Quote from: RPGPunditShit, 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.

Well, in defense of my game, no the characters aren't very deep yet.  We've only had 5 sessions.  Each episode is done within a single game session.  And the storylines are coming, it takes awhile to get things like that going.  It is really good gaming.  I consider it the best game I've ever been in, and I've had some of my veteran players express the same opinion.

And again, I don't *talk* about addressing themes or social conflicts.  I *do* it.    You seem to have this image of us sitting around the table saying "Hmm, what social issue can we address today?"  It does not happen like that.  By social issue I just mean something important to the character - a goal they have, someone they care about, something they fear.  I take that, throw it at them, and see which way they jump.  It's a lot of fun.  Again, the most fun I've ever had at a game table.  So much that I get intimidated, I don't know that I can keep the awesome up.  But I've got awesome players, so if I have an off night they can pick up the slack .

Colonel - you may be right in the end, but right now I don't seem to be able to communicate what I'm on about to him.

Quote from: Maddmanright now I don't seem to be able to communicate what I'm on about to him.

You'll get your chance. I know you - as long as somebody keeps criticizing your gaming style, you'll keep posting trying to explain yourself. You ain't gonna be the one to sulk off silently.

And from what I've seen, neither is Pundit.

And becuase nobody's going to leave the debate, it looks like actual communication and understanding will simply HAVE to occur at some point, or else the argument will simply go on forever.

Quote from: FickleGMWell, 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:

Just to make it clear, I don't think I'm superior.  Apart from "The way I'm doing it now is superior to the way I was doing it before", which included railroaded "story" adventures and site-based "Exploration" adventured.  Focusing on characters and conflict has made for awesome gaming.  I think it works better for me, but other people have other ways of doing it.  I'm not about to sic the RPG police on someone if they just want to go into a dark cave and kill orcs.  More power to 'em.  My way may not work for them.

Also, I didn't decide to try this stuff because it made me feel smart or superior.  I keep an open mind, and once I'd wrapped my mind around some of the Forgey ideas (I haven't fully drank the kool-aid, I actually like Levi's "Little Model" a lot better) I thought I'd try them out.  When I did, everyone loved it.  So I kept doing it.  You are ascribing motives to me (and a lot of people who like this style of gaming) that don't exist.  Do some people try to make themselves sound smarter than those dumb ignorant D&D players?  Sure.  But there's plenty of old school D&D players that are just as arrogant and condesending to any other style of game than theirs.  Don't believe me?  Go post something at Dragonsfoot with something other than adulation for the Holy Writ of Gary.

Quote from: Name LipsYou'll get your chance. I know you - as long as somebody keeps criticizing your gaming style, you'll keep posting trying to explain yourself. You ain't gonna be the one to sulk off silently.

Heh, you got me there.  I think my favorite was posting my game notes beforehand and then the results of the game to prove I wasn't railroading.  

And I don't want to be seen as attacking RPGPundit - I like most of what he's posted so far.  I just think he's off base about this, that he's reading malice where there is none.

Quote from: MaddmanThe anal sex references that kept coming up last game

whew, at least i'm not the only one!  :emot-sissies:

Quote from: MaddmanWell, in defense of my game, no the characters aren't very deep yet.  We've only had 5 sessions.  Each episode is done within a single game session.  And the storylines are coming, it takes awhile to get things like that going.  It is really good gaming.  I consider it the best game I've ever been in, and I've had some of my veteran players express the same opinion.

My point is that I am able to have just as sophisticated a game without relying on "theory" and intellectualizing RPGs.

This means that either I must be a vastly superior GM to you, if you must make all this effort to "catch up" (something I don't find very plausible); or all this stuff is nonsense.

And if it is nonsense, then you're either participating in it because you don't realize how nonsensical it is, or because it serves some other purpose for you (makes you feel "smart") or (most likely) both.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MaddmanHeh, you got me there.  I think my favorite was posting my game notes beforehand and then the results of the game to prove I wasn't railroading.  

And I don't want to be seen as attacking RPGPundit - I like most of what he's posted so far.  I just think he's off base about this, that he's reading malice where there is none.

Not everyone who subscribes to Swine ideas is malicious about it. Many of them don't realize what it is they're actually doing, and are part of that "Lost generation" I talk about that somehow got talked into the idea that "story-based" gaming was the "right" way or the "smart" way to play RPGs.


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMy point is that I am able to have just as sophisticated a game without relying on "theory" and intellectualizing RPGs.

This means that either I must be a vastly superior GM to you, if you must make all this effort to "catch up" (something I don't find very plausible); or all this stuff is nonsense.

And if it is nonsense, then you're either participating in it because you don't realize how nonsensical it is, or because it serves some other purpose for you (makes you feel "smart") or (most likely) both.

RPGPundit

I don't find my game to be improved because it is more sophisticated.  I find it to be better because it is focused on characters and deals with things relevent to those characters.  Result: the players give a shit about the game.  Actually, in many ways it's less sophisticated, or at least less complicated.  They've also led me to recognize gaming as a social event and pay more attention to out of game stuff to improve everyone's good time.

That you had a satisfying game without thinking about theory does not mean that this is nonsense, or that you are a vastly better GM.  It means that we've both found different things that work for us.  I'm not the one saying that my way of doing things is Right, and another way is Wrong.  My only interest in RPG theory is in helping to make for better gaming.  Thus far, it has made my gaming better.

Quote from: RPGPunditMy point is that I am able to have just as sophisticated a game without relying on "theory" and intellectualizing RPGs.

And you can hammer in nails with a rock should you so choose as well, but isn't a hammer better suited to the job?

I don't think the 'swine' you claim to exist, or their attitude, actually exists per se. Perhaps at the design stage but once you release a game people do what they want to do with it regardless, most you can do is try to - maybe - encourage people to play with the same sort of vision you had for the game.

Sometimes you want The Amazing Spiderman, sometimes you want Watchmen.

Is either inherently better than the other? No. But Watchmen is definately more literate, more mature and more 'art' than Spiderman.

Same with games, sometimes you want Kobolds Ate My Baby, sometimes you want Nobilis (Not that we ever worked out how to play that one and call it 'Noblins', but you get my drift).

I think you're fixated on an imaginary problem that blinds you just as much as the people who rail against d20 or anything else anyone gets a bug up their arse about.

Quote from: RPGPunditNot everyone who subscribes to Swine ideas is malicious about it. Many of them don't realize what it is they're actually doing, and are part of that "Lost generation" I talk about that somehow got talked into the idea that "story-based" gaming was the "right" way or the "smart" way to play RPGs.

Well, I'll agree that this went on in the 90s a lot, and D&D was no exception.  I started in the 90s and my entire group HATED modules.  We almost never played them.  They were part of that same era, and they sucked.  Railroad, bland, unengaging suckitude.  I've had dice thrown at me for the mere suggestion of running a module.

But that was then, and to be honest the forgey drama oriented gaming does not have much to do with that "story" (ie railroaded BS) style from back then.  Doesn't have much to do with what I do either.  I think your linked articles really rubbed me the wrong way because, well, calling people Swine is pretty insulting, as is the suggestion that they are 'betraying gaming'.  I think you may be conflating the current trends with the old railroad "story" game of days past.  That's rather fallen out of fashion these days.

But you know I've actually left a group over these issues before.  They wanted no part of this character empowerment or conflict or drama.  They wanted me to railroad them.  That's what I was told - point blank.  They wanted to come to the game and have me tell them a story, with their characters rolling dice at the important bits.  We've parted ways.  Though I still get together with them every now and then because we're all old friends, I've found a new group for my regular gaming.  But I don't blame this on any trend or game, half of them came up on old school AD&D.  They just have a different taste than me.

Regarding "Storytelling": Its more than just the name of the system. Haven't you read Rein·Hagen's essays on it? Its promoted as a "superior alternative" to RPGs.  And while white wolf attempts to distance itself from those kinds of overt claims, their NEW WoD book still betrays exactly the same mentality. They used "roll playing vs. Role Playing" in the book, for fuck's sake.  This wasn't 15 years ago, this was now.

RPGPundit

Maddman: There may be hope for you. If you really don't think you're one of the kind of people I was talking about, then there's a good chance you aren't.

But then, why did you feel the need to come on here and debate me about it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMaddman: There may be hope for you. If you really don't think you're one of the kind of people I was talking about, then there's a good chance you aren't.

But then, why did you feel the need to come on here and debate me about it?

RPGPundit

Because there's always room for Jell-O?  

I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way to have fun, so long as the fatbeards in the crowd don't attempt to claim such a thing exists, or publish it in writing, or brainwash people that there is such a thing.  However you have fun, than that's your way of having fun.

Quote from: RPGPunditMaddman: There may be hope for you. If you really don't think you're one of the kind of people I was talking about, then there's a good chance you aren't.

But then, why did you feel the need to come on here and debate me about it?

RPGPundit

Because you seemed to lump anyone who talked about gaming theory or disliked D&D into this category.  The kind of people you're actually talking about I believe do not exist, or if they do are an irrelevently small minority.  I would be willing to bet most of the people you're railing against look at it a lot like I do.

And Rein-Hagen (no, I will not give him his pretentious dot) hasn't been involved in Vampire or White Wolf for some time now.  I don't recall seeing in nWoD anything about "OMG D&D is teh Suk", but then I wasn't looking for it either.  You seem pretty focused in disgust at White Wolf, which I see as unfair seeing as they not only make Exalted, which is more about releasing your inner munchkin than even D&D, but they publish d20 books themselves.

I've seen everything from hack and slash sessions of Vampire to D&D campaigns that dealt with the social issues of today in their worlds.  If a game is good, I'll play it.  I don't give two shits about whether or not the WW or WotC or Green Ronin guys are trying to show me the "true" way to play RPG's.  All I give a shit about is fun.  As long as the system doesn't get in the way of that, I can easily ignore all the bullshit begin strewn about by supporters and detractors on either side.