Why do so many Forge-Indie derived games, keep trying to change the dynamic of play. How play works on a  fundamental level?

It's not entirely hypothetical, but the games were as I understand responses to "bad" play. Yet rather than address turning bad play into good, they seem to have chosen to simply make play different.

Such examples of changing play dynamics as getting rid of the GM, or making him or her adversarial mechanically, or changing what he or she is "allowed" to do. (Example the Action Castle game in another thread.)

It seems a fundamental logical flaw to me. Completely dodging and ignoring the issue. I've somewhat always thought it was a big miss in terms of usefulness but exactly bringing out why this has slow I don't believe I've ever examined before.

Shouldn't the whole of such games be to help foster better GM's? Better players? Since that addresses the problem of bad gaming, without changing what gaming means to 99.999% of RPG participants.

Some of it is just experimentation and innovation.  Why does a RPG have to have a GM?  Wouldn't it be interesting to try a game without one?  The baseless assumption that "the way Gygax crapped out RPGs is the way they are meant to be" is what they're questioning.

And of course some of them are crybabies and are just mentally scarred from when their GM disintegrated their hand in Tomb of Horrors.  

But it's like saying "Why are they working on electric cars?  Shouldn't they be working on making gasoline cars with better mileage instead?"  They don't have to be mutually exclusive - some indie games are truly GM-less, but many aren't and are just trying to innovate some in other areas.  And people have differing opinions on what the "right solution" will be, and (as with electric and better-mileage-gas cars) it's probably good for the industry in general to have experimentation along all those lines.

Without a GM (DM, Reff,  Storyteller, etc..) then it really doesn't make the cut as a Role Playing Game.

- Ed C.

The desire to innovate and make different sorts of games is a good enough answer to satisfy me. Is there any reason rpgs can't encompass all sorts of different formats and playstyles. It's not like the One  Right Game was handed down to us by god, or anything. Variety is a good thing. The idea that rpgs must conform to some narrowly defined traditional form of gm, players, ability scores, skills and mechanics as physics of the game world sounds pretty stifling to me.

QuoteWithout a GM (DM, Reff, Storyteller, etc..)  then it really doesn't make the cut as a Role Playing Game.

Eh, I don't even like GM-less games but I think that's a pretty arbitrary and unjustified opinion.  Sure, RPGs are typically one-GM, 4-6 player exercises in orcish genocide, but trying other variations doesn't make it "not an RPG."

It's a flaw only if it doesn't match your line of thinking or preconceived notions of what makes a good game or what constitutes a "roleplaying" game.

Perception, semantics, and a fair bit of prejudices because the people behind a certain way of thinking have a hard time not presenting themselves as jerks.  It's on both sides of this imaginary divide.

I personally, tend to dismiss the notion that sim is stupid just as much as I dismiss the notion that indie game design is somehow flawed.  It's all about what certain people want to see happen at the table and how they go about doing it.

Quoteskills and mechanics as physics of the game world sounds pretty stifling to me.

I'm inclined to disagree.

If you look at video games (something indie devs love, because video gamers don't carry many prejudices against indie designs), there's a wide variety.  Everything from HUGELY popular flight-sims with no real goal (there's a reason MS Flight Sim sold so well...back in the 90s they were) to very abstract games with no physics attached.  You get people like Jesse posting over at story-games about how video-gamers "get it" because they see things as "just games" (something Edwards said was a derogatory remark...?) and that they weren't concerned with sim as a design concept, yet as someone who's been playing video-games for far longer than I have tabletop, and a fan of world-emulation games, I don't see this being true at all (at all).

There are a ton of video-games that don't have any real meta goals to play, whether it's interacting with the designer's intended story or overcoming explicitly defined challenges.  You just play them for the experience, or the immersion in the game-world.

The only "flaw" (I prefer disagreement) I see in a lot of indie design is that sim (a large part of trad design) is to be avoided whenever possible.  I think that's a load of shit, personally, and there are plenty of outstanding, focused sim games that produce fun play.  Underestimating the ability of gamers to take a framework and put it to use by creating their own goals for play is largely underrated in the Forge line of thinking.  But I don't think that one nitpick makes all of indie design bad, wrong, or unfun.

Quote from: Silverlion;375510Why do so many Forge-Indie derived games, keep trying to change the dynamic of play. How play works on a  fundamental level?

It's not entirely hypothetical, but the games were as I understand responses to "bad" play. Yet rather than address turning bad play into good, they seem to have chosen to simply make play different.

......

Okay, I'll tell you why...but some people on here might not like it.

Most Indie/Forgie designers are still at an adolescent way of thinking about games - but they willnever really admit it. By 'adolescent' - I'm referring to the early stages of that where the teenager rebels against everything just for the sake of making noise.   You know the classic example Q:"What are you rebelling against " A: ":What do you got?!"

They think its 'hip' or 'revolutionary' to designb things that make no damn sense or make regular people feel uneasy or uncomfortable - because thats supposedly 'edgy' - when its just lame bullshit.

They know they had a bad game experience some time in their past. But instead of trying to make a good game - they instead twist and pervert ideas that might make a good one-shot adventure then call it a "game" . (when it really isn't.

 Forgie/Indie designers are often like Ellsworth Toohey and his gang of sycophants and groupies from the middle chapters of "The Fountainhead". They make things meant to be a little off or twisted , pretend its good and to get away with their minor crime they call it "art".


- Ed C.

Right. You don't like it, therefore the people that made it must not be as intelligent and mature as you are. Please.

There is such a thing as rebellion w/o just cause, and with this, I agree with Koltar. What I disagree with Koltar on, is that ALL rebellion is the license of teenagers (Kyrgyzstan, anybody?, or, even the founding of the U.S.?). While Forge games, by and large, seem to be a pile of pretentious dog shit to me, so is the idea that anything independent of the mainstream has to conform to the feces that the Forge produces. Ya know, though, if somebody who has a strong desire to rape or molest would rather concentrate those sick urges through a RPG instead of actively performing such deeds, I SEE NO HARM IN IT.
 I'd rather hear of somebody pulling those kind of atrocities off by rolling dice than by rolling a woman or child.
 
 
 Ain't no mainstream game system going to touch that subject with a 20 foot pole. Might not be for the rest of us, but hell..

It's exploration. A few maps have been drawn of the territory in which D&D and Vampire reside, and drawing those revealed a whole lot of territory that hadn't been explored. So you go there and see if it works, whether or not it warrants a new pigeon-hole (and I've never understood why "is it an RPG" was remotely interesting except in order to disparage something). Messing around with the GM's role is an obvious place to look for new variations, even moreso because it's taken for granted to the extent that it's regarded as definitional in some quarters.

I see no reason to disparage exploration. Just because someone finds Australia doesn't mean we all have to go there.

For those games that stray the farthest from the traditional style of play--I'm thinking of, say, Capes or the games Jason Morningstar writes--I disagree that childish rebellion was the motivating factor. The claims seems like nothing but an easy way to denigrate what you don't like. It's a cheap shot. Experimienting with the process and trying new things simply because they are untried are in and of themselves worthwhile and don't necessarily imply a desire to attack the status quo.

where did D&D touch you, oh well you may get brain damage, look at the pretty dice they will make you feel better!

Quote from: Halfjack;375539(and I've never understood why "is it an RPG" was remotely interesting except in order to disparage something).

Yeah, seems like I've been seeing the "it's not an RPG" bit popping up more and more.  Most recently with the luck-style mechanics (Drama points, bennies, what have you) meaning a game has crossed into the realm of not being an RPG anymore.

While I think its fairly silly to say that Savage Worlds, Star Wars (in any published incarnation), most Supers games and so on aren't RPGs (all having the "luck" or dramatic editing style mechanics)...if that's the hill you choose to die on, then so be it.  I guess I'd rather play a fun "Story game" over a less fun "RPG" then...the fun is FAR more important to me than the label.

Quote from: Koltar;375534Most Indie/Forgie designers are still at an adolescent way of thinking about games - but they willnever really admit it. By 'adolescent' - I'm referring to the early stages of that where the teenager rebels against everything just for the sake of making noise.   You know the classic example Q:"What are you rebelling against " A: ":What do you got?!"

Yeah, of course. Picasso was an adolescent. James Joyce was an adolescent.Tolkien was an adolescent. Same for Lovecraft, C.S. Lewis, Howard,...

Great argument you got there, Koltar. It perfectly suits you looking like an Amish.

Quote from: Koltar;375534They think its 'hip' or 'revolutionary' to designb things that make no damn sense or make regular people feel uneasy or uncomfortable - because thats supposedly 'edgy' - when its just lame bullshit.

I have no idea what you're going on about. I've seen quite a few indie(some Forgie, some not) games, and even gotten to play a few of them, and a large number of them do make a good bit of sense. Some aren't extremely easy to grasp, but if you get under the hood they generally at least make some internal sense. You might not like what they're trying to do(obviously you don't), but to make a blanket statement about them making "no damn sense" is seriously disingenuous.

The other part about feeling "uneasy or uncomfortable" -- I seriously can't see where you're coming from. I can get that some games touch on certain topics(or provide excess detail on certain topics) that can reasonably make one uncomfortable. Those kinds of uncomfortable topics are hardly unique to indie games, nor are they the typical subjects covered by indie games. So if your unease is with the subject matter, then it's hardly an indie game specific complaint.

Now if it's the mechanics making you feel all uncomfortable(like the Dread Jenga tower, or the weird resource management system of Capes, or the Mythic GM emulator, or whatever), then dude, you got some serious issues. I've yet to come across a mechanical game bit that, if disliked, warrants much more than a meh. I'm certainly not going to be telling my mommy where the bad Fudge dice touched me.