Quote from: Haffrung;722536But that requires trust. And the Forge hewed tightly to an ideology where you cannot trust one person at the table to have more authority than another, or that authority will be abused.

Yeah, thats the crux of it. Theres this assumption that the GM is an opponent who must be at all times confined by the rules lest they go out of thier way to ruin the game every chance they get. Sometimes it feels like a giant section of the hobby has turned into a replica of Knights of the Dinner Table, and GM Fiat is the worste possible thing that can happen to a game.

I tell myself thats just online, and forums dont represent the average gamer these days, and I really want to believe that because the alternative is that the hobby has become a giant parody of itself.

Quote from: Haffrung;722536Take a loot at the Hotness on BGG these days. It's mostly Lord of the Rings, Zombies, Sci-Fi, Superheroes, and Cthulhu. True euros might account for 15 of the 50 hottest games.

I think its more of an even split, with most people playing a bit of both. I mean, Eurogames still dominate the top 100 games.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;722000I really don't get the Knizia hate. Board games have themes attached to abstract rules since the dawn of gaming (Chess, Shogi, Snakes & Ladders, the various reconstructions of Ur, Halatafl and the whole family of fox games, etc.).
Themes are simply color that helps to remember rules, a mnemonic shorthand.

Sometimes Knizia's themes work (Res Publica is similar to the ressource trading and buying of cultural developments in Civilization, a game hardly lambasted for being a Eurogame; Modern Art is one of the best auction games I know), sometimes they don't (Keltis, Ra), and sometimes they are a mess (Through the Desert - leading a caravan over dunes creates a winding snake of camels? I liked that game but it would have worked better as a kind of Railway Rivals or Ticket to Ride).

Some of his games I like, some I dislike (The Lord of the Rings bored the hell out of me), most I am indifferent about (meaning I won't play them because there are so many better games out there).

But this theming of abstract board games is different from a too high abstraction in RPGs. With board games I know and accept that I play an abstract mechanism.
I never played any RPG for the bare interaction of rules elements, modifiers, or die rolls.

I do not dislike his games. He has put out some appallingly elegant designs that are very easy to pick up and play. Really he grinds a system down to a polished gem usually.

It is the fact that he slaps themes onto these rulesets willy nilly that boggles some. There was some game essentially a horizontal connect four and he slaps Cthulhu on it. The Moby Dick joke isnt too far off the mark. The themes oft seem totally irrelevant to the actual gameplay.

On the other hand this makes his games absurdly re-themeable.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;722483Here is a link from bully pulpit: http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/page/3/

That is very cool, that they report all that data publicly.  Thanks.

I gotta say I've never really looked into FIASCO.  It sounds like it could be a fun one-off party game.

Quote from: TristramEvans;722541Yeah, thats the crux of it. Theres this assumption that the GM is an opponent who must be at all times confined by the rules lest they go out of thier way to ruin the game every chance they get. Sometimes it feels like a giant section of the hobby has turned into a replica of Knights of the Dinner Table, and GM Fiat is the worste possible thing that can happen to a game.

I don't think that's true. I think this speaks to the point that S'mon made earlier about the role of the rules shifting from a tool for the GM to use or not at his discretion, to becoming a framework for the whole group. I suspect this is a creative agenda thing (sorry).

If you want to focus almost entirely on experiencing the game world through the eyes of your character, then putting a huge amount of power into the GM's hands and having fudgeable/black box rules makes a lot of sense. That's a very powerful tool for achieving immersion.

But if you also want a lot of tactical challenge-based play in there, or you want to put more emphasis on the group story-building side of things, then one way to do that is to make the rules more transparent and more reliable (in the sense that everyone agrees to stick to them). So rather than being a necessary evil or a useful fallback, rules become a positive tool for achieving the effects you want. 'System matters'. For most groups this isn't about reducing the GM's power because he's a big meanie. It's about sharing some more of that power out among the rest of the group so that players' tactical decisions or ideas about the story become more important.

Think about who writes these games, who buys these games, and who runs these games. It's GMs. Do people really think that those GMs who run FATE or whatever are being held hostage by their groups? No, they are choosing to run it because it creates a game style they enjoy. They want to give more power to their players. I can totally see why people who value immersion over other considerations wouldn't enjoy it but that doesn't mean that everyone who does enjoy it is motivated by bad experiences.

Quote from: Grymbok;722383The idea is that if you find that you generally like Simulationist games and dislike Gamist ones, then this can help you find more games you like/avoid ones you don't. I'm sure I'm not the only person who's ever bought a new RPG that looked interesting only to discover on further inspection that it's designed around a mode of play that I have no interest in.

In practise though I think that game classification is a quixotic quest along the lines of trying to produce a perfect system of genre classification for rock bands. Much as both would help my buying decisions I've given up on the ideas.

Exactly.  The idea -- by way of example -- that you'd take a list I wrote of those values hinges on certain principles:

a)  That you understand what I mean by this label or that.  (The use of metal subgenres is an interesting one, because I've long since believed that they've gotten uselessly absurd, and I'm wholly convinced that you could play ten random metal tracks for ten metal fans, ask them to categorize them on the doom metal/death metal/grunge metal/black metal/thrash metal/deathgrind/deathcore/extreme metal/death growl/power metal/sludge metal/etc etc etc spectrum, and you wouldn't get any three of them to agree on a single category.  I feel much the same way about "old school" vs "new school" or about GNS.)

b) That you think I have any idea what I'm talking about;

c) That I'm experienced enough in all those games to have an informed opinion; and

d) That I don't have partisan axes to grind.

That's rather a tall order.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;722445Tribalism is straight up the biggest and most toxic issue in the hobby. I wish that roleplayers could realize that no matter the approach we take, we are all roleplayers and that means more than whether we like the occasional narrative mechanic or are full bore simulationist or whatever other divisive term someone wants to throw on us.

Unfortunately that is never going to happen.

Somewhere along the line online gamers realized that you couldnt be bigoted against colour of faceless words on a screen. The net evened the playing field.

So.

They started fractionallizing, or tribalizing" as you put it. Thus there was your group who were the one true way. and then there are the "others" who are heretics and ruining your beloved fetish doll by touching it and thinking wrong thoughts about it. "Those filthy hexcrawlers know nothing of real role playing."

Others just fractionalized because they are eletists fucks with a need to have someone to spit on. "Only the pretty players can join our games."

Some cluster because they honestly believe that their style is the bestest ever. "Everyone else should be rolling dice over the shoulder! Really!"

And the rest are just normal folk who gravitate to a theme within a theme that appeals and they really dont understand all the bickering going around. "I like elves and, uh, why are you guys fighting over drow as PCs?"

Faction wars ensue.

And then you get the other side of the coin with people who apply some faction to a game that doesnt have anything to do with it. "FATE is really a wargame."

etc ad nausium.

Everyone has different playstyles. Some, even some here, seem compelled to degrade them for it. Which is a different subject though.

Forgists though seem to go out of their way to antagonize and degrade.

Hence it feels to me that they come across as nut cases more often than one would like since there are some good ideas buried in the morass of loony.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;722445Tribalism is straight up the biggest and most toxic issue in the hobby. I wish that roleplayers could realize that no matter the approach we take, we are all roleplayers and that means more than whether we like the occasional narrative mechanic or are full bore simulationist or whatever other divisive term someone wants to throw on us.

Full agreement.  The turn of phrase I've used is that the whole RPGer / SF&F fan subculture exhibits a degree of tribalistic viciousness towards one another that's only exceeded by junior high school.  Seriously, folks.  Storygames, MMORPGs, LARPs, online freeform, they're just other ways people roleplay.  They're not evil, they're not out to destroy the hobby, they're not going to force D&D players into internment camps, and they're not firebombing FLGSs.

Quote from: J Arcane;722472As BGG has become more widely known it's gotten a lot more 'democratized' in terms of interests, especially since RPGGeek came along and got a lot of cross over use from people coming to do the RPG thing and adding their BGG thoughts as well.

Back when I was first introduced though, the split was very much like what Norton described, and that split is still present on the forums and some of the old-handers who rate/comment on game entries.  For a time it was practically accepted belief that even the use of a die was suspect, and it was very Euro-supremacist there.

Lately though, I've noticed a far more open-minded trend in the ratings and comments for game entries, and games that previously would've lived at the bottom of the ratings are more likely to at least have a more mixed reception. It used to be that anything from a mainline American publisher was doomed to the low 3s except for certain nostalgic obscurities, but things have gotten better and more of the new users are willing to admit to actually liking something other than Knizia games about shuffling wooden blocks.

Off topic. But yeah. When I got fully back into BGG around 2008 or so there was still a nasty undercurrent of pseudo-bigostry by "eurogamers" and rampant use of the slurr "ameritrash".

Now though terms like that are frowned upon and rarely used. Though you still see regular threads about how to curb leaders in games, the evils of dice, and that Satan from Hell! Theme!!! run. hide.

In a way its like the storygamers and forgists. Theres a vocal negatively unpleasant faction within the ideal that make everyone else look like KKK members. Just as with storygamers, there are more euro game players who are open minded and even enjoy more than pushing cubes around.

Interesting to note the popularity of Lords of Waterdeep too. How many expansions did that thing get? Will Wheaton has a review of it???

Quote from: The Ent;722390I think RPG categories would look lots like metal subgenre categories.

Wich is to say that they'd work but they'd look more than a little silly.

You know "progressive symphonic speed metal" vs "progressive symphonic power metal" silly. Or "deathdoom" vs "funeral doom" vs "drone doom" silly (the latter three subgenres of a subgenre actually do sound very different mind).

So you get stuff like "post-apocalyptic low-power dungeon fantasy" vs "post-apocalyptic low-power simulationist fantasy" or whatevs.

Not sure how useful it'd be!

Metal genres have just gone silly.  I think that how crazy they've gone says something about the people that worry about it that much...

One of the problems I see with a lot of this kind of categorization is that it seems to miss a step.  Namely, identifying traits of the things you're identifying.  Once you've got that, you can find the things that share common traits and stick a label on them, knowing that it will be imperfect, without having to create some grand schema in advance, or having to specify each modification.  "Oh, it's like a , but diceless, and highly cinematic" works just fine.  You don't need to create a "Diceless High Cinematic " genre, which contains exactly one game.

That's really one of my biggest problems with Forge-theory.  It *started* with this grand classification, and then crammed everything in to try and fit into the boxes that it came up with.  Which ended up with a lot of misunderstandings, and a lot of bad fits.

I mean, where do you put playing through the DragonLance modules in 2e?  Gamist?  Simulationist?  Narrativist?  I don't think there's any kind of clear fit.

And it's a lot harder to come up with something at the peak of a grand taxonomy like that, there's a lot of inertia once it's built up.  On the other hand, defining a new descriptor is pretty easy, and non-threatening to the status quo.

Quote from: Ravenswing;722561
a)  That you understand what I mean by this label or that.  (The use of metal subgenres is an interesting one, because I've long since believed that they've gotten uselessly absurd, and I'm wholly convinced that you could play ten random metal tracks for ten metal fans, ask them to categorize them on the doom metal/death metal/grunge metal/black metal/thrash metal/deathgrind/deathcore/extreme metal/death growl/power metal/sludge metal/etc etc etc spectrum, and you wouldn't get any three of them to agree on a single category.  I feel much the same way about "old school" vs "new school" or about GNS.)

You do not see the utility of music being categorized as R&B, gospel, classic rock, alternative, heavy metal, rap, or whatnot?  Interesting position.

Quote from: Haffrung;722536Take a loot at the Hotness on BGG these days. It's mostly Lord of the Rings, Zombies, Sci-Fi, Superheroes, and Cthulhu. True euros might account for 15 of the 50 hottest games.

Hotness on BGG is irrelevant. It just shows what pages are getting alot of hits all of a sudden. Or have very active threads.

Android: Netrunner for example was straight to the top as Netrunner is a fan favorite amongst CCGs. So finally a reprint of sorts was a lightning bolt when it was learned it was not going to be a CCG. whammo! People were and still are all over it.

Eldrich Horror is getting attention because it is replacing the venerable Arkham Horror and theres a minor split between those who like AH and those who think EH is good.

Freedom in the Galaxy is up because of recent photos being posted.

Same for RPGG. Modules, Birthright, Diaspora, MSH, Gygax Magazine, etc.

Fairly good spread of standard RPGs, Old, new, and some storytelling type games of one degree or another.

Quote from: Haffrung;722536Take a loot at the Hotness on BGG these days. It's mostly Lord of the Rings, Zombies, Sci-Fi, Superheroes, and Cthulhu. True euros might account for 15 of the 50 hottest games.

The Hotness only refers to those games that people are checking out, not commenting on or making Geeklists about.  Given that there's a lot more people checking games out than may have accounts on BGG --and that a lot of those games have known properties attached, like Star Wars-- its not a big surprise that AT games are up toward the top.

Now, the top 20 games in the ratings are filled with Euros, with only three true AT titles there:  Mage Knight, Eclipse, and War of the Ring.  There are a few games that are a mix, like Twilight Struggle, but far more Euros than anything else.

Back on topic.

How does one tell a "Forgeist" from the average storygamer as it were?

The general rhetoric and terms used? Or do they cleave to a specific set of games as the one true way?

Quote from: Omega;722597Back on topic.

How does one tell a "Forgeist" from the average storygamer as it were?

The general rhetoric and terms used? Or do they cleave to a specific set of games as the one true way?

Usually they find it hard to talk, with Ron Edwards' dick in their mouth.

Seriously though, it's usually easy to tell.  They use a lot of inane jargon, it sounds like someone VERY proud of their PhD trying to use as many words and acronyms as possible that they know most people wouldn't understand. There is a smug superiority about most of their posts.