There's a whole generation of new #DnD gamers who missed all the long history of people studying and debating RPG theory, and the thinking behind the conclusion that regular #RPG are not a good medium for 'making story'. And a lot of them have been fed the same old bullshit as in the old days, being told that's what D&D is for.
So here's uncle Pundit giving all the newbies a history lesson explaining the long history of studies and how they proved RPGs are not for story-making, and what they really are for, and why it matters.
[video=youtube_share;owtZ2TThmWI]https://youtu.be/owtZ2TThmWI[/youtube]
I thought this was very good - clear, well explained, gives Edwards his due as very smart but missing something important.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1072897There's a whole generation of new #DnD gamers who missed all the long history of people studying and debating RPG theory, and the thinking behind the conclusion that regular #RPG are not a good medium for 'making story'. And a lot of them have been fed the same old bullshit as in the old days, being told that's what D&D is for.
So here's uncle Pundit giving all the newbies a history lesson explaining the long history of studies and how they proved RPGs are not for story-making, and what they really are for, and why it matters.
...
Found your comments on D&D4e interesting - especially in light of the poll in the: "What is your favorite version of Dungeons & Dragons?" Poll at the big purple.
4e was leading the poll until the thread was typically locked and closed for 'reasons'. I think that says a bit about some of the D&D fans over there.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1072897There's a whole generation of new #DnD gamers who missed all the long history of people studying and debating RPG theory, and the thinking behind the conclusion that regular #RPG are not a good medium for 'making story'. And a lot of them have been fed the same old bullshit as in the old days, being told that's what D&D is for.
So here's uncle Pundit giving all the newbies a history lesson explaining the long history of studies and how they proved RPGs are not for story-making, and what they really are for, and why it matters.
Because if you are making 'stories' with D&D, you're clearly doing it wrong and MUST be corrected. Or else.
BadWrongFun.
Stream of consciousness response:
May not be designed to "make a story" but ends up telling a story.
Connecting with characters requires immersion in something other than sense data.
Nit picking. Saying all stories are literary stories.
You're talking yourself into a box. Admitting to a world history, then using the term "emergent" with regards to stories.
Active or passive, so what? There's a story to be told (which you admitted).
"Story games" accomplish the same thing. Nothing is preplanned. Stories "emerge" in the same manner.
RPG means ROLE playing game. So, you play a role, a story emerges, ta dah!
"Story after" also occurs in other systems besides monolithic, OS D&D type systems.
So, now it's all about "effective" storytelling? Moving the goalposts.
"Back in the day" for me is the 70s, dude. Your 90s reference is recent history to some of us.
Once again bitching about the people involved, rather than the systems themselves.
You hate anything not OS D&D--boils down to that. Every. Single. Time.
So, Vampire is not a storytelling game? Why are we talking about it?
Now railing against railroading. Not the original topic.
I don't think White Wolf has a monopoly on "pretentious elitism" (look in the mirror, man).
Just because players have choice doesn't mean there isn't a story there. At its base is plot. The plot can make no sense, but players engaging in actions, pursuing goals, etc., IS plot. It may not be cohesive and uniform, in that there's no single arc.
Now you're saying "D&D doesn't allow for effective plots." Changing the topic.
If "effective" is designed as "interesting," than D&D can create a plot.
Author doesn't matter. In D&D, players are at least co-authoring, whether in "emergent" form, or as a reaction to GM "scripting."
This is a silly topic. What does it MATTER whether trad RPGs "can't do story?" Picking nits.
Ron Edwards -- so, this is basically a dredge of an old argument.
If D&D allows for "emergent" storytelling, then obviously, people DO like story games.
I doubt you really know what story games are all about, since you never mention playing any of the gamesyou bash.
You used the word "story" in the definition of what D&D is...again.
Ah...here's the prime bitch. Player agency. Being the godlike, "this is MY fucking campaign" GM you are, you don't like player agency outside one's own character. "HOW DARE YOU NARRATE IN AN NPC THAT I HAVE NOT BIRTHED!" This isn't about story games. This is about collaboration in the building phase. Well, it was for a second...now we're off to something else.
You're not the only one who didn't think much of 4E.
Now you're claiming credit for the success of 5E.
Delusions of grandeur (yet, somehow, a persecution complex).
Please get laid sometime this century...
Quote from: cranebump;1072936...You hate anything not OS D&D--boils down to that. Every. Single. Time.
Ah...here's the prime bitch. Player agency. Being the godlike, "this is MY fucking campaign" GM you are, you don't like player agency outside one's own character. "HOW DARE YOU NARRATE IN AN NPC THAT I HAVE NOT BIRTHED!" This isn't about story games. This is about collaboration in the building phase. Well, it was for a second...now we're off to something else...
You could probably just save these two lines to a text file and copy-paste them as a reply to all Pundit's videos, it will always be a valid critique of every opinion he's ever had.
Quote from: cranebump;1072936I am a whiny little pretentious bitch who can't even with RPGPundit's posts.
There fixed it for you.
Stream of truth coming up...
Seriously though you know RPGPundit politics, thoughts on gaming, and his mannerisms. You know he is only going to speak about his beliefs in his own forum site. My question is why are you even bothering to bitch about RPGPundit at all? You know he is too stubborn to change and given the nature of his site the people are not going to change either.
What a load of crap.
People use RPGs for various reasons from telling stories, to pretending to be action movie heroes, to tactical combats with minis, and a bazillion more reasons.
Stop trying to push your agenda to the hobbie, bro.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1072959There fixed it for you.
Stream of truth coming up...
Seriously though you know RPGPundit politics, thoughts on gaming, and his mannerisms. You know he is only going to speak about his beliefs in his own forum site. My question is why are you even bothering to bitch about RPGPundit at all? You know he is too stubborn to change and given the nature of his site the people are not going to change either.
I'm blind! I rolled my eyes so hard they fell out of my skull!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072974I'm blind! I rolled my eyes so hard they fell out of my skull!
It is a valid question and insult... Okay the insult wasn't really warranted so my apologies there cranebump.
I mean if you are so annoyed at a person it is pretty stupid to bitch about him in his own forum site where his fans are at. It is smarter to just leave and go to a forum site that is hosted by a person you actually like.
Greetings!
I like Pundit. I think his videos are cool. Sometimes they are funny, informative, and thoughtful. Always entertaining, too. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with Pundit on all of his perspectives. I'm still not sold on the whole It's a game! Not storytelling! thing. Yes, it's a game, and there's a larger story being told about how the characters live in and experience the world. Along the way, there are lots of smaller, personal stories. Every game session I have is a small story, within the larger story. I have no idea how it is going to conclude, or proceed, it is all different and crazy--but that doesn't mean that a story isn't also happening, unfolding, as we go along. *shrug* So I'm just not uite seeing the hate that Pundit has in this regard. D&D is not either or, but both and. Game and Storytelling.
Having said that, what's with all the hate and sneering towards Pundit? I don't understand that at all. You certainly are not required to agree with Pundit on everything, but if you are a person that hates Pundit, and has this sneering condescension towards Pundit, why would you be here, on his website? Why watch his videos at all? Then again, it seems that many here don't watch his videos, but they certainly have all kinds of jackass opinions about the videos--even though they haven't bothered to even watch them for fuck's sake.
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1073006Having said that, what's with all the hate and sneering towards Pundit? I don't understand that at all. You certainly are not required to agree with Pundit on everything, but if you are a person that hates Pundit, and has this sneering condescension towards Pundit, why would you be here, on his website? Why watch his videos at all? Then again, it seems that many here don't watch his videos, but they certainly have all kinds of jackass opinions about the videos--even though they haven't bothered to even watch them for fuck's sake.
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
For the majority, I'd say it's because their assholes who know they can get away with it here, and they know they'd be banned for such behavior elsewhere.
Generally, the more rabid a response, the more full of shit it is, too.
Quote from: kythri;1073011For the majority, I'd say it's because their assholes who know they can get away with it here, and they know they'd be banned for such behavior elsewhere.
Generally, the more rabid a response, the more full of shit it is, too.
Greetings!
So true, Kythri! LOLLOLOLOLOL! Full of shit indeed!
I actually watch and listen to every one of Pundit's videos. I respect the man. I respect him as a writer, game designer, game developer, and thinker. He's an educated man, with a lot of good insights to a whole range of things. All along, he doesn't strike me as being arrogant or pretentious at all. Fuck, I like smoking pipes too! I can just imagine a bunch of us gathered around together with Pundit, drinking fine coffee, smoking, discussing games and stuff. Can you imagine how fucking cool that would be? Pundit's a cool guy. It bothers me though, Kythri, that some members here are so rude, and sneering, you know? Go somewhere else then, jackass! :) LOL. You know? But you're right. They'd be banned in a flash anywhere else for stepping out of line in whatever way, huh? But here, they can just open their mouth, and turn the diarhea faucet on.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I would say Pundit's ideas should be given roughly the same amount of respect that he gives to story gamers, 4E fans, and other gamers he disagrees with.
I appreciate his free speech stance on this site, and he has some ideas that I agree with - but that doesn't mean that he is owed any more respect than what he gives.
I like Pundit's videos as well, which is why I subscribe to him on YouTube.
His most recent video was excellent and I say this as a fan of Vampire: The Masquerade.
Quote from: jhkim;1073022I would say Pundit's ideas should be given roughly the same amount of respect that he gives to story gamers, 4E fans, and other gamers he disagrees with.
I appreciate his free speech stance on this site, and he has some ideas that I agree with - but that doesn't mean that he is owed any more respect than what he gives.
This. Lots of users are here for the community talk, not for whatever Pundejo latest pastime is.
I come at the hobby from a different perspective than Pundit. And while I think this opinion of his is valid. I also disagree with it.
RPGs. Since their first incarnation. Have been trying to simulate the tropes and methodology of whatever fiction the individual game is based upon. And they have spawned an endless amount of novels and other forms of fiction. Based upon them.
To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.
What people here have referred here to as storygames are in fact simply another evolution along the path of the RPG. They chase the same goal. Simulating fiction in their own unique way.
However. There is a faction of the RPG community I believe that actively works against the continued evolution of the RPG. Those who do not want any kind of change or growth. Those who are afraid that the hobby will grow beyond them. I have in the past referred to this kind of gamer as a grognard.
For the hobby to continue to grow and evolve. The grognards need to be disregarded and left in the dust.
Quote from: jhkim;1073022I would say Pundit's ideas should be given roughly the same amount of respect that he gives to story gamers, 4E fans, and other gamers he disagrees with.
Frankly, the most annoying thing about Pundit's One-True-Way-ism is that, if you are a fan of 4E, it's actually more pleasant over at TBP where you can be banned for wrong-think, but can at least hold a reasonable discussion about the advantages of 4E's monster design or interesting mechanics for tactical set-piece battles without getting told you're doing it wrong because you don't roll your stats 3d6 in order and the players get to choose their own race which may not be right out of Tolkein.
Pundit keeps spewing about the evils of the SJWs and TBP and how this is a place that allows all points of view, but then practically seems to go out of his way to shit all over anyone who doesn't play exactly the way he says they should. He drives off people who could be allies on maybe 90% of things because they're not 100% in lockstep. In a lot of ways he's his own worst enemy and probably does more to hurt the cause than help it.
My opinion on this topic is that while I understand the point that playing a role-playing game is not the same thing as writing a story, the fact remains that the events you are playing through, particularly the dramatic turns of fortune that a series of good or bad rolls causes, lend themselves well to creating a story the GM and players will be inclined to recount.
While it's all in the heads of the participants, it's essentially the same dynamic that causes people to tell stories about their vacations to exotic locations and times they've attempted things they've never done before.
I mean, what IS a story if not an explanation of "what happened?"
What happened?
"We got together at the local tavern and decided to go explore the old ruins in the forest to see if there was anything valuable there. We ran into a band of goblins and negotiated for passage, then Eldrid nearly got his head taken off by a blade trap trying to get the crypt door open. We found a cool magic sword in there, but a bunch of skeletons animated when we picked it up and attacked us. It was a close call but Therik threw a bunch of flasks of burning oil on the ground and gave us time to reseal the crypt door."
Guess what? That's a story and the game created it.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035There is a faction of the RPG community I believe that actively works against the continued evolution of the RPG. Those who do not want any kind of change or growth. Those who are afraid that the hobby will grow beyond them. I have in the past referred to this kind of gamer as a grognard.
For the hobby to continue to grow and evolve. The grognards need to be disregarded and left in the dust.
I think it's fine for people to enjoy old games and old-school games. The problem is when they start trying to actively push other gamers against anything new.
To be fair, I think the same applies to a certain brand of new gamers who want to disparage and push against any old games.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035I come at the hobby from a different perspective than Pundit. And while I think this opinion of his is valid. I also disagree with it.
RPGs. Since their first incarnation. Have been trying to simulate the tropes and methodology of whatever fiction the individual game is based upon. And they have spawned an endless amount of novels and other forms of fiction. Based upon them.
To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.
What people here have referred here to as storygames are in fact simply another evolution along the path of the RPG. They chase the same goal. Simulating fiction in their own unique way.
However. There is a faction of the RPG community I believe that actively works against the continued evolution of the RPG. Those who do not want any kind of change or growth. Those who are afraid that the hobby will grow beyond them. I have in the past referred to this kind of gamer as a grognard.
For the hobby to continue to grow and evolve. The grognards need to be disregarded and left in the dust.
I don't agree with you most of the time, but this is not one of those times. 100%. The hobby has grown and evolved, deal with it, or be left behind.
As Pundit pointed out, 5e D&D shows a lot of old-school influence. It has moved away from 4e's excessive emphasis on combat and brought in lots and lots of new players.
And it is clearly an immersive you-are-there game, not an authorial make-a-story game. Yes you can tell stories in hindsight about what happened - Pundit says that in the video! There's a lot of straw-manning going on here.
Given that Pundit is credited in the 5e D&D PHB I think this whole "left behind in the dust of history" trope is a bit silly. I'd say it was Forgeist play that is being left behind.
BTW, I like 4e D&D, but there are plenty of valid criticisms, and it doesn't work well as a regular D&D game. It's very iconoclastic and can give experiences both immensely satisfying and terribly boring. I don't care if other people hate it any more than I care if they hate Gygax's prose in the 1e DMG, another favourite.
My initial issue with the video was that the title is misleading. I think I now understand Pundits point to be that DnD is not for telling stories, that is stories that are decided from the start. But when you are playing you are definitely making stories, as everybody who have ever played have experienced: most of us are very found of retelling our characters greatest moments.
But what I still don't understand is if Pundits argument is against railroading, or in a broader sense against adventures where there is things happening outside the influence of the players. Take the Enemy Within campaign from Warhammer as an example: The players definitely have an influence on what is happening in the world, but on a larger scale the world is proceeding along, with wars and conflicts, regardless of their actions. So a story is being told and experienced, and at the same time actions from the players will make up new stories. Is this a good or bad example of roleplaying, according to Pundits arguments in the video?
Quote from: S'mon;1073051Given that Pundit is credited in the 5e D&D PHB I think this whole "left behind in the dust of history" trope is a bit silly.
Can't see the reasoning here. The fact he participated in D&D5 doesn't change his (loaded, one-true-wayist, delusional) opinions.
QuoteI'd say it was Forgeist play that is being left behind.
Look again: Cortex, Gumshoe, PbtA, Year Zero, Blades in the Dark, etc. games are all influenced by Forge ideas directly or indirectly. And other games arguably reached their same goals spontaneously, like Hillfolk and Chuubo. Even the new Vampire 5 is consonant to Forge ideas in a way previous editions never were before.
Honestly, there isn't a single school being "left behind" these days. Wherever style you look at, there are KSs being released for it, active communities and actual plays hapenning. It's the golden age now.
Quote from: RoyR;1073059My initial issue with the video was that the title is misleading. I think I now understand Pundits point to be that DnD is not for telling stories, that is stories that are decided from the start. But when you are playing you are definitely making stories, as everybody who have ever played have experienced: most of us are very found of retelling our characters greatest moments.
But what I still don't understand is if Pundits argument is against railroading, or in a broader sense against adventures where there is things happening outside the influence of the players. Take the Enemy Within campaign from Warhammer as an example: The players definitely have an influence on what is happening in the world, but on a larger scale the world is proceeding along, with wars and conflicts, regardless of their actions. So a story is being told and experienced, and at the same time actions from the players will make up new stories. Is this a good or bad example of roleplaying, according to Pundits arguments in the video?
Pundejo was (and still is, it seems) butthurt for the success of Forge ideas, and so it campaigns to try and disqualify it as RPGs.
Silly, I know, but that's all that is to it.
Quote from: S'mon;1073051As Pundit pointed out, 5e D&D shows a lot of old-school influence. It has moved away from 4e's excessive emphasis on combat and brought in lots and lots of new players.
A bigger change with 5E, IMHO, is the move away from char op that characterized 3.x. I'd wager far more of the D&D player-base today cut their teeth with 3.x than 4E, and you can see from complaints on forums that it's 5E lack of tools for char op that most frustrate a lot of long-term players, rather that its move away from tactical grid combat. I doubt the new wave of players brought in by 5E cares much about either.
Quote from: Haffrung;1073072A bigger change with 5E, IMHO, is the move away from char op that characterized 3.x. I'd wager far more of the D&D player-base today cut their teeth with 3.x than 4E, and you can see from complaints on forums that it's 5E lack of tools for char op that most frustrate a lot of long-term players, rather that its move away from tactical grid combat. I doubt the new wave of players brought in by 5E cares much about either.
Given that 4E wasn't nearly as char-op friendly as 5E, and lost market share to Pathfinder, you may very well be right about the first. I think the second is more or less a given. :)
Quote from: SHARK;1073006Every game session I have is a small story, within the larger story. I have no idea how it is going to conclude, or proceed, it is all different and crazy--but that doesn't mean that a story isn't also happening, unfolding, as we go along.
This is presicely my point on the Title Subject!
Now on to the other issues ...
Quote from: SHARK;1073006Having said that, what's with all the hate and sneering towards Pundit? I don't understand that at all. You certainly are not required to agree with Pundit on everything, but if you are a person that hates Pundit, and has this sneering condescension towards Pundit, why would you be here, on his website?
To answer that, we have two different answers:
Quote from: kythri;1073011For the majority, I'd say it's because their assholes who know they can get away with it here, and they know they'd be banned for such behavior elsewhere.
Generally, the more rabid a response, the more full of shit it is, too.
Kythri, you are correct, but usually the people just want to voice their opinions and be frank about it.
Sadly enough, a very few thinks "being frank" means "insult others".
Like you perhaps just did. :cool:
Quote from: SHARK;1073016I actually watch and listen to every one of Pundit's videos. I respect the man. I respect him as a writer, game designer, game developer, and thinker. He's an educated man, with a lot of good insights to a whole range of things. All along, he doesn't strike me as being arrogant or pretentious at all. Fuck, I like smoking pipes too! I can just imagine a bunch of us gathered around together with Pundit, drinking fine coffee, smoking, discussing games and stuff. Can you imagine how fucking cool that would be? Pundit's a cool guy. It bothers me though, Kythri, that some members here are so rude, and sneering, you know? Go somewhere else then, jackass! :) LOL. You know? But you're right. They'd be banned in a flash anywhere else for stepping out of line in whatever way, huh? But here, they can just open their mouth, and turn the diarhea faucet on.
Well, i respect Pundit by now, but i can't always handle his videos, or his rants, but he seem like a cool guy in general despite that.
I have to admit, as i am typing this, i have not yet watched the video ... so why am i even typing this?
Because you are wondering why people like me are commenting while we haven't watched, and as such, you're addressing me, and i will answer:
Pundit, like everyone else, has flaws, but i like his ideals, and some of his ideas, but in this case, my response is because I DO NOT LIKE UNDULY SHITFLINGING OVER MY HEAD !
FROM EITHER SIDE !
Now to the other side of the explanation for "hating Pundit":
Quote from: jhkim;1073022I would say Pundit's ideas should be given roughly the same amount of respect that he gives to story gamers, 4E fans, and other gamers he disagrees with.
I appreciate his free speech stance on this site, and he has some ideas that I agree with - but that doesn't mean that he is owed any more respect than what he gives.
jhkim,
because of the free speech stance, i do say Pundit actually DO deserve a bit more respect than he seem to give storygamers, 4ed fans and so.
The reason?
Because of said free speech, THEY CAN RESPOND TO HIM ON HERE ... as long as they remember to not derail any of the topics more than they usually gets derailed anyway :D
Or, in other words: He do show them more respect in reality than his rants implies.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1073023I like Pundit's videos as well, which is why I subscribe to him on YouTube.
His most recent video was excellent and I say this as a fan of Vampire: The Masquerade.
I'm a fan of Old WoD and several iterations of the "Storytelling system" ... And Pundit has said before that he do count it as an rpg-system to my knowledge ... has something changed?
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035RPGs. Since their first incarnation. Have been trying to simulate the tropes and methodology of whatever fiction the individual game is based upon. And they have spawned an endless amount of novels and other forms of fiction. Based upon them.
I Agree.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.
It is different kinds of games, they are not comparable.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035What people here have referred here to as storygames are in fact simply another evolution along the path of the RPG. They chase the same goal. Simulating fiction in their own unique way.
No, I agree with pundit in that "Storygames" are different from rpgs, and the difference is mechanics rather than direct appearance. It is a development that may result in rpgs getting better routines, yes, but they in themselves are different, and perhaps even have to be.
But i do not think they will replace rpgs as such.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035However. There is a faction of the RPG community I believe that actively works against the continued evolution of the RPG. Those who do not want any kind of change or growth. Those who are afraid that the hobby will grow beyond them. I have in the past referred to this kind of gamer as a grognard.
For the hobby to continue to grow and evolve. The grognards need to be disregarded and left in the dust.
Congrats, You are just as ignorant as Pundit, but in the other direction, it seems.
Quote from: jhkim;1073037I think it's fine for people to enjoy old games and old-school games. The problem is when they start trying to actively push other gamers against anything new.
To be fair, I think the same applies to a certain brand of new gamers who want to disparage and push against any old games.
Amen to that, brother.
Tribute to the Pundit and all Grognards:
[video=youtube;Ylyqoxh-cXk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylyqoxh-cXk[/youtube]
It's the nature of time
That the old ways must give in
It's the nature of time
That the new ways comes in sin
When the new meets the old
It always end the ancient ways
And as history told
The old ways go out in a blaze
Encircled by a vulture
The end of ancient culture
The dawn of destiny draws near
As a new age begins
The way of the warrior comes to an end
As a new age begins
The ways of the old must apprehend
It's the nature of time
That the old ways must give in
It's the nature of time
That the new ways comes in sin
Quote from: Haffrung;1073072A bigger change with 5E, IMHO, is the move away from char op that characterized 3.x. I'd wager far more of the D&D player-base today cut their teeth with 3.x than 4E, and you can see from complaints on forums that it's 5E lack of tools for char op that most frustrate a lot of long-term players, rather that its move away from tactical grid combat. I doubt the new wave of players brought in by 5E cares much about either.
Yup, good point. There certainly is a lot of whining!
I don't hate Pundit I sometimes don't always agree with his opinions. Though his rants and onetruwayism on how to play rpgs is annoying and tedious. Granted it's what I signed up for it does not mean I have to like it all the time. As for the OP I don't see why one cannot make and create stories with rpgs. I'm sure somewhere, somehow, someone has already done either or both. ( Looks around him ) Still here and reality and the hobby is still intact.
Pundit's argument is that any story from an RPG is story-after. Events happen, and there might be a story to tell, but that wasn't the point of the game or the events. He doesn't deny this, or necessarily discount it, only stating the fact that the story that arises from gameplay is an after-effect, and not the goal/design of an RPG.
Storygames are story-first. That's a
major distinction, and one he makes in his video, if people would actually pay attention to what he says, instead of going off on a tangent about their preconceived opinions of Pundit's character are.
A game that gives the players narrative control is a storygame. An RPG gives the player control of their character, not control of the overall story. If people can't see the obvious difference between these, there's really no use engaging with them.
Quote from: Itachi;1073067Pundejo was (and still is, it seems) butthurt for the success of Forge ideas, and so it campaigns to try and disqualify it as RPGs.
Exactly what success would that be?
Quote from: Catelf;1073075This is presicely my point on the Title Subject!
Which means nothing until you get the full context.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075Now on to the other issues ...
To answer that, we have two different answers:
Kythri, you are correct, but usually the people just want to voice their opinions and be frank about it.
Sadly enough, a very few thinks "being frank" means "insult others".
There is a difference between being frank and insulting.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075Like you perhaps just did. :cool:
Well, i respect Pundit by now, but i can't always handle his videos, or his rants, but he seem like a cool guy in general despite that.
That sounds like your the problem and not RPGPundit.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075I have to admit, as i am typing this, i have not yet watched the video ... so why am i even typing this?
Good question. I for one would like to watch a video and get the full context before running my mouth.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075Because you are wondering why people like me are commenting while we haven't watched, and as such, you're addressing me, and i will answer:
Pundit, like everyone else, has flaws, but i like his ideals, and some of his ideas, but in this case, my response is because I DO NOT LIKE UNDULY SHITFLINGING OVER MY HEAD !
FROM EITHER SIDE !
But how do you know your going to get shitfling if you don't bother watching the video?
More importantly are you insulting RPGPundit? No. So are you really being addressed here? Not at all. In fact you have no skin in this conversation.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075Now to the other side of the explanation for "hating Pundit":
jhkim, because of the free speech stance, i do say Pundit actually DO deserve a bit more respect than he seem to give storygamers, 4ed fans and so.
The reason?
Because of said free speech, THEY CAN RESPOND TO HIM ON HERE ... as long as they remember to not derail any of the topics more than they usually gets derailed anyway :D
Or, in other words: He do show them more respect in reality than his rants implies.
This I can agree with. Actions are louder than words. The fact that RPGPundit made a site for free speech makes him are far kinder man than most other forum owners. Are they polite? Sure, but figuratively speaking they still have a gun to your head.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075I'm a fan of Old WoD and several iterations of the "Storytelling system" ... And Pundit has said before that he do count it as an rpg-system to my knowledge ... has something changed?
No. Not to my knowledge.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075No, I agree with pundit in that "Storygames" are different from rpgs, and the difference is mechanics rather than direct appearance. It is a development that may result in rpgs getting better routines, yes, but they in themselves are different, and perhaps even have to be.
But i do not think they will replace rpgs as such.
I agree.
A rpg will not use meta points in order to bribe the player to make his character fail just so the story can be more interesting.
Why?
Who here actually wants to fail? Seriously question. Who here actually wants to fail? Judging by the crickets I would say no one. Failure sucks and can come with consequences that make your life worst so naturally people avoid it.
Well guess what your player character doesn't want. You guessed it. Your player character doesn't want to fail. So when you take that meta point bribe the game no longer becomes a rpg, but a story game because you just broke immersion. You went out of your character's head and actively worked against the best interest of your character for a story that the group may like.
Quote from: Catelf;1073075Congrats, You are just as ignorant as Pundit, but in the other direction, it seems.
Actually worst. RPGPundit was doing categories. He never wanted to get rid of story games. This guy on the other hand wants to leave all the "grognards" to rot and die.
Replying only to a tangent here, because I haven't watched the video, don't want to watch the video, and find Pundit an annoying ally at the best of times, an enemy of Goodness and Truth at the worst of times :) ...
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083Well guess what your player character doesn't want. You guessed it. Your player character doesn't want to fail. So when you take that meta point bribe the game no longer becomes a rpg, but a story game because you just broke immersion. You went out of your character's head and actively worked against the best interest of your character for a story that the group may like.
.
This is begging the question in the technical sense by assuming that the definition of an RPG is strict immersion. That may or may not be true--it's precisely the point under debate.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083So when you take that meta point bribe the game no longer becomes a rpg, but a story game because you just broke immersion.
That seems to be a very narrow definition of RPGs. And one that I fail to see the usefulness of, as it is so far from the commonly used one.
Quote from: kythri;1073081That's a major distinction, and one he makes in his video, if people would actually pay attention to what he says, instead of going off on a tangent about their preconceived opinions of Pundit's character are.
The problem is that Pundit isn't always very clear or consistent when he presents his ideas, so it is not enough to pay attention. There is also a step of deciphering the message, a step that leads to confusion as can be seen in this thread.
Quote from: kythri;1073081Exactly what success would that be?
Games like the Amber-derived FATE, White Wolf's various outings, and all the other non-Old School D&D games that are currently on the market, which are still being sold, and worse, TALKED ABOUT!
I think it is about immersion though. Stories only came about once these rpg developers started to make novels in the pursuit of more money. Which by the way good for them for doing that as I am a capitalist, but I think people got the two mixed up.
Let us not forget rpgs were made to represent a team of specialists that do missions while the main armies do battles in war games. No one thinks war games are about making stories. Am I right about that?
Quote from: RoyR;1073093That seems to be a very narrow definition of RPGs. And one that I fail to see the usefulness of, as it is so far from the commonly used one.
It is actually very useful. Look there is no shame in being called a story game. Your just being put in a proper category.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073095Games like the Amber-derived FATE, White Wolf's various outings, and all the other non-Old School D&D games that are currently on the market, which are still being sold, and worse, TALKED ABOUT!
Again World of Darkness is a rpg. There is no meta points that shifts the narrative in World of Darkness. Now Chronicles of Darkness Second Edition might be due to how they treat the xp system.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073098Let us not forget rpgs were made to represent a team of specialists that do missions while the main armies do battles in war games. No one thinks war games are about making stories. Am I right about that?
That is where RPGs started, but it is not necessarily the same as what they have developed into today.
And war games are often a way to investigate a (historical) story, and see if a different outcome is possible, and how it could look.
I think that the constrained view of only either having "story first" or "story after" is too limited to capture the reality of RPG gameplay. There are often multiple stories playing out at the same time, from the ones where the players have agency to the ones where they are merely spectators or pawns. Some of these stories are written before, some during the game and some only become reality in the retelling of the characters adventures.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073039I don't agree with you most of the time, but this is not one of those times. 100%. The hobby has grown and evolved, deal with it, or be left behind.
I've been told I'm "be(ing) left behind" since 1989. The funny thing is, that doesn't bother me (and apparently I've not been left behind yet after 30 years) while those claiming we'll be separated cry so loudly about mean gatekeepers when we say "OK, get the fuck out then because we're not interested in that shit".
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073099It is actually very useful. Look there is no shame in being called a story game. Your just being put in a proper category.
You're saying that any lack of immersion makes a game a story game, though - which seems pretty broad.
Top Secret, say, has Fame points and Fortune points - which are meta-game resources that you can use to save yourself. I think that's one of the earliest explicitly metagame mechanics. Later developments in the early 1980s include James Bond 007 (with priority use of Hero points), Ars Magica (using Whimsy Cards), and Champions (point system restrictions).
Are these story games, in your mind?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073099It is actually very useful. Look there is no shame in being called a story game. Your just being put in a proper category.
Redefining existing words and concepts are seldom useful. If you would like to, for some reason, have subcategories of what is commonly called RPGs, it is better to make new titles for your categories. Because a redefined concept of "RPG" where not even Warhammer 1st ed. fits into it seems quite useless for public dicussions.
Quote from: S'mon;1073051Given that Pundit is credited in the 5e D&D PHB I think this whole "left behind in the dust of history" trope is a bit silly. I'd say it was Forgeist play that is being left behind.
I wouldn't call Pundit a grognard. In fact, I wouldn't put him in that catagory at all. His work on D&D 5th Edition speaks to that loud and clear.
I'm also not a fan of the Forge. I think that they did a lot of damage to civilized discourse in the hobby with their half-baked theories. Those theories have become so entrenched into any kind of conversation in the RPG community, that it overrides whatever point that someone who has never even encountered those theories before tries to make. They are that viral and destructive.
It is so bad. That if you use the term narrative in any context. You immediately get dragged kicking and screaming into a G/N/S theory debate. While your original point gets absolutely bulldozed out of existance.
It's happened to me an endless number of times on TBP and elsewhere. And frankly. I curse the existance of The Forge to this very day because of it.
"Story" as a word to talk about the broader family of what is sometimes referred to loosely as "RPGs"--is an almost useless term. It is useless unless the people having the conversation can define what they mean by "story" for purposes of that conversation. On the plus side, most of you discussing here are doing that--providing an idea of your definition. On the negative side, since they are conflicting definitions, the arguments start up immediately.
I'm less interested in the exact terms than the ideas behind them. For example, "There is a narrower definition of RPG where a player immerses in a character, and that's that, and it has these positive aspects that you can get any other way, because reasons." There are many other ideas one could pursue along other lines, and even more slants to them.
Honestly, I can't even begin to parse anymore when people argue for or against that one of these ideas where the communication and misunderstandings end and the agenda starts. It seems fairly clear that some people want to piggy-back on definitions to claim virtues for their way of doing things that doesn't play out in practice. I see Pundit's "fire" here as a response to that. I can see how others would see it as starting a new blaze. However, it is so mixed up in variable experiences and preferences that I wouldn't even begin to guess on any individual.
Quote from: jhkim;1073022I would say Pundit's ideas should be given roughly the same amount of respect that he gives to story gamers, 4E fans, and other gamers he disagrees with.
I appreciate his free speech stance on this site, and he has some ideas that I agree with - but that doesn't mean that he is owed any more respect than what he gives.
- Doesn't ban people for disagreeing with him
- Tries to actually make arguments supporting his position
- Makes videos that explain his point and encourage discussion
I guarantee you none of the people you mentioned do any of those things other than Pundit. So yeah, if you're gonna bitch about a dude on his own forum for expressing his ideas, under no threat of repercussion, that sort of reminds me of all the dipshits who hate America so much they protest the very foundation of the country but aren't thrown in the gulags because of all the freedom they have specifically based on what they're protesting. He's not forcing anyone to think like him, he just thinks storygames aren't RPGs BECAUSE THEY AREN'T. They're some other form of entertainment, and honestly I don't even think some of them qualify as actual games. You can like all the hippie games you want and "play" them all you want, but I agree with him that they're not RPGs. They have appropriated the name RPG because it was easier to convince people they should play those sorts of games over grognard bullshit like D&D because they're better! The argument should be "this is more fun than D&D", not that it's better. D&D is the Platonic ideal of an RPG and anything that deviates too much from how it is played is no longer an RPG, by definition. Like it or not, but D&D created the RPG genre, so it gets to decide what an RPG is. And just like wargamers didn't want D&D called a wargame, roleplayers shouldn't want storygames to be called RPGs.
RE: the story nonsense...I don't play a game to tell a story. I write a story to tell a story, or just tell them. A game isn't played for any other reason than to play the game; when mentally deficient people start putting WAY too much emphasis on the outcome of a game, you get soccer hooligan riots, burning down Philly after the Superbowl, and people on rpg.net crying about how their beloved Mary Sue character died in D&D. I mean, fuck...Jack Chick was right.
Quote from: kythriExactly what success would that be?
From the early 2000s to nowadays, there were a fair share of popular and/or influential games like Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc.
I think it's a consensus at this point their main proponents *coff, Edwards, coff* were a bunch of douchbags, but the actual games had interesting ideas that caught on and are seen to this day.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073098I think it is about immersion though. Stories only came about once these rpg developers started to make novels in the pursuit of more money.
I don't know; didn't Stafford view it as 'participation in myth' to some degree long before Dragonlance came on the scene? That's an honest question; the Gloranthan side of the hobby is something I know a very little about.
QuoteLet us not forget rpgs were made to represent a team of specialists that do missions while the main armies do battles in war games. No one thinks war games are about making stories. Am I right about that?
The first video game was made to simulate tennis. Does that mean that video games need to be simulations of sports, or even to keep score, to be 'authentic' video games?
I can see the argument for immersion as the
sine qua non of an RPG, but I can also see the argument against it or for a mitigated version--is 'identification' or 'direction' sufficient without immersion, for example?
Quote from: Itachi;1073116From the early 2000s to nowadays, there were a fair share of popular and/or influential games like Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc.
Weird. I forgot about their success, since I don't ever see them on the shelf at game stores.
Quote from: Itachi;1073116I think it's a consensus at this point their main proponents *coff, Edwards, coff* were a bunch of douchbags, but the actual games had interesting ideas that caught on and are seen to this day.
An interesting idea, even one that survives to be implanted into other games, does not a successful game make.
Quote from: kythri;1073118Weird. I forgot about their success, since I don't ever see them on the shelf at game stores.
In the age of internet, measuring success solely by physical stores seems... weird, to say the least.
QuoteAn interesting idea, even one that survives to be implanted into other games, does not a successful game make.
Yep, the word you want is "influential", here.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073108I'm also not a fan of the Forge. I think that they did a lot of damage to civilized discourse in the hobby with their half-baked theories. Those theories have become so entrenched into any kind of conversation in the RPG community, that it overrides whatever point that someone who has never even encountered those theories before tries to make. They are that viral and destructive.
Care to elaborate on the Forge theories? I ask out of genuine curiosity.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073117I don't know; didn't Stafford view it as 'participation in myth' to some degree long before Dragonlance came on the scene? That's an honest question; the Gloranthan side of the hobby is something I know a very little about.
If so it must be a horrible story because we have a medieval king with access to dimension magic who travels to Earth just to eat pizza and drink soda. If that is going by any mythos, then I guess your right.
Look back then they didn't give a shit about stories. It was when they were making money they started to care about stories because they wanted those book sales. The 80's were a good time for the fantasy genre. Well before the Satanic Panic kicked in.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073117The first video game was made to simulate tennis. Does that mean that video games need to be simulations of sports, or even to keep score, to be 'authentic' video games?
I see your point there, but how do you feel about walking simulators, or games with so little game play that it might as well be a movie?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073117I can see the argument for immersion as the sine qua non of an RPG, but I can also see the argument against it or for a mitigated version--is 'identification' or 'direction' sufficient without immersion, for example?
Would you please rephrase that question. Are you asking me to counter my own arguments?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073123If so it must be a horrible story because we have a medieval king with access to dimension magic who travels to Earth just to eat pizza and drink soda. If that is going by any mythos, then I guess your right.
How is this related to Glorantha? I don't think I got your point.
QuoteI see your point there, but how do you feel about walking simulators, or games with so little game play that it might as well be a movie?
You mean the likes of Dear Esther, What Remains of Edith Finch, Hellblade, Soma, Journey, etc? I'm an avid videogamer that believes Dark Souls is the best thing in the last 20 years, and yet all those "walking sims" are all videogames to me (and good ones at that - What Remains of Edith Finch is amazing).
Are you saying those are not videogames?
Even in videogames, there is a strong distinction between "games" and "sims", and has been since at least Civilization I versus Sim City. (Probably before that, but it was only about then I was paying attention.) I believe that both designers referred to those types of "sims" as being "toys"--and both meant it as, at worst, a neutral description of how they were played (with), and probably more positive than that. Civ I is consciously more "game" than "toy" and Sim City was the opposite, but each dabbled a bit in the realm of the other.
I appreciated it, because it was exactly the "toy" aspect of Sim City that was such a turn-off for me, and allowed me to avoid those types of games later. Not a small thing given how much such games could cost then. I didn't hold that against the designer of Sim City and the fans of the games. Rather, I appreciated their honesty that saved me money and time.
I don't know what that says exactly about this conversation, but seems relevant somehow.
Quote from: jhkim;1073103You're saying that any lack of immersion makes a game a story game, though - which seems pretty broad.
Top Secret, say, has Fame points and Fortune points - which are meta-game resources that you can use to save yourself. I think that's one of the earliest explicitly metagame mechanics. Later developments in the early 1980s include James Bond 007 (with priority use of Hero points), Ars Magica (using Whimsy Cards), and Champions (point system restrictions).
Are these story games, in your mind?
Is there any in setting explanation for these meta points? If yes, then they are not meta points your game is a rpg.
Finally can the GM remove the player from his immersion and do things that would counter the interests of his character? If no, then your in a traditional rpg.
Quote from: Itachi;1073124How is this related to Glorantha? I don't think I got your point.
They didn't care about the setting consistency because to them it was just a game among friends. If this was a true story that carried mythos the makers of that setting would put more thought and care into their product. Which I will admit it doesn't help my immersion argument, but it doesn't help out the story argument as well.
Quote from: Itachi;1073124Are you saying those are not videogames?
Is there a lose condition? If no, then it isn't a game.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1073126Even in videogames, there is a strong distinction between "games" and "sims", and has been since at least Civilization I versus Sim City. (Probably before that, but it was only about then I was paying attention.) I believe that both designers referred to those types of "sims" as being "toys"--and both meant it as, at worst, a neutral description of how they were played (with), and probably more positive than that. Civ I is consciously more "game" than "toy" and Sim City was the opposite, but each dabbled a bit in the realm of the other.
I appreciated it, because it was exactly the "toy" aspect of Sim City that was such a turn-off for me, and allowed me to avoid those types of games later. Not a small thing given how much such games could cost then. I didn't hold that against the designer of Sim City and the fans of the games. Rather, I appreciated their honesty that saved me money and time.
I don't know what that says exactly about this conversation, but seems relevant somehow.
What it says is that there are different genres inside the videogame hobby.
- Strategy
- Tactical combat
- Simulations
- Toys/Puzzles
- Shooters
- Interactive fiction
etc.
Quote from: sureshot;1073121Care to elaborate on the Forge theories? I ask out of genuine curiosity.
In a word? No.
I have never actually read those theories. I only know of them by peripheral reputation.
Being accused of supporting something I have never read, nor really wanted to pay attention to, is infuriating.
Quote from: Itachi;1073119In the age of internet, measuring success solely by physical stores seems... weird, to say the least.
Given that the vast majority of inhabitants of RPG forums are shitheels who don't even play (this forum being an exception), is it really all that weird?
Physical stores are still the primary gateway to new players, and I'd posit that most game stores see more actual players than most Internet forums do.
Quote from: Itachi;1073119Yep, the word you want is "influential", here.
I wouldn't use that word, either. An idea, even a great one, isn't necessarily "influential" on anything other than perhaps it's own inclusion into another work. I don't consider most (any? all?) of those games named all that influential on anything.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073129Is there a lose condition? If no, then it isn't a game.
Then RPGs where you play imortals/gods, or RPGs with no death on the table, or even those with dinasty-play or troupe play where it's assumed you'll always keep playing with some character, are not games?
Or videogames like Europa Universalis - where there's no concept of death and you set your own end goals and/or losing conditions- are also not games?
I think by now it's clear videogames involve digital/electronic experiences in a wide sense.
Quote from: Itachi;1073134Then RPGs where you play imortals/gods, or RPGs with no death on the table, or even those with dinasty-play or troupe play where it's assumed you'll always keep playing with some character, are not games?
Actually you still can be killed in those. Scion, Exalted, Godbound, and many others do have character deaths with the occasional party kills. So you don't have a leg to stand there.
Quote from: Itachi;1073134Or videogames like Europa Universalis - where there's no concept of death and you set your own end goals and/or losing conditions- are also not games?
Yep. If you have to set up your conditions and losing conditions you made it into a game, but without out these things it is no longer a game.
Quote from: Itachi;1073134I think by now it's clear videogames involve digital/electronic experiences in a wide sense.
Your absolutely and objectively wrong in that statement. Video games are not experiences, but games. In games there are win and lose conditions.
Quote from: EOTB;1073102I've been told I'm "be(ing) left behind" since 1989. The funny thing is, that doesn't bother me (and apparently I've not been left behind yet after 30 years) while those claiming we'll be separated cry so loudly about mean gatekeepers when we say "OK, get the fuck out then because we're not interested in that shit".
To be fair, being 'left behind', just means that you'll need to adjust your expectations when taking to new gamers, they won't have your experience nor your knowledge of the older systems, and on your side, you may not have the same context as the newer players.
Problem is the Grognards don't WANT to accept things have changed, or even MIGHT have gotten better, so they yell and scream and then then tell everyone they're doin' it wrong.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073136Your absolutely and objectively wrong in that statement. Video games are not experiences, but games. In games there are win and lose conditions.
But RPGs have "game" in their name, and you can't win or loose an RPG. And no, a character death is not to loose - sometimes it is to fail, but that is not the same thing.
Quote from: RoyR;1073138But RPGs have "game" in their name, and you can't win or loose an RPG. And no, a character death is not to loose - sometimes it is to fail, but that is not the same thing.
Exactly.
No one is competing to "win" in a rpg. So it's not a game by Snowman0147's definition.
Quote from: RoyR;1073138But RPGs have "game" in their name, and you can't win or loose an RPG. And no, a character death is not to loose - sometimes it is to fail, but that is not the same thing.
I agree here. Just to make it more concrete - I got through module X, and we didn't explore all the rooms, but we reached the end and looted it - and one character (our thief) died. Did I win? Or did I lose? How would I determine that?
Quote from: RoyR;1073138But RPGs have "game" in their name, and you can't win or loose an RPG. And no, a character death is not to loose - sometimes it is to fail, but that is not the same thing.
That is still a lose. Under immersion it is pretty damn big blow because now you gotta make a new level one. Talk to anyone who lost a high level character and now have to do level one again with that statement of yours. They will tell you it is a lose.
Not to mention party kills do typically end the campaign right there. On the fucking spot and in that moment.
Quote from: jhkim;1073141I agree here. Just to make it more concrete - I got through module X, and we didn't explore all the rooms, but we reached the end and looted it - and one character (our thief) died. Did I win? Or did I lose? How would I determine that?
Simple. Everyone won except for that thief who lost.
Quote from: kythri;1073132Given that the vast majority of inhabitants of RPG forums are shitheels who don't even play (this forum being an exception), is it really all that weird?
Physical stores are still the primary gateway to new players, and I'd posit that most game stores see more actual players than most Internet forums do.
I wouldn't use that word, either. An idea, even a great one, isn't necessarily "influential" on anything other than perhaps it's own inclusion into another work. I don't consider most (any? all?) of those games named all that influential on anything.
I think it's fair to say neither of us have the means to objectively asses how much actual play forum community X or Y gets, nor can we objectively measure the success and/or influence of games (besides the obvious ones like D&D and Pathfinder), so I think it suffices to say that there's a considerable number of games being released/Kickstarted/hacked that follows the designed principles conceived at the Forge*, and, if you appreciate that, you'll have a good time these days. ;)
*I could describe to you the specific games and their Forge heritage, but something says to me you're not really interested in that.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073144Simple. Everyone won except for that thief who lost.
If I was that Thief and lost in a good and memorable way... it would feel like a win to me.
This says to me that the conventional and simplist definition of "game", as applied to checkers for eg, do not applies to RPGs.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073144Simple. Everyone won except for that thief who lost.
What if the thief's goal was to die?
It's not that RPGs aren't a game, it's that the goals are far more flexible than a game of, say, checkers.
Quote from: jhkimI agree here. Just to make it more concrete - I got through module X, and we didn't explore all the rooms, but we reached the end and looted it - and one character (our thief) died. Did I win? Or did I lose? How would I determine that?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073144Simple. Everyone won except for that thief who lost.
This seems utterly idiotic for team-based play. If winning is just surviving - regardless of achievements or risks taken - then the characters and the parties who risk the least are the biggest winners.
Based on this, I don't think I've seen a single group who cared about winning or losing - because they generally cared more about the team and goals than individual survival.
EDITED TO ADD: I think especially of cases where one character sacrificed themself to save another. In a competitive survival conditions, this is nonsensical - like one player in Monopoly giving money to save another. But it's been common in RPGs in my experience.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073143That is still a lose. Under immersion it is pretty damn big blow because now you gotta make a new level one. Talk to anyone who lost a high level character and now have to do level one again with that statement of yours. They will tell you it is a lose.
Not to mention party kills do typically end the campaign right there. On the fucking spot and in t
hat moment.
Interesting to see somebody redefining the basic concepts of RPGs so long after their inception.
From BECM, Basic rules, section on winning on page 8:
"Think a moment. Why do we play games? To have fun. Each player "wins" by having fun--so if you had a good time, you win! You can have fun even if your character gets killed -- and if that happens, don't worry. You can always make up another one!
Winning a role playing game is like "winning" in real life; it's just succeeding in doing what you wanted to do, and living through it. The fun comes from doing it, not ending it! This is why we say that in this game, everybody wins and nobody loses."
Quote from: Itachi;1073146If I was that Thief and lost in a good and memorable way... it would feel like a win to me.
This says to me that the conventional and simplist definition of "game", as applied to checkers for eg, do not applies to RPGs.
What you may feel does not match with reality. You had still lost.
Good explanation on the video. This is an important thing to teach beginning DMs, especially. I wrote about the subject a wile ago (even use the term "story later", not being sure where that comes from).
However, I described it as a characteristic of old school RPGs, not RPGs in general. I'm not sure Dragonlance, for example, can be described as a story game.
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/old-school-ramblings-1-play-now-story.html
I don't think one method is strictly "worse" than the other - I even play some "story games" with my kids, where everyone tells a part of a story, with picture-dice and all. However, I prefer RPGs to story games.
One could also say there is a "middle ground" of games like that let players influence story (outside of the actions of their characters) in a very limited manner (like 5e that has a single inspiration "point").
(also, it seem many people criticizing the video have not actually watched it)
I DO agree that 4e and 5e kinda buried the whole GNS thing. Turns out people what simulation AND "gamism" in their games.
Quote from: sureshot;1073121Care to elaborate on the Forge theories? I ask out of genuine curiosity.
Start with "System Does Matter" which is sort of Forge 101.
http://indie-rpgs.com/articles/
Let's clarify the terms, shall we?
Games should have three things in my opinion:
A 'Win Condition' and a 'Loss Condition', now what those are will differentiate from game to game, but there will be some. The third thing a game needs is a randomizing agent to allow for chance to sway the results in some fashion.
Which is why I do not see Amber or it's ilk to be a game, it lacks the randomizing agent, leaving it in the hands of a human being who you trust to be 'fair' but often ends up not being.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073156Let's clarify the terms, shall we?
Games should have three things in my opinion:
A 'Win Condition' and a 'Loss Condition', now what those are will differentiate from game to game, but there will be some. The third thing a game needs is a randomizing agent to allow for chance to sway the results in some fashion.
Problem with the third: chess, Go, and other examples.
A randomizing agent can't be a qualifier or chess isn't a game.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083Which means nothing until you get the full context.
Well, that is as close i get to the "full context" without watching the video or reading these pages.
So, i read these pages to get the gist of it, and i did ... in a way.
Therefor i wrote this.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083There is a difference between being frank and insulting.
Um, seems you failed to realize that that was exactly my point.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083That sounds like your the problem and not RPGPundit.
Did i express i had a pro ... oh, yes, i might have a problem with SHARK potentially insulting me, but as it is only potentially, and neither deliberately towards specifically me, and i might not even be fully one of the intended targets, i'm cool with it.
You, on the other hand, is more direct ... :p
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083Good question. I for one would like to watch a video and get the full context before running my mouth.
See, the problem is that if a video is ... hard to endure, and i can get the gist, and do get the gist by reading here, i would say i am eligible to respond when i am practically addressed, or think i can contribute something that i see as ... helpful, if not good.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083But how do you know your going to get shitfling if you don't bother watching the video?
More importantly are you insulting RPGPundit? No. So are you really being addressed here? Not at all. In fact you have no skin in this conversation.
I read this, and the shitflinging was in this Topic, moreso than in the video, so i'm addressing the shitflinging HERE, and not any that may be in the video, as there really don't seem to be more than Pundit's regular rants ...
And that mean that i may be hit from either side, just by sticking up my head and voicing my opinion.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083This I can agree with. Actions are louder than words. The fact that RPGPundit made a site for free speech makes him are far kinder man than most other forum owners. Are they polite? Sure, but figuratively speaking they still have a gun to your head.
- (No reply needed)
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083No. Not to my knowledge.
.... So what did he say about Vampire this time, then?
...Will i have to watch the video just for that?
Perhaps i will have, but perhaps i still won't, perhaps i have, as i have watched one or two, and this reply was towards someone referring to a different video.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083I agree.
A rpg will not use meta points in order to bribe the player to make his character fail just so .... ------Removed to shorten it---------- .....our character's head and actively worked against the best interest of your character for a story that the group may like.
Yes it is all meta, and i practically agree ... and i like rpgs for their structure, one GM - one or more Players, not for collaborative storytelling.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083Actually worst. RPGPundit was doing categories. He never wanted to get rid of story games.
Correct.
However, his rants and ... attitudes that comes off in his rants, makes it possible to mistake his classification of "Storygames" as being a b-class of rpgs, and something to look down upon.
However, to him it is more like he merely returns the bile to where it came from ...
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073083This guy on the other hand wants to leave all the "grognards" to rot and die.
And he himself will become a "grognard" eventually, and may have started to become one already, protecting his precious lawn ... :)
Quote from: RoyR;1073101I think that the constrained view of only either having "story first" or "story after" is too limited to capture the reality of RPG gameplay. There are often multiple stories playing out at the same time, from the ones where the players have agency to the ones where they are merely spectators or pawns. Some of these stories are written before, some during the game and some only become reality in the retelling of the characters adventures.
That is two different chronological definitions being conflated (mistaken as the same thing) here.
These are NOT the same things.
As we are now on page 6 EDIT: page 9, someone might already have explained this, but i'll explain anyway, just to be sure:
In all games with a setting and a narrative, there is usually at least a small story first, a "This is how it is" or even a "this is what has happened".
This is NOT what
"Story First" is referring to.
The "Story First" of Storygames, is to create the story.
Not to simulate adventure, not to play a game.
It is to Create a STORY.
An rpg mixes all three, with more empathis on simulating adventure, unless it has a boardgame structure like Warhammer Quest and similar, as they lean more towards the gaming aspect, while freeform-games often goes more into the story aspect, but still retains simulative and gaming aspects.
"Storygames" may have gaming- and simulative aspects, but they are often more window-dressing than actual parts, structures rather than game rules, and theatre-acting rather than immersion.
Quote from: Itachi;1073130What it says is that there are different genres inside the videogame hobby.
- Strategy
- Tactical combat
- Simulations
- Toys/Puzzles
- Shooters
- Interactive fiction
etc.
By the way, i hate that people call Game Categories "Genres" nowadays ...
Is D&D Fantasy or Rpg?
Is WH40k grimdark Sci-fi or a miniatures game?
.....
Quote from: Eric Diaz;1073152also, it seem many people criticizing the video have not actually watched it
Mind you, I have not watched it (yet?), but i'm not really criticizing it. :)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073156Games should have three things in my opinion:
A 'Win Condition' and a 'Loss Condition', now what those are will differentiate from game to game, but there will be some. The third thing a game needs is a randomizing agent to allow for chance to sway the results in some fashion.
Which is why I do not see Amber or it's ilk to be a game, it lacks the randomizing agent, leaving it in the hands of a human being who you trust to be 'fair' but often ends up not being.
As others point out, chess is a game by nearly everyone's definition.
Going further, I don't feel that there are clear win and loss conditions in D&D. Snowman0147 claims that win and loss is based on individual survival, but that doesn't make sense to me to how the game is played. You can see this with D&D-like board games like Wrath of Ashardalon or Gloomhaven. In those games, they have a team goal that is scenario-specific. But in regular D&D, there is no clear dividing line or even deciding what victory is.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073150What you may feel does not match with reality. You had still lost.
Games can have lose states that do not involve 'game ends'. Eg playing Total War games it's nearly impossible* to lose the campaign, but you can certainly lose individual battles. RPG adventures/scenarios do typically have lose states, that may occur even without a TPK. And there is individual PC death even if non-recoverable. In some games losing valuable equipment like a starship may be a loss too, even if game continues.
I think trad RPGs have a strong game element, part of what makes them attractive (I also think the game element supports immersion in conjunction with the simulation element - we feel emotions while playing that are quite similar to what we feel facing challenges IRL). Also you can certainly have fun while losing the game or at least suffering some kind of loss in the game.
Storygames - story creation games - don't really have that, and are more of a 'pastime' than a 'game' I'd say. (They also don't provoke the same emotions as an immersive you-are-there trad RPG; at most one might feel empathy for the characters, but there is not the you-are-there feeling of 'I might die!' et al)
*I can occasionally lose the original
Medieval: Total War, but all the Rome+ games seem to be impossible to lose the campaign.
Quote from: S'monGames can have lose states that do not involve 'game ends'. Eg playing Total War games it's nearly impossible*
Hehe you never played Shogun 2, right? :D
But I agree the series got soft these days.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073158Problem with the third: chess, Go, and other examples.
OK, fair point... Well, those games do have as people pointed out a strategic component, something that's set in the rules that you cannot deviate... OK, addendum, ROLE PLAYING GAMES need a randomizing agent. Because unlike chess, you don't have an arbitrator who can change the rules, or situation as desired, like having the Knight in a chess game sudden go one down, three across because they think it suits the situation.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1073123I see your point there, but how do you feel about walking simulators, or games with so little game play that it might as well be a movie?
There are things that use the medium but push the limits or even fall outside the category of 'video game', to be sure.
QuoteWould you please rephrase that question. Are you asking me to counter my own arguments?
That was more thinking out loud than an actual question. If one takes 'roleplaying' in the literal sense*, then out-of-character, narrative, or 'dissociated' mechanics definitely push the limits of 'pure' roleplaying. But I tend to see this as more analog than digital, favoring 'RPG with narrative elements' or the like for most games rather than assuming a hard divide between 'real' RPGs and 'storygames.' There are probably some things out there that qualify as pure storygames, but I don't think I have any firsthand knowledge of them.
*I seem to recall that someone in the original Twin Cities circle didn't care much for the term 'roleplaying game', due to roleplaying's associations with psychology. But I can't lay hands on the source at the moment, so take this with a grain of salt. In any case, inspired by TSR's marketing for the SAGA games in the mid-90s, I'm fine with leaving 'roleplaying game' to the hard-core immersionists and the combination of the OSR Abyss and the Seattle Hells and go with 'Adventure Game' or 'Dramatic Adventure Game' for the broader hobby. :)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073178OK, addendum, ROLE PLAYING GAMES need a randomizing agent. Because unlike chess, you don't have an arbitrator who can change the rules, or situation as desired, like having the Knight in a chess game sudden go one down, three across because they think it suits the situation.
I may not be grokking what is meant by "randomizing agent", but MURPG (The Marvel produced "Marvel Universe RPG") is a flawed but workable RPG with no randomizing agent, where the unpredictability is produced by not knowing an opponent's abilities initially, then by the guessing game produced because you don't know how much of a character's resources will be dedicated (out of their pool of stones) to their efforts (stone pool regenerates at a steady rate, you can kind of over-extend yourself, etc.)
Quote from: Chris24601;1073036Guess what? That's a story and the game created it.
Actually no, the game didn't create the story. How do we know? Because I could ask every person to relay the events of what happened at the table, and every single one will give me a different story.
The game created facts that happened, no more, no less. You created the actual story
in the telling of it.
RPGs don't create stories unless the players intend to do so with an OOC, meta, authorial stance. You certainly
can use RPGs to create stories, many game systems now are created with the OOC mechanics and tools to allow you to do it.
However, people all over the world, since the creation of RPGs, for decades now have roleplayed hundreds of PCs and not created a single story by roleplaying their characters.
Did they, as players tell stories again and again about their characters,
such stories being made up after the fact? Certainly.
Did they, as characters, tell stories again and again about themselves and their past exploits,
such stories being made up after the fact? Certainly.
Were they, simply by roleplaying their characters in another world, creating a story?
Not in the slightest, no more than I will create a story by going to the gym tomorrow. If something happens that I think funny or interesting, I might tell someone a story about it.
Can RPG's tell stories?
If you spend roleplaying time authoring stories, sure.
If you don't, nope.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073200I seem to recall that someone in the original Twin Cities circle didn't care much for the term 'roleplaying game', due to roleplaying's associations with psychology. But I can't lay hands on the source at the moment, so take this with a grain of salt. In any case, inspired by TSR's marketing for the SAGA games in the mid-90s, I'm fine with leaving 'roleplaying game' to the hard-core immersionists and the combination of the OSR Abyss and the Seattle Hells and go with 'Adventure Game' or 'Dramatic Adventure Game' for the broader hobby. :)
I am fine with Tabletop Games with subcategories being RPGs, story games, boardgames, and so on.
Quote from: Jaeger;1072924Found your comments on D&D4e interesting - especially in light of the poll in the: "What is your favorite version of Dungeons & Dragons?" Poll at the big purple.
4e was leading the poll until the thread was typically locked and closed for 'reasons'. I think that says a bit about some of the D&D fans over there.
Exactly. TPB was a haven for the sort that pushed for 4e and declare it the perfection of balance and storytelling. And it became the gathering point after WOTC saw what a bunch of nuts they were there and on their own fora, and ended 4e.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1073210Actually no, the game didn't create the story. How do we know? Because I could ask every person to relay the events of what happened at the table, and every single one will give me a different story.
The game created facts that happened, no more, no less. You created the actual story in the telling of it.
So, taking only one relatively narrow definition of the word "story" and claiming it means only that, hm?
Then let's analyse what a "story" is then, shall we?
Or rather, what the requirements are for a "story"?
Better yet, let's just ignore fancy words like "narrative" for now, as that might just confuse matters:
A story requires an amount of events, an amount of things that happens or has happened.
A story may be fact or fiction, i.e. the required things that happens or happened may be true or not, this has no effect on whether it is a story or not.
Also, a story needs a .. for lack of better word ... vessel, i.e. someone or something to retell it.
Now, YOU say that without the one telling the story, there is no story.
However, you ignore the fact, that even if i only relay the things, the facts about what happened, then i can easily be described as telling a story.
My intention matters not, the act of retelling matters tells a story.
You might also claim that it is possible to separate intent from result, i.e. if you do not intend to tell a story, you don't.
This is not possible, as the act of retelling what happened makes it a story.
There is still one crux that you will probably point out, and already have though:
While being a part of a story, you are NOT TELLING IT ... and you are of course fully correct in that.
This is also why White Wolf's "Storytelling Games" actually isn't Storytelling Games, but actual rpgs ....
BUT.
You are still assisting in creating a series of events, that as soon as they are retold, will be a story.
So you are still creating a story.
Now, you are not creating this story on purpose, as it "just happens".
But you are still creating it.
Again, you assist in creating a series of events, that whenever retold, will be a story.
Of course, you perhaps still claim that those can be separated ... and i have the distinct impression that that is not how language, nor talking works ... but i may be wrong.
:D
Oh, and a story not told, is a story not TOLD, not a story that do not exist.
Most stories are seldom or never told, or only to a very few, because they aren't entertaining, like what i will be eating after having written this ... even though i did bother adding chopped leek to a pre-made TV-dinner.
I can also easily agree on the lot of your points on what is being called "storygames", i just think your definition of a "story" somehow has become ... well, wrong.
Sure, that can be chalked up to the evolution of language, but it also makes English ... into alien gibberish, even for other english speakers.
Quote from: Omega;1073214Exactly. TPB was a haven for the sort that pushed for 4e and declare it the perfection of balance and storytelling. And it became the gathering point after WOTC saw what a bunch of nuts they were there and on their own fora, and ended 4e.
It's a haven because it's one of the few places that doesn't shitpost and derail anything 4E related with one-true-way-ist crap about how it's not a real roleplaying game and you're a bad person for even enjoying it. I mean, God forbid someone want non-spellcasters to be able to do mechanically interesting things without the GM having to ad hoc it. God forbid a lowly fighter be able to defeat a mighty wizard (said pretty much none of the source material ever). God forbid a GM be able to judge the difficulty of an encounter accurately with something other than raw intuition.
People like you who lump anyone who likes 4E in with the SJW loons are the reason people who like 4E go to TBP. You drive them out of everywhere else.
Which again is my point about Pundit (and those like him) being their own worst enemies. If you want to actually move the needle against the SJWs maybe you shouldn't be making the SJW-camp the only place for people who enjoy one of the top-selling RPGs of its time to actually participate without being crapped on.
When you are creating a retelling of events, you are engaged in the act of creation. A song, a story, a poem, a movie, a novelization, all of these are acts of artistic creation based on the retelling of events that happened.
The people that actually did the events were NOT creating a song, a story, a poem, a movie, a novelization, etc.
When you are doing the original event you are not involved in story creation. At all. Period.
The problem is this:
1. Some people have always "roleplayed" from a 3rd person perspective. They are looking at their character as an author might and considering the PC as a character in a story while also roleplaying them. There's nothing wrong with this. The problem is, for some reason they can't seem to get it through their heads that others DO NOT DO THIS.
2. There are people who treat roleplaying as a literal literary art form. You don't get it both ways. Once actual literary awareness started being added to RPGs through concrete mechanic, all the imprecise terms like story, narrative, etc can't be used both as literally those literary terms and not literally those literary terms. Not with people directly bringing the literary definitions in through mechanics.
"RPGs create stories" was incorrect 40 years ago, but it was kinda sorta close enough for most, especially since, for some people, they were creating stories actively while roleplaying.
Now the ideas that "RPGs create stories" or "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling" is actually damaging to a non-narrative playstyle.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073221It's a haven because it's one of the few places that doesn't shitpost and derail anything 4E related with one-true-way-ist crap about how it's not a real roleplaying game and you're a bad person for even enjoying it. I mean, God forbid someone want non-spellcasters to be able to do mechanically interesting things without the GM having to ad hoc it. God forbid a lowly fighter be able to defeat a mighty wizard (said pretty much none of the source material ever). God forbid a GM be able to judge the difficulty of an encounter accurately with something other than raw intuition.
People like you who lump anyone who likes 4E in with the SJW loons are the reason people who like 4E go to TBP. You drive them out of everywhere else.
Which again is my point about Pundit (and those like him) being their own worst enemies. If you want to actually move the needle against the SJWs maybe you shouldn't be making the SJW-camp the only place for people who enjoy one of the top-selling RPGs of its time to actually participate without being crapped on.
Well said, bro.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073221Which again is my point about Pundit (and those like him) being their own worst enemies. If you want to actually move the needle against the SJWs maybe you shouldn't be making the SJW-camp the only place for people who enjoy one of the top-selling RPGs of its time to actually participate without being crapped on.
Agreed--especially since some of the prime movers in burying 4E (current WotC and Paizo) are
also some of the biggest promoters of hard-line progressivism in the hobby.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073221it's one of the few places that doesn't shitpost and derail anything 4E related with one-true-way-ist crap about how it's not a real roleplaying game and you're a bad person for even enjoying it.
Yeah, it only does that with, well, everything else.
Quote from: kythri;1073228Yeah, it only does that with, well, everything else.
True, which is why I don't post there at all anymore, while I can still kibitz a little here. :)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073178OK, fair point... Well, those games do have as people pointed out a strategic component, something that's set in the rules that you cannot deviate... OK, addendum, ROLE PLAYING GAMES need a randomizing agent. Because unlike chess, you don't have an arbitrator who can change the rules, or situation as desired, like having the Knight in a chess game sudden go one down, three across because they think it suits the situation.
I would say that regardless of whether there are randomizers or not, it affects the game to have a GM who can change the rules or situation as desired. Regardless of whether there are dice or not, the GM can always beat the players in a traditional RPG. Having dice is not a significant limit on the GMs power, as anyone who's had a railroading GM can attest to. If the five trolls don't beat you, there can be six more than turn the corner to help them.
If a poker dealer can draw new cards as it suits them, or that a four now counts as a wildcard - that's just as off-putting as your chess example.
In practice, I feel like Amber Diceless is distinct in feel from dice-using RPGs, but there's often just as much focus on winning and competition as other games. It's just that the approach is different - it's about describing clever ideas rather than minmaxing and optimizing odds.
Quote from: S'mon;1073167I think trad RPGs have a strong game element, part of what makes them attractive (I also think the game element supports immersion in conjunction with the simulation element - we feel emotions while playing that are quite similar to what we feel facing challenges IRL). Also you can certainly have fun while losing the game or at least suffering some kind of loss in the game.
Storygames - story creation games - don't really have that, and are more of a 'pastime' than a 'game' I'd say. (They also don't provoke the same emotions as an immersive you-are-there trad RPG; at most one might feel empathy for the characters, but there is not the you-are-there feeling of 'I might die!' et al)
I don't think that you-are-there immersion is particularly important for something being a game. After all, most games - chess, poker, etc. - don't have any sort of immersion.
Plus some RPGs can be highly tactical without having much immersion.
Story games vary. For example, I'd agree that Fiasco is more of an activity than a game. Despite the ending die roll for your fate, the players aren't strongly motivated to play to win. Along a similar note, the card game Once Upon A Time technically has a winner for the player who empties their cards - but it's not very competitive. (And playing to win messes up the game, in my experience.) On the other hand, there are a number of high-stakes / high-fatality story games that push up tension, and have a strong game element. For example, the story game Dread uses a Jenga tower as its core mechanic, where if the tower falls you die - so that there is rising tension with each pull. It's less immersive, but there's still the tension of "I might die" and players are really trying not to die both in the pulls and in the game around the pulls. Other story games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, and Mouse Guard have structured dice challenges that are similarly high pressure game elements.
Quote from: Jaeger;1072924Found your comments on D&D4e interesting - especially in light of the poll in the: "What is your favorite version of Dungeons & Dragons?" Poll at the big purple.
4e was leading the poll until the thread was typically locked and closed for 'reasons'. I think that says a bit about some of the D&D fans over there.
Totally unsurprising.
4e will always be the 'favorite edition' of D&D for people who despise D&D and would never play any edition of D&D, even 4th. Which is why it was such an abject failure.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072929Because if you are making 'stories' with D&D, you're clearly doing it wrong and MUST be corrected. Or else.
BadWrongFun.
Did you watch the video?
Quote from: cranebump;1072936Stream of consciousness response:
May not be designed to "make a story" but ends up telling a story.
Connecting with characters requires immersion in something other than sense data.
Nit picking. Saying all stories are literary stories.
You're talking yourself into a box. Admitting to a world history, then using the term "emergent" with regards to stories.
Active or passive, so what? There's a story to be told (which you admitted).
"Story games" accomplish the same thing. Nothing is preplanned. Stories "emerge" in the same manner.
RPG means ROLE playing game. So, you play a role, a story emerges, ta dah!
"Story after" also occurs in other systems besides monolithic, OS D&D type systems.
So, now it's all about "effective" storytelling? Moving the goalposts.
"Back in the day" for me is the 70s, dude. Your 90s reference is recent history to some of us.
Once again bitching about the people involved, rather than the systems themselves.
You hate anything not OS D&D--boils down to that. Every. Single. Time.
So, Vampire is not a storytelling game? Why are we talking about it?
Now railing against railroading. Not the original topic.
I don't think White Wolf has a monopoly on "pretentious elitism" (look in the mirror, man).
Just because players have choice doesn't mean there isn't a story there. At its base is plot. The plot can make no sense, but players engaging in actions, pursuing goals, etc., IS plot. It may not be cohesive and uniform, in that there's no single arc.
Now you're saying "D&D doesn't allow for effective plots." Changing the topic.
If "effective" is designed as "interesting," than D&D can create a plot.
Author doesn't matter. In D&D, players are at least co-authoring, whether in "emergent" form, or as a reaction to GM "scripting."
This is a silly topic. What does it MATTER whether trad RPGs "can't do story?" Picking nits.
Ron Edwards -- so, this is basically a dredge of an old argument.
If D&D allows for "emergent" storytelling, then obviously, people DO like story games.
I doubt you really know what story games are all about, since you never mention playing any of the gamesyou bash.
You used the word "story" in the definition of what D&D is...again.
Ah...here's the prime bitch. Player agency. Being the godlike, "this is MY fucking campaign" GM you are, you don't like player agency outside one's own character. "HOW DARE YOU NARRATE IN AN NPC THAT I HAVE NOT BIRTHED!" This isn't about story games. This is about collaboration in the building phase. Well, it was for a second...now we're off to something else.
You're not the only one who didn't think much of 4E.
Now you're claiming credit for the success of 5E.
Delusions of grandeur (yet, somehow, a persecution complex).
Please get laid sometime this century...
You're a sad little troll. I'm constantly getting laid. You, on the other hand, clearly spend your nights stroking your cock in impotent cuckold rage to the sound of my videos (I just pray hopefully not to my cats, you sick fuck).
Quote from: Chris24601;1072951You could probably just save these two lines to a text file and copy-paste them as a reply to all Pundit's videos, it will always be a valid critique of every opinion he's ever had.
Yeah, just crazy, amiright? I think RPGs should work the way they're supposed to work and have always worked, and not be changed out of the neo-marxist anti-hierarchical obsessions of people who worship the drivel of French philosophers who got their rocks off giving people, and our entire civilization, AIDS on purpose.
Quote from: Itachi;1072966What a load of crap.
People use RPGs for various reasons from telling stories, to pretending to be action movie heroes, to tactical combats with minis, and a bazillion more reasons.
Stop trying to push your agenda to the hobbie, bro.
You didn't watch the video did you? Even Cranebump was at least capable of watching the video. Though given his obvious thing for me, I have mixed feelings about that.
Quote from: SHARK;1073006Greetings!
I like Pundit. I think his videos are cool. Sometimes they are funny, informative, and thoughtful. Always entertaining, too. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with Pundit on all of his perspectives. I'm still not sold on the whole It's a game! Not storytelling! thing. Yes, it's a game, and there's a larger story being told about how the characters live in and experience the world. Along the way, there are lots of smaller, personal stories. Every game session I have is a small story, within the larger story. I have no idea how it is going to conclude, or proceed, it is all different and crazy--but that doesn't mean that a story isn't also happening, unfolding, as we go along. *shrug* So I'm just not uite seeing the hate that Pundit has in this regard. D&D is not either or, but both and. Game and Storytelling.
I can't quite tell if you actually watched the video here or not. At no moment was my argument "it's just a game, guys". That was nothing at all to do with the video, or the argument.
QuoteHaving said that, what's with all the hate and sneering towards Pundit? I don't understand that at all. You certainly are not required to agree with Pundit on everything, but if you are a person that hates Pundit, and has this sneering condescension towards Pundit, why would you be here, on his website? Why watch his videos at all? Then again, it seems that many here don't watch his videos, but they certainly have all kinds of jackass opinions about the videos--even though they haven't bothered to even watch them for fuck's sake.
It's mental obsession. They can't stand the fact that I've been right over and over again, that I've done what I set out to do over and over again. That I turned around this site when it had failed and they all predicted it would be 'dead in six months' (12 years ago), that I ended up being right about 4e. That I ended up being the guiding philosophical force behind 5e's design, and that it was hugely successful. They hate that not only am I still here but that I just keep getting what I set out to do.
It's a mix of petty envy about my ongoing success, and justifiable fear over how effective I am and how that has repeatedly thwarted and will continue to thwart their own ongoing ideological agenda for the hobby.
Quote from: SHARK;1073016Greetings!
So true, Kythri! LOLLOLOLOLOL! Full of shit indeed!
I actually watch and listen to every one of Pundit's videos. I respect the man. I respect him as a writer, game designer, game developer, and thinker. He's an educated man, with a lot of good insights to a whole range of things. All along, he doesn't strike me as being arrogant or pretentious at all.
Thanks, shark!
I'm going to be fair: I could see the argument that I'm arrogant. I'm not afraid to be self-promoting, and boastful. And I'm certainly mean. It would be fair to call me an asshole (or in the modern lingo the kids call it, including an SJW kid who gave me my latest title: an "internet shitlord").
Pretentious? No. I'm a force of anti-pretentiousness. I deflate the pseudo-intellectual hot-air sacks of the swine. In the process I use some of their own techniques against them, but to defend the truth rather than try to use jargon and narrative-control to obscure, subvert or destroy truth.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073278Yeah, just crazy, amiright? I think RPGs should work the way they're supposed to work and have always worked, and not be changed out of the neo-marxist anti-hierarchical obsessions of people who worship the drivel of French philosophers who got their rocks off giving people, and our entire civilization, AIDS on purpose.
Greetings!
Hey Pundit! You know, I want to ask you something. In general, what are these people's deep, deep fascination and love with so many sordid French Philosophers? French reprobates like Foucult, and so on.
Next, when you were at university, did you have to gargle through a bunch of the French Philosophers? I know that when I was at university, I unfortunately through various Political Science, History, English, Philosophy, and Literature classes had to read more than a few of them. A few were brilliant and interesting. Most however, to me, seemed to be swallowed up with pretentious gibberish. Even in topics of *agreement* it always seemed like a English philosopher could say in a paragraph or two what it took a French philospher ten times as much pages and ink to say.
And, besides being pretentious, I found most of the French philosophers being either moral degenerates or ideological troglodytes, with far too many being in love with either anarchy, tyranny, or Communism.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035I come at the hobby from a different perspective than Pundit. And while I think this opinion of his is valid. I also disagree with it.
RPGs. Since their first incarnation. Have been trying to simulate the tropes and methodology of whatever fiction the individual game is based upon. And they have spawned an endless amount of novels and other forms of fiction. Based upon them.
To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.
What people here have referred here to as storygames are in fact simply another evolution along the path of the RPG. They chase the same goal. Simulating fiction in their own unique way.
to your last point: storygames are not 'evolution'. They're diversion. They're as different from RPGs as RPGs are from Wargames. They're a separate hobby.
As to your point about 'an endless amount of novels': Those have existed because there's an awful lot of people who desperately want to be novelists. It's telling that D&D has produced an endless amount of utterly garbage novels. Also, those novels, when they have influenced the game (through metaplot changing settings, etc) have always HARMED the game.
Quote from: S'mon;1073051As Pundit pointed out, 5e D&D shows a lot of old-school influence. It has moved away from 4e's excessive emphasis on combat and brought in lots and lots of new players.
And it is clearly an immersive you-are-there game, not an authorial make-a-story game. Yes you can tell stories in hindsight about what happened - Pundit says that in the video! There's a lot of straw-manning going on here.
Given that Pundit is credited in the 5e D&D PHB I think this whole "left behind in the dust of history" trope is a bit silly. I'd say it was Forgeist play that is being left behind.
Yeah, it's hilarious.
Me: was the guiding influence on what has been universally acclaimed as the most innovative and successful modern edition of D&D.
My critics on here: he's a dinosaur and is totally irrelevant in the dustbin of history. Also, we love 4e and forge games, which are totally cutting edge and will be coming back any second now.
Quote from: RoyR;1073059My initial issue with the video was that the title is misleading. I think I now understand Pundits point to be that DnD is not for telling stories, that is stories that are decided from the start. But when you are playing you are definitely making stories, as everybody who have ever played have experienced: most of us are very found of retelling our characters greatest moments.
But what I still don't understand is if Pundits argument is against railroading, or in a broader sense against adventures where there is things happening outside the influence of the players. Take the Enemy Within campaign from Warhammer as an example: The players definitely have an influence on what is happening in the world, but on a larger scale the world is proceeding along, with wars and conflicts, regardless of their actions. So a story is being told and experienced, and at the same time actions from the players will make up new stories. Is this a good or bad example of roleplaying, according to Pundits arguments in the video?
You sound like someone so utterly poisoned by the narrative warfare of the Forge that you're no longer capable of understanding what I'm talking about, or probably anyone.
There's no "fiction", there's no "story being made up".
There's a WORLD. And in that world all kinds of things are happening beyond what the PCs are doing. If the world was just a shallow backdrop to some grand plot that was conceived of by the DM or by the Game Designer, that would be bad roleplaying. If the players had the power to arbitrarily change the world for the sake of 'creating fiction', it wouldn't be roleplaying at all, it would be storygaming.
Your problem is that you are apparently
fundamentally assuming that 'story' is what happens in RPGs. It isn't. What happens in an RPG is that a living world is created, and there are people in that living world.
Quote from: S'mon;1073077Tribute to the Pundit and all Grognards:
[video=youtube;Ylyqoxh-cXk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylyqoxh-cXk[/youtube]
It's the nature of time
That the old ways must give in
It's the nature of time
That the new ways comes in sin
When the new meets the old
It always end the ancient ways
And as history told
The old ways go out in a blaze
Encircled by a vulture
The end of ancient culture
The dawn of destiny draws near
As a new age begins
The way of the warrior comes to an end
As a new age begins
The ways of the old must apprehend
It's the nature of time
That the old ways must give in
It's the nature of time
That the new ways comes in sin
It's hilarious when the elite establishment think they're the innovators, and think the wind is blowing in their direction.
Have you looked at the world lately, my dude? Have you seen which way the wind is blowing? The future is Kekistani. The hipster liberals ARE the 'old guard' who have to move out of the way, who have been making assess of themselves at the cost of pop culture for too long.
Quote from: EOTB;1073102I've been told I'm "be(ing) left behind" since 1989. The funny thing is, that doesn't bother me (and apparently I've not been left behind yet after 30 years) while those claiming we'll be separated cry so loudly about mean gatekeepers when we say "OK, get the fuck out then because we're not interested in that shit".
Well put.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073275Totally unsurprising.
4e will always be the 'favorite edition' of D&D for people who despise D&D and would never play any edition of D&D, even 4th. Which is why it was such an abject failure.
I've played every edition and currently play in 3.5e, 4E and a 5e campaigns. They're all enjoyable, but 4E is definitely my favorite in terms of game mechanics and general tone.
So, as should surprise no one, Pundit is once again wrong and being his own worst enemy by pigeon-holing people into categories just like the SJWs do.
In Pundit's world, to like 4E is to hate D&D. 4E isn't real D&D. It must be shoved down the memory hole. If you like it you are engaging in badwrongfun and have to be an SJW.
How is that any different than an SJW claiming that liking [insert current target of SJW two-minute hates] is to be a racist sexist mysognistic homophopic bigot?
Quote from: Manic Modron;1073159A randomizing agent can't be a qualifier or chess isn't a game.
Don't worry, the only reason he put that in there at all was to try to troll me and piss on Erick Wujcik's grave. Because he hates me and hates that Wujcik made something ten thousand times more innovative (and popular) than the entire catalog of every game Forge Theory ever produced.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073221People like you who lump anyone who likes 4E in with the SJW loons are the reason people who like 4E go to TBP. You drive them out of everywhere else.
Which again is my point about Pundit (and those like him) being their own worst enemies. If you want to actually move the needle against the SJWs maybe you shouldn't be making the SJW-camp the only place for people who enjoy one of the top-selling RPGs of its time to actually participate without being crapped on.
Well, you know, I moved the needle by providing the design guidance for the much more successful replacement to that shitty game so...
Quote from: CRKrueger;1073222When you are creating a retelling of events, you are engaged in the act of creation. A song, a story, a poem, a movie, a novelization, all of these are acts of artistic creation based on the retelling of events that happened.
The people that actually did the events were NOT creating a song, a story, a poem, a movie, a novelization, etc.
When you are doing the original event you are not involved in story creation. At all. Period.
The problem is this:
1. Some people have always "roleplayed" from a 3rd person perspective. They are looking at their character as an author might and considering the PC as a character in a story while also roleplaying them. There's nothing wrong with this. The problem is, for some reason they can't seem to get it through their heads that others DO NOT DO THIS.
YES!
Except for the part where you say "There's nothing wrong with this". There is objectively something wrong with this, in that by doing this you create a barrier to your opportunity to IMMERSE yourself in the character, which explains why that person would then not understand the first thing about what RPGs can do, even if they've been playing them for a long time. They've never made it real.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073227Agreed--especially since some of the prime movers in burying 4E (current WotC and Paizo) are also some of the biggest promoters of hard-line progressivism in the hobby.
To be fair, that came after, for WoTC. At the time, I saw what Paizo was doing under Jessica Price and figured that it was all the more reason why we needed a company focused on making a really good game, not insane feminist politics. My main interaction was right at the very top, with Mike Mearls. I underestimated the poison of some of the people who were already there under him in the 'lower floors' as it were, and who have since been essentially holding all of WoTC hostage. Mearls isn't really one of them, but he was apparently far too cowardly to effectively stand up to them for fear of losing his job.
Quote from: SHARK;1073284Greetings!
Hey Pundit! You know, I want to ask you something. In general, what are these people's deep, deep fascination and love with so many sordid French Philosophers? French reprobates like Foucult, and so on.
Next, when you were at university, did you have to gargle through a bunch of the French Philosophers? I know that when I was at university, I unfortunately through various Political Science, History, English, Philosophy, and Literature classes had to read more than a few of them. A few were brilliant and interesting. Most however, to me, seemed to be swallowed up with pretentious gibberish. Even in topics of *agreement* it always seemed like a English philosopher could say in a paragraph or two what it took a French philospher ten times as much pages and ink to say.
Yes of course. But I had the benefit of working under a professor who had worked with Foucault's colleagues, and knew all the real horror stories of what a totally destructive piece of human garbage he was.
The French philosophers are mostly garbage. They have been civilizational AIDS since Rousseau, who argued the toxic theory that man's nature is essentially good (except for mean old 'society'), even while he sent all his own children to an orphanage where they all died. He was living proof of human beastliness.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073291I've played every edition and currently play in 3.5e, 4E and a 5e campaigns. They're all enjoyable, but 4E is definitely my favorite in terms of game mechanics and general tone.
So, as should surprise no one, Pundit is once again wrong and being his own worst enemy by pigeon-holing people into categories just like the SJWs do.
In Pundit's world, to like 4E is to hate D&D. 4E isn't real D&D. It must be shoved down the memory hole. If you like it you are engaging in badwrongfun and have to be an SJW.
How is that any different than an SJW claiming that liking [insert current target of SJW two-minute hates] is to be a racist sexist mysognistic homophopic bigot?
Well, here's how it's different: let's presume you're telling the truth, and you really are a Man For All Seasons who has played every single edition.
If so, you are aware that 4e is a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT GAME that doesn't fit in with any of those other editions in the way they all fit in with each other. One of these things is not like the others.
Right?
Now here's where you can choose to LIE and just pretend that 4e is no different from, say, 3e than 2e was, rather than being a radically different game, or where you can admit that 4e is another game.
Of course it's possible you're part of the tiny minority of people who like both 4e and D&D, though that still leaves you with two onerous burdens: admitting that 4e is a radically different game, and then having to come clean about which one you liked more. Since you've already answered the latter, it pretty much means that while I can accept your claim that you like D&D, you don't like D&D as much as you like 4e, which was a game created for people who didn't like any edition of D&D before that, and was ideologically inspired by a theory that argued that D&D was a flawed "incoherent" game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073277You're a sad little troll. I'm constantly getting laid. You, on the other hand, clearly spend your nights stroking your cock in impotent cuckold rage to the sound of my videos (I just pray hopefully not to my cats, you sick fuck).
Well, well, well -- hit a nerve with the get laid comment. FYI: If you've got mojo, you don't have to write on the bathroom wall, hombre.
Now, on point (which is where you're not right now): I've gone point-by-point through your vids because, as they say, before you judge, investigate. Actually gave you some credit on the one about how it was okay to play pious characters.
But this one...hoo boy...you were all over the place...I went through 20 minutes of bullshit looking for a nugget in there. Typically, you didn't have any. Worse, I caught you defining D&D using terminology that YOU SAID didn't have anything to do with it. Plan your shit better, and your rambling won't be so easy to pick apart.
Beyond that, the REAL rub with you is hubris and the aforementoned delusions of grandeur. You grant yourself unwarranted authority over the medium, thus expecting everyone to gloss over the inconsistencies, weak support, hyperbole, and personal animus that form 90% of your world view (not to mention your personality, as you present). You think because you make a point, the point is made, and woe betide anyone who point out flaws in your reasoning (or the fact that you're pretty much a douche bag). Your typical defense: if anyone takes exception, well, they just didn't understand what you were saying. Convenient.
Here's the deal, fuckwad -- if you're gonna present yourself as the final boss of internet shitlords, then bring the equivalent of a boss fight, instead of that weak sauce you constantly trowel. Make a decent argument, and you won' have to backtrack so much clarifying what you "actually" meant to say.
4E is a very different game, but it's arguably closer to what D&D was promoted as and what many of us thought we were getting in the mid- to late-80s and early 90s than the D&D of the OSR, 3.X/Pathfinder, or 5E. I freely admit that it was not a commercial success for a variety of reasons, and probably not versatile enough to fill D&D's market leader role, although I remain unconvinced of the influence of the Forge, which seems to be Pundit's version of the Patriarchy. :)
But I missed the point where we had to justify our tastes in gaming to the hard progressives at Paizo, the slightly softer progressives at WotC, or an eccentric, egomanaical Enlightenment-worshiping sorcerer. :D
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073275Totally unsurprising.
4e will always be the 'favorite edition' of D&D for people who despise D&D and would never play any edition of D&D, even 4th. Which is why it was such an abject failure.
I think your being unfair and over-generalizing imo. I enjoyed 4E at first found it was not for me and moved to Pathfinder and 5E. I started with 1E then 2E then 3E then 3.5. Than 4E. With the right DM i would play older editions of D&D. Your kind of doing whst SJWs do and group those who disagree with you and lumping myself and others all in the same group. Working on 5e does not mean you get a free pass on your critcism of 4E and those who play.
A small does of humble pie would also help. You are and can ve wrong on many topics. Your not perfect and neither an I.
So far imo you have been wring on many levels. Narrative games despite your dislike are still popular and profitable. Critical Role which I find annoying AF the hobby is still alive and thriving. I find the majority of your videos and informative. As I said some humble pie would go along way.
For me, storytelling isn't necessarily a problem. One problem is that a GM who thinks it is telling a story is likely to railroad and railroading is a problem. Another is that "cooperative storytelling" means that players have to make OoC decisions, which makes immersion harder.
Playing the game, with players making in-character decisions will yield stories we can look back on. Storytelling impedes game play but game playing doesn't prevent their being a story.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1073307For me, storytelling isn't necessarily a problem. One problem is that a GM who thinks it is telling a story is likely to railroad and railroading is a problem.
Mostly agree
QuoteAnother is that "cooperative storytelling" means that players have to make OoC decisions, which makes immersion harder.
Mostly disagree. The best player input to the "story" - you know, the thing that sends certain people here apopletic - really adds to the immersion.
Example: the party comes to the top of a hill, sees a bridge over a river at the bottom. In a traditional game (D&D f'rex), the players would ask about the bridge, and the DM would check his notes, confirm there is nothing additional written there, and just do his best to come up with a description. No biggie.
But in more recent games, the DM could push that description task onto the player(s). That contribution can really drive immersion, it works great.
Quote from: Motorskills;1073309Mostly disagree. The best player input to the "story" - you know, the thing that sends certain people here apopletic - really adds to the immersion.
Example: the party comes to the top of a hill, sees a bridge over a river at the bottom. In a traditional game (D&D f'rex), the players would ask about the bridge, and the DM would check his notes, confirm there is nothing additional written there, and just do his best to come up with a description. No biggie.
But in more recent games, the DM could push that description task onto the player(s). That contribution can really drive immersion, it works great.
Some people feel that this helps immersion, but others feel that this gives the feeling that the character is controlling the world rather than seeing it.
A related case, though, is dealing with player character knowledge and expertise. For example, another character asks a PC, "What's it like in your home city of Camorr?" In a traditional game, the player then turns to the GM and asks the GM, then the GM relays back the knowledge, and then the player has to relate his take on it. Some players would prefer it if the player could just say what their home city is like, and the GM incorporates this into the campaign background.
Either way, these are a matter of taste - but I agree that a number of players can feel more immersed if they can contribute to the game world in certain ways.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073289It's hilarious when the elite establishment think they're the innovators, and think the wind is blowing in their direction.
Have you looked at the world lately, my dude? Have you seen which way the wind is blowing? The future is Kekistani. The hipster liberals ARE the 'old guard' who have to move out of the way, who have been making assess of themselves at the cost of pop culture for too long.
Yeah, I was joking of course.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073291In Pundit's world, to like 4E is to hate D&D. 4E isn't real D&D. It must be shoved down the memory hole. If you like it you are engaging in badwrongfun and have to be an SJW.
How is that any different than an SJW claiming that liking [insert current target of SJW two-minute hates] is to be a racist sexist mysognistic homophopic bigot?
Well, I like 4e too, but I have no problem with people hating it, given that it's nothing like any other edition of D&D and has a much narrower effective scope. It does what it does well (potentially), but it doesn't do what I think of as the core D&D experience. I last played 4e in August 2018; whereas I have 4 5e games going now as DM, and playing in a 5th.
3e has problems too. I'm a lot happier with 5e as the in-print, official current version of D&D.
If Pundit calls me an SJW for liking 4e, I'll just laugh.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073295There is objectively something wrong with this, in that by doing this you create a barrier to your opportunity to IMMERSE yourself in the character
There are people - like Ron Edwards - who don't seem able to immerse, and don't understand the feeling, or why others would want it.
Of course when they try to stop others playing immersive games, others who would enjoy them, that's bad.
What a fascinating take on the RPG hobby ! I'm glad to have seen that video, and would really enjoy hearing you talk, RPG Pundit, about what you think is the heart of the RPG practice (immersion, apparently).
I 've thought for a long time that I wanted to tell stories through RPGs, but I must say I don't abide by the definition of the Forge crowd. Being a highly educated French intellectual (among other things), I'm not easily impressed with Big Words and Big Theories, and remain unconvinced by the GNS (is it how it's called ?) model. And ego-inflated pedants generally crack me up (they are kind of a national industrial product around here) :-).
After hearing the video, I'm not sure that crafting stories is really what I want to do with RPgs. I acknowledge that one of my greatest pleasures when playing RPgs is to feel what my character (should) feel adventuring and interacting in various ways with the game world and its creatures. But, to borrow one of RPGPundit words, I like when the campaigns I play in have a certain theme, mood and aesthetics about them, which make them consistent..
Although, I must say, even when I played Vampire the Masquerade a lot I was never convinced with the way the White Wolf designers presented their scenarios in the 90s, with their Themes clearly spelled out. I always found it artificial and fake.
As I've stumbled upon OSR, I've become intrigued by the hex-crawl approach, but I'm not sure I would l really like to practice it. Not enough "story" (for lack of a better word) in it.
RPGPundit: do you think hexcrawling is a particular kind of practice of RPGs ? Or is it lacking in something, the lack of which could enlighten us about what is "really" an RPG ?
Maybe the RPG is a strange mash-up of simulation and "emergent" storytelling. For me, I'd say it's an interactive oral art form ; a friend of mine used to relate it to jazz improvs, and I quite liked that insight.
About my favourite breed of D&D : in the 80s, when I began to play, it was Basic/Expert ; then I went to high school and I met an AD&D Dungeon Master, and was sufficiently impressed with the Advanced bit that I began practicing AD&D. Damn it ! : in retrospect, I was the unwitting victim of good marketing ("advanced is for the grown-ups") :-).
For the major part of the 90s, I played Vampire (all that yummy angst !) and neglected D&D. I began to play it again, around 2000 AD, with 3.0, which I quite enjoyed, although I quickly replaced it with Paizo's Pathfinder (come on, it's D&D in all but the name !... Or is it ?)
When my math expertise failed me, I quit Pathfinder (I overdosed in the complexity of the system, for which I'm still strangely resentful vis-a-vis Paizo). As luck would have it, D&D 5th edition came along at that time, and I've happily played it since (but I intend to soon be the DM for my son with Basic/Expert).
So I guess my favorite edition of D&D has always been the current one (except for 4th edition, which didn't cat my eye) :-).
But seriously, I find 5th edition to be wonderful, and I currently play in a campaign of Dragonlance with 5th ed rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073295YES!
Except for the part where you say "There's nothing wrong with this". There is objectively something wrong with this, in that by doing this you create a barrier to your opportunity to IMMERSE yourself in the character, which explains why that person would then not understand the first thing about what RPGs can do, even if they've been playing them for a long time. They've never made it real.
I'm not sure if this is a confused theory of Subcreation colored by Pundit's typically overblown and egotistical style, or a hint that he thinks gaming can somehow be the first step in the path to 'real magic.'
Probably the later. :D
Quote from: sureshot;1073304I think your being unfair and over-generalizing imo. I enjoyed 4E at first found it was not for me and moved to Pathfinder and 5E. I started with 1E then 2E then 3E then 3.5. Than 4E. With the right DM i would play older editions of D&D. Your kind of doing whst SJWs do and group those who disagree with you and lumping myself and others all in the same group. Working on 5e does not mean you get a free pass on your critcism of 4E and those who play.
There's nothing at all strange about liking both 4E and 5E. They have different emphasis and appeal, but there's nothing mutually incompatible about them. I can also enjoy both Puerto Rico and Paths of Glory when I want to play a boardgame. Or Overcooked and Dark Souls on a console. They're just fucking games.
People like Pundit have a lot more in common with SJWs than they'll admit. Both are highly dogmatic, partisan, and tribal, and both get infuriated by the very idea of people enjoying or valuing different things than they do. It's a mindset rooted in insecurity.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073275Totally unsurprising.
4e will always be the 'favorite edition' of D&D for people who despise D&D and would never play any edition of D&D, even 4th. Which is why it was such an abject failure.
Quote from: S'mon;1073335Well, I like 4e too,
So no matter what you say, according to Pundy, you hate D&D.
Quote from: Motorskills;1073309Mostly agree
Mostly disagree. The best player input to the "story" - you know, the thing that sends certain people here apopletic - really adds to the immersion.
Example: the party comes to the top of a hill, sees a bridge over a river at the bottom. In a traditional game (D&D f'rex), the players would ask about the bridge, and the DM would check his notes, confirm there is nothing additional written there, and just do his best to come up with a description. No biggie.
But in more recent games, the DM could push that description task onto the player(s). That contribution can really drive immersion, it works great.
I don't find that particular instance objectionable but I don't see how it can "drive immersion." Who is it that is describing the bridge? It is the player and not the character. Not really a problem but not really driving immersion. However, deciding to use a whatever point to avoid a bad consequence is an out of character decision that cannot be in character and makes immersion more difficult. While playtesting the Buffy game, I found that the whatever points we had were distracting and were things my character did not even _know_ about.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073353So no matter what you say, according to Pundy, you hate D&D.
He also said there is a tiny minority who like both 4e & D&D - presumably that's me.
Quote from: Itachi;1073130- Strategy
- Tactical combat
- Simulations
- Toys/Puzzles
- Shooters
- Interactive fiction
etc.
One of these things is not like the other...
Quote from: S'mon;1073167*I can occasionally lose the original Medieval: Total War, but all the Rome+ games seem to be impossible to lose the campaign.
You clearly haven't played Empire as, say, Saxony.
Good luck.....you will need it.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;10733004E is a very different game, but it's arguably closer to what D&D was promoted as and what many of us thought we were getting in the mid- to late-80s and early 90s [/B]than the D&D of the OSR, 3.X/Pathfinder, or 5E....
Ok this I don't get.
What do you think D&D was promoted as that would have met the 4e mold? I didn't notice anything special back in the day? D&D was always it's own thing (imitators aside).
I don't see how anyone could expect anything more than a slightly refined/tweaked version than what came before...
Quote from: jhkim;1073316Some people feel that this helps immersion, but others feel that this gives the feeling that the character is controlling the world rather than seeing it.
If the PC is making game world reality editing decisions on behalf of their PC then they are playing something more akin to a 'user' in the movie Tron. Not an independent Character in a living world.
Quote from: Jaeger;1073387Ok this I don't get.
What do you think D&D was promoted as that would have met the 4e mold? I didn't notice anything special back in the day? D&D was always it's own thing (imitators aside).
I don't see how anyone could expect anything more than a slightly refined/tweaked version than what came before...
I'm referring to what the game was marketed and advertised as--high fantasy adventure--to those who were not familiar with it and thus weren't accustomed to the importance of henchmen, 10-foot poles, lethal housecats and the centrality of money. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073389I'm referring to what the game was marketed and advertised as--high fantasy adventure--to those who were not familiar with it and thus weren't accustomed to the importance of henchmen, 10-foot poles, lethal housecats and the centrality of money. :)
Yes. What I thought I was getting in 1981 was a game where the players would be Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. What I got was that the players were the kinds of characters that ended up dead to people like the twain. 4E would have been very appealing to me about 1984. A bit later, I made Fantasy Hero do what I thought I wanted. Then I learned later that there was a distinction between playing a character that might grow into Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser, versus playing a character that lived in their world--and all kinds of variations in between those poles.
I like 4E because it does one piece of that very well, and that is sometimes fun. I can see it is limited, because a lot of the variations are also fun, and get left out of the equation.
Increasingly I am not in favor of letting the term 'story' get co-opted by these kinds of debates. I understand why it has happened. But going back to the early days of the hobby, I remember using 'story' to loosely mean 'stuff that happens in the game'. My experience is most gamers who don't involve themselves constantly in online discussions like we do (which I think is probably still the majority of gamers) use story in that way. And I think the problem isn't the use of the word in that context, it is that there is a certain brand of internet poster, who deliberately equivocates on the multiple meanings of 'story' and its multiple contexts' to make arguments that if you accept 'story' to mean 'stuff that happens' you must also conclude 'the purpose of RPGs is to tell a good story and any RPG that doesn't do that, or any play style that doesn't achieve that, is a bad RPG/Campaign. Personally, if people want to have story in their games I am fine with that. If they want mechanics to enhance story, I am fine with it as well. My only real objection is when I bump into people who insist what I am doing is either wrong, or secretly something else because of these kinds of arguments around story. I think for describing specifically story focused play "narrative" is a much better term (which still has its problems though because narrative means something totally different to a person talking about history than a person talking about literature or RPGs). But it is a little more specific than story. And story can be a perfectly fine word to describe a broad range of things, not just games that have narrative mechanics or a focus on the story element. Heck I know some gamers who use story basically as a synonym for role-play. I think a better approach might be just to point out 'story' is one of the most malleable terms in English. If I walk up to someone and say "What's the story with you and my sister". I am just asking what happened. I don't expect a well narrated recounting of events, with a literary structure and neatly tied together plot elements. I think as long as people understand how the equivocation of this term leads to problems, then it is fine. That is all that is really going on with those kinds of discussions where people insist RPGs must be about story, and take it to mean the game has to produce good stories.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073481And I think the problem isn't the use of the word in that context, it is that there is a certain brand of internet poster, who deliberately equivocates on the multiple meanings of 'story' and its multiple contexts' to make arguments that if you accept 'story' to mean 'stuff that happens' you must also conclude 'the purpose of RPGs is to tell a good story and any RPG that doesn't do that, or any play style that doesn't achieve that, is a bad RPG/Campaign. .
Preach it: I hate people that argue in bad faith.
It's worth noting that even the least "story-game-y" games (like my beloved B/X) have elements in their rules that could have been ripped straight out of Bluebeard's Bride. Gold for XP for example: time-honored workhorse of adventure incentive, it makes zero sense in terms of the character's world. It's a mechanical conceit that drives gameplay in the direction of the stories that inspired the game (namely Conan and similar yarns).
I run almost elusively old-school games; some of my players have never played anything else. They're very likely to describe what we do as "telling a good story" or put "told a good story" as a high goal of our games.
Point being: it takes more than the odd "story-game" widget or "story-centric" sentiment to really corrupt my enjoyment of RPGs.
...
Additionally: I think you nailed something about the nomenclature there Brendan. "Story" just means so damn much. It's cumbersome, but describing exactly what you
don't like about a specific kind of game is important.
I, for example, generally agree that games which treat the
entire roleplaying activity as a shared, collaborative story, told with mechanics (some of which directly influence "the narrative") is
less enjoyable as a strategic and character-driven game. It's the difference between deciding on the
outcome versus deciding on the
approach: true suspense, true thrill, true triumph, cannot emerge from an environment which
declares them mechanically. "Excitement is measured by the
Excitement Pool! Here's rules for how big your 'excitement' dice pool gets as you describe ever-more exciting actions!
Why aren't you excited?!'"
My argument, therefore, is that these types of game designs shoot themselves in the foot: they sabotage their ability to accomplish what their designers set out to do by misunderstanding the circumstances which generate the emotions they're attempting to enshrine. They're the helicopter-parents of games, clinging so tightly to their children that they never let them grow independently.
And, just like children unfortunately raised by such lunatics, they show just how others-reliant and damaged they are when you approach them outside of the highly-cultivated assumptions their designers intended. Hence the cries of "Oh you just don't GET IT"
(For the budding game designers out there: playtesting is the equivalent of letting your kid go outside and play on their own. It's
immeasurably good for them and helps them grow up into an independently functioning adult.)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073481Increasingly I am not in favor of letting the term 'story' get co-opted by these kinds of debates. I understand why it has happened. But going back to the early days of the hobby, I remember using 'story' to loosely mean 'stuff that happens in the game'. My experience is most gamers who don't involve themselves constantly in online discussions like we do (which I think is probably still the majority of gamers) use story in that way. And I think the problem isn't the use of the word in that context, it is that there is a certain brand of internet poster, who deliberately equivocates on the multiple meanings of 'story' and its multiple contexts' to make arguments that if you accept 'story' to mean 'stuff that happens' you must also conclude 'the purpose of RPGs is to tell a good story and any RPG that doesn't do that, or any play style that doesn't achieve that, is a bad RPG/Campaign. Personally, if people want to have story in their games I am fine with that. If they want mechanics to enhance story, I am fine with it as well. My only real objection is when I bump into people who insist what I am doing is either wrong, or secretly something else because of these kinds of arguments around story. I think for describing specifically story focused play "narrative" is a much better term (which still has its problems though because narrative means something totally different to a person talking about history than a person talking about literature or RPGs). But it is a little more specific than story. And story can be a perfectly fine word to describe a broad range of things, not just games that have narrative mechanics or a focus on the story element. Heck I know some gamers who use story basically as a synonym for role-play. I think a better approach might be just to point out 'story' is one of the most malleable terms in English. If I walk up to someone and say "What's the story with you and my sister". I am just asking what happened. I don't expect a well narrated recounting of events, with a literary structure and neatly tied together plot elements. I think as long as people understand how the equivocation of this term leads to problems, then it is fine. That is all that is really going on with those kinds of discussions where people insist RPGs must be about story, and take it to mean the game has to produce good stories.
I feel a bit odd giving Brendan XP over on ENW as he takes apart the arguments of Pemerton. I like Pemerton.
But over the years he seems to have developed an almost Ron Edwards level of inability to understand immersion and why people value it. His 'It's not like real life!' thread there is a sad low. Nothing wrong with people liking different things. But we need to accept other people don't have False Consciousness and their preferences are valid, too.
Quote from: S'mon;1073503I feel a bit odd giving Brendan XP over on ENW as he takes apart the arguments of Pemerton. I like Pemerton.
But over the years he seems to have developed an almost Ron Edwards level of inability to understand immersion and why people value it. His 'It's not like real life!' thread there is a sad low. Nothing wrong with people liking different things. But we need to accept other people don't have False Consciousness and their preferences are valid, too.
"Immersion" is a lot like being introverted. Introverts are generally better at understanding extroverts than vice versa. It's possible for an immersionist, if inclined to reflect, to more or less understand someone that doesn't, but not so easy going the other way. The more radical the immersion under discussion, the more this is true. In the same way that extreme extroverts are almost entirely clueless about what introverts think or feel.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073389I'm referring to what the game was marketed and advertised as--high fantasy adventure--to those who were not familiar with it and thus weren't accustomed to the importance of henchmen, 10-foot poles, lethal housecats and the centrality of money. :)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1073406Yes. What I thought I was getting in 1981 was a game where the players would be Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. What I got was that the players were the kinds of characters that ended up dead to people like the twain. ... .
If you're coming into D&D with preconceived Ideas, I can see how that could be a bit disappointing! D&D is it's own genre. You are getting 'High Fantasy Adventure!' the D&D way...
But aside for a few one shots I haven't played D&D specifically for years (even though my last purchase was Lion and Dragon; worth it for the judicial rules alone!). Although I do intend to run a 4-6 session mini campaign for my group this year using an OSR rules set.
But largely I have found other systems are better at giving me what I want in an RPG game experience.
It's funny, I agree 100% with Ron Edwards statement that 'System Matters' for RPG's. And disagree totally with his article on the subject that a "Good" rpg must Pick one GNS outlook and:
"I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design." Umm no, just no.
For me the priority of Good RPG design is: Does it emulate it's genre conventions well. And is the game smooth to play at the table. Or what is your game world's reality, and how well does your simulator (game system) handle that. I realize that this can be a very subjective thing. Which is why for me the last two versions of the Conan RPG d20 and 2d20. Suck.
But for some people the game system doesn't seem to matter as much - and they seem perfectly happy using d20 for everything.
And that's OK.
(Even though they're totally having Bad Wrong Fun and literally Doing it Wrong! But for some groups, for various reasons; "Good Enough" is just that: good enough.)The one thing in his article I do agree with him on:
"...Another interesting question about resolution methods is, what is actually being resolved in terms of numerical game mechanics? Consider three things: the actual event ("do I hit?"), the energy it takes to do it ("deduct 4 Endurance"), and the reward ("You did 18 damage, that's 18 EP's, mark'em down"). Food for thought: maybe an RPG needs only one of these, two at most, and can let the third just vanish..." For me, some games are just too rules light for long campaigns, but fine for one shots or short campaigns. But I do have an upper limit on the complexity I'm willing to endure from an RPG system in order to game. And I think most people do to, which is why games like GURPS and HERO are falling more and more by the wayside.
RPG's should ask more what is really needed mechanically to emulate the genre. (Making the Game smooth to play at the table.) This has become a focus for me as I have refined my homebrew system for my Star Wars campaign. I've knocked off a lot of fiddly complexity from the system I hacked for my Star Wars campaign. But it is a balance. I want to get rid of the fiddly nonsense that just slows stuff down and adds nothing to the game, but have enough meat so that the Characters can be mechanically different enough that the flavor of the genre is still there, and my players are able to immerse themselves in the game and feel like they are playing 'Star Wars' Characters.
Quote from: Jaeger;1073527If you're coming into D&D with preconceived Ideas, I can see how that could be a bit disappointing! D&D is it's own genre. You are getting 'High Fantasy Adventure!' the D&D way...
Yes. There's always been this tension in D&D between 'playing the D&D genre' and 'playing your favorite fantasy stories.'
I freely admit that 4E fell down in the former in a lot of ways, and depending on the type, it may not do so well at the latter. However, it did do some things quite well, and for some people, those things it does well were things they had been looking for or found they enjoyed. It may not have been a commercial success, or meet with the approval of the Evil High Priests of the OSR, but it does have its merits. :)
Quote from: cranebump;1073299Well, well, well -- hit a nerve with the get laid comment. FYI: If you've got mojo, you don't have to write on the bathroom wall, hombre.
Now, on point (which is where you're not right now): I've gone point-by-point through your vids because, as they say, before you judge, investigate. Actually gave you some credit on the one about how it was okay to play pious characters.
But this one...hoo boy...you were all over the place...I went through 20 minutes of bullshit looking for a nugget in there. Typically, you didn't have any. Worse, I caught you defining D&D using terminology that YOU SAID didn't have anything to do with it. Plan your shit better, and your rambling won't be so easy to pick apart.
Beyond that, the REAL rub with you is hubris and the aforementoned delusions of grandeur. You grant yourself unwarranted authority over the medium, thus expecting everyone to gloss over the inconsistencies, weak support, hyperbole, and personal animus that form 90% of your world view (not to mention your personality, as you present). You think because you make a point, the point is made, and woe betide anyone who point out flaws in your reasoning (or the fact that you're pretty much a douche bag). Your typical defense: if anyone takes exception, well, they just didn't understand what you were saying. Convenient.
Here's the deal, fuckwad -- if you're gonna present yourself as the final boss of internet shitlords, then bring the equivalent of a boss fight, instead of that weak sauce you constantly trowel. Make a decent argument, and you won' have to backtrack so much clarifying what you "actually" meant to say.
Here's Cranebump, furiously masturbating.
Dude, I accept your lifestyle, but don't expect me to contribute to it.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;10733004E is a very different game, but it's arguably closer to what D&D was promoted as and what many of us thought we were getting in the mid- to late-80s and early 90s than the D&D of the OSR, 3.X/Pathfinder, or 5E. I freely admit that it was not a commercial success for a variety of reasons, and probably not versatile enough to fill D&D's market leader role, although I remain unconvinced of the influence of the Forge, which seems to be Pundit's version of the Patriarchy. :)
The Forge isn't the "patriarchy", it's literally the predecessors to the SJWs. Most of the same crowd that despised D&D and the gaming hobby and gamers in general who were cheerleading the forge and the 'awesome creative innovation' of games neither they nor anyone else would ever actually play are the SAME people who today continue to despise D&D, the hobby, and gamers and cheerlead the SJW anti-gamer movement.
Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1073338What a fascinating take on the RPG hobby ! I'm glad to have seen that video, and would really enjoy hearing you talk, RPG Pundit, about what you think is the heart of the RPG practice (immersion, apparently).
I 've thought for a long time that I wanted to tell stories through RPGs, but I must say I don't abide by the definition of the Forge crowd. Being a highly educated French intellectual (among other things), I'm not easily impressed with Big Words and Big Theories, and remain unconvinced by the GNS (is it how it's called ?) model. And ego-inflated pedants generally crack me up (they are kind of a national industrial product around here) :-).
Yeah. I was trained in the humanities as well, which was why I instantly saw through Edwards' pseudo-intellectual bullshit. I'd had to read literally hundreds of articles full of exactly the same bullshit-generating techniques in academia.
QuoteRPGPundit: do you think hexcrawling is a particular kind of practice of RPGs ? Or is it lacking in something, the lack of which could enlighten us about what is "really" an RPG ?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. I would certainly say Hexcrawling is a totally legitimate RPG activity. It's not the only way to play a game of course, but I certainly wouldn't say it's specifically lacking in something.
QuoteMaybe the RPG is a strange mash-up of simulation and "emergent" storytelling. For me, I'd say it's an interactive oral art form ; a friend of mine used to relate it to jazz improvs, and I quite liked that insight.
Well, again, emergent story is something that just happens, automatically, in RPGs (as in fishing, golf, hunting, camping, baseball, etc). You don't need to do anything to make it happen. Trying to do something to make story happen is where it all goes horribly wrong.
Quote from: S'mon;1073360He also said there is a tiny minority who like both 4e & D&D - presumably that's me.
Do you like wargames?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073481Increasingly I am not in favor of letting the term 'story' get co-opted by these kinds of debates. I understand why it has happened. But going back to the early days of the hobby, I remember using 'story' to loosely mean 'stuff that happens in the game'.
I would suggest people use the word HISTORY for that. For starters, it's a much more accurate description than "story".
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073608I would suggest people use the word HISTORY for that. For starters, it's a much more accurate description than "story".
Honestly, I think that is the most compelling part of your argument because it is a very good analogy for how I and many others run campaign settings. And it is a great way to explain something some people have trouble understanding. I quite like that part of your videos on this topic. When you talked about game of thrones being interesting because it applies history logic (which is surprising to the reader/viewer, I thought that was spot on. I guess there is potential confusion over 'does he mean history of the setting or 'stuff that happened in the campaign, but it is a much more focused term that reflects what I see at the table. The problem is we with it is I've never heard people use the word history like that at the table. Or if I have not nearly as much as something like story. My point is like 80% of the hobby use story to basically mean stuff going on in the session. So I feel like it would be more effective to point that out when someone makes the 'RPGs should tell good stories' argument. Mind you, I don't particularly care if people want games to tell stories or want story mechanics. The area where I take issue is when this is assumed to be a pervasive ought. I think pointing out the equivocation on 'story' immediately takes the steam out of that argument.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073608I would suggest people use the word HISTORY for that. For starters, it's a much more accurate description than "story".
Except these aren't histories, in that they never actually happened and aren't a study of written records. If "story" bothers you that much then use narrative or record or something.
But everyone else is going to call them stories. You're tilting at windmills if you think most people are going to refer to "narratives of what happened in our roleplaying game" as anything but that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073606Do you like wargames?
Yes, pity I rarely get to play any.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1073615Except these aren't histories, in that they never actually happened and aren't a study of written records. If "story" bothers you that much then use narrative or record or something.
But everyone else is going to call them stories. You're tilting at windmills if you think most people are going to refer to "narratives of what happened in our roleplaying game" as anything but that.
Pretty sure there's an extensive history of the Sith Lords on Wikipedia, and that shit never happened, either.
Quote from: Brad;1073617Pretty sure there's an extensive history of the Sith Lords on Wikipedia, and that shit never happened, either.
Good point.
I still think that stories about RPG campaigns aren't generally going to be called histories. It's like if I talk about what happened when my dad got in a brawl with his brothers at my grandparents 40th anniversary party, I'm not "relating the history" of an event, I'm "telling a story" about it. Calling it a history feels wrong, and the same thing goes for talking about RPGs I've played in or run.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1073615Except these aren't histories, in that they never actually happened and aren't a study of written records. If "story" bothers you that much then use narrative or record or something.
.
I think we are getting into deep navel gazing territory now, but I think it is fair to describe stuff that happened as 'history'. The study of history is about text, though honestly that has been been broadened a lot. There are historians now who look at architecture, textiles and other remnants (sometimes treating as text, or sometimes as part of an interdisciplinary approach). But I don't think Pundit was strictly talking about the field of history. He was talking about the way the word gets used to mean the things that have happened in the human timeline. (edit: I guess this would be another example of equivocation. Obviously Pundit wasn't saying GMs should construct campaigns the way a Historian assembles a narrative and analysis).
That said, the game did happen. It is an event that can be recounted and does get recounted. So it is at the very least, oral history. Plus there is text, the GM has notes and the players have characters. Plus there are often GM logs. A crazed historian in the future could try to make sense of pundits online campaign logs, his notes, and his player character sheets. Plus whatever text remains in the form of online posts from him and his players.
Again we are navel gazing here. I do think people generally don't use the word history to mean the things that happened at the table. And I believe it is a bit optimistic to expect people will start doing so. But just as a way of communicating to people what RPGs can be, it is a pretty handy analogy. Many rule books begin with "And RPG is like a movie or book". I don't think I've seen any that say "An RPG is like history". I am sure someone, somewhere has made this comparison (maybe Pundit already has in one of his intros). That is definitely the mindset I would like to build in some of my campaigns. So I think this is a useful concept. It is one of the striking things you see if you read a lot of history. People die when they definitely wouldn't die in a novel. Strange and surprising twists arise in history that a novelist would dismiss as absurd.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1073618Good point.
I still think that stories about RPG campaigns aren't generally going to be called histories. It's like if I talk about what happened when my dad got in a brawl with his brothers at my grandparents 40th anniversary party, I'm not "relating the history" of an event, I'm "telling a story" about it. Calling it a history feels wrong, and the same thing goes for talking about RPGs I've played in or run.
Fair enough, but this just seems like some dumb semantics game at the end of the day. The issue I have with calling the act of playing an RPG "a story" is that when you read a story (or history or whatever), it is talking about events that already took place. You haven't DONE anything yet when you're playing the game. If you want to say the act of play creates a narrative, well I guess that's okay, but a lot of storygamers think there's some ultra important underlying story already there that they need to engage with, their characters becoming interwoven into the tale. It's like they're obsessed with The NeverEnding Story or something and want to be a character in a book. At that point, are you even really playing a game? I'd just call that interactive fiction or something, but at least in those old Infocom games your choices actually mattered...reading some stuff about storygames makes me think player choice is irrelevant if it deviates from the predetermined narrative.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1073358I don't find that particular instance objectionable but I don't see how it can "drive immersion." Who is it that is describing the bridge? It is the player and not the character. Not really a problem but not really driving immersion. However, deciding to use a whatever point to avoid a bad consequence is an out of character decision that cannot be in character and makes immersion more difficult. While playtesting the Buffy game, I found that the whatever points we had were distracting and were things my character did not even _know_ about.
While you are correct, it is the player that is describing the bridge, what's nominally missing from my input is what happens
next, when the DM asks the player to describe his character's interaction with the bridge.
Having put the player in the driving seat, it is more immediately immersive for that player to describe how his character approaches and interacts with the bridge. Since it is in
his mind, he doesn't have to ask the DM to describe all the little details, rather he is providing them to the rest of the group right there and then. And having done that, hopefully really colourfully, the camera can then shift to the next player, or back to the DM. And of course importantly, none of that has undermined the DM's authority or ability to unfold the plot, which seems to be what drives the incoherent rage around here.
Now where the skill / experience comes in, is being able to use that fast and effectively, in a multitude of situations, including interactions with NPCs. It's quite the shift from the old-school [D&D] "DM vs Players" style of narration, but it is hugely rewarding in terms of both immersion and keeping everyone's interest level high throughout the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073620Again we are navel gazing here. I do think people generally don't use the word history to mean the things that happened at the table. And I believe it is a bit optimistic to expect people will start doing so. But just as a way of communicating to people what RPGs can be, it is a pretty handy analogy. Many rule books begin with "And RPG is like a movie or book". I don't think I've seen any that say "An RPG is like history". I am sure someone, somewhere has made this comparison (maybe Pundit already has in one of his intros). That is definitely the mindset I would like to build in some of my campaigns. So I think this is a useful concept. It is one of the striking things you see if you read a lot of history. People die when they definitely wouldn't die in a novel. Strange and surprising twists arise in history that a novelist would dismiss as absurd.
I can see your point. I should say that I don't think the goal of playing an RPG is to tell stories, enact a play, or anything like that. The goals are to have fun and to respond to events that happen in-game, or make events happen yourself. I just think that after play, when you're talking about it, you're telling a story. It wasn't written as a story, but the story about that time my gall-bladder nearly killed me wasn't written as a story either. Some of this is likely just an issue of language being imprecise: if I'm telling stories about events in my life I suppose am relating an oral history, but I'd never, ever, refer to it in that manner outside of this exact discussion.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1073628I can see your point. I should say that I don't think the goal of playing an RPG is to tell stories, enact a play, or anything like that. The goals are to have fun and to respond to events that happen in-game, or make events happen yourself. I just think that after play, when you're talking about it, you're telling a story. It wasn't written as a story, but the story about that time my gall-bladder nearly killed me wasn't written as a story either. Some of this is likely just an issue of language being imprecise: if I'm telling stories about events in my life I suppose am relating an oral history, but I'd never, ever, refer to it in that manner outside of this exact discussion.
There is probably a bit of a divide between GM's who pursue "Unity of Action, Time, and Place" (if only unconsciously via literary roots)--or a later literary reaction against the classical unities--versus those that reject such literary forms entirely in their games. The latter is going to be a lot more akin to history than any "story", even if it gets rendered later in the narrative history form of some of the more readable historians.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073604The Forge isn't the "patriarchy", it's literally the predecessors to the SJWs.
I meant in the sense of nebulous, all-purpose bogeyman.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073285to your last point: storygames are not 'evolution'. They're diversion. They're as different from RPGs as RPGs are from Wargames. They're a separate hobby.
I don't agree with that.
My entry to the hobby came from a desire to simulate fiction. And I started actively gaming in the late 80's. I read a lot of books on the subject. Which were written by some of the fathers of the hobby. And they laid it out bare. That they intended to give players the experience of actually playing a novel's protagonists. To create an experience of communal storytelling.
Dicing With Dragons by Ian Livingstone is one of the books I have. And I also own a copy of Role-Playing Mastery by E. Gary Gygax. Both of these books informed much of my early view of roleplaying games. And still play a big part in how I approach running RPGs today.
QuoteAs to your point about 'an endless amount of novels': Those have existed because there's an awful lot of people who desperately want to be novelists. It's telling that D&D has produced an endless amount of utterly garbage novels. Also, those novels, when they have influenced the game (through metaplot changing settings, etc) have always HARMED the game.
Metaplot etc. has always been the bane of my experience as a gamer. There are only a few times where i saw it actually worked to positive effect in the RPG hobby. TORG, The Time Of Troubles during the Forgotten Realms AD&D 2nd Edition era. And those examples worked because they did not try to nullify the importance of the PCs. Those events stayed as backdrop. Where they belonged.
The problem arose when bad writers decided that their metaplot was more important than the individual PC group. And decided to disregard them entirely.
My current favorite version of D&D? D&D 5th Edition. Why? Because it returned focus and importance to playing the role of your character. Rather than treating them as nothing more than a chess piece. Which was how 4th Edition treated them.
As to the shitty novels? I don't make excuses for shitty novels or the novelists who create them. Nobody should.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073298If so, you are aware that 4e is a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT GAME that doesn't fit in with any of those other editions in the way they all fit in with each other. One of these things is not like the others.
I've been flat on my back with a monster flu since Sunday, but I feel this needs to be addressed enough that its worth halfway necro-ing the comment.
I strongly DISAGREE that 4E is fundamentally different game from 3e or 5e (we'll get to 2e and earlier a little later).
All three editions focus on small parties of PCs with no to minimal support (in 3e leadership was an optional feat and many DMs banned it, 4E and 5e included only guidelines for how to factor an ally into a fight rather than mechanizing the acquisition of allies) exploring monster-filled dungeons for various reasons (remember 3e's pitch of "back to the dungeon"?). They all use ability scores in approximately the same ranges with the same modifiers (i.e. half of score - 10) and use races and classes to determine what your character can do. They all resolve their actions through d20+modifiers checks and damage based on the non-d20 dice of the set and use a cyclic initiative order with standard, move and minor actions (or swift or bonus actions depending on the edition, but the principle is the same). They have much more detailed combat rules than non-combat rules (the high water for that was 3e; 4E was positively TSR-ish in its leaving everything outside of combat to the DMs judgement with just Page 42 for guidance; 5e codified that as "rulings not rules").
What 4E plays a lot like is a game of 5e that starts at level 3* and uses point buy as its default (something the devs themselves recommend if you wanted to skip the so-called high lethality "zero-to-hero" stage). 4E also plays a lot like a game of 3e where the DM allows full use of all WotC material, but limits class choices to those in tier 3-4** (those tiers being deemed the best for a healthy long-term game that wouldn't implode once level 7+ spells got fully into the mix... ironically, the PHB has the most extremely over-powered; wizard/cleric/druid; and under-powered; fighter/monk; classes in the entire system; people who banned all but core were actually inadvertently making their games WORSE).
4E played the way a lot of people were trying to make 3e perform through house rules. You can try and rewrite history all you want, but the changes made to 4E had nothing to do with hate for D&D, but in answering specific complaints about the 3e system; "casters & caddies" "rocket tag" "save or die" "ability damage complexity" "overly complex skill system" "full heal-ups between fights as long as your stash of wands held out" and "required pre-planning your build for prestige classes" among them; Its why, among other things fighters got codified interesting things, monster hit points got inflated, save or dies were eliminated, skills went to trained or untrained only, healing surges limited the amount of healing you could actually receive in a day and prestige classes got built into the default character advancement.
Now it had some snags, but they were largely worked out by the second year (basically by 4E Dark Sun and the MM3) and it was actually less severe than the problems 3e had to sort out early on as well (largely because most of its pre-testing had been done through the lens of playing it just like you would AD&D while not realizing how a number of their little changes added up to wizards casting two save or die spells a round with impossibly high DCs while the warriors couldn't hit their damage targets because they had to keep moving more than 5 feet in a single round). In 4E's case they overestimated the amount of hit points monsters would need and underestimated how much damage they'd need to deal to be a threat; you could adjust all the old monsters with a business card sized note (the same business card for all of them).
QuoteNow here's where you can choose to LIE and just pretend that 4e is no different from, say, 3e than 2e was, rather than being a radically different game, or where you can admit that 4e is another game.
I'd actually argue that 3e is much further away from 2e's design principles than 4E was from 3e. Take spellcasting for example;
* * * * *
Spellcasting in 2e was risky. Even a single point of damage before you got your spell off spoiled it and cost you the spell. If you used the initiative rules properly (i.e. 1d10 + weapon speed/spell segments) it was very likely that an opponent with a quick weapon and/or a good Dex could get a shot in at you between your declaration and finishing the casting. If they hit that slot was wasted.
In 3e, most spells were standard actions meaning they could not be interrupted at range without taking a ready action to target the caster (which cost your actual action). Likewise, the 5-foot step made it trivially easy to avoid melee attacks of opportunity in most situations. Alternately you could just make a pretty easy concentration check (DC 15+spell level) to cast defensively. Then even if you do take damage, you get to make another Concentration check (10+spell level+damage dealt) to keep right on casting anyway.
4E treated ranged spells like ranged attacks. Making a ranged attack provoked an attack of opportunity (just like a spell in 3e would). As with 3e, making a 5-ft step was the easiest way to avoid the attack and it streamlined the rest out to speed up play.
5e also treats spells identically to ranged attacks so its in line with 4E's streamlined treatment of spells from 3e.
* * * * *
On top of being risky to cast, in 2e the save structure meant that trying to throw big save-or-die spells at high level opponents was a poor gamble because their ability to save was entirely dependent upon their level, not the caster's level of ability and while some spells used a different save, for the most part, a save vs. spell was a save vs. spell. This meant that against high level opponents, employing spells with a miss effect (ex. fireball or lightning bolt as classic examples) was the optimal spell use and a failed save was an added benefit.
Compare that to 3e where now the difficulty of making a save was in large part dependent upon the strength of the caster (higher ability score and higher spell level plus some feats all make the spell harder to resist) and spells with saves fell into one of three types (instead of all being save vs. spell). Then by leveraging monster knowledge (a successful knowledge check can tell you which save is a monster's weakest) and save-or-die goes from something you can't really count on (the 2e and earlier model) to something you can attempt with a reasonable chance of success. In addition the increased spells per level (in general and from improved ability scores) gave you more save-or-dies to throw out in a day. This combined serves to largely separate the magic system (where save-or-dies rule) from the rest of the game where hit points actually matter (as they used to for spellcasting for 'save partials' and in the sense that HD affected the target's save target numbers).
4E made two changes to 3e's approach. First it flipped spells from being something you saved against to something you attacked with (while still targeting Fort, Reflex or Will) so that they would resolve just like every other offensive action. Second, they removed many of the fight ending 'save-or-die' effects from spells (opting instead for 1-2 round long effects that could sway a battle but not end it completely on their own) so that hit point attrition was again the name of the game (which actually makes it closer to 2e's model than 3e was). It also kept up the monster defense scaling so that more powerful monsters were much harder to just affect outright.
5e went back to saves vs. spells and brought back save-or-die effects, but gated them behind hit point thresholds so they wouldn't be automatic fight enders. But they also ended up divvying up the saves even more and because of how scaling works in this edition tended to result in monsters and PCs having an ever more difficult time avoiding something they weren't proficient with (because the attacker was always proficient when determining the spell's DC).
* * * * *
I could go on, but as should be readily apparent, 4E exists pretty solidly within the 3e-5e continuum on concepts here and elsewhere. The continuing evolution is even more apparent if look at where 3.5e had been trending since basically its start. The warlock didn't originate in 4E; it first appeared in 3.5e's
Complete Arcane. At-will spells for all casters got their start with Reserve Feats from
Complete Mage and
Complete Champion. The basics of 4E's martial classes can be seen in 3.5e's
Tome of Battle. 4E's skill system was a slight variation on one of the options in the 3.5e
Unearthed Arcana. Action Points first showed up in
Eberron, but also appeared in
Unearthed Arcana and
d20 Modern.
It's a very soft jump from late 3.5e to 4E in terms of mechanics.
The single biggest change that really seems to be the ACTUAL problem with 4E though?
Presentation.
4E's presentation was radically different than prior editions of D&D because it actually made a clear divide between fluff text and rule text (even using a different font) and presented its rule text in unambiguous technical language instead of some unholy union of fluff and rules written in "natural language" for the reader to interpret. It also stripped the monster stat blocks down to precisely what you'd need to reference in a fight (because the DM can manage any of the non-combat stuff on their own because 4E left the non-combat side as fast as loose as AD&D/BECMI did... 3e was the high-water mark of trying to make D&D a world simulator; 4E rejected that concept hard).
It also made no pretenses that it was anything but a game and so the world and the characters in it were designed around "what would make for interesting games?" This led to the trashing of a number of sacred cows and I'm certain a good chunk of those who hated 4E derived that hate from a cow that was particularly important to them getting slaughtered.
I will go on record to state that it was a HUGE mistake to try and make Forgotten Realms their first setting... that led them to try and bend the Realms to 4E's cosmology instead of how they bent 4E's rules to fit the cosmologies in their later Eberron and Dark Sun settings... which killed a lot of sacred cows and earned a lot of unneeded anger... I get the motive; get material for the best selling setting out there NOW; but it was a bone-headed play). But that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the system or how alike or unalike it was from prior editions of D&D.
It also didn't help that someone on WotC's end decided to burn the bridges with Paizo. The Pathfinder setting was originally going to be Paizo's default setting for the Dungeon and Dragon magazines in the 4E era. But then WotC replaced the OGL with the much more restrictive GSL and pulled the magazines in house; leaving Paizo with no viable path forward but to create its Pathfinder retroclone. Then on top of that pressure from Hasbro pushed them to release 4E about a year ahead of schedule (one of the reasons many of the iconic classes weren't in the PHB1 was they just weren't ready yet) which limited the pool of early adopters (while Pathfinder soaked up the late adopters) and finally bottom fell out of the economy in late 2008 (bank bailout, housing collapse, biggest stock market drop in history to that point) just months after 4E launched. Then their lead software developer committed suicide so they couldn't deliver on the digital tools they'd been selling. This perfect storm of badness (which has nothing to do with any mechanical aspect of the system) did way more to tank 4E than any rule system changes ever did.
And even then, it wasn't until 4E had all but stopped publishing books entirely (2011 had only a handful of titles, 2012 had only one) that Pathfinder finally beat out 4E in terms of sales. 4E's problem wasn't that it wasn't successful; it was the biggest selling RPG of all time until 5e came along (Pathfinder later eclipsed it too, but only after 4E had ceased publication). The problem was that it was not successful enough relative to what Hasbro was spending on the brand (monthly releases and in-house writers are expensive relative to the sales they were getting... there's a reason 5e outsources a lot and only does a couple products a year now).
* * * * *
In short, you're not only wrong about me, you're wrong about the entire WotC period of D&D. The major break in design principles was 2e to 3e (which everyone got over because TSR was bankrupt and WotC had thrown the brand a very pretty life line). Everything after the break has been incremental developments with periodic tear downs and rebuilds, but still with the same basic engine.
I followed 4E's development quite closely. Not once did they speak of past versions of D&D being incoherent. What I remember hearing time and again (I actually own the two promo books "Races & Classes" and "Worlds & Monsters") was "We have an idea of how we could do this better/make this more interesting." They didn't hate D&D. They were looking for solution to problems players had with the 3e system and coming up with ways to address it.
As much as you want there to be one; there was no grand conspiracy by the people behind 4E against D&D and D&D was indeed just an iterative design step from late-era 3.5e. That you insist there was a conspiracy and that anyone who disagrees with you is lying just makes me want to send you a tinfoil hat.
* This gets even more obvious if you've ever played a 4E game where you removed the 1/2 level bump to everything in order to keep lower tier opponents a threat for a longer period of time... you get a +4 to checks with two of your abilities from ability score increases and the best magic has a +6 modifier (net +10). In 5e you're expected to improve your key ability score to a 20 (net +2 for most), pick up 4 more points from proficiency and can get up to +3 from a magic item (net +9).
** We see similar scaling here again once you strip out the general leveling noise, with the variance between a good and bad save in 3e and a proficient and non-proficient save in 5e being the same six point spread. Likewise, Fighter base attack bonus improves by +10 and spellcaster DCs improve by +9 due to leveling. While 4E increased the number of stat bumps you got from leveling (+24 to stats overall; max +8 to two two, +2 to all others vs. a flat +5 in 3e), it also removed all the magic item stat bumps (up to +18-24 before slots started to interfere such as the mantle of health and cloak of charisma competing for the same slot.ETA: Figured I'd also add that the things I prefer about 4E over the other editions are things 5e could have done if they'd not been all about throwing 4E under the bus; all-in-one monster stat blocks/easy encounter-building math (makes it MUCH easier to run than 5e) and multi-note martial classes; particularly the warlord (fixing the save structure would also be nice, but I've lived with it and it doesn't really get notable until level 11+ so its not as big of an impact as the two things I mentioned).
Chris,
Great post, but I think you left out one key part on the "Presentation" problem: The big laundry list of powers on every class. Change that one thing in 4E, and it probably still doesn't survive, but it does much better. Not only did that design choice all but kill the presentation, it also had other nasty side effects. It made classes harder to design, develop, and test. That's why they couldn't get more in the first book. Then on top of that, they chickened out on carrying that design to its logical conclusion--lots of radically different powers in each class to make them operate and feel different. What they finished with was the worst of both worlds, with the powers as extremely narrow, repetitive variations on a handful of ideas. But in any case, a zillion one-off powers is the last thing you want if "balance" is your goal.
Then on top of that, it was a different game with extremely poor advice for running it in ways that would maximize what it did well. The actual rules of the game combined with the advice they provided reminded of the time I tried a swan dive off a high dive, and tried to turn it into a jump midway. I ended up stretched out almost completely flat, from head to toe. The lifeguard almost fell of his stand laughing at me.
My 4E games worked only because I recognized the game advice in the core books was directly opposite to making the game work well.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073715It also made no pretenses that it was anything but a game and so the world and the characters in it were designed around "what would make for interesting games?" This led to the trashing of a number of sacred cows and I'm certain a good chunk of those who hated 4E derived that hate from a cow that was particularly important to them getting slaughtered.
You're incredibly dismissive of the biggest difference - all other editions of D&D put some value on simulation, on using the rules to support the feel of a living world. 4e goes all out on "it's a GAME!!!!!" - and this changes the whole paradigm.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1073618Good point.
I still think that stories about RPG campaigns aren't generally going to be called histories. It's like if I talk about what happened when my dad got in a brawl with his brothers at my grandparents 40th anniversary party, I'm not "relating the history" of an event, I'm "telling a story" about it. Calling it a history feels wrong, and the same thing goes for talking about RPGs I've played in or run.
When your dad got in a brawl with his brothers, he wasn't creating a story, he was creating history.
When you tell everyone about the time your dad got in a brawl with his brothers, you are not creating history, you are creating a story.
When you're relating to anyone about a game you played in the past, you're telling a story.
When you were actually playing those games, unless they were storygames, you were not telling a story.
Slipping on a banana peel in front of the hottest chick you've ever seen isn't telling a story. Telling everyone about it afterward is telling a story whether it actually happened or not.
Your character chopping the head off an ogre chieftain isn't telling or creating a story. If the character tells someone about it In Character or you tell someone about it Out of Character that is creating and telling a story.
The creation of events that happened through your or other's actions is not telling a story.
The creation of a story about those events that happened is telling a story.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073275It also made no pretenses that it was anything but a game and so the world and the characters in it were designed around "what would make for interesting games?" This led to the trashing of a number of sacred cows and I'm certain a good chunk of those who hated 4E derived that hate from a cow that was particularly important to them getting slaughtered.
You're not wrong. A lot of the people I knew both on and off line complained at how it 'nerfed' wizards. The same complaints that were leveled at the Book of Nine Swords, which as I'm sure you know, is highly inaccurate, but it was one of the biggest pushes to Pathfinder.
Quote from: S'mon;1073741You're incredibly dismissive of the biggest difference - all other editions of D&D put some value on simulation, on using the rules to support the feel of a living world. 4e goes all out on "it's a GAME!!!!!" - and this changes the whole paradigm.
No it didn't. D&D has NEVER been about 'simulation' of a living world. Not at it's core. The various designers have TRIED to do so, but there are too many conflicting mechanical systems. Inflating Hit Points and Armour Class being the biggest two examples. Both of which are pretty much the same thing, but from different angles. HP is supposed to simulate health, luck and skill, while AC is a binary hit/miss system that's supposed to simulate armour, luck and skill. It's always been screaming 'It's a GAME!!!!!' no matter how many layers of paint they slap onto it.
It's the reason why the only 'genre' it simulates is itself.
4e was finally being honest about it.
I never really liked it, but I'd be willing to play in it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1073743When your dad got in a brawl with his brothers, he wasn't creating a story, he was creating history.
When you tell everyone about the time your dad got in a brawl with his brothers, you are not creating history, you are creating a story.
When you're relating to anyone about a game you played in the past, you're telling a story.
When you were actually playing those games, unless they were storygames, you were not telling a story.
This just doesn't make sense. When my dad got into a brawl with his brothers, he was actually doing actions. Something really happened. The telling later is a fundamentally different event - saying words that describe those actions.
When I'm playing a tabletop RPG, the only thing I'm doing is saying words about what a fictional character is doing.
The difference between story-games and traditional RPGs in terms of experience can be very minor - especially if one defines games like Dungeon World as story games. I accept that there are stylistic differences in game play between D&D and Dungeon World. I don't buy that playing D&D means that the stuff somehow really happened while Dungeon World is a story.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;10737464e was finally being honest about it.
Thus creating a far more limited game, that was so unsuccessful in attracting a mass audience that Paizo became the leading RPG company 2010-2014.
Basically you are giving the Forgeist line that a game should be "Coherent" - ie "Honest". But that's not what most people want from D&D.
Quote from: S'mon;1073757Thus creating a far more limited game, that was so unsuccessful in attracting a mass audience that Paizo became the leading RPG company 2010-2014.
Basically you are giving the Forgeist line that a game should be "Coherent" - ie "Honest". But that's not what most people want from D&D.
The funny thing was that a lot of the people saying that they wanted that from D&D were the ones that found out that they didn't want it when they played 4E.
I agree that 4E wasn't the radical departure some claim it was.
Out of combat, I ran 4E the same I ran every other edition. We roleplayed exploration and dialogue, occasionally resorting to a role to adjudicate.
In combat, the big change with 4E is obviously that minis and a grid are required. Yes, that's a big change. But most people who played 3.X were already using minis and a grid, and 3.x is almost as hard to run without minis as 4E.
But it's a mistake to say 4E emphasized combat more than other editions. You can run a session of 4E without any combat, same as any other edition. The difference is each combat will take much longer, so it's a system that is well-suited towards featuring a few, climactic combats, rather than lots of attritional combats. It means that if you have 2 hours of combat in a 4 hour session of 4E, that will be two combats, whereas in earlier editions two hours of combat in a 4 hour session will probably be 4 or 5 combats. That is a change, and one that was poorly communicated (and poorly understand by the people who wrote the early 4E adventures). But it doesn't mean you have more combat in a 4E game.
Character generation is obviously a lot different. At release, 4E classes seemed kind of generic, with each class having different flavours of the same menu items. With Essentials, the familiar archetypal distinctions were restored.
Really, I find the difference in approach and presumed playstyle between 2e and 3e to at least as big as the difference between 2e and 4e.
Quote from: Haffrung;1073801I agree that 4E wasn't the radical departure some claim it was.
.
Not to resurrect this war, but character classes operated totally differently. They were all organized around those powers, which had a real vancian vibe. That totally altered the game. It was like everyone became a mage or had abilities like Barbarian Rage. I think that system was good for certain things, but it felt so divorced from what I understood D&D to be, I think radical departure is putting it mildly.
Quote from: S'mon;1073757Thus creating a far more limited game, that was so unsuccessful in attracting a mass audience that Paizo became the leading RPG company 2010-2014.
Yup, so unsuccessful it only outsold every other gaming system in history except 5e and Pathfinder. Also based on the available numbers at the time Pathfinder didn't overtake it until 2012 when 4E stopped releasing new books altogether and only tied its quarterly sales in 2011. The idea that Pathfinder eclipsed 4E right from the start is nothing more than Paizo marketing nonsense.
4E was only a "failure" because it wasn't hitting Hasbo's sales targets for its current level of funding. As is typical for a publicly traded company, if the money spent on something could make more of a profit elsewhere then it's a failure regardless of whether its making more money than it costs to run it. 5e is D&D's "maintenance mode" a system designed to be run by a handful of people with minimal corporate investment. Its why you only see a couple products a year now and most of what you do see is outsourced to other producers because there's no one left in house to do the work.
Frankly, most RPG companies would shit themselves in public for sales equaling 10% of 4E's "failure." Its only a failure by the standards of a corporation that considers anything less than $50 million a year in sales too insignificant to even deserve its own line item in the annual profit and loss report (for perspective; their reported sales for 2017 were $5.21 BILLION... The entire table top RPG industry is less than 1% of what Hasbro makes in a year; D&D, Pathfinder and everything else combined is only about $40 million a year last I'd heard an estimate).
* * * * *
Also, for a "limited" game we managed mass battles and domain management easily enough (level-based enhancement bonuses meant you could get rid of magic crafting and throw out wealth by level with it). It was also the first version of D&D that allowed for heroic-style play in a completely non-magical setting without needing special house rules.
Also, its engine was transparent enough that you could kit bash it easily, see where any problems were coming from and correct them. I consider it an infinitely better base engine to build from than either 3e or 5e.
Which actually is the point people keep moving the goalposts to cover up. The argument was 4E was radically different from every other edition of D&D and you're lying if you say otherwise. No it wasn't. It was an incremental change from late-era 3.5e*. 5e is, overall, an incremental change from 4E once you peel back the nostalgia soaked skin to look at its guts.
So now the argument isn't "its a fundamentally different game" its now "it wasn't popular."
You're always going to come up with another reason to hate it.
It's fine. I'm a 4E fan (and a Catholic and a Cubs fan) I'm used to it.
* Genuine point of interest here. How many people have actually played 3e using more than the core three books/SRD? I'm talking the Complete X (Arcane, Divine, etc.) Series, Savage Species, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, Player's Handbook II, etc. I'm curious because, while I see how 4E is just a small jump from late 3.5e, I'm suspecting many who talk about how radically different 4E was from 3e never actually looked at the system outside of "core" and completely missed the roughly eight years of game development that went on between 3e and 4E (3.5e happened sure, but its impact on the core books was relatively minimal... a few tweaks here, a few there, but the goal was to NOT fundamentally disrupt the core books).
Quote from: Chris24601;1073808Yup, so unsuccessful it only outsold every other gaming system in history except 5e and Pathfinder. Also based on the available numbers at the time Pathfinder didn't overtake it until 2012 when 4E stopped releasing new books altogether and only tied its quarterly sales in 2011. The idea that Pathfinder eclipsed 4E right from the start is nothing more than Paizo marketing nonsense.
.
Chris, they split the market in half with that product. It is right there in your answer (it didn't outsell pathfinder, which was a direct result of 4E and an attempt by Paizo to capture the players who were disappointed by 4th edition's changes). I am not saying the game is badly designed. But we were all there and remember how divisive the edition was.
Quote from: Haffrung;1073801In combat, the big change with 4E is obviously that minis and a grid are required. Yes, that's a big change. But most people who played 3.X were already using minis and a grid, and 3.x is almost as hard to run without minis as 4E.
The really funny thing about this? My 4E group hasn't used minis or grids in nearly eight years and don't miss them. It is easily as theatre-of-the-mind-able as 3e or 5e. If you want an easy trick for visualizing, replace every use of the word square in 4E with "Pace" (the Roman Pace was about 5 feet) and it becomes very easy to picture fights in your head.
"The orcs are four paces from you. The necromancer is about 2 paces behind them."
The further along 3.* got, the less I liked it. Both in the later products moving in a direction I didn't want to go, while rapidly getting tired of the original due to too much time with it.
Part of the reason that I enjoyed 4E for a few years was that I skipped all that, and was thus able to enjoy it for what it was. If anything, I'd have been much happier with 4E had they not sold it as a version of D&D, and thus been more likely to take the design to its logical conclusion, instead of doing so many things half-baked out of the gate. Though I'd have also enjoyed it immensely more had I skipped out on at first, played something else, and then jumped on Essentials when it arrived. Hindsight, 20/20, etc.
Though I doubt I'm a typical user. I don't tend to get genre or setting fatigue, but I do very much get system fatigue, even with system I enjoy.
Quote from: jhkim;1073748This just doesn't make sense. When my dad got into a brawl with his brothers, he was actually doing actions. Something really happened. The telling later is a fundamentally different event - saying words that describe those actions.
Exactly. There was a chain of events.
1. Something happened.
2. Someone retold what happened as a story.
Quote from: jhkim;1073748When I'm playing a tabletop RPG, the only thing I'm doing is saying words about what a fictional character is doing.
That is why you fail. :D
Seriously though. Of course you feel that way, you probably have always roleplayed under the presumption that since you are roleplaying a fictional character, then by saying "I attack the orc", you are doing the same fundamental creative action as R.A. Salvatore writing "Driz'zt attacks the orc." Thus you see roleplaying as telling a story, even when you are roleplaying and no OOC mechanics are involved. This is the same rationale behind Robin Laws saying roleplaying is an interactive literary art form, the only form of literature where you are both artist and audience.
The key takeaway is...not everyone sees or experiences it that way. Immersive IC roleplaying uses suspension of disbelief to dispel as much as possible the OOC 4th wall awareness and try to act, talk, think like the character as much as possible. In this mindset, you the player
aren't talking about a fictional character, you the player
are taking actions as the fictional character.
In Tolkien's concepts of Mythopoeia and Subcreation applied to roleplaying, the internal consistency of the world and setting provides for suspension of disbelief that allows the game and the PC to be as real as possible. Of course it isn't real, but the goal of Immersive IC roleplaying is to be drawn into the setting and PC so as to seem, in our imaginations, to be real.
A roleplaying setting and session does operate on the same concept of imagination as a work of literature or film might, to draw us in and make the imaginary world seem real to us. That's one of the reasons "canon violations" bother people with IP settings, it violates the integrity of a setting and thus inhibits Suspension of Disbelief. However, just because literature and roleplaying use imagination to create Suspension of Disbelief doesn't mean they are the same.
Some people approach roleplaying with the dual IC/OOC point of view.
Some do not.
Quote from: jhkim;1073748The difference between story-games and traditional RPGs in terms of experience can be very minor - especially if one defines games like Dungeon World as story games. I accept that there are stylistic differences in game play between D&D and Dungeon World. I don't buy that playing D&D means that the stuff somehow really happened while Dungeon World is a story.
I don't define Dungeon World as a storygame, I define it as a Narrative RPG. The key difference between a Narrative RPG and other RPGs is the use of core mechanics to present the player with OOC choices that the character could not make. Like most PbtA games, certain moves in DW, usually in the middle "success, but" range, allow the player to have some narrative control over what, and more importantly how, their character accomplishes tasks.
If you're playing a game without OOC mechanics that grant narrative control, you could roleplay from an IC or IC/OOC viewpoint.
If you're playing a game with OOC mechanics, then you're being forced away from IC viewpoint into an IC/OOC viewpoint.
If you're roleplaying from an IC/OOC viewpoint, then you can be using the RPG both to tell the story and experience the story, be both author and audience.
If you're roleplaying solely from an IC viewpoint, there is no story. You're trying to inhabit another life in another world and the actions that you undertake as the PC are no more creating a story than are the actions you undertake in the real world.
That's why RPGs do not tell stories...unless you specifically switch back and forth from roleplaying to do it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073809Chris, they split the market in half with that product. It is right there in your answer (it didn't outsell pathfinder, which was a direct result of 4E and an attempt by Paizo to capture the players who were disappointed by 4th edition's changes). I am not saying the game is badly designed. But we were all there and remember how divisive the edition was.
Don't forget the game was purposely changed with the intent that it could not be replicated using the OGL, that it would supposedly bring in a younger MMO audience, etc. Someone at WotC forgot that King Solomon didn't actually cut the baby in half. :D
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073809Chris, they split the market in half with that product. It is right there in your answer (it didn't outsell pathfinder, which was a direct result of 4E and an attempt by Paizo to capture the players who were disappointed by 4th edition's changes). I am not saying the game is badly designed. But we were all there and remember how divisive the edition was.
A) What does that have to do with whether or not liking 4E means you by default hate D&D and that if you say 4E is any way an iteration of the 3e-5e continuum you are a dirty filthy liar (Pundit's original claim)?
B) Half of D&D's base was still bigger than anything that wasn't D&D/Pathfinder by an order of magnitude. The argument that because it only made $18 million in sales a year instead of $32 million... when $18 million was still way better than 3e was selling in 2007... is ludicrous. 4E was the best selling RPG of all time until 5e beat it (then Pathfinder passed it by dint of 4E being out of print capping its total).
C) Are you telling me you wouldn't at least consider shitting yourself in public for about $1.8 million a year in sales?
Quote from: CRKruegerDon't forget the game was purposely changed with the intent that it could not be replicated using the OGL, that it would supposedly bring in a younger MMO audience, etc. Someone at WotC forgot that King Solomon didn't actually cut the baby in half.
That's a bullshit reason someone who wanted to make a 4E=WOW argument came up with. They dropped the OGL because the corporate overlords got greedy, saw all the money the 3rd parties were making and thought they could get a bigger share via the GSL. Unfortunately for the corporate overlords, the OGL had PRECISELY the effect its creator had intended; it had created a ruleset that could survive on its own without its creator's input (the idea was what almost happened with TSR going under would never be able to happen again).
WotC made a ton of fuckups when it came to 4E (which has zero bearing on whether or not its a valid iteration of the game), but they were almost all the usual 'greedy business' fuckups, not some deliberate attempt to ruin the game for the true fans in order to win over hypothetical ones.
Also, 4E has been retrocloned using the OGL a couple of times actually. What most people mean when they say it can't be replicated using the OGL though is "I can't duplicate it by copy-pasting from the d20SRD and claim it as my own work." Heck, my game system got its start as an OGL-based 4E retroclone until I'd made so many changes to it that it was about as similar to 4E as Palladium Fantasy was to OD&D.
Frankly, from my experience it took less time to write up a new 4E-style power than it did to write up a new spell for 3e and half the classes in the 3e PHB become far less effective without all those pages devoted to their spells. What putting the spells in their own section does is help disguise the vast difference in content between a fighter (a couple of pages even including its fighter-only feats) and a wizard (dozens upon dozens of pages of spells that are its main class feature).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073809Chris, they split the market in half with that product. It is right there in your answer (it didn't outsell pathfinder, which was a direct result of 4E and an attempt by Paizo to capture the players who were disappointed by 4th edition's changes). I am not saying the game is badly designed. But we were all there and remember how divisive the edition was.
No, they didn't. 3.x's OGL split the market. Because there was a literally legal way to steal work from WoTC and reprint it (and PFRPG just had to change a few words, it didn't have to add any mechanics, but they did) and that what how Paizo was able to lure the 3.x fans that didn't want change. Back in 2e to 3e, you had to suck it up if you wanted a D&D game, because no one knew they could copy the mechanics (not the expression.) But when the OGL happened, you had MONGOOSE REPRINTING ENTIRE SECTIONS OF THE PHB's SPELL LISTS AS VIABLE PRODUCTS.
That's what split the market. If there was no way for PFRPG to exist, people would have flocked over to 4e. I'm sure grumbling the entire time, but they'd have done it just like they did with Cyclopedia to 1e, to 2e, to 3e...
Quote from: Chris24601;1073808Yup, so unsuccessful it only outsold every other gaming system in history except 5e and Pathfinder. Also based on the available numbers at the time Pathfinder didn't overtake it until 2012 when 4E stopped releasing new books altogether and only tied its quarterly sales in 2011. The idea that Pathfinder eclipsed 4E right from the start is nothing more than Paizo marketing nonsense.
Lisa Stevens said mid 2010. But mid 2010 was also when I saw Orc's Nest take 4e off the prime chest-height entry-facing shelves, replacing it with Pathfinder. It was ironic because at the time WoTC had just released the very well regarded MM3 and Dark Sun stuff, widely seen as "4e done right".
Quote from: Chris24601;1073808Also, for a "limited" game we managed mass battles and domain management easily enough (level-based enhancement bonuses meant you could get rid of magic crafting and throw out wealth by level with it). It was also the first version of D&D that allowed for heroic-style play in a completely non-magical setting without needing special house rules.
Also, its engine was transparent enough that you could kit bash it easily, see where any problems were coming from and correct them. I consider it an infinitely better base engine to build from than either 3e or 5e.
Which actually is the point people keep moving the goalposts to cover up. The argument was 4E was radically different from every other edition of D&D and you're lying if you say otherwise. No it wasn't. It was an incremental change from late-era 3.5e*.
* Genuine point of interest here. How many people have actually played 3e using more than the core three books/SRD?
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. But yes when I think 3e I think the core system, what's in the 3.5e PHB. Just like when I think 4e I think the 4e PHB. I have a few late-3.5 products and I certainly see a drift to 4e-style thinking, especially the terrible "Delve" format.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073808So now the argument isn't "its a fundamentally different game" its now "it wasn't popular."
You're always going to come up with another reason to hate it.
1. It was a very different game - 'fundamental' is arguable.
2. For something with the D&D brand, it was not popular.
3. I
like 4e!!!! :D
Quote from: Chris24601;1073820A) What does that have to do with whether or not liking 4E means you by default hate D&D and that if you say 4E is any way an iteration of the 3e-5e continuum you are a dirty filthy liar (Pundit's original claim)?
B) Half of D&D's base was still bigger than anything that wasn't D&D/Pathfinder by an order of magnitude. The argument that because it only made $18 million in sales a year instead of $32 million... when $18 million was still way better than 3e was selling in 2007... is ludicrous. 4E was the best selling RPG of all time until 5e beat it (then Pathfinder passed it by dint of 4E being out of print capping its total).
C) Are you telling me you wouldn't at least consider shitting yourself in public for about $1.8 million a year in sales?
a) I wasn't weighing in on that point. I was responding to the claim that 4E is not a radical departure from prior editions of D&D.
b) 2007 was the end of 3E though, you can't compare the launch numbers with the ending numbers. And while I've heard all kinds of things about the sales (which always mostly seemed conjecture), it was visibly obvious that they lost half their customers. I let others weigh in on sales numbers here, as I haven't followed this story in a long time. But again, we were there. We remember the launch, the reaction, the ending of 4E as an edition to make way for 5E (which was an obvious effort to regain the customers they lost)
c) I'd consider shitting myself in public for a 1,000 dollars, let along 1.8 million. But the point is there was an obvious loss of of the market. Heck, I'd give my left arm to make 1/10th the customers WOTC does now with D&D. But if they lost 90% of their customers tomorrow, that would be regarded as a failure, and people wouldn't say 'their 10% is still worth more than anyone else.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073821No, they didn't. 3.x's OGL split the market. Because there was a literally legal way to steal work from WoTC and reprint it (and PFRPG just had to change a few words, it didn't have to add any mechanics, but they did) and that what how Paizo was able to lure the 3.x fans that didn't want change. Back in 2e to 3e, you had to suck it up if you wanted a D&D game, because no one knew they could copy the mechanics (not the expression.) But when the OGL happened, you had MONGOOSE REPRINTING ENTIRE SECTIONS OF THE PHB's SPELL LISTS AS VIABLE PRODUCTS.
That's what split the market. If there was no way for PFRPG to exist, people would have flocked over to 4e. I'm sure grumbling the entire time, but they'd have done it just like they did with Cyclopedia to 1e, to 2e, to 3e...
No it wasn't. People were mostly still playing 3E. The OGL was out for ages before Pathfinder. Pathfinder was only able to launch a successful competitor to the D&D brand because of 1) the OGL and 2) WOTC lost half their customers. They also managed to tick off Paizo just before launch and that gave them the desire to outdo WOTC.
Quote from: jhkimWhen I'm playing a tabletop RPG, the only thing I'm doing is saying words about what a fictional character is doing.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1073815That is why you fail. :D
Seriously though. Of course you feel that way, you probably have always roleplayed under the presumption that since you are roleplaying a fictional character, then by saying "I attack the orc", you are doing the same fundamental creative action as R.A. Salvatore writing "Driz'zt attacks the orc." Thus you see roleplaying as telling a story, even when you are roleplaying and no OOC mechanics are involved. This is the same rationale behind Robin Laws saying roleplaying is an interactive literary art form, the only form of literature where you are both artist and audience.
The key takeaway is...not everyone sees or experiences it that way. Immersive IC roleplaying uses suspension of disbelief to dispel as much as possible the OOC 4th wall awareness and try to act, talk, think like the character as much as possible. In this mindset, you the player aren't talking about a fictional character, you the player are taking actions as the fictional character.
I'm not talking about feelings, though - I'm talking about objective reality. An objective reality does in fact exist, and in that reality, the character is fictional. There can be different creative acts from the same medium. i.e. A dancer going through a routine and a martial artist practicing katas might both just be moving their bodies around, but their thought processes are very different.
As for what it feels like, I can completely agree that different games can feel different to different people. And those feelings are important.
But... not everyone who plays traditional RPGs feels the same way about what happens. How stuff feels is a touchy-feely / personal issue that can vary a lot between people.
I expressed the point of view of why to do this in an essay a while ago - what I called "Threefold Simulationism". Here's the conclusion from that -
QuoteThreefold Simulationism is based on method and observation rather than a theoretical goal which it strives for. The tool is simulation: projecting what should happen based on the game-world as it has been imagined. Put aside what you think the story should be based on books and movies, and instead think about the game-world as an alternate reality. Many people found interesting consequences and experiences through the use of this tool.
This essay has tried to explain what the result of sticking with this tool is like -- not just what games look like, but what they mean on an emotional level. There is no single goal of Simulationism. Like many forms of art, Simulationist role-playing is not easily reduced to a single cause or essence. However, there are many further questions which can be illuminated, such as:
1. What social function does role-playing represent?
2. What does character immersion represent in psychological and narrative terms? What makes the experience rewarding? What are the best ways to induce it?
3. How important is learning to role-playing? Over time, my own games have definitely tended to include more real-world history, culture, and science. Many games emphasize this aspect.
4. In what ways can Simulationism best be combined with other approaches to role-playing?
5. How does Threefold Simulationism as described here relate to other models, such as Ron Edwards' GNS Model.
Source: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html
Quote from: jhkim;1073851I'm not talking about feelings, though - I'm talking about objective reality. An objective reality does in fact exist, and in that reality, the character is fictional. There can be different creative acts from the same medium. i.e. A dancer going through a routine and a martial artist practicing katas might both just be moving their bodies around, but their thought processes are very different.
Thought process is the key to the entire hobby.
Roleplaying is a mental activity.
Suspension of Disbelief is a mental state.
Intent is a mental goal/target.
It seems like for you, there is no difference between simply coming up with a story yourself out of whole cloth, doing an improv session with several people, or playing a roleplaying game with a GM and dice. Knowing what you've said about games you enjoy, that doesn't surprise me in the least.
Quote from: jhkim;1073851As for what it feels like, I can completely agree that different games can feel different to different people. And those feelings are important. But... not everyone who plays traditional RPGs feels the same way about what happens. How stuff feels is a touchy-feely / personal issue that can vary a lot between people.
I expressed the point of view of why to do this in an essay a while ago - what I called "Threefold Simulationism". Here's the conclusion from that -
Source: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html
Of course not everyone experiences the same thing with traditional RPGs, the famously "incoherent" systems...that's the entire point.
- One person could be deep IC roleplaying.
- One person could be running the numbers, playing the odds, making tactical decisions no different than any boardgame or wargame.
- One person could be creating their own story in their head, making dramatically satisfying decisions and trying to create the best character arc.
- The 4th person just is hanging out with friends having fun, and can't really tell the difference between how they're playing.
When someone says "RPG's create stories" you're making an absolute statement that is not true.
If you said "RPGs can create stories if it's your intent to do so and that's how you are playing but they do not create stories if you are not" then you have your objectively true statement.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073847No it wasn't. People were mostly still playing 3E. The OGL was out for ages before Pathfinder. Pathfinder was only able to launch a successful competitor to the D&D brand because of 1) the OGL and 2) WOTC lost half their customers. They also managed to tick off Paizo just before launch and that gave them the desire to outdo WOTC.
They did not 'tick off' Paizo. Paizo themselves said that the split was amicable. Please don't use Internet Hearsay. The OGL opened the door for Pathfinder. If it didn't exist, Paizo would NOT have made Pathfinder and lure the 3.x Grognards to them. Just because the OGL existed before Pathfinder is irrelevant.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073847No it wasn't. People were mostly still playing 3E. The OGL was out for ages before Pathfinder. Pathfinder was only able to launch a successful competitor to the D&D brand because of 1) the OGL and 2) WOTC lost half their customers. They also managed to tick off Paizo just before launch and that gave them the desire to outdo WOTC.
I think the point being made that if WOTC never made the OGl you either were playing Third Edition or switching to 4E. Without the OGl those that liked and still like third edition would have been shit out of luck. When third edition was released and 2E was left behind their were only three choices. Keep playing 2E, switch over to 3E as when it was released it was like 5E and many stopped playing 2E, or switch over to another rpg. There was no luxury of having 2E picked up by a third party. Not until the OSR movement started. Same with 1E to 2E no OGl and you played one or the other or both and the only new material was what they published before the new edition was released.
Quote from: sureshot;1073867I think the point being made that if WOTC never made the OGl you either were playing Third Edition or switching to 4E. Without the OGl those that liked and still like third edition would have been shit out of luck. When third edition was released and 2E was left behind their were only three choices. Keep playing 2E, switch over to 3E as when it was released it was like 5E and many stopped playing 2E, or switch over to another rpg. There was no luxury of having 2E picked up by a third party. Not until the OSR movement started. Same with 1E to 2E no OGl and you played one or the other or both and the only new material was what they published before the new edition was released.
I get that it created the possibility for the obsolete edition to continue with publication. But I think it is pretty obvious if you were there and lived through the transition from 2E to 3E, then 3E to 4E, that there wasn't the same fertile ground for something like Pathfinder because 3E wasn't an edition that divided the fan base. There were holdovers, and people who continued to play 2E, but for the most part, most of the groups I saw, made the transition (there were more people playing 1E than 2E during the d20 boom). Also, there was hack master, which I remember some people promoting as a continuation of 1E and 2E (though I only had Robinloft so I am not sure how accurate that is). The difference between 3E coming out and 4E coming out was enormous. The biggest hurdle when WOTC released 3E is people were very suspicious of the Magic the Gathering People managing D&D (just a few years before lots of us were hemorrhaging players to Magic). I was pretty skeptical and initially didn't want to play it. But it took like a month before I was fully on board. In hindsight there are things about the edition that I think were changes for the worse. But at the time, it was pretty easy to assemble a group of players and there were not any divisions I saw within our game groups over it. 4E, by contrast, instantly split two game groups I was involved in. I didn't like the changes in the new edition, thought the overall look and feel was not at all D&D, but I was willing to give it a try. However getting people in our groups to play the thing was like pulling teeth. We managed a few sessions and it just never grabbed anybody. Not to mention, all the online discussions were pretty much split down the middle at the time. I just don't see how any one can really say 4E wasn't divisive, or was this smashing success, with a straight face. It is like living through some notable historical era that you clearly remember and having people completely mischaracterize it.
Also, I do want to point out, if you really wanted an older edition at that time, they were insanely easy to get. I got multiple 1E and 2E books for pennies (some often were just 60 cents). It wasn't until later that some of those older books got harder to obtain.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073861They did not 'tick off' Paizo. Paizo themselves said that the split was amicable. Please don't use Internet Hearsay. The OGL opened the door for Pathfinder. If it didn't exist, Paizo would NOT have made Pathfinder and lure the 3.x Grognards to them. Just because the OGL existed before Pathfinder is irrelevant.
I'll admit, its been years since I read anything on this. But at the time, I very much remember having the impression this was not an amicable split on the part of Paizo. And I a lot of their promotional material leading up to the release of Pathfinder, struck me at the time as them thumbing their nose at WOTC. Perhaps I was looking at it through a distorted lens, since I was no fan of 4e at the time. But I am pretty skeptical of any statement that it was amicable. In publishing it isn't easy to shift on a dime, and go from publishing a magazine to publishing a game line (magazine publication requires a great deal of long term planning and organization). If anyone has any insights or details on this I'd be happy to here them. Also, just the fact that the first thing they did was release a book competing against WOTC with their own system, suggests some amount of hostility to me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073875I'll admit, its been years since I read anything on this. But at the time, I very much remember having the impression this was not an amicable split on the part of Paizo.
I could be wrong but wasn't this all after WotC pulled Paizo's licenses for Dragon and Dungeon, and then some six odd months later, they announced they were working on Pathfinder?
Quote from: Lynn;1073876I could be wrong but wasn't this all after WotC pulled Paizo's licenses for Dragon and Dungeon, and then some six odd months later, they announced they were working on Pathfinder?
I believe your right.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1073855It seems like for you, there is no difference between simply coming up with a story yourself out of whole cloth, doing an improv session with several people, or playing a roleplaying game with a GM and dice. Knowing what you've said about games you enjoy, that doesn't surprise me in the least.
What do you think about the games I enjoy?
I see big differences between playing Gloomhaven, playing D&D, playing Amber Diceless, playing Dungeon World, and playing Fiasco. They scratch different itches and all have different trade-offs and how they run. I think it has been a while since I've had a regular group who were into really immersive detail, but I still enjoy that side of things.
Quote from: Lynn;1073876I could be wrong but wasn't this all after WotC pulled Paizo's licenses for Dragon and Dungeon, and then some six odd months later, they announced they were working on Pathfinder?
Yes, it was, but Paizo came out in a public statement saying that they closed the license together. It was people on the forums that ASSUMED that the split was vicious, in fact, they WANTED to be so, because then they could justify hating 4e before it came out. And there was a LOT of that.
Besides, Paizo's storefront sold official 4e material willingly, that's not the sign of a company displeased with a former partner.
I'm not saying 4E was an instant success. It was a divisive for sure imo. There are some in the hobby who refuse to play anything past 1E. While claiming 2E as being too different. Personally to me at least both felt very similar.
The OGL was and is great for players as it gave them more options for rpg editions. Not so great for WOTC as what was supposed to be a gift to players created their competition. I'm not downplaying player dislike for 4E. To downplay how much an effect the OGL had is a mistake. Now ironically Lazio is going to feel the sting of the OGL as someone intends to publish PF 1E.
One of the mistakes with 4E is the writing style tried to much to push the edition using some elements of mmo terminology. I have some gamers I know who can't stand 4E yet show themselves to be both very shallow and hypocrites in liking 5E. Especially when 5E borrows many elements of 4E. Just written in more traditional rpg style.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073897Yes, it was, but Paizo came out in a public statement saying that they closed the license together. It was people on the forums that ASSUMED that the split was vicious, in fact, they WANTED to be so, because then they could justify hating 4e before it came out. And there was a LOT of that.
Besides, Paizo's storefront sold official 4e material willingly, that's not the sign of a company displeased with a former partner.
Not to mention they did absolutely nothing.for the better part of ahead when it came to 4E edition warring. Gamers are hypocrites one minute they HATE 4E, the next the love the same thing in 5E. They bitched and complained about The linear Fighter Quadaratic Wizard issue. Then took a huge dump on the edition that actually tried to fix the flaws of 3,5. Why because they never wanted to actually see any of the issues fixed because then they would nothing to bitch and moan about.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073875I'll admit, its been years since I read anything on this. But at the time, I very much remember having the impression this was not an amicable split on the part of Paizo...
...If anyone has any insights or details on this I'd be happy to here them.
Lisa Stevens' blog is a goldmine - https://paizo.com/community/blog/tags/paizo/auntieLisasStoryHour
Check out (edit) 2006 through 2008/9 for the inside perspective. Paizo didn't feel personally hostile to the WoTC development team, but they certainly felt shafted by the withdrawal of the Dragon & Dungeon licence.
edit 2 - from 2006 on the end of the Dungeon & Dragon licence:
I have to give Wizards of the Coast a lot of praise for how they handled the end of the license. Contractually, they only needed to deliver notice of non-renewal by the end of December 2006; without the extra seven months' notice they chose to give us, I'm not sure that Paizo could have survived. Wizards also granted our request to extend the license through August 2007 so that we could finish up the Savage Tide adventure path. This gave us quite a bit of time to figure out how we were going to cope with the end of the magazines. It would have been very easy for WotC to have handled this in a way which would have effectively left Paizo for dead—all they would have had to do was follow the letter of the contract. Instead, they treated us like the valued partner we had been, giving us the ability to both plan and execute a strategy for survival. For that, I will always be thankful.
The only entity that the OGL has hurt is Wizards of The Coast. Yes, there was a glut, but we the Customers got a lot of good things we probably would never have. It opened the door to some of my favourite games, like Mutants and Masterminds.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073906The only entity that the OGL has hurt is Wizards of The Coast. Yes, there was a glut, but we the Customers got a lot of good things we probably would never have. It opened the door to some of my favourite games, like Mutants and Masterminds.
I do agree with this. The OGL was good on the whole.
Quote from: S'mon;1073905Lisa Stevens' blog is a goldmine - https://paizo.com/community/blog/tags/paizo/auntieLisasStoryHour
Check out (edit) 2006 through 2008/9 for the inside perspective. Paizo didn't feel personally hostile to the WoTC development team, but they certainly felt shafted by the withdrawal of the Dragon & Dungeon licence.
edit 2 - from 2006 on the end of the Dungeon & Dragon licence:
I have to give Wizards of the Coast a lot of praise for how they handled the end of the license. Contractually, they only needed to deliver notice of non-renewal by the end of December 2006; without the extra seven months' notice they chose to give us, I'm not sure that Paizo could have survived. Wizards also granted our request to extend the license through August 2007 so that we could finish up the Savage Tide adventure path. This gave us quite a bit of time to figure out how we were going to cope with the end of the magazines. It would have been very easy for WotC to have handled this in a way which would have effectively left Paizo for dead--all they would have had to do was follow the letter of the contract. Instead, they treated us like the valued partner we had been, giving us the ability to both plan and execute a strategy for survival. For that, I will always be thankful.
But I think we have to read those kind of statements cautiously. She might have been telling the gods honest truth but I also wouldn't expect to give full vent to her feelings about WOTC in a statement like that. I am not saying that WOTC antagonized them deliberately or was harsh every step of the way, but losing that license had to have been a big deal. And I don't know the intricacies of the situation (it may be complicated with lots of different people involved). I just have trouble getting past their first move being the release of a game in direct competition with WOTC using its own system (which it just launched a new edition for). Again, I could be wrong. But my impression of it all at the time when they were posting about it, was there was an undercurrent of hostility toward WOTC (or at the very least a 'we'll show them' mindset). It is possible I am just leaning heavily on the narrative I've constructed in my head. But I have to admit, I am having a hard time shaking this very strong sense I had at the time. I seem to recall there being postings on places like En World (it might have all been on En World) when they were planning the release of Pathfinder, and I still remember feeling like there were hints of resentment toward WOTC in many of them. But I could be misremembering (its been decade so it isn't like my memory of this stuff is fresh).
Quote from: kythri;1073011For the majority, I'd say it's because their assholes who know they can get away with it here, and they know they'd be banned for such behavior elsewhere.
Generally, the more rabid a response, the more full of shit it is, too.
Or it's that people are calling out hypocrisy. Pundit rails against elitism and gatekeeping while being an elitist gatekeeper. A large number of members champion free speech and pointing out hypocrisy but can't stand when free speech is used to point out their hypocrisy.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073913I do agree with this. The OGL was good on the whole.
Both good and bad. Good because as above we received some real great rpg products. Even if they were few and far between imo. Bad because from a busines one does not create a non-revocable lucense thag does not give them guaranteed cash or a percentage of the revenue. While also leaving it open for competitors to bury the company. If I had created the OGL
i would have put a clause thst myself or the company I created is guaranteed a certain amount of revenue. No way in hell your making money of something I created and I get nothing.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073897Yes, it was, but Paizo came out in a public statement saying that they closed the license together. It was people on the forums that ASSUMED that the split was vicious, in fact, they WANTED to be so, because then they could justify hating 4e before it came out. And there was a LOT of that. Besides, Paizo's storefront sold official 4e material willingly, that's not the sign of a company displeased with a former partner.
I am not saying that is not possible, but a non-amicable announcement would be bad for both companies, and likely any announcement regarding the state of the agreement probably would have to be approved of by both parties.
Dragon and Dungeon, if anything else, anointed Paizo as relevant, and they in turn helped sell everything else. You remove those then you need to be a source for other things for any form of upselling or cross-selling and ongoing relevance. It doesn't matter what you are selling, so long as you keep your position until you can bring other supporting products of your own to market.
Quote from: sureshot;1073925Both good and bad. Good because as above we received some real great rpg products. Even if they were few and far between imo. Bad because from a busines one does not create a non-revocable lucense thag does not give them guaranteed cash or a percentage of the revenue. While also leaving it open for competitors to bury the company. If I had created the OGL i would have put a clause thst myself or the company I created is guaranteed a certain amount of revenue. No way in hell your making money of something I created and I get nothing.
Although it took a lot of companies a while to figure out the best ways to do so (and a lot of ventures crashed and burned along the way, and still do), there are a lot of companies that leverage open source (and non-charged) products and technologies to make money.
The OGL was a big risk, but given that all parties understand that rules themselves cannot really be protected except in specific, actual implementations, someone could have effectively cloned the rules and open sourced them under a license in which WotC had no control over whatsoever. At least with the 1.0a license that goes into everything, they get a free advertisement in any created product.
Quote from: sureshot;1073925Both good and bad. Good because as above we received some real great rpg products. Even if they were few and far between imo. Bad because from a busines one does not create a non-revocable lucense thag does not give them guaranteed cash or a percentage of the revenue. While also leaving it open for competitors to bury the company. If I had created the OGL
i would have put a clause thst myself or the company I created is guaranteed a certain amount of revenue. No way in hell your making money of something I created and I get nothing.
That's because you fundamentally misunderstand the hobby/sharing-nature of our niche-niche industry. Go take a stroll through drivethrurpg's extensive catalog of (failed) "exclusive" games and see what I mean. The giants of the industry (such as they are) embrace the essential lesson that fan enthusiasm and creativity is their lifeblood; that having a larger range of products, even those you don't directly profit from, gives the
consumer additional reasons to invest in
yours.
If a product doesn't meet that critical threshold? GMs know they'll have to fight an uphill battle and constantly train new players. And they'll be paying through the nose for the privilege. Combine that with an already embarrassingly small market and it's a cocktail for utter commercial failure.
Quote from: Azraele;1073944That's because you fundamentally misunderstand the hobby/sharing-nature of our niche-niche industry.
I fully understand it. I'm just greedy as well. If someone else can make a buck off my work why can't I make a buck of them
Quote from: sureshot;1073947I fully understand it. I'm just greedy as well. If someone else can make a buck off my work why can't I make a buck of them
Your greed is working at cross-purpose to itself then; you're directly eating your own ability to sell more games, because you don't want somebody else to.
Don't you know, sureshot? sharing is the greediest act of them all.
So, first of all - new member, first post. (So, please be gentle in spite my over-the-top (tongue-in-cheek(???)) brashness below.)
I don't know who the RPG Pundit is (though I surely have heard his name before) but I wanna have his baby!
That being said, where do I even begin with this?
Mr. Pundit, I completely agree with your take on narrative games: traditional games set up a gaming world and have story emerge from interactions in that world. More narrative games probably approach it vice versa: they focus on plot development and fill in blanks of the gaming world to serve the needs of plot. Here game world can be emergent from story - so, the other way around. Both are RPGs - but with very different underlying philosophy and everyone should understand that and the ramifications.
That being said, I don't seem to have this pessmistic take on narrative (or narrativist) games that you seem to have, Mr. Pundit. Sure, Edwards had his definition of narrativism completely wrong (and I have a post on him coming later, as I had the opportunity to briefly engage in an exchange with him last year) - these games are about sheer creativity, not about theme or premise. Think about it - if you have a gaming world that is more malleable, you have less constraints to have your creativity run wild. And what do we have with a more narrative game like FATE? Exactly that - players have more agency than just determining character intent. It's s small step towards more creativity and more narrative control. Or take the "narrative dice" by FFG - same thing. Certain results give players more agency over the gaming world than players can ever have in, let's say, Hârnmaster (a game which I am quite fond of). That's fine with me. So long story short: narrative gamers desire more space for creativity to run wild in than probably you and I would be comfortable with, overall. That's alright, no accounting for taste.
And while Apocalypse World is probably never going to be my favorite RPG by a long shot (I am an outspoken simulationist), I quite honestly marvel at the boldness of its design. It's a very important game system in the history of RPGs.
Also, as an aside, here is where you are really in error: people do all kinds of shit in real life exactly to generate story. To underestimate that is a mistake. Leading an active life means producing constantly interesting stories that you can share at social gatherings. If we humans do not have a constant stream of interesting new stories, people will consider us boring eventually. They will tend to avoid and overlook us at social gatherings, which is of course worse than being disliked. So if you think people never go hunting or pull all kinds of stupid sh*t at parties for the sake of coming back with interesting stories to tell, I think you are very, very wrong. Drawing attention and making yourself interesting is crucial in the lives of all people with active social lives. (Not that I know anything about that from first hand, LOL.)
Also, smarter people than me didn't think about it. I'm generally the smartest guy in the room, any room. ;)
Quote from: sureshot;1073925Both good and bad. Good because as above we received some real great rpg products. Even if they were few and far between imo. Bad because from a busines one does not create a non-revocable lucense thag does not give them guaranteed cash or a percentage of the revenue. While also leaving it open for competitors to bury the company. If I had created the OGL
i would have put a clause thst myself or the company I created is guaranteed a certain amount of revenue. No way in hell your making money of something I created and I get nothing.
WOTC didn't make D&D. But I honestly think this gesture went a long way toward dispelling some of the negative feelings towards WOTC at the time. I think people forget how wary folks were of them controlling that IP. And it was a good idea because it meant D&D will always be available as long as someone is willing to publish a book with the rules. When TSR went under, a lot of people thought D&D would just be gone. I'm glad they did the OGL. I think it was good for the hobby.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073915But I think we have to read those kind of statements cautiously. She might have been telling the gods honest truth but I also wouldn't expect to give full vent to her feelings about WOTC in a statement like that. I am not saying that WOTC antagonized them deliberately or was harsh every step of the way, but losing that license had to have been a big deal. ....
She was posting public PR. Behind the scenes they had to be livid. Their whole business was centered around DRAGON.
Quote from: auntieLisasStoryHour 2006... I had a conference call with Wizards, and it was during this call that they let me know that they had other plans for Dragon and Dungeon; they wouldn't be renewing the license for the magazines. I personally don't remember much of my reaction, but after the call, I brought Erik in to my office and told him the news, tears streaming down my face. (Read Erik's recollection of this major event below.)
We always knew that this might be a possibility. That was, after all, one of the main reasons we had been building the other parts of our business: so we wouldn't be caught unprepared if the unthinkable were to happen. But I don't think any of us ever really thought that this was much more than a remote possibility. Dragon and Dungeon were finally firing on all cylinders and were enjoying critical acclaim that hadn't been seen in years. So this news struck us to the core. In one meeting, the last large chunk of the company that we started not quite four years before was going away. ...
This was a big deal, because if you read their previous history by her own admission:
Quote from: auntieLisasStoryHour 2006..Paizo had (barely) survived the loss of Star Wars Insider, Amazing Stories, and Undefeated magazines,...
Pazio was a Magazine company that came into the RPG industry. Revamped the Dungeon and Dragon magazine line, made it a success and then had it ripped away from them as they were starting to see a real return for their efforts.
Erik Mona who edited the Rag said:
Quote from: Erik Mona 2006I was still fixated on the massive sense of rejection I felt from folks who had been my coworkers at Wizards, and whom I still considered close friends.
Reading between the lines... I'd think they were Pissed...
And WOTC stupidly allowed them to keep the Dungeon and Dragon subscriber lists... (That was a big deal).
Quote from: auntieLisasStoryHour 2007...we were dealt another blowwhen Wizards of the Coast announced at the show that D&D 4th Edition was coming in August 2008. We had just launched two new lines of 3.5 compatible products, and it seemed that they could already be on a deathwatch towards obscurity. Sometimes it seemed as if every time we got up, there was something to knock us down again.
... We were also promised that there would be a third-party license, similar to the OGL, really soon.
See the trend? WOTC dealing them blow after blow...
In Fairness, WOTC did a massive own goal by not being johnny-on-the-spot getting the 4e rules and OGL to the 3rd party people like Pazio...
Quote from: auntieLisasStoryHour 2008...The continued lack of information of any sort was driving us nuts, and having just had our whole company turned upside down due to Wizards' decision to end the magazine licenses, we were beginning to think that forging our own path forward might be a valid choice. ...
i.e. Fuck these guys...
WOTC underestimated how many didn't want to go to 4e, and Pazio reaped the reward.
It was literally the perfect storm for them.
Update edit, The perfect storm worked out well for them:
Quote from: auntieLisasStoryHour 2010This will be news to most readers: By the end of 2010, the Pathfinder RPG had already overtaken D&D as the bestselling RPG. It would take almost half a year before industry magazine ICv2 first reported it, and several quarters more before some people were willing to accept it as fact, but internally, we already knew it was true. We'd heard it from nearly all of our hobby trade distributors; we'd heard it from buyers at book chains like Barnes & Noble and Borders; we could see it using industry sales trackers such as BookScan; we were even regularly coming out on top on Amazon's bestseller charts. Each individual market we sold in had us either tied with or outselling D&D, and none of those sources counted our considerable direct sales on paizo.com. Put all of those things together, and it was clear: Pathfinder had become the first RPG ever to oust D&D from top spot.
So 4e was released in January 2008. Pathfinder RPG in August 2009. Outselling 4e by end of 2010. Ouch.
Quote from: Jaeger;1073958So 4e was released in January 2008. Pathfinder RPG in August 2009. Outselling 4e by end of 2010. Ouch.
You're off by two years. When 4e stopped releasing books in 2012.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073977You're off by two years. When 4e stopped releasing books in 2012.
It definitely looked like 2nd half of 2010 at the time. Ironically right after Monster Manual 3. I was pretty shocked when Orcs Nest cleared 4e off the prime shelves for Pathfinder. What Stevens says fits exactly with what I was seeing at the time.
Quote from: S'mon;1073984It definitely looked like 2nd half of 2010 at the time. Ironically right after Monster Manual 3. I was pretty shocked when Orcs Nest cleared 4e off the prime shelves for Pathfinder. What Stevens says fits exactly with what I was seeing at the time.
So you're basing it off when it got pulled from the prime shelves in a store the UK? So purely subjective feels?
I was using the numbers from the outfit that tallied the sales from retailers and Pathfinder didn't surpass D&D in those until after the last 4E product had released in 2012 (it was neck in neck in 2011 and D&D slightly ahead in 2010). I remember because using the numbers to show how Pathfinder was catching up to 4E was all the rage throughout 2011-2012 and as a 4E fan I followed the debate closely.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1073977You're off by two years. When 4e stopped releasing books in 2012.
Not me. Pazio's public claim.
Read the quote. They say: "It would take almost half a year before
industry magazine ICv2 first reported it"
Should be verifiable, no?
I shall Google:
https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/20743/top-5-rpgs-q2-2011
Quote from: icv2.comTop 5 Roleplaying Games – Q2 2011
Title - Publisher
1 Pathfinder - Paizo Publishing
2 Dungeons & Dragons - Wizards of the Coast
3 Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch - Fantasy Flight Games
4 Dragon Age - Green Ronin Publishing
5 Shadowrun - Catalyst Game Labs
At the very least Pathfinder was absolutely taking it to 4e while it was
still in actively in print.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1073950WOTC didn't make D&D. But I honestly think this gesture went a long way toward dispelling some of the negative feelings towards WOTC at the time. I think people forget how wary folks were of them controlling that IP. And it was a good idea because it meant D&D will always be available as long as someone is willing to publish a book with the rules. When TSR went under, a lot of people thought D&D would just be gone. I'm glad they did the OGL. I think it was good for the hobby.
Despite what i have said it I am glad that we have the OGL, while it being good for the hobby.
Quote from: Chris24601;1073988So you're basing it off when it got pulled from the prime shelves in a store the UK? So purely subjective feels?
No, I was tracking the amazon.co.uk sales numbers pretty closely when it became clear something odd was happening. And there was what I saw being played. But it was certainly subjective impression - a subjective impression that tallies with what Stevens says and does not match a 2012 date. By 2012 4e had been dead for over a year, they gave up in early 2011 and very little came out after that. Dungeonscape, and the generic not-4e books - Ed's Forgotten Realms & Menzoberranzan.
Quote from: sureshot;1073947I fully understand it. I'm just greedy as well. If someone else can make a buck off my work why can't I make a buck of them
There's got to be the right amount of available money, unique enough value and convenience. That's why some software companies have come up with subscription models or have 'service modeled' their offerings and it works, and yet it doesn't always work well for all software vendors.
In some cases, 'opening' the engine but retaining control over specific types of licensing and 'content' grows the market. And some IP companies get just a bit too anal and sue happy, and then someone else comes along with a slightly inferior but friendlier user model - then the sue happy guys lose.
Quote from: Jaeger;1073989Not me. Pazio's public claim.
Read the quote. They say: "It would take almost half a year before industry magazine ICv2 first reported it"
Should be verifiable, no?
I shall Google:
https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/20743/top-5-rpgs-q2-2011
[/I]
Don't you know that when people called Chris claim to have contrary evidence, it is your duty to
Listen And Believe?! :p
Quote from: S'mon;1074013Don't you know that when people called Chris claim to have contrary evidence, it is your duty to Listen And Believe?! :p
I honestly had no reason to disbelieve, just came across the quote when reading the rather interesting timeline on Pazio's blog. To better respond to a different question entirely!
Quote from: S'mon;1074011No, I was tracking the amazon.co.uk sales numbers pretty closely when it became clear something odd was happening. And there was what I saw being played. But it was certainly subjective impression - a subjective impression that tallies with what Stevens says and does not match a 2012 date. By 2012 4e had been dead for over a year, they gave up in early 2011 and very little came out after that. Dungeonscape, and the generic not-4e books - Ed's Forgotten Realms & Menzoberranzan.
It looks like WOTC saw the writing on the wall before the fanboys did. Announcing 5e development in
January of 2012. That decision had to be
months in the making. Pazio essentially forced WOTC's hand.
Would be really interesting to read their non-existent "insider" blog of what went down at WOTC when Pathfinder hit the shelves and started selling really well...
Man, it's been fun reading Chris trying to paint 4E as a wonderful thing that did nearly nothing wrong and totally didn't cause the division of the RPG hobby to the point that, for the first time ever, D&D stopped being the leading RPG.
Not even during the supposed doldrums of late 2E, when TSR was dying a slow liquidity death, did D&D stop leading the market. Trying to describe the absolute disaster that was the 4E lifetime as a success because for a time it sold a lot of books without noting they were also releasing books as if they were going out of fashion (which, in a way, they were...:D), and without noting that however many books were sold, fewer and fewer people were actually playing the damn thing, is quite ridiculous.
Dude.....stop. Just stop. You're embarassing yourself.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1073922Or it's that people are calling out hypocrisy. Pundit rails against elitism and gatekeeping while being an elitist gatekeeper. A large number of members champion free speech and pointing out hypocrisy but can't stand when free speech is used to point out their hypocrisy.
Okay serious question. How is RPGPundit gatekeeping?
Is he banning people from the site for disagreeing? Is he send threats to DriveThru RPG to remove books? Is he sending a hate mob at individuals?
No to any of them. RPGPundit isn't gatekeeping. He just gave a opinion you don't fucking like. Some "fine" gatekeeping he is doing right there huh?
First, people who use the "stop, you're embarrassing yourself" bit are losers who never have the person they're telling that too's interests in mind.
Second; my main claim was refuting Pundit's claim that 4E is not D&D and that if you like it then you by definition hate "real D&D." All the stuff after that was goalpost shifting to "yeah, but it sucked" and I've admitted it had problems, none of them related to things that would make it "not D&D" and require you to hate "real D&D" if you still liked 4E in spite of those problems.
The fact is 4E sold more units in 2008 than 3e products did in 2007 (yes, the comparison isn't fair because 3e was at the end of its run, but it's entirely fair in that Hasbro doesn't give a damn about where in the edition's life it is, just whether or not it's hitting sales targets and 3e wasn't by 2007 or they'd have dragged it out another year so 4E could get some much needed development/testing time).
It was also the best selling RPG of all time until 5e (and later Pathfinder by sheer inertia) dethroned it. It had a lot of strikes against it that had nothing to do with its mechanical design and everything to do with typical boneheaded corporate greed and those did more to sink it than anything else. Bronze medal in "most sales of all time" isn't exactly a failure either.
It does appear I was off by a year on my memory of the ICv2 quarterly reports and Pathfinder finally overtook 4E in Q2 of 2011 and not 2012 as I recalled. I was wrong (though it also wasn't 2010 either) and I blame 8 years of memories piled on top of that and the afterefects of a 103 F degree fever for it. I should have gone and looked up the actual numbers instead of going of pure memory. Own your mistakes, try to do better and they have no power over you.
The point I made before the sidetrack still remains true. 4E is a pretty short step from late 3.5e in terms of concepts it ran with. It comfortably exists on the continuum of WotC era editions. It is not some abomination that arose from the pits of hell to destroy D&D. It was an attempt to answer real problems real players had with 3.5e by human beings. The result was always going to have flaws of its own. Similarly, 3e was an attempt to answer what the devs saw as problems with 2e while introducing its own unique flaws, 2e was an attempt to clean up 1e and 5e was an attempt to answer what were very real flaws in 4E while also creating new ones of their own (and any 6e will be an attempt at cleaning up the perceived biggest problems with 5e).
The further point that "divide and deride" is pure SJW tactics, just employed in the opposite direction and is actively detrimental to the cause of trying to contain the spread of the SJW infection is also still entirely true. One True Way-ist bullshit is bullshit whether it the SJWs or Pundit doing it. When you go an unfoundedly accuse people of being your enemies if they don't march in 100% lockstep with your beliefs you've just unnecessarily just ceded ground to your actual enemies with people who might have agreed with you on 75% or more of things you care about.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1074050Okay serious question. How is RPGPundit gatekeeping?
Is he banning people from the site for disagreeing? Is he send threats to DriveThru RPG to remove books? Is he sending a hate mob at individuals?
No to any of them. RPGPundit isn't gatekeeping. He just gave a opinion you don't fucking like. Some "fine" gatekeeping he is doing right there huh?
He doesn't need to do any of those things to gatekeep. The simple act of shuffling a thread about an RPG to a different, less visible thread (a tging he did) because he didn't see it as an RPG isn't just a stupid opinion unfounded in anything less than his hatred of anything non-OSR, it's a crystal clear example of gatekeeping. A near-constant, immature presence deriding anything he dislikes doesn't prevent those things from existing, but that's certainly not for his lack of trying.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1074056He doesn't need to do any of those things to gatekeep. The simple act of shuffling a thread about an RPG to a different, less visible thread (a tging he did) because he didn't see it as an RPG isn't just a stupid opinion unfounded in anything less than his hatred of anything non-OSR, it's a crystal clear example of gatekeeping. A near-constant, immature presence deriding anything he dislikes doesn't prevent those things from existing, but that's certainly not for his lack of trying.
Oh bullshit ye of little faith! If people want to play FATE they will play FATE. If people want to play good beanie/bad beanies games they will play good beanies/bad beanies games. Changing the category isn't going to do shit. They can easily stand on their legs in a brand new league of their own.
Narrative Gamers: Losing their shit about the Other Games Forum since 2008.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074054It does appear I was off by a year on my memory of the ICv2 quarterly reports and Pathfinder finally overtook 4E in Q2 of 2011 and not 2012 as I recalled. I was wrong (though it also wasn't 2010 either) and I blame 8 years of memories piled on top of that and the afterefects of a 103 F degree fever for it. I should have gone and looked up the actual numbers instead of going of pure memory. Own your mistakes, try to do better and they have no power over you...
...The further point that "divide and deride" is pure SJW tactics, just employed in the opposite direction and is actively detrimental to the cause of trying to contain the spread of the SJW infection is also still entirely true. One True Way-ist bullshit is bullshit whether it the SJWs or Pundit doing it. When you go an unfoundedly accuse people of being your enemies if they don't march in 100% lockstep with your beliefs you've just unnecessarily just ceded ground to your actual enemies with people who might have agreed with you on 75% or more of things you care about.
Glad we're on the same page now, more or less.
I think I'm right that the ICV numbers look at distributor orders not retail sales, so there is a lag - as stuff does not sell and stock piles up, retailers stop ordering, so it takes 1-2 quarters to feed through the system. The "Heroes of..." books released in Q3-Q4 of 2010 were a big relaunch attempt that will have had a lot of initial orders, but sold very poorly. So you have this period at the end of 2010 when a disaster is unfolding but it's taking time to feed through the system.
Re Pundit, I certainly think you don't have to be an SJW to like 4e, although IME there is a small, small correlation between the two, I'm certainly not an SJW. And 4e is not particularly 'woke', eg it has lots of female PC pics in the art but they tend to be in impractical boob plate.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1074056He doesn't need to do any of those things to gatekeep. The simple act of shuffling a thread about an RPG to a different, less visible thread (a tging he did) because he didn't see it as an RPG isn't just a stupid opinion unfounded in anything less than his hatred of anything non-OSR, it's a crystal clear example of gatekeeping. A near-constant, immature presence deriding anything he dislikes doesn't prevent those things from existing, but that's certainly not for his lack of trying.
What you describe sounds somewhat objectionable and does is not
completely different from Pundit's behavior. However, it does not fit any definition of gatekeeping I have ever seen.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074059Narrative Gamers: Losing their shit about the Other Games Forum since 2008.
Narrative, simulationist whatever rpg style. Those who hate a favored rpg company or an rpg will take a shit on other rpg companies and rpgs they dont. You want to pretend it has been all one sided go ahead. It has been happen ing and will continue to happen from all types of gamers. I don't hate narratives style rpg, certainly not a fan but I won't crap on other rpgs. I may criticize them who knows I might still play them. Those who continually do are just causing controversy and insisting on drawing lines in the sand.
Outside of the internet most gamers don't give a shit what your playing as long as your not being a jerk about it at the table. Insist on being a jerk least at my table and your shown the door. I don't have time for adults with the mental attitude of a child. Nor am I your psychologist, narrative rpgs and gamers causing you mental health issues. Fuck off to the nearest mental health care professional.
Quote from: sureshot;1074094Outside of the internet most gamers don't give a shit what your playing as long as your not being a jerk about it at the table.
Well said.
Quote from: sureshot;1073947I fully understand it. I'm just greedy as well. If someone else can make a buck off my work why can't I make a buck of them
The OGL didn't prevent that. WotC could have culled 3rd-party open content and integrated that into their stuff, but they didn't. Why? I lean towards a post-Dancey idiocy at most levels of the company, but that's me.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1074075However, it does not fit any definition of gatekeeping I have ever seen.
I'm sick and tired of restaurants that serve Coke products gatekeeping me from Pepsi products.
I'm sick of McDonalds gatekeeping me from prime rib, and Taco Bell gatekeeping me from sushi.
This is 2019, dammit. Gatekeeping needs to stop.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074054First, people who use the "stop, you're embarrassing yourself" bit are losers who never have the person they're telling that too's interests in mind.
Interesting that you can read my mind and find out my
hidden motives. You should really get checked into a clinic, people will want to study that amazing ability of yours.
I do have your best interests in mind when I tell you to stop trying to gaslight other people into believing what they actually lived through (this is not ancient history we're talking about here)
didn't happen. At best you make yourself look like a shill, and a terribly explicit one at that. At worst, you look like a moron.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074054Second; my main claim was refuting Pundit's claim that 4E is not D&D and that if you like it then you by definition hate "real D&D." All the stuff after that was goalpost shifting to "yeah, but it sucked" and I've admitted it had problems, none of them related to things that would make it "not D&D" and require you to hate "real D&D" if you still liked 4E in spite of those problems.
Again, trying to make it sound like 4E was "just like the others", when a majority of people that tried playing it found the opposite to be true, and ended up moving away from the game to greener pastures (as they saw it). The experience of gamers was that the whole system of turning everyone into a fake wizard made the game play radically differently from its predecessors, while even the most radical changes that 3E implemented over 2E did not end up rendering the system unrecognizable during
actual play.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074054The fact is 4E sold more units in 2008 than 3e products did in 2007 (yes, the comparison isn't fair because 3e was at the end of its run, but it's entirely fair in that Hasbro doesn't give a damn about where in the edition's life it is, just whether or not it's hitting sales targets and 3e wasn't by 2007 or they'd have dragged it out another year so 4E could get some much needed development/testing time).
It was also the best selling RPG of all time until 5e (and later Pathfinder by sheer inertia) dethroned it. It had a lot of strikes against it that had nothing to do with its mechanical design and everything to do with typical boneheaded corporate greed and those did more to sink it than anything else. Bronze medal in "most sales of all time" isn't exactly a failure either.
Again, focusing on the raw number of copies sold. How many more books were being put out in that space of time compared to similar time frames in other editions? Do you have any idea? Because what I and many others remember was a market so flooded with "core" and splatbooks that people eventually felt overwhelmed. It's also worth noting that after the initial (expected) flurry of group conversions into the new edition, it became increasingly clear that many people were reverting back to 3.5, or looking into the emerging market of retroclones, and eventually looking to Paizo's product. Books sold are not a guarantee that these books are being actually used in play.
"Bronze medal in sales" is a dramatic failure when you consider the relative positions that that result denotes. Again, and I feel like a dolt having to repeat this glaringly obvious fact that you seem intent on ignoring/playing down. D&D, for the
FIRST TIME EVER lost its leadership in the market. That sort of market shift is nothing less than catastrophic in any business area. But hey, it's the second-best selling D&D edition ever, so it must have been ok and not have sent the company into a mad scramble to do a massive course correction in record time to try and stanch the mortal wound,
right?
Quote from: Chris24601;1074054The point I made before the sidetrack still remains true. 4E is a pretty short step from late 3.5e in terms of concepts it ran with. It comfortably exists on the continuum of WotC era editions. It is not some abomination that arose from the pits of hell to destroy D&D. It was an attempt to answer real problems real players had with 3.5e by human beings. The result was always going to have flaws of its own. Similarly, 3e was an attempt to answer what the devs saw as problems with 2e while introducing its own unique flaws, 2e was an attempt to clean up 1e and 5e was an attempt to answer what were very real flaws in 4E while also creating new ones of their own (and any 6e will be an attempt at cleaning up the perceived biggest problems with 5e).
I'll just leave a link to what I consider to be a pretty decent scouring of the massive dumpster fire that 4E actually was. http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57196&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57196&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
Quote from: Chris24601;1074054The further point that "divide and deride" is pure SJW tactics, just employed in the opposite direction and is actively detrimental to the cause of trying to contain the spread of the SJW infection is also still entirely true. One True Way-ist bullshit is bullshit whether it the SJWs or Pundit doing it. When you go an unfoundedly accuse people of being your enemies if they don't march in 100% lockstep with your beliefs you've just unnecessarily just ceded ground to your actual enemies with people who might have agreed with you on 75% or more of things you care about.
I don't feel obligated to agree with Pundit on anything, and he seems to be pretty open to letting anyone air their grievances here with no limits. That is
by definition not the same as what SJWs do. He can certainly be abrasive, but I don't mind that.
Quote from: kythri;1074103The OGL didn't prevent that. WotC could have culled 3rd-party open content and integrated that into their stuff, but they didn't. Why? I lean towards a post-Dancey idiocy at most levels of the company, but that's me.
Ryan Dancey is the cause of the problem, he's the reason it happened. He was great for us, not so much for any company he's worked for. Hell, he helped precipitate the death White Wolf, by calling it a 'Legacy Product'. Oh, don't get me wrong, it was already on it's way out, but being called 'Legacy' is THE death knell for any product, whether or not it was true (which in this case it was.)
Quote from: kythri;1074103The OGL didn't prevent that. WotC could have culled 3rd-party open content and integrated that into their stuff, but they didn't. Why? I lean towards a post-Dancey idiocy at most levels of the company, but that's me.
I think they were scared off by the rule that everything derived from Open Content has to be open too.
Greetings!
No offense to the good people that happened to like 4E. In my view, the 4E was terrible. It was an abomination. Mechanically, stylistically, presentation wise, it was taking D&D in a direction, in a style, that I loathe. I could give a fuck about mineatures. (I like mineatures though). I just resent having them foisted on me. I don't like the cookie-cutter shapes of all the classes. I don't like the whole, "superhero" motif right from the gate at level one. I don't like all of the point-structured insistence on Balance! Balance! Balance! I'm in favour of Fighters and warrior classes being competitive and relevant, no matter what level. I don't like Fighters, et. al. being glommed with all kinds of cinematic, magical spell powers, making them essentially just another kind of spellcaster. Arrgghhhh. Just no. I'm glad 4E went down in flames.
And yes, I have a ginormous library of books for 3X. I have shelves and shelves. I had more than a few books, all in the 35-50$ each range that I barely had even *looked* at extensively when 4E came out. At the time, I honestly did not think that 3X *needed* a new edition. A clean-up? Compilation of scattered classes and rules so that I don't have to have a bookshelf next to me when playing a game? Yes, that would have been welcome. An entire new edition? That went ass-fucking crazy different from 3E? FUCK NO. Yeah, I felt like I was used, betrayed, and cast aside like some cheap, stupid whore. I would sit there, looking at my vast 3E collection, wondering in amazement..."wow...just like that, *snap* all of this is now worthless and obselete." Yeah, Fuck them, and fuck 4E. I refused to buy even one fucking 4E book. Not one nickle of my money to WOTC until they pulled their heads out of their asses and came out with 5E. And yeah, I'm a fucking *whale*. I am old school, from 1978. I have spent *thousands of dollars* Many thousands, truth be told. My opinion does matter. WOTC made me feel like my opinion was ignored, so fuck them. They lost me, and *millions* of other well-paying customers, that had been *loyal* customers for *years* and decades even. They ignored me, and they ignored *us*--and as a consequence, look at how many people they had to fire? Look at the division and animosity it caused? It almost caused the entire fucking company to go into the ditch. Fuck the snot-nosed kiddies. I have a lot more money than they do. WOTC needs to always remember who pays their fucking bills.
I am very happy with 5E, though. WOTC woke the fuck up, I am glad to see.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074110Ryan Dancey is the cause of the problem, he's the reason it happened. He was great for us, not so much for any company he's worked for.
3E never would have had the sales it did if it wasn't for the OGL. The hobby as we know it today wouldn't be around if it wasn't for the OGL. The hate-on for Dancey is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074110Hell, he helped precipitate the death White Wolf, by calling it a 'Legacy Product'. Oh, don't get me wrong, it was already on it's way out, but being called 'Legacy' is THE death knell for any product, whether or not it was true (which in this case it was.)
Blaming Dancey for the death of White Wolf is a joke. White Wolf wasn't on it's way out, it was already dead when CCP bought it. CCP bought it to mine it for potential MMO builds, not for any desire at all to maintain it in print. That it was dead already was a selling point.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1074121I think they were scared off by the rule that everything derived from Open Content has to be open too.
Because they were idiots.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1073922Or it's that people are calling out hypocrisy. Pundit rails against elitism and gatekeeping while being an elitist gatekeeper.
Evidence not found.
I'm literally saying that not only can anyone play D&D but that I want everyone to play D&D. How is that either elitism or gatekeeping?
I'm not the one "firing" people from D&D, or declaring that anyone who doesn't agree on my views on immigration or who should be on the supreme court should be shunned from the hobby.
Quote from: kythri;1074131Blaming Dancey for the death of White Wolf is a joke. White Wolf wasn't on it's way out, it was already dead when CCP bought it. CCP bought it to mine it for potential MMO builds, not for any desire at all to maintain it in print. That it was dead already was a selling point.
As a long time nWoD player I can back up this statement. Wasn't for CCP there would be White Wolf books in the store shelves today. CCP pretty much, figuratively speaking, raped White Wolf to none existence. It took Paradox Interactive to resurrect and then completely destroy White Wolf. At least there is... Oh fuck it! Onyx Path is shit too!
Quote from: SHARK;1074127Greetings!
No offense to the good people that happened to like 4E. In my view, the 4E was terrible. It was an abomination. Mechanically, stylistically, presentation wise, it was taking D&D in a direction, in a style, that I loathe. I could give a fuck about mineatures. (I like mineatures though). I just resent having them foisted on me.
How did you evet get thru one encounter in 3.5 without them [minis + grid] and the insistent use of AoOs and reach? This was 3.5's bread and butter, so much so that the books actually use minis in their pictures to help show you.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127I don't like the cookie-cutter shapes of all the classes.
A decent criticism. The AEDU structure isn't for everyone but it was addressed later in the edition if that matters at all?
Quote from: SHARK;1074127I don't like the whole, "superhero" motif right from the gate at level one. I don't like all of the point-structured insistence on Balance! Balance! Balance!
Except the monsters in 4e did a CONSIDERABLE amount of damage compared to their previous editions counter-parts. Basically to have any chance of survival you needed more HP and better AC (which the AC isnt too far off at level 1 between a 3e and 4e fighter). Context matters.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127I'm in favour of Fighters and warrior classes being competitive and relevant, no matter what level.
So basically you hate warrior / fighter classes in 3e because they're absolute garbage. There's nothing competitive or relevant for them past approx 6th level. Even when DMs use "core only" (a ridiculously laughable idea in its own right) does nothing to alleviate their mechanical plight.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127I don't like Fighters, et. al. being glommed with all kinds of cinematic, magical spell powers, making them essentially just another kind of spellcaster. Arrgghhhh.
I don't really understand, when or how do any 4E fighters do this by-the-by? None of their exploits (that's what Martial powers are called) are magical in nature nor really exceed the Fantasy realm of "realism", that is nothing so ridiculous as anything you'd see with any of the hundreds of "Ex" abilities of 3.5 characters.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127And yes, I have a ginormous library of books for 3X. I have shelves and shelves. I had more than a few books, all in the 35-50$ each range that I barely had even *looked* at extensively when 4E came out. At the time, I honestly did not think that 3X *needed* a new edition. A clean-up? Compilation of scattered classes and rules so that I don't have to have a bookshelf next to me when playing a game? Yes, that would have been welcome. An entire new edition? That went ass-fucking crazy different from 3E? FUCK NO.
Do you realize just how much 4e is derived, mechanically speaking, from 3e? Not to mention how many pains 4e took to fix the glaring systemic issues that 3e created.
· Marking (basically a combo of the 3.5 Knight class and a stance from the tome of battle).
· At-Will magic - Warlock and Dragonfire Adept classes + Reserve Feats
· Encounter-based design and function was derived from delves and adventures that started in 3e.
· Healing based on class was because of how terrible battle-healing is/was in 3e and because it was stupid one spell could heal a wizard character to full and the same roll would heal another character less than half of their overall HP. It was too swingy. And then there's the Vigor/clw wants for days that made it pointless by a certain point.
· Solo monsters. Because the action economy in 3e is fucked, the only way monsters and challenges could combat groups of 4-5 PCs was either lots of instant-death/lock down effects OR have tons of HD for multi-attack. 4e tried to fix this by not having monsters obey the same rules as PCs.
· Stacking effects and long lasting effects. Seriously, fuck that noise. Good luck as a DM when a PC says "OK, everyone is a hastened, polymorphed red Dragon, with Greater invisibly" and all that occurs on 1 turn. Sure, use infamous AMF and watch as Players basically leave because no one wants to play a caster when the only way to challenge them is "you cant have your toys".
I get 4e felt different. It looked different. It even played a bit differently (honestly, this one always confised me because our group switches between 3, 4, & 5 regularly and we see no change is style) but 4E was created because 3e fell with all the blathering weight it heaped upon itself.
If you're gonna be mad at 4E, blame the 3e design team for making a clusterfuck of a system.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127Yeah, I felt like I was used, betrayed, and cast aside like some cheap, stupid whore. I would sit there, looking at my vast 3E collection, wondering in amazement..."wow...just like that, *snap* all of this is now worthless and obselete."
Unless your only avenues to play D&D were at Cons, game days sponsored at events or malls, or Living Greyhawk adventures then you should've realized how dumb this feeling is/was. The books didn't blow up or un-write themselves and WotC didn't send hired good to confiscate them. They're just as good (YMMV) now as they were in 2003 or 2000. Not to mention using them for other games too.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127Yeah, Fuck them, and fuck 4E. I refused to buy even one fucking 4E book. Not one nickle of my money to WOTC until they pulled their heads out of their asses and came out with 5E.
And this reaction is exactly why I take people's opinions of any game or system with a grain of salt and why I ask how much (if any) 4E did you play to form those opinions? How can you have a decent base to work opinions from if you didn't have anything invested with the game? You hit the common "talking points" (evil AEDU, everyone's a caster, super-heroes supreme) but all of these are so vague and can frankly easily be leveled at 3e too that gives me an impression you never tried it or gave it an honest shot. And of course I'll be called out, as 4E Apologist are, for making this claim but oh well this is the classic round-robin of edition wars.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127And yeah, I'm a fucking *whale*. I am old school, from 1978. I have spent *thousands of dollars* Many thousands, truth be told. My opinion does matter. WOTC made me feel like my opinion was ignored, so fuck them. They lost me, and *millions* of other well-paying customers, that had been *loyal* customers for *years* and decades even. They ignored me, and they ignored *us*--and as a consequence, look at how many people they had to fire? Look at the division and animosity it caused? It almost caused the entire fucking company to go into the ditch. Fuck the snot-nosed kiddies. I have a lot more money than they do. WOTC needs to always remember who pays their fucking bills.
What's funny is that they DID listen to the people playing the game. Like I said, most of the changes to the system were directly tied to fixing the fucked up 3e mechanics OR taking working mechanics and integrating them to 4E. The problem was multi-faceted but ultimately because they didn't listen to their playtesters. Combats took too long. Monster math AND PC damage was off the mark, making it worse. Tracking conditions and the bookwork was more of an issue than originally thought. The focus on delves and set-battles vs. Random encounters and sand-boxy games pushed this Combat Only belief that made people think there was no role-play. These issues and the promised VTT (and the horrendous murder-suicide that occurred) that never came and the abuse of the Online Compendium/Character Builder were ALL nails in the coffin. Interior design and the dumb video bashing previous editions didn't help at all NOR them taking away PDFs from online sales OR their shitty treatment of Paizo and other 3PP that basically pushed them towards competitors. Yeah I'd say what WotC did was prwtty messed up with a TON of bumbling, yet I still say it wasn't necessarily the fault of the system or game.
Quote from: SHARK;1074127I am very happy with 5E, though. WOTC woke the fuck up, I am glad to see.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Ah, the glorious icing on the cake. If you only realized how much 4E core assumptions and mechanics were taken and put into 5E....well I'd really question why you hate 4E so much. It also furthers my belief that a LOT of h4te towards 4E was due to bad window dressing. I'd pay lots of money to see someone take the 4e game, mechanics and rules in-all, and give it a 5E interior design and simply dress it up all pretty and not color-boxy boring it read JUST to watch people look at it like the next best thing (well one can dream I guess)?
The problem with 4e was it was called D&D.
The vitriol is entirely based on 4e being too big of a departure from 3e.
Just like how the OSR didn't grok to 3e after the TSR days.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1074166The problem with 4e was it was called D&D.
The vitriol is entirely based on 4e being too big of a departure from 3e.
Just like how the OSR didn't grok to 3e after the TSR days.
I play both but don't see it. Admittedly, we use the Tome of Battle (or Path of War with Pathfinder) and miniatures plus we run a lot of WotC adventures which uses the "encounters" format so theres a lot of similarities that we're accustomed to. I do make the grave mistake of assuming a lot of others approach 3e/PF in a similar style and structure.
Quote from: Batman;1074167I play both but don't see it. Admittedly, we use the Tome of Battle (or Path of War with Pathfinder) and miniatures plus we run a lot of WotC adventures which uses the "encounters" format so theres a lot of similarities that we're accustomed to. I do make the grave mistake of assuming a lot of others approach 3e/PF in a similar style and structure.
Yup. I certainly think there is a big difference between 2000-2003 3e/3.5e and 2007-8 3.5e. Like many people I had stopped buying 3e books by then so didn't notice, but I've picked up some of the late-era 3e stuff more recently and it certainly shows a lot of proto-4e thinking.
Greetings!
Batman, I'm glad that you liked 4E. I should note, as I alluded to; I've been playing DandD forever. Since 1978. I played 1E, 2E, and gladly embraced 3E. And yeah, I *wasn't* on board with a lot of what I saw as BS in some of the later 3X books that you correctly mention that some of which served as a basis of the framework for 4E. Overall, though, I was happy with 3E. I also embraced 5E. I skipped 4E entirely. I looked through some of the 4E books when they came out. My whole impression was WTF? I wasn't impressed, and as I sketched out several impressions, the game seemed terrible. That's right. It didn't look like DandD; It didn't read or sound like DandD. It did however, remind me a lot of video games. I've played WOW forever, so yes, I recognized many concepts and impressions "under the hood" in what little of the books I read. My friends all trashed the game, and strangely, many of which actually purchased the 4E gamebooks, they were more familiar with 4E details than I was; and yet, their critique seemed to mesh right along the lines of what I briefly gained, from just cursory knowledge. They all told me, "No, SHARK. Fuck 4E. Don't waste your money buying these retarded books. They've fucked up D&D entirely, brother!" THEN, I get online to several game sites--and most of my online friends *also* echoed the same assessment I and my real-world friends had embraced. So, yeah, 4E got thrown into the trash, and the ash-heap of history as a failed game, an abomination that nearly destroyed the DandD brand.
I didn't make that up, Batman. That's exactly what happened.
With 5E, the same process; I checked the books out at my game store, before purchasing even *one*. I thought, hmmm; this definitely seems interesting, fun, and cool. They didn't fuck it up like 4E. I then went to my real-world friends, and asked them, what do you all think of 5E? They were *all* united. 5E seemed to be fucking cool, and awesome. I then checked with some online friends; and everyone that knows me, said, "SHARK, dude, you'll love 5E, brother! GET IT!"
So, yeah, I got 5E. I have been pleased with the books and the system ever since.
Everything you also claim about 4E, specifically that you felt fucked up the game, well, indeed. All of that certainly didn't help save the game, at all. 4E choked and got fucked very quickly. Millions of gamers *rejected* the game, Batman. Not just a handful, but *MILLIONS*. It is not my fault that WOTC ass fucked a game system that you happened to like, Batman. I didn't do that; THEY DID. WOTC fucked up 4E.
Thankfully, it seems, WOTC learned their lesson, and pulled their heads out of their asses, and chose to make and present a good game system with the presentation of 5E.
I think that 5E has been a huge WIN for the game system of DandD, and the DandD hobby as a whole. Pundit does seem to be correct in his assessment as well: 5E saved D&D from the abyss of absolute defeat and failure.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: S'mon;1074168Yup. I certainly think there is a big difference between 2000-2003 3e/3.5e and 2007-8 3.5e. Like many people I had stopped buying 3e books by then so didn't notice, but I've picked up some of the late-era 3e stuff more recently and it certainly shows a lot of proto-4e thinking.
Oh absolutely! The power of Feats, Prestige Classes, base classes, and spells plus stronger support for things that affect the action economy shifted into high gear by late 2006 (Or so I recalled). You can see a deliberate shift for classes to "do" more every round than previously conceived and it usually involves either some special widget / gimmick / roll effect compared to early designes of move and hit it with a stick or stand still and hit it a couple of times with a stick.
After a brief hiatus of D&D (2002 to 2005) I started getting books til 4e debued and I initially used our old 3.0 books with new material and yeah, the change was more significant than I originally thought.
Quote from: S'mon;1074168Yup. I certainly think there is a big difference between 2000-2003 3e/3.5e and 2007-8 3.5e. Like many people I had stopped buying 3e books by then so didn't notice, but I've picked up some of the late-era 3e stuff more recently and it certainly shows a lot of proto-4e thinking.
Greetings!
Yes, that's right, S'mon. There was a significant difference in the direction they were going with the game in books presented in 2007/2008 during 3X. I don't remember all of their name at the moment; Tome of Battle, some ghost book, some weird magic book; some psion-like book, probably several more. I remember looking through four, five, six of them, or so it seemed, and I wasn't impressed. I didn't like the look or feel. I also agree with you from our earlier discussions, 3X was getting into some very annoying problems, bloat, scattered rules, inconsistent stuff, overpowered doodads...yeah, all together, the game system after 2006, I'd say, grew to be more and more a pain in the ass to play, and especially to DM and prepare for. Yes, I had a short-cut system, and avoided most of the problems, but even I, being quite devoted to and enjoying the system, recognized several growing problems that were quite annoying.
But over all, in late 3X, I didn't like probably 80% of what they were doing. It didn't surprise me when I looked through 4E, and low and behold, more of the same nonsense that I didn't like, from half a dozen books that I had just bought over the last 18 months. And now, I'd get the joy of buying even more of it, at $50 a book. Much of the same material that I had just *recently* bought. So, yeah, I was turned completely off of 4E from the very beginning.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK I believe your experiences are genuine. I don't want to give the impression that I feel 4E is 'teh' best or somehow beyond reproach. It has lots of faults and those were put on full display early in it's life. Heck it's only marginally balanced and that's because most compare it to 3e which doesn't grasp the concept.
I feel though that had WotC listened to their playtesters, had opened up the OGL and played nice with Paizo and 3PP, hadn't bungled the VTT or pissed off older gamers. with the dumb video, and had waaay better interior design the game would've been FAR better received, especially earlier on and people would have taken more initiative to make the game their own.
For example in 5e people talk about freely changing game concepts, mechanics, removing rules that don't suit their style or add ones in that do. Some games don't come close to resembling the Core 5e system (which is great! Make it your own) but the same care or dedication to "make it work" was never done with 4E by similar dissenters. No one was like " ok, let's make this work better" it was just "fuck it, it's stoopid". And it makes it funny when people gush over 5e despite the many similarities between 4e and 5e, a lot of which is taken in terms of mechanics.
But to each their own.
Quote from: Batman;1074172Oh absolutely! The power of Feats, Prestige Classes, base classes, and spells plus stronger support for things that affect the action economy shifted into high gear by late 2006 (Or so I recalled). You can see a deliberate shift for classes to "do" more every round than previously conceived and it usually involves either some special widget / gimmick / roll effect compared to early designes of move and hit it with a stick or stand still and hit it a couple of times with a stick.
Another reason a lot of people don't know this is that Pathfinder was not a continuation of 2006-8 3.5e; it was a continuation of 2003-4 3.5e. A lot of the developments you like were rolled back. So PF as the in-print version of 3.5e continues 2003-era caster supremacy, sucky Fighters et al, and that's what the institutional memory is.
Quote from: Batman;1074174I feel though that had WotC listened to their playtesters, had opened up the OGL and played nice with Paizo and 3PP, hadn't bungled the VTT or pissed off older gamers. with the dumb video, and had waaay better interior design the game would've been FAR better received, especially earlier on and people would have taken more initiative to make the game their own.
I think at core 4e needed another year of development. The system was not ready for release.
Here's an example: In 4e higher level monsters give too little XP compared to their threat level, when compared to lower level monsters! This is a really bad thing, because high level monsters also take longer to fight and are more likely to kill PCs. Monster XP goes up x2 per 4 levels, but the actual threat level goes up about x2 per 2 levels, same rate as in 3e (where the XP matched the threat level).
The main reason for this is the "+1 to everything per level" monsters get, in there to match the "+1/2 to everything per level" PCs get.
You can just remove the PC +0.5/level bonus and remove half the monster +1/level bonus, and suddenly everything works out! Monster threat & XPV scale appropriately, while monsters also stay useable across a much wider level range (whereas in standard 4e monster stats have to be kept within 3-4 levels of PC level, creating a lot of extra GM work).
They realised this in 5e, and created 'bounded accuracy'. I'm sure with another year to work on 4e they would have realised it back then too, along with stuff they did eventually fix, like monster too-low damage and elite/solo too-high defences.
I believe it, though I never really got on board the Pathfinder train, not really. I use their SRD and I got Path of War but we don't play enough to warrant a significant dip. With all the rules they had, before abandoning the game for a 2E, it seems like they rolled it all back so that they could put in their own bloat of mechanical widgets and tools. Which now looks like it had the same effect that occurred with late 3e, falling under their own bloat of mechanics to where it turns into a massive heap of stacking math.
Quote from: Batman;1074177I believe it, though I never really got on board the Pathfinder train, not really. I use their SRD and I got Path of War but we don't play enough to warrant a significant dip. With all the rules they had, before abandoning the game for a 2E, it seems like they rolled it all back so that they could put in their own bloat of mechanical widgets and tools. Which now looks like it had the same effect that occurred with late 3e, falling under their own bloat of mechanics to where it turns into a massive heap of stacking math.
Yup!
Quote from: Batman;1074177I believe it, though I never really got on board the Pathfinder train, not really. I use their SRD and I got Path of War but we don't play enough to warrant a significant dip. With all the rules they had, before abandoning the game for a 2E, it seems like they rolled it all back so that they could put in their own bloat of mechanical widgets and tools. Which now looks like it had the same effect that occurred with late 3e, falling under their own bloat of mechanics to where it turns into a massive heap of stacking math.
Greetings!
Geesus! All of that stacking math back in 3X...I definitely do not miss that! You know, as the game went on, making up characters, PC's, NPC's--my god, even with some pre-made frames and short-cuts--it became such a pain in the ass, you know? I have thoughtful players, and even leveling up their PC, say from 12th level to 13th level...it took them *hours* I had to practically schedule *maintenance days* because they would want to look over the bazillion skills; the bazillion feats; the bazillion PRC's; potentially bazillion spells. And no, they didn't want to do it solo, because they wanted to check things with me, approvals, interpretations; is this PRC retarded, or not? and so on. Hours and hours. With important NPC's, yeah, it was a huge investment of time for me as well. The bloat...damn, I'd routinely have *stacks* of books at the table for game day...on some level it's fun, and yet, on other levels, my god was it a pain.
I don't miss the bazillion rules for everything, and needing to research through two dozen books to build a character, that's for sure. Or a strong monster, either. Same problems!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Spinachcat;1074166The problem with 4e was it was called D&D.
The vitriol is entirely based on 4e being too big of a departure from 3e.
I find this hard to believe, given that the vitriol started LONG before anyone knew what 4e was going to be about. The lies and derision started shortly after it was announced.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1074166Just like how the OSR didn't grok to 3e after the TSR days.
Grok? I don't understand that slang term.
Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy came out before 4e did.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074185I find this hard to believe, given that the vitriol started LONG before anyone knew what 4e was going to be about. The lies and derision started shortly after it was announced.
Grok? I don't understand that slang term.
Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy came out before 4e did.
People were upset a new edition was coming out so soon after 3.5, but they also released information about the edition pretty early. I remember a guy bringing a packet to the game session that talked about roles and balance, and this was the first sign. To me the edition was going a direction I didn't like (Iwas actually someone who though 3E neeeeed some serious changes in terms of balance, builds, etc. But they took it in a direction that felt like a big departure to me from what I saw D&D as being about. The more information came out, the more that was clear. If you liked it, that is totally fine. People seemed to either really like it or really dislike it. That is just taste. But we were not lying when we said we didn't like it because because the change was too drastic and didn't feel like D&D to us.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1074186People were upset a new edition was coming out so soon after 3.5, but they also released information about the edition pretty early.
Not accusing you of anything, but that's bullshit. 4e came out FIVE years after 3.5, which came out THREE years after 3e. Assuming you believe that 3.x is a single edition, then that took almost a full decade to come out. If you (again, the GENERAL, not specific) don't, and consider 3e and 3.5 to be two separate editions, then 3.5 came out much sooner than 4e.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1074186I remember a guy bringing a packet to the game session that talked about roles and balance, and this was the first sign. To me the edition was going a direction I didn't like (Iwas actually someone who though 3E neeeeed some serious changes in terms of balance, builds, etc. But they took it in a direction that felt like a big departure to me from what I saw D&D as being about. The more information came out, the more that was clear. If you liked it, that is totally fine. People seemed to either really like it or really dislike it. That is just taste.
TSR was talking about 'balance' and 'roles' LONG before 3e came out. What do you think CLASSES are? Each 'niche' is a ROLE you want to play in the party. As for Balance, what do you think the old XP charts with their various rates of advancement were? Yes, an attempt at balancing the classes against each other.
People used them as an excuse to hate on 4e, sight unseen.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1074186But we were not lying when we said we didn't like it because because the change was too drastic and didn't feel like D&D to us.
You might not have been, but most people were simply parroting what they had heard about 4e on the internet. Because most people didn't know fuck all, and only cared that their 'game' was potentially being changed. And between the Internet allowing them to FINALLY voice their displeasure at change (any change, really, but people were ALWAYS unhappy when their game was changing) and the OGL swooping in and allowing Paizo to effectively steal 8 years of work LEGALLY, it set up for the split that happened.
Don't fool yourself. It didn't matter how good 4e could have been, it died stillborn long before it ever had time to fully gestate.
Chris, with all due respect, I am not BSing you. That was my real reaction st the time. I think I know my own mind better than you do. I don't doubt your stated reasons for liking. Maybe do a courtesy and believe me in turn.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1074189Chris, with all due respect, I am not BSing you. That was my real reaction st the time. I think I know my own mind better than you do. I don't doubt your stated reasons for liking. Maybe do a courtesy and believe me in turn.
I'm not talking about you, specific, if I was, I'd be using your name, BedrockBrendan. I have no idea if you did or didn't. What I do know is that most of the people I interacted at that time were either lying, or just parroting what they had heard.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074197I'm not talking about you, specific, if I was, I'd be using your name, BedrockBrendan. I have no idea if you did or didn't. What I do know is that most of the people I interacted at that time were either lying, or just parroting what they had heard.
I have to agree with Chris on this one. The amount of times I saw and heard people who either lied about playing let alone reading 4E. While going on third or even fourth hand information was both amazing and staggering. Worse using their years of being in the hobby as the lamest excuse to not read the books. Yet somehow being a rock solid expert on 4E. Sorry I don't care if you were playing rpgs since the 1970s if you don't read the source material your just talking out of your ass.
As a counter point Chris Wotc kind of hurt their sales with their poor marketing of 4E. It was also not helped that too many gamers stupidly took what was said in 4E terrible marketing to heart. With 5E they did a batter job. Yet 4E also showed that too many gamers don't know what the hell they really want. Or worse showed that they just wanted to complain about the issues of 3.5. But don't you dare damn fix those issues or else. Even with backwards compability most cannot make up their minds. They have shelves of books gathering dust and rotting away that they will never use again but they can't fix any issues you hear me.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074197I'm not talking about you, specific, if I was, I'd be using your name, BedrockBrendan. I have no idea if you did or didn't. What I do know is that most of the people I interacted at that time were either lying, or just parroting what they had heard.
It is was the single biggest flamewar the community has ever had I think. There was bad behavior everywhere in those discussions. Honestly think about this, do you genuinely believe that the distribution of bad moral qualities really falls along the dividing lines of edition preferences? People lied, people exaggerated, people dug in their heels, people made outrageous claims about the other side. This was a very heated debate. The bottom line is people were being pretty terrible to each other. We shouldn't have behaved that way. But that doesn't mean that people on the pro-4E side were lying about their love of the edition, or that the people on the anti-4E side were lying. I can't tell you the number of times I tried to give my honest opinion in those discussions only to be screamed at, told I was lying, told I didn't understand why I liked what I liked, or dragged through dozens of corner cases to disprove one of my stated preferences. No one had any fun in those discussions. It was very nasty and things got personal pretty quickly. I think enough time has passed though that people should be able to discuss it, disagree, without flying off the handle at each other again.
Quote from: sureshot;1074199As a counter point Chris Wotc kind of hurt their sales with their poor marketing of 4E. It was also not helped that too many gamers stupidly took what was said in 4E terrible marketing to heart. With 5E they did a batter job. Yet 4E also showed that too many gamers don't know what the hell they really want. Or worse showed that they just wanted to complain about the issues of 3.5. But don't you dare damn fix those issues or else. Even with backwards compability most cannot make up their minds. They have shelves of books gathering dust and rotting away that they will never use again but they can't fix any issues you hear me.
Again, I think you are projecting things onto people you can't possibly. I definitely wanted fixes to the issues in 3E. But what I wanted were more like adjustments. I didn't want a restructuring of how classes and abilities worked. I get that for some people, that didn't seem like as big of a change, or as far from what they wanted in terms of fixing things. But it was very far from the fix I had imagined (which, granted wasn't thought out in extreme detail, but certainly wouldn't have included centering everything on the powers the way they did).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1074205Again, I think you are projecting things onto people you can't possibly. I definitely wanted fixes to the issues in 3E. But what I wanted were more like adjustments. I didn't want a restructuring of how classes and abilities worked. I get that for some people, that didn't seem like as big of a change, or as far from what they wanted in terms of fixing things. But it was very far from the fix I had imagined (which, granted wasn't thought out in extreme detail, but certainly wouldn't have included centering everything on the powers the way they did).
We will agree to disagree imo. Granted what I'm writing is anecdotal yet the same people who I gamed with that complained about 3.5. then lost their shit when 4E actually fixed the issues. They wanted the luxury of being able to complain for the sake of it rather than actually see any fixes. I'm not saying all only some. 4E is far from perfect yet it will always get bonus points with me simply for fixing the linear Fighter Quadratic issue that was a major issue in 3.5 then Pathfinder. Was it perfect fix hell no at least they tried with 4E than 5E.
Quote from: kythri;1074131Blaming Dancey for the death of White Wolf is a joke. White Wolf wasn't on it's way out, it was already dead when CCP bought it. CCP bought it to mine it for potential MMO builds, not for any desire at all to maintain it in print. That it was dead already was a selling point.
He certainly was behind the OGL to begin with, but it seems to me that everyone had stars in their eyes with the financial success of World of Warcraft. The world of RPGs and who knows whom is really, really small.
What bothered me and many others about 4e was that it seemed to try to 'reframe' the D&D experience in language and implementation of an MMO to make it attractive to that audience. WoW (and other MMORPGs) were a huge, attractive market of young people with enough money to shell out $50+ per game book without blinking, as console games titles had already hit that mark.
As far as I know, Ryan went on and worked for CCP, and later was involved in the initial stages of Paizo's attempt to MMO-ify Pathfinder (I don't know if the Kingmaker game now has any association with that early attempt).
CCP did have plans to have an MMO based on Vampire. For two years, there were semi-public displays of sample character models dressed up to look like a really cool online character builder for such an MMO. I also saw the first demos of Kingmaker. I can tell you from what I saw, what they presented was far, far away from alpha quality. The optimism around its presentation made me feel a bit queasy because it looked to me like they had accomplished very little.
I'm not disputing that Dancey was behind the OGL. He gets pretty much full credit for the OGL.
I'm disputing that A> The OGL was bad for WotC in any way, and B> that Dancey had anything to do with the demise of White Wolf (especially the ludicrous assertion that referring to WW as a "legacy imprint" was the nail in the coffin for WW).
Kingmaker is a separate effort from Pathfinder Online (the MMO).
Dancey was/ios on-board with the Goblinworks spin-off that was/is doing Pathfinder Online. As far as I can tell, he has/had little-to-nothing to do with Kingmaker, which was/is being developed by Owlcat Games.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1073949Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
That is some impressive art.
Checking out your quick start now.
Quote from: Batman;1074163So basically you hate warrior / fighter classes in 3e because they're absolute garbage. There's nothing competitive or relevant for them past approx 6th level. Even when DMs use "core only" (a ridiculously laughable idea in its own right) does nothing to alleviate their mechanical plight.
I don't really understand, when or how do any 4E fighters do this by-the-by? None of their exploits (that's what Martial powers are called) are magical in nature nor really exceed the Fantasy realm of "realism", that is nothing so ridiculous as anything you'd see with any of the hundreds of "Ex" abilities of 3.5 characters.
I played 4E a couple of times but it never clicked. However, you have a point here. You constantly hear about 3.5's LFQW problem (i.e. "Why can't fighters have cool things?") yet when 4E tried to fix it, it became "4E sucks! Everyone is a wizard!"
Quote from: Aglondir;1074230I played 4E a couple of times but it never clicked. However, you have a point here. You constantly hear about 3.5's LFQW problem (i.e. "Why can't fighters have cool things?") yet when 4E tried to fix it, it became "4E sucks! Everyone is a wizard!"
Personally I love the 4e Fighter and never found it jarring at all given the genre. Much less keen on the "Heroes of..." version - 'stances' should not be a core mechanic.
Quote from: Aglondir;1074230I played 4E a couple of times but it never clicked. However, you have a point here. You constantly hear about 3.5's LFQW problem (i.e. "Why can't fighters have cool things?") yet when 4E tried to fix it, it became "4E sucks! Everyone is a wizard!"
Yeah, pretty much. For the most part I think the 4E Fighter was one of (if not THE) strongest supported classes in the edition's run. People were upset that they had "cool-downs" and would scream about "Oh my poor verisimilitude!!" because they couldn't grasp having an ability that took a martial character 6 hours to regain the use of. And that would be valid criticism IF they were also having the same reaction to say the 3e's Barbarian's Rage ability (because, it makes TOTAL sense that you can't get mad more than once a day) or the 3e's Stunning Fist feat (because you're punches apparently have so many Stun effects before you simply can't again?) or the myriad of X/day Extraordinary Abilities 3E has floating around. None of these were ever issues because at some point peoples were OK that some aspects were just part of the "game". I get that 4E sort of '
forced' them on you in terms of core and unavoidable mechanics but still, it seemed a pretty dumb issue to be mad about with actual mechanical issues 4E was having problems with.
Quote from: S'mon;1074232Personally I love the 4e Fighter and never found it jarring at all given the genre. Much less keen on the "Heroes of..." version - 'stances' should not be a core mechanic.
See, I think had WotC had the ability of foresight they would've went with the Knight/Slayer styled versions of the Fighter first because they were far less jarring in terms of mechanics and they played a LOT easier in terms of at the table use. You had less decision points to make during character creation AND you can make pretty decent Bow-using Fighters with their mechanics. Then they should've wheeled out the "Weaponmaster" style Fighter (the one from the 4E Core PHB) as a sort of "advanced" version of the class. I'm not sure how significant the difference in balance is but I've seen and played both Essential-style classes and your Core-styled classes and most of the time their abilities even out over the course of the adventure (and I really liked the Knight class with a big ol' Warhammer).
Quote from: kythri;1074215I'm disputing that A> The OGL was bad for WotC in any way,
So you're disputing facts? What, you didn't see the death of 4e and the rise as Pathfinder as nothing more than 'coincidence'? OK. Sure. You be you. I guess the OGL didn't split the fanbase by allowing people to make things like OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord et al. as well as Pathfinder.
Quote from: kythri;1074215and B> that Dancey had anything to do with the demise of White Wolf (especially the ludicrous assertion that referring to WW as a "legacy imprint" was the nail in the coffin for WW).
There was an article that came out immediately after his statement at how it didn't mean that they were sun-setting the Table Top RPG, there was a lot of verbal and written panic from CCP. "No, we're not killing World of Darkness!"
Quote from: kythri;1074215Kingmaker is a separate effort from Pathfinder Online (the MMO).
Dancey was/ios on-board with the Goblinworks spin-off that was/is doing Pathfinder Online. As far as I can tell, he has/had little-to-nothing to do with Kingmaker, which was/is being developed by Owlcat Games.
Dancey has been proven to be poison to any RPG business he's been part of. He's also jumped ship every time it's been proven that his
Quote from: Aglondir;1074230I played 4E a couple of times but it never clicked. However, you have a point here. You constantly hear about 3.5's LFQW problem (i.e. "Why can't fighters have cool things?") yet when 4E tried to fix it, it became "4E sucks! Everyone is a wizard!"
Mostly that came from those who loved third edition mages and expected Fighters to only be the meat shield for the mages. It's was as if for some you had slept with their girlfriend, killed their favored puppy and burned their homes down. It's the same reason they hate Starfinder because the Paizo devs removed level 8 to 9 spells. Heaven forbid we try to tone down the rocket tag and the power of mages. It's not like they are powerful at all or anything.
Quote from: Batman;1074238Yeah, pretty much. For the most part I think the 4E Fighter was one of (if not THE) strongest supported classes in the edition's run. People were upset that they had "cool-downs" and would scream about "Oh my poor verisimilitude!!" because they couldn't grasp having an ability that took a martial character 6 hours to regain the use of. And that would be valid criticism IF they were also having the same reaction to say the 3e's Barbarian's Rage ability (because, it makes TOTAL sense that you can't get mad more than once a day) or the 3e's Stunning Fist feat (because you're punches apparently have so many Stun effects before you simply can't again?) or the myriad of X/day Extraordinary Abilities 3E has floating around. None of these were ever issues because at some point peoples were OK that some aspects were just part of the "game". I get that 4E sort of 'forced' them on you in terms of core and unavoidable mechanics but still, it seemed a pretty dumb issue to be mad about with actual mechanical issues 4E was having problems with.
Like many people myself included were are very selective and hypocritical . Stunning Fist, Smiting evil and Barbarian Rage they have no problem. Somehow using terms such as powers, and at will etc.. Which by the way many of 4E mechanics made it into 5E just written differently yet they have no issues.
Quote from: kythri;1074215The OGL was bad for WotC in any way.
Maybe not for gamers or publishers. For Wotc imo definitely. They created a non-revocable license that allows anyone to make money of it. Without any guarantee of Wotc getting anything in return. It allowed third party publishers to copy whole sections of text for free and created their own competition. As a player and if I ever published I'm glad the OGl exists. If I ever created an rpg business never ever would I do that. Certainly not without being paid a fee and it would be a non-revocable part of the license.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074240So you're disputing facts? What, you didn't see the death of 4e and the rise as Pathfinder as nothing more than 'coincidence'? OK. Sure. You be you. I guess the OGL didn't split the fanbase by allowing people to make things like OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord et al. as well as Pathfinder.
If post-Dancey WotC had embraced the OGL, and hadn't published the pile of shit known as 4E, in a misguided attempt to kill the OGL
because the stupid fuckers left in charge didn't understand the thing, Pathfinder never would have happened.
They could have left Paizo alone, let them publish Dragon and Dungeon until the cows come home, and continue to reap licensing dollars.
The OGL wasn't bad for WotC. Their idiocy was what was bad for them. They could have culled the best of 3rd-party open content, and released something better than Pathfinder, but, they didn't.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074240There was an article that came out immediately after his statement at how it didn't mean that they were sun-setting the Table Top RPG, there was a lot of verbal and written panic from CCP. "No, we're not killing World of Darkness!"
All in an attempt to placate whiny emo fanboys/fangirls that they still hoped to sell their emo vampire MMO to. WoD was dead before CCP got their hands on it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074240Dancey has been proven to be poison to any RPG business he's been part of.
Dancey made WotC untold millions of dollars due to the OGL. Any poison that was spewed was by those who refused to admit the OGL was a masterstroke, and that the OGL is what saved D&D. 5E wouldn't be what it is today without the OGL.
4E nearly killed the D&D game. If 5E hadn't embraced the OGL, it would have failed, and Hasbro would have shelved the game.
If 4E had adopted the original OGL I believe LOT of people would've jumped on board to make their own stuff for the edition and it would've helped 4e flourish IMO. Heck the game Amethyst Evolved has supplements for 4E that turns the game basically into a version of Starfinder and it works pretty well. But the GSL scared off a lot of people so they went with the more friendly and, I'd assume, more easily approachable Paizo for 3PP support.
Does the OGL guarantee Wotc a constant stream or revnue. If not potential revenue to me at least is not real revenue. It gave the fans access to 3pp material and publishers a way to make money off Wotc without giving them anything in return.
The OGL helped make sure that a bunch of non-D&D games wouldn't be a bunch of people's first choice.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074272The OGL helped make sure that a bunch of non-D&D games wouldn't be a bunch of people's first choice.
By 'bunch of people' we're talking about the difference between 15 per cent of the RPG market vs 20 per cent. D&D has always been the behemoth of the RPG industry. There has never been any legitimate threat to that dominance, so the OGL was protection against an imaginary threat.
The OGL looms large in the imaginations of industry insiders and that fraction of the hobby who play lots of different RPGs. To most role-players, it was pretty much irrelevant.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074272The OGL helped make sure that a bunch of non-D&D games wouldn't be a bunch of people's first choice.
It also allowed people to rip off TSR/WotC's work, slap some different fluff text and may a random table or two on it and say they're a game designer.
Quote from: kythri;1074215I'm not disputing that Dancey was behind the OGL. He gets pretty much full credit for the OGL.
The thing is, it seems to be the
only real success he's had in the industry. Nearly everything else he's been involved with, as I understand it, has been disappointing or an outright collapse.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1074304The thing is, it seems to be the only real success he's had in the industry. Nearly everything else he's been involved with, as I understand it, has been disappointing or an outright collapse.
Wasn't he VP/brand manager for D&D? So, technically, he gets to claim 3E as one of his successes, in addition to the OGL.
I'd imagine he gets some credit for Alderac/Lot5R stuffs.
He worked at CCP on Eve Online, and that still appears to be going strong, so, yet another lack of an example. One doesn't get to blame the death of already-dead legacy-imprint White Wolf on Dancey, no matter how much of a hard-on they have for hating him.
You could try to blame the failure of Pathfinder Online on him, but that was pre-destined for failure - Paizo didn't want to risk any of their own money on it, hence their "spin-off" structuring of Goblinworks, they couldn't find any venture-capitalists, they went through a couple rounds of Kickstarter funding for it, on and on. Sorry, can't blame the failure of that pile of shit on Dancey.
What other nonsense do people want to place at his feet?
The OGL made WotC shitgobs of money. They put out dozens of splats of rules not in the OGL that people bought for options. Every game from Call of Cthulhu to Deadlands was made in a d20 version, most of them still requiring the WotC rulebooks to play. Even if you were playing a game like Mongoose's Conan d20, which changed enough of the game to have its own rulebook, the entire line of WotC d20 products was compatible.
The problem was, WotC didn't understand the OGL. They got pissed that they weren't the only ones making money off their product and tried to get sole control of D&D again, not realising that it was impossible. They pulled all the old PDFs of older editions, told Paizo to go fuck itself, put out the most idiotic marketing campaign ever, basically doing everything they could to piss off the current fan base. It's like they put a moronic intern in charge who thought he was Gordon Gecko. The result: their MMO and Forge inspired RPG/Wargame Tactical RPG lost in the head-to-head with the previous version of D&D.
The funny thing is, all the 4vengers coming out of the woodwork don't seem to realize that 5e still has a core of the base assumptions of 4e, they just made it play enough like actual D&D to pass the smell test. Maybe that's their problem?
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074317The funny thing is, all the 4vengers coming out of the woodwork don't seem to realize that 5e still has a core of the base assumptions of 4e, they just made it play enough like actual D&D to pass the smell test. Maybe that's their problem?
My problems with 5E are that it brings back the tumid monstrosity of the ultra-broad spell lists that I was sick of back in the 3E days, it doesn't seem to offer much I couldn't hack out myself, their conversion of my dearly beloved Ravenloft was disappointing, and WotC seems determined to force me to either bow down to Venus Paneros and her consort Moloch or be driven from the hobby with fire and sword. :)
Quote from: Haffrung;1074300By 'bunch of people' we're talking about the difference between 15 per cent of the RPG market vs 20 per cent. D&D has always been the behemoth of the RPG industry. There has never been any legitimate threat to that dominance, so the OGL was protection against an imaginary threat.
The OGL looms large in the imaginations of industry insiders and that fraction of the hobby who play lots of different RPGs. To most role-players, it was pretty much irrelevant.
Pretty much. Most at my table when they ran games refused to use anything but core Wotc material. Even with Pathfinder most do not use third party and only use core. I'm not saying no one use third party to the extent some here make it out to be nowhere near imo.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074302It also allowed people to rip off TSR/WotC's work, slap some different fluff text and may a random table or two on it and say they're a game designer.
I say rip-off is a harsh word. Recycled and rehashed with a few minor house rules pretty much.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074317The OGL made WotC shitgobs of money. They put out dozens of splats of rules not in the OGL that people bought for options. Every game from Call of Cthulhu to Deadlands was made in a d20 version, most of them still requiring the WotC rulebooks to play. Even if you were playing a game like Mongoose's Conan d20, which changed enough of the game to have its own rulebook, the entire line of WotC d20 products was compatible.
That is all potential revenue not guaranteed revenue. If I would own a company I prefer the second. Maybe if someone buys Conan D20 they might by all the Wotc D20. Maybe does not cut if for me. Seeing first hand and experiencing it as well gamers are notorious for being fucking cheap. Sure maybe they might buy one or two or possibly three Wotc sourcebooks. Again the OGL was good for publishers and the fans. Wotc not so much. An OGL that might make them money is not one I would ever create let alone invest in.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1074318WotC seems determined to force me to either bow down to Venus Paneros and her consort Moloch or be driven from the hobby with fire and sword. :)
Are you talking about their political beliefs of spreading acceptance for LGBT lifestyles (Venus Panderos) and Abortion (Moloch)?
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074317The funny thing is, all the 4vengers coming out of the woodwork don't seem to realize that 5e still has a core of the base assumptions of 4e, they just made it play enough like actual D&D to pass the smell test. Maybe that's their problem?
Except it doesn't have the same core assumptions on a lot of the things people really liked about 4E. It may have some 4E veneer in some places, but frankly 5e went out of its way to learn all the wrong lessons from 4E. For example, its use of Hit Dice (i.e. bonus healing) is 180 degrees backwards from Healing Surges (i.e. hard limits on daily healing).
The biggest place of divergence is that it threw Warlords under the bus (with Mearls even mocking the warlord concept as "shouting people's hands back on" as if D&D had ever used routine dismemberment as part of its hit point damage) and dumped interesting martial classes in general because apparently D&D means "Fighters can't have nice things."
They even threw out actual good ideas like the consolidated monster stat block (i.e. you NEVER had to go look up something in another source or even another page in order to run one) in the name of "feels."
5e is the ultimate triumph of SJW "feelings trump logic" sentiment in RPG design. Whether a mechanic is actually good or bad isn't as important as how it makes you feel.
No wonder its starting to rot with SJW infestation. If the highest goal is not excellence of design, then all manner of insanity becomes justifiable on the basis of how adding it makes people feel. How long until all male characters have to make all their Cha-checks with disadvantage because their patriarchal thoughts make them so unsympathetic? We need to make the radicals feel good about the mechanics right?
4E was at least trying to put sound mechanical design ahead of "feels" and to question "is this way actually the best way to accomplish things?"
5e is tepid and mediocre design married to a "feels are all that matter" sentimentality.
Quote from: sureshot;1074331Again the OGL was good for publishers and the fans. Wotc not so much.
Well, those in the know when 3E was peak disagree with you. Most of that OGL and especially the d20 STL stuff drove people to buy the 3E core stuff.
Quote from: sureshot;1074331That is all potential revenue not guaranteed revenue. If I would own a company I prefer the second.
The more you try to guarantee revenue without maintaining your position through competitiveness, the more you encourage competitors to push you into irrelevance.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074334Are you talking about their political beliefs of spreading acceptance for LGBT lifestyles (Venus Panderos) and Abortion (Moloch)?
Yes, although it seems more prevalent in the online chatter and behind-the-scenes stuff than in the actual product. And the breaking point is less the presence of such items (I've been a
Star Trek fan for years) than the continued implication from the creative team's statements that "if you disagree with the progressive ideology on such matters, you are a Son of Darkness and not worthy to play D&D anyway."
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074272The OGL helped make sure that a bunch of non-D&D games wouldn't be a bunch of people's first choice.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074317...Every game from Call of Cthulhu to Deadlands was made in a d20 version, ...Conan d20, ...
Quote from: Haffrung;1074300By 'bunch of people' we're talking about the difference between 15 per cent of the RPG market vs 20 per cent.
But in the shallow end of the market all those little 5% swings due to d20 add up. D&D has cemented itself at the top by a margin not seen since the early years of RPGs when there were only a few options out there.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074300D&D has always been the behemoth of the RPG industry. There has never been any legitimate threat to that dominance, ...
Until Pathfinder. Luckily the D&D developers had WOTC dollars to pull a new edition out of their ass, and take back what they were losing.
And Pazio seems dead set on giving back the rest when Pathfinder 2.0 hits the streets.
Quote from: kythri;1074337Well, those in the know when 3E was peak disagree with you. Most of that OGL and especially the d20 STL stuff drove people to buy the 3E core stuff.
That's OK we can have a disagreement on the topic.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074336No wonder its starting to rot with SJW infestation. If the highest goal is not excellence of design, then all manner of insanity becomes justifiable on the basis of how adding it makes people feel.
I guess that must be why Dragonsfoot, K&KA, the whole OSR, are so totally controlled by SJWs - because grognards prefer the feel of old, irrational D&D to 'excellence of design'. :p
Quote from: S'mon;1074420I guess that must be why Dragonsfoot, K&KA, the whole OSR, are so totally controlled by SJWs - because grognards prefer the feel of old, irrational D&D to 'excellence of design'. :p
Except I'd argue the OSR IS concerned with excellence of design. They are absolutely concerned with how well its systems are able to emulate a particular old school style of play and there are standards by which an OSR game can be judged in terms of how well it aligns with that standard of play that have nothing to do with how it "feels" and everything to do with how well the mechanics work.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074434Except I'd argue the OSR IS concerned with excellence of design. They are absolutely concerned with how well its systems are able to emulate a particular old school style of play and there are standards by which an OSR game can be judged in terms of how well it aligns with that standard of play that have nothing to do with how it "feels" and everything to do with how well the mechanics work.
I don't really understand the metric by which you distinguish "excellence" from "feels". I also think you feel an irrational dislike of 5e (a game popular with many OSR enthusiasts precisely because of its design).
Edit: It is actually quite possible the SJWs will drive the likes of me out of the 5e-playing community with torches and pitchforks. I haven't seen much sign of it yet, but sure it could happen. I don't think this is a design issue though.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074317The funny thing is, all the 4vengers coming out of the woodwork don't seem to realize that 5e still has a core of the base assumptions of 4e, they just made it play enough like actual D&D to pass the smell test. Maybe that's their problem?
*raises hand* as an unabashedly 4e fan Ive been pointing out all the similarities between 4e and 5e since the play tests. Are they the same? No but definitely similar in style and play. At least compared to any previous edition. I see a lot of people comparing it to 3e and....I don't get it? Like the only thing I see from 3e is the way multiclassing works and 5e did a much better job in that department.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074300By 'bunch of people' we're talking about the difference between 15 per cent of the RPG market vs 20 per cent. D&D has always been the behemoth of the RPG industry. There has never been any legitimate threat to that dominance, so the OGL was protection against an imaginary threat.
The OGL looms large in the imaginations of industry insiders and that fraction of the hobby who play lots of different RPGs. To most role-players, it was pretty much irrelevant.
Before the OGL, the biggest RPGs were D&D, World of Darkness, and then in a more distant and but not insignificant lower tier stuff like Shadowrun, GURPS and Palladium.
After the OGL the biggest RPGs are D&D, Pathfinder (a D&D-variant), and then collectively third-party D&D derivatives. Other popular non-D&D RPGs don't come anywhere near the level of share that stuff like Shadowrun or GURPS once held.
Quote from: Chris24601;1074302It also allowed people to rip off TSR/WotC's work, slap some different fluff text and may a random table or two on it and say they're a game designer.
Well, yes, but people did that before the OGL too. And just like before, the market pretty much handled that by itself, as those 'heartbreakers' didn't get anywhere.
What is different after the OGL is that you can now start from the basis of D20 or Old-School D&D rules, make something truly novel and creative with it, and it will be seriously looked at. The fact that there's a ton of D20 and OSR products that just vanish almost as soon as they come out because they've got nothing particularly good about them that is also different from what was before doesn't really matter, what matters is the good stuff that has been able to thrive.
It seems pretty clear to me (in this thread and everywhere else I've seen it) that the categories of "people who think the OGL was really bad" and "people who don't want D&D to be as popular or successful as it is" have a really HUGE overlap.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1074317The OGL made WotC shitgobs of money. They put out dozens of splats of rules not in the OGL that people bought for options. Every game from Call of Cthulhu to Deadlands was made in a d20 version, most of them still requiring the WotC rulebooks to play. Even if you were playing a game like Mongoose's Conan d20, which changed enough of the game to have its own rulebook, the entire line of WotC d20 products was compatible.
The problem was, WotC didn't understand the OGL. They got pissed that they weren't the only ones making money off their product and tried to get sole control of D&D again, not realising that it was impossible. They pulled all the old PDFs of older editions, told Paizo to go fuck itself, put out the most idiotic marketing campaign ever, basically doing everything they could to piss off the current fan base. It's like they put a moronic intern in charge who thought he was Gordon Gecko. The result: their MMO and Forge inspired RPG/Wargame Tactical RPG lost in the head-to-head with the previous version of D&D.
The funny thing is, all the 4vengers coming out of the woodwork don't seem to realize that 5e still has a core of the base assumptions of 4e, they just made it play enough like actual D&D to pass the smell test. Maybe that's their problem?
I thought the problem was the glut of d20 stuff on the market was hurting their branding and they wanted to reclaim that. And it also caused consumer exhaustion as people got bored of buying splats and it caused game problems with lots of random d20 stuff turning up at tables.
3rd and 4th edition design were driven by online content, which tends to be system-heads theory building. For 5th they did more customer research at the table and so got a better idea of what people bought and used in the real world.
Quote from: Verdant;1074521I thought the problem was the glut of d20 stuff on the market was hurting their branding and they wanted to reclaim that. And it also caused consumer exhaustion as people got bored of buying splats and it caused game problems with lots of random d20 stuff turning up at tables.
3rd and 4th edition design were driven by online content, which tends to be system-heads theory building. For 5th they did more customer research at the table and so got a better idea of what people bought and used in the real world.
There's a reason that they tried to revoke the OGL for 4e, because it HURT D&D as a brand in the wallet.
Not so much hurting the brand as it allowed anyone and everyone to make money off their rules. Without getting any guaranteed money or sales being given back to Wotc.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074592There's a reason that they tried to revoke the OGL for 4e, because it HURT D&D as a brand in the wallet.
Wrong.
Quote from: sureshot;1074612Not so much hurting the brand as it allowed anyone and everyone to make money off their rules. Without getting any guaranteed money or sales being given back to Wotc.
You could almost say it was designed specifically and clearly to do this.
I'd note that WotC has moved through several different strategies during its time in charge of D&D:
3.0: Publish the core books and the capstone expansions, make it all open, and let everyone else feed into us.
3.5/4E: This whole era saw a general pullback into closed content and centralization. 4E accelerated it only by ending licenses and not having the baseline as open. (I don't think WotC added any new open content after the 3.5 books and the ExPsiHandbook.)
5E: Striking a balance--keep it open enough for compatibility, not so wide-open that people can reproduce WotC material themselves, and focus on big adventures and some IP content instead of system capstones.
Quote from: kythri;1074638Wrong.
Evidence please?
I will provide with mine: Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, Blue Rose, three (among many systems) fantasy games that tried to take a chunk out of the D20 market, weakening D&D's dominance in the field. One of them succeeded for a while.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074592There's a reason that they tried to revoke the OGL for 4e, because it HURT D&D as a brand in the wallet.
Quote from: kythri;1074638Wrong.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074713Evidence please?
I will provide with mine: Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, Blue Rose, three (among many systems) fantasy games that tried to take a chunk out of the D20 market, weakening D&D's dominance in the field. One of them succeeded for a while.
So kythri didn't explain his reasoning. And I don't think that I disagree with you for the same reasons he does, but I'll at least explain my line of thought.
I think that they tried to "revoke" the OGL with 4e because the powers that be at the time wanted more control. And perceived that
at the time they were losing "lots" of money with the OGL.
But
in the long run I don't think that the OGL has "HURT D&D as a brand in the wallet."
And this is why I tend to think that way:
You rightly point out that: "Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, Blue Rose, three (among many systems) fantasy games that tried to take a chunk out of the D20 market,..."
But was the end result really a weakening D&D's dominance in the field?
Yes, for a time Pathfinder really took it to D&D. But Most of that was due to WOTC incompetence with the design and marketing of 4e. Now if WOTC didn't make the dollars available for the D&D brand managers to cut their losses and turn out 5e in a short time span, things might have played out differently.
But they didn't. PF is on the back-foot, with PF2e looking to put Pazio on a downward slide, and all the other little 'competitors' using the d20 OGL only served to do one thing.
Drive down the non-OGL competition: Pundit gave a good summary...
Quote from: RPGPundit;1074510Before the OGL, the biggest RPGs were D&D, World of Darkness, and then in a more distant and but not insignificant lower tier stuff like Shadowrun, GURPS and Palladium.
After the OGL the biggest RPGs are D&D, Pathfinder (a D&D-variant), and then collectively third-party D&D derivatives. Other popular non-D&D RPGs don't come anywhere near the level of share that stuff like Shadowrun or GURPS once held.
In the long run, the effect the OGL had was to cement D&D's Brand Dominance over all other RPG's.
Which has translated to mucho $$$$$ under 5e.
Yes, Pathfinder and other D&D derivatives are out there, but everyone knows that they are
D&D derivatives. The D&D brand exposure has only gone up. Which when WOTC plays their cards right, is only good $$$ wise for D&D overall.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074713Evidence please?
I will provide with mine: Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, Blue Rose, three (among many systems) fantasy games that tried to take a chunk out of the D20 market, weakening D&D's dominance in the field. One of them succeeded for a while.
It's cute that you think Fantasycraft had any impact on D&D or the D20 market. It's fucking LAUGHABLE that you think Blue Rose did. OGL didn't harm D&D/WotC. WotC harmed D&D/WotC.
Quote from: kythri;1074875It's cute that you think Fantasycraft had any impact on D&D or the D20 market. It's fucking LAUGHABLE that you think Blue Rose did. OGL didn't harm D&D/WotC. WotC harmed D&D/WotC.
No, but I think it's certainly plausible that the reproductions of their own material, stuff that staked out space they could have filled (I wonder how the MM sales looked for those first weeks, compared to the other 2 core books, after White Wolf got their Creature Collection into stores first?), and things like the BoEF left them a little gunshy with the OGL and overreacting against it when the chance arose. I think 3E gave away the store too much, 4E overreacted against it, and 5E seems to be hitting the right general notes--and I say this as someone who owns
one 5E product. :) (All right, two if you count the card deck, but that's not system-specific!)
Pathfinder was certainly able to become a thing thanks to the OGL, but the OGL didn't prompt Pathfinder's development, so using Pathfinder as an example of the OGL hurting WotC is disingenuous.
WotC shafted a profitable partner - the pullback of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. The magazines were profitable for Paizo, so by that fact, they were profitable by WotC, since they just had to sit there and let the money roll in. Instead, they yanked them, harming Paizo, and generating a massive amount of ill will from the fan base. This was due to WotC's actions, not the OGL.
Due to the nature of the periodicals business, it's not an easy thing to launch a new magazine. Dragon and Dungeon had creds. Anything new, regardless of publisher, doesn't. Longtime advertisers aren't willing to risk ad buys in an unproven magazine. The trade (booksellers, newsstands, etc.) aren't willing to risk precious shelf space on an unproven magazine. Subscribers can't just be shifted over to a new magazine, they have to personally subscribe to the new title. These reasons and more are why Paizo decided not to start a new periodical. WotC's pullback literally annihilated their periodical publishing business.
Paizo then retooled, and launched the Pathfinder Adventure Path line, a spiritual replacement for Dungeon magazine. This was a product for the 3.5 rule set. To WotC's credit, they did allow Paizo a slight extension on the contract termination, allowing them to wrap up some stuff in Dungeon, and also allowing them development time to get the first issue of the Pathfinder AP out around the same time the last issue of Dungeon was released.
They had some pretty decent success, and then almost immediately, WotC announced 4th Edition. They were cagey for a huge period of time about whether or not the OGL would be used for the system, and finally, they released information about the GSL, with the poison-pill clause - an attempted dagger in the heart of so-called competition. Either stop publishing for the old version, or you can't publish for the new version.
It's unsurprising that Paizo did what they did, and said "fuck it" to 4th Edition, and used the OGL to create their own RPG, where they're not beholden to anyone, but, it bears pointing out: If WotC hadn't pulled their 4th Edition/GSL poison-pill horseshit, it's extremely likely that Paizo would have continued development for WotC products, and not put out their own version of the RPG. They were pushed into the decision they made by WotC's actions, and the later removal of the poison-pill clause came too little, too late.
WotC's actions had finally created real competition for them, where it didn't exist before. WotC's management, from 3.5-onwards, has been obtuse and moronic. Idiots that didn't understand the goldmine that the OGL was for them. 3rd-party stuff NEVER sold anywhere near what official WotC-produced stuff sold for. The OGL works both ways, and the intent of the OGL was to mine 3rd-party open content and refine it for their own use. They could have taken scores of fantastic 3rd party ideas and content, cleaned it up, tweaked it, packaged it up, and put out content far better than a lot of the stuff they published - and undoubtedly, for far less money than what they paid their "developers" to generate new and "original" content, but they ignored that.
Think about the best 3rd-party OGL content for 3E/3.5/D20? If WotC had republished it, it would have sold 100-times better than it did by the original publisher.
They made their own bed, and the OGL can't be blamed for that.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1074878I think 3E gave away the store too much, 4E overreacted against it, and 5E seems to be hitting the right general notes--and I say this as someone who owns one 5E product. :) (All right, two if you count the card deck, but that's not system-specific!)
Doesn't 5E give away the same amount of store that 3E does? It uses the same version of the OGL, and a casual perusal of the 5E SRD doesn't appear to be missing a bunch of stuff that's included in the 3E/3.5 SRD.
5E is a success because of the OGL. If they had tried releasing 5E without it, it wouldn't have nearly the amount of support that it does.
Quote from: kythri;1074881Pathfinder was certainly able to become a thing thanks to the OGL, but the OGL didn't prompt Pathfinder's development, so using Pathfinder as an example of the OGL hurting WotC is disingenuous.
If you're referring to my mention of 'reproduction of their own material', I wasn't thinking of Pathfinder--I was thinking of things like the Pocket Grimoires, monster books that competed directly in WotC's niche, and various products that were virtually substitute Player's Handbooks. I don't think it had much direct financial impact, but I think the
psychological impact on WotC may have left them thinking "let's not let somebody do this again!"
Quote from: kythri;1074882Doesn't 5E give away the same amount of store that 3E does? It uses the same version of the OGL, and a casual perusal of the 5E SRD doesn't appear to be missing a bunch of stuff that's included in the 3E/3.5 SRD.
Numerous subclasses, spells and the like are MIA last time I checked, meaning that while you can produce compatible products or expansions, you can't reproduce the core material to the point that it obviates the needs for the books, which was arguably a misstep with the original OGL once people realized that the d20STL wasn't really as valuable as the actual compatibility.
Quote5E is a success because of the OGL. If they had tried releasing 5E without it, it wouldn't have nearly the amount of support that it does.
I think it helps, but I don't know that it's the key factor--I think savvy marketing, focus on accessibility, and the rise of long-form online video that makes it possible to actually
demonstrate the game had more to do with it.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1074883If you're referring to my mention of 'reproduction of their own material', I wasn't thinking of Pathfinder--I was thinking of things like the Pocket Grimoires, monster books that competed directly in WotC's niche, and various products that were virtually substitute Player's Handbooks. I don't think it had much direct financial impact, but I think the psychological impact on WotC may have left them thinking "let's not let somebody do this again!"
Nah, not specifically. I typed most of that before I saw your post.
The Pocket Grimoire's were released in May of 2002, around a couple years after the 3E core books. Honestly, they were a product that WotC should have released - having focused-subject digest sized books would have sold like hotcakes - and they could have done exactly what Green Ronin did: Take all the (for example) divine spells out of the core books, and pluck 3rd-party open content and include it.
Certainly, I agree with you about the psychological impact on WotC - specifically, on the dipshits who mismanaged everything after the 3E product team left the company. They ignored record sales figures, and were constantly deriding (at least internally) the OGL as being some kind of big bad negative impact on their business.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1074885Numerous subclasses, spells and the like are MIA last time I checked
So, basically, stuff that can be re-fluffed and reprinted rather easily.
Can't call the spell "Magic Hand" but you rename it "Grasping Force" and blah blah blah.
Quote from: kythri;1074875WotC harmed D&D/WotC.
Oh, not another irrational hatred of WoTC. We get it. They are the WORST thing that ever happened to TSR. Fine.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074894Oh, not another irrational hatred of WoTC. We get it. They are the WORST thing that ever happened to TSR. Fine.
Well they did give the okay for the OGL to be made in the first place so by your logic WotC did fuck themselves over.
Quote from: kythri;1074882Doesn't 5E give away the same amount of store that 3E does? It uses the same version of the OGL, and a casual perusal of the 5E SRD doesn't appear to be missing a bunch of stuff that's included in the 3E/3.5 SRD.
They were careful not to release the entirety of the 5e PHB as OGL - eg unlike 3e you get one path per class, and one Feat. Likewise the DMG advice is not OGL though the magic items are. And there are a few MM monsters missing from the 5e SRD (which is much like 3e approach).
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1074894Oh, not another irrational hatred of WoTC. We get it. They are the WORST thing that ever happened to TSR. Fine.
Is that all you've got, kiddo?
No irrational hatred, no rational hatred. I don't hate WotC. Certainly, they don't generally produce a product I'm interested in any longer (there are ancillary/support products I still pick up from time to time, like minis or what not), but I don't hate them.
Nice try, though.
WotC saved D&D with their purchase of TSR, there's no question about that. WotC made 3E/3.5, which is my preferred version. WotC made D20 Modern. WotC put out pre-painted minis. And, WotC released the OGL. All of these are things I love.
That I'm critical of idiotic business and creative decisions they've made over the past decade-plus isn't any sign of hatred, it's just a sign of disappointment in not getting to see what might have been, had they used their own works to their favor, instead of making choices to their detriment.
Quote from: kythri;10748825E is a success because of the OGL. If they had tried releasing 5E without it, it wouldn't have nearly the amount of support that it does.
That's just bananas. Most D&D players don't need or want loads of 'support.' WotC realized that after the unprecedented surveying and playtesting for Next. Their strategy during the 3.x era of supporting the hardcore market - which are the only people who buy dozens of books for D&D - was self-defeating, as it created barrier of entry to play and a perceived idea that you need buy and learn books and books full of rules to play D&D.
And they were right. Dumping the hardcore char-op market hasn't hurt them at all. I doubt more than 20 per cent of the people who play D&D in 2019 have ever bought a third-party D&D book. The core books, plus one or two adventure books a year, plus whatever adventures they make up on their own is plenty for the great majority of D&D players.
Quote from: kythri;1074881Pathfinder was certainly able to become a thing thanks to the OGL, but the OGL didn't prompt Pathfinder's development, so using Pathfinder as an example of the OGL hurting WotC is disingenuous.
The OGL most definitely prompted Pathfinder development. Anyone who says otherwise is the one being disingenuous imo. No OGL would have meant no Pathfinder. Or one using all new mechanics. It allowed 3pp to copy wholesale entire sections of the 3.5 core books. What do you thin Pathfinder is 90-95% recycled rehashed with about 5-10% new material added. No OGL would have meant Pathfinder and possibly Paizo would have never seen the light off day. At the very least Paizo would have had to publish 4E material. Before the OGL and when TSR was still alive they had a reputation for suing anyone who made their own 1E and 2E material and dared to publish it. Even if it was unofficial and they made no money of it. One of their nicknames for some in the hobby became They Sue Regularly. Paizo could have tried coming out with Pathfinder without the OGL. I'm pretty certain Wotc might have tried some legal way to stop it. The OGL prevents that.
Quote from: kythri;1074881WotC shafted a profitable partner - the pullback of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. The magazines were profitable for Paizo, so by that fact, they were profitable by WotC, since they just had to sit there and let the money roll in. Instead, they yanked them, harming Paizo, and generating a massive amount of ill will from the fan base. This was due to WotC's actions, not the OGL.
That they did. Yet shared profits is still not 100% profits for the person who owns the right to the magazines. So while morally it was a bad thing to do for WOTC. as a business imo it was the smart thing to do mostly. In any case the ill will from the fanbase might have been generated also towards Pazio as at that point print magazines were dying and chances are good like Wotc did that they would have gone to a PDF format. Whether the fanabase wanted it or not. No well run business keeps publishing something in a format that makes them lose money. Certainly not because the fans refuse to learn to adapt and use PDFS.
Quote from: kythri;1074881Due to the nature of the periodicals business, it's not an easy thing to launch a new magazine. Dragon and Dungeon had creds. Anything new, regardless of publisher, doesn't. Longtime advertisers aren't willing to risk ad buys in an unproven magazine. The trade (booksellers, newsstands, etc.) aren't willing to risk precious shelf space on an unproven magazine. Subscribers can't just be shifted over to a new magazine, they have to personally subscribe to the new title. These reasons and more are why Paizo decided not to start a new periodical. WotC's pullback literally annihilated their periodical publishing business.
I hate to burst your bubble on magazines at that point periodicals and magazines in print form were starting to lose sales. Having worked in a bookstore for 15 years we began to carry less and less in print. As more and more went and still are going to PDF online only. No printing or shipping costs and no needed to keep old issues in print. Eventually Paizo would have done the same if they kept both magazines. The fans would have to either adapt to reading them online or they get no magazines in print. Or maybe print on demand. As much as Paizo tries to give themselves points as being a company for the 3.5 fans they would have made the transition as no well run company loses money for the fans.
Quote from: kythri;1074881Paizo then retooled, and launched the Pathfinder Adventure Path line, a spiritual replacement for Dungeon magazine. This was a product for the 3.5 rule set. To WotC's credit, they did allow Paizo a slight extension on the contract termination, allowing them to wrap up some stuff in Dungeon, and also allowing them development time to get the first issue of the Pathfinder AP out around the same time the last issue of Dungeon was released.
You have a REALLY optimistic take on how gamers deal with change. Most who were die hards fans of 3.5. went nowhere Pathfinder material let alone bought it. It's 3.5. or nothing at all. One of the FLGS for at least two-three years after Pathfinder release had to deal with three hardcore 3.5. player groups. He tried to explain to them that Pathfinder was 3.5. compatible and they wanted no part of it. Simply because it meant buying the same material a second time and for some odd reason refused to use the online SRD. Converting from 3.5 to Pathfinder and back and forth can be done. It's also time consuming and many refuse to put the time and energy to do so. Most who went from 3.5 to Pathfinder switched over completely to the new edition while their 3.5 books remain gathering dust on their shelves or they simply sold them off to get more cash for more Pathfinder books.
Quote from: kythri;1074881They had some pretty decent success, and then almost immediately, WotC announced 4th Edition. They were cagey for a huge period of time about whether or not the OGL would be used for the system, and finally, they released information about the GSL, with the poison-pill clause - an attempted dagger in the heart of so-called competition. Either stop publishing for the old version, or you can't publish for the new version.
I do not blame them for doing so and I would probably done the same or retooled the OGL and included a clause where anyone who wanted to use the OGL had to pay me a yearly fee to use the license. At least that way I'm guaranteed real profit if anyone wants to make the money off the rules. I will concede that them releasing the GSL was not a good thing
Quote from: kythri;1074881It's unsurprising that Paizo did what they did, and said "fuck it" to 4th Edition, and used the OGL to create their own RPG, where they're not beholden to anyone, but, it bears pointing out: If WotC hadn't pulled their 4th Edition/GSL poison-pill horseshit, it's extremely likely that Paizo would have continued development for WotC products, and not put out their own version of the RPG. They were pushed into the decision they made by WotC's actions, and the later removal of the poison-pill clause came too little, too late.
You really need to stop downplaying the OGL. No OGL would have meant that Paizo would have said "fuck it" as you say and either done another rpg that would look nothing like Pathfinder or if they did they could get sued by Wotc. Up until the OGL their was no legal way to use D&D mechanics. 1E to 2E one either played one or the other. One had better hope they bought 1E books before they went out of print as short of yard sales or someone selling them to the LGS or giving them away, there was no Internet back them so no way to get legal copies. Same thing with 2E and 3E. Old school gamers were pretty screwed until the OSR came along. I know you love the OGL without it their would have been no Pathfinder or 3pp on the market. Sure their would have been much hate towards 4E and Wotc. As previous editions one either remained with the older favored editions or grit their teeth and buy 4E
Quote from: kythri;1074881WotC's actions had finally created real competition for them, where it didn't exist before. WotC's management, from 3.5-onwards, has been obtuse and moronic. Idiots that didn't understand the goldmine that the OGL was for them. 3rd-party stuff NEVER sold anywhere near what official WotC-produced stuff sold for. The OGL works both ways, and the intent of the OGL was to mine 3rd-party open content and refine it for their own use. They could have taken scores of fantastic 3rd party ideas and content, cleaned it up, tweaked it, packaged it up, and put out content far better than a lot of the stuff they published - and undoubtedly, for far less money than what they paid their "developers" to generate new and "original" content, but they ignored that.
Yes of course that was the only reasons. Something called the OGL which allows them to copy entire sections of the 3.5. rules for free and not provide any guarantee of profits towards Wotc had nothing to do with it. I agree WOTC did mismanage D&D to some extent the effects would have been much worse for them without the OGL as you would have had two options. Stay with 3.5 or buy 4E. No OGL would have meant no alternatives. I don't understand your attempt to downplay the effect of the OGL or it some kind of fear. The OGL was a great for fans and third party publishers and from a moral standpoint great for WOTC. A business standpoint not so much. It allowed competition by others without any guarantee of them getting money in return.
Quote from: kythri;1074881They made their own bed, and the OGL can't be blamed for that.
Yes the OGL can be absolutely be part of the blame.
Wotc did some pretty stupid things as a business with the GSL and removing the magazines from Paizo.
Without the OGL their would have been no 3pp publishers meaning players would be buying core and mostly core meaning more profits for Wotc,
Once 3.5. ended their would have been only two choices keep playing 3.5 or play 4E. Given how divisive 4E was to many chances are it might not have sold as well as Wotc liked. No competition their profits would have still been more than if the Paizo with their third option with Pathfinder.
I see the benefits of the OGL as both a player and DM and if I ever wanted to publish material. I also see the negatives as if I ever ran a business I would never implement something similar. Not without a clause offering me guaranteed profit.
Quote from: kythri;10748815E is a success because of the OGL. If they had tried releasing 5E without it, it wouldn't have nearly the amount of support that it does.
Bullshit..absolute fucking bullshit. We get it you love the OGl but that is simply talking out of your ass. 1E D&D sold well without an OGL. 2E D&D sold well. Many earlier editions of rpgs sold well without an OGL. An OGL helps with players getting non-core options as well as allowing 3pp to create newer rules. 5E sold well because all Wotc did was add some new mechanics and simply reprinted much of 4E in a more traditional manner from previous version of D&D. More importantly unlike 3.5 and Pathfinder it fixed many of the flaws that those two editions had. We get it your hate for Wotc is set in admantium for fuck sake at least give them some kind of credit for writing an rpg that this time around gets it done. Not to mention it has huge brand recognition. An OGL helps the only reason for it's success not by a long shot.
As Haffrung has said players don't need or want loads of support. If they do they want more core not 3pp. I never understand that as I find 3pp at least for Pathfinder better than what Paizo does. Many tables and espcially from DMs "it's core and only core". Not to mention even with a reduced release schedule it's not hurt their profits. If anything it seems to be helping them as not everyone is or wants or can afford to be a completist in the hobby
Quote from: Haffrung;1074984That's just bananas. Most D&D players don't need or want loads of 'support.' WotC realized that after the unprecedented surveying and playtesting for Next. Their strategy during the 3.x era of supporting the hardcore market - which are the only people who buy dozens of books for D&D - was self-defeating, as it created barrier of entry to play and a perceived idea that you need buy and learn books and books full of rules to play D&D.
'Reinforced', I think, more than created. That's an impression that goes back to the 1E days, I believe.
But I wonder how much WotC has been transposing the Magic experience--centralized organized play that depends on a continuous string of new mechanical widgets--to D&D, and then correcting for that, over the past two decades.
Quote from: Haffrung;1074984That's just bananas. Most D&D players don't need or want loads of 'support.' WotC realized that after the unprecedented surveying and playtesting for Next. Their strategy during the 3.x era of supporting the hardcore market - which are the only people who buy dozens of books for D&D - was self-defeating, as it created barrier of entry to play and a perceived idea that you need buy and learn books and books full of rules to play D&D.
This particular revelation led to a complete revamp of the design plan for my game. Several elements that I'd originally planned to put off until a later supplement got moved into the core rules even though it delayed the project precisely because of the "buy in" element you mentioned. The only plans for "content" outside of the core would be new monsters and magic items (both built using the rules from the core for creating them) specific to a setting book (a point of civilization like a town or border fort and the various adventure opportunities/locations/threats surrounding it).
As a player you'll only ever need the Player's Guide for mechanics (though you might want a setting book for cultural details/history if you're creating a local) and the GM will only absolutely need the GM's Guide in addition to run it (setting books optional if you don't want to use the core book default or make your own).
The reason for the Player/GM split is to minimize the buy-in costs for players. My goal is to set the Player's Guide pdf at impulse buy level... "i.e. $19.95 for all the rules you'll ever need for this system as a player."
Quote from: sureshot;1074986I see the benefits of the OGL as both a player and DM and if I ever wanted to publish material. I also see the negatives as if I ever ran a business I would never implement something similar. Not without a clause offering me guaranteed profit.
My project started out using the OGL, but the more you read the fine print, the less good it really is from the publication end. I know I found it worth my while to make sufficient changes to my system and nomenclature to be able to dump the OGL for my project. I've put some money into my planned Kickstarter budget specifically to pay a lawyer to write me a "content creators license" because I don't have the time to write all the adventures I'd like the system to have myself, but I don't want an actual OGL either (honestly, I care more about being able to control content to keep it "family friendly" than ensuring a profit from 3rd party content, but regardless, a pure open game content system doesn't mesh with the goal).
I'm currently employing what I think of as the "Palladium Fantasy" standard for avoiding IP issues... i.e. is my work at least as different from D&D as 1st Edition Palladium Fantasy was from OD&D/AD&D/B/X.
The ironic tradeoff is that, because I'm not bound by clause 7 of the OGL, I can actually explicitly reference D&D in my marketing (in the same way Coke could reference Pepsi in its ads).
Quote from: sureshot;1074986The OGL most definitely prompted Pathfinder development. Anyone who says otherwise is the one being disingenuous imo.
So, something released in 2000 prompted development of an RPG released in late 2009?
I never denied that the OGL provided the ability for Paizo to build their RPG, but since you can't grasp the definition of "prompted", I'm not even going to debate this issue with you any further. You're wrong. Paizo was content making 3E/3.5 content, and not publishing their own RPG until multiple actions by WotC impacted their business and prompted development of the RPG.
Which would not have been possible without the OGL. No OGL meant they would either swallow their pride and publish 4E. See if WOTC would allow them to publish third edition material which chances are good would be less than zero. Or make a new rpg from scratch which probably would not have been as popular as Pathfinder.
Make excuses for the OGL all you like but don't try and minimize the impact it had for both Paizo and Pathfinder. Chances are good thst Paizo could have gone under without the OGL imo.
Quote from: sureshot;1075060Which would not have been possible without the OGL. No OGL meant they would either swallow their pride and publish 4E. See if WOTC would allow them to publish third edition material which chances are good would be less than zero. Or make a new rpg from scratch which probably would not have been as popular as Pathfinder.
Make excuses for the OGL all you like but don't try and minimize the impact it had for both Paizo and Pathfinder. Chances are good thst Paizo could have gone under without the OGL imo.
You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? I'm not trying to minimize the impact of the OGL for Paizo/Pathfinder. I've explicitly stated otherwise. I'm saying that the OGL didn't fucking prompt development of something that came out nearly 10 years after the OGL, you buffoon.
More generally, there are a lot of companies - mostly software companies - that have profited from making some of their content open source. On a content level, many franchises have benefited from fan art and fan fiction - even if they don't take a cut of those. I think one can question whether the specific case of the OGL worked out positively for WotC, but the general principle of some free IP driving sales is well-established.
The fact that third-party D20 companies were profiting doesn't prove that they were harming WotC profits. If Ryan Dancey's plan was working, they were making marginal profits in a way that increased the value of WotC - by expanding a pool of D20 players that WotC had the main profit off of.
Prior to 3E in the 1990s, D&D was largely considered a dinosaur in terms of RPG design, and D&D was losing its lead in the market. The new systems were all things like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Deadlands - classless skill-based systems - often with some sort of dice pool. Without the OGL, I suspect that new RPGs in the 2000s would have continued this trend. Many of the trendy D20 projects like Mutants & Masterminds, Conan, True20, and Spycraft would instead have their own systems with little resemblance to D&D. By pulling a bunch of these designers into the D20 pool, the OGL got them to attract and keep more people interested in the D20 system. The idea is that Mutants & Mastermind players are more likely to cross over and play D&D and create D&D material than World of Darkness players.
Quote from: kythri;1075062You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? I'm not trying to minimize the impact of the OGL for Paizo/Pathfinder. I've explicitly stated otherwise. I'm saying that the OGL didn't fucking prompt development of something that came out nearly 10 years after the OGL, you buffoon.
The OGL essentially allowed them to take whole sections of the 3.5. PHB, DMG and Monster Manual. They just had to do some conversion from 3.5. to Pathfinder. While adding a small amount of house rules. They would not have been able to do that without the OGL. No OGL meant they had to make an rpg from scratch. Using the existing 3.5. engine guaranteed they would have fans buying Pathfinder. If you were a fan of 3.5. and Wotc just came out with a new edtion would you rather buy 3.5 with house rules or a brand new rpg from Paizo. Most would chose the first over the second. Do you honestly think that Paizo who just had the magazines taken away from them by Wotc would have wasted time on development, marketing and trying to sell a 3.5. clone without the protection of the OGL. Wotc would have sued them and probably won and that would have killed Paizo.
Again if you are too afraid to criticize the OGL that is on you. I might be an idiot at least I'm not being disingenuous nor afraid to criticize things I like.
You continue to display your ignorance.
The OGL certainly provided a ton of content for them to easily do so, along with specific license/protections to do so. That's not under dispute, fool. Let me reiterate: I am not arguing that fact with you, you fucking moron.
prompt
verb (used with object)
1> to move or induce to action:
"What prompted you to say that?"
2> to occasion or incite; inspire:
"What prompted his resignation?"
The OGL (released nearly 10 years before the Pathfinder RPG) did not prompt Paizo to build the Pathfinder RPG.
There's no fear to criticize the OGL, if I felt it warranted criticism, but your interpretation of its effect on WotC is just mind-numbingly retarded.
Getting off into the weeds, I would argue that a good copyright lawyer could protect someone from cloning D&D without the OGL. Given that game mechanics and rules are specifically exempted from copyright protections, it's not hard to re-fluff spells. TSR/WotC have no copyright on words like "fireball". The Monster Manual is, most assuredly, no bastion of creative originality. Easily 50%-75% of it is cribbed from myth/legend/folklore. Another fair amount is pretty explicitly ripped off from fiction. Hell, Halflings were originally called Hobbits in the game. Ents/Treants are direct rip-offs of Tolkein as well. The Displacer Beast (name copyrighted, sure) is a coeurl from Van Vogt. I'd love to see WotC try to uphold copyright on the name Githyanki, since it can be easily established that George R.R. Martin coined that name well before WotC. Mind Flayers (name copyrighted) have already been published by numbers of folks as Cthuloids. Same goes for Beholders.
Gygax awesomely mashed all of this together, but few things in D&D were original creations.
As such, the OGL wasn't needed to clone D&D, but it certainly made it easy and legally tidy. Why take the hard road, when the easy path is virtually irrevocably licensed in perpetuity?
Any chance you'll stop straw-manning that I'm arguing that the OGL didn't allow Paizo to easily reproduce D&D?
Yes I know the OGL was in existence ten years before the Pathfinder rpg was created.
Paizo saw the writing on the wall and used Wotc own OGL to possibly get back at the company who took away their magazine rights. As well as provide an alternative to those who wanted 3.5. By allowing them to copy whole sections of the 3.5 rules to add to their Pathfinder rpg. I notice how you ignore that as it seems to go against the narrative that the OGL can do no wrong. Without the OGL they would not have been allowed to do that legally. Go out and try and copy a company rpg rules without an OGL and do your own version of Pathfinder then get back us to see how that happens. I concede that one of the reasons they published Pathfinder was to give a big finger to Wotc while using their own OGL against them.
Now imagine a world without the OGl.
Then tell me how Paizo can legally publish the Pathfinder rpg as it is now. You can't because the only reason they could is with the OGL. If they tried it without the OGl they would get sued by Wotc or whomever owned the rights. You seem to think that you can just take whole sections of a company rpgs rules with or without an OGL or something similar. It does not work that way.
Quote from: sureshot;1075091Then tell me how Paizo can legally publish the Pathfinder rpg as it is now. You can't because the only reason they could is with the OGL. If they tried it without the OGl they would get sued by Wotc or whomever owned the rights. You seem to think that you can just take whole sections of a company rpgs rules with or without an OGL or something similar. It does not work that way.
It really does work that way. I just detailed how Paizo could have done it without the OGL. I'm not sure I can explain it monosyllabically enough for you to understand, however.
Game mechanics and rules are specifically exempted from copyright. Only their artistic presentation can be copyrighted (i.e. layout, potentially things like tables/charts, etc). That's hurdle number one. Easy.
The game is a combination of fluff and rules/mechanics. Re-fluff with your own material, and you're done. Rename spells. Reword things. Monsters? I already explained that few monsters are truly original to D&D, so it's not too hard to stat up your own version of goblins, trolls, dragons, etc. The more unique monsters, well, D&D pretty much ripped those off from fiction as well, so rip them from the same sources.
It's certainly not an endeavor I'd like to undertake (and why would I bother, since the OGL has already made it easy?), but it's not like it's a supremely difficult task.
You guys are arguing at cross purposes. Here are the facts as they stand:
1 - The OGL allowed other companies to profit from D&D's basic structure;
2 - This did
not necessarily mean lost revenue for WotC, since many of the products that came out by third parties were fringe at best and WotC had no intention of making them, and these fringe products also kept eyeballs on the D20 system almost to the exclusion of everything else;
3 - Paizo did
not make Pathfinder
because of the OGL. They made it because WotC made the boneheaded move of steering
away from it with their new edition. To make it clear, the order of events was
- WotC makes the OGL
- Paizo gladly prints their magazines under license
- WotC decides to make a new edition
- WotC decides to nuke Dragon and Dungeon, thereby depriving Paizo of their bread & butter
- WotC decides to change from the very open OGL to the very closed GSL for their new edition
- Then and only then does Paizo decide not to produce anything under the GSL for 4th edition and instead goes for recreating D&D from the OGL material.
4 - This timeline makes it clear that Paizo didn't decide to try and compete with D&D directly until WotC's wonderful masterminds decided to nuke their own golden goose.
So yes, the OGL
eventually led to problems for WotC (in the form of Pathfinder), but only because they decided to make a new edition
and kill the OGL at the same time.
Quote from: kythri;1075093It really does work that way. I just detailed how Paizo could have done it without the OGL. I'm not sure I can explain it monosyllabically enough for you to understand, however.
Game mechanics and rules are specifically exempted from copyright. Only their artistic presentation can be copyrighted (i.e. layout, potentially things like tables/charts, etc). That's hurdle number one. Easy.
The game is a combination of fluff and rules/mechanics. Re-fluff with your own material, and you're done. Rename spells. Reword things. Monsters? I already explained that few monsters are truly original to D&D, so it's not too hard to stat up your own version of goblins, trolls, dragons, etc. The more unique monsters, well, D&D pretty much ripped those off from fiction as well, so rip them from the same sources.
It's certainly not an endeavor I'd like to undertake (and why would I bother, since the OGL has already made it easy), but it's not like it's a supremely difficult task.
As a guy who teaches copyright law, just want to say I concur with this.
Quote from: kythri;1075093It really does work that way. I just detailed how Paizo could have done it without the OGL. I'm not sure I can explain it monosyllabically enough for you to understand, however.
Game mechanics and rules are specifically exempted from copyright. Only their artistic presentation can be copyrighted (i.e. layout, potentially things like tables/charts, etc). That's hurdle number one. Easy.
The game is a combination of fluff and rules/mechanics. Re-fluff with your own material, and you're done. Rename spells. Reword things. Monsters? I already explained that few monsters are truly original to D&D, so it's not too hard to stat up your own version of goblins, trolls, dragons, etc. The more unique monsters, well, D&D pretty much ripped those off from fiction as well, so rip them from the same sources.
It's certainly not an endeavor I'd like to undertake (and why would I bother, since the OGL has already made it easy), but it's not like it's a supremely difficult task.
Fair enough and you make a good points. Great debate and no hard feelings.
Quote from: BronzeDragon;1075097You guys are arguing at cross purposes. Here are the facts as they stand:
It seems that you comprehend what I've been saying. Thank you.
Quote from: kythri;1075101It seems that you comprehend what I've been saying. Thank you.
It's more of a friendly disagreement.
Again I don't hate the OGL it did give me Pathfinder and some 3pp. i also don't think it was completely beneficial to the hobby. That being said if someone else disagrees with me I rather not spend an endless cycle of disagreeing with the person.
Why would I hate anything that gave me Mutants and Masterminds? :confused:
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1075172Why would I hate anything that gave me Mutants and Masterminds? :confused:
Hear! Hear! My group's preference is actually for 2nd Edition M&M over 3rd, though we did snag the 3e affliction power and used a variant on 3e's save trade offs (while an individual save could be as high as PL+5, the total of Fort, Ref and Will could only be 3xPL).
We also used a variant on Hit Points instead of Toughness saves (main characters all had 50 hit points and damage was 1d20+attack's PL (so you'd roll 1d20+10 for a PL 10 attack). The target would then subtract their Toughness bonus from the damage before subtracting hit points. It lasted about as long as a typical combat, but was a bit less swingy even when a build fell outside the normal tradeoff range (ex. even a 20 toughness could eventually get whittled down by enough PL 5 attacks because instead of a DC 20 toughness save with a +20 bonus, it was 1d20+5 -20 so any roll of 16 or better would start chipping off hit points.... created a very different feel between the impervious toughness 10 brick who could shrug off any small arms regardless of number, but went down fast when faced with PL 11+ or penetrating attacks and the non-impervious toughness 20 guy who could be swamped by enough small arms fire, but could go toe to toe with real powerhouses for a lot longer than the impervious guy).
I think that the RPGPundit has a good point in that playing DnD is not the same as reading (or even writing) a Novel. I do like the emergent aspect of story in DnD and on the other hand I also like a good story path where you play your character through someone elses story making it your own as you go through.
I never really got into Vampire to comment on how much of a Storytelling system it was but the setting and characters certainly hit a chord with a group of people that DnD was not reaching.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035For the hobby to continue to grow and evolve. The grognards need to be disregarded and left in the dust.
Last time that DnD tried to do that it almost killed the game, why would you disregard the people that love the game by labelling them grognards and leave them in the dust so to speak.
It seems to me that the evolution of games is not along a line with "Grognards" on one end and "Storygamers" on the other, it seems to me to be more like a circle that you work your way around.
I gave my definition earlier. Grognards are anti-change, anti growth. They want everything about the game they fixate on to remain absolutely unchanging.
Their love of the game doen't really exist. Because they want to utterly stifle it.
I'd posit that few people who meet your definition exist in actuality.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076353I gave my definition earlier. Grognards are anti-change, anti growth. They want everything about the game they fixate on to remain absolutely unchanging.
Their love of the game doen't really exist. Because they want to utterly stifle it.
Ok, so whats the problem with Grognards then? When you update your game with a new edition then they will just stay with the old game. They will, by your definition, automatically be disgarded in the dust.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076361Ok, so whats the problem with Grognards then? When you update your game with a new edition then they will just stay with the old game. They will, by your definition, automatically be disgarded in the dust.
Some of them are too bloody vocal, and try to drag everybody else kicking and screaming back to their little hole. It's like Gollum trying to get ahold of his 'precious' and keep it all to himself.
The OGL was a disaster because it didn't have an end date, causing WotC to lose control of its own IP.
The D20 license, on the other hand, was a far smarter tool because it didn't allow for the creation of a competing company, but achieve the goal of outsourcing splats/adventures to 3PP (like DM's Guild does now).
Seriously WTF. How did WotC's lawyers not see that the OGL would lead to direct competitors eating their lunch?
Quote from: Shasarak;1076361Ok, so whats the problem with Grognards then? When you update your game with a new edition then they will just stay with the old game. They will, by your definition, automatically be disgarded in the dust.
Which is exactly what has happened. Grognards aren't playing 5E, and 5E is doing very well without them.
Note that 'grognards' is not synonymous with long-time player. Lots of long-time players are playing and enjoying 5E. A grognard is a long-time player who vocally complains about things that have changed, comparing new systems, approaches, adventures, etc unfavourably with those of an idealized era in the past.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035RPGs. Since their first incarnation. Have been trying to simulate the tropes and methodology of whatever fiction the individual game is based upon.
Disagree. RPGs have always incorporated elements of fictional
worlds - cultures, landscapes, creatures, character types - but they have not always tried to emulate the
story element of narrative fiction. Because that's extraordinarily difficult to achieve in a collaborative, improvised game.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035And they have spawned an endless amount of novels and other forms of fiction. Based upon them.
Novels that are regarded as trash even by the low standards of genre fiction. I don't read garbage Dragonlance novels. So why would I strive to make by RPG campaigns play out like a vague, malformed, simulacrum of them?
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.
Stories are generated naturally by RPGs. But that's a world of difference from setting out to create a coherent, dramatic narrative as the aim of an RPG session or campaign. The structure of RPG games - the very fact they
are games - renders many of the essential elements of a novel or movie virtually impossible to recreate.
* Novels typically have one or more POV characters, and our POV changes between those characters. They do not feature multiple characters who are in every scene together, as they are in RPGs. Hogging the spotlight is rightly regarded as one of the worst traits of an RPG player.
* Novels feature characters who are at odds with one another, who have different values and goals and often oppose other characters. That kind of fundamental character conflict is typically toxic to an RPG campaign (and one of the most common reasons players new to RPGs and expecting them to be like conventional narratives can wreck a game).
* Novels often give us insight into the thoughts and emotional responses of the POV characters. That's not a feature of RPGs, or one that I can imagine anyone would want to play. It's dreary enough hearing someone drone on about their PCs backgrounds. Imagine if everyone took turns expressing their character's private emotional reflections and responses to every dramatic event or NPC interaction.
* Novels feature serious setbacks as part of the dramatic arc. In a conventional narrative, the protagonist at some point is put into a situation where a series of dramatic setbacks makes success seem impossible. Mandating in a game that these setbacks must occur denies the players agencies
as players in that game.
* Novels and movies are not only heavily structured and plotted from the outset, but they're typically brought up to the standards of commercial entertainment with a series of revisions and edits. That's impossible in RPGs.
* RPG sessions are collaborative and improvised. Can you name any popular or well-regarded collaborative, improvised novels?
In short, even the very best RPG sessions would make awful novels or movies, while even a mediocre and hackneyed genre novel would play out as a terrible RPG campaign.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1076376Seriously WTF. How did WotC's lawyers not see that the OGL would lead to direct competitors eating their lunch?
They did see it. Ryan Dancey wanted and pushed the OGL anyway because he never wanted another TSR-like failure to potentially remove D&D from the market. He believed the strength of D&D is its community and that by loosening up on IP it would grow the community and thereby increase sales of the core books.
Honestly, the mistake wasn't the OGL. It was included damned near everything in the 3e/3.5e System Resource Document released under the OGL.
If they'd instead done as 5e did at the start; core 4 races/classes with only one build each and enough monsters to get by; there would have been just enough to play a bare bones game and for 3rd party content creators to base their material on without giving enough away for companies like Paizo to reproduce the game with little effort (you could always throw the rest in later if a TSR-like event happened again).
Given the choice between;
A) trying to recreate a 3e-like game with just the human, elf, dwarf and halfling races and levels 1-10 of the cleric (only two domains and 4 spells each for levels 0-5), fighter (only 10 feats available), rogue (skill expertise as your only level 10 option) and wizard (one familiar choice, spell mastery as the only bonus feat choice, and 4 spells each from levels 0-5) and the monsters from the 3e quick start guide in the first printings of the PHB (before the DMG and MM were out).
B) switching over to providing content for the new edition.
... well, my hunch is Pathfinder as a 3e retroclone (vs. as a setting for 4E as it was initially planned) would have never gotten off the ground if they'd had to recreate all that content from scratch even with the OGL to make the starting point "legal."
Quote from: Spinachcat;1076376Seriously WTF. How did WotC's lawyers not see that the OGL would lead to direct competitors eating their lunch?
It is the 'rising tide floats all boats' method in which expanding the market to fill every niche in turn will bring more sales back to the original source. That is a business method, not an IP protection method.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Add me to those who do like 4E but don't hate D&D. I don't agree with the idea that 4E was unpopular because it was more G in the GNS sense. It certainly added and clarified a lot of the combat rules. But it also added backgrounds and quests as story focussed elements. And for the simulation side of things I think the simplified skills system (more or less retained in 5E) made it much easier to make rules calls on the fly.
There are things I didn't like about 4E, but they are mostly things I don't like about 5E too.
But I mostly agree with the idea that stories come from playing the game rather than being written into the module. However, story is made up of multiple elements: setting, character, plot, and narrative. These are divided between the DM, the players, and any source material. So I don't think it's an either / or thing.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076353I gave my definition earlier. Grognards are anti-change, anti growth. They want everything about the game they fixate on to remain absolutely unchanging.
Their love of the game doen't really exist. Because they want to utterly stifle it.
Pity the Chess aficionados then.
People who have an external locus of control will always resent someone not validating their choice.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076369Some of them are too bloody vocal, and try to drag everybody else kicking and screaming back to their little hole. It's like Gollum trying to get ahold of his 'precious' and keep it all to himself.
And the pot called the kettle black.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1076376Seriously WTF. How did WotC's lawyers not see that the OGL would lead to direct competitors eating their lunch?
Because the lawyers don't run the company. Dancey, Adkison and the rest were well aware of what they were doing with the OGL and Wizards IP and the bullet that was dodge by the TSR debts not tieing up the D&D IP.
The relationship is not a one way street, D&D 3.0 got enormous advertising exposure as a result of Wizards releasing the D20 SRD. And there was risk assumed by the 3PP publishers as it is with any publishing endeavours. Many did not jump on the D&D 3.0 bandwagon because there were fears that Wizards would yank the rug after a short time or steal their own IP.
Quote from: estar;1076402Pity the Chess aficionados then.
Obviously, you're unfamiliar with the various editions and variant rules of Chess. :P
Quote from: Haffrung;1076384Which is exactly what has happened. Grognards aren't playing 5E, and 5E is doing very well without them.
Note that 'grognards' is not synonymous with long-time player. Lots of long-time players are playing and enjoying 5E. A grognard is a long-time player who vocally complains about things that have changed, comparing new systems, approaches, adventures, etc unfavourably with those of an idealized era in the past.
I dont really get this definition of a Grognard as someone so set in their ways that they read all about new systems, approaches and adventures just so that they can compare them unfavourably with the games they are actually playing now.
I mean take 5e for example. The game is based around bounded accuracy which is supposed to make low level monsters still viable at high levels and on the other hand the problem that I see with bounded accuracy is that it makes low level monsters viable at high levels. Is that a valid complaint to make about bounded accuracy or is it just a complaint from a Grognard trying to relive his childhood DnD fantasy. The other games that I play dont seem to care that your high level characters dont have to worry about fighting Orcs anymore. Thats why we have other monsters to fight.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1076376The OGL was a disaster because it didn't have an end date, causing WotC to lose control of its own IP.
The D20 license, on the other hand, was a far smarter tool because it didn't allow for the creation of a competing company, but achieve the goal of outsourcing splats/adventures to 3PP (like DM's Guild does now).
Seriously WTF. How did WotC's lawyers not see that the OGL would lead to direct competitors eating their lunch?
In what world is the OGL a disaster?
I mean in this world everyone says that 5e is a success so is it just a hypothetical lunch being eaten by the OGL?
In my opinion a real disaster would have been WotC shuttering the DnD department without having an OGL to save DnD.
So many murder hobo shit show game breaking memories with Vampire: The Masquerade. Thanks to an Assamite vampires obfuscate ability the Blimey IRA Beaver was born, I'll post a pic when I can salvage it from the interweb superhighway.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3206[/ATTACH]
Yes we made Londoners believe a Disco Leisure suit wearing Beaver robbed the bank.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076408I mean take 5e for example. The game is based around bounded accuracy which is supposed to make low level monsters still viable at high levels and on the other hand the problem that I see with bounded accuracy is that it makes low level monsters viable at high levels.
The 1e AD&D grognards I know mostly love 5e, because in pre-UA 1e low level monsters were viable at high levels, and 5e goes back to that. Liking non-viability I guess is a 3e D&D grognard thing?
Overbearing is mostly uncaring of a victim's level or current hit points, regarding its lethality in 1E. It's quite possible for 4 orcs to kill a mid-level fighter quickly if not hitting every fending off roll.
Wade in against the hordes of kobolds and goblins all you want, but treat creatures of at least 1 full hit die with some respect.
Quote from: estar;1076405And the pot called the kettle black.
So you're saying he's right? Even with accusing him of doing the same?
Quote from: Shasarak;1076411In what world is the OGL a disaster?
I mean in this world everyone says that 5e is a success so is it just a hypothetical lunch being eaten by the OGL?
In my opinion a real disaster would have been WotC shuttering the DnD department without having an OGL to save DnD.
Because it proved that Gamers HATE change. They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better. Not that D&D is miserable, just a generalized hyperbolic. How many people live in almost squalor, complain all the time, but never do anything about it because of all these easily solved reasons? Most of them don't want change, because they KNOW what they have, it's a sure thing, whereas trying something new is a gamble. And we're not gamblers by nature.
5e is a success because it's a step backwards. There is literally nothing new in that edition. Everything is taken from a previous one and mashed together. All the problem of previous games (which some of you either don't see as an issue, or have workarounds so ingrained that you don't realize it), like healing magic being mandatory, and magic spells in general being the best combat tactic from the word go, are still there. Nothing is innovative about.
And we're just happy with that. I admit, I like 5e because it goes back to a familiar formula that I know, but I'm not so blind to think that it's some sort of progress or evolution of D&D. Because if it was, Paizo wouldn't be trying to figure out how to make a competitor, they'd just shovel out Pathfinder 1e stuff in perpetuity because they would have a built in audience who hate change and will do ANYTHING to stay the same, or as close to it as possible.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better.
Sounds like Projection to me.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3207[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446So you're saying he's right? Even with accusing him of doing the same?
Rather it reflects my viewpoint that every niche of the hobby is nuanced. That he has no basis for criticizing zealotry on the basis that the niche is about an older edition of D&D.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446Because it proved that Gamers HATE change. They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better.
Man you must pity those poor chess aficionado who have to stuck with the same edition for 500 years or if you talking about the modern tournament format roughly 200 years. Regular Chess is just so broken compared to 3D Chess. It a pity that Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, and the rest are holed up in the misery they have.
Don't be an idiot, games play as well today as they did back in the day.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073035To ignore the storytelling aspect of RPGs I believe is to render them as flat and lifeless as the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place.
Quote from: Haffrung;1076385Stories are generated naturally by RPGs. But that's a world of difference from setting out to create a coherent, dramatic narrative as the aim of an RPG session or campaign. The structure of RPG games - the very fact they are games - renders many of the essential elements of a novel or movie virtually impossible to recreate.
Never mind RPGs, stories are generated naturally by "
the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place."
Quote from: S'mon;1076454Sounds like Projection to me.
Conveniently ignore that I did not say that D&D in itself was misery. Hit a nerve, did I?
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076369Some of them are too bloody vocal, and try to drag everybody else kicking and screaming back to their little hole. It's like Gollum trying to get ahold of his 'precious' and keep it all to himself.
And their right to speak should be addressed how?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076495Hit a nerve, did I?
Yes, you are quite irritating!
Quote from: S'mon;1076508Yes, you are quite irritating!
Since 2015. (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?32110-Fantasy-Grounds-5e-License-bad-sign-for-a-generous-5e-SRD-OGL&p=826384#post826384)
I don't personally understand how anyone who creates their own content can be miserable; regardless of game system. The act of writing is very much a mental reset, and the solitude involved while writing causes the fake concerns of the world to shrink into proper perspective.
Create more, and find out how much less you care about shit like this.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1076505And their right to speak should be addressed how?
You deal with it like you deal with any other kind of useless noise. You tune them out.
Freedom of speech isn't the right to be heard. And it certainly does not give them the right to dictate to the owners of the game how it should ultimately be. And that is exactly what the grognards are trying to do.
There reaches a point where the owners have to end the debate and make an actual decision on what is ultimately the best course of action to take for their aims with their property.
I have a family emergency to take care of. I will try to get back and answer all the replies that people have made to my posts as soon as I can.
Quote from: nDervish;1076465Never mind RPGs, stories are generated naturally by "the wargames that RPGs spun off from in the first place."
Wargames at that time didn't really have storytelling aspects. The majority of them were historical re-enactment. It wasn't until the rise of Chainmail that fantasy elements were introduced as an option.
So no. Wargames of that era largely didn't generate any kinds of stories of note.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076353I gave my definition earlier. Grognards are anti-change, anti growth. They want everything about the game they fixate on to remain absolutely unchanging....
Here's the real question, has something truly better actually come along?
And with the creeping changes that have gone into various D&D editions over the years, there is no turning back the clock for these people.
Because D&D is very much its own roleplaying genre. But expectations have changed over the years. Can D&D really go back to the basic races of Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Elf anymore? No. The new fanbase wouldn't stand for it.
When I was young, Orcs were for the killing. But nowadays if WOTC tried to tell the current fanbase that they won't be able to play a half-Orc paladin snowflake from fantasy seattle Faerun, from the 6e corebooks. They'll set the WOTC boards on fire with fan outrage!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446...Because it proved that Gamers HATE change. ...Most of them don't want change, because they KNOW what they have, it's a sure thing, whereas trying something new is a gamble. And we're not gamblers by nature.
5e is a success because it's a step backwards. There is literally nothing new in that edition. Everything is taken from a previous one and mashed together. All the problem of previous games (which some of you either don't see as an issue, or have workarounds so ingrained that you don't realize it), like healing magic being mandatory, and magic spells in general being the best combat tactic from the word go, are still there. Nothing is innovative about.
And we're just happy with that. I admit, I like 5e because it goes back to a familiar formula that I know, but I'm not so blind to think that it's some sort of progress or evolution of D&D. ..
Now here lies the rub, D&D/WOTC is in a trap because to make the kind of sweeping changes to fix such issues is a HUGE risk.
Forget 4e - 4e was just a bad misstep. Because D&D is only really competing against itself. No one else can match it anymore. Too much of a juggernaut. Hell all they had to do to fix the 4e fiasco, and put the hurt on pathfinder, was to literally not be 4e anymore! (By slapping together stuff that worked from past editions!)
For D&D "6e" to actually fix those issues in a way that does not turn off the fanbase; the edition will have to be seen as being "Better" than the ones before it. And that is a High Fucking Bar.
And it gets worse. Define system progress for D&D. One players bug is another's feature!
Some players feel that having low level monsters always being a threat to PC's helps with game world verisimilitude. Others want mo-mo-mo-mo... More! monsters in their fantasy game and could care less about setting verisimilitude. It's high fantasy adventure Whoot!
Which player mind set does D&D cater to in 6e? (Probably MORE!)
Could D&D survive with a reduction in monsters? A reduction in core PC races? To achieve greater verisimilitude? How do you sell that?
Right now D&D doesn't. It walks a middle ground. And it more or less works.
IMHO it works because the as the D&D genre has gotten evermore kitchen sink gonzo fantasy, it's core players have followed along.
And new payers don't know any different. How do you sell something (like Runequest) that a particular individual might like better?
When everyone else they know plays D&D, and D&D is good enough.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1076446Because it proved that Gamers HATE change. They'd rather hole up with the misery they have, think it's the best thing ever and lash out at anyone who gives a suggestion as to something better. Not that D&D is miserable, just a generalized hyperbolic. How many people live in almost squalor, complain all the time, but never do anything about it because of all these easily solved reasons? Most of them don't want change, because they KNOW what they have, it's a sure thing, whereas trying something new is a gamble. And we're not gamblers by nature.
Gamers must like gambling by definition, well DnD Gamers at least I cant speak for those Story Gamers, because everything in the game uses a d20 randomiser. Just taking your character into the Dungeon is a gamble. Rolling your hit points is a gamble. Want to get some sweet sweet info dump from those pesky NPCs? Well roll those dice!
Quote5e is a success because it's a step backwards. There is literally nothing new in that edition. Everything is taken from a previous one and mashed together. All the problem of previous games (which some of you either don't see as an issue, or have workarounds so ingrained that you don't realize it), like healing magic being mandatory, and magic spells in general being the best combat tactic from the word go, are still there. Nothing is innovative about.
And we're just happy with that. I admit, I like 5e because it goes back to a familiar formula that I know, but I'm not so blind to think that it's some sort of progress or evolution of D&D. Because if it was, Paizo wouldn't be trying to figure out how to make a competitor, they'd just shovel out Pathfinder 1e stuff in perpetuity because they would have a built in audience who hate change and will do ANYTHING to stay the same, or as close to it as possible.
There is a familiar DnD formula that just seems to resonant with Gamers in a way that other games just dont. Maybe it is because it allows you to play out those archetypal zero to hero stories in a way that allows different Gamers to grab the bits they like. I dont know why exactly. TSR went broke trying to make another game that matched the success of DnD. WotC almost did the same trying to "evolve" the game. Lets see if Paizo can find that magic formula without straying too far into the New Coke territory. Its such a young hobby in many ways.
Quote from: S'mon;1076443The 1e AD&D grognards I know mostly love 5e, because in pre-UA 1e low level monsters were viable at high levels, and 5e goes back to that. Liking non-viability I guess is a 3e D&D grognard thing?
I cant speak for other people but the ADnD Fighter attracting all the "Agro" from a large group of Orcs overbearing him and then the Wizard using Fireball on everyone (including the Fighter) was a thing when I played.
You can kill so many Orcs with a well placed Fireball that they just are not worth using. Your milage of course may vary.
Quote from: Jaeger;1076534And it gets worse. Define system progress for D&D. One players bug is another's feature!
Some players feel that having low level monsters always being a threat to PC's helps with game world verisimilitude. Others want mo-mo-mo-mo... More! monsters in their fantasy game and could care less about setting verisimilitude. It's high fantasy adventure Whoot!
I just wanted to address this quickly. You are assuming that having low level monsters always being a threat to PCs
helps with game world verisimilitude. I disagree. Where is the verisimilitude about having a great Hero, like Achilles or Conan or King Arthur, pulled down and punked by 100 serfs with sticks who then continue on their merry way to do the same to Smaug, the Kraken and the Tarrasque. Remember the great story passed down through generations about the village that went out and beat Grendal to death with sheer numbers? No, of course not because it just does not match the verisimilitude of the world.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076538I cant speak for other people but the ADnD Fighter attracting all the "Agro" from a large group of Orcs overbearing him and then the Wizard using Fireball on everyone (including the Fighter) was a thing when I played.
You can kill so many Orcs with a well placed Fireball that they just are not worth using. Your milage of course may vary.
Then your DM must not have used item saving throws.
The entire 1E system is a series of sub-systems that check and balance various exploits of other sub-systems. A magic-user saying "fuck it" and fireballing all the orcs because the fighter can take the HP loss is a legit tactic if you need to save your life.
But if you lose a few magic items in the process, fireballing your own people starts to not seem so great.
"But I don't like rolling all those dice!" OK, then crowd-control fireballs for you.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076538I cant speak for other people but the ADnD Fighter attracting all the "Agro" from a large group of Orcs overbearing him and then the Wizard using Fireball on everyone (including the Fighter) was a thing when I played.
You can kill so many Orcs with a well placed Fireball that they just are not worth using. Your milage of course may vary.
You can kill maybe 20 orcs (ca 15 xp each) with a Fireball - but orc #appearing is 30-300 plus leaders, so that hardly trivialises the encounter. Especially if you just did 8, 12 or 15d6 damage (halved for save) to the party Fighter! :eek:
Quote from: RoyR;1073149Interesting to see somebody redefining the basic concepts of RPGs so long after their inception.
From BECM, Basic rules, section on winning on page 8:
"Think a moment. Why do we play games? To have fun. Each player "wins" by having fun--so if you had a good time, you win! You can have fun even if your character gets killed -- and if that happens, don't worry. You can always make up another one!
Winning a role playing game is like "winning" in real life; it's just succeeding in doing what you wanted to do, and living through it. The fun comes from doing it, not ending it! This is why we say that in this game, everybody wins and nobody loses."
Is that not a kind of Pollyanna way of looking at it? You cant lose, everyone wins so why are we keeping score with XP and Gold then?
I dont think that I would count having a character die as "winning" unless perhaps it was as a result of something that I deliberately did knowing the consequences.
Quote from: EOTB;1076542Then your DM must not have used item saving throws.
The entire 1E system is a series of sub-systems that check and balance various exploits of other sub-systems. A magic-user saying "fuck it" and fireballing all the orcs because the fighter can take the HP loss is a legit tactic if you need to save your life.
But if you lose a few magic items in the process, fireballing your own people starts to not seem so great.
"But I don't like rolling all those dice!" OK, then crowd-control fireballs for you.
It's not very helpful that the DMG or PHB never mention this. (IIRC)
I mean, do you check item saves for monster equipment when the wizard casts fireball at them and there's no PCs in the area of effect?
Quote from: Shasarak;1076540I just wanted to address this quickly. You are assuming that having low level monsters always being a threat to PCs helps with game world verisimilitude. I disagree. Where is the verisimilitude about having a great Hero, like Achilles or Conan or King Arthur, pulled down and punked by 100 serfs with sticks who then continue on their merry way to do the same to Smaug, the Kraken and the Tarrasque. Remember the great story passed down through generations about the village that went out and beat Grendal to death with sheer numbers? No, of course not because it just does not match the verisimilitude of the world.
Typically in myth/legend/fantasy, dragon > army > hero > dragon. It's asymmetric. Albeit a sufficiently mighty European hero might be able to kills dozens or even hundreds of mooks in one battle. A lot more in eg Indian mythology. But armies usually have opposing champions as in The Iliad. In The Iliad even Ares can't defeat an army single handed; he kills a lot of Greeks before Diomedes stops him.
Edit: Conan certainly believes he can be killed by 100 serfs with sticks - read the start of Queen of the Black Coast. Heroes mostly don't die that way because they're not stupid enough to die that way, not because they're invulnerable.
Edit 2: Likewise, Grendel doesn't risk fighting an army in an open field in daylight. He comes at night to ravage the hall.
Quote from: EOTB;1076542Then your DM must not have used item saving throws.
The entire 1E system is a series of sub-systems that check and balance various exploits of other sub-systems. A magic-user saying "fuck it" and fireballing all the orcs because the fighter can take the HP loss is a legit tactic if you need to save your life.
But if you lose a few magic items in the process, fireballing your own people starts to not seem so great.
"But I don't like rolling all those dice!" OK, then crowd-control fireballs for you.
We always ruled that if the Fighter makes his save then you dont roll for his items.
Quote from: S'mon;1076544You can kill maybe 20 orcs (ca 15 xp each) with a Fireball - but orc #appearing is 30-300 plus leaders, so that hardly trivialises the encounter. Especially if you just did 8, 12 or 15d6 damage (halved for save) to the party Fighter! :eek:
20 Orcs with 33,000 cubic feet of Fireball?
Thats a tough DM.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076546It's not very helpful that the DMG or PHB never mention this. (IIRC)
I mean, do you check item saves for monster equipment when the wizard casts fireball at them and there's no PCs in the area of effect?
1E's organization is certainly like that of an old bookstore with its own cataloging system. Full credit to that issue.
But it's there. In fact, it's mainly discussed in the text of the fireball spell itself, and then the mechanics are outlaid on pg 80 of the DMG. I wish how to apply it wouldn't have mainly been discussed in the fireball spell, but it's not that obscure of a spell. (Edit - note this also applies to lightning bolt, dragon fire, or any other item save category - the process isn't different)
Edit 2 - yes, you check all the treasure/monster equipment that is meaningful. I much prefer slow spell to fireball spell, because fireball's nickname is "Destroy Treasure Level 3".
QuoteExplanation/Description: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which
detonates with a low roar, and delivers damage proportionate to the level
of the magic-user who cast it, i.e. 1 six-sided die (d6) for each level of
experience of the spell caster. Exception: Magic fireball wands deliver 6
die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die fireballs,
and scroll spells of this type deliver a fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6 + 4)
of damage. The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable
amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of
the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal
spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the fireball is a total
volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)]. Besides causing damage
to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst
radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold,
copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to
determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its
saving throw are considered as unaffected. The magic-u,ser points his or
her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball
is to borst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts
upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into
the fireball If creatures fail their saving throws, they all take full hit point
damage frqm the blast. Those who make saving throws manage to dodge,
fall flat or roll aside, taking '/1 the full hit point damage - each and every
one within the blast area. The material component of this spell is a tiny
ball composed of bat guano and sulphur.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076548We always ruled that if the Fighter makes his save then you dont roll for his items.
Of course. Your chance of making the save isn't that great. Blast away! Sometimes you do get lucky, but if you're casting this as a tactic - you're betting against the house, not with it.
Quote from: Shasarak;107655020 Orcs with 33,000 cubic feet of Fireball?
Thats a tough DM.
What kind of formation are these orcs of yours in?!
Mind you I did once have an NPC drow wizard wipe out a PC's entire 150 man army with a single 1e fireball when he marched them down a very long 10' Underdark tunnel...
Quote from: S'mon;1076547Typically in myth/legend/fantasy, dragon > army > hero > dragon. It's asymmetric. Albeit a sufficiently mighty European hero might be able to kills dozens or even hundreds of mooks in one battle. A lot more in eg Indian mythology. But armies usually have opposing champions as in The Iliad. In The Iliad even Ares can't defeat an army single handed; he kills a lot of Greeks before Diomedes stops him.
That is the problem, by removing the asymmetry then you come down to action economy, the army has the most actions so then will always win.
QuoteEdit: Conan certainly believes he can be killed by 100 serfs with sticks - read the start of Queen of the Black Coast. Heroes mostly don't die that way because they're not stupid enough to die that way, not because they're invulnerable.
Edit 2: Likewise, Grendel doesn't risk fighting an army in an open field in daylight. He comes at night to ravage the hall.
Sure Conan may be "worried" about 100 serfs with sticks and on the other hand he never ever is defeated by them. Likewise Grendal raids a Viking hall with impunity without any concern that he might get dog piled.
Quote from: EOTB;1076551Of course. Your chance of making the save isn't that great. Blast away! Sometimes you do get lucky, but if you're casting this as a tactic - you're betting against the house, not with it.
An adventuring party taking on an army of Orcs and you are worried about the odds? Pff, give me the die. ;0)
Quote from: S'mon;1076552What kind of formation are these orcs of yours in?!
Mind you I did once have an NPC drow wizard wipe out a PC's entire 150 man army with a single 1e fireball when he marched them down a very long 10' Underdark tunnel...
Dont even tell me about the time my character got blasted by a Lightening Bolt from the party Wizard while being engulfed by a Trapper. I mean honestly.
Quote from: EOTB;10765511E's organization is certainly like that of an old bookstore with its own cataloging system. Full credit to that issue.
But it's there. In fact, it's mainly discussed in the text of the fireball spell itself, and then the mechanics are outlaid on pg 80 of the DMG. I wish how to apply it wouldn't have mainly been discussed in the fireball spell, but it's not that obscure of a spell. (Edit - note this also applies to lightning bolt, dragon fire, or any other item save category - the process isn't different)
Ah. I stand corrected.
QuoteEdit 2 - yes, you check all the treasure/monster equipment that is meaningful. I much prefer slow spell to fireball spell, because fireball's nickname is "Destroy Treasure Level 3".
Now I'm starting to wonder what meaningful treasure a group of low level orcs are going to have anyway.
Orcs can have some pretty nice stuff, if one accepts modules such as Keep on the Borderlands as a calibration point.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076559Now I'm starting to wonder what meaningful treasure a group of low level orcs are going to have anyway.
There was a 10% of any 2 magic items, a 40% chance of 2 to 8 potions and a pretty good chance of gems. Plus as much money as you could get by dragging all the Orc equipment back to town to sell.
Ah, good times.
D&D makes great stories!
You and your friends play the game, eat the pizza, then sometime later, you all talk about the game. Viola! Story!
And sometimes, you write down what players did in your D&D campaign and it becomes an HBO series.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076540I just wanted to address this quickly. You are assuming that having low level monsters always being a threat to PCs helps with game world verisimilitude. ...
I said no such thing.
Read my post!
I said: "...
Some players feel that ..."
I'm not making a value judgement between players that may like more verisimilitude and those who like the more gonzo kitchen sink fantasy direction D&D has been edging towards.
Just highlighting that making "progress" with D&D as a system is a two-edged sword.
How do you gauge which way to jump without alienating half your player base when 6e comes out?
WOTC/D&D has to walk a fine line.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076555Sure Conan may be "worried" about 100 serfs with sticks and on the other hand he never ever is defeated by them.
If Conan was actually invulnerable to the 100 serfs in-world/in-game,
then he would behave differently. More like General Zod in Superman than the character we actually see. Same goes for Grendel, and dragons who ravage the land and extort maidens from the city, but don't land in the palace courtyard and eat everyone (so not Smaug, he did that, but a lot of other dragons).
When high level PCs are immune to armies, they act like Anime characters or Zod & his buddies in Superman. Not like Conan.
Quote from: S'mon;1076594If Conan was actually invulnerable to the 100 serfs in-world/in-game, then he would behave differently. More like General Zod in Superman than the character we actually see. Same goes for Grendel, and dragons who ravage the land and extort maidens from the city, but don't land in the palace courtyard and eat everyone (so not Smaug, he did that, but a lot of other dragons).
When high level PCs are immune to armies, they act like Anime characters or Zod & his buddies in Superman. Not like Conan.
Why would high level PCs even be fighting Armies when they have Zod to fight? That is why we have Zods in the Monster Manual and not just Orcs all the way down.
Quote from: sureshot;1073900Not to mention they did absolutely nothing.for the better part of ahead when it came to 4E edition warring. Gamers are hypocrites one minute they HATE 4E, the next the love the same thing in 5E. They bitched and complained about The linear Fighter Quadaratic Wizard issue. Then took a huge dump on the edition that actually tried to fix the flaws of 3,5. Why because they never wanted to actually see any of the issues fixed because then they would nothing to bitch and moan about.
Was it just me who thought that it was ironic to balance the so called "linear Fighter Quadaratic Wizard issue" by making a Fighter into a
spell martial caster?
Quote from: Shasarak;1076601Why would high level PCs even be fighting Armies when they have Zod to fight? That is why we have Zods in the Monster Manual and not just Orcs all the way down.
My reply is in picture form
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3211[/ATTACH]
How could you not want that?
Quote from: Shasarak;1076601Why would high level PCs even be fighting Armies when they have Zod to fight? That is why we have Zods in the Monster Manual and not just Orcs all the way down.
You really have a bee in your bonnet about this! :p
Fighting armies is
fun - IME players love wading through hordes of mooks in a mass battle just as much as they love dungeon delving after the BBEG, or facing him on the battlefield atop a corpse pile after wading through the mooks.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076528Wargames at that time didn't really have storytelling aspects. The majority of them were historical re-enactment. It wasn't until the rise of Chainmail that fantasy elements were introduced as an option.
So no. Wargames of that era largely didn't generate any kinds of stories of note.
And playing a historical wargame scenario
doesn't create a story? Have you never heard a wargamer talk about the time that he managed to come up with a masterful strategy and, against all odds, reverse the actual historical result? Have you never seen a published After-Action Report on a wargame?
I'm a little young (only 48!) to have any pre-1974 wargaming experience, but I assume we can agree that there were no "storytelling aspects" in Risk or Axis & Allies, yet my friends and I would tell stories about our games for days or weeks afterwards. I can still very clearly, decades later, recall stories about battles I fought 30 years ago in the original edition of Warhammer 40k, although I suppose you might consider that to have "storytelling aspects", depending on what exactly you mean by that. (And, yes, I realize that none of those are "serious" wargames. Unfortunately, in my youth, I was never able to find anyone else interested in Blitzkrieg, Panzer Leader, Squad Leader, or any of the other Avalon Hill titles in my collection.)
A game's rules may need "storytelling aspects" to support
intentional story creation, but wargames have been producing
emergent stories for as long as wargames have existed.
Quote from: nDervish;1076635A game's rules may need "storytelling aspects" to support intentional story creation, but wargames have been producing emergent stories for as long as wargames have existed.
Including modern computer based wargames. There are extensive AAR (After Action Reports) for Crusader Kings 2 and Hearts of Iron 4.
Quote from: Azraele;1076605My reply is in picture form
How could you not want that?
Eh. It can be fun once in a while, but like anything, too much of a fun thing gets boring. Fighting a battle with no real chance of failure isn't very interesting to me.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076677Eh. It can be fun once in a while, but like anything, too much of a fun thing gets boring. Fighting a battle with no real chance of failure isn't very interesting to me.
The solution of course, is self-evident:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3212[/ATTACH]1
Make the mooks capable of killing your living tank. Pretty no-brainer solution.
Quote from: S'mon;1076615You really have a bee in your bonnet about this! :p
Fighting armies is fun - IME players love wading through hordes of mooks in a mass battle just as much as they love dungeon delving after the BBEG, or facing him on the battlefield atop a corpse pile after wading through the mooks.
I am glad that I could convince you. Fighting hordes of mooks is supposed to be fun not instant death when they drag you down into the mud. Achilles does not get punked by the Trojan army, Grendal does not get defeated by the Viking villagers all jumping on him at once, Conan does not get beaten by 100 serfs with sticks.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076699I am glad that I could convince you. Fighting hordes of mooks is supposed to be fun not instant death when they drag you down into the mud. Achilles does not get punked by the Trojan army, Grendal does not get defeated by the Viking villagers all jumping on him at once, Conan does not get beaten by 100 serfs with sticks.
"Does not" and "Cannot" are worlds apart, mate.
Does Not refers to the outcome of the fiction: Conan didn't die that way (or at all, really)
Can Not refers to the mechanics of a game (a thing with a failure state) preventing an outcome from being possible ("You can't die to 100 serfs with sticks")
It's important to realize you're talking about something different here.
The answer is "at what cost?" The fact you can't die to a horde of mooks doesn't mean there isn't a cost in the form of time, damage, or lost opportunities.
Quote from: Itachi;1076717The answer is "at what cost?" The fact you can't die to a horde of mooks doesn't mean there isn't a cost in the form of time, damage, or lost opportunities.
Man, that's another good point; sure all the mooks died, but while you were busy punching through them, the king was assassinated. Great job hero.
Quote from: Azraele;1076707"Does not" and "Cannot" are worlds apart, mate.
Does Not refers to the outcome of the fiction: Conan didn't die that way (or at all, really)
Can Not refers to the mechanics of a game (a thing with a failure state) preventing an outcome from being possible ("You can't die to 100 serfs with sticks")
It's important to realize you're talking about something different here.
Could Conan die to 100 serfs with sticks? He is a literary character so "Could" covers a lot of ground. If you look at the Hyborian world it looks pretty deadly for everyone else that is not Conan.
Would you see Conan die to 100 serfs? No, of course not.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076732Could Conan die to 100 serfs with sticks? He is a literary character so "Could" covers a lot of ground. If you look at the Hyborian world it looks pretty deadly for everyone else that is not Conan.
Would you see Conan die to 100 serfs? No, of course not.
You would if he were a barbarian in D&D. Or rather, you could. And that is a desirable facet of the rules in the opinion of myself and many others.
You are free to disagree with that premise: but speaking from experience, I've not seen "Can't" or "Must" style design go to good places (look up the "2/7 filter" or "paranoia combat" in Exalted second edition, if you dare)
I can't DM a wish-fulfillment game ("this character type is conceptually invulnerable to insert-common-threat-here"). That's 4-6 individual mini-games playing out concurrently, not a group game.
Quote from: EOTB;1076737I can't DM a wish-fulfillment game ("this character type is conceptually invulnerable to insert-common-threat-here"). That's 4-6 individual mini-games playing out concurrently, not a group game.
But isn't that true for every game? A high level fighter will be invulnerable to low level mooks, for eg. As will be a high level mage to low level mind tricks, and a high level rogue to low level traps.
Are you saying characters should be all identical to each other, instead of having different strenghts and weaknesses?
Quote from: Itachi;1076743But isn't that true for every game? A high level fighter will be invulnerable to low level mooks, for eg. As will be a high level mage to low level mind tricks, and a high level rogue to low level traps.
Are you saying characters should be all identical to each other, instead of having different strenghts and weaknesses?
No? A high-level fighter can get killed when his HP drops to 0 from low-level sword attacks. That's a real thing. Magic-users can fail saves, Thieves can fail to detect a deadly trap. They can die. They have less a chance of that because they have better odds at succeeding, but that doesn't make them invulnerable to these failings and untimely demises. They'v just got a bigger margin for error is all.
Quote from: Azraele;1076744No? A high-level fighter can get killed when his HP drops to 0 from low-level sword attacks. That's a real thing. Magic-users can fail saves, Thieves can fail to detect a deadly trap. They can die. They have less a chance of that because they have better odds at succeeding, but that doesn't make them invulnerable to these failings and untimely demises. They'v just got a bigger margin for error is all.
Sorry I thought specifically about D&D here, where the chances of, say, a level 10 healthy and ready fighter dying to a single level 1 goblin is so small as to be considered null in practical terms. Theoretically though, you're right.
Quote from: Itachi;1076747Sorry I thought specifically about D&D here, where the chances of, say, a level 10 healthy and ready fighter dying to a single level 1 goblin is so small as to be considered null in practical terms. Theoretically though, you're right.
Yeah, that's true; just as a function of hitpoint addition, you'll have to whack a high-level fighter down like a tree if you're only doing d6 damage per (successful) strike.
But in that, we actually do see a nod to fiction; Aragorn doesn't go down to a single stab from an orc, Beowulf only died of dragon venom (after wrestling the thing with his bare hands), Heracles wasn't slain by the terrifying claw/claw/bit of the Nemean lion, etc. etc.
But it's a recognition, these high HP total, of the characters going beyond the mortal and becoming demigods and heroes of myth. There's an intentional drifting away from gritty reality (why do you think higher level characters transformed into gods?)
Older editions also capped even this; time was, level 14 was considered inhumanly powerful on the scale of Gilgamesh, and even then you're getting "+1/+2" additional HP per level, not a full hit die, after a certain level.
There is still a fairly large conceptual leap from "When at full health, in a straight fight, with this opponent, the odds are dying are so tiny as to be effectively null" as in the high level fighter versus goblin--versus "Same character and monster when the character has been beat up and gets caught with his pants down, the odds are still effectively null." I'm thrilled with the first but highly annoyed by the second.
Quote from: Itachi;1076747Sorry I thought specifically about D&D here, where the chances of, say, a level 10 healthy and ready fighter dying to a single level 1 goblin is so small as to be considered null in practical terms. Theoretically though, you're right.
The more relevant parts are those not commonly used, as mentioned earlier.
In AD&D 1E, 4 orcs can overbear a high level human fighter; the odds are decent. It is common for humanoids to appear in multiples. Character death from overbearing won't happen every time monsters attempt it, but neither will an experienced player feel the character isn't mortally threatened - this is a much, much better strategy for the orcs than trading sword swings with a Lord. (And I think overbearing is also thematically appropriate, for those who place value on such things.)
Overbearing is simply using Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying's % system in an AD&D sub-system. It doesn't magically go from elegant to complicated because it switches book covers. Many DMs don't use it, and the high-level fighters in such games enjoy greatly enhanced survival odds.
Quote from: Azraele;1076736You would if he were a barbarian in D&D. Or rather, you could. And that is a desirable facet of the rules in the opinion of myself and many others.
You are free to disagree with that premise: but speaking from experience, I've not seen "Can't" or "Must" style design go to good places (look up the "2/7 filter" or "paranoia combat" in Exalted second edition, if you dare)
What level Barbarian are we talking about though? Orcs can be a good challenge up to 5th level but a 10th level Barbarian? Myself and many others would disagree.
I can not really comment on Exalted though.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076755What level Barbarian are we talking about though? Orcs can be a good challenge up to 5th level but a 10th level Barbarian? Myself and many others would disagree.
I can not really comment on Exalted though.
Depends on the edition; as myself and EOTB point out, your tenth-level demigod can get punked by a handful of orcs in the wrong situation in early editions. Also, you're one failed save away from going splat if the just drop a boulder on you. No situation grants you
categorical immunity to lower-level threats.
Even in systems with "mechanical invincibility", you could still be affected by weaker foes, couldn't you? Exactly how far does "He shouldn't die that way" warp the logic of the game's description? Is the GM judging the reasonableness of proposed deaths against their imagined physics, or against the "thematic appropriateness" of their outcome?
Your answer to that question is the more informative one for what you consider desirable in a game. For me? I prefer the physical model, or else I feel that I'm subjecting the entire game to a "this should be the ending because that's what I want" brand of bending the game (and the agency of my players) to my pre-supposed outcome.
Like anybody, I can't claim true impartiality (I'm a bit of a monty haul, I like seeing my players succeed). But I prefer to let the rules and my understanding of reasonable consequences inform my adjudication of outcomes, to temper my natural inclination with some more toothsome consequences and challenges.
Quote from: Azraele;1076757Depends on the edition; as myself and EOTB point out, your tenth-level demigod can get punked by a handful of orcs in the wrong situation in early editions. Also, you're one failed save away from going splat if the just drop a boulder on you. No situation grants you categorical immunity to lower-level threats.
In ADnD you had plenty of creatures that were flat out immune to anything that was not magic. So a Demigod that could be punked by orcs just was not going to happen unless they were backed up by something else, maybe one of the Orcs chance of two magical items was a magical weapon of some sort.
QuoteEven in systems with "mechanical invincibility", you could still be affected by weaker foes, couldn't you? Exactly how far does "He shouldn't die that way" warp the logic of the game's description? Is the GM judging the reasonableness of proposed deaths against their imagined physics, or against the "thematic appropriateness" of their outcome?
Its not that hard to get an AC in the negatives which means that your Orcs need a 20 to hit unless you want to go the "oh they dont "attack" you they use the special overbearing rules which bypasses your AC" route. And sure if you want to go that way then it is easy for the average DnD party to whip up a bunch of hirelings and then its just an army against an army situation. No problem if you want to play that way.
QuoteYour answer to that question is the more informative one for what you consider desirable in a game. For me? I prefer the physical model, or else I feel that I'm subjecting the entire game to a "this should be the ending because that's what I want" brand of bending the game (and the agency of my players) to my pre-supposed outcome.
I dont really know anything about what you think is an accurate physical model or how you justify things like Hit Points within that model. I would suspect that your model probably works pretty well at low levels and on the other hand the physical model of being breathed on with Dragon Fire or smashed by a Giants Axe does not result in a long adventuring career.
QuoteLike anybody, I can't claim true impartiality (I'm a bit of a monty haul, I like seeing my players succeed). But I prefer to let the rules and my understanding of reasonable consequences inform my adjudication of outcomes, to temper my natural inclination with some more toothsome consequences and challenges.
Of course we all do that which is why we can both come to completely different results of one guy wanting to punch out an army single handedly and another guy and his three buddies wanting to drag down a Demigod so they can beat him to death with their sticks.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076771In ADnD you had plenty of creatures that were flat out immune to anything that was not magic. So a Demigod that could be punked by orcs just was not going to happen unless they were backed up by something else, maybe one of the Orcs chance of two magical items was a magical weapon of some sort.
Are you talking about normal weapons not working; needing a +1 weapon to get weapon damage? That's a specific immunity. You could drown a werewolf you had no magic to kill, or even use flaming oil (creature dependent, of course, if it had other factors that would negate various attack forms). Immunity to non-magical weapons was only that. Nothing else.
Its not that hard to get an AC in the negatives which means that your Orcs need a 20 to hit unless you want to go the "oh they dont "attack" you they use the special overbearing rules which bypasses your AC" route. And sure if you want to go that way then it is easy for the average DnD party to whip up a bunch of hirelings and then its just an army against an army situation. No problem if you want to play that way.
I dont really know anything about what you think is an accurate physical model or how you justify things like Hit Points within that model. I would suspect that your model probably works pretty well at low levels and on the other hand the physical model of being breathed on with Dragon Fire or smashed by a Giants Axe does not result in a long adventuring career.
Of course we all do that which is why we can both come to completely different results of one guy wanting to punch out an army single handedly and another guy and his three buddies wanting to drag down a Demigod so they can beat him to death with their sticks.[/QUOTE]
Quote from: Shasarak;1076771In ADnD you had plenty of creatures that were flat out immune to anything that was not magic. So a Demigod that could be punked by orcs just was not going to happen unless they were backed up by something else, maybe one of the Orcs chance of two magical items was a magical weapon of some sort.
Are you talking about normal weapons not working; needing a +1 weapon to get weapon damage? That's a specific immunity. You could drown a werewolf you had no magic to kill, or even use flaming oil (creature dependent, of course, if it had other factors that would negate various attack forms). Immunity to non-magical weapons was only that. Nothing else.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076771Its not that hard to get an AC in the negatives which means that your Orcs need a 20 to hit unless you want to go the "oh they dont "attack" you they use the special overbearing rules which bypasses your AC" route. And sure if you want to go that way then it is easy for the average DnD party to whip up a bunch of hirelings and then its just an army against an army situation. No problem if you want to play that way.
Yes, you're on the right track here. 1E was a tactical game. Six heroes did not assault the 300 orc-village by themselves unless straights were pretty dire. Most kings that died in battle didn't die because some other great man dueled them to death, they died because a mob of peasants overran their position, pulled them off their horse, held them down and knifed them.
Small parties went to a dungeon where they could control the terrain much easier than in the wilderness.
But when going to the wilderness, you put together an expedition.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1076353I gave my definition earlier. Grognards are anti-change, anti growth. They want everything about the game they fixate on to remain absolutely unchanging.
Their love of the game doen't really exist. Because they want to utterly stifle it.
Just curious, do you mean the same 'grognards' who love Stars Without Number, Yoon-Suin, Lion & Dragon, Operation White Box, etc etc?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1076827Just curious, do you mean the same 'grognards' who love Stars Without Number, Yoon-Suin, Lion & Dragon, Operation White Box, etc etc?
I don't regard those as grognards. I'm a fan of the OSR myself. I have no issue with OSR fans,.
Quote from: Shasarak;1076732Could Conan die to 100 serfs with sticks? He is a literary character so "Could" covers a lot of ground. If you look at the Hyborian world it looks pretty deadly for everyone else that is not Conan.
The important point is that Conan acts as if he can die to 100 spearmen, so a game emulating the fiction needs the same result, and the most immersive approach is that PC-Conan - a PC as powerful as Conan - can in fact die to 100 spearmen
if he fails to act the way Conan acts - not using tactics, not using defensive location, not running away, et al.
Conan cannot die to 100 serfs with sticks if his death would not be dramatically satisfying at that instant in the story. He doesn't die a meaningless death midway in the story. Which then brings us to my favorite topic in game design - risk management in RPGs: what do you put at stake (no pun intended) in a mid-scenario encounter of Conan versus 100 serfs with sticks? My answer is: if he can't die, then you
- need to put something else at risk - which is not quite as negative as death but still important enough for the players to care about,
- need to tie the outcome to the performance of Conan: how long did he take to defeat them? Or: how many times would he have been killed without luck? Or: can he last 10 rounds?
By following that logic, you arrive at
challenge-driven scenario design, an approach that is more conscious about tailoring the risks and what is at stake for the PCs and the
players.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076831Conan cannot die to 100 serfs with sticks if his death would not be dramatically satisfying at that instant in the story.
Fortunately though, D&D is not for "Making Story". :D
If Dungeon of the Mad Mage had been independently published by someone who went by the username of "Emirikol the Dude" on OSR forums, it would be praised to the high heavens in those quarters. The fact most OSR fans who love dungeons haven't even looked at it shows how narrow-minded and tribal the grognard mindset can be.
Quote from: Haffrung;1076844If Dungeon of the Mad Mage had been independently published by someone who went by the username of "Emirikol the Dude" on OSR forums, it would be praised to the high heavens in those quarters. The fact most OSR fans who love dungeons haven't even looked at it shows how narrow-minded and tribal the grognard mindset can be.
Don't be an ass. Hobbyists gravitate more to material that is relevant to what they us. You don't see fans of Pathfinder, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, Dungeon World, The Fantasy Trip all singing the praises of Dungeon of the Mad Mage.
Of course they will sing the praise of somebody who released something like the Mad Mage for the system they use and ignore the versions that written for other systems. Why would you expect anything different?
Quote from: Haffrung;1076844If Dungeon of the Mad Mage had been independently published by someone who went by the username of "Emirikol the Dude" on OSR forums, it would be praised to the high heavens in those quarters. The fact most OSR fans who love dungeons haven't even looked at it shows how narrow-minded and tribal the grognard mindset can be.
What's this in response to?
Personally I haven't looked at it because I'm just coming off a couple years of Stonehell Dungeon & wanting to do something non-megadungeony right now, hence getting big into Primeval Thule. I think there is a bit of over saturation in the OSR megadungeon market; if I was going to run another one I'd probably take Dwimmermount off the shelf. I am running a 4-weekly Princes of the Apocalypse game, but planning to put more emphasis on the social & wilderness elements, and the side dungeons, rather than clear out the whole elemental temple.
Quote from: estar;1076847Don't be an ass. Hobbyists gravitate more to material that is relevant to what they us. You don't see fans of Pathfinder, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, Dungeon World, The Fantasy Trip all singing the praises of Dungeon of the Mad Mage.
Of course they will sing the praise of somebody who released something like the Mad Mage for the system they use and ignore the versions that written for other systems. Why would you expect anything different?
It's dead easy to convert between 5E and D&D-derived OSR games - just as it's easy to convert between different OSR games (which people do all the time). Or do you really think everyone who has read, reviewed, or played Stonehell Dungeon is in an active game of Labyrinth Lord? Heck the DotMM doesn't even include monster stats - the rooms will just say
6 bugbears or a
gibbering mouther.
It's disingenuous to pretend an abiding hatred of Official Dungeons and Dragons isn't a common element of online grognardism. On some OSR forums, it's almost a ban-able offence to even mention WotC except to excoriate them.
Quote from: Haffrung;1077059It's disingenuous to pretend an abiding hatred of Official Dungeons and Dragons isn't a common element of online grognardism. On some OSR forums, it's almost a ban-able offence to even mention WotC except to excoriate them.
True but this has certainly eased up a lot on Dragonsfoot since 5e came out. The mods and most of the posters have no issue with 5e. There is a significant minority of haters but plenty of grognards have gone straight from 1e to 5e. I know a guy whose group wrapped up a 37 year 0e-1e campaign to switch to 5e.
I expect K&KA is more hardcore, but it's a 1e-specific forum. Generic OSR forums tend to be mostly fine with 5e.
Quote from: S'mon;1077061True but this has certainly eased up a lot on Dragonsfoot since 5e came out. The mods and most of the posters have no issue with 5e. There is a significant minority of haters but plenty of grognards have gone straight from 1e to 5e. I know a guy whose group wrapped up a 37 year 0e-1e campaign to switch to 5e.
I expect K&KA is more hardcore, but it's a 1e-specific forum. Generic OSR forums tend to be mostly fine with 5e.
There are more than a few K&KA members that say 5E is their 2nd favorite version. Just like several members of K&KA were instrumental in getting the "Classic" D&D forum set up on DF, because they love B/X or BECMI D&D.
The idea that the only reason K&KA would exclude a game from discussion is because they hate it, makes no sense. We limit it, because every other "AD&D" website or facebook group in the world is evidence that unless you absolutely exclude later editions, people will ignore what the discussion topic actually is so that they can post whatever their personal experience happens to be. (Note: this para not intended to be interpreted as a summary of S'mon's post/opinion)
Quote from: EOTB;1077071The idea that the only reason K&KA would exclude a game from discussion is because they hate it, makes no sense. We limit it, because every other "AD&D" website or facebook group in the world is evidence that unless you absolutely exclude later editions, people will ignore what the discussion topic actually is so that they can post whatever their personal experience happens to be. (Note: this para not intended to be interpreted as a summary of S'mon's post/opinion)
No problem :) - sure, I wasn't criticising K&KA for being 1e-specific. Whereas because 5e D&D has a lot of OSR DNA, and Dragonsfoot is an OSR/continuity-OS site, 5e has a rather ambiguous place there. I run my 5e online games on DF text chat with the full support of the mods, but even I get taken aback by ENW-style requests on 5e min-max char-opping (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=80940). Different people have different comfort thresholds.
Quote from: S'mon;1077096Whereas because 5e D&D has a lot of OSR DNA
You're welcome.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1076376The OGL was a disaster because it didn't have an end date, causing WotC to lose control of its own IP.
The D20 license, on the other hand, was a far smarter tool because it didn't allow for the creation of a competing company, but achieve the goal of outsourcing splats/adventures to 3PP (like DM's Guild does now).
Seriously WTF. How did WotC's lawyers not see that the OGL would lead to direct competitors eating their lunch?
WOTC has notoriously bad marketing and their ability to screw up a good idea was why Hasbro put them on a very tight leash as 4e turned into a total disaster. This has been a problem for WOTC for a long time. They'd rather throw unsold product into a landfill or incinerator than sell it. This is how SFR was created. They rescued Dragon Dice from being dumped in a landfill and are still selling and even making the dice nearly 20 years later. This is the WOTC that set a sales deadline for Netrunner, then overproduced it, then when it sold far better than expected they declared it a failure because there was still product left, and chucked it into an incinerator.
I suspect that part of the problem with the OGL was that it worked
too well. And that they underestimated the boom in indie publishers. But more importantly. They never foresaw that this would come back to bite them when they abandoned 3e to try and cut this off. A problem magnified by... marketing... who went out of their way with 4e to insult players of prior editions.
Think of it akin to the Whole Marvel vs Image thing that happened back in the 90s. Marvel treated their artists and writers poorly and despite there being a long history of this happening to publishers, they did not foresee Image being formed and competing as it did. Or Marvel's current SJW takeover that may well have killed the company. Readers are looking elsewhere. and DC is about to feel that as well as they progressively screw up with reboot number god knows what.
Don't treat your workers like dirt. Don't treat your customers like dirt. Don't treat your potential customers like dirt.
Back to Story and RPG and all that jazz as it relates to this.
Part of the reason there is ire directed at Storygamers is that factions within have in the past been a fairly nasty lot. Ron and some of the worst of the Forge for a time. This is
not how you attract people.
Don't treat your potential customers like dirt.
Quote from: Haffrung;1076385Novels that are regarded as trash even by the low standards of genre fiction. I don't read garbage Dragonlance novels. So why would I strive to make by RPG campaigns play out like a vague, malformed, simulacrum of them?
In this you are wrong on so many many points.
1: Few regard these novels as bad. In fact they sell fairly damn well and a few have hit best seller marks. Think Dragonlance or one of the Drizzt books?
2: If you have not read the original DL books then you have no place to call them garbage. They were actually pretty well written. The originals and the Time of the Twins set. After that its a YMMV thing. The Alias trilogy was pretty good too. As was the Justicar series. Still haven't read the original Icewind Dale nooks so cant say how good or bad they are.
3: On the last point you are more or less correct. Playing in the Dragonlance setting is very different from trying to re-enact the novels. Which the modules as far as I know did not really try to do. And the RPG definitly did not try to do. And I believe for most any endeavor to convert a book to a RPG, the idea is to play in the setting.
Quote from: Omega;1077815In this you are wrong on so many many points.
1: Few regard these novels as bad. In fact they sell fairly damn well and a few have hit best seller marks. Think Dragonlance or one of the Drizzt books?
Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.
But in contrast the Dragonlance novels get fair reviews on goodreads.com .
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.
They sold well enough to have kept TSR afloat for a long time. So whatever you or I think of them. They were a success.
Before you skewer me. I hate Dragonlance with a firey passion. The only time I ever ran the world of Krynn in a AD&D 2nd Edition game. It resulted in Krynn being reduced to an asteroid field. While the PCs watched in horror as it happened. As they looked back through the gate they just fled through.
My one Forgotten Realms novel series I was absolutely in love with was The Finder's Stone Trilogy. I loved it. And I still own it.
And don't get me started on Drizzt. I absolutely loath that character. Disgusting Mary Sue that he is.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.
And yet, two of their main authors have returned to Forgotten Realms to rewrite it back to their liking. And given how popular they were during their heyday, I'd say you're wrong. As usual when it comes to modern D&D.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078108And yet, two of their main authors have returned to Forgotten Realms to rewrite it back to their liking. And given how popular they were during their heyday, I'd say you're wrong. As usual when it comes to modern D&D.
All that 'best seller' means is that it sells 'well', not that the quality is great. The great thing about game fiction is that you have a near instant group of fans because of the game connection, plus they become influencers to other fantasy readers.
I read my share of game fiction, and it is pretty uneven - likely more so than the fantasy genre in general. But where they may lack almost entirely in literary substance, some can be entertaining. Sort of like eating caramel corn or Disney sequels of the 90s.
I'd agree that some game fiction can be pretty bad, but I've also read some really excellent D&D fiction (the dark sun novels spring to mind, although my love of the setting may be partly to blame there...)
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.
Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.
His work also sold like hotcakes.
100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078734Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.
His work also sold like hotcakes.
100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?
Anything that Pundy says it does, duh.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078734Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.
His work also sold like hotcakes.
100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?
That's more of a commentary on what people currently think has artistic merit, than an argument for the merits of RPG novels.
For any given work, it can be perceived all over the map in its day. The things that last can sometimes be recognized. I don't know if I'd have recognized the merit in Shakespeare if I'd been alive then, but having recognized it now, I can tell you this: There aren't a lot of passages in RPG novels that will be quoted 100 years from now.
Sturgeon's law on 90% trash is overall. It's a lot higher than 90% in some categories.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078749Anything that Pundy says it does, duh.
...I'm not sure I'm that salty towards the Pundit (or anyone here, even Brad).
Quote from: Steven MitchellThere aren't a lot of passages in RPG novels that will be quoted 100 years from now.
I wouldn't be 100% certain of that. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still mention of Drizz't (or however you spell that) and the works of Weis & Hickman. Not as Shakespeares, but maybe as Kyd or a Marston. Just from the sheer number of them sold. (They're definitely not high quality work.)
Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own where history is concerned.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078848...I'm not sure I'm that salty towards the Pundit (or anyone here, even Brad).
It's not salt. Pundit is well known for having strong opinions about most topics. The fact that his opinions are inconsistent compared to what he states, is part of the fun. I have nothing against the guy, I don't know him well enough to have any strong opinions on him. So all I can do is go after his opinions and statements, which as I stated are highly inconsistent.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078848I wouldn't be 100% certain of that. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still mention of Drizz't (or however you spell that) and the works of Weis & Hickman. Not as Shakespeares, but maybe as Kyd or a Marston. Just from the sheer number of them sold. (They're definitely not high quality work.)
Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own where history is concerned.
As much as I hate the Drizzle, I can't deny that he was the entry point for a lot of D&D players in the 80's.
I think I gave Pundit the suggestion to make a post/video on this topic as a comment on his blog a few weeks back. Obviously the thoughts are all his, and his insight that games are more for creating something like virtual history than story are spot on. The "Story game" revolution didn't pan out, but clearly there is SOME kind of relationship between RPGs and story. I was pondering this the other day in my aqua-meditation chamber, also known as the shower, and I came up with something. I'm still puzzling this out, so please consider this a work in process.
The "story game" revolution hasn't worked out, and RPGs don't produce story in the same way that a novel or a film does, but at the same time we can't really say that RPGs have NOTHING to do with a "good story". When we look back at RPG sessions or campaigns that were really compelling and interesting, we are almost always captured by some kind of narrative that took shape. Real life is the same way. We're always contextualizing our experiences into a narrative of some kind. This lead me to conclude that RPGs do in fact produce narrative or story, but the same way that real-life produces story - as an emergent phenomenon. More accurately, RPGs produce narratives - plural, and it is the goal of RPGs to EXPERIENCE the emergence of these narratives through historical development. If you'll forgive a metaphor: RPG playing isn't cake buying, or cake eating. It's cake BAKING.
A single RPG can produce as many slightly different but overlapping narratives as there are people at the table. An attempt to produce a story - single, as a single coherent emotional arc, is actually a reduction of complexity, which is why so called "story games" are not an improvement. "History", that is to say a sequence of willed actions by characters, presents the body of facts from which the various narratives of the game can be extrapolated. The published game, as a rule-set, provides the world-model from which history can emerge. The rule set can model a particular kind of world, so rules DO in fact matter, but only as a foundation for developing a certain kind of "history" or play, which then allow for stories to emerge organically.
I'm calling this my layer cake theory. Each layer depends on the proceeding, but the proceeding layer depends on the subsequent for its fulfillment.
-- emergent stories --
depend on
-- a shared organic history of play --
which depends on
-- a coherent world-model --
Story games fail as satisfying RPGs because they sacrifice a coherent world-model in an attempt to force one coherent narrative. 4e and the entire subset of "WoW on a table" games are more like traditional RPGs in that they allow for emergent narrative based on shared play-history, but weight the wrong part because they look at the rule set as self referential, rather than existing for the sake of the other layers. So called "broken or incoherent" game systems remain quite popular because, while their world-model is messy, they do the "layer cake" thing fairly well, which is the actual goal of RPG play.
Quote from: OmSwaOperations;1078715I'd agree that some game fiction can be pretty bad, but I've also read some really excellent D&D fiction (the dark sun novels spring to mind, although my love of the setting may be partly to blame there...)
I have at least three of the Dark Sun books but never finished the second one. Something about the story and characters just did not appeal to me. On the other hand I did overall like the Spelljammer novels. Though occasionally things seemed to start or end abruptly, or a character would vanish in a fight.
Quote from: Brendan;1079976The "story game" revolution hasn't worked out, and RPGs don't produce story in the same way that a novel or a film does, but at the same time we can't really say that RPGs have NOTHING to do with a "good story". When we look back at RPG sessions or campaigns that were really compelling and interesting, we are almost always captured by some kind of narrative that took shape.
Quote from: Brendan;1079976Story games fail as satisfying RPGs because they sacrifice a coherent world-model in an attempt to force one coherent narrative. 4e and the entire subset of "WoW on a table" games are more like traditional RPGs in that they allow for emergent narrative based on shared play-history, but weight the wrong part because they look at the rule set as self referential, rather than existing for the sake of the other layers. So called "broken or incoherent" game systems remain quite popular because, while their world-model is messy, they do the "layer cake" thing fairly well, which is the actual goal of RPG play.
This is interesting, but I'd suggest not thinking of less-popular options as failed or wrong. There are people who like story games, and there are people who like 4E, plus people who like a lot of other less-popular game lines, from the OSR to Amber Diceless to Pendragon to Gloomhaven. If you dismiss out anyone except the most popular set of players, I think you'll create a theory that is less useful - because most people will differ from the norm about something.
Quote from: Brendan;1079976A single RPG can produce as many slightly different but overlapping narratives as there are people at the table. An attempt to produce a story - single, as a single coherent emotional arc, is actually a reduction of complexity, which is why so called "story games" are not an improvement. "History", that is to say a sequence of willed actions by characters, presents the body of facts from which the various narratives of the game can be extrapolated. The published game, as a rule-set, provides the world-model from which history can emerge. The rule set can model a particular kind of world, so rules DO in fact matter, but only as a foundation for developing a certain kind of "history" or play, which then allow for stories to emerge organically.
Truth is stranger than fiction--in part because fiction cannot be that strange and then accepted as a story. On the other hand, truth is also often filled with events that don't make a story, even at the most basic level. That is, a "story" is a retelling of the actions of two or more entities in conflict. ("I got up this morning. Was awake for some time. Went to bed." The "conflict" camp, of which I'm a part, says that is a narrative, but not a "story".)
Thus, recounting the events of an RPG session are inherently somewhat more story-like than reality, because we deliberately minimize or even skip many of the events that have no conflict. It's about the same as if you were going to tell a story based on real-life events, didn't have a particular set of events in mind, and then applied a preliminary filter to cut out the very obvious non-story stuff first. You still might have some left that don't make a very satisfying story: "I got up. Went into the dungeon. Fell in a pit. Died. The end."
Quote from: Brendan;1079976I think I gave Pundit the suggestion to make a post/video on this topic as a comment on his blog a few weeks back. Obviously the thoughts are all his, and his insight that games are more for creating something like virtual history than story are spot on. The "Story game" revolution didn't pan out, but clearly there is SOME kind of relationship between RPGs and story. I was pondering this the other day in my aqua-meditation chamber, also known as the shower, and I came up with something. I'm still puzzling this out, so please consider this a work in process.
The "story game" revolution hasn't worked out, and RPGs don't produce story in the same way that a novel or a film does, but at the same time we can't really say that RPGs have NOTHING to do with a "good story". When we look back at RPG sessions or campaigns that were really compelling and interesting, we are almost always captured by some kind of narrative that took shape. Real life is the same way. We're always contextualizing our experiences into a narrative of some kind. This lead me to conclude that RPGs do in fact produce narrative or story, but the same way that real-life produces story - as an emergent phenomenon. More accurately, RPGs produce narratives - plural, and it is the goal of RPGs to EXPERIENCE the emergence of these narratives through historical development. If you'll forgive a metaphor: RPG playing isn't cake buying, or cake eating. It's cake BAKING.
A single RPG can produce as many slightly different but overlapping narratives as there are people at the table. An attempt to produce a story - single, as a single coherent emotional arc, is actually a reduction of complexity, which is why so called "story games" are not an improvement. "History", that is to say a sequence of willed actions by characters, presents the body of facts from which the various narratives of the game can be extrapolated. The published game, as a rule-set, provides the world-model from which history can emerge. The rule set can model a particular kind of world, so rules DO in fact matter, but only as a foundation for developing a certain kind of "history" or play, which then allow for stories to emerge organically.
I'm calling this my layer cake theory. Each layer depends on the proceeding, but the proceeding layer depends on the subsequent for its fulfillment.
-- emergent stories --
depend on
-- a shared organic history of play --
which depends on
-- a coherent world-model --
Story games fail as satisfying RPGs because they sacrifice a coherent world-model in an attempt to force one coherent narrative. 4e and the entire subset of "WoW on a table" games are more like traditional RPGs in that they allow for emergent narrative based on shared play-history, but weight the wrong part because they look at the rule set as self referential, rather than existing for the sake of the other layers. So called "broken or incoherent" game systems remain quite popular because, while their world-model is messy, they do the "layer cake" thing fairly well, which is the actual goal of RPG play.
There was no "storygame revolution" to not pan out, there are simply RPGs. Some are good, some are bad, some are complex and some aren't. In the end, a fantastic story can be told...or not.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1079992There was no "storygame revolution" to not pan out, there are simply RPGs. Some are good, some are bad, some are complex and some aren't. In the end, a fantastic story can be told...or not.
And THAT is what it's always been about.
Let's not get into another tribal war.
The stories that were created while playing RPGs, in my experience; were the product of:
The DMs creativity
The PCs reactions
The Roll of the Dice
All 3 were relevant.
Quote from: jhkim;1079988This is interesting, but I'd suggest not thinking of less-popular options as failed or wrong. There are people who like story games, and there are people who like 4E, plus people who like a lot of other less-popular game lines, from the OSR to Amber Diceless to Pendragon to Gloomhaven. If you dismiss out anyone except the most popular set of players, I think you'll create a theory that is less useful - because most people will differ from the norm about something.
I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against story games per-se. My point is that the GNS revolution, and the story-game movement it helped spawn, did not revolutionize RPGs. It created a new genre of game, which may provide fun, but not through the same experience. Why was this the case, and what is the relationship between RPGs and story? That's what I'm trying to address. I agree with Pundit, and the subject of this thread, that RPGs are not FOR the express purpose of making a story, but there is clearly some kind of relationship.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1079989Thus, recounting the events of an RPG session are inherently somewhat more story-like than reality, because we deliberately minimize or even skip many of the events that have no conflict. It's about the same as if you were going to tell a story based on real-life events, didn't have a particular set of events in mind, and then applied a preliminary filter to cut out the very obvious non-story stuff first. You still might have some left that don't make a very satisfying story: "I got up. Went into the dungeon. Fell in a pit. Died. The end."
Yes, that is how we narrative-ize life and extract meaning from chaos. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing? Making a side point?
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1079992There was no "storygame revolution" to not pan out, there are simply RPGs. Some are good, some are bad, some are complex and some aren't. In the end, a fantastic story can be told...or not.
Gee really? There were NO design movements in role-playing games? No trends, camps, or anything? So between RPGs in the late 70s-80s, the 90s "style over substance" post White Wolf craze, the Forge, and now the OSR, nothing really happened, they're all just "RPGS" and we can't draw any meaningful divisions or talk about them?
Quote from: Brendan;1080005I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against story games per-se. My point is that the GNS revolution, and the story-game movement it helped spawn, did not revolutionize RPGs. It created a new genre of game, which may provide fun, but not through the same experience. Why was this the case, and what is the relationship between RPGs and story? That's what I'm trying to address. I agree with Pundit, and the subject of this thread, that RPGs are not FOR the express purpose of making a story, but there is clearly some kind of relationship.
Well, Edwards is right about one thing: there is two basic ways to approach RPGs - gamism and narrativism. Gamism is about taking on a role and accepting the challenge of pursuing goals for this character. These goals might either come from actor stance or author/pawn stance. But you have goals for your character. In narrativism, your goal is creating a fun story. Narrativism is about creativity, getting the juices flowing, making up stuff. That's where narrativist mechanics, mechanics that give a player agency over more than character intent, come in.
Why was this the case? Because RPGs combine different aspects and taking one aspect to an extreme produces unusual results. There are some people who play RPGs without getting in character, all they care about loot and XPs. That's another aspect taken to an extreme. Some roleplayers probably care neither about the game aspects nor crafting an interesting story, they like acting and getting into character. So, we're exploring the extremes. And supporting some extremes with matching rulesets.
Where I don't agree with Edwards, among other things, is his denial of the existence of simulationism.
Quote from: Brendan;1080005Yes, that is how we narrative-ize life and extract meaning from chaos. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing? Making a side point?
Some of all three? :D Let me try to be more precise, to discover which.
Ignore games for a moment.
For some purposes, we can think of truth and fiction as on an overlapping continuum. On one end, there are a lot of bits of truth that are too strange to be fiction, and on the other end, there are lots of other bits of truth too mundane to be fiction. Meanwhile, with fiction it is on a narrower band, but also capable of the impossible. I think that's well understood, and thus not very interesting by itself.
Next, there is the distinction between emergent story and "authored" story. Emergent story only happens when the story is crafted based on events that originally occur outside the story, while an author can make up anything they want. (Also not terribly interesting by itself.) But besides that point, this is another continuum. There could be the barest of events outside the story from which a tiny emergent story is authored into something much more involved. There could be emergent events that are already almost a perfect narrative, and thus the teller is providing only the words (with due consideration to how bad "only the words" sounds). And also there could be anything in between.
Let's call the truth/fiction continuum X and the emergent/authored continuum Y.
Now back to games.
For purposes of producing a story: A traditional RPG sits at a weird point on the intersection of X and Y, compared to both real life and the various usual means of storytelling. What in this discussion is called a story game sits at a somewhat different point on the intersection of X and Y, from a traditional RPG, as well as real life and the various usual means of storytelling.
When we zoom out far enough to look at the whole grid, there isn't a whole lot of difference between traditional RPGs and story games. Or the broader family of RPGs where "a person takes on a role and plays the game". They are both things that sit in a weird area well away from everything else, including real life.
When we zoom in, we see that while they are both definitely weird, they are weird in their own ways.
What I suspect is that "story games" simultaneously have more emergent play
and are less like the usual storytelling means than both their critics and fans think. Not as much as a traditional RPG, but still skewed. Almost like the two points on the graph are two suns in mutual orbit around each other.
And of course, when players get a hold of either one, all bets are off. No doubt this creates some of the arguments.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078734Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.
His work also sold like hotcakes.
100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?
Except there's a distinction between material that was disparaged for being considered lowbrow and material that was actually low-quality. Academia still look down on Lord of the Rings, because it doesn't fit the kind of pretentious bullshit they think we should be hailing as the great literature of the 20th century (garbage like James Joyce, who will be virtually forgotten in 400 years while people will still be reading LoTR).
But no one will be reading Elminster novels in 100 years.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078848I wouldn't be 100% certain of that. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still mention of Drizz't (or however you spell that) and the works of Weis & Hickman. Not as Shakespeares, but maybe as Kyd or a Marston. Just from the sheer number of them sold. (They're definitely not high quality work.)
You mean like how today Varney, Anthony Tidkins, Fernand Wagner, and other such characters from the very bestselling novels of the late 19th century are still household names?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078871It's not salt. Pundit is well known for having strong opinions about most topics. The fact that his opinions are inconsistent compared to what he states, is part of the fun. I have nothing against the guy, I don't know him well enough to have any strong opinions on him. So all I can do is go after his opinions and statements, which as I stated are highly inconsistent.
(https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-62520156,width-643,imgsize-53317,resizemode-4/images.jpg)
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1079992There was no "storygame revolution" to not pan out, there are simply RPGs. Some are good, some are bad, some are complex and some aren't. In the end, a fantastic story can be told...or not.
Id say there was an attempt at a storygame revolution, and when that failed to various reasons, there was an attempt at a story game co-opting of regular RPGs and about everything else.
Thinking on it I believe that actually RPGs ARE for making a story. Through the actions of the characters and how they react to the things that they encounter that the DM presents.
Storygames tend to be more about dictating a story, telling a story as they go rather than making a story from experiences.
Hybrids are all over the place.
In an RPG there may be a plot going on. That is, the villains are up to something and the PCs may or may not get involved in it. The players usually have no idea what is ahead.
In the more nailed down storygames there IS a plot and the players tend to control what will happen. That is, the players may have sat down and discussed how the adventure would go, who the villain was and other elements. Especially if there is no DM. In the less nailed down storygames theres room for the unknown. But there may be ways for the player to alter or cancel out that random. Which is the sticking point for some.
And there is the problem as usual of some people mis-labelling a game, sometimes deliberately, for marketing and to trick the buyer. Buy this really real RPG! Buy this Really Real Storygame!
And then there is the fact some storygamers want to totally remove game from the storytelling.
But hilariously. Some groups want to ADD game to their storytelling. And Pundit's "swine" apparently cant stand that. Usually while praying to the altar of the great god IMMERSION!
Quote from: Brendan;1080005I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against story games per-se. My point is that the GNS revolution, and the story-game movement it helped spawn, did not revolutionize RPGs. It created a new genre of game, which may provide fun, but not through the same experience. Why was this the case, and what is the relationship between RPGs and story? That's what I'm trying to address. I agree with Pundit, and the subject of this thread, that RPGs are not FOR the express purpose of making a story, but there is clearly some kind of relationship.
Yes, that is how we narrative-ize life and extract meaning from chaos. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing? Making a side point?
Gee really? There were NO design movements in role-playing games? No trends, camps, or anything? So between RPGs in the late 70s-80s, the 90s "style over substance" post White Wolf craze, the Forge, and now the OSR, nothing really happened, they're all just "RPGS" and we can't draw any meaningful divisions or talk about them?
I never said that RPGs didn't change or evolve. My contention is that certain RPGs aren't RPGs and are "storygames" because of reasons.
Quote from: Omega;1080070Id say there was an attempt at a storygame revolution, and when that failed to various reasons, there was an attempt at a story game co-opting of regular RPGs and about everything else.
Again, I disagree. People wanted different things in their games and as a result, they evolved. It's a market that has trends and these trends change. The light in which these changes are seen is very tribal and divisive and that's stupid. We are very lucky in our hobby because it's largely timeless. We can use books from decades ago as if they were brand new. With some exceptions dice haven't really changed a lot. We're not dependant on any other hardware than our brains and can keep enjoying old games. It strikes me as so stupid when, for example, a smart man like Pundit pops into a thread on a game he doesn't like for idealogical reasons, and tyen chimes in with "It's storygame trash". That serves no good purpose and simply places him onto the opposite side of the tribalism coin.
You missed all the crazy several years ago. Lucky you.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1080052(garbage like James Joyce, who will be virtually forgotten in 400 years while people will still be reading LoTR)
Joyce will never be forgotten so long as there are people who hate both comprehensible books and reading for pleasure. How that crap gets passed off as great I have never understood.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1080087Joyce will never be forgotten so long as there are people who hate both comprehensible books and reading for pleasure. How that crap gets passed off as great I have never understood.
Joyce would not be forgotten if people valued the short story and only read _Dubliners_ He demonstrates there what a
great, not merely good, writer he could be when he wasn't trying to be something else. I admit to enjoying _Ulysses_ when reading and discussing it in a small class where I was the only undergraduate. I never could re-read it and haven't tried in decades.
What's funny about the storygames movement is they spent years deriding D&D as an incoherent, juvenile, and dumb game, and held it responsible for keeping RPGs as a hobby confined to nerdish boy-men. If only people moved on from that stuff into mature, intelligent narrative-driven games, RPGs would step out of the basement and into the sunlit uplands of respectable adult hobby.
But what happened in reality? The RPG hobby is bigger than it has ever been, more mainstream than even its most unflagging boosters ever imagined, and has a remarkable profile in pop culture. And it's not because of mature, intelligent, elegantly-designed storygames. It's because of D&D, baby. RPGs made it mainstream because millions of normies have taken up D&D. Christ, how that must gall them.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1080076Again, I disagree. People wanted different things in their games and as a result, they evolved. It's a market that has trends and these trends change. The light in which these changes are seen is very tribal and divisive and that's stupid. We are very lucky in our hobby because it's largely timeless. We can use books from decades ago as if they were brand new. With some exceptions dice haven't really changed a lot. We're not dependant on any other hardware than our brains and can keep enjoying old games. It strikes me as so stupid when, for example, a smart man like Pundit pops into a thread on a game he doesn't like for idealogical reasons, and tyen chimes in with "It's storygame trash". That serves no good purpose and simply places him onto the opposite side of the tribalism coin.
So you accept that there are such things as "story-games" distinct from "classical RPGs" - that they are distinguishable and have different design parameters, you are just concerned that people are trashing story games or attempting to exclude them from the RPG hobby as a whole?
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1080099Joyce would not be forgotten if people valued the short story and only read _Dubliners_ He demonstrates there what a great, not merely good, writer he could be when he wasn't trying to be something else.
Agreed. People forget Joyce was a master of conventional prose before he went full avant-garde modernist. Dubliners is some of the best writing in the english language.
Quote from: Haffrung;1080120What's funny about the storygames movement is they spent years deriding D&D as an incoherent, juvenile, and dumb game, and held it responsible for keeping RPGs as a hobby confined to nerdish boy-men. If only people moved on from that stuff into mature, intelligent narrative-driven games, RPGs would step out of the basement and into the sunlit uplands of respectable adult hobby.
But what happened in reality? The RPG hobby is bigger than it has ever been, more mainstream than even its most unflagging boosters ever imagined, and has a remarkable profile in pop culture. And it's not because of mature, intelligent, elegantly-designed storygames. It's because of D&D, baby. RPGs made it mainstream because millions of normies have taken up D&D. Christ, how that must gall them.
Hello Haffrung, how's the weather in Tanelorn? Pretty calm, I imagine? ;)
This is kinda what I was driving at with the comment that the "story-game revolution failed". I was active on the Forge when it was new and heady stuff, and I remember that attitude and critique. I think, in a way, they had a point. D&D had become bloated and less fun, but rather than go back to the when they had fun with RPGs, and ask what made those so great and what had been lost, they went the opposite direction and tried to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't have anything against story-games per-se, or even so called "narrativist" leanings in RPGs. It's just a different experience and, as you point out, did not displace the "classic rpg" at all.
Story games have the intrinsic issue that it is harder for a group to produce a fun and interesting collaborative narrative then it is for the same group to pretend they are a bunch of characters having adventures in an interesting situation or setting.
The former require you have an understanding of drama, characterization, plot structure and other elements of stories. The latter just requires one to listen and to give a response as if they were there as the character.
Quote from: Omega;1080074Thinking on it I believe that actually RPGs ARE for making a story. Through the actions of the characters and how they react to the things that they encounter that the DM presents.
Storygames tend to be more about dictating a story, telling a story as they go rather than making a story from experiences.
Hybrids are all over the place.
Let's revise again the role of story. Story isn't an end in and of itself. I can give you a 3 sentence summary (story!) of the Lord of the Rings and it probably won't grab ya the same as reading the books or watching the movies. Why? Because the way is the goal.
You want to be in that moment when Frodo gets hit by Shelob. And that is why there is such a divide between trad games (and I would classify most simulationist games under that) and narrative games. Player agency is good for tapping into player creativity and it can be great fun weaving a story together. But it threatens to undermine being in that moment, which we refer to as immersion-breaking. That goes especially, if you have the power to automagically solve any problems the GM has created for you. You want to sweat with your character for his life.
That said, personally, I consider it a bit extreme if you can't never ever step for a moment out of character to handle a metacurrency without it ruining your fun. Such purism is a bit suspect, imho.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080142You want to be in that moment when Frodo gets hit by Shelob.
.....
Player agency is good for tapping into player creativity and it can be great fun weaving a story together. But it threatens to undermine being in that moment, which we refer to as immersion-breaking.
Immersion is a separate quality .
In general it will be either fun and enjoyable to collaboratively create a story as group (story-game) or that you will be able to have adventures in a fun and interesting situation or setting (tabletop roleplaying).
Immersion comes about because the material being uses resonates with the participants to the point where they forget about the medium.
Immersion for story-game is akin to immersion in film, books, or theater. The quality and structure of the narrative is such that it draws you.
Tabletop roleplaying the source of immersion is different. It is the referee by his roleplaying and adjudication, enabling his players think for a moment that they are there as their character within that setting doing whatever it they are doing as their character.
The former is passive, the best one can hope for the audience is to feel as if they are there actually witnessing the events being depicted empathizing with the character. The latter immersion is active, transporting the players not as witnesses but as participants in a pen & paper virtual reality.
It is easier to contrive a situation or setting to experience that draw the players in than it is to come up a with narrative that makes one feel they are there witnessing the events being played out. The reason for the difference is the ability to make choices and to manipulate the environment.
Irregardless whether it is story-games or tabletop roleplaying, it has to be tailored to the participants. The first step is to learn about who is involved and choose the things that works for that group. Then the odds of immersion dramatically increase.
Just about any combination of techniques, style, and complexity can be made to work provided it is the right group.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1080055(https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-62520156,width-643,imgsize-53317,resizemode-4/images.jpg)
OK, fine, we get it, you're salty that I keep bringing up your inconsistencies. Sorry, mate, but I call it as I see it. I don't have malice against inanimate objects like games. They exist, just because you attach a sense of personal agency or identity to one is of no consequence. I don't like you favourite game, mate, it's not a personal attack on you. I also try to be as objective as I can, do I succeed, fucked if I know.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1080075I never said that RPGs didn't change or evolve. My contention is that certain RPGs aren't RPGs and are "storygames" because of reasons.
Thing is, this is the crux of it. EVERYONE here has outlined what THEY believe Pundit means, except that Pundit when he chimed it, did not.
Several of us have also pointed out (as I have with actual page references) to at least one of Pundits favourite games that could, by all accounts be considered a Storygame, and no one has refuted the point. Not even Pundit. Other than saying it is NOT a Storygame. Because Reasons.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080225Several of us have also pointed out (as I have with actual page references) to at least one of Pundits favourite games that could, by all accounts be considered a Storygame, and no one has refuted the point. Not even Pundit. Other than saying it is NOT a Storygame. Because Reasons.
If you mean Amber, reality modification is part of the setting. An ability that many of the characters possesses. Thus when using it, you are doing it from the viewpoint of your character. Unlike metagame mechanics, like Fate points where you make your decision as a player of a game. This has been stated numerous times.
Quote from: estar;1080247If you mean Amber, reality modification is part of the setting. An ability that many of the characters possesses. Thus when using it, you are doing it from the viewpoint of your character. Unlike metagame mechanics, like Fate points where you make your decision as a player of a game. This has been stated numerous times.
He doesn't mean that, but the fact players out of scene can contribute to setting details that the GM is supposed to accept.
I like to choose a course of action, and roll dice to determine my success. If your game has that, then I might like it. If not, then I probably won't.
Quote from: Itachi;1080292He doesn't mean that, but the fact players out of scene can contribute to setting details that the GM is supposed to accept.
No they can't, not as players.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1080371No they can't, not as players.
Can they do that or not? Because someone above said yes, players can OOC contribute to setting details, and now you say they can't. Someone is reading the text wrong.
Quote from: Itachi;1080406Can they do that or not? Because someone above said yes, players can OOC contribute to setting details, and now you say they can't. Someone is reading the text wrong.
Would you like me to get the page number again, where the players CAN?
Amber Core Book, first printing 1991, page 106, under the heading Choosing Random Events, sub-heading Leaving the Choice to the Players.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080414Would you like me to get the page number again, where the players CAN?
Amber Core Book, first printing 1991, page 106, under the heading Choosing Random Events, sub-heading Leaving the Choice to the Players.
QuoteYet why should it be random? A novelist or screenwriter doesn't pick a random encounter. No, they pick whatever "random" event is most interesting, or the one that works best to move the story along. Why should they want any boring events? Or purposeless events? Or events that repeat themselves? It's the same in role-playing. All the Game Master has to do is visualize or list the possibilities, and then select the one choice that seems to work best for the current role-playing situation.
Leaving Choice Up to the Players. If, and only if, there seems to be more than one attractive possible event, then let the "decision" fall on the actions of the players. Note that it isn't player "choice," it's player "action." After all, the players don't know that they are making the decision for you.
That is some funky wording going on there.
Quote from: Omega;1080419That is some funky wording going on there.
That doesn't sound at all like player's being presented with options and making a choice OOC. That sounds like the GM presenting a couple of options to the characters, and rolling with what is chosen.
Quote from: kythri;1080420That doesn't sound at all like player's being presented with options and making a choice OOC. That sounds like the GM presenting a couple of options to the characters, and rolling with what is chosen.
The players are still dictating to the GM which scenario to go with. Which according to Pundit's 'Storygame' belief is a key element of what makes one. But Amber can't because it's one of the greatest games ever.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080423The players are still dictating to the GM which scenario to go with. Which according to Pundit's 'Storygame' belief is a key element of what makes one. But Amber can't because it's one of the greatest games ever.
If the
characters are presented an option,
in character, and make a choice,
in character, then the
players aren't dictating to the GM, OOC, what to do.
Quote from: Omega;1080419That is some funky wording going on there.
It sounds like part of the advice I give about running sandbox campaigns.
For anything that the players do as their character there are one or two consequences that are likely to occur. However there are also consequences that are less probable but still make sense given the circumstances. Part of the creativity of the sandbox referee is picking the consequence that would be the most fun and interesting and not always going for the most likely. Just keep in mind that a mix of likely and unlikely consequences needs to be maintained if the campaign is to remain believable in the eyes of the players.
To me the wording in Amber is a incomplete statement of what the author is trying to get at. Which is not to be a slave to the dice and exercise some judgment over which events in the fore mentioned table get used based on what the players are interested in.
Quote from: kythri;1080427If the characters are presented an option, in character, and make a choice, in character, then the players aren't dictating to the GM, OOC, what to do.
But there's no mention of
character there, right?
Anyway, it's indeed funk worded and regardless of intentions, one thing is firmly grounded in the 90s: the inability to communicate properly what the game is about. Lol
Quote from: estar;1080444It sounds like part of the advice I give about running sandbox campaigns.
Among other things.
Its saying things should be like in a movie or book, but also saying the players have decisions, but also saying the players decisions are an illusion, but also saying the players decisions are a springboard. Just that one little section is all over the place. You could read it in several different ways.
Quote from: Itachi;1080457But there's no mention of character there, right?
To be fair, no, it doesn't outright make a distinction between players and characters, but then again, RPGs of yore operated under the assumption that people reading the books weren't fucking idiots, and could decipher what was being implied.
Quote from: Omega;1080620Among other things.
Its saying things should be like in a movie or book, but also saying the players have decisions, but also saying the players decisions are an illusion, but also saying the players decisions are a springboard. Just that one little section is all over the place. You could read it in several different ways.
Yep, it's so badly communicated that different players ended up playing the game in stark different ways and think they were playing it right all this time. Bizarre.
Quote from: kythri;1080635To be fair, no, it doesn't outright make a distinction between players and characters, but then again, RPGs of yore operated under the assumption that people reading the books weren't fucking idiots, and could decipher what was being implied.
Well, it does say PLAYER ACTION, and last I checked Amber was not a Boffo Larp so anyone who isn't a moron or a story game ideologue would assume they'd be actually meaning character. That assumption unfortunately leaves out Brady and Itachi however.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1080675Well, it does say PLAYER ACTION, and last I checked Amber was not a Boffo Larp so anyone who isn't a moron or a story game ideologue would assume they'd be actually meaning character. That assumption unfortunately leaves out Brady and Itachi however.
I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit. This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs. Seriously what is your real issue Brady?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1080676I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit. This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs. Seriously what is your real issue Brady?
I'm against Pundit?
I AM??
AND NO ONE TOLD ME???
...WHY AM I THE LAST ONE TO KNOW THESE THINGS????
Quote from: Snowman0147;1080676I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit. This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs. Seriously what is your real issue Brady?
Jealousy and envy. :D
Quote from: Itachi;1080669Yep, it's so badly communicated that different players ended up playing the game in stark different ways and think they were playing it right all this time. Bizarre.
That can be said of every RPG and board game ever. Somewhere, somehow, no matter how clear the rules are. Someone WILL read them in the most screwball or contrary way possible.
This pops up ever so often over on BGG. A term like "You may move 3 squares on a turn" and you will have 4 different interpretations all based on the word "may".
Someone will read that as "You may move 1-3 squares". Another will read "You may move 3 squares, Or not move." Another will read it as "You move 1-3 squares. Or Not move". And someone else will read it as "You roll a d3(1-half d6) and move that many spaces"
Or the debate over what 5e Goodberry actually does. Or a notation of "The weapon does 1-6 damage" and someone will read that as you can choose 1 to 6 as your damage. Or be confused what dice you are supposed to roll. Or even that dice are rolled at all. I kid you not.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1080675Well, it does say PLAYER ACTION, and last I checked Amber was not a Boffo Larp so anyone who isn't a moron or a story game ideologue would assume they'd be actually meaning character. That assumption unfortunately leaves out Brady and Itachi however.
er. How so? Player action to me means the player is doing something outside the actual characters actions. EG: Spend a fate point. Your character did not spend a fate point to reroll a die. The player did. (Of course a few RPGs have allowed characters to do that. TORG comes to mind I believe.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080690I'm against Pundit?
I AM??
AND NO ONE TOLD ME???
...WHY AM I THE LAST ONE TO KNOW THESE THINGS????
pssst... Chris... You are against Pundit. :D
Am I like the only one here who gets that your beef isnt with Pundit but what you see as a hypocritical labelling of one game as Story Game and another as Not-Story Game based on which he likes or does not?
Quote from: Omega;1080731pssst... Chris... You are against Pundit. :D
Am I like the only one here who gets that your beef isnt with Pundit but what you see as a hypocritical labelling of one game as Story Game and another as Not-Story Game based on which he likes or does not?
How do you know if something is pornography or art? I'll know.it when I see it.
There is always going to be subjectivity when it comes to these things. This isn't fucking science.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080690I'm against Pundit?
I AM??
AND NO ONE TOLD ME???
...WHY AM I THE LAST ONE TO KNOW THESE THINGS????
Answer the question.
Quote from: Omega;1080730er. How so? Player action to me means the player is doing something outside the actual characters actions. EG: Spend a fate point. Your character did not spend a fate point to reroll a die. The player did. (Of course a few RPGs have allowed characters to do that. TORG comes to mind I believe.)
Which by Pundit's reasoning makes TORG a 'storygame'.
Quote from: Omega;1080731pssst... Chris... You are against Pundit. :D
Am I like the only one here who gets that your beef isnt with Pundit but what you see as a hypocritical labelling of one game as Story Game and another as Not-Story Game based on which he likes or does not?
If you are, you're the only who's right.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1080748Answer the question.
I'm not against anyone. I don't know anyone of you well enough to have any personal feelings. What I disagree with is Pundit's terms. Storygames is a nothing term that he uses willy-nilly on any game that he doesn't like, which is anything Non-OSR or Amber and select few. He claims that Storygames have a mechanic that's unique to them, but then completely ignores that certain ones he likes, like Amber, I THINK he liked TORG, I could be wrong there, would ALSO fall unto the same category.
I also disagree with the general term of 'OSR' because it SPLITS gamers, it EXCLUDES some because they prefer 3e or even the dreaded 4e Dungeons and Dragons (as much as I disliked 4e, I still think it added stuff to the table.) In a hobby in which has ALWAYS been inclusive, (hell, we've been DESPERATELY inclusive for as long D&D and RPGs have been around, we WANT girls to join us, we don't care about your skin colour or orientation, you wanna try D&D? Pull up a chair, here's the basics, now what do you want to play?) the idea that certain groups know the game 'better' because it's 'old school' (whatever the frick that means) is alien to me. It's all D&D.
We already have enough people, the normies, mundanes, muggles, sheep, average joes swarming in now that Big Bang Theory et al. made Geekdom 'mainstream' bullying us out of the very hobbies we made our own, why do we need divisive labels like Storygame or OSR to split us even further?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1080371No they can't, not as players.
...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080764...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.
Musta missed that. That proves my point of the stupidity of the LABEL and how Pundit is using it. That page undermines his entire argument.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080751Which by Pundit's reasoning makes TORG a 'storygame'.
Nah, like a few here Pundit just doesn't seem to be overly fond of "fate points" and equivalents. Remember he wasn't too thrilled with the inspiration points way back either when 5e came out.
I think they are ok within reason and limits. Like the inspiration point in 5e D&D. You have one. All it does it allow you a reroll. Or how Karma worked in MSH.
Quote from: Omega;1080769Nah, like a few here Pundit just doesn't seem to be overly fond of "fate points" and equivalents. Remember he wasn't too thrilled with the inspiration points way back either when 5e came out.
I think they are ok within reason and limits. Like the inspiration point in 5e D&D. You have one. All it does it allow you a reroll. Or how Karma worked in MSH.
So in trying to understand the line, what about Fate Points from WFRP 1st edition?
While the player did not get to determine the exact outcome, they could explicitly save you from impossible scenarios.
You're taking an out-of-character decision to manage a game resource and that apparently breaks some people's immersion. Your character doesn't choose to be lucky after all. It doesn't follow to me, personally, since I am not in constant in-character mode during games anyway. Instead, I rather slide in and out during games as needed and "spending a session in character" for me merely means that I am having an easy time to do so repeatedly (as opposed to other sessions in which I struggle to get into character).
I need to be in character when taking a decision as that character (actor stance) which isnt always the case in combat (where it's more often pawn stance as I play tactically), for example. And of course while talking as that character. Otherwise I don't.
So to me the above mentioned attitude seems rather like fragile immersion but then again immersion is a very subjective thing, as noted before, so who am I to judge?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080414Would you like me to get the page number again, where the players CAN?
Amber Core Book, first printing 1991, page 106, under the heading Choosing Random Events, sub-heading Leaving the Choice to the Players.
That's some very weak sauce. Did you even read that section?! If you did, you're either willfully lying, or you're a complete imbecile.
That section doesn't say "your players can, ooc, tell the GM what happens and he has to go along with it". The section says the player (character's) ACTIONS are what can determine the potential field for random events.
The examples given are of a player character getting to a world where there are agents of a powerful Amberite, and that if they do not do anything to avoid it and just go relax at an in, the 'random event' of one of the Amberite's agents discovering and reporting on them can happen; or that a player character is trying to pick a lock and tests it out without being certain ends up opening the possibility of the lock actually being a trick that activates a trap.
That is NOTHING like what happens in storygames, where the player can just say "I want there to be a person in this world who works for a powerful amberite and they run into me so I can interrogate them" or something like that.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1080676I don't even get why Brady is so hell bent against RPGPundit. This is more than just convincing people that story games are rpgs. Seriously what is your real issue Brady?
Pundit Derangement Syndrome.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080764...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.
None of which actually change the world during actual play. Logs just record what's happening, diaries are meant to do the same but from the internal monologue perspective of the PC. The Trumps are literally just drawings.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1080886None of which actually change the world during actual play. Logs just record what's happening, diaries are meant to do the same but from the internal monologue perspective of the PC. The Trumps are literally just drawings.
Amber Stories (which I notice you left off) absolutely can add detail to the world that would then further bind a GM to a player's desire if the GM is at all interested in internal consistency. Now, perhaps the GM should exercise a veto authority, but that would be reading into the plain text a control that isn't there.
Unless you want to say that it's all "meaningless detail," in which case... what's the line between meaningless and meaningful detail? Is adding a little flourish about how a certain chemical burns a different color a meaningless detail? Because if so, Corwin sure spun that into an important detail in Guns of Avalon.
I mean, you could seriously Old Man Henderson this.
(Please keep in mind I really don't understand what the beef here is, so I'm seeking understanding.)
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080771So in trying to understand the line, what about Fate Points from WFRP 1st edition?
While the player did not get to determine the exact outcome, they could explicitly save you from impossible scenarios.
You would ask that question a day AFTER I packed away my copy... Its been so long I do not remember how those points worked in the original WHFRP. If it isnt allready in storage I'll try and dig it out and check.
Quote from: Omega;1080926You would ask that question a day AFTER I packed away my copy... Its been so long I do not remember how those points worked in the original WHFRP. If it isnt allready in storage I'll try and dig it out and check.
I had to look it up myself to be sure I wasn't thinking 2nd or 4th edition's mechanic. So I know I got that rule right. They're an absolute, "You do not die," mechanic. The only difference I could find (other than "spending" v. "burning" fate, in 2nd edition) was that in 1st Edition, it was not clear just how much the point saved you. It saved you from dying to that Khorne Warrior's axe this round... but what about next round? In 2nd edition, it was stated that something should happen so that you're not burning another Fate point every turn (Dark Heresy through Deathwatch also carried this version).
Kind of like luck points in some other games or I think how Probability points worked in TORG.
In 1st ed it sounds fairly simple. One free save. But did not save you from any followup hazards. If there were oodles of the points or they had the longer lasting effect of later editions Id probably not be too thrilled as a player or DM. But even with a longer lasting effect, if its just one use then seems more or less ok. For me at least it is when these points become plentiful or have wider impacts that it starts to feel a little dodgy.
I was ok with it in MSH because it fit the setting, and Karma also acted as EXP. So the more you burned the slower the character would advance/improve. Most players seemed more keen on saving them than spending.
On a related, slightly tongue-in-cheek note: Is Champions a storygame, since it allows people to spend Character Points to define things outside the character and even the frequency with which they effect the character (Hunteds, DNPCs, Contacts, etc.)? :)
Quote from: Omega;1080931In 1st ed it sounds fairly simple. One free save. But did not save you from any followup hazards. If there were oodles of the points or they had the longer lasting effect of later editions Id probably not be too thrilled as a player or DM. But even with a longer lasting effect, if its just one use then seems more or less ok. For me at least it is when these points become plentiful or have wider impacts that it starts to feel a little dodgy.
Well... the follow up hazards was unclear, to say the least. I cannot remember if Apocrypha Now clarified it or not. You could certainly extrapolate, from the text, that the intent was that it certainly would save you from anything else in that "scene" "moment" or however else you want to define it (the game certainly did not, which is where the ambiguity came in). You're removed from that danger. (For example, saving you from falling into the lava only to die from the toxic fumes was aaaaalmost an example used, and certainly one you could read in the text by adding just 2 words.)
That's where it seems like it crosses the line from "one free save" to "change the narrative to make it that I don't die."
I'll have to see if I can find my old Apocrypha Now book to see if they ever clarified it or if that was only a 2nd and following thing.
EDIT: Turns out it was closer at hand than I thought! Pg. 28 of Apocrypha Now on the "right" use of Fate Points is basically where 2nd edition and following got it from. It reads like an earlier draft of 2nd edition.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1080932On a related, slightly tongue-in-cheek note: Is Champions a storygame, since it allows people to spend Character Points to define things outside the character and even the frequency with which they effect the character (Hunteds, DNPCs, Contacts, etc.)? :)
That would certainly mean any old White Wolf game is a storygame. As is Anima: Beyond Fantasy, large parts of GURPS, RuneQuest, and a bunch of others.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1080932On a related, slightly tongue-in-cheek note: Is Champions a storygame, since it allows people to spend Character Points to define things outside the character and even the frequency with which they effect the character (Hunteds, DNPCs, Contacts, etc.)? :)
No because it done at character creation or in between sessions for advantages.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1080932On a related, slightly tongue-in-cheek note: Is Champions a storygame, since it allows people to spend Character Points to define things outside the character and even the frequency with which they effect the character (Hunteds, DNPCs, Contacts, etc.)? :)
According to the current definition, yes.
Here's something, with most plot point systems, the GM ALWAYS has Veto Powers, and the right to modify what the player suggests. The player almost never runs across roughshod over a GM's game with these point systems.
I've had a hard time convincing people here what signiciant ramifications the GM veto has for such rules.
That said, context makes a difference. If you look at Spirit of the Century/FATE, the whole way the game is set up, the message between the lines is clearly that the GM is supposed to be very lenient here and to generally not veto the players. I hope that I am conveying in my own game a very different spirit; here, the GM is the ultimate authority in ensuring genre-compliance. If a player wants the enemy to stumble over an actual invisible turtle and you don't want such comic relief disrupting the serious mood of the session, you veto it. Try again with something else next round. In fact, that is part of the challenge for the players when they need a Lucky Break: to come up with an appropriate rationale and to come up with a different, creative idea everytime they need the favor of the dark gods (aka the GM).
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080964That said, context makes a difference . . . I hope that I am conveying in my own game a very different spirit; here, the GM is the ultimate authority in ensuring genre-compliance.
To me, that's certainly the key. The context in which each game presents itself sets a way of thinking about and running a game. I don't run D&D like I do Fireborn. They're looking for different things out of me, as the GM, even though facially they appear to be looking for the same thing. Play each game in the spirit in which it's presented if you want to judge the game on its merits and see if there was something worthwhile in it that way.
BTW - your game isn't out yet, right? I was looking on your website and it does look interesting.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080972BTW - your game isn't out yet, right? I was looking on your website and it does look interesting.
The Quickstart Beta rules are in the Downloads section. They need some errata/clarifications though, I have come to realize - but that's why it's a Beta after all. Right now I am writing on the accompanying Introductory Scenario, horribly railroady in the 90s school of RPGs. :D But I figure for an introductory scenario it's fair game - it's like a videogame tutorial, after all. At least a bit.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080980The Quickstart Beta rules are in the Downloads section. They need some errata/clarifications though, I have come to realize - but that's why it's a Beta after all. Right now I am writing on the accompanying Introductory Scenario, horribly railroady in the 90s school of RPGs. :D But I figure for an introductory scenario it's fair game - it's like a videogame tutorial, after all. At least a bit.
Actually, the key point is to make the characters the 'head of the engine'. The problem of 90's railroad adventures is not that there's very few path to get to the end, but rather than the players were often spectators to the plot as it unfolded and resolved.
I think that a lot of the "x has this particular mechanic doesn't that make it a storygame" thing is based on assuming that you are a storygame if you have any mechanic used by storygames.
There are RPGs that have some mechanics that ended up being used in storygames, but that doesn't make them storygames. There are newer RPGs that have brought in some mechanics used in storygames, that certainly makes them storygame-influenced but it may not make them Storygames.
They're storygames if the fundamental system is a storygame system. That is, if you removed the storygame elements, the game couldn't actually be run at all without serious modification.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1081195They're storygames if the fundamental system is a storygame system. That is, if you removed the storygame elements, the game couldn't actually be run at all without serious modification.
You can't strip the story based manipulation from Amber Diceless, you do so and you kill the entire system...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081199You can't strip the story based manipulation from Amber Diceless, you do so and you kill the entire system...
If that is the case, then yes it is a story game. Not saying it is because I haven't read that book so cannot make a judgement. I am just saying IF that is true.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081199You can't strip the story based manipulation from Amber Diceless, you do so and you kill the entire system...
You really need to stop lying about this. You were proven wrong already... no sorry, proven to be LYING about what the book said. It's time you stop. Keep trying to derail threads and we'll be having a problem.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081201If that is the case, then yes it is a story game. Not saying it is because I haven't read that book so cannot make a judgement. I am just saying IF that is true.
It isn't true at all, and it was shown how he was lying about it just like, one thread ago.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1081711It isn't true at all, and it was shown how he was lying about it just like, one thread ago.
Thus why I empathize the if.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1081710You really need to stop lying about this. You were proven wrong already... no sorry, proven to be LYING about what the book said. It's time you stop. Keep trying to derail threads and we'll be having a problem.
Where is your proof? I've shown mine, with page numbers and text. If you have evidence, lay it out. Page numbers, references. I copy mine directly from my copy of the book. Calling someone else a liar constantly with no evidence expecting others to believe you is the exact same thing the Regressive Left does. SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE. I am quite willing to be proven wrong. Show ME.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1081195I think that a lot of the "x has this particular mechanic doesn't that make it a storygame" thing is based on assuming that you are a storygame if you have any mechanic used by storygames.
There are RPGs that have some mechanics that ended up being used in storygames, but that doesn't make them storygames. There are newer RPGs that have brought in some mechanics used in storygames, that certainly makes them storygame-influenced but it may not make them Storygames.
They're storygames if the fundamental system is a storygame system. That is, if you removed the storygame elements, the game couldn't actually be run at all without serious modification.
What's a concrete example of that though? What's a storygame and what are the elements that, if you remove them, the game cannot be run at all without serious modification? Do you have a specific example we can look at instead of in the abstract?
A specific example might help distill some of the more general cases.
Is this going to turn out to be a Jacobellis thing? ("I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. ")
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081761Is this going to turn out to be a Jacobellis thing? ("I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. ")
That's pretty much what Pundit claims the difference between RPGs and this weird Storygame label, he doesn't seem to know what it is, but he knows it when he sees it.
I think a good definition should be based on mechanics.
If your game entirely, or heavily relies on meta points that exist outside of the game it would be a story game. Especially games that forces you out of your character and think what is best for the story. Another especially for games that punishes the players either for playing well, or using energy by giving enemy npcs more energy. This is a reasonable standard to start with.
OK...
So I'm trying to think of something to fit these criteria and give a concrete example. Mutants & Masterminds? There's a heavy reliance on the Hero Points (not required, but there is a heavy reliance to do things to alternatively adjust the scenario; and if you go with "would not have the same genre/feel without them" as being required, then they would be required) as a metacurrency. You can only use them to do things that are truly heroic / befitting the story. You get them for playing well, which gives the enemy more to work with also.
Does that put Mutants & Masterminds into the storygame category, or am I missing something? In which case, is there a better example you're thinking of?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081793I think a good definition should be based on mechanics.
If your game entirely, or heavily relies on meta points that exist outside of the game it would be a story game. Especially games that forces you out of your character and think what is best for the story. Another especially for games that punishes the players either for playing well, or using energy by giving enemy npcs more energy. This is a reasonable standard to start with.
Amber in this case relies entirely on GM whim on how the 'story' of the game should go, if you have it's Meta currency, like Good Stuff or Bad Stuff, Trumps or the like, those also help influence the GM's decisions, also, the game allows for player input to change the direction of the 'story' with discussion with the GM (all games with meta currencies, like FATE or Mutants and Masterminds, require the player to discuss it with the GM and that the GM is to keep an open mind, but Veto powers rest in the hands of the arbitrator should a suggestion go counter to what the GM has planned), and the idea of structuring the game LIKE a story is key throughout the book. You don't spend anything because there are no real mechanics of that sort.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081796OK...
So I'm trying to think of something to fit these criteria and give a concrete example. Mutants & Masterminds? There's a heavy reliance on the Hero Points (not required, but there is a heavy reliance to do things to alternatively adjust the scenario; and if you go with "would not have the same genre/feel without them" as being required, then they would be required) as a metacurrency. You can only use them to do things that are truly heroic / befitting the story. You get them for playing well, which gives the enemy more to work with also.
Does that put Mutants & Masterminds into the storygame category, or am I missing something? In which case, is there a better example you're thinking of?
If that is the intention of the design I would say yes. If not it would be a hybrid for sure.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081800Amber in this case relies entirely on GM whim on how the 'story' of the game should go, if you have it's Meta currency, like Good Stuff or Bad Stuff, Trumps or the like, those also help influence the GM's decisions, also, the game allows for player input to change the direction of the 'story' with discussion with the GM (all games with meta currencies, like FATE or Mutants and Masterminds, require the player to discuss it with the GM and that the GM is to keep an open mind, but Veto powers rest in the hands of the arbitrator should a suggestion go counter to what the GM has planned), and the idea of structuring the game LIKE a story is key throughout the book. You don't spend anything because there are no real mechanics of that sort.
I want to hear Pundit's counter point because as I said I had not read the book. In fact we need a neutral judge who has read the book to make a honest verdict.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081812I want to hear Pundit's counter point because as I said I had not read the book. In fact we need a neutral judge who has read the book to make a honest verdict.
One of my players has it. But I dont know where at the moment.
Quote from: Omega;1081817One of my players has it. But I dont know where at the moment.
Sweet if he, or she can get it we would have a neutral judge.
So here's a decent overview of Spione: Story Now in Cold War Berlin, one of Ron Edwards' offerings, AFAIK it is an archetypal storygame.
In fact, as the reviewer notes, the book doesn't even describe itself as a roleplaying game.
And I get that....except that I would argue it is better-suited to highly experienced roleplayers, even if ruleswise it is very straightforward, anyone can pick it up within a few minutes.
And the game is amazing, instantly immersive (or rather, will be, with a group that is used to freeforming narrative on the fly).
D&D it isn't. Settlers of Catan it isn't. Warhammer Fantasy Battles it isn't. Call of Duty 4 it isn't. Texas Hold 'Em it isn't.
But it is waaay closer to the first than any of the others. I don't see a need to distinguish the two in regular discourse - someone outside the hobby probably wouldn't understand (or care about) the difference between Spione and D&D, but they would grok the differences between those games and the other four. Within the hobby...we spend a dozen pages trying to nitpick the differences in order to justify some kind of wall. It's fucking dumb.
[video=youtube;bHiuav6cOjo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHiuav6cOjo[/youtube]
I love all things espionage, so I bought this purely on spec. But I'm pleased to say I immediately fell in love with the concepts, genius stuff.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081812I want to hear Pundit's counter point because as I said I had not read the book. In fact we need a neutral judge who has read the book to make a honest verdict.
I'm not sure if you'd judge me neutral in this or not as I have no dog in whatever spat that is going on (just confusion as to what is a storygame and why they're excluded) here's what I'd rate Christopher's claims based on your criteria:
Quote from: Christopher BradyAmber in this case relies entirely on GM whim on how the 'story' of the game should go,
True, but not really different than almost any other RPG out there. So no different than a DM in D&D.
Quoteif you have it's Meta currency, like Good Stuff or Bad Stuff, Trumps or the like, those also help influence the GM's decisions,
Good Stuff and Bad Stuff operate more like a metacurrency, but Trumps does not. Trumps are a "magic power," more analogous to spellcasting in D&D. They help influence the GM's decision only because they offer you a greater toolset to work with, like how the spell Knock gives you a greater ability to work with locked doors in a dungeon.
Good and Bad Stuff, however, is pretty much straight up a metacurrency where you're buying or selling luck in the game explicitly to detail how the universe is going to treat you for story purposes. The example even given in the book shows a guy with Good stuff catching arrows out of the air with a grin because he's the "hero" and the universe likes him. Whereas the poor sod with Bad Stuff... every arrow that can hit him does. There's another line that basically says if the GM can't decide who something untoward should happen to, or if there's some element of chance, it always resolves against the person with Bad Stuff.
Quotealso, the game allows for player input to change the direction of the 'story' with discussion with the GM (all games with meta currencies, like FATE or Mutants and Masterminds, require the player to discuss it with the GM and that the GM is to keep an open mind, but Veto powers rest in the hands of the arbitrator should a suggestion go counter to what the GM has planned), and the idea of structuring the game LIKE a story is key throughout the book. You don't spend anything because there are no real mechanics of that sort.
True...ish. The book does encourage the GM to work with the players to see where the plot is going, but also encourages the GM to be a straight up bastard to keep the plot in genre. It is driven by Amber's storytelling style of a noir high fantasy mystery thriller.
Quote from: Motorskills;1081820So here's a decent overview of Spione: Story Now in Cold War Berlin, one of Ron Edwards' offerings, AFAIK it is an archetypal storygame.
OK. So I don't think that fits under Snowman's definition. Or at least I'm not sure without much deeper understanding of the rules. However... yeah, watching that video, that's a really, really solid game to point to as "this is a storygame" if you want to hold up an illustration. Looks interesting, but definitely not what you'd normally think of when you think of an RPG. Yet also clearly not a boardgame or a wargame.
Doesn't sound like there's an arbitrator/judge/GM at all.
That's pretty darned helpful.
I'm not 100% sold it isn't an RPG, but it at least gives a great point of comparison.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081824OK. So I don't think that fits under Snowman's definition. Or at least I'm not sure without much deeper understanding of the rules. However... yeah, watching that video, that's a really, really solid game to point to as "this is a storygame" if you want to hold up an illustration. Looks interesting, but definitely not what you'd normally think of when you think of an RPG. Yet also clearly not a boardgame or a wargame.
Doesn't sound like there's an arbitrator/judge/GM at all.
That's pretty darned helpful.
I'm not 100% sold it isn't an RPG, but it at least gives a great point of comparison.
Part of the issue is that there are plenty of uncontroversial RPGs that use bits of storygame mechanics / concepts / ethos. Since there's a spectrum, it's fucking dumb to try and be divisive about it -
celebrate the spectrum. (I see the same discussion over OSR vs 5e, I don't have a problem with celebrating both).
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081821True, but not really different than almost any other RPG out there. So no different than a DM in D&D.
In D&D, you're SUPPOSED to use the dice to help adjudicate, even if it doesn't entirely work out for the DM. Most other dice based games are also the same.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081821Good Stuff and Bad Stuff operate more like a metacurrency, but Trumps does not. Trumps are a "magic power," more analogous to spellcasting in D&D. They help influence the GM's decision only because they offer you a greater toolset to work with, like how the spell Knock gives you a greater ability to work with locked doors in a dungeon.
Trumps, like magic spells can screw with the GM's 'story'. But I'll grant you that.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081821Good and Bad Stuff, however, is pretty much straight up a metacurrency where you're buying or selling luck in the game explicitly to detail how the universe is going to treat you for story purposes. The example even given in the book shows a guy with Good stuff catching arrows out of the air with a grin because he's the "hero" and the universe likes him. Whereas the poor sod with Bad Stuff... every arrow that can hit him does. There's another line that basically says if the GM can't decide who something untoward should happen to, or if there's some element of chance, it always resolves against the person with Bad Stuff.
Yes, but those things allow players to go against the GM's plans. Like a Fate, Bennie or Hero point.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081821True...ish. The book does encourage the GM to work with the players to see where the plot is going, but also encourages the GM to be a straight up bastard to keep the plot in genre. It is driven by Amber's storytelling style of a noir high fantasy mystery thriller.
Good players also work within the setting, so this is a moot argument to me.
Sounds like a hybrid to me.
Proto-hybrid, maybe? (Given its age.)
I think I rather agree with Motorskills though, and the other posters who have said this is a spectrum and seems, to me, to be a meaningless divide. I now understand a bit better some of the distinctions going on here, but still fail to see a meaningful difference to what is-or-is-not an RPG. But maybe that has to be answered by first answering, "What is an RPG?" by those who do not want storygames included.
No motor is wrong. I for one would like to know what I am buying. Having categories such as traditional rpg and story game will help inform me where I am going.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081891No motor is wrong. I for one would like to know what I am buying. Having categories such as traditional rpg and story game will help inform me where I am going.
Exactly. And as allways there are some who want to blur or destroy the definition as a marketing ploy. GW did it way back now and then. Space Hulk. Others have been doing it more recently. And then there are just the idiots who want to stretch the definition to "everything on earth". And theres at least one, usually several in any given genre or fandom. Hell theres even some in the OSR. If they havent allready they will sooner or later declare 4e D&D is OSR! Didnt you know? FFGs Star Wars is OSR! And an allready meaningless term becomes even more useless.
So what is an RPG?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081891I for one would like to know what I am buying. Having categories such as traditional rpg and story game will help inform me where I am going.
So you're mad you have to do your own research? If not... what's the issue?
What is a "Traditional RPG" ? Pick a version of D&D to point to as the counter-example of the storygame example now and then we can look at and see why, if at all, those differences matter.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081877Proto-hybrid, maybe? (Given its age.)
I think I rather agree with Motorskills though, and the other posters who have said this is a spectrum and seems, to me, to be a meaningless divide. I now understand a bit better some of the distinctions going on here, but still fail to see a meaningful difference to what is-or-is-not an RPG. But maybe that has to be answered by first answering, "What is an RPG?" by those who do not want storygames included.
Yes, he is correct and the gatekeepers here can't stand that.
Quote from: Omega;1081895And then there are just the idiots who want to stretch the definition to "everything on earth".
You keep claiming this, but under any measure anyone has put forth on the thread so far (for games), there are limits to what is an RPG and what is not. And they've been meaningful limits. But, thus far, none of those limits have excluded storygames.
Again: this seems like you're mad at a marketing gimmick. Which is... really odd.
Quote from: Brendan;1080121So you accept that there are such things as "story-games" distinct from "classical RPGs" - that they are distinguishable and have different design parameters, you are just concerned that people are trashing story games or attempting to exclude them from the RPG hobby as a whole?
No, I do not.
Here’s the definition of a Role-Playing Game:
“role-play·ing game
noun
a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.”
So...as has been stated time and again...a game...in which you play a role...role...playing...game. D&D is one....as is Amber...SWN...FFG Star Wars...TORG...Apocalypse World...Blades in the Dark...Champions...Dusk City Outlaws...Ryuutama...Eoris Essence...and so on...
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081896So what is an RPG?
So you're mad you have to do your own research? If not... what's the issue?
What is a "Traditional RPG" ? Pick a version of D&D to point to as the counter-example of the storygame example now and then we can look at and see why, if at all, those differences matter.
See this is why I cannot take you seriously. You just keep on being on being a passive agressive little bitch with your petty little insults.
The categories work as they had always done for other media. I mean you wouldn't want to be the Dad who accidentally rented a porn movie for his family to watch because asshats decided all movies are a spectrum and we need no division at all. Who are we to gatekeep with these age ratings? Lets toss them and if the customers fail to do their research its on them.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081902See this is why I cannot take you seriously. You just keep on being on being a passive agressive little bitch with your petty little insults.
That wasn't passive aggressive. That was restating what I read and asking for clarification. Stop
trying to be offended and converse instead. (And in case this is difficult for you: that last sentence was not passive aggressive; that was active assertive.)
QuoteThe categories work as they had always done for other media. I mean you wouldn't want to be the Dad who accidentally rented a porn movie for his family to watch because asshats decided all movies are a spectrum and we need no division at all. Who are we to gatekeep with these age ratings? Lets toss them and if the customers fail to do their research its on them.
Having done that for my wife and I, I can tell you exactly what happened with the miscategorization there. Let's just say that the movie that presented itself as "A Fun Romp About An Occult Priest Who Messes with These Protagonist Girls!" (The show in question was Bible Black, and nothing on that box in that store indicated what it actually was.)
And I don't think "RPG" has been a category in all other media.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1081901No, I do not.
Here's the definition of a Role-Playing Game:
"role-play·ing game
noun
a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee."
So...as has been stated time and again...a game...in which you play a role...role...playing...game. D&D is one....as is Amber...SWN...FFG Star Wars...TORG...Apocalypse World...Blades in the Dark...Champions...Dusk City Outlaws...Ryuutama...Eoris Essence...and so on...
Would it be fair to say there is such a thing as "Classic" RPGs and "Storygame" RPGs that are both subcategories of RPG?
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081891No motor is wrong. I for one would like to know what I am buying. Having categories such as traditional rpg and story game will help inform me where I am going.
While I think there value in having general tools to distinguish between the various mechanics and ethos, trying to say that this game here is an RPG, this game there is not, is pretty much doomed to failure. I don't think you are ever going to be fully happy, because it is a spectrum, with hybrids and continuing evolution.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081796OK...
So I'm trying to think of something to fit these criteria and give a concrete example. Mutants & Masterminds? There's a heavy reliance on the Hero Points (not required, but there is a heavy reliance to do things to alternatively adjust the scenario; and if you go with "would not have the same genre/feel without them" as being required, then they would be required) as a metacurrency. You can only use them to do things that are truly heroic / befitting the story. You get them for playing well, which gives the enemy more to work with also.
Does that put Mutants & Masterminds into the storygame category, or am I missing something? In which case, is there a better example you're thinking of?
While Hero Points are a form of metagaming*. The focus of the authors of Mutants & Mastermind is still on supporting campaigns where players pretend to be superhero within a setting vaguely related to the present or a few decades ago. That aside from Hero Points the players can't do anything other than what their character can do.
So Mutant and Masterminds is a tabletop roleplaying game. Not a wargame focused on battling super heroes with the goal of defeating your fellow players or cooperating to achieve some type of victory condition that ends the game. Or a story game focused on collaboratively creating a narrative about a group of super heroes.
A group could use Mutants & Masterminds to do any of the above. They would need to add anything missing they needed to make a wargame campaign happen or a story game campaign happen. But the authors don't explicitly support those alternatives in the core books.
Good points, estar. I wasn't particularly satisfied with the M&M example, it was just the first to come to mind. And on the 3-poles you laid out, that all makes sense.
I was looking more at Snowman's criteria and trying to seeing what fit or didn't fit so we'd have a concrete example to compare and contrast.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080764...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.
Those are done outside of a session not during. Due to the limitations of human beings, a group can only focus on so much. The characters of the campaign have a life beyond the moments depicted during play. Diaries, Campaign Logs, creating setting details (like Amber's Trumps), and yes even writing short stories contribute to fleshing out life beyond the session.
However the most salient aspect that sets it apart from story games is its freeform. Aside from suggested point awards free from any type of formal mechanics. Aaron Allston in his Champion's Strike Book used Blue Book, (a type of school notebook for exams) to have the players chronicle their character's life between sessions.
In my own Majestic Wilderlands, I often give those interested leeway to flesh an aspect of my setting. Half of the details on mages and mage, and the city guard came from the players coming up with details out of game. Then I retconned them into the campaign because they made sense in terms of how I initially presented those elements.
None of this is a form of collaborative storytelling. It more like Star Trek fan writing fleshing out what the Federation is like, or the Klingon Empire. It could be used as background for a story but it is not a story in of itself. For me it about letting the players making the background of the Majestic Wilderlands that much richer and having them invest in it which makes the campaign more enjoyable.
Wrapping it upTo be clear the above could be used as part of a campaign that focuses on constructing a collabrative narrative. But it is not conclusive in of itself. You have to look at the overall pictures of how the campaign is being conducted or in the case of Amber and other RPG books what kind of campaigns the author intended to make easy.
To me reading Amber Erick Wujcik intention is to get players to the point where they feel they are really there as Amberites doing the things described in the novels. It not story he after but immersion.
Immersion is not the same things as collabrative storytelling and has different goals and motivations. The most important of which is to be true to how the character's personality is described and how things work in the setting with the character's abilities. And the character's personality can be completely different than the players.
Which from personal experience can be off-putting to some.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081905Would it be fair to say there is such a thing as "Classic" RPGs and "Storygame" RPGs that are both subcategories of RPG?
That's a lens I would be welcome in adjusting.
Quote from: estar;1081921To me reading Amber Erick Wujcik intention is to get players to the point where they feel they are really there as Amberites doing the things described in the novels. It not story he after but immersion.
That's fair enough. I'm not wedded to my earlier analysis and am completely willing to consider more / new perspectives and lenses to attenuate the veiw like this.
QuoteImmersion is not the same things as collabrative storytelling and has different goals and motivations. The most important of which is to be true to how the character's personality is described and how things work in the setting with the character's abilities. And the character's personality can be completely different than the players.
Hmm. This though, I think you might (emphasize might) be too strong on this as a difference. Must it follow that if the most important thing is to immerse yourself in the character that you are not also immersing yourself in creating a compelling story? Character-driven stories are, after all, all about what would the character do faced with this situation.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081904That wasn't passive aggressive. That was restating what I read and asking for clarification. Stop trying to be offended and converse instead. (And in case this is difficult for you: that last sentence was not passive aggressive; that was active assertive.)
You expect me to buy that? You been passive aggressive to people you had been disagreeing with and now trying to deflect it because I called you out.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081904Having done that for my wife and I, I can tell you exactly what happened with the miscategorization there. Let's just say that the movie that presented itself as "A Fun Romp About An Occult Priest Who Messes with These Protagonist Girls!" (The show in question was Bible Black, and nothing on that box in that store indicated what it actually was.)
You felt like a damn fool didn't you? Thank you for proving my point.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081904And I don't think "RPG" has been a category in all other media.
Had you not notice video games. They categorize their games and guess what? No loss of sales and customers are informed into what game they are getting. So why don't you want that for tabletop rpgs? Don't give me this pathetic spectrum bullshit and give me a honest answer.
There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like. That is it, that is all.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081930Hmm. This though, I think you might (emphasize might) be too strong on this as a difference. Must it follow that if the most important thing is to immerse yourself in the character that you are not also immersing yourself in creating a compelling story? Character-driven stories are, after all, all about what would the character do faced with this situation.
Some background, when I play this is what I generally do. I create a personality, and a back story (most often brief) and acts as the character during the session, often doing funny voice. I been doing this for a long time and is a major reason why in the early 90s I started playing NERO boffer LARP and running LARP events.
Within reason I am a pretty good actor to the point where there are time that I have to make sure people know I am roleplaying and that I am not really angry, or experiencing a particular negative emotion.
I am not creating a story when doing this either with tabletop or with LARPs. I don't the future in either situation and react based on how I think a character with the personality I am roleplaying would react to the circumstances.
I may have goals for example for a year I played a chatty friendly merchant type who behind the scene was assassinating any player who set themselves up as a threat to the nobility. Not that the nobles appreciated my effort as I got executed twice* for my effort. But as my character knew that would be a risk.
Another character of mine was rebellious Highlander Argyll Malcolm MacDoughal (made six month before Braveheart was out but then after Braveheart everybody who didn't know thought I was on the Braveheart bandwagon). Again I developed a personality, had goals but dealt with things as the way I though somebody with Argyll's personality would deal with it.
The same with Tabletop roleplaying character like my Half-Orc Fighter Boog who only speak of himself in third person.
speaking as BoogQuoteBoog doesn't have story, Boog is Boog and Boog will act like Boog to do what Boog wants to do.
My current character is Johann Schwartz. Statwise a B/X Cleric, but background wise a member of the Ordo Monstrum Occisur** i.e. OMO. They are group of occult hunters who commune with the font of Law as represented by the Theophant which is where Johann gets his clerical abilities.
I play him as a frail (6 Constitution) fussy man with a thick german accent who is continually misspeaking, a little socially clueless (because he has an 8 Charisma) I attached his first level character sheet. Again as Johann, I have goals which broadly are to find and kill any monsters in the region and to establish a chapter of the order to keep the monster out.
Wrapping it upI hope it is clear by my examples, is that I am not creating stories for this characters but immersing myself in their background and personalities. I have a narrative I am following, no idea what will be the climax or denouement will be like. I just plan and react accordingly.
*NERO Boffer LARPS gives you two deaths. Afterwards you have to do what is called pulling for the stone. There is a bag with black and white stone. If pulled the black stone your death permanent. Otherwise your spirit appears in the local Healer Circle where you can be raised. The more deaths you have beyond the first two the more black stone go into the bag.
** Order of Monster Hunters
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081934There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like. That is it, that is all.
So there are no games where the goal is to collaborate on a narrative through the mechanics of a game?
Jux? (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/elbowfish/jux-a-story-building-game-for-creative-thinkers-0)
Once upon Time? (https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Games-ATG1030-Once-Upon/dp/1589781317/ref=sr_1_2?hvadid=174275664885&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9006368&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=10008565560991555665&hvtargid=aud-647006051489%3Akwd-1269693362&keywords=once+upon+a+time+card+game&qid=1554234744&s=gateway&sr=8-2)
So why not a more sophiscated hybrid form that borrows liberally from wargaming and tabletop roleplaying but shifts the focus to building collaborative narrative instead of pretending be character in a setting.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081932You expect me to buy that? You been passive aggressive to people you had been disagreeing with and now trying to deflect it because I called you out.
I don't expect you to buy anything. I don't care if you buy anything. I expect you to recognize when someone was asking for clarity. Again
stop trying to be offended and maybe you won't be so upset when someone says, "So this is what I heard, is that correct?" or the equivalent.
It seems like, from what you posted alone, you just don't like the marketing gimmick. Is that it? Is there more? Because if not, that seems a little odd. (Not stupid, not dumb, not anything else you want to read derogatory in that. If you want to be offended by that, go ahead, but that's wholly on you).
QuoteYou felt like a damn fool didn't you? Thank you for proving my point.
Not really. We had a good laugh about it (kids were already in bed). And, as I said, I can tell you exactly why the miscategorization happened. Every single descriptor of the movie was accurate. It also happened to be a porn. When we pointed this out to the store, they pulled it. The DVD was "unrated." So you can't even say that the terms were meaningless. Someone at the store forgot to do their homework. In every other respect, they had put it in the correct category. It was a fiction. It was a fantasy. It was an anime. It was an occult-themed movie.
QuoteHad you not notice video games.
Didn't notice the
all did you? Pretty sure non-fiction media doesn't use roleplaying game as a category. Pretty sure stage plays don't use RPGs as a category, so that's another.
QuoteThey categorize their games and guess what? No loss of sales and customers are informed into what game they are getting. So why don't you want that for tabletop rpgs? Don't give me this pathetic spectrum bullshit and give me a honest answer.
Why are you fighting over this so vehemently? (EDIT: And by that, I mean that I have no beef with you. Getting this worked up over the topic is genuinely bewildering.) You have yet to actually answer why this is so important that one be an RPG and one not. I mean, except for having to do more research on your own. I guess laziness can be an answer, but I choose to believe that it's not
your answer. If I'm wrong, and that is your only answer, fine.
You want my answer? I do want that for Tabletop RPGs. I have yet to see a reason why TTRPGs does not include storygames as a subset of them, in the same way that Fantasy is a subset of Fiction.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081793I think a good definition should be based on mechanics.
If your game entirely, or heavily relies on meta points that exist outside of the game it would be a story game. Especially games that forces you out of your character and think what is best for the story. Another especially for games that punishes the players either for playing well, or using energy by giving enemy npcs more energy. This is a reasonable standard to start with.
That looks like it. However, I would add that there are degrees of "storygameness." to coin a phrase. When we were playtesting the Buffy rules, I asked the GM and game creator C.J. "who is making this decision" when I was using one of the points I had to change what was happening. He said that he realized that those points were somewhat problematic as to immersion but there was no way a mook, like the one I was playing, could survive in that game environment without them. And player-character mooks were necessary to replicate the franchise, which was the selling point of the game.
They were annoying but they didn't come up that often. I would call Cinematic Unisystem a somewhat storygame system.
Quote from: estar;1081935I hope it is clear by my examples, is that I am not creating stories for this characters but immersing myself in their background and personalities. I have a narrative I am following, no idea what will be the climax or denouement will be like. I just plan and react accordingly.
Yes, that is clear, and appreciated. Some of the most fun players I've ever had at my table were thespians who had the same attitude. (In a lot of ways it actually made planning on my part easier for a riveting story because they were usually a little more predictable and so setting up some good drama to see how they'd react was a touch easier.)
Is it also a fair statement then that the two goals are not mutually exclusive? Because that's what I was (EDIT: inferring) when you drew the distinction.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081934There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like. That is it, that is all.
Those that coined the term, created them, and spoke derogatorily of trad-RPGs would certainly disagree with you, but let's not let that get in the way of another chance to try to score points by slamming Pundit, shall we?
Quote from: kythri;1081945Those that coined the term, created them, and spoke derogatorily of trad-RPGs would certainly disagree with you, but let's not let that get in the way of another chance to try to score points by slamming Pundit, shall we?
...I'm on PUNDITS FORUM! The only points I'd be scoring would be in the NEGATIVES. Why are you trying to score points WITH him by attacking me?
I don't dislike Pundit, I DISAGREE with some of his stances. That's it.
And just because someone people want to make up terms to separate themselves from D&D, doesn't change the fact that the point of the game is to play a role, hence a ROLE PLAYING GAME. The mechanics as to HOW it happens are irrelevant.
Mmmkay, cupcake.
Just because I take on the role of a real estate speculator and property developler doesn't make Monopoly an RPG.
Likewise, a storygame, defined by it's creators as not an RPG, but a game dedicated to creating a story, is not an RPG. A game that calls itself an RPG, but is, in reality, a storygame, is not an RPG.
Certainly, the two share some mechanics, but an RPG having a storygame mechanic does not make an RPG a storygame, and a storygame having an RPG mechanic does not make it an RPG.
Your insinuation that Pundit coined the term, and your statements that it's used to slander games he doesn't like is the issue I take - no attempt to toady up to Pundit in that. You make a lot of bullshit statements and outright lies, and I'm calling you on it.
Quote from: kythri;1081950Mmmkay, cupcake.
I'm the one who started that, pumpkin. ;) It just makes me smile. :)
Quote from: kythri;1081950Just because I take on the role of a real estate speculator and property developler doesn't make Monopoly an RPG.
Likewise, a storygame, defined by it's creators as not an RPG, but a game dedicated to creating a story, is not an RPG. A game that calls itself an RPG, but is, in reality, a storygame, is not an RPG.
Certainly, the two share some mechanics, but an RPG having a storygame mechanic does not make an RPG a storygame, and a storygame having an RPG mechanic does not make it an RPG.
Your insinuation that Pundit coined the term, and your statements that it's used to slander games he doesn't like is the issue I take - no attempt to toady up to Pundit in that. You make a lot of bullshit statements and outright lies, and I'm calling you on it.
The hell are you going on about? You clearly have no idea what Monopoly is about. It was a Capitalism simulator, by a Marxist to show the 'evils' of it. OF COURSE A REAL ESTATE SPECULATOR WON'T GET IT. It's not about them.
I do have a question however, what is the benefit in separating styles of RPGs, other than to accuse others of playing the 'Wrong' game? Because that's all this talk of RPGs and Story Games always lead to.
I'm honestly trying to figure out what other benefit there would to splitting the hobby, yet again.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081959I do have a question however, what is the benefit in separating styles of RPGs, other than to accuse others of playing the 'Wrong' game? Because that's all this talk of RPGs and Story Games always lead to.
I'm honestly trying to figure out what other benefit there would to splitting the hobby, yet again.
That's a really good question.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081960That's a really good question.
Ask all the Europeans who call football soccer. Or is it calling soccer football? I'm not a sports fan.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081962Ask all the Europeans who call football soccer. Or is it calling soccer football? I'm not a sports fan.
But both would fans would, presumably, admit that they are games that involve a ball.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081960That's a really good question.
Because the metagaming required by collaborating on a narrative is antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting. Just as pretending to be a character within a setting is antithetical to trying achieve a victory condition to declare a winner and to bring the wargame to an end. To make a good wargame is not the same as what needed to make a good tabletop RPG nor it is the same thing as what needed to make a good storygame. The shift in focus means what each form focus on differs.
Not unlike the changes to tabletop RPGs to make a LARP or to subsitute a software algorithm for a human referee. The shift to live action and the shift to a software algorithm as a referee means while they are still roleplaying games they are very different than tabletop RPG with human referees. What I had to do manage a MMORPG server creatively was different than what I had to creatively with a LARP event and different still from running a tabletop RPG campaign which different still from getting a group to collabrate on a narrative which is again different than playing a wargame either competitive or cooperative.
Some of hard to explain. You need to get in there and do some of this to appreciate the differences.
Assuming I agree that it is antithetical: how do we then draw a bright line that says, "This far is acceptable, but not this" and why that line?
But I'm not sold that it is antithetical. It can be opposed, but I do not see how it must be opposed. Which is probably why I don't see a clear, bright line to say, "This game is OK in this forum, but this one is not."
EDIT: I do like your analogy of the shift from LARP-to-software-referee, etc. They're still RPGs, but of a different experience. So that's a place to begin drawing a line, I suppose!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081959I do have a question however, what is the benefit in separating styles of RPGs, other than to accuse others of playing the 'Wrong' game? Because that's all this talk of RPGs and Story Games always lead to.
It can be useful for identifying what games best support different styles of play and aims.
I wouldn't try to hash out the distinction here, though, because whether or not Pundit has used the term to condemn games he doesn't like, its use on this site is certainly associated with his vendetta against
people he doesn't like. Swine, anyone?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081967Assuming I agree that it is antithetical: how do we then draw a bright line that says, "This far is acceptable, but not this" and why that line?
We don't, we just recognize that there is a center of gravity among major type of games and design accordingly. Be honest when presenting a hybrid and come up with a description that brief but accurate.
Basically what I do in regards to my material in regards to the OSR. While I use the label OSR heavily in my promotion like blog posts, I don't rely on it. Nor do I use the term my product. Instead I take the time to tersely describe what I am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme.
I like the label OSR but I don't assume people will know what it means or use in the same way I do. The same way with tabletop roleplaying, wargame, and storygames if pertinent to my works. And it just useful enough to save having to write the group of hobbyists who play, publish, or promote classic editions of D&D and RPGs with related mechanics.
Brady complained about segregation. What he doesn't get that games already segrgate themselves. Just not the way he think they do. When they want to play a wargame they go to places that cater to wargame, the same for tabletop RPGs, and story games. Gamers rarely just play one thing. They are people with multiple interests. However especially in this day each with dozens of games released every day all year, they, me, and you need a starting point.
So hence storygames for those looking for collaborating on creating narrative with a game. Tabletop RPGs for those looking to pretend to be a character having adventures in a setting, and wargames who is looking compete or in some case cooperate to achieve some victory conditions.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081967But I'm not sold that it is antithetical. It can be opposed, but I do not see how it must be opposed. Which is probably why I don't see a clear, bright line to say, "This game is OK in this forum, but this one is not."!
When you are pretending be an elf it is a distraction to be forced as a player to consider other factors other than the circumstances of the situation you are in and what your character is capable. In addition to most Fate points and other metagame mechanics that allows you create stuff out of thin air to benefit your character feels like cheating. Technically there is a downside to Fate Points and similar mechanics, but from long experience that doesn't get emphasized because players don't like to be out of game asshats. And Fate compels and other similar ideas make you feel like an asshat.
This not from me, but paraphrasing comments I got from players in the year I was trying out Fate after the kickstarter fulfilled.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081967EDIT: I do like your analogy of the shift from LARP-to-software-referee, etc. They're still RPGs, but of a different experience. So that's a place to begin drawing a line, I suppose!
LARPS, and especially CRPGs are little more relatable in discussing how a singular change in focus can make for a very different experience. Many of the first MUDs, MUSHes, and Adventures were literally the D&D rule encoding in software with various algorithm acting in lieu of a human referee.
You had your puzzles with Adventure Games, your first MMORPGs with MUDs, your first AIs style algorithm with Rogue-likes. Along with RPGs like Kingsquest and so on. You even have Pen & Paper version of CRPGs with the Fighting Fantasy series like Warlock on Fire Mountain.
Again this is something that more understandable if you actively try the alternatives and see what it actually takes. Not just one or two but the whole gamut of alternatives. You will see what the common elements are and effects of differences.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081962Ask all the Europeans who call football soccer. Or is it calling soccer football? I'm not a sports fan.
The term Soccer comes from the 1800's in England, where it was called Association Football, they took the Association to Soc, and then added -cer to make the word. However, in the 1980's, England in a fit of superiourity decide to make a show that American Football was somehow bad, and renamed Soccer back to Football.
In essence, they wanted to 'split the hobby' by claiming one group of sports fans as liking the wrong game.
Which leads back to my honest question, as I would sincerely like to know, what benefit is it to split the hobby via ideological lines? What do we, as players and lovers of these games gain?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081974Which leads back to my honest question, as I would sincerely like to know, what benefit is it to split the hobby via ideological lines? What do we, as players and lovers of these games gain?
See my reply above yours and a half a dozen of other my posts.
Quote from: estar;1081966Because the metagaming required by collaborating on a narrative is antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting.
Asking Billy Bob Joe to hand you over that bag of Doritos could also be seen as going counter to pretending to be someone else. So it depends, as role-playing doesn't depend on being continuously in character (actor stance) anyway. Which metagaming techniques are how disruptive anyway?
Quote from: estar;1081966Just as pretending to be a character within a setting is antithetical to trying achieve a victory condition to declare a winner and to bring the wargame to an end.
Quite ironic, given that role-playing was born just out of such a hybrid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunstein_(wargame)).
Quote from: estar;1081966What I had to do manage a MMORPG server creatively was different than what I had to creatively with a LARP event and different still from running a tabletop RPG campaign which different still from getting a group to collabrate on a narrative which is again different than playing a wargame either competitive or cooperative.
The main difference between a cooperative wargame and some hardcore hack&slash D&D games seems to be adoption of a single character, as opposed to entire units.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009Asking Billy Bob Joe to hand you over that bag of Doritos could also be seen as going counter to pretending to be someone else. So it depends, as role-playing doesn't depend on being continuously in character (actor stance) anyway.
There is a difference between a social disruption and one built into the mechanics.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009Which metagaming techniques are how disruptive anyway?
Blades in the Dark and the structure of a Score.
Whimsy Cards and coming with something that fits the description on the card.
The Fate Economy and the idea that Aspects are what players know about and not necessarily the character.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009Quite ironic, given that role-playing was born just out of such a hybrid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunstein_(wargame)).
Hybrids are the norm not the exception when it comes to actual campaigns. Published works on the other hand are not quite as flexible due to limited page count, time and budget. So published work tend to be focus. But occasionally something works and spawn a new type of game or slightly more likely a new subgenre with in a existing set of game.
While Wesely's Braustein was a crucial element that led to Arneson's Blackmoor, there others like the Grand Napoleonic Campaign that Dave ran. However the first few months of Blackmoor were just a sophisticated wargame campaign where everybody played a individual character. Unlike the mixed scope of Wesely's Braustein.
Also the last paragraph of the wikipedia is a simplification of how Blackmoor developed into the first tabletop roleplaying campaign. For example it leads one to think that the Castle Blackmoor Dungeon were part of the campaign initially. In fact it introduced well after it start after several scenarios were run. (see Judges Guild's First Fantasy Campaign, Playing at the World, and Hawk & Moor).
Another tidbit, it not well known that all the factions of Blackmoor were player run including the bad guys which are typically run by the referee in later years. Dave function was arbitate
What turned Blackmoor into the first tabletop roleplaying was having all the things it combined plus Dave Arneson saying "Yes" when players started to ignore the current scenario in favor of their own goal. The decisive point so to speak is when Dave introduced the Blackmoor Dungeon and wound up becoming the most popular part of the campaign. To the point that the good guy players ignore the ongoing war and the baddies (also players) took over Castle Blackmoor.
The PCs were exiled to Lake Gloomy and instead of "learning their lession" promptly started exploring the region for more dungeons (Glendower for example).
I was recently told by several partipcate in the Blackmoor campaign, Dave liked being the neutral referee of opposing player factions better then running the monsters and NPCs of the Blackmoor Dungeon. But his defining characteristic was his ability to run things by the seat of his pants in a way that was fun for all. So despite his preferences, he went along with the players and thus tabletop roleplaying was born.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009The main difference between a cooperative wargame and some hardcore hack&slash D&D games seems to be adoption of a single character, as opposed to entire units.
Shadow Crossfire, Tomb and other similar games have the players playing individual characters. Along with older examples of Freedom in the Galaxy, SPI's War of the Ring, Melee, and Wizard. The line between RPGs and Wargame is a lot more fuzzier than what you describe above. The same fuzziness exist between storygame and RPGs.
However while the border are fuzzy all three types of games (and others types as well) have a center of gravity that is defined by their primary focus. And because of that focus they emphasize different things in a way that produces a distinct type of game. This is despite sharing many elements in common.
As I said to Tanin, a designer is better off taking the time to tersely describe what they am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme. The use of labels best used as a promotional signpost to let other now what general ballpark you are in.
Even more narrow labels like OSR, Savage Worlds, Fate, or GURPS doesn't preclude the need to describe the specifics of one's work.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081974The term Soccer comes from the 1800's in England, where it was called Association Football, they took the Association to Soc, and then added -cer to make the word. However, in the 1980's, England in a fit of superiourity decide to make a show that American Football was somehow bad, and renamed Soccer back to Football.
In essence, they wanted to 'split the hobby' by claiming one group of sports fans as liking the wrong game.
Which leads back to my honest question, as I would sincerely like to know, what benefit is it to split the hobby via ideological lines? What do we, as players and lovers of these games gain?
A brief aside re: sport - the above is total crap.
In the UK football (what Yanks call soccer) has always been called football.
Soccer is a slang name which is occasionally used in the UK, sometimes to differentiate football from rugby (a game similar but not identical to American football). There was no 1980's decision to start calling soccer football, as it was normally always called football. There was no fit of superiority to change names as American football was deemed 'bad', as in the 1980s American football had as high a visibility in the UK as ice hockey - i.e. obscure.
Where the hell did you come up with this bollocks?
Sorry for the divertion - you can now return to your normal programme. :)
estar,
I was going to PM you, but your inbox is full. So I guess I'll do this publicly: thanks for contributing to this conversation in such detail and thought. It's nice to see that here, in Mos Eisley, free speech leads to more than just tit-for-tat, but actual constructive free and open exchange of ideas! So, thanks!
(And disclaimer to anyone, anyone, feeling thin-skinned: there was nothing in the above aimed at anyone other than estar. if you read it that way, the problem is you. Don't kill this moment of joy. Don't do it. Just enjoy the good conversation.)
Quote from: estar;1082035There is a difference between a social disruption and one built into the mechanics.
Sure but the significance of that difference depends on how much time an average player is in-character in a session otherwise. If it's 95%, then a built-in mechanic that takes you out of character is a definite problem. If it's 5%, then it makes no difference anyway.
Quote from: estar;1082035Blades in the Dark and the structure of a Score.
Whimsy Cards and coming with something that fits the description on the card.
The Fate Economy and the idea that Aspects are what players know about and not necessarily the character.
Yeah but then you have in Twilight 2nd edition the option to not define gained contacts during character generation but to save any of them to come up with them
on-the-fly when needed. So trad games have always had their fair share of players momentarily stepping out of character and acting as players. Role-playing games are a mix of being someone else and acting as a player. It's neither just role-playing, nor just game (except for outliers, see below).
I guess what I fail to comprehend the
purism that some people (not necessarily you) pursue in insisting that it's a big problem if you
occasionally step out of character and make a decision as a player. This is a part of role-playing. I do get the objection, however, if that takes over and players get to setup their own challenges and solve them through metacurrency.
Quote from: estar;1082035Shadow Crossfire, Tomb and other similar games have the players playing individual characters. Along with older examples of Freedom in the Galaxy, SPI's War of the Ring, Melee, and Wizard. The line between RPGs and Wargame is a lot more fuzzier than what you describe above. The same fuzziness exist between storygame and RPGs.
I couldn't agree more. I have linked to a blogpost (http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/2018/05/rpg-theory-with-rigor-part-2/) of mine a while ago and of course nobody read it, so I feel I have to repeat my point here: classification into genres or subgenres is a clustering problem.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/26/e7/95/26e795988cb1e49f1a902bfd2dcb8511.jpg)
We'll never be able to agree if the square on the middle should be yellow or red (or blue). What's even more important: imagine the 3 clusters above were all really close next to each other: coming up with universally accepted definitions for any of them becomes impossible. That's why debates about definitions regarding commonly understood terms are pointless and futile. Plus fringe cases can always be construed with ease for every formal definition.
Everybody here knows
roughly what a role-playing game is (thus my invoking the wikipedia definition). Everybody knows roughly what a wargame is. That suffices for most subjects of conversation. And if things touch on the borderline of, say, wargaming and role-playing, we don't have to push our personal formal definition of
onto others if they have a different one. All that is required is that we explain our definition so that the others understand the point we're trying to make. It's fine if we personally all draw the line slightly differently; we don't have to make it into a crusade of converting everyone else to our understanding where exactly the border must be drawn.
Quote from: estar;1082035However while the border are fuzzy all three types of games (and others types as well) have a center of gravity that is defined by their primary focus. And because of that focus they emphasize different things in a way that produces a distinct type of game. This is despite sharing many elements in common.
As I said to Tanin, a designer is better off taking the time to tersely describe what they am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme. The use of labels best used as a promotional signpost to let other now what general ballpark you are in.
Even more narrow labels like OSR, Savage Worlds, Fate, or GURPS doesn't preclude the need to describe the specifics of one's work.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote from: estar;1082035Shadow Crossfire, Tomb and other similar games have the players playing individual characters. Along with older examples of Freedom in the Galaxy, SPI's War of the Ring, Melee, and Wizard.
What I forgot to ask: how important is characterization to these games? I do play as a single character in Talisman or similar games as well. I even do get to customize that Talisman character via events that happen to that character. But a distinct personality for that character, stepping into that character and making decisions from his point-of-view is absent. In Talisman, it's always pawn stance, not even author stance - much less actor stance.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082040estar,
I was going to PM you, but your inbox is full. So I guess I'll do this publicly: thanks for contributing to this conversation in such detail and thought. It's nice to see that here, in Mos Eisley, free speech leads to more than just tit-for-tat, but actual constructive free and open exchange of ideas! So, thanks!
(And disclaimer to anyone, anyone, feeling thin-skinned: there was nothing in the above aimed at anyone other than estar. if you read it that way, the problem is you. Don't kill this moment of joy. Don't do it. Just enjoy the good conversation.)
Glad to be of service.
It is rare that anybody gets beyond the debate about definitions and ask what are the implications of either my view or other view.
Side BarI think this is a side effect of the dominance of the Dungeons & Dragon brand (or Pathfinder in some years). Since the late 70s, much of the industry and hobby has been defined by how they are not or are like whatever edition of D&D is currently being published.
So it is important to the identity of alternatives in the hobby and industry that they are seen in the same category as D&D i.e as synonym for tabletop roleplaying games.
When games were sold by being shipped to distributors and then game stores, being seen like D&D was an important distinction. However in the last decade this now only true for game companies printing in volume. For everybody else the Internet has lowered the barriers to communication and sales the point where it doesn't matter.
Anybody with the smarts, the savvy, and the willingness to the work can grow a niche of their own, provided that the material is "interesting"*. What more important is to get the work known period. An important component of that is to be accurate about what you are trying to do with your work.
If that doesn't fit any commonly used labels then don't use them. Put the time in writing a good terse description of what you are trying to do.
"the result of any RPG session is a story"
and
"RPG tend to be of the same story structure as how 'Road movies' are told"
///Simplified (A road movie is a film genre in which the main characters leave home on a road trip, typically altering the perspective from their everyday lives).
Quote from: Tanin WulfAssuming I agree that it is antithetical: how do we then draw a bright line that says, "This far is acceptable, but not this" and why that line?
Quote from: estar;1081972We don't, we just recognize that there is a center of gravity among major type of games and design accordingly. Be honest when presenting a hybrid and come up with a description that brief but accurate.
Basically what I do in regards to my material in regards to the OSR. While I use the label OSR heavily in my promotion like blog posts, I don't rely on it. Nor do I use the term my product. Instead I take the time to tersely describe what I am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme.
Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.
Personally? I do not believe there is a problem, but I'm always willing to be convinced. :)
But I suspect that was directed at estar and my question was just for context!
Quote from: jhkim;1082065Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.
There's not a big problem but I have seen articles on places like The Mary Sue for beginners saying "DnD too complex? Play these easier RPGs instead!" - followed by shilling for storygames that are nothing like what the average newbie is after.
Quote from: jhkim;1082065Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.
The problem is only on the margins. There is the technical sense of the terms, in which Pundit's complaint is precisely correct. And then there is the looser, general usage sense of the term, in which the complaint is irrelevant. Which is nothing special as an event in language, especially English.
Specifically, the problems are only with those that want to pretend that there is no difference in the technical sense while hiding behind arguments that invoke the general usage. How big a problem that is, I couldn't say, since the people that tend to make those kinds of arguments get me to stop listening to them too quick to make an informed judgment. I suppose it could go the other way, too.
Mostly, I think it's a prescriptive versus descriptive language fight. I sympathize with the prescriptive position by nature, but know that it always loses over time ...because, that's how people are.
Quote from: jhkim;1082065Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.
Only when we talk shop. :)
I think outside of D&D and a few exceptions like the OSR, Traveller, and perhaps Runequest. Hobbyists have a clear idea of what is what and it is system or brand centered. With the OSR, Traveller, and Runequest; they are associated with multiple systems/editions and multiple settings.
The Pundit is big on the idea of McLuhan's the medium is the message. Which is a large part of why he does what it does to promote his products. So here it seems like it a big deal that X group is taking over the definition of what X style of game means as is shouted loudly and often by the forum owner. Hobbyists don't give two shits about story games versus RPGs versus wargames. As long they can play a character having adventures in the time that they have for a hobby in way that fun it is in the ballpark so to speak. When they don't have fun well decline of D&D 4th edition is instructive*.
*D&D 4th edition IMO is fun and well designed. The problem were it was just D&D in name only thus it hard to use older material. Plus the way Wizards followed up with the core book it got old quickly and thus not as fun to play after the umpteenth campaign or session. People play wargames for decades, but only a handful of individual wargames are fun enough to play over and over again. This is the problem with D&D 4e supplements and adventures because they were oriented toward combat encounters. And Wizards never used the exception based design to it advantage like Magic the Gathering did.
For example imagined a core book for a D&D 4e Dark Sun with a completely different set of class and powers designed to give a campaign a Dark Sun feel. But otherwise uses the same engine as Core books.
Mage the Gathering is still going strong because the core of the still works the way it does in the nineties but ever sets tweaks the game so that the strategies changes in interesting ways.
Kind of like what Adventures in Middle Earth does relative to D&D 5e core books
;)
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082049What I forgot to ask: how important is characterization to these games? I do play as a single character in Talisman or similar games as well. I even do get to customize that Talisman character via events that happen to that character. But a distinct personality for that character, stepping into that character and making decisions from his point-of-view is absent. In Talisman, it's always pawn stance, not even author stance - much less actor stance.
Well I like acting as my character personality. However I recognize it not require or necessary. In the late 80s I was a bit of a snob about "roleplaying" as your character. But after a few more years, I realize I being a bit of a dick about it and that all I really needed was the player to act as if they were there as the character. They can be a version of themselves with the abilities of the character and how I run my campaigns will still work.
The only rule at my table in this regard is that you roleplay in first person not third. You don't have to do funny voices, you don't have to come up with a backstory. Just pretend you are there and act accordingly. If you don't know the rules I will help with coaching but in the meantime just describe what you are doing as if you are there.
Flashforward from the early 90s to circa 2010 and Playing at the World is out and we are starting to learn about the origins of the hobby. My general impression that for the most part (there were exceptions) most players did the above, they acted as if they were there with the abilities of the characters. Later as the hobby grew and diversified, people started to roleplay different personalities more.
On the flip side, prior to Blackmoor and tabletop roleplaying, many gamers roleplayed their "general" or another character in the wargames they played. Strategy & Tactics is filled with classified and account of hobbyists talking shit about their games or each other while roleplaying a personae. And the impression I got after reading everything that most only enjoyed it in small doses.
So the answer is characterization is not important but people do it anyway just because it fun, funny or in some cases to annoy. It not part of the design of a wargame like Tomb the way it is in D&D. Unless you play Munchkin but that just a silly game ;)
I will work up an answer to your previous post later this evening.
Also, "characterization" is not "acting", as estar indicated. However, there are degrees and kinds of characterization even once you make that distinction. First person/third person voice is one way to emphasize, but it is still possible to do a good job of characterization in third person voice, though different tables will have different tolerances for that kind of thing. (Also, some people may not do as well using third person for characterization, though like anything else, you get better with practice.) Though I'm also not going for the same level of immersion as most people here, either. First person is more important for immersion than characterization, per se, though anyone that wants a lot of immersion is likely to want the characterization too.
As a supplement to estar's point, I don't demand first person specifically, though I'm fine with anyone using it. Most players in our games slip back and forth between first and third, as the situation warrants. I do want strong characterization, though, at least from long-time players. A personality needs to emerge, and the other players need to have some idea of those role play decisions you are making on behalf of your character, without you explicitly stating what they are. We tend to rely more on consistent behavior from the characters in stressful situations to produce that, supplemented by mannerisms, speech patterns (even in third), and that sort of thing. You can also get a long way towards a start of that goal with simple motivations (e.g. greedy) for new or casual players. Just because some people stop with simple motivations, they are still a fairly solid foundation for players that want to do more.
Quote from: Gruntfuttock;1082038A brief aside re: sport - the above is total crap.
In the UK football (what Yanks call soccer) has always been called football.
Soccer is a slang name which is occasionally used in the UK, sometimes to differentiate football from rugby (a game similar but not identical to American football). There was no 1980's decision to start calling soccer football, as it was normally always called football. There was no fit of superiority to change names as American football was deemed 'bad', as in the 1980s American football had as high a visibility in the UK as ice hockey - i.e. obscure.
Where the hell did you come up with this bollocks?
Sorry for the divertion - you can now return to your normal programme. :)
Off topic: But by the 1980s, Brits started to turn against the word. "The penetration of the game into American culture," Szymanski writes, "has led to backlash against the use of the word in Britain, where it was once considered an innocuous alternative to the word 'football.'" (http://time.com/5335799/soccer-word-origin-england/)
That is my source. Apologies for the derail. I will NOT pursue.
Does it count as a Tabletop RPG if you combine tabletop football (Bloodbowl?) with a game to simulate being a manager of a football team over a whole season? Because then this football derail is totally on topic! (I jest.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1082117Off topic: But by the 1980s, Brits started to turn against the word. "The penetration of the game into American culture," Szymanski writes, "has led to backlash against the use of the word in Britain, where it was once considered an innocuous alternative to the word 'football.'" (http://time.com/5335799/soccer-word-origin-england/)
That is my source. Apologies for the derail. I will NOT pursue.
Don't pursue - fine.
You win. Article in an American magazine, quoting an academic from an American university. Clearly correct.
I just happen to have lived in the UK all my life (60 years old now, soddit), so what do I know? Christ!
Quote from: estar;1082075So the answer is characterization is not important but people do it anyway just because it fun, funny or in some cases to annoy. It not part of the design of a wargame like Tomb the way it is in D&D. Unless you play Munchkin but that just a silly game ;)
Well, characterization can take on many forms. If a buddy of mine who isn't good at role-playing his PC picks level advancements based on how he sees his character and not for character optimization - that is characterization.
On the other hand, we shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at the fringes of cluster - when we define role-playing games as opposed to wargames, we're looking for common proporties of entities (games) that lie near the center of each cluster. For example, in some RPGs you get to play more than character - but it's not typical. In wargames, you can role-play as a general or whatever - but it's not a defining feature; it's something some people add on top outside of the rules of the game.
So for me, playing as individuals and characterization of these individuals are core features of RPGs. And, if you will, yes, that you can "go off the map" (ignore the plot, leave the boundaries of the sandbox) of a scenario, if the GM is willing to improvise. That would be very uncommon in wargames. Plus, RPGs are generally more cooperative, wargames generally more competetive.
AGAIN: we're talking about widespread (as opposed to universal) properties. I just wanna avoid somebody coming in and flashing his knowledge how RPG X, Y and Z do not have one of those features. That only shows that there may be outliers. If someone wanted to dispute any of the above, they'd have to show instead that most common RPGs do not have one of those features.
I think they do.
I'd say that's a fair assessment.
A game focused on players running singular characters, cooperative play (players work together with an impartial GM to arbitrate results) and ability to improvise (no set scenario) should definitely be near the center of the traditional RPG cluster.
There's obviously a range though. For example, even up through 2e there was an expectation that the PCs would be wrangling and even running their henchmen and hirelings. But that was always through the lens that these were the agents and employees of the actual PC (and that much of running them was simply to cut down on the GMs work load... the GM could absolutely step in and override the player if they felt they weren't being run properly).
The adversarial vs. impartial/cooperative GM is another example of how that range could be shifted. I suspect, a fair chunk of the "let's give the players more agency/GM as another type of player" sentiment in terms of design stems from specific instances of players encountering such adversarial GMs and wanting a game system that reigned in the GMs ability to do so.
MMORPGs are a solid example of where the ability to improvise actions is strongly curtailed. You could improvise during freeform RP sessions between fellow players, but as soon as you start running any actual content you're locked intonthe scripted conversations and combat built into the game.
Railroad adventure modules/Living campaign style play are lesser examples because it's not that they can't go off the rails, just that the GM has strong incentive to keep it on them lest they have to start improvising.
The primary break point for the story game genre from that core would be the degree to which the players manage the world outside their PC. They aren't just managing the decisions of their PCs henchmen in combat, they're managing aspects of the world their PC is interacting with.
The secondary point is that they lean more towards true cooperative play where the GM (if there even is one) is seen more as a fellow player constrained by the rules than as a referee who can decide the rules.
For me I think the point where it ceases to be an RPG would be the point where there is no longer a distinct GM/Referee. Computer games can be RPGs (albeit ones with no ability to improvise outside the lines) so long as the ending is at least somewhat dependent on the PCs actions (ex. Dragon Age Origins had a number of possible endings for both your character and the kingdoms involved based on your PCs choices so would definitely fall under the RPG header for me) because the program itself is an utterly impartial referee for your actions in the game.
But no matter how you slice it, Monopoly or Risk can't be RPGs (at least not without some serious house rules) because they are designed for play without any sort of referee.
Fate would still be an RPG (albeit one with a lot of metagame elements) because there is still a GM who, even if not all-powerful, still has the vast majority of control over the world and events. Fiasco would not be because it completely lacks a GM/Referee beyond the same level of consensus you'd need to play Monopoly with some house rules.
So long as there's a referee, the players are playing "something" inside the setting, even if it's not a discrete individual. It might effectively be the gods/cosmics forces behind the Northmen in their struggle to defeat the Southlanders, but it's not "the setting" as a whole they're in control of. That would be a pretty trippy game (though less so if you anthropomorphized it into the PCs playing the gods involved in something like The Illiad), but it'd still be an RPG of sorts.
At least that's where I'd draw the line.
Quote from: Gruntfuttock;1082167Don't pursue - fine.
You win. Article in an American magazine, quoting an academic from an American university. Clearly correct.
I just happen to have lived in the UK all my life (60 years old now, soddit), so what do I know? Christ!
My late bridge partner Brian, who played Rugby for Bath in his youth, said that it was a class thing in England. Soccer was used more often by the people he hung out with and football was more often by the upper classes. Of course, he and I both called it "kickball" but that was just being snotty, sort of like calling something a storytelling game.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081934There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like. That is it, that is all.
You wish Timmy.
Quote from: Omega;1082210You wish Timmy.
Indeed
http://story-games.com/forums/discussions
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3300[/ATTACH]
And to be fair the Pundit is not the only one to had an attitude about the issue in the past.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130115234923/http://www.story-games.com/forums/
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3301[/ATTACH]
My personal position for the past decade that the extremes at both ends needed a reality check. Unfortunately this only comes up rarely because the argument often doesn't move on from the debate that there is a difference to begin with.
To the credit of the participants, this thread is one of the exceptions where the conversation has moved on to explore the implications and other aspects of the topic.
Except for Brady of course. ;)
Quote from: Omega;1082210You wish Timmy.
You know what? I do. I'm sick and tired of watching the hobby being ripped apart by people who think their game style is better than anyone else, and if others don't want to mimic the style perfectly, then they're an -ist or doing it wrong or some other bullshit.
Edition Wars, Old School, Storygames, all terms that lead to division and derision.
Guess what? That makes us no different than the SJWs who want to take over and push everyone who isn't puritan enough out. It's depressing. I wish we'd stop, but too many seem invested in this idea of 'purity' to care.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1082249You know what? I do. I'm sick and tired of watching the hobby being ripped apart by people who think their game style is better than anyone else, and if others don't want to mimic the style perfectly, then they're an -ist or doing it wrong or some other bullshit.
Edition Wars, Old School, Storygames, all terms that lead to division and derision.
Guess what? That makes us no different than the SJWs who want to take over and push everyone who isn't puritan enough out. It's depressing. I wish we'd stop, but too many seem invested in this idea of 'purity' to care.
Yet you participate in it yourself. Roleplaying Games was decisive term in the 70s for wargames. Yet it got rubbed off over the decades as the years wore on. You freely talk about fantasy despite it being annoying to the war gamer of 1970 who focused on Napoleonics, Medieval, and World War II battles.
You keep decrying purity is a problem whenever any of us talk about differences in styles or type of games irregardless of what any of say or do.
In the past you criticized me for viewing OSR as a label for the group of hobbyist for playing, promoting, and publishing for classic edition of D&D. But never once you ask how I felt about people using that content to make alternatives.
Ignored the fact that for decades I championed open content, put my own material out as open content, and successfully convinced other to put their own content under an open license. Something that had done far more to advance the freedom of hobbyist to create the content they want in the form they want it than your hand wringing over purity has ever done.
Ignored the fact that not once I used my soapbox or reputation to shut down other people efforts. That when approached by other with system outside of classic D&D to use my material I encouraged and aided them like with Blackmarsh and Heroes and Other Worlds.
I want to there to better storygames. Games where it fun to collaborate on creating a narrative. I want more games with a variety of hybrids and approaches as people think differently about this stuff.
I do happened to think Story-game would better off pursuing their own path than setting themselves up as Tabletop roleplaying 2.0. Ido think using the rules of the wargames that lies at the heart of RPGs to collabrate on a narrative is for the most part clunky and gets in the way. But hey it greate try and if made to work great!.
So Chris fuck your handwringing over purity. Get off your high horse and contribute something useful for a change.
Hear! Hear!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1082249You know what? I do. I'm sick and tired of watching the hobby being ripped apart by people who think their game style is better than anyone else
I very much doubt that this is the case outside of internet discussions regarding RPG theory.
The purpose of classification is to ease communication. The term RPG denotes a certain type of game and it gives raise to to certain expectations regarding these types of games. That's good because otherwise you'd have to elaborately describe what type of game you mean instead of calling it RPG. Every time. But if we're now endlessly debating over the minutiae of terminology which can already be roughly understood by everyone, such definition wars serve no purpose but ego-stroking.
This forum here wants to call certain games story games and exclude them from the umbrella RPG? Fine. Story-games.com calls their games RPG 2.0? The 2.0 part seems a bit objectionable/presumptive but the RPG part is also fine with me. As long as everybody understands what we're refering to in a given context, so be it.
Quote from: estar;1082252So Chris fuck your handwringing over purity. Get off your high horse and contribute something useful for a change.
I'm still trying to find what YOU'VE done that's positive. I wouldn't complain if there was. All I see is perpetuation of this division of the hobby. You even have the balls to try and make Wargames into the SAME thing as RPGs, despite clear and obvious differences, unlike the blurring of RPG styles. Apples to Oranges.
I'm making a call to UNITE, and ENJOY, no matter what people play. This is NOT positive? To have more people enjoy the hobby with us, to have ideas and new games, instead of little enclaves of tribes that hiss and claw at anyone that comes too close if they don't fit a specialized criteria.
So wanting people to have fun in their own way (as long as it's not actively and physically harming others, as I'm sure someone will invariably try and use that against me) is a bad thing now?
Right then...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1082258I'm making a call to UNITE, and ENJOY, no matter what people play. This is NOT positive?
It is but I would recommend a different approach: let's drop these abstract discussions and talk games. What we enjoy in the games we play and what we don't enjoy in games we play.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1082258I'm still trying to find what YOU'VE done that's positive.
LOL
[video=youtube;Y7tvauOJMHo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo[/youtube]
"What has Rob Conley ever done for us?!"
Quote from: S'mon;1082273LOL
[video=youtube;Y7tvauOJMHo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo[/youtube]
"What has Rob Conley ever done for us?!"
Anyone who wants or is able to continue the argument after this is both dirty, bad and a superhero. S'mon, you dropped this mic.
Quote from: Omega;1082210You wish Timmy.
He
said "that is it, that is all." So, it's decided.
Quote from: estar;1082072For example imagined a core book for a D&D 4e Dark Sun with a completely different set of class and powers designed to give a campaign a Dark Sun feel. But otherwise uses the same engine as Core books.
Dark Sun Campaign Setting (https://www.google.com/search?q=4e+dark+sun&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&prmd=sinv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQn_Xd5brhAhUOnFkKHQz5COMQ_AUoAnoECAwQAg&biw=814&bih=325&dpr=2.63#imgrc=kf3a1A1w1PSTrM)
So that's a thing. I've played in a few adventures for 4e DS and for what it's worth the game played completely different than an ordinary 4e game. No divine magic, arcane magic defiled the area, people we're hunted by cannibal halflings, no metal weapons or armor, natural 1's on attack rolls basically meant your weapon broke. Healing was extremely difficult and simply walking outside of any major city was a harrowing journey that could lead to death.
Now I admit my experience with Dark Sun is limited and maybe 4e isn't the best system for that but I felt it did a decent job of making it apocalyptic in nature and very dangerous. It also added aspects like Psionic themes everyone had and the inherent system that basically removed the need for magical items.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081753Where is your proof? I've shown mine, with page numbers and text. If you have evidence, lay it out. Page numbers, references. I copy mine directly from my copy of the book. Calling someone else a liar constantly with no evidence expecting others to believe you is the exact same thing the Regressive Left does. SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE. I am quite willing to be proven wrong. Show ME.
You piece of shit, I responded, directly, pointing out how you took the tiny section you quoted completely OUT OF CONTEXT, knowingly and wilfully, and that all the rest of the text of that section PROVES YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081762That's pretty much what Pundit claims the difference between RPGs and this weird Storygame label, he doesn't seem to know what it is, but he knows it when he sees it.
No, you fucking liar. Are you even capable of opening your mouth without lying? I've repeatedly given clear definitions for what constitutes a storygame.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081800Amber in this case relies entirely on GM whim on how the 'story' of the game should go, if you have it's Meta currency, like Good Stuff or Bad Stuff, Trumps or the like, those also help influence the GM's decisions, also, the game allows for player input to change the direction of the 'story' with discussion with the GM (all games with meta currencies, like FATE or Mutants and Masterminds, require the player to discuss it with the GM and that the GM is to keep an open mind, but Veto powers rest in the hands of the arbitrator should a suggestion go counter to what the GM has planned), and the idea of structuring the game LIKE a story is key throughout the book. You don't spend anything because there are no real mechanics of that sort.
No it doesn't. You are continuing to lie. Repeating over and over again what has been repeatedly disproven. None of the things you named (luck, trumps) are "meta", they are all DIRECTLY PART OF THE WORLD. There is not meta-activities.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1081812I want to hear Pundit's counter point because as I said I had not read the book. In fact we need a neutral judge who has read the book to make a honest verdict.
The counterpoint is that Brady IS DIRECTLY AND OPENLY LYING.
If he's claiming Stuff and Trumps are "meta-mechanics" it would be like me claiming Constitution or Wands of Magic Missile are "meta-mechanics" in D&D. It's that egregious a lie.
"stuff" is an ability score.
"Trumps" are literally a magic item in the game world.
He's just relying on the ignorance of readers to REPEATEDLY LIE.
And I'm fucking done with it. Brady: One more lie about Amber on this thread or any other and you're banned.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081821Good and Bad Stuff, however, is pretty much straight up a metacurrency where you're buying or selling luck in the game explicitly to detail how the universe is going to treat you for story purposes. The example even given in the book shows a guy with Good stuff catching arrows out of the air with a grin because he's the "hero" and the universe likes him. Whereas the poor sod with Bad Stuff... every arrow that can hit him does. There's another line that basically says if the GM can't decide who something untoward should happen to, or if there's some element of chance, it always resolves against the person with Bad Stuff.
Sorry, but is Charisma a "metacurrency" in D&D? Or is it an ability score that can affect how people in the game world see you? Is "Luck" a metacurrency in Dungeon Crawl Classics?
NO.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082604Sorry, but is Charisma a "metacurrency" in D&D? Or is it an ability score that can affect how people in the game world see you? Is "Luck" a metacurrency in Dungeon Crawl Classics?
NO.
I used to play Fighting Fantasy with Skill-Stamina-Luck. Who knew I was playing a Storygame. :eek:
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081905Would it be fair to say there is such a thing as "Classic" RPGs and "Storygame" RPGs that are both subcategories of RPG?
No, it wouldn't. There's RPGs, and then there's storygames which are not a subcategory of RPG, they're a derived separate game.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081934There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like. That is it, that is all.
Lying again. I didn't invent the term story game. And a large number of storygamers actively use the term and proudly have it differentiate them from the D&D games the unwashed masses they so hate are playing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082602And I'm fucking done with it. Brady: One more lie about Amber on this thread or any other and you're banned.
As you wish, your site your rules. This is my acknowledgement that I have seen this.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082604Sorry, but is Charisma a "metacurrency" in D&D? Or is it an ability score that can affect how people in the game world see you? Is "Luck" a metacurrency in Dungeon Crawl Classics?
NO.
Charisma also doesn't control how the universe objectively feels about you (as in the cold, uncaring things out there that aren't affected by force of personality). Stuff does. Is your assertion that metagame mechanics cannot also be a part of the setting? Because, if so, I'm not sure I see where there's a clear line on that.
What would you draw as that line and do you have an example of what is on one side of that line and what is on the other? (Preferably from an actual game.) What are you defining as a metacurrency here? That may help my understanding.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082610No, it wouldn't. There's RPGs, and then there's storygames which are not a subcategory of RPG, they're a derived separate game.
So what's the super-category then and why is an RPG different than a storygame? I've had other people's perspectives on it in this thread, but not yours so far.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082625Charisma also doesn't control how the universe objectively feels about you (as in the cold, uncaring things out there that aren't affected by force of personality).
The conceit of the setting is that it does.
But regardless, stuff doesn't actually allow a player to change the universe or to treat the world as a story they can edit or add to. In fact, they have no control whatsoever over what stuff does or doesn't do for them.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082626So what's the super-category then and why is an RPG different than a storygame? I've had other people's perspectives on it in this thread, but not yours so far.
There is no 'supercategory', except maybe if you mean something like "game genres that in some way derived from Little Wars".
An RPG is different from a storygame, in brief, in that an RPG creates a virtual worlds and players try to immerse themselves in playing characters in that virtual living world; while a story game is meant to tell a story and players take the roles of co-authors trying to craft a story out of a setting and characters that are non-living literary backdrops for the story to happen in and with.
If RPGs create anything, it's History. Storygames create a kind of literature. Mostly badly, in my opinion, but some storygamers seem to like that... though I think mostly they like the sense of smugness they get being fans of those games.
One commonality - storygames can involve play-acting, and RPGs can involve play-acting. Only the latter normally involve you-are-there immersion though.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082905There is no 'supercategory', except maybe if you mean something like "game genres that in some way derived from Little Wars".
An RPG is different from a storygame, in brief, in that an RPG creates a virtual worlds and players try to immerse themselves in playing characters in that virtual living world; while a story game is meant to tell a story and players take the roles of co-authors trying to craft a story out of a setting and characters that are non-living literary backdrops for the story to happen in and with.
If RPGs create anything, it's History. Storygames create a kind of literature. Mostly badly, in my opinion, but some storygamers seem to like that... though I think mostly they like the sense of smugness they get being fans of those games.
By your own definition most every RPG you say isn't actually is.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082904The conceit of the setting is that it does.
...wait, how so for Charisma? What setting are we talking about? Stuff does this in Amber, but Charisma doesn't in D&D.
QuoteBut regardless, stuff doesn't actually allow a player to change the universe or to treat the world as a story they can edit or add to. In fact, they have no control whatsoever over what stuff does or doesn't do for them.
OK. That helps a bit see what you're driving at. Yes, they have no control over whether or not the Stuff actually helps or hinders them. It is up to the GM. However, the guidance provided to the GM is that the luck should almost always come up in favor of the character with good stuff. That seems about as metatextrual as, say, Action Points or Bennies for a re-roll or burning Fate in a Warhammer RPG (including pre-Wrath & Glory 40K): you're explicitly changing the setting. The GM may have to arbitrate the how, but the player is making a definite statement of: "This changes things."
That's where I'm still grasping at what's the line, but your next post has some more to chew on for that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082905There is no 'supercategory', except maybe if you mean something like "game genres that in some way derived from Little Wars".
I mean it in the sense of both Chess and D&D are Games. Chess is a competitive board game. D&D is a tabletop RPG. They're in different categories, but they're both, undeniably, in the Set of Games.
QuoteAn RPG is different from a storygame, in brief, in that an RPG creates a virtual worlds and players try to immerse themselves in playing characters in that virtual living world; while a story game is meant to tell a story and players take the roles of co-authors trying to craft a story out of a setting and characters that are non-living literary backdrops for the story to happen in and with.
What's an example of a Storygame then? Because I would point to something like Anima Prime as being very heavily storygame driven (players work together to have Group Seeds, to help set the setting, cannot die without their approval as part of driving the plot forward), yet, in actual play, each player assumes the role of a single character. They are to get immersed in just that character.
Similarly, Dogs in the Vineyard seems to have that same sort of flavor. It's all about creating a story (that usually ends with everyone killing each other for being heretics), but during play it's driven entirely by immersing yourself in the character.
A counter example: Exalted. It's undeniably a tabletop RPG, but Stunting explicitly allows a player to break the rules. While in the end it's still subject to Storyteller control, it's still a present factor. Much more so with, say, Fair Folk, where you are assuming the role of one fey whose very job is to create a good story and is actively rewarded or hindered for doing or failing to do that.
D&D, at least as far back as 3E, not sure about further, has had framework and rules for how to do 'shared DMing'. 4E was probably the first one that made it very explicit and 5E still retains that DNA in the DMG.
Honestly, I cannot think of a single game that would fit the description of "characters . . . are non-living literary backdrops" except for, maybe, that spy one brought up earlier in this thread. But even that I'm not willing to definitively state this is a factor in it because I haven't read it thoroughly. Someone better equipped than I can answer that.
So do you have an example of characters as non-living literary backdrops? What games come to mind for you on that? Because under estar's description and categorization I was able to get a pretty good understanding of where he was coming from and what might be considered a wargame v. tabletop game v. storygame to him. I could see fuzzy limits, but limits nonetheless. Here, I still don't see limits, and so the term is empty to me at the moment. It's waiting to be filled with meaning.
QuoteIf RPGs create anything, it's History.
Not sure what you mean by this. What are you saying is the distinction between history and literature here?
QuoteStorygames create a kind of literature. Mostly badly, in my opinion, but some storygamers seem to like that... though I think mostly they like the sense of smugness they get being fans of those games.
I have no basis for comparison on this one, so I can neither agree nor disagree. I have no reason to doubt your experiences on the matter though so... no contradiction from me!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1082905There is no 'supercategory', except maybe if you mean something like "game genres that in some way derived from Little Wars".
Nonsense. Fiasco and D&D certainly have enough properties in common (and which set them apart from other games) to recognize them as belonging to one "supercategory" of games. "Played in the collective imagination", "playing as an individual" and "characterization" come to mind.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082939Not sure what you mean by this. What are you saying is the distinction between history and literature here?
History is emergent instead of crafted (unless you believe in the divine and lack of free will, that is). What the Pundit does neglect to observe is that people are generally not so much interested in history but rather in
dramatized fiction. I don't want to get beat from 64 HPs down to 25, without consequence, only to get magically healed after combat to be fit enough for the next encounter. So, yes, that is an emergent situation but it's not the type of situation I want in my games.
There's more to it but the essential point is that there can be a conflict between emergent gameplay and proper dramatization. I believe that handling that conflict is what the next generation of RPGs is about and Mr. Kalinowski is presently quite busy in contributing his share in resolving that.
Interesting... but that definition, of being emergent instead of crafted, does that mean any game which has a semi-crafted narrative is no longer an RPG?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082975Interesting... but that definition, of being emergent instead of crafted, does that mean any game which has a semi-crafted narrative is no longer an RPG?
No, just that D&Dno longer is an RPG...
That was what I was thinking of, but it could fit others. :)
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082965Nonsense. Fiasco and D&D certainly have enough properties in common
Doesn't have a human referee hence not a tabletop roleplaying game.
The reason there is never a definition, is because everyone insists on a definition that includes what they themselves find appealing. Which is impossible to apply broadly.
Quote from: estar;1082985Doesn't have a human referee hence not a tabletop roleplaying game.
If(!) that was a necessary prerequisite, then yes. But then again we were talking about supercategories, so that objection is beside the point.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082990If(!) that was a necessary prerequisite, then yes. But then again we were talking about supercategories, so that objection is beside the point.
If it is about characters interacting with a setting then it is roleplaying game.
If it a about achieving victory condition either cooperatively or competitive then it is a wargame
If it is about creating a collabrative narrative then it is a type of storygame
It not that complex with the observation that storygames being the newest of the bunch still diversifying.
Take fiasco when it boiled what its primary focus, the rules and sales pitch all point to everybody working together to create a narrative about capers using the rules of a game. To me because of the fiddliness of the rules it edges more to wargame territory but it not a wargame because it pretty freeform compared to most wargames I seen. It not a roleplaying game because it more about the narrative flow of a caper and making that happen with it rules. Although it has individual characters there little in the way of being a character doing whatever a character can do within the setting. Instead it strictly governed by using fiasco's mechanics and creatively interpreting the result. Which happens to be structured in a way that works very well with narratives about caper.
You can't look at the mechanics to figure out what a game is about and what category it fits in. You has to look at what advice the author give, what support material are supplied, what is the easier to do with the mechanics. And there will be issue with each of these. Poor design, the author thinking they are doing one thing but in actual play it turns out different, and so on makes the answer nuanced.
But while it nuanced for specific games, there are clear categories that are easily definied among them board games, wargames, roleplaying games, and storygames.
Quote from: estar;1083026If it is about characters interacting with a setting then it is roleplaying game.
If it a about achieving victory condition either cooperatively or competitive then it is a wargame
If it is about creating a collabrative narrative then it is a type of storygame
It not that complex with the observation that storygames being the newest of the bunch still diversifying.
Well, everybody is entitled to their own set of definitions, especially in controversial matters.
Quote from: estar;1083026Take fiasco when it boiled what its primary focus, the rules and sales pitch all point to everybody working together to create a narrative about capers using the rules of a game. To me because of the fiddliness of the rules it edges more to wargame territory but it not a wargame because it pretty freeform compared to most wargames I seen. It not a roleplaying game because it more about the narrative flow of a caper and making that happen with it rules. Although it has individual characters there little in the way of being a character doing whatever a character can do within the setting. Instead it strictly governed by using fiasco's mechanics and creatively interpreting the result. Which happens to be structured in a way that works very well with narratives about caper.
And yet both the publisher as well as wikipedia (plus rpg.net) tell me it's a role-playing game, so let's just say that your above definitions are heterodox.
Quote from: estar;1083026But while it nuanced for specific games, there are clear categories that are easily definied among them board games, wargames, roleplaying games, and storygames.
If they were clear categories, then it should be uncontroversial. But it isn't. It's where you personally draw the line. Others may draw the line differently. That's often enough the case when two classes of entities both have characteristics in common as well as distinguishing properties.
Reminder: I personally don't care if calling extremely narrativist RPGs storygames as a separate category of games becomes orthodox.
Why not use terms as:
Story centric RPG
Role centric RPG
Boardgame RPG
Et.c
Quote from: estar;1083026If it is about characters interacting with a setting then it is roleplaying game.
If it a about achieving victory condition either cooperatively or competitive then it is a wargame
If it is about creating a collabrative narrative then it is a type of storygame
It not that complex with the observation that storygames being the newest of the bunch still diversifying.
Take fiasco when it boiled what its primary focus, the rules and sales pitch all point to everybody working together to create a narrative about capers using the rules of a game. To me because of the fiddliness of the rules it edges more to wargame territory but it not a wargame because it pretty freeform compared to most wargames I seen. It not a roleplaying game because it more about the narrative flow of a caper and making that happen with it rules. Although it has individual characters there little in the way of being a character doing whatever a character can do within the setting. Instead it strictly governed by using fiasco's mechanics and creatively interpreting the result. Which happens to be structured in a way that works very well with narratives about caper.
You can't look at the mechanics to figure out what a game is about and what category it fits in. You has to look at what advice the author give, what support material are supplied, what is the easier to do with the mechanics. And there will be issue with each of these. Poor design, the author thinking they are doing one thing but in actual play it turns out different, and so on makes the answer nuanced.
But while it nuanced for specific games, there are clear categories that are easily definied among them board games, wargames, roleplaying games, and storygames.
This seems so obviously true to me that of course no one will just accept this and shut the fuck up. :D
Quote from: estar;1083026If it is about characters interacting with a setting then it is roleplaying game.
If it a about achieving victory condition either cooperatively or competitive then it is a wargame
If it is about creating a collabrative narrative then it is a type of storygame
It not that complex with the observation that storygames being the newest of the bunch still diversifying.
Take fiasco when it boiled what its primary focus, the rules and sales pitch all point to everybody working together to create a narrative about capers using the rules of a game. To me because of the fiddliness of the rules it edges more to wargame territory but it not a wargame because it pretty freeform compared to most wargames I seen. It not a roleplaying game because it more about the narrative flow of a caper and making that happen with it rules. Although it has individual characters there little in the way of being a character doing whatever a character can do within the setting. Instead it strictly governed by using fiasco's mechanics and creatively interpreting the result. Which happens to be structured in a way that works very well with narratives about caper.
You can't look at the mechanics to figure out what a game is about and what category it fits in. You has to look at what advice the author give, what support material are supplied, what is the easier to do with the mechanics. And there will be issue with each of these. Poor design, the author thinking they are doing one thing but in actual play it turns out different, and so on makes the answer nuanced.
But while it nuanced for specific games, there are clear categories that are easily definied among them board games, wargames, roleplaying games, and storygames.
Spot on !
But you realize you're not allowed to make sense of complex matters in an intelligible and well-articulated way, aren't you ? This is the geeky gaming interwabs for Frell's sake - we're not supposed to wholeheartedly agree on
anything ever ;-) !
If there is no trolls, there is no RPG:s
Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083061Spot on !
But you realize you're not allowed to make sense of complex matters in an intelligible and well-articulated way, aren't you ? This is the geeky gaming interwabs for Frell's sake - we're not supposed to wholeheartedly agree on anything ever ;-) !
Because I cannot see it being spot on at all. Role-playing scenarios do have victory conditions. Let's have a look at one of the Pundit's adventures, DAA1 - The Ghost of Jack Cade on London Bridge. To quote:
"The PCs should be encouraged to investigate the rumors about Jack Cade's ghost. After asking questions (and maybe asking them to the wrong persons, which may lead them into
) the PCs should eventually see the ghost at night. In , the PCs then should eventually come to find and and recover - and
- . The adventure will then be able to continue with a sequel outlined at the end of this scenario."
I fail to categorize this scenario as anything other than having victory conditions. If you find NPC Y and do Z, thereby recovering A and B, you get to feel like you have "beat the scenario."
So, no, we won't agree on this.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083068Because I cannot see it being spot on at all. Role-playing scenarios do have victory conditions.
Let's cut the bullshit, the "victory conditions" of roleplaying are exactly the same as "victory conditions" of life, the achievement of some goal that the individual or group have set for themselves.
And like the "victory conditions" of life part of the appeal of roleplaying games is their freeform nature in setting "victory condition".
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083068I fail to categorize this scenario as anything other than having victory conditions. If you find NPC Y and do Z, thereby recovering A and B, you get to feel like you have "beat the scenario."
Or like in life you find something more interesting and the situation regarding Jack Cade's ghost never get resolved.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083068So, no, we won't agree on this.
So when does a roleplaying campaign end?
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047Well, everybody is entitled to their own set of definitions, especially in controversial matters.
So you are saying you have no effective counter point to my chain of reasoning and have to resort to saying that "It's only Rob's opinion so why does it matter".
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047And yet both the publisher as well as wikipedia (plus rpg.net) tell me it's a role-playing game, so let's just say that your above definitions are heterodox.
Anybody can make a claim but is it backed by the evidence?
Author's intent and what they write out about is important because what define what a game is largely one of focus. But focus is not determine by what the author says but what they choose to write about within their game.
So just because Jason Morningstar says it a roleplaying game doesn't mean it is one. Do determine what kind of game Fiasco is, you have to look within and see what Jason Morningstar writes about.
I have a copy of Fiasco and played it over the years. if you want to talk about specific points I will be happy too. In the interest of brevity, it quite obvious that it is about collaborating on creating a narrative about capers using a pool of dice. That there may or may not be roleplaying a character in the same sense as D&D and other tabletop RPGs. It more about going through the Act One, The Tilt, Act Two, Aftermath structure and using the dice pool to work up a narrative as a group.
It is not about pretending to be a character part of a group executing a caper. Something that reinforced by the fact there no referee, thus no fog of war, the lack of free form structure for the events that unfold, and the fact that much of the game will involve description not characterization or roleplaying.
For example on page 10 talking about scenes
QuoteIt's also possible a scene won't involve any role-playing at all – just description. If that's what's called for, there's no need to shoe-horn role-playing into the scene.
So despite the claims of the author, or what wikipedia says it is not a game like D&D, Traveller, Champions, GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, etc. Nor it about achieving victory conditions either cooperatively like Shadowrun Crossfire, or competitively like Panzerblitz. It not a roleplaying game because it not focused on pretending to be characters within a setting. Rather it focused on creating narratives about capers who happen to involved characters.
It clear from it focus on collaborating on a narrative that it is a storygame.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047If they were clear categories, then it should be uncontroversial.
Oh there is another area of human creativity where things are settled after fifty years of development? Film has had a hundred years of development and people are still sorting it out. And theater has had thousands of years and yet things are still not settled.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047But it isn't. It's where you personally draw the line. Others may draw the line differently. That's often enough the case when two classes of entities both have characteristics in common as well as distinguishing properties.
My job when sharing how I view things to explain how I arrived at my conclusion in such a way, that one can apply it themselves. I don't expect being able to apply my reasoning means there is agreement. Only that there is understanding of what I am getting at.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047Reminder: I personally don't care if calling extremely narrativist RPGs storygames as a separate category of games becomes orthodox.
It only important when people are trying to find games like X. One part marketing in order to sell product, and one part finding other hobbyists to play with. People have strong opinions from both positions.
If one has an solid audience with a reputation, or one has a stable group to play with, then being able to find games like X is not an issue. Thus giving rise to disagreement over the importance of categories.
My view both sides are handled by clear communication. What I am looking (or offering) for is X described tersely and clearly.
Quote from: estar;1083026If it is about characters interacting with a setting then it is roleplaying game.
If it a about achieving victory condition either cooperatively or competitive then it is a wargame
If it is about creating a collabrative narrative then it is a type of storygame
That's where, as we discussed before though, the spectrum comes in. What happens when each of these conditions is met in a single game?
A D&D campaign can be all about interacting with the setting, but the Quest has a clear victory condition that will mark the end of the campaign, and it was designed to fit the character's backstories, with the player's input, to create a collaborative narrative.
So if these are treated as binary conditions then D&D is now a Roleplaying game that is a Wargame that is a Storygame. All depending on what the players and DM want to do with it. And the game was explicitly designed (at least 3e and onward) to support all of the above.
(I make this post only to say that while you can delineate these clear categories, that will not stop confusion on any given instance of the categories. Or these terms need to be a bit more rigorously defined.)
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097That's where, as we discussed before though, the spectrum comes in. What happens when each of these conditions is met in a single game?
A D&D campaign can be all about interacting with the setting, but the Quest has a clear victory condition that will mark the end of the campaign, and it was designed to fit the character's backstories, with the player's input, to create a collaborative narrative.
Good questions. The reason for each existing as their own centers is that what needed to do each well with proper support is mutually exclusive. Emphasizing one focus makes the material harder or useless for people focusing on the other aspects.
One central issue is player's agency as their character. Storygames and wargames restrict agency as one's character in favor of other things that are focused on. Which is why games gravitate to various categories.
For example, limiting the players in a tabletop roleplaying campaign to the adventure at hand pushes it away from the center of tabletop roleplaying and more towards the center of wargames. Because in wargames, the default expectation is that one will use the rules of the game in an attempt to achieve the victory conditions of the scenarios.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097A D&D campaign can be all about interacting with the setting, but the Quest has a clear victory condition that will mark the end of the campaign, and it was designed to fit the character's backstories, with the player's input, to create a collaborative narrative.
It not a victory condition in the sense of a wargame. It an achievement of a goal like we do in life.
The narrative that result is a description of what occurred during the campaign and not the same as the deliberate act of creation that storygames enable. Creating backstories together prior to the first session is part of creating the setting of the campaign.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097So if these are treated as binary conditions then D&D is now a Roleplaying game that is a Wargame that is a Storygame. All depending on what the players and DM want to do with it. And the game was explicitly designed (at least 3e and onward) to support all of the above.
It not binary because element of all three are useful to each other.
The playset of Fiasco can serve as a foundation for campaigns or adventures in tabletop roleplaying or scenario in a wargame. The effort put into creating an elaborate D&D setting can enrich a wargame (like Battletech) or serve as a playset for Fiasco.
The mechanics of a wargame like AH's, Stocks & Bonds can be useful to figure out the outcome of something the player wants to do as their character while investing in the stock market, or to figure out the details of a scene in Fiasco.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097(I make this post only to say that while you can delineate these clear categories, that will not stop confusion on any given instance of the categories. Or these terms need to be a bit more rigorously defined.)
Or the implications of each need to be explored and understood.
For example in tabletop roleplaying the fundamental mechanic is you describing what you do as your character within the setting and me telling you the results. The rules most say that are tabletop roleplaying games are aides, and tools to make the above easier and consistent.
However it quite common for players to limit themselves only to the actions described by the rules they are using. It is also common for referees limit actions of players as their characters to those only those allowed within the rules.
Which is fine, and can be fun, along as one realizes that is a choice not a requirement to make a tabletop roleplaying campaign work. The only rule that can't be changed and still be labeled as a tabletop roleplaying campaign. That the players is able to describe what they are doing as their character and there is a human referee to describe the result.
You can have other type of roleplaying campaigns where the human referee is substituted with some other mechanism. However roleplaying games as a supercategory is defined by a focus on players playing a character interacting with a setting.
If you change that to players interacting with a setting then it is something else. If you change players playing something other than a character then it is something else.
If you still have players playing a character but doing something else other than interacting with a setting then it is something else.
Perhaps it would be clearer to say that roleplaying games are game where the players plays a character interacting with a setting as their character. But that to me seems a little redundant, however I could be wrong in terms of clarity.
Using the above Tabletop roleplaying games are where players play a character interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.
Whereas CRPGS are games where players play a character interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a software algorithm.
And LARPS are games where players play a character interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by the rules of a sport. Or perhaps to be clearer "by the rules governing physical activity".
I think you're splitting frog hairs on that "victory condition vs. goal" thing. Specifically, how is a victory condition distinct from a goal.
Wargame Victory Condition - drive the opposing force from the town.
Role-Playing Goal - drive the opposing force from town.
It should be noted that both Wargames and RPGs can be played in campaign style where the outcome affects future events so even "ends the campaign" is not an actual element of a wargame victory condition.
In other words, I fail to see a meaningful difference between a stated goal and a victory condition except that one is nomenclature commonly used in wargames without some additional caveats.
I'm not arguing that a wargame and RPG are the same (they're not and most people can tell the difference the same way you can identify porn vs. artistic nudity)... just that if the only difference is nomenclature then it's some other element(s) that separates them.
One area worth exploring might be in determining what's a meaningful goal or not. For example, in an RPG I could declare a goal of being the first person to reach X on the battlefield and if I do this I've reached my goal. But in a wargame this goal may or may not count as a victory condition depending on how those are determined.
Chess as the archetypal wargame has the goal of checkmating the opposing king. You can set any other goals you wish, but if you fail in that one you've either lost or drawn the match.
So perhaps... "A wargame has predetermined goals the players cannot change once begun, an RPG has player set goals that can be changed during the game"?
Quote from: Chris24601;1083115I think you're splitting frog hairs on that "victory condition vs. goal" thing. Specifically, how is a victory condition distinct from a goal.
Wargame Victory Condition - drive the opposing force from the town.
Role-Playing Goal - drive the opposing force from town.
It should be noted that both Wargames and RPGs can be played in campaign style where the outcome affects future events so even "ends the campaign" is not an actual element of a wargame victory condition.
In other words, I fail to see a meaningful difference between a stated goal and a victory condition except that one is nomenclature commonly used in wargames without some additional caveats.
Quote from: Chris24601;1083115I'm not arguing that a wargame and RPG are the same (they're not and most people can tell the difference the same way you can identify porn vs. artistic nudity)... just that if the only difference is nomenclature then it's some other element(s) that separates them.
In wargames the achieving victory conditions are the point and the expectation is that one will stay within the rules of the game in order to achieve them. Even when there is a referee, the same expectation is still there. What make a human referee useful to a wargame is that things like fog of water can be implemented properly, and various factors can be considered with more nuance. The victory condition is required for the wargame to work as a game.
In tabletop roleplaying the same victory condition is incidental to being a character within a setting. It may be important for enjoyment but it not necessary for the game to happen.
Quote from: Chris24601;1083115A wargame has predetermined goals the players cannot change once begun, an RPG has player set goals that can be changed during the game"?
Except you can play a character in a tabletop roleplaying who has no goals. Just along for the ride so speak.
My definition implies this compared to wargames. It does not specify any limitation on how a player interacts with a setting except that they do it as their character. That the result are adjudicated by a human referee. Changing goals or having goal are both covered by this.
Quote from: estar;1083092Let's cut the bullshit, the "victory conditions" of roleplaying are exactly the same as "victory conditions" of life, the achievement of some goal that the individual or group have set for themselves.
Sounds more like there's rather a potential difference in the type of victory conditions: the victory conditions of a wargame tend to be militaristic, by nature. But, yeah, in theory you can change victory conditions during actual play of an RPG. In practice? Depends on the GM's flexibility to roll with it.
But generally you have a victory condition in one form or another in RPGs, even if it can be changed by the players.
Quote from: estar;1083093So when does a roleplaying campaign end?
Depends on the campaign. Some are open-ended ("We're just playing Shadowrun scenarios every Friday"), while others may or may not end when reaching a specific goal ("Stop Sauron", "Reach level 20" or "Bring the Jericho Reach fully back into the fold"). Open-ended campaigns are probably less common in wargaming but it's quite possible to do one with, say, Warhammer 40K.
Quote from: Chris24601;1083115Chess as the archetypal wargame has the goal of checkmating the opposing king. You can set any other goals you wish, but if you fail in that one you've either lost or drawn the match.
Seems to me you've just answered your own question: Checkmate is a victory condition, which determines whether you win, lose, or draw. Any other side objectives you may choose to pursue during the game are goals, which do not (directly) determine the outcome of the game, though they may influence your experience of it (e.g., feeling good that you succeeded in your personal goal or disappointed that you failed, independently of whether you ultimately won or lost).
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082939Similarly, Dogs in the Vineyard seems to have that same sort of flavor. It's all about creating a story (that usually ends with everyone killing each other for being heretics), but during play it's driven entirely by immersing yourself in the character.
Pretty sure that's not correct; it's been quite a few years, but from what I recall in DiTV you resolve situations by stating the 'stakes' of what you want to happen, and whoever rolls higher has that thing happen. The roll is completely divorced from any kind of emulation.