Quote from: Name LipsThe funny thing is that, really, role- and roll-playing both have a part in a good campaign. You get sick of "role playing," and relish the thought of having a nice, tactical combat. And when that "roll playing" is done, you shift back. The problem isn't that one is a better way to play than the other, the problem is that there are people in all systems who focus so strongly, it's pretty much to the exclusion of the other.

Agreed.  Sometimes you want to cradle 15d6 in your hands and shake it like a polaroid picture and let it go.  Other times you want to banter with the Benny the Bard about the goings on of Mork the Merciless and how his actions centuries ago impacted the landscape of the world today.

Both are fun and can be a part of the same game.

Wow - I just read through your 'Swine' blog posts, and found them to be some of the most pretentious things I've ever read.  You presume to know the best way to game, and that you know the true motives of the "White Wolf" crowd.

Hi, I'm Maddman, and I'm a swine.  Or at least you would likely categorize me as one.  I don't have much patience for RPGs as tactical games.  I know much more entertaining tactical games, thanks.  I play RPGs to play a role, and I do high-falutin' things like character driven play, addressing social/interpersonal issues, dealing with themes, and encouraging conflict.

Where you're wrong is the motive for this - it isn't because I 'intellectualize' gaming, it's because I've found when I do these things we have awesome crazy amounts of fun.  It makes for better gaming.  You'd said you've never seen someone play with the character as a set-piece.  Well, I have.  What I've never seen is someone trying to treat RPGs as art.  Even the Forgites (who can accurately be accused of overintellectualizing gaming) have a focus on actual play and making for fun gaming.  These "Swine" posts appear to be big straw men.

Does WoD say that it's intended for more story oriented gaming rather than tactical play?  So what - it's true!  The rules don't have a depth of tactical combat options that a game like D&D has, should they pretend that it's otherwise?  You don't care for social skills - nothing wrong with that, lots of people don't care for them.  Used correctly I've found them to be quite useful not at replacing roleplaying but supplimenting it.  The social skills can reflect the 'unspoken' things like personal presence or body language.  Or the player may use them as a guide - roll the check and then roleplay the encounter based on that.  In neither case do dice replace roleplaying.

But that's all a matter of taste, some people like crunchy tactical options, others don't want to bother so they can get into story and drama.  But reading your article made me think that it's not the "swine" who think they are better than other gamers.

Thjalfi has been waiting for the maddman to come and weigh in...

:popcorn:

Meet maddman, father of my future manbabies.

Quote from: fett527Agreed.  Sometimes you want to cradle 15d6 in your hands and shake it like a polaroid picture and let it go.  Other times you want to banter with the Benny the Bard about the goings on of Mork the Merciless and how his actions centuries ago impacted the landscape of the world today.

Both are fun and can be a part of the same game.

ahh... well said.  a good synthesis of both really makes for an interesting game.

Quote from: MaddmanHi, I'm Maddman, and I'm a swine.  

Admitting it is the first step.

QuoteI play RPGs to play a role, and I do high-falutin' things like character driven play, addressing social/interpersonal issues, dealing with themes, and encouraging conflict.

So what you really mean is that you role-play, exactly like the rest of us do when we play D&D or anything else, but you use big words to make yourself feel smarter than the rest of us?
Bully for you.

QuoteWhere you're wrong is the motive for this - it isn't because I 'intellectualize' gaming, it's because I've found when I do these things we have awesome crazy amounts of fun.  

So your "fun" is designed mostly from an elevated sense of self worth at knowing you can do impressive things like "addressing social/interpersonal issues" and pretending that other people can't?
That's pretty sad.

QuoteIt makes for better gaming.  

No, it doesn't. A good plot makes for better gaming. People getting really into their characters makes for better gaming.
Sitting around sipping vermouth and talking about "dealing with themes" makes for a bunch of pseudo-intellectualoid fuckheads feeling good about themselves.

QuoteDoes WoD say that it's intended for more story oriented gaming rather than tactical play?  So what - it's true!

No, WoD says its superior to other RPGs by virtue of being a "storytelling game", whatever the fuck that means.
And its not true at all.

QuoteThe rules don't have a depth of tactical combat options that a game like D&D has, should they pretend that it's otherwise?  

Really? Last time I checked, WoD had a great big chapter on combat, about as long as D&D's. They have vampires with katanas and Uzis blowing up other vampires in leather trenchcoats.
They have "Exalteds" that can blow up cities just past puberty; but of course D&D is bad because its "powergaming".
Right.

QuoteYou don't care for social skills - nothing wrong with that, lots of people don't care for them.  Used correctly I've found them to be quite useful not at replacing roleplaying but supplimenting it.  The social skills can reflect the 'unspoken' things like personal presence or body language.  Or the player may use them as a guide - roll the check and then roleplay the encounter based on that.  In neither case do dice replace roleplaying.

What I don't "care for" is the false claim that this is superior to D&D.  How is rolling five different times for your "influence" dots and then doing a bit of roleplaying in any fucking way superior to rolling your Diplomacy and roleplaying a lot?
Its the lie I don't like, the claim that its better at doing "smarter" roleplay,and the implication that those who see through that lie must therefore be "dumber".

RPGPundit

Quote from: GRIMEh, I don't think it's entirely useless as a way of differentiating.

One way is playing with your character as a playing piece more or less, the other is trying to play as the character.

It's just overused.

That's the kicker though.  The debate has been beaten to death so much as to render it completely useless.

Like Name Lips and Fett, I don't play one or the other.  For me a great game is one that is half-and-half.  Kill the bad guys, take their stuff, and then top off the adventure with some High role-play social intrigue.

RPGPundit, I present exhibit A: Maddman's Story Hour.

A Buffy game! Can you imagine!

What's worse, they're daring to ENJOY it. The BITCHES! They need to go back to playing D&D, or some other REAL game isntead of this story-based nonsense.

:shrug: Looking at it as objectively as I can, I don't think Maddman and RPGPundit are very far apart in their views. It's just a matter of how they choose to interpret what the other is saying.

Quote from: Name LipsRPGPundit, I present exhibit A: Maddman's Story Hour.

A Buffy game! Can you imagine!

What's worse, they're daring to ENJOY it. The BITCHES! They need to go back to playing D&D, or some other REAL game isntead of this story-based nonsense.

RPGPundit isn't saying that, he's commenting on the game itself and the gamers who feel their way is superior.  WW does do that, pick up any Aberrant book and read the opening chapter.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson:shrug: Looking at it as objectively as I can, I don't think Maddman and RPGPundit are very far apart in their views. It's just a matter of how they choose to interpret what the other is saying.

Aside from the quote -

Quote from: MaddmanIt makes for better gaming.

- I don't see where anything that Maddman posted that can be construed as him saying that his style is better than other play styles (and I believe that "to me" was easily implied in his statement).

It's one thing to bash on people who try to lord their style over yours, but it's quite another thing to bash on anyone who plays a style that is the same as the people who lorded it over yours.  That's where I think that "swine" thing falls apart.  It's similar (less violent) to bombing civilians because they live in the same country as the army that you're fighting.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson:shrug: Looking at it as objectively as I can, I don't think Maddman and RPGPundit are very far apart in their views. It's just a matter of how they choose to interpret what the other is saying.

heh, you might just be right. i was noticing that myself.  sometimes adversarial stances are more fun though.  

Shit, if that's really where all his Swine-talk has led him, its pretty sad. My Roman Immortal game is more sophisticated than that, has more complex storylines, deeper characters, and more intricate subplots; and all without having to talk about "addressing theme" or "interpersonal social/conflicts" once.

I mean really, RPGs aren't rocket science or curing cancer or even shakespeare. It isn't hard to make them work, be smart, and be beautiful. The people who like to pretend that it takes a lot of pseudo-intellectual discussion and theory are, on the whole, fuckwits.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo what you really mean is that you role-play, exactly like the rest of us do when we play D&D or anything else, but you use big words to make yourself feel smarter than the rest of us?
Bully for you.

So your "fun" is designed mostly from an elevated sense of self worth at knowing you can do impressive things like "addressing social/interpersonal issues" and pretending that other people can't?
That's pretty sad.

No no no.  I don't do that.  I don't tell my players that we're going to be dealing with themes and issues, I just do it.  I talk with my players, but the most important input they give me is the characters they generate and the actions they take.  In the case of the Buffy game that Name Lips was kind enough to link to, I got what I considered were a group of unlikely heroes.  Even the Slayer wasn't what I would consider typical - more Faith than Buffy.  A misfit witch, a skateboarding punk, a football star werewolf, and a wannabe vampire hunter/comic geek.  So the theme I'm dealing with is asking 'Can the PC's be Heroes?'  The werewolf I put him in a situation where he had to save the day without becoming the wolf, and then set some human hunters on him to see what he would do.  Will he give in to his animal instincts and kill them?  Or maintain his control and find another way to get them off his tail?  The misfit witch was put into a situation where only she knew the truth and had to find a way to show what was happening.  I don't pontificate, and we certainly don't take ourselves too seriously.

QuoteNo, it doesn't. A good plot makes for better gaming. People getting really into their characters makes for better gaming.
Sitting around sipping vermouth and talking about "dealing with themes" makes for a bunch of pseudo-intellectualoid fuckheads feeling good about themselves.

I don't do plots, I do conflicts.  I neither sip vermouth nor do I talk about dealing with themes, I *do* it.  The anal sex references that kept coming up last game make me think you might be a wee bit off on your analysis.

QuoteNo, WoD says its superior to other RPGs by virtue of being a "storytelling game", whatever the fuck that means.
And its not true at all.

Please.  "Storytelling" is the name of their game system.  You're reading way, way too much into that.

QuoteReally? Last time I checked, WoD had a great big chapter on combat, about as long as D&D's. They have vampires with katanas and Uzis blowing up other vampires in leather trenchcoats.

Really, they have that?  That's a required part of every Vampire game?  How many Vampire games have you ran?  How many have you played?  For that matter, what was the last World of Darkness book you've read.  When I say World of Darkness I'm talking about the latest one, the book that says World of Darkness on it.  There are no vampires in that book that I recall.  And while there's a combat chapter it's a fairly abstract system.  Vampire is a suppliment for World of Darkness, and while I haven't read it I hear they're a lot less about Katanas and Uzis these days.  But then if someone wants to have an over the top action filled Vampire game I'm not going to look down my nose at them.

You sound as if you read first edition Vampire from back in the 90s and are judging everything White Wolf produces based on that.  Tell me, do you rail just as hard on the d20 books that White Wolf publishes?

QuoteThey have "Exalteds" that can blow up cities just past puberty; but of course D&D is bad because its "powergaming".
Right.

They do, and Exalted is a ton of fun.  I still don't know who is saying D&D is bad, certainly not White Wolf seeing as how they publish books for it.

QuoteWhat I don't "care for" is the false claim that this is superior to D&D.  How is rolling five different times for your "influence" dots and then doing a bit of roleplaying in any fucking way superior to rolling your Diplomacy and roleplaying a lot?

They're not fundamentally.  The social skills are not really where D&D falls short IMO, it's the lack of interesting character flaws, metagame mechanics (though these are available as optional rules), and personality structures beyond the so vauge to be worthless alignment.  I prefer games like WoD with it's Virtues and Vices and Humanity, or Exalted's Virtues, or Unisystem's Qualities and Drawbacks.  I mean one can get by without them, but the last time I made a D&D character I realized that nothing that I felt was important to the character was on the character sheet.

Its the lie I don't like, the claim that its better at doing "smarter" roleplay,and the implication that those who see through that lie must therefore be "dumber".

RPGPundit[/QUOTE]

Quote from: Phantom StrangerRPGPundit isn't saying that, he's commenting on the game itself and the gamers who feel their way is superior.  WW does do that, pick up any Aberrant book and read the opening chapter.

Well, he's saying a little more than that.  Without knowing for sure if Maddman felt that he was superior, the Pundit made certain assumptions, such as:

QuoteSo what you really mean is that you role-play, exactly like the rest of us do when we play D&D or anything else, but you use big words to make yourself feel smarter than the rest of us?
Bully for you.

and

QuoteSo your "fun" is designed mostly from an elevated sense of self worth at knowing you can do impressive things like "addressing social/interpersonal issues" and pretending that other people can't?
That's pretty sad.

Granted, I kind of expected that sort of response, but I would have to say that the Pundit was reading more into Maddman's posts than was explicitly stated.  Maddman may reply that the Pundit is correct and he does hold his play style to be superior to other people's, but his post does not state that.

For a person who wants "the swine" to leave other gamers alone to play the style that they like, he sure does walk the hypocrite tightrope.

I think that it's called "being controversial" and it has become so ingrained in the Pundit's schtick that it sometimes gets in the way of the message.

Oh well...