Quote from: NathanIW;743414That's how pronounced it is.  That's how easy it is to pick up on.  There are examples right here in this thread.  I'm not speaking for anyone, I'm describing what I've heard them say.

What you are missing is a lot of us really don't care about this debate.

Quote from: CRKrueger;743346That's the whole point of the Forge - System Matters, so you want story, you make rules for it.

And where they (Edwards, etc) missed the big fucking point is that there was ALREADY A RULE for doing that. Implicit in the setup of tabletop roleplaying from day. This magical rules is quite simply stated as

QuoteThis is a game where you pretend to be a character in an imagined setting.

It may not be a sexy rule according to Edwards and the ilk. It may not involves using little chips to keep track of points, rolling dice, playing a card, or involve structured negotiations. But it is a rule none the less. A rule that lies at the heart of every single tabletop roleplaying game ever made and ever will be made.

Follow that rule and the problems with "story" disappear. Just pretend to be a character in whatever setting the referee is trying to present. Or in some campaigns whatever setting the group is trying to present.

If there is a problem then it because the referee (or the group) is presenting an uninteresting or boring setting in which to pretend to be a character in. It could be because people are asshole and rigged the game. It could be truly uninteresting  or any number of reason. The proper response is to change the damn setting. Not try and find some magic "rule" to make the magic happen.

Quote from: NathanIW;743414Many of the most prolific posters do.  And it's colouring their interaction with someone who actually knows about the industry as a whole.

Why should you care?

You've basically been playing to the peanut gallery, talking about people who have posted to the thread, who you could have interacted with directly.

Instead, you're being a smug arse talking about people who are in the room.

Ryan knows this place better than you. He's been in and around the place for ages, posted to Pundit's blog for years, and been involved in the discussions you seem to feel compelled to 'instruct' him in.

Sorry, but it's condescending in the extreme, both to the posters you're pissing on, and to Ryan.

Quote from: RSDancey;743280Mouseguard is a Modern Midmarket RPG.  It's more successful than most RPGs published since 2000.  It has probably outsold every "OSR" game combined.  Do you think that game is a failure?

Quote from: NathanIW;743287I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you that for some reason Mouseguard doesn't count as an RPG in a blatant display of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I'm not terribly familiar with Mouseguard, but I have heard some things about it's play that lead me to believe that it is a quasi-rpg at best.

What I learned was secondhand, and so may be the fault of the person running the game and not so much the game itself. The issue was one of "framing challenges". Supposedly, there was a situation in-game that could be approached with either diplomacy or combat. The players chose diplomacy and the challenge was resolved via the mechanics.

So far so good. The issue arose, when the diplomacy was unsuccessful, that some of the players wanted to go some old fashioned ass-kicking as plan B and were told no because they chose to frame the challenge as diplomacy.

Was this the GM being a tool or running the game as written?  

If this is the way the game is written it is far away from any rpg I would want to play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;743417What you are missing is a lot of us really don't care about this debate.

I don't recall saying it was universal, just prevalent.  Examples right in this thread.

And our host is committed enough to it that there's a separate forum for games that don't meet the criteria of getting to count as an RPG.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;743424So far so good. The issue arose, when the diplomacy was unsuccessful, that some of the players wanted to go some old fashioned ass-kicking as plan B and were told no because they chose to frame the challenge as diplomacy.

Was this the GM being a tool or running the game as written?  

It's the GM insisting on staying in one form of combat after the players have essentially gave up on winning through diplomacy and switched to another form of combat.  Sure, they lost the diplomacy, but now it's time for some violence.

There are possibilities though, where the character is convinced by the diplomacy and disallowing physical combat after they failed to get what they want is a quashing of metagaming.  Like when a DM dissuades a player if from attacking a peasant given that they are lawful good and work for the local baron.  It's not something their character would do.  Some would even say the DM has the right to forbid such an action.  Others would not even dissuade and go right to the consequences.

So it is possible that you can enter into talks and in doing so lose the ability to resort to violence without some other factor coming up.  Burning Wheel and Mouseguard allows the mechanics to impact your character's state of mind and then asks the player to roleplay their character accordingly.

QuoteIf this is the way the game is written it is far away from any rpg I would want to play.

I could see it rubbing people the wrong way.  In D&D you can have charm magic that can constrain player choices, but in D&D, would you ever accept the idea that someone can be convincing enough to similarly constrain player chocies?  So the issue can also be present in OD&D given the rulings of the DM.  How much can a player be constrained in their choices before it stops counting as an RPG?

Quote from: NathanIW;743427I don't recall saying it was universal, just prevalent.  Examples right in this thread.

And our host is committed enough to it that there's a separate forum for games that don't meet the criteria of getting to count as an RPG.

Again I am so not interested in this debate. Just commenting because yet another interesting discussion has succumbed to this topic by people on both sides that can't help themselves. Including yourself.

Quote from: One Horse Town;743421Instead, you're being a smug arse talking about people who are in the room.

If someone has already shown they'll just shift the goal posts to protect their position, what chance for real dialogue with them do I have?

QuoteRyan knows this place better than you. He's been in and around the place for ages, posted to Pundit's blog for years, and been involved in the discussions you seem to feel compelled to 'instruct' him in.

Just think of it as a friendly reminder that he's discussing things in good faith and they're not.  The response to him pointing out that Mouseguard outsold the entire OSR combined?

It doesn't count as real success because the people who bought mouseguard probably don't play it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

Quote from: NathanIW;743432I could see it rubbing people the wrong way.  In D&D you can have charm magic that can constrain player choices, but in D&D, would you ever accept the idea that someone can be convincing enough to similarly constrain player chocies?  So the issue can also be present in OD&D given the rulings of the DM.  How much can a player be constrained in their choices before it stops counting as an RPG?

Barring an effect present in the game world (such as psionics/magic, etc.) decisions are always for the player to make. The GM has quite a bit of influence on the rest of the world but when it comes to player characters the player is king. The GM should never presume to tell a player how his character feels about something, much less dictate what he does or doesn't do.

Abuses in this area are what produce the badtouched players who demand more narrative control.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;743433Again I am so not interested in this debate. Just commenting because yet another interesting discussion has succumbed to this topic by people on both sides that can't help themselves. Including yourself.

Go back to me only being around for two months and understand that I'm still in the process of saying my piece on the topic.  I've haven't been here posting about this for years, like some have.

The original question of this thread has been pretty much asked and answered.  And this secondary topic spawned directly out of Ryan's insights about the industry.  This isn't a derailment, but a conclusion of one line of discussion and the opening of another.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;743438Barring an effect present in the game world (such as psionics/magic, etc.) decisions are always for the player to make. The GM has quite a bit of influence on the rest of the world but when it comes to player characters the player is king. The GM should never presume to tell a player how his character feels about something, much less dictate what he does or doesn't do.

Abuses in this area are what produce the badtouched players who demand more narrative control.

That could be entirely the case.  I think you might be right about that.

I like some constraint through narration.  I'm not committed to 100% freedom of decisions by the players as I find that appropriateness is a real thing.  Like if a player started using sci-fi jargon in a fantasy game.  I wouldn't really accept "my decision about what my character says is 100% mine!" if they kept insisting on calling fantasy elements by a sci-fi analogue all the time.  

Just like I also say no to non-genre appropriate character names.  People don't get to be Captain Blasto in a bronze age fantasy setting. And they don't get to mix saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal in a 6:1:1 ratio and make gunpowder just because they can describe their character doing so.  That action isn't appropriate to the genre nor appropriate to the character's knowledge and if I end up making someone into a badtouched player by forbidding it, I'm willing to accept the risk.

I find Mouseguard's pushing of this notion of appropriateness into the realm of reactions, actions, emotional states, etc., to be too far for my liking though.  It asks a lot of the players and if you don't have a given player completely buy into the idea that the system can constrain their actions, it's going to really suck.

How often can a DM constrain people's actions or dictate emotional states before they're no longer running an RPG?  How often can the Mouseguard mechanics constrain people's action or dictate emotional states before they game is no longer an RPG and just what some might consider a bad one?  Is Call of Cthulhu not an RPG because the sanity mechanic dictates character emotions at times?  Or when it does so, is it just a bad mechanic?

Quote from: NathanIW;743436Just think of it as a friendly reminder that he's discussing things in good faith and they're not.  

Talking of good faith, maybe you can stop editing things into your posts after the fact.

Most of this Forge stuff is way over my head.

All I can say is that I've got a couple of players who like to get deep into their character's backgrounds and want to see subplots connected with those, but the majority couldn't care less. And the more players I get in the group, the less time there is for that kind of individuation.

Quote from: Saplatt;743497Most of this Forge stuff is way over my head.

I hear you.  I just want to roll dice and have fun.

Shared narrative control is very good for game designers that want to collaboratively create a setting. They are not relevant for players that want to play their character in their GM's setting which they share it with their fellow players.
In consequence, shared narrative control mechanics do not have a lot to do with traditional rpgs.