Knuckledusters

Quote from: S'mon;721520Pemerton is a good guy.

I'd say the Forge was one of the factors in the end of the '90s Railroading Era, aka the Dark Age of RPGs. I don't know if it was a major factor. Obviously Ron Edwards is a jerk, and many Forge games are morally contemptible. But it does influence modern game design - I bunch of stuff (that I don't play) - Leverage, Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, Fiasco, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Spirit of the Century and other FATE stuff, etc. It even had some incoherent influence on 4e D&D. Despite Ron's personal horribleness, and his total failure to understand Simulation as an agenda, I'd say he broadly achieved what he set out to do.

Yup, when you really drill down even deeper down than system matters and silly categories and all the rest the real core of the Forge is that "railroads are a terrible way of producing an interesting story and that failed novelist GMs should shut up and let players do more to drive what happens during a session."

Whatever you can say about the rest of Forge stuff, the Forge was mostly a backlash against a kind of gaming that the 90's saw way too much off and that was really annoying. I'd have had a lot more fun as a kid if I hadn't read so many stupid Dragon articles in the 90's and whatnot telling me how to craft a story and that random encounters are pointless deviations from the plot and whatnot.

The Forge kind of reminds me of 4ed in a lot of ways. The design of both seems to have gone like this:

"That other game keeps on trying to do X and fails and it's annoying!"
"How about just not trying to do X then?"
"No! We must come up with increasing convoluted ways to doing X! And make all of the mechanics support X! Stupid people in the old days not realizing how important X is!"

Quote from: Ravenswing;721427
So here's my advice for the OP.  Go the Wikipedia route.  In assessing the notability of a subject, there's a rule called WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline: that in order to be considered notable, a subject needs to be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple, reliable, third-party, independent publications with a reputation for fact checking.

And that's what you throw at them: without reference to the indie gaming press, to forums or to blogs, what mainstream publications credit the Forge with a widespread impact on RPGs?

That's a rather ridiculous standard to hold to for RPGs. Honestly, what mainstream publications have written anything about RPGs other than D&D in the last ten years?

There are few forge evangelists left, so most often it's not worth the fight.

In the olden days circa 2004, when the missionaries where thick on the ground i just used to refuse to use their jargon as the framing point of the discussion. For some reason, that really pissed them off.

Quote from: Grymbok;721541That's a rather ridiculous standard to hold to for RPGs. Honestly, what mainstream publications have written anything about RPGs other than D&D in the last ten years?

Go figure, eh?  Throw in some WoD and a bit of Pathfinder and Warhammer there, and there you have it.  So the world hasn't noticed anyone except the major players?  So stipulated ... but it's tough to argue from there that the little guys have had any influence.

Seriously, the market share element is a huge, huge deal.  D&D has been the overwhelming market leader for the entire history of the hobby, and the posters who've pointed out the painfully obvious fact that it's the only RPG with any name recognition outside the hobby have been dead on.  WoD's been a distant second place over the last couple decades.  A couple other games have had 5%, at best.

As far as the Mouse Guards and Dogs In The Vineyards of the hobby go?  I doubt more than one gamer in ten has ever heard of them, let alone played them.

So what is this vast influence The Forge is supposed to have had on the hobby?  On the large number of people still playing 3.0 and 3.5?  They were published before The Forge had any significant name recognition even amongst the online geeks.  On WoD?  Nope.  On Warhammer?  Nope.  On Pathfinder?  3.5 throwback there.  On GURPS?  Nope.  On 4.0?  Some of you are arguing that -- absent, mind you, any real evidence -- but how much has the D&D crowd rejected 4.0 in favor of 3.5 or earlier?

Is it because there are "indie" games now?  Haven't there always been "indie" games in the hobby ... ones which have had small publishing runs, ones without outside corporate control?  What was Palladium, beyond Kevin Siembieda's vision?  What was GURPS, beyond Steve Jackson's vision?  Feng Shui, Amber, Castle Falkenstein, all much the same.

Press Down, Forward, Down, Back, Down, Forward, A.

Quote from: Spinachcat;721490Here's how you win:

1. Get the Forgist in a room with a stranger who may have heard of RPGs, but never played.

2. Have the Forgist explain his favorite Forge RPG to the stranger.

3. Somehow keep from peeing yourself in hysterics as the stranger says "Oh, so its like D&D?"

That's the great and mighty joke. The OSR grogtard and the Forge hipster think they are worlds apart, but to anyone outside the hobby, they are just two people who play WoW without a computer.

QFT.

This reminds me of boardgamers who absolutely adore Reiner Knizia's designs.  Reiner designs these games with a pasted on theme that remind me of doing math problems for fun; I really don't like them very much.  

But the fans...  They are very much evangelical about Reiner's boardgames, but I've found that if you mention them to non-boardgamers they'll respond with "so it's like Settlers of Catan" or "Is it like Apples to Apples?" or "you play something like Monopoly..."  You can almost hear the grating of teeth when that pops out.

Remember that scene from the Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo the pills?  And then that scene towards the end where Cypher says, "if he had told us the truth..."  Well this could be like that.  Consider what happens if you win this argument.  You're seriously raining on some dude's worldview parade, and for what?  Those glory days are gone.  Might be best to let him cling to the good times.

Smile and nod.  Smile and nod.

Quote from: Daztur;721534Yup, when you really drill down even deeper down than system matters and silly categories and all the rest the real core of the Forge is that "railroads are a terrible way of producing an interesting story and that failed novelist GMs should shut up and let players do more to drive what happens during a session."

Whatever you can say about the rest of Forge stuff, the Forge was mostly a backlash against a kind of gaming that the 90's saw way too much off and that was really annoying. I'd have had a lot more fun as a kid if I hadn't read so many stupid Dragon articles in the 90's and whatnot telling me how to craft a story and that random encounters are pointless deviations from the plot and whatnot.

Ayup. IMO it's impossible to overstate how crap RPGs (inc TSR) got in the '90s.

That said, when I played a Storygame, although I was certainly creating-the-story-in-play, in the end it felt almost as empty as when I played a railroaded Paizo AP, where all I got to create was a bit of colour around my PC. And I stuck with the AP for several months. Neither really 'get' what's best about RPGs, IMO.

Quote from: S'mon;721520Spirit of the Century and other FATE stuff, etc.

FWIW, Fred Hicks has said that he considers Fate to be his argument *against* GNS theory.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;721596This reminds me of boardgamers who absolutely adore Reiner Knizia's designs.  Reiner designs these games with a pasted on theme that remind me of doing math problems for fun; I really don't like them very much.

But the fans...  They are very much evangelical about Reiner's boardgames, but I've found that if you mention them to non-boardgamers they'll respond with "so it's like Settlers of Catan" or "Is it like Apples to Apples?" or "you play something like Monopoly..."  You can almost hear the grating of teeth when that pops out.

I'm guessing that they cater to people with a very specific set of needs - specifically, needs around tightly-designed mechanical systems so that the game can become an avenue of competition.  I'm sure for those people, his games are AMAZING.

Lots of people don't play board games as a competition.  They play them as a fun way to spend some time with my friends, and to have an activity that promotes social interaction.  Cute pictures on the cards and getting your friends to say crazy things has far more value to those people than super-tight math.

You can really only evaluate how "good" something is by comparing it to the needs of the user.  Is a Ferrari better than a minivan?  Not to a soccer mom (apart from the obvious 'sell it and buy five minivans' angle).

Quote from: S'mon;721604That said, when I played a Storygame, although I was certainly creating-the-story-in-play, in the end it felt almost as empty as when I played a railroaded Paizo AP, where all I got to create was a bit of colour around my PC. And I stuck with the AP for several months. Neither really 'get' what's best about RPGs, IMO.

I'd actually say that they don't satisfy the needs that *you* expect an RPG to fulfill.  Clearly lots of people like APs, and lots of people like storygames.

Just to be clear, I pretty much *agree* with you about the most hardcore storygames (Fiasco, etc.), and certainly about APs.  I'm just saying that neither your nor my needs are universal.

That assumption is *generally* the mistake that "big theorists" make - their theory is really a thinly veiled attempt to argue that their preferences are actually objective fact, and that everyone else's preferences are BAD AND WRONG.

In my mind, a *good* theory has to account for the popularity of things that are actually popular, without resorting to such crap as "marketing" or "people are dumb".

Quote from: robiswrong;721632FWIW, Fred Hicks has said that he considers Fate to be his argument *against* GNS theory.

GNS theory is wildly wrong in all kinds of ways (I can think of three off the top of my head, and I know there are more), so that's not hard.

Quote from: robiswrong;721632I'd actually say that they don't satisfy the needs that *you* expect an RPG to fulfill.  Clearly lots of people like APs, and lots of people like storygames.

Just to be clear, I pretty much *agree* with you about the most hardcore storygames (Fiasco, etc.), and certainly about APs.  I'm just saying that neither your nor my needs are universal.

That assumption is *generally* the mistake that "big theorists" make - their theory is really a thinly veiled attempt to argue that their preferences are actually objective fact, and that everyone else's preferences are BAD AND WRONG.

In my mind, a *good* theory has to account for the popularity of things that are actually popular, without resorting to such crap as "marketing" or "people are dumb".

Yes, I agree. The storygame (Quest, I played with the designer) wasn't trying to be a roleplaying game, it was a story-creation exercise. It was quite good fun, but without any competitive/Gamist element there wasn't much satisfaction in it. There was a bit of roleplaying, but no role immersion, something I value. But it worked by its own lights.

The linear rail Adventure Path to me had a more serious failing in that it stripped me of meaningful choice. Not only was there little real challenge - failing at an encounter just meant doing it over - but there was very little choice, either. Where the storygame gave me lots of choice in how I contributed to creating the story, the AP required me to follow the rails of the prewritten story. I do have trouble understanding how anyone can enjoy that. I'm hopefully about to start GMing a different AP though, I'm (nervously) determined to open it out and let player actions determine how things go, voiding chunks and adding stuff as necessary.

Quote from: S'mon;721636Yes, I agree. The storygame (Quest, I played with the designer) wasn't trying to be a roleplaying game, it was a story-creation exercise. It was quite good fun, but without any competitive/Gamist element there wasn't much satisfaction in it. There was a bit of roleplaying, but no role immersion, something I value. But it worked by its own lights.

Yeah.  As an example, I consider Fiasco to be more related to party games than D&D, in that it generally satisfies the types of needs I'd expect from a party game.

Quote from: S'mon;721636The linear rail Adventure Path to me had a more serious failing in that it stripped me of meaningful choice. Not only was there little real challenge - failing at an encounter just meant doing it over - but there was very little choice, either. Where the storygame gave me lots of choice in how I contributed to creating the story, the AP required me to follow the rails of the prewritten story. I do have trouble understanding how anyone can enjoy that. I'm hopefully about to start GMing a different AP though, I'm (nervously) determined to open it out and let player actions determine how things go, voiding chunks and adding stuff as necessary.

And you've expressed a very strong need for the world to respond to your actions, and for your actions to shape the direction the game goes.  Not surprising, that's one of the biggest things I get from roleplaying.

I think Adventure Paths are pretty good at the following:

* Reducing GM prep (though I'd somewhat disagree with this, as there's low prep ways to GM)
* Offering interesting set-piece encounters and tactical challenges
* Allowing for a focus on character advancement
* Providing a strong 'levels 'n' loot' gameplay element

None of those things are particularly appealing to me, so Adventure Paths don't really work for me.  I'd play in one, but only because I wanted to hang with people that were playing that already.

But I can see that for someone who *did* care about such things, it would be a good style of play.

Quote from: S'mon;721636Where the storygame gave me lots of choice in how I contributed to creating the story, the AP required me to follow the rails of the prewritten story. I do have trouble understanding how anyone can enjoy that.

My impression is a lot of D&D players regard the 'story' in adventures as the cut scene backdrop to the real game, which is rolling dice and killing stuff. They'd rather passively watch a scripted story than actively take part in one which requires work and may not yield a satisfying climax and conclusion. Hopefully, open-ended CRPGs like Skyrim are changing expectations.

Also, half of the people who buy APs only use them as reading material, so to them the linear story involving backstory, betrayal, redemption, and every cheesy geek culture cliche is perfect.

Go straight to the temple in the swamps near Blackmoor. Bring plenty of fat flies in jars, and spiked shields - good against leap attacks and getting swallowed whole. Use maces to kill the first set of cultists you meet so you can wear their robes around no questions asked.

And for Pete's sake, learn how to spell "Frogist"!