing is good...but the game itself sucks.
Think of it this way...you see a Whopper commercial on tv. It looks great. But you have a sneaking suspicion it'll taste like crap due to having eaten at Burger King a couple years ago (when I got Mouseguard). Still, you're hopeful they might have fixed those problems. You see another commercial and are convinced to fund the building of a Burger King close to your house (Kickstarter) so you can try the new Whopper. When it opens, you get the Whopper. It looks BETTER than on television. After opening the wrapper and taking a bite, you can distinguish flavors you enjoy...but for some reason they just don't go together. Also, there's a large dollop of dog shit right in the middle that destroys any chance you might have to enjoy the Whopper (the forced narrative aspect). There's really no way to scrape off all the shit because it has permeated throughout the Whopper, so you wrap it back up and put it under glass to look at, not eat.
And here is why you should not post while hungry.
That's it. I am definitely getting a hamburger tonight.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;698329That's it. I am definitely getting a hamburger tonight.
I'm having ground beef and gravy on rice tonight. :D
Quote from: LePete;698279I don't. How about some actual cogent criticism instead of a tired analogy?
I already said it fucking sucks; what more do you want? This isn't rpg.net...I'm not going to post a 2000 word review that ends in 5/5 MEATY even though I point out numerous flaws.
How about this: buy the PDF and make your own conclusions. I have very specific views about rpgs you may not share, so anything I say may or may not be applicable to your own play style.
Quote from: Brad;698344I already said it fucking sucks; what more do you want?
$20 and a blowjob! :D
(old French joke)
Quote from: Brad;698344I already said it fucking sucks; what more do you want?
What you think sucks, and why.
'It's a shit-burger!' tells me nothing about the game.
This is straight from the sample of play:
"
Dro: You can still help. You just have to tell me what you do. Nothing? Okay. Gerald isn't helping on this one.
Joss grabs 4D for Karolina's Fighter skill, +1D from her Heart of Battle trait, +1D from the Maneuver Jared led on the last action, +3D from the help offered by Megan, Thor and Luke, and +1D from Merrill's I Am Wise. She rolls 10D in total for 6 successes, but subtracts -1s since she's exhausted. Attacks are independent of other Attacks, thus Dro's kobolds lose 5 points of disposition.
Dro grabs 2D for his lead kobold's Nature, +6D from the help of the other kobolds and -1D from the results of the Maneuver on the last action. He rolls 7D for a rather improbable 6 successes. Since Attack against Attack is independent, the players' team loses 6 points of disposition. They're down to 1 point! Karolina has leather armor, so Joss rolls a die to see whether it deflected some of the damage. It comes up a 5, so it blunts the Attack by one success! That means the players' team is down to 2 points, not 1.
Since Joss led the action, she discards her hit point stone first. They still need to discard five more stones. Thor was slated to have the next action, but Merrill tugs Thor's sleeve.
"
Quote from: Black Vulmea;698349What you think sucks, and why.
The game sucks, in whole, because it's a hipster version of D&D. If that doesn't mean anything to you, I'll put it like this: the game makes fun of D&D by being MORE D&D-like than D&D. But the irony is lost because the game pretends to be way cooler than D&D, even though it's D&D with more D&Dish crap. And it doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.
Read the thing yourself. The ineffability of explaining hipster metairony vis-a-vis indie roleplaying games keeps me from saying anything other than "it sucks".
Quote from: Brad;698502The game sucks, in whole, because it's a hipster version of D&D. If that doesn't mean anything to you, I'll put it like this: the game makes fun of D&D by being MORE D&D-like than D&D. But the irony is lost because the game pretends to be way cooler than D&D, even though it's D&D with more D&Dish crap. And it doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.
Read the thing yourself. The ineffability of explaining hipster metairony vis-a-vis indie roleplaying games keeps me from saying anything other than "it sucks".
So you don't have any actual critiques that would be helpful to someone thinking about whether they want to try it or not?
I think that was a hipster review as a meta-criticism, I'm not sure. :)
Quote from: VictorC;698686So you don't have any actual critiques that would be helpful to someone thinking about whether they want to try it or not?
http://bit.ly/19tKRKn
That doesn't say anything about why you don't like it.
I could ask fuseboy, but he likes the game. I'd much rather hear it from a critical source (this being theRPGsite and all..)
Quote from: Brad;698715http://bit.ly/19tKRKn
So... again, you have nothing of substance to say about the game. You just want to rant like an ass-clown. O.K. got it.
Quote from: VictorC;698727So... again, you have nothing of substance to say about the game. You just want to rant like an ass-clown. O.K. got it.
You can be a dumbfuck indie rpg apologist all you want, but that doesn't mean I have to give detailed reasons why I think it sucks.
Quote from: Brad;698803You can be a dumbfuck indie rpg apologist all you want, but that doesn't mean I have to give detailed reasons why I think it sucks.
First of all, what about anything I've said makes me an apologist? Second, no, you don't have to give any reasons about anything. However, if your just going to shoot your mouth off like a half-wit with nothing relevant to say, then why even chime in.
Are you determined to demonstrate your ignorance, just like acting like a dick on the internet?
Quote from: VictorC;698895First of all, what about anything I've said makes me an apologist? Second, no, you don't have to give any reasons about anything. However, if your just going to shoot your mouth off like a half-wit with nothing relevant to say, then why even chime in.
Are you determined to demonstrate your ignorance, just like acting like a dick on the internet?
I provided something relevant: I don't like it. I explained that I cannot give specifics because the reasons for my dislike stem from ineffable concepts. If someone says they hate chocolate ice cream, and you ask why, a perfectly legitimate answer is, "I don't like how it tastes." I'm ignorant because I know I don't like it? That doesn't make any sense. So, fuck you.
Also: your. Half-wit..?
Quote from: Brad;698181If you want to extend the sandwich analogy, the bread is exquisite (speaking of course about the actual covers themselves). High production values, cover art is definitely old school and evokes the right mood. As I stated initially, you could put this right next to your circa 1977 Monster Manual and it'd look like it belonged. Production values inside, same thing: very high. The layout is clean, the editing is good...but the game itself sucks.
Think of it this way...you see a Whopper commercial on tv. It looks great. But you have a sneaking suspicion it'll taste like crap due to having eaten at Burger King a couple years ago (when I got Mouseguard). Still, you're hopeful they might have fixed those problems. You see another commercial and are convinced to fund the building of a Burger King close to your house (Kickstarter) so you can try the new Whopper. When it opens, you get the Whopper. It looks BETTER than on television. After opening the wrapper and taking a bite, you can distinguish flavors you enjoy...but for some reason they just don't go together. Also, there's a large dollop of dog shit right in the middle that destroys any chance you might have to enjoy the Whopper (the forced narrative aspect). There's really no way to scrape off all the shit because it has permeated throughout the Whopper, so you wrap it back up and put it under glass to look at, not eat.
This isn't as bad a review as people are making it out to be.
EDIT: You know what, you're right. Not having real reasons for disliking things isn't ignorant at all. Just not liking things because you don't makes you the smartest guy in the room.
Thanks for letting me bask in the glow of your genius.
Quote from: Brad;698502The game sucks, in whole, because it's a hipster version of D&D. If that doesn't mean anything to you, I'll put it like this: the game makes fun of D&D by being MORE D&D-like than D&D.
Why do you think they're making fun of D&D, given that Luke Crane and co. have been pretty vocal in their appreciation for at least Moldvay Basic?
I think what Brad is saying is that the game satirizes D&D by exaggerating D&D's tropes.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;699918I think what Brad is saying is that the game satirizes D&D by exaggerating D&D's tropes.
No, I get what he's saying. I'm wondering where the presumption that it's satire comes from, given that the BW crew seems to *like* D&D. A lot.
https://plus.google.com/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5
Quote from: luke crane on Basic D&DAfter more than 16 sessions of play, I think this is a magnificent game.
This slim red volume emerged before us as a brilliant piece of game design that not only changed our world with it's own bright light, but looking from the vantage of 1981, I can see that this game changed THE world.
I don't get a whole ton of "hey, let's go make fun of this shitty game by making a caricature out of it" vibe from this - not when adjectives like "brilliant" and "magnificent" are used.
Or, to put it another way, if this had been written by, say, Steve Perrin, would the presumption still be that it was intended as satire?
No, it's not satire. Why are you chasing Brad around? He's not going to give you what you want and he's said as much repeatedly. :)
I would agree with the sober part of what Brad was saying, though, with Torchbearer being "more D&D than D&D", at least in the sense that Torchbearer's framing procedures (the 'adventure phase' and 'town phase') are designed to make a sort of treadmill out of Basic-style adventuring. While Basic is clearly all about dungeon crawling, you could just as easily (though with no particular rules support) wander around town looking for trouble in inns and alleys. Torchbearer doesn't really let you do this.
It's a little bit like a side-scrolling game where the scrolling forces you to move forward, constantly pushing you into the experience advertised on the tin. Same thing with inventory and so forth.
If you're having intense, resource-starved dungeon crawling games already (and you can of course do this without any rules at all) you might find Torchbearer claustrophobic and pushy. On the other hand, even if you've played D&D for years, but just never happened to have a GM that cared that much about the nitty gritty of encumbrance, tracking torches, or feeling that being in a dungeon wasn't especially safe (say, because you played a lot of Paizo adventure paths that were more about heroic tactical combat through level-appropriate challenges), playing Torchbearer will give you that experience.
Quote from: robiswrong;700158I don't get a whole ton of "hey, let's go make fun of this shitty game by making a caricature out of it" vibe from this - not when adjectives like "brilliant" and "magnificent" are used.
It's more complicated than that, actually.
In the Burning Wheel era, Luke was down on D&D for (basically) not being a Forge game.
There's a whole rant in Burning Wheel about how d20s are "no fun for anyone". Like: how solipsistic can you be? When was the last time you left your bubble, Luke?
Eventually, Luke tried Red Box as-written and liked it. There was a G+ post where basically he and his intrepid band of post-traumatic stressed players realized "Hey, all these rules about mapping and torches are here for a
reason..." which the OSR had been saying for years at that point and it was passed around by Luke fans as wisdom from on high.
However, still being, at heart, an uptight Forgie, his take was that it worked because it was a focused (i.e. Forge-ish) game
about dungeon crawling. And, so long as it's just about dungeon crawling it works...
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/15845/which-dd-basic-set-is-the-best-tom-moldvay-vs-frank-mentzer-/p1
Quoth Luke:
"Lastly, there's highly restricted rules for towns in Moldvay. This is a huge relief. In my opinion, once you leave the dungeon, D&D goes off the rails. I want to spend five minutes in town buying equipment, resting and taking care of business and then I want to get back to the dungeon."
So, basically, Luke has come round to D&D
so long as it stays in its place--a focused game about dungeons.
B...but Luke, there's literally 30 years of people having fun outside the dungeon.
Well Luke then pulls the traditional Luke Crane Dodge: if you had fun with a game Luke claims is not well-designed then you
weren't actually playing that game..
". As soon as your character "gets drunk" you're not playing D&D any more, but you're playing your super awesome happy fun time home brew basement game! Fun time basement games are totally supported in spirit by Moldvay, however. And I think that's cool. But like you said, fuck the rails! I'll be over here mapping this dungeon."
Which is a warm and fuzzy way of describing why Luke
still gets to cling to various Forgie fallacies about what makes a Well Designed Game while still acknowledging the by-2013-so-obvious-you-can't-really-ignore-it reality that none of Luke's ideas about what makes a Well Designed Game seem to have any relation to anyone's reality outside the group of aphasics who like his games basically because they can't make D&D do what they want.
It also explains what Torchbearer's about: making a focused game that
only handles the part of D&D that Luke can handle.
Quote from: Zak S;700202stuff
Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQpvqPuDJWI
Quote from: Zak S;700202Eventually, Luke tried Red Box as-written and liked it. There was a G+ post where basically he and his intrepid band of post-traumatic stressed players realized "Hey, all these rules about mapping and torches are here for a reason..." which the OSR had been saying for years at that point and it was passed around by Luke fans as wisdom from on high.
So are taxes, but when I sit down to play an RPG, there are things I'm fine with handwaving ("You carry 6 flasks of oil, enough to last you 3 hours, I'll just count the time using my "superbrain""). Which is probably why I just stay the hell away from Torchbearer (well that and it's by Luke Crane), it's D&D with it's Tax Calculating Elements To The Max.
QuoteHowever, still being, at heart, an uptight Forgie, his take was that it worked because it was a focused (i.e. Forge-ish) game about dungeon crawling. And, so long as it's just about dungeon crawling it works...
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/15845/which-dd-basic-set-is-the-best-tom-moldvay-vs-frank-mentzer-/p1
Quoth Luke:
"Lastly, there's highly restricted rules for towns in Moldvay. This is a huge relief. In my opinion, once you leave the dungeon, D&D goes off the rails. I want to spend five minutes in town buying equipment, resting and taking care of business and then I want to get back to the dungeon."
So, basically, Luke has come round to D&D so long as it stays in its place--a focused game about dungeons.
B...but Luke, there's literally 30 years of people having fun outside the dungeon.
Well Luke then pulls the traditional Luke Crane Dodge: if you had fun with a game Luke claims is not well-designed then you weren't actually playing that game..
". As soon as your character "gets drunk" you're not playing D&D any more, but you're playing your super awesome happy fun time home brew basement game! Fun time basement games are totally supported in spirit by Moldvay, however. And I think that's cool. But like you said, fuck the rails! I'll be over here mapping this dungeon."
Which is a warm and fuzzy way of describing why Luke still gets to cling to various Forgie fallacies about what makes a Well Designed Game while still acknowledging the by-2013-so-obvious-you-can't-really-ignore-ot reality that none of Luke's ideas about what makes a Well Designed Game seem to have any relation to anyone's reality outside the group of aphasics who like his games basically because they can't make D&D do what they want.
It also explains what Torchbearer's about: making a focused game that only handles the part of D&D that Luke can handle.
Which is kind of a sad thing, really. Because even if you play D&D "as supposed to", so the adventurers are basically commandos going in dungeons, you suddenly realise at one point, just like a real strike team, dungeon is basically "five minutes of work", preceded by hours of planning. You need to buy donkeys for carrying treasures, get to know local criminal element so you can siphon the stolen jewellery easily, drink to forget that buddy of yours who was crushed by a walking statue because he went back to steal the huge jewel as the pyramid was falling apart (really happened, heh - both counts in fact), invest the money, buy tools, buy/brew potions, scrolls, what have you, and of course, talk to NPCs and continue your agenda in the world.
Quote from: Rincewind1;700210So are taxes, but when I sit down to play an RPG, there are things I'm fine with handwaving ("You carry 6 flasks of oil, enough to last you 3 hours, I'll just count the time using my "superbrain""). Which is probably why I just stay the hell away from Torchbearer (well that and it's by Luke Crane), it's D&D with it's Tax Calculating Elements To The Max.
Which is kind of a sad thing, really. Because even if you play D&D "as supposed to", so the adventurers are basically commandos going in dungeons, you suddenly realise at one point, just like a real strike team, dungeon is basically "five minutes of work", preceded by hours of planning. You need to buy donkeys for carrying treasures, get to know local criminal element so you can siphon the stolen jewellery easily, drink to forget that buddy of yours who was crushed by a walking statue because he went back to steal the huge jewel as the pyramid was falling apart (really happened, heh - both counts in fact), invest the money, buy tools, buy/brew potions, scrolls, what have you, and of course, talk to NPCs and continue your agenda in the world.
And it's at this point that, despite its welter of rules, Torchbearer's tinkertoy mindset begins to break down and the edges of the simulation show.
For example: when you start, your party can't try to kill a dragon. Period. It's not an available option. The dragon is there, but killing it is not even something you can attempt. It's not like D&D where you try and will probably fail and learn from that failure and try again--you just can't. It's forbidden by the rules. Look at the dragon. Looooook...but don't attack.
The great innovation of RPGs was "Hey, here's the first game where you can try anything you could if this was real life"
Crane's innovation seems to be "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if you couldn't? Because, y'know, genre?"
Some Hobbits like their holes. Let 'em.
I'm continually impressed by the ability of the shared narrative brigade to slowly, laboriously, by the most circuitous route possible, reach the really simple and obvious conclusions that everyone else just took for granted and rebrand them as new and innovative. I mean several of them have probably seen the inside of a third level education facility, so I guess it just proves the old saw that education and intelligence aren't interdependent.
Quote from: The Traveller;700229I'm continually impressed by the ability of the shared narrative brigade to slowly, laboriously, by the most circuitous route possible, reach the really simple and obvious conclusions that everyone else just took for granted and rebrand them as new and innovative. I mean several of them have probably seen the inside of a third level education facility, so I guess it just proves the old saw that education and intelligence aren't interdependent.
I know. It's hilarious.
Quote from: Zak S;700202It also explains what Torchbearer's about: making a focused game that only handles the part of D&D that Luke can handle.
Which is a great argument that his understanding of D&D is incomplete or erroneous. I'm not even going to argue that. But I don't think that makes Torchbearer a satire, or a deliberate attempt to make fun of D&D.
I'm not saying Torchbearer is *good* - I haven't read or played it enough to even start on that kind of judgement. I'm saying that I don't think it's intended as parody or satire.
Quote from: The Traveller;700229I'm continually impressed by the ability of the shared narrative brigade to slowly, laboriously, by the most circuitous route possible, reach the really simple and obvious conclusions that everyone else just took for granted and rebrand them as new and innovative.
Oh, absolutely. In a lot of ways I see a lot of it as a backlash against the mid-80s through 90s games, and they've rediscovered (some) old-school principles on accident without realizing it.
I mean, not railroading, and letting players try their own solutions to problems was kind of SOP at one point.
Quote from: Zak S;700202It's more complicated than that, actually.
In the Burning Wheel era, Luke was down on D&D for (basically) not being a Forge game.
There's a whole rant in Burning Wheel about how d20s are "no fun for anyone". Like: how solipsistic can you be? When was the last time you left your bubble, Luke?
Eventually, Luke tried Red Box as-written and liked it. There was a G+ post where basically he and his intrepid band of post-traumatic stressed players realized "Hey, all these rules about mapping and torches are here for a reason..." which the OSR had been saying for years at that point and it was passed around by Luke fans as wisdom from on high.
However, still being, at heart, an uptight Forgie, his take was that it worked because it was a focused (i.e. Forge-ish) game about dungeon crawling. And, so long as it's just about dungeon crawling it works...
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/15845/which-dd-basic-set-is-the-best-tom-moldvay-vs-frank-mentzer-/p1
Quoth Luke:
"Lastly, there's highly restricted rules for towns in Moldvay. This is a huge relief. In my opinion, once you leave the dungeon, D&D goes off the rails. I want to spend five minutes in town buying equipment, resting and taking care of business and then I want to get back to the dungeon."
So, basically, Luke has come round to D&D so long as it stays in its place--a focused game about dungeons.
B...but Luke, there's literally 30 years of people having fun outside the dungeon.
Well Luke then pulls the traditional Luke Crane Dodge: if you had fun with a game Luke claims is not well-designed then you weren't actually playing that game..
". As soon as your character "gets drunk" you're not playing D&D any more, but you're playing your super awesome happy fun time home brew basement game! Fun time basement games are totally supported in spirit by Moldvay, however. And I think that's cool. But like you said, fuck the rails! I'll be over here mapping this dungeon."
Which is a warm and fuzzy way of describing why Luke still gets to cling to various Forgie fallacies about what makes a Well Designed Game while still acknowledging the by-2013-so-obvious-you-can't-really-ignore-it reality that none of Luke's ideas about what makes a Well Designed Game seem to have any relation to anyone's reality outside the group of aphasics who like his games basically because they can't make D&D do what they want.
It also explains what Torchbearer's about: making a focused game that only handles the part of D&D that Luke can handle.
From what I remember reading of Luke Crane's actual plays with Moldvay, he was just running modules. This may explain the obsession with D&D-is-focused-on-dungeons.
Quote from: Zak S;700219The great innovation of RPGs was "Hey, here's the first game where you can try anything you could if this was real life"
Crane's innovation seems to be "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if you couldn't? Because, y'know, genre?"
Some Hobbits like their holes. Let 'em.
This is beautiful and absolutely true. Bravo, sir.
I've never been called an aphasic hobbit before.
Quote from: Noclue;700723I've never been called an aphasic hobbit before.
(http://i.imgur.com/WNVRgzN.jpg)
Quote from: The Traveller;700229I'm continually impressed by the ability of the shared narrative brigade to slowly, laboriously, by the most circuitous route possible, reach the really simple and obvious conclusions that everyone else just took for granted and rebrand them as new and innovative. I mean several of them have probably seen the inside of a third level education facility, so I guess it just proves the old saw that education and intelligence aren't interdependent.
It's a self-important hipster thing.
"Y'know, I really dig the rough sound of these early rock recordings. The tinny-sounding mics, the hiss and pop of the vinyl. It's very organic and cool."
"Yeah, you're right... we should record music that's nothing but hiss and pop and static noises!"
And voila, dubstep. ;)
There's appreciation of a particular facet, and then there's going overboard and fetishizing the facet.
Quote from: Noclue;700723I've never been called an aphasic hobbit before.
Do you like Luke games because you can't get D&D to do what you want?
Quote from: VectorSigma;700766And voila, dubstep. ;)
Which then helped give birth to brostep and lots of awesome house/step fusions. Early dubstep is pretty out there (I'm not even sure the best designer drugs could salvage it for me), but it helped spur some pretty interesting (and popular) things in EDM since.
Likewise, yeah, not all intellectualism (esp. in stuff like gaming, of all pursuits) leads to new or interesting things (granted, there is a massive bias against it in favor of "practical" wisdom here in the States), but sometimes other people can take the weird or fringe stuff and turn it on its head or create something that's more interesting or palatable to larger groups of people, pulling the diamonds out of the rough.
If I had to choose between a world with hipsters or no, people who think too hard or people who settle, I'll choose the former in both cases. I'll always take more ideas, or re-examinations of old ones, even if it means wading through more mediocre stuff.
Edwards' crew are the equivalent of prog rockers--they develop an idea of where things are, develop a theory of what they need to break out of that and then make things with ideas according to those ideas. Then are embarassed about half the time that they don't work.
That's not the only way to experiment. The other way is to just try to make something that works for you, realize it doesn't exist yet, and then do whatever's necessary to make it exist, whether those moves you need are new or old or whatever.
Right -- the second way of thinking is more practical -- it's more focused on solving a problem than toying with abstract ideas for the sake of toying or discussing. That's why I'm calling them intellectuals, since they're messing with lots of abstract (and potentially useless) ideas. Maybe not what some would consider "good" intellectuals, but again, this is RPGs.
I think the problem is a problem you run into a lot with pseudo-intellectuals -- fundamentalism. They started with the idea that things were broken rather than actually being concerned with an honest model of how RPGs work. Cue myopia and a rejection of other modes of thinking about games. Truth-seeking turns into "truth"-worshipping in order to support preconceptions. I don't think it was all for naught, and I find some of the discussions interesting, but event V. Baker seems to have moved on from the Forge, so *shrug*.
That said, Luke seems a little more apart from the SG and Forge crowds, so I'm not sure where he stands on all of that. But he certainly thinks about games a lot, has different ideas about games, and some of them will probably come off silly or eccentric to folks here and elsewhere on the web. Here especially because this place harbors a little more of a reactionary fundamentalism.
I'd honestly like to see an AP-type review of Torchbearer, but considering I own it, I may as well just run it myself and see if it's actually fun, offbeat approach to "old-school" elements or no.
Zak, I know you guys played Burning Wheel a little while back -- did the system rub you the wrong way and that's why you have your doubts about this one, or is your opinion here just based on the Torchbearer text apart from that experience?
Quote from: Peregrin;700827I think the problem is a problem you run into a lot with pseudo-intellectuals -- fundamentalism. They started with the idea that things were broken rather than actually being concerned with an honest model of how RPGs work.
Yyyyyup.
QuoteThat said, Luke seems a little more apart from the SG and Forge crowds, so I'm not sure where he stands on all of that. But he certainly thinks about games a lot, has different ideas about games, and some of them will probably come off silly or eccentric to folks here and elsewhere on the web.
Let's be clearly: someone who writes (as Luke has) that d20s produce results which are "no fun for anybody" is an
insane person. Not an eccentric. Not an "outsider" not even a Forgie. Just a plain, straight-up, not-in-touch with reality lunatic who should never be listened to. There's not room for a difference of opinion there. You can't simultaneously believe that and be a rational person.
QuoteZak, I know you guys played Burning Wheel a little while back -- did the system rub you the wrong way and that's why you have your doubts about this one, or is your opinion here just based on the Torchbearer text apart from that experience?
Read 'em both, played 'em both.
They are both
excellent systems for running comedy games--a million times better than Toon.
Quote from: Zak S;701129Let's be clearly: someone who writes (as Luke has) that d20s produce results which are "no fun for anybody" is an insane person. Not an eccentric. Not an "outsider" not even a Forgie. Just a plain, straight-up, not-in-touch with reality lunatic who should never be listened to. There's not room for a difference of opinion there. You can't simultaneously believe that and be a rational person.
This was said in seriousness? I have a really hard time believing anyone could say that with a straight face, even if they were living part-time in Oz, and Luke is renowned for being uber sarcastic online.
QuoteRead 'em both, played 'em both.
They are both excellent systems for running comedy games--a million times better than Toon.
I see. Just wondering, since I only ran BW for 3-4 sessions, but haven't played any of BWHQ's other games. We found advancement tracking a little clunky but other than that it seemed OK. I was actually kind of surprised at how much our group liked Duel of Wits, despite the fact that one of the players was our resident "I don't need no stinking social skills I'm going to roleplay the shit out of this" ham.
Quote from: Peregrin;701229This was said in seriousness? I have a really hard time believing anyone could say that with a straight face, even if they were living part-time in Oz, and Luke is renowned for being uber sarcastic online.
This is the beginning of the dice section in BW.
Quote"
Dice used in Burning Wheel are standard six-sided dice. No other funny
dice are used. I know dodecahedrons are fun to roll, but they create ridiculous odds curves and do all sorts of wacky things to the game (that are no fun for anyone in the end). So we just use six-sided dice.
"
That is just one example of random comments Luke makes showing him being completely out of touch with life outside the Craneverse.
QuoteI see. Just wondering, since I only ran BW for 3-4 sessions, but haven't played any of BWHQ's other games. We found advancement tracking a little clunky but other than that it seemed OK. I was actually kind of surprised at how much our group liked Duel of Wits, despite the fact that one of the players was our resident "I don't need no stinking social skills I'm going to roleplay the shit out of this" ham.
BW reminded me of an article written in Artspeak ( "It should be added that the subaqueous qualities of the facture makes resonant the inherent overspecificity. " ) .
The actually ideas may be good or bad, but the most obvious characteristic is a superstitious refusal to avoid doing anything in a simple, clear, direct way, not just in the language but in the actual rules.
Again, this is from the
actual example of play in the Torchbearer book:
Quote"
Dro: Jared, what about you? Are you helping?
Jared: I don’t know what to do. I lost my sling.
Dro: You can still help. You just have to tell me what you do. Nothing? Okay. Gerald isn’t helping on this one.
Joss grabs 4D for Karolina’s Fighter skill, +1D from her Heart of Battle trait, +1D from the Maneuver Jared led on the last action, +3D from the help offered by Megan, Thor and Luke, and +1D from Merrill’s I Am Wise. She rolls 10D in total for 6 successes, but subtracts -1s since she’s exhausted. Attacks are independent of other Attacks, thus Dro’s kobolds lose 5 points of disposition.
Dro grabs 2D for his lead kobold’s Nature, +6D from the help of the other kobolds and -1D from the results of the Maneuver on the last action. He rolls 7D for a rather improbable 6 successes. Since Attack against Attack is independent, the players’ team loses 6 points of disposition. They’re down to 1 point! Karolina has leather armor, so Joss rolls a die to see whether it deflected some of the damage. It comes up a 5, so it blunts the Attack by one success! That means the players’ team is down to 2 points, not 1.
Since Joss led the action, she discards her hit point stone first. They still need to discard five more stones. Thor was slated to have the next action, but Merrill tugs Thor’s sleeve.
"
That isn't a
parody of the combat system, that's part of
an actual attempt to explain the combat system used as an example in the book.
"Hit point stone."
Quote from: Zak S;701252That isn't a parody of the combat system, that's part of an actual attempt to explain the combat system used as an example in the book.
I ah... hmm...
Yup, shit yourself in public crazy.
This really is another example of the "baffle them with bullshit" credo which seems to pervade the "new wave" as represented by Crane et al. The only wonder, and it is a wonder, is how they managed to muster up enough support to a) win awards and b) raise sufficient money to put ink to paper.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
While Crane's system is cumbersome, let's not kid ourselves about the complexity. Imagine, if you will, a session of D&D.
QuoteJoss rolls 1d20, +4 from her 18 Strength, +1 from her magic sword, +2 from flanking, +1 from the cleric's bless spell, +1 for Weapon Focus, and -2 for fighting with her off-hand. She rolls 17 total, a hit. Now she rolls damage: 1d8 for a longsword, +4 from her Strength, +1 from her magic sword, +2 for Weapon Specialization, +1d6 for sneak attack. She rolls a total of 14 damage total, though the monster only takes 9 because has damage reduction 5/--.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;701281While Crane's system is cumbersome, let's not kid ourselves about the complexity. Imagine, if you will, a session of D&D.
Not a bad point but this:
Quote"
Dice used in Burning Wheel are standard six-sided dice. No other funny
dice are used. I know dodecahedrons are fun to roll, but they create ridiculous odds curves and do all sorts of wacky things to the game (that are no fun for anyone in the end). So we just use six-sided dice.
"
This is a man who deeply, profoundly doesn't understand what he's doing. I'm not sure if it indicates insanity, but it certainly puts a floodlight on the ignorance.
If you're using a d6 your probabilities are sliced up into 16 and two thirds of a percent pieces. So presumably you build your stats around that, 1 being poor and six being great, or however you do it. The only difference between using a d6 and a d20 is that the d20 has greater granularity assuming you use a similar method - five percent slices, minimum stat 1, maximum stat 20, or however you do it. The randomiser is not an issue for similar methods.
Mostly though what he's saying is that any game which uses a d20 isn't fun for anyone. Which in fact surpasses ronnie's "brain damage" comment in terms of abusive stupid.
How, HOW did this clown ever gain any traction?
Quote from: The Traveller;701283How, HOW did this clown ever gain any traction?
Luck, placement and hard work.
Basically, he produced the first genuinely comprehensive Forge-game-for-kids-scared-of-D&D and hung out with that crowd and then--and this is why he sold waaaaay more copies than anybody else in that cohort--he hit the convention circuit hard for years personally explaining his game to every hippie he could find.
He also paid attention to how his books looked and got original illustrations that are pretty good--especially by Forge standards.
Lemme be clear: D&D isn't exactly the simplest game in the world, but Crane games seem doubly complicated because the opaque procedures are an elaborate attempt to avoid phantom game problems only Luke Crane can detect.
There are lots of good reasons to use d6s as a mechanic. But d20s being "no fun for anybody" isn't one of them.
There are lots of reasons to use elaborate combat procedures. Desperately trying to avoid triggering anyone by reminding them of D&D isn't one of them.
Quote from: Zak S;701252This is the beginning of the dice section in BW.
That is just one example of random comments Luke makes showing him being completely out of touch with life outside the Craneverse.
I guess I glossed over it since I'm bad with probabilities and I assumed he was saying "for my game."
That combat example was ridiculous.
Quote from: Peregrin;700820If I had to choose between a world with hipsters or no, people who think too hard or people who settle, I'll choose the former in both cases. I'll always take more ideas, or re-examinations of old ones, even if it means wading through more mediocre stuff.
I perhaps was not clear enough in distinguishing between experimentation and masturbation.
Quote from: Zak S;700801Do you like Luke games because you can't get D&D to do what you want?
Nope. I like his games. I also spent lots of time getting D&D to do what I wanted. It's doable.
Wasn't sure if liking his games was enough to earn the title.
Quote from: Noclue;701341Nope. I like his games. I also spent lots of time getting D&D to do what I wanted. It's doable.
Wasn't sure if liking his games was enough to earn the title.
Not at all. There are many good reasons to like his (or nearly any) game.
When I say "aphasics" I am referring
specifically to the people who like it out of frustration with D&D and, in particular, to the vocal contingent who seem to believe their own personal inability to make D&D do what they want it to is a
universal condition of all would-be gamers caused by the game's design rather than simply a personal thing.
Quote from: The Traveller;701283Mostly though what he's saying is that any game which uses a d20 isn't fun for anyone.
Mostly he's just tweaking your nose. Can't you recognize when someone's having one on? Besides, isn't that quote from Burning Wheel Classic? He removed most of that brand of sarcasm by BW Revised in 2004.
Quote from: Zak S;701345Not at all. There are many good reasons to like his (or nearly any) game.
When I say "aphasics" I am referring specifically to the people who like it out of frustration with D&D and, in particular, to the vocal contingent who seem to believe their own personal inability to make D&D do what they want it to is a universal condition of all would-be gamers caused by the game's design rather than simply a personal thing.
Also, the subculture around D&D has so much goddamned baggage and people (including people who don't know forums like this exist or what the Forge or OSR are) telling eachother they're doing it wrong.
A coworker of mine (who thinks 4e makes it harder to role-play because that's what the LGS owner told him) started a Pathfinder game recently, and when I mentioned I ran a game of Moldvay Red Box for some friends, his reply is "Yeah, but there really wasn't any role-playing with those games back then."
Like, what are you supposed to do with that? I kindly explained that that wasn't (and isn't) the case with old-school D&D, but there are a lot of people I've met who aren't involved in theory or the internet debates but who wholeheartedly believe their edition of choice or techniques for play are the right and proper way to play D&D.
Quote from: Noclue;701348Mostly he's just tweaking your nose. Can't you recognize when someone's having one on? Besides, isn't that quote from Burning Wheel Classic? He removed most of that brand of sarcasm by BW Revised in 2004.
If you're gonna tweak someone's nose,
be funnier. And removing evidence of stupidity
doesn't make you less stupid.And he's said
so many obviously and earnestly insane things...
Quote"I have no clue why my friends stuck with my through the bad years. We had plenty of screaming matches, quittings and walkouts. I imagine that they'd give the reasons that you proposed and that they'd also say that in between the bouts of bad, there was a whole lot of good. Which there was.
A main goal in the rules design was to smooth over those rough patches so we got more good stuff in a shorter time. It worked."
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?328694-Burning-Wheel-Anti-GM-Bias&p=7352528#post7352528
(Screaming matches? Walk-outs? WTF? This person should be in therapy, not designing games.)
Quote"All of the games talk about fun and fairness, enjoyment and entertainment, but then they break that cycle by granting one member of the group power over all of the other members of the group. It's classic power dynamics. Once you have roles of power and powerless, even the most reasonable and compassionate people slide into abuse.
Please ignore those facts!"
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?328694-Burning-Wheel-Anti-GM-Bias&p=7360617#post7360617
And there's the time he accused J Eric Holmes of being an accessory to a felony...
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/360306
... that I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: Zak S;701361And there's the time he accused J Eric Holmes of being an accessory to a felony...
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/360306
... that I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, it's hard to know from just that one article whether it was as skeevy in person as it comes across in print.
Quote from: Zak S;701361(Screaming matches? Walk-outs? WTF? This person should be in therapy, not designing games.)
When BW came out, I did a whole lot of reading on the BW forums and what became pretty obvious is that Crane's adventuring group was very "dysfunctional" in that there is constant competition between the players, the airing out of personal grievances through characters, all the stuff that comes with playing with RL friends that are more like family in that there's a love/hate relationship (they always know how to push each other's buttons because they are the ones that installed them).
If you read the early BW, you'll see that the structure, rules and limitations put into place are there to avoid and mitigate this conflict. Crane wants to limit the power of a GM because he doesn't trust himself to not let all that personal shit get in the way, and he admits this in the rules text. Agendas coincide = Forge Favorite.
The rest of us just realize that some friends we don't game with.
Oh, I saw my fair share of snit fits back in the day too. We were teenagers after all. Screaming fits? A few. Walk outs? Some.
Sure, BW puts a few constraints on the GM. They're still firmly in power. They're the source of all conflict, the final rules arbiter. The decide if you can roll, what you can roll, how hard it's going to be and how hard you're fucked if you fail. The BW GM has massive amounts of power.
QuoteOnce you have roles of power and powerless, even the most reasonable and compassionate people slide into abuse.
lol
Stanford Prison comes to D&D.
Quote from: Noclue;701674Oh, I saw my fair share of snit fits back in the day too. We were teenagers after all. Screaming fits? A few. Walk outs? Some.
Sure, BW puts a few constraints on the GM. They're still firmly in power. They're the source of all conflict, the final rules arbiter. The decide if you can roll, what you can roll, how hard it's going to be and how hard you're fucked if you fail. The BW GM has massive amounts of power.
I don't care if the DM has power or not. What I'm pointing out is all the stuff I quoted Crane is saying is stuff
only crazy people would say.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;701717lol
Stanford Prison comes to D&D.
I love that little spot of pseudo-intellectual drivel.
Quote from: Zak S;701722I don't care if the DM has power or not. What I'm pointing out is all the stuff I quoted Crane is saying is stuff only crazy people would say.
People can be wrong without being crazy. Saying something like "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" isn't by definition crazy, even if you think it's misapplied to RPGs.
I think Luke jumped to conclusions without context with regard to the article you posted. I jumped to the same conclusions initially myself, assuming the female player was resisting and the males were pressuring. It's pretty obvious there's an implied OOC communication going on, but without her side of things, we really can't tell what her POV is. I don't think I would have written it up that way though. It does lend itself to certain interpretations.
Quote from: Noclue;701737People can be wrong without being crazy.
Let's take a look at Luke's Sanity Score:
Saying "D20s are no fun for anyone": either crazy or (your theory) obscurely trolling for no earthly reason and to no comic effect. Which is crazy.
Saying his game was characterized by fights and walkouts and screaming matches (this anecdote was, unlike yours, not qualified by Luke saying 'when I was 13'): Crazy.
Saying
when confronted with all the evidence available anyone with Google has to the contrary that "absolute DM power corrupts": Crazy, or, at the very least so willfully ignorant or apathetic to the existence of other humans it's staggering he manages to get the toothpaste into his face in the morning.
Publicly accusing J Eric Holmes of being an accessory to a felony without even bothering to, like, be sure or to raise it as maybe a
possibility rather than a certainty: Crazy.
Every single
other thing he says in that Holmes thread about the rest of the game being "everything wrong with gaming": Crazy.
And this is leaving out other random bits of nutjobbery in the BW rulebook like assuming the reason GMs make players check skills more than once in complex situations is because the GM wants to see the players fail or the barely-coherent "don't use these rules" section which seems to be picking some imaginary fight with some ghost only Luke can see: Crazy.
And, even if not crazy, wrong so often in so many contexts while staring headlong into the headlights of tremendous evidence to the contrary that, yeah, clearly dumber than a brick.
Is someone saying reptiles don't exist while being swallowed by a python crazy or just spectacularly stupid? I don't care.
Quote from: Zak S;701747Is someone saying reptiles don't exist while being swallowed by a python crazy or just spectacularly stupid? I don't care.
What do you mean by existence? Have you considered the possibility of multiple meanings of that word, one of which proves you're wrong?
Also, how in the fuck do you read that story games crap? I couldn't get past the second page bitching about Holmes...
Quote from: Zak S;701747And this is leaving out other random bits of nutjobbery in the BW rulebook like assuming the reason GMs make players check skills more than once in complex situations is because the GM wants to see the players fail or the barely-coherent "don't use these rules" section which seems to be picking some imaginary fight with some ghost only Luke can see: Crazy.
Did you pirate Classic or something? Even Edwards denounced that essay as horrible and it hasn't existed in the books since...probably before I was in college (so like, earlier than 05).
And actually I kind of like LIR if you ignore the implied reasoning for it -- maybe would be better in the form of advice like "GM, don't dawdle and ask for zillions of rolls for the same stuff, keep shit moving forward", but, mreh.
Let it Ride is a really solid principle of GMing. Just because some of this stuff is motivated by Luke's apparent attitude to GMs doesn't mean that it can't be useful to those of us who don't have the same issue.
Quote from: Zak S;701361And there's the time he accused J Eric Holmes of being an accessory to a felony...
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/360306
... that I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: Zak S;701747Publicly accusing J Eric Holmes of being an accessory to a felony without even bothering to, like, be sure or to raise it as maybe a possibility rather than a certainty: Crazy.
I don't know about most of your other claims. However, I argued on
your side on that thread last year - and this particular accusation is nonsense. Luke referred to handling of the
in-game seduction as date rape - which is not the same thing as claiming that real-life date rape occurred.
Quote from: Zak S;701747And this is leaving out other random bits of nutjobbery in the BW rulebook like assuming the reason GMs make players check skills more than once in complex situations is because the GM wants to see the players fail or the barely-coherent "don't use these rules" section which seems to be picking some imaginary fight with some ghost only Luke can see: Crazy.
This is another example I know, since I played a BW campaign for a year. The rules for "Let It Ride" are in no sense crazy.
Quote from: jhkim;701817and this particular accusation is nonsense.
Please do not lie about me on the internet, JHkim
Sexual harassment is, in many places, a felony. And Luke accused Holmes of abetting it.
QuoteThe rules for "Let It Ride" are in no sense crazy.
Please do not lie
twice about me on the internet, JHKim.
I didn't say "let it ride" was crazy, I said "assuming the reason GMs make players check skills more than once in complex situations is because the GM wants to see the players fail..is crazy"
Quote from: Zak S;701818Please do not lie about me on the internet, JHkim
Sexual harassment is, in many places, a felony. And Luke accused Holmes of abetting it.
ONLY if it gets physical or verbally, explicitly threatens physical harm.
Quote from: Arduin;701820ONLY if it gets physical or verbally, explicitly threatens physical harm.
Not an expert on the law or the situation, but Luke Wheel did accuse J Eric Holmes of helping someone sexual harass a fellow player.
That happened.
Quote from: Zak S;701822Not an expert on the law or the situation, but Luke Wheel did accuse J Eric Holmes of helping someone sexual harass a fellow player.
That happened.
What EXACTLY happened? "sexual harassment" as a term is extremely subjective. Some people consider a look that appears leering to be sexual harassment.
Quote from: Arduin;701828What EXACTLY happened? "sexual harassment" as a term is extremely subjective. Some people consider a look that appears leering to be sexual harassment.
The link is posted. Just read back.
Quote from: Zak S;701829The link is posted. Just read back.
Yeah. It seems like some serious Law of Fives happening in that thread.
Quote from: Zak S;701822Not an expert on the law or the situation, but Luke Wheel did accuse J Eric Holmes of helping someone sexual harass a fellow player.
That happened.
He never used the words "sexually harrass". He did say that they "bullied" the female player - who said that her character was a virgin - into agreeing that her character might have had sex. I disagreed that his reading was necessarily correct, but it's not insane and it's not descriptive of a felony.
The quote in question was from Holmes' 1980 article,
"Confessions of a Dungeon Master" (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14957979/ConfessionsOfADungeonMaster1980.pdf):
Quote"My Naga is a virgin, of course," said one player.
"Now wait a minute," said one of the males, "remember my magic-user has been trying to seduce her for the past three games. I think there's a good chance he may have done it."
There was a minute pause. Everyone knew that the same tension existed between the young couple at the table that now made itself felt between the two imaginary personages in the magical garden.
"Do you think that's possible, Cicely?" I asked.
"I think she'd refuse."
"What do you think the chances are that she got talked into it?" I asked.
"Fifty percent," said the young suitor.
"Twenty-five," said Cicely.
...
"Twenty-five percent it is," I said, exercising my prejudice in favor of females. "Roll the dice."
Were the player and the DM bullying Cicely into stating a chance when she said she would refuse? I didn't think it was necessarily the case based on what was written. However, just because Luke felt there was bullying here doesn't mean "OMG HE'S INSANE!! He's saying that Holmes is a felon!!"
QuoteDice used in Burning Wheel are standard six-sided dice. No other funny
dice are used. I know dodecahedrons are fun to roll, but they create ridiculous odds curves and do all sorts of wacky things to the game (that are no fun for anyone in the end). So we just use six-sided dice.
This alone shows just how blazingly off the deep end this guy is in one sentence. Let alone the rest of the wacky in his game.
A d12 produces a flat number range 1-12.
2 or more d6 added together create the "ridiculous odds curves" with the bell curve.
I rate Torchbearer way up there with the board game crated by the gal who talks about the plasma beings and wonders what would happen if oxygen decided it didnt like people... At least shes entertaining.
Crane isnt.
So Crane. Add some plasma beings and stories about Iron pretending to be call girls...
From Molly's blog section...
QuoteRemember that "lighter than water" lava that started bubbling up about a year ago?
That's evidence that iron inside the planet has been "attempting to play the role of a stellar level being".
I'll let you take a guess at which stellar level being the element of iron has been dying to pretend to be?
*
Anyways, I keep seeing more than half of the planet begging for things to change here... disposable soldiers, pets, governments, corporations, fathers, cheap labor, children, young women that want to take themselves seriously...
And iron keeps showing up pretending to be party girls that refuse to change anything inside the electrmagnetic system of this planet because they "like it too much right now".
Iron, you may think you have an escape route off the planet secured...
If no one wants to be here... do you really think this planet has a future deeper inside the Galaxy in the warmer, more important, and faster places?
*
Iron just screamed "I'm not truth" at me.
I know you have wrapped yourself up in lies for a long time, iron.
Quote from: jhkim;701862He never used the words "sexually harrass". He did say that they "bullied" the female player -
1. He said "bullied her into accepting sexual advances" The point to quibble over whether that's technically "accusing him of sexual harassment" or not, it's still a completely fucked up insane thing to do in light of zero hard evidence. You don't
even say a person did something as messed up as "bullied someone into accepting sexual advances" on such slim evidence. It's beyond fucked up to do that to another human being.
2. What about the other thing you lied about up there, JHKim?
QuoteI didn't say "let it ride" was crazy, I said "assuming the reason GMs make players check skills more than once in complex situations is because the GM wants to see the players fail..is crazy"
Are you just going to pretend that didn't happen or admit it?
Crane did have some good ideas in BW, no question. The character creation thing is pretty fun/cool, I like his take on demihumans too - especially orcs and elves - and Let It Ride is a rule I find 100% to my liking after having endured way too many "oh noes, you must actually make 15 climbing rolls before actually climbing the tower..." or "oh noes, to see if you can outrun the monster that will otherwise eat your PC you must make 10 running rolls..." and that's not getting into stealth skills. So I support Let It Ride.
Pity the BW game system is so damn poorly written. It's bloody obtuse, seemingly on purpose. Also not very good. Thus the rest is kinda moot.
Oh and what Omega said. Crazy or not, Crane isn't entertaining.
QuoteA d12 produces a flat number range 1-12.
2 or more d6 added together create the "ridiculous odds curves" with the bell curve.
Burning Wheel uses dice pools that are more reliable than a flat d20 roll.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;701917Burning Wheel uses dice pools that are more reliable than a flat d20 roll.
Do you understand how statistics work..?
Quote from: Brad;701922Do you understand how statistics work..?
Maybe he's referring to how having a single D20 means that if it breaks/cracks you're up a creek? :jaw-dropping: Vs. having lots of other dice...
Quote from: Zak S;7018761. He said "bullied her into accepting sexual advances" The point to quibble over whether that's technically "accusing him of sexual harassment" or not, it's still a completely fucked up insane thing to do in light of zero hard evidence. You don't even say a person did something as messed up as "bullied someone into accepting sexual advances" on such slim evidence. It's beyond fucked up to do that to another human being.
And the Naga having sex with the magic-user can accurately be described as a sexual advance. Do you continue to claim that he accused Holmes of a felony? What felony law do you think bullying breaks? If it is not a felony, then you are a liar - and furthermore accusing someone of false reporting, which may be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the district.
More to the point, you're being a sanctimonious, moralizing asshole - acting like you get to throw shit at people, and then demanding apologies from others for any slights against you or your point. Get the fuck over it.
Quote from: Zak S;7018762. What about the other thing you lied about up there, JHKim?
Are you just going to pretend that didn't happen or admit it?
I'm willing to admit that you're a prick, who accuses people of insanity on slim pretext. Does that count?
There is nothing anywhere in my copy of Burning Wheel that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the author is insane. I can't speak for stuff that I haven't read, but I doubt that there is sufficient pretext in any game book for such a medical diagnosis.
Quote from: Zak S;701829The link is posted. Just read back.
I read it. There is NOTHING in it that is a crime (anywhere in the U.S. anyway). So, what is all the noise about?
Quote from: Brad;701922Do you understand how statistics work..?
This.
Quote from: jhkim;701940There is nothing anywhere in my copy of Burning Wheel that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the author is insane.
I've skimmed over some Crane videos on youtube there to see does his actual persona match his abrasive and poorly informed written commentary and to be honest, it doesn't. It's like two different people, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. So and this is just my guess, so he's managed to turn the greater internet fuckwad theory sans anonymity into not just a game design process but a hallmark of his "rock star developer" persona.
A man could be forgiven for lending credence to the possibility that such an individual mightn't be plugged into the right voltage. Not neccessarily clinically insane but certainly someone you wouldn't want round for dinner and pudding.
Quote from: jhkim;701940I can't speak for stuff that I haven't read, but I doubt that there is sufficient pretext in any game book for such a medical diagnosis.
Someone should have mentioned that to ronnie and the forgers, eh.
Wait, what? Rolling multiple times for extended tasks is GM abuse now? This sounds like another one of those things more easily solved by not playing with assholes.
Quote from: jhkim;701940And the Naga having sex with the magic-user can accurately be described as a sexual advance.
Um, dude, Luke accused the PLAYERS of doing that, not made up snake people. And "bullying" the player into accepting it.
" I read two men bullying a young woman to accept sexual advances."
-Luke Crane
QuoteDo you continue to claim that he accused Holmes of a felony?
Are you reading any of these posts you're responding to or just typing words at random?
QuoteMore to the point, you're being a sanctimonious, moralizing asshole - acting like you get to throw shit at people, and then demanding apologies from others for any slights against you or your point. Get the fuck over it.
In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. In any kind of classic debate, the burden of proof is on the person who starts the conversation by making a claim.
- This starts by Luke explicitly accusing Holmes of bullying a player into accepting sexual advances. Holmes didn't claim anything about Luke--he couldn't, he's dead.
I called Luke on that. And on several other things he said that you can
prove wrong without even leaving your chair. My guess why he did this is: he's insane. If you can think of a more plausible reason to be that douchey, you might be right, let's hear it: but remember, it has to encompass
all the crazy things I quoted him saying,
not just one or two that you cherry pick. Maybe you'll be right.
-After I call Luke out for his bullshit, the next thing that happens is: You lied about two things I said. Again: I didn't do anything to you.
So I called you on that.
It's not a symmetrical situation. In both cases you (and Luke) are the person who started something from nothing.
Also, in both cases, I can defend what I'm saying with direct quotes and will answer your accusations. When you got caught lying you just glossed over it and started calling me names.
So: don't throw shit on people if you don't want people to notice that you did it and ask you what you're on about.
QuoteThere is nothing anywhere in my copy of Burning Wheel that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the author is insane. I can't speak for stuff that I haven't read, but I doubt that there is sufficient pretext in any game book for such a medical diagnosis.
You're entitled to your opinion. I quoted and linked. If you think saying things in public that are easily and provably inaccurate is totally legit, that's a position you're taking that I don't agree with. Enjoy that.
Quote from: Arduin;701943I read it. There is NOTHING in it that is a crime (anywhere in the U.S. anyway). So, what is all the noise about?
Zak is just being a drama queen and jhkim is being purposefully dense. Also, Luke Crane seems like a complete douchebag; can we all agree on that?
Quote from: Brad;701995Zak is just being a drama queen and jhkim is being purposefully dense. Also, Luke Crane seems like a complete douchebag; can we all agree on that?
I'll buy that.
Brad, Arduin, please stop bullying that girl into accepting your sexual advances.
Quote from: Zak S;702016Brad, Arduin, please stop bullying that girl into accepting your sexual advances.
:hmm:
Quote from: Arduin;702017:hmm:
That's crazy, right?
Right.
So: point made.
Quote from: Zak S;702018So: point made.
What point was that?
Zak does have a point. This:
Quote from: Zak S;701991" I read two men bullying a young woman to accept sexual advances."
-Luke Crane
This right here is badly fucked up.
Quote from: Arduin;702019What point was that?
That's a crazy thing to say. Even on the internet where you can do crazy things and 2 pages later everybody forgets and is bitching at everybody about some whole new other thing they made up to bitch about.
So: Luke's crazy. But Luke was crazy more than 2 pages ago so everybody forgot.
Quote from: Zak S;702021That's a crazy thing to say. Even on the internet where you can do crazy things and 2 pages later everybody forgets and is bitching at everybody about some whole new other thing they made up to bitch about.
So: Luke's crazy. But Luke was crazy more than 2 pages ago so everybody forgot.
Sorry. Lots on my mind and little sleep. Forgive me.
I've played Torchbearer. It wasn't more fun than OD&D so I doubt I'd invest in it.
I'm a little interested to see how they handle Levels 6-10 - 'your Domain gets a condition after 5 turns' or whatever.
Quote from: jhkim;701862The quote in question was from Holmes' 1980 article, "Confessions of a Dungeon Master" (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14957979/ConfessionsOfADungeonMaster1980.pdf):
That is some really shitty GM'ing. The players could, and should, have been trusted to handle that situation on their own.
Quote from: Brad;701995Zak is just being a drama queen and jhkim is being purposefully dense. Also, Luke Crane seems like a complete douchebag; can we all agree on that?
Sure - I can agree to that.
On a genuine content thing - I note is that my copy of Burning Wheel is the revised edition from 2005. I've now looked at a pirate copy of the original edition, which does have more douchebaggy statements - though still nothing I'd call insane. For example, he calls constant demand for re-rolls a "common problem with GMs" - but he does not claim that any re-rolls are
always this problem, and he eliminated that language from the revised edition.
Quote from: Zak S;701991Um, dude, Luke accused the PLAYERS of doing that, not made up snake people. And "bullying" the player into accepting it.
" I read two men bullying a young woman to accept sexual advances."
-Luke Crane
From context, he is clearly
not saying that the two of them bullied Cicely into physically having sex with the player. He is claiming that the two men (DM and player) in real life bullied the young woman to accept her character having sex with his character, which he describes as a sexual advance.
I don't agree with him that such bullying necessarily took place. However, if there was a situation where a teenage girl was bullied into accepting in-character sex, I agree that it would be (a) wrong; and (b) reasonably described as a sexual advance even though it did not involve physical groping.
Whatever. It's still skeevy.
What everyone seems to forget and i've pointed out several times during the Ice Age that this thread has been going is that Mr. Crane isn't the author of this game anyway.
Jeeves, his monkey butler wrote it and Luke is just playing editor and PR man, 'cos Jeeves sucks at it.
Quote from: jhkim;702057From context, he is clearly not saying that the two of them bullied Cicely into physically having sex with the player.
Duh.
We're wayyy ahead of you here, JHKim.
Luke still said a
fucked up thing. And it was one of many.
We get it. You don't like Luke Crane. Can you shut the fuck up while we all make our own minds up now? For fucks sake.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;702133We get it. You don't like Luke Crane. Can you shut the fuck up while we all make our own minds up now? For fucks sake.
This. This times a bazillion.
I've played
Torchbearer a couple of times now. Following Brad's lead, my five word review: silkier than an otter's pocket.
I'll have a trawl back through this thread to answer the genuine questions before Zak endeavoured to derail it with his crazy internet stalker guy vendetta: I recall Benoist asking about the playability of certain maps.
Quote from: Zak SNot an expert on the law or the situation, but Luke Wheel did accuse J Eric Holmes of helping someone sexual harass a fellow player.
That happened.
Quote from: jhkimHe never used the words "sexually harrass". He did say that they "bullied" the female player - who said that her character was a virgin - into agreeing that her character might have had sex. I disagreed that his reading was necessarily correct, but it's not insane and it's not descriptive of a felony.
Quote from: Zak SHe said "bullied her into accepting sexual advances"
Quote from: jhkimAnd the Naga having sex with the magic-user can accurately be described as a sexual advance.
Quote from: Zak SUm, dude, Luke accused the PLAYERS of doing that, not made up snake people. And "bullying" the player into accepting it.
Quote from: jhkim;702057From context, he is clearly not saying that the two of them bullied Cicely into physically having sex with the player.
Quote from: Zak S;702125Duh.
We're wayyy ahead of you here, JHKim.
So...
Who's ahead of who here? :-)
Yeah, yeah. I'm dragging out a completely off-topic side point. Fine.
I've only lightly browsed Torchbearer, but I played campaigns of Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard. They've got a bunch of points that annoy me, but they were interesting.
So my questions about Torchbearer for those who've played it - especially if you could compare to BW or MG...
1) How is the tactical balance of the different maneuvers? I felt like one of the failings of Duel of Wits was that the simple strategy of just Point-Point-Point was too often optimal or close to optimal.
2) In my experience, Mouse Guard tends for a swashbuckling style of different fights, where you vary which character is in the lead so each gets their spotlight conflict. Dungeon fantasy as established by D&D tends to be more all-together teamwork, even though there is a caller tradition. Is Torchbearer trying to make dungeon fantasy more swashbuckly with spotlight conflicts, do you think?
3) Did it keep traits from Mouse Guard? If so, does it still have taking voluntary penalties (checks) to get extra out of a trait?
Quote from: jhkim;702150A lot of stuff
If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. I don't. And I don't especially feel there's a reason to have a conversation with you about whether there is or not.
Quote from: jhkim;702150In my experience, Mouse Guard tends for a swashbuckling style of different fights, where you vary which character is in the lead so each gets their spotlight conflict. Dungeon fantasy as established by D&D tends to be more all-together teamwork, even though there is a caller tradition. Is Torchbearer trying to make dungeon fantasy more swashbuckly with spotlight conflicts, do you think?
When I think of a group of players huddling together deciding who's going to be the Conflict Captain and then discussing with said Captain who are the three people actually rolling dice in the next pass of Conflict Resolution while the others, no matter what the characters are actually doing, simply add a die to help out the Spotlight character -- the term "Swashbuckly" doesn't leap to mind.
It's "Fight" from BW abstracted out to a group level instead of character level, with enforced switching of who rolls simply to avoid the 4e Skill Challenge problem of the same character being the deciding person most of the time.
The spotlight switching, if anything, seems more like MHR, where players are planning intiative and combos ahead of time, but more tactically based on the Action Rock-Paper-Scissors minigame of TB then on narratively planning a combat like MHR.
So too much OOC tactical and not enough OOC narrative to be "Swashbuckly". The spotlighting is for fairness and meta-planning (which is fitting with the focus of the game) more then anything genre-ish.
Quote from: LePete;702140I've played Torchbearer a couple of times now. Following Brad's lead, my five word review: silkier than an otter's pocket.
You have sex with otters? Or at least pick their pockets?
Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. /QUOTE]
From a fictional character in behalf of a fictional character. Jesus fuck, dude. Do you think that GMs who do a tpk should be seng to the hague as well?
This witch hunt of yours is looking pretty desperate.
Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me.
From a fictional character on behalf of a fictional character. Jesus fuck, dude. Do you think that GMs who do a TPK should be sent to the Hague as well?
This witch hunt of yours is looking pretty desperate.
The herd of frustrated neckbeards attacks. Oh yes, apropos of nothing I figured out why fatbeards - fat must be really hard to shave!
It's a glorious day for science.
Quote from: soviet;702176Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. /QUOTE]
From a fictional character on behalf of a fictional character. Jesus fuck, dude. Do you think that GMs who do a tpk should be sent to the hague as well?
This witch hunt of yours is looking pretty desperate.
(APOLOGIZING TO EVERYONE NOT AS CONFUSED AS SOVIET IN ADVANCE, JUST SCROLL PAST THIS, I HAVE A FACT-CHECK TO DO)
Wait wait wait--Soviet you seem to think I think someone in this situation "bullied someone into accepting sexual advances".
I don't.
Luke Crane does.
Here's the thread:
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/360306
Luke reads this, written by Holmes:
Quote"My Naga is a virgin, of course," said one player.
"Now wait a minute," said one of the males, "remember my magic-user has been trying to seduce her for the past three games. I think there's a good chance he may have done it."
There was a minute pause. Everyone knew that the same tension existed between the young couple at the table that now made itself felt between the two imaginary personages in the magical garden.
"Do you think that's possible, Cicely?" I asked.
"I think she'd refuse."
"What do you think the chances are that she got talked into it?" I asked.
"Fifty percent," said the young suitor.
"Twenty-five," said Cicely.
...
"Twenty-five percent it is," I said, exercising my prejudice in favor of females. "Roll the dice."
...and Luke said the GM and player "bullied" Cicely.
I think that's very silly. There's no evidence of "bullying". (It coulda been there, but it's not in evidence from anything in the written piece.)
The snarky pissed-offness at his overreaction to what happened at a game table you are expressing, Soviet?
That is EXACTLY what I thought. You're agreeing with me.
Luke reads an ambiguous AP report, goes "I read two guys" (player and GM) "bullying a young woman to accept sexual advances."
I said, exactly what you just said Soviet: "you are overreacting, Luke. This is a witch hunt."
Then I go, here, "Luke Crane accused Holmes of being an accessory to sexual harassment." Which is pretty clearly what he does in that thread. Luke's "2 guys" can only refer to the player and to Holmes, the GM.
Then JH Kim is trying to somehow say Lukedidn't accuse Holmes of sexual harassment, Luke just accused Holmes of "bullying a young woman into accepting sexual advancement". As if there's some big difference and this gets Luke off the hook.
Which, I think, either way is Luke making an outraged moral claim against Holmes which is unwarranted. (If you keep reading, you'll notice he rest of Story Games helpfully piles on to that outraged moral claim in outraged moralizing terms. Because as everyone on Story Games knows: any time someone's GMing anything that doesn't end in "World", they're probably bullying everyone nonstop.)
Again: if you doubt me, read the actual thread, the link's posted.
Quote from: Zak S;702151If you think there's a significant difference between "sexual harassment" and "bullying someone into accepting sexual advances" then that's ok with me. I don't. And I don't especially feel there's a reason to have a conversation with you about whether there is or not.
Doesn't matter as neither one happened.
Quote from: Arduin;702228...neither one happened.
I agree.
Do you
grasp that I agree?
An
accusation of sexual harassment and bullying was made (by Luke). And, as you just said, that accusation was bullshit. I am merely saying
the same thing as you.
Well, this has been one of the more ridiculous threads in recent memory, and i think it's outlived it's usefulness.
There's another thread down-page if you want to continue to talk about Torchbearer - or if you want to start another one talking about another aspect of the game not included in that other thread, as always feel free, but this one is being put out of its misery.