Quote from: RPGPundit, run through the Universal TranslatorI used the Time Cube paradigm to rewrite and reinterpreted what you said to avoid the educated stupid of the Singularity.

Whoot!

QuoteAnd, sorry if you don't see my point.

I saw your point. You see snakes, snakes everywhere!

Quote from: blakkieD&D has always been aimed at dungeon crawls and above ground senarios that are structured like dungeon crawls. Just has. That's what it does best. You can "use" it for something else, but ultimately to do so you make up a bunch of new rules (written down or not), often supplanting what is already there, in the process.

Which is where D20, and then OGL, came in. You eventually have sort of a Theseus' ship senario where pretty much every plank has been yanked and replaced for the purpose of making it do something else.

You I don't know very well, so I wouldn't equate your narrow-minded, blindered, parochial, prejudiced view of things with Mr. Kim's. In the future I'll be more clear about to whom I am directing the comment.  And be sure I won't, in the future, mistake you for having a more...liberal...view of those crappy old traditional games.

What it does best, and what it is capable of doing are two completely different things.  In your opinion, one would have to remove whole swaths of rules to make it do something else. This is interesting, and contrary to my experience. We did other than dungeon crawl, and it didn't require ignoring existing rules or adding new ones. And that was with old AD&D.

It's one of the points I tried to make in the Conflict Resolution threads. I always saw the lack of specific rules in certain areas as a benefit of the system; it gave us more flexiblity to explore those areas outside of the dungeon crawl.

Quote from: James J SkachYou I don't know very well, so I wouldn't equate your narrow-minded, blindered, parochial, prejudiced view of things with Mr. Kim's. In the future I'll be more clear about to whom I am directing the comment.  And be sure I won't, in the future, mistake you for having a more...liberal...view of those crappy old traditional games.

Look, a Timecube Disciple!

QuoteWhat it does best, and what it is capable of doing are two completely different things.  In your opinion, one would have to remove whole swaths of rules to make it do something else. This is interesting, and contrary to my experience. We did other than dungeon crawl, and it didn't require ignoring existing rules or adding new ones. And that was with old AD&D.

LOL, yah right. Last time I saw a post by you you were trying to argue it was better to have rules that you knew you were going to throw out and replace rather than have rules that were written, with built in flexibility, to provide the tools for GMing the way you intended to play. :pundit:

P.S. I did mention senarios that were set up like a dungeon crawl.

Quote from: blakkieLOL, yah right. Last time I saw a post by you you were trying to argue it was better to have rules that you knew you were going to throw out and replace rather than have rules that were written, with built in flexibility, to provide the tools for GMing the way you intended to play. :pundit:

Really? I mean, I would deny it, but I have no idea what you just said. Less than being worried that you are correct is the horror that I would be that convoluted.

Quote from: blakkieP.S. I did mention senarios that were set up like a dungeon crawl.

Yes, I saw that. The difference is...?

EDIT: I'm not sure what the reference was meant to be, but I went to the timecube. It's a nice site, you should be proud of your work. Is this your way of calling someone ignorant? Or would you care to expound on your statement with some details as to why you would claim someone is a paranoid schizophrenic racist?

Quote from: James J SkachThe inference I draw from a statement like that is that traditional games are good for nothing more than dungeon crawls. It's the kind of statement that ends up getting hackles up.  And from what I've read from you, that can't really be how you feel, correct?

Correct.  Thanks for not immediately jumping to conclusions.  

What I meant was to include two specific points within a wide range of options.  i.e. A Storyteller-game with metaplot and a dungeon crawl can co-exist, and there are hundreds of possibilities beyond this.  I thought I clarified that with my next sentence which went on to list four other options.  

To pick another two arbitrary data points:  It is possible for Amber DRPG to sell to diceless Amber fans at the same time as Rolemaster is selling to its fans.  There is no need for a "war" between these two games, because they don't need to sell to the same people, and there are some people who will buy both.

Quote from: James J SkachReally? I mean, I would deny it, but I have no idea what you just said. Less than being worried that you are correct is the horror that I would be that convoluted.

Well that would be the reference about the Timecube. You post is for the most part a big stinking pile of convoluted bullshit.  I guess it wasn't the very last post I saw of yours, but it one of the last ones in the "Your Empowerment is Ruining My Fun" thread. Your very last post there had a few other different flavours of stinking pile instead.

Please keep in mind that I avoid the other forums here.....largely because of the presence of postings like yours in it. :/

I also see you are posting in the thread in this forum about the usefulness of the term "fun". A thread title that just screams to me "beware, high possibility of convoluted bullshit ahead". *shrug*

QuoteYes, I saw that. The difference is...?

One is in a dungeon. One is structured in a similar way to a classic dungeon crawl.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe same way Story-based gaming purged away thousands of traditional gamers in the end of the nineties; by creating an environment where the only books being offered are not just non-traditional books but are downright derogatory toward mainstream RPG play. By making it so that mainstream gamers are told they are not wanted if they are not willing to follow the "in-crowd" and bow at the feet of story-based gaming, and sent that message over and over again through products that specifically make a mockery of all they enjoy, until those gamers leave the hobby.

Um, so now acting like you're cool is comparable to Pol Pot style purges of the sensitive geeks who feel like they're not cool anymore?!?  

I don't see it.  Traditional gamers in the late nineties still had plenty of support and following -- far more than there is today in the tiny community of indie RPG gamers.  Indie role-players seem to be doing fine within their much smaller niche.  In 1999, in terms of system, D&D was still the top RPG by a long shot, with Palladium close behind -- and the top ten included games like GURPS, Alternity, and Shadowrun.  

I suppose you could claim that the end-of-the-nineties AD&D had become perverted by story-based play.  But then I really can't see it as a war, since it's the same people on both sides.  Wizards of the Coast acquired D&D in early 1997.  So the people who did D&D3/D20 were the same people who were purging in 1999.  Jonathan Tweet was the author of Ars Magica, Over the Edge, and Everway -- while Monte Cook and Skip Williams were active D&D authors.  There was no changeover of hands.  

The only major changeover of hands was the WotC acquisition in 1997 -- but WotC were the publishers of The Primal Order and Everway, which seems to put them in the non-traditional camp.

In the late 90s I was playing Rolemaster Standard, RQ3 (briefly!), Alternity and WFRP. I certainly didn't feel like I was being attacked. I don't think I even looked at a White Wolf book (is that what we're talking about?) until a few years back (which just confirmed that it's not my bag). I think it would take a very sensitive soul indeed to feel that they were being attacked. Not that there's any shortage of such delicate flowers, or so it seems.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyIn the late 90s I was playing Rolemaster Standard, RQ3 (briefly!), Alternity and WFRP. I certainly didn't feel like I was being attacked.

d00d! I totally was attacked! One time, this guy in a long black trenchcoat leaped through the window yelling, "Roleplaying, not rollplaying! Paradigm!" then he hit me with his katana and ran away laughing madly leaving nothing but a copy of some flavour fiction. Man, I was just using the Random Dungeon tables in the DMG... :bawling:

Actually, there were occasional protests - serious looking black-clad, eye-liner wearing young men waving placards with things like "ROLE-play not ROLL-play" and "Crawl out of your dungeons, you have nothing to lose but your class restrictions!".

TBH, we just ignored them, most of them time (apart from that one occasion, but I'm not allowed to talk about that...)

Ned

I was attacked by Vampire players once.  It was the one time I went to GenCon.  Me and my gang had a game or seminar or something near a large group of them.  We were assaulted by large clouds of clove smoke.  To this day I can't use clove in the kitchen without experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder.  Apparently the smoke was even worse in the women's bathroom and the lady in our company can't play dice pool games anymore.  Every time she picks up a large group of d10 she goes into spastic coughing fits.

It's true that John is no "Kool Aid drinking" indie-die hard who believes traditional games and gamers are broken. Man, so true. And he's taken the heat for it. Believe me.

That said, lots of guys who like and play indie games (and I include myself and John as well as many, many others) periodically get hit by the "cross fire" from both "sides" (as we see here, although retracted, I think--and I respect the hell out of that).

That, if nothing else, makes a pretty good case that if you consider yourself in a "camp" that you might want to look at where your "camp" is aiming its artilery. Vitriolic blanket accusations aren't good for anyone, including the people making them.

-Marco

Quote from: jhkimCorrect.  Thanks for not immediately jumping to conclusions.  

What I meant was to include two specific points within a wide range of options.  i.e. A Storyteller-game with metaplot and a dungeon crawl can co-exist, and there are hundreds of possibilities beyond this.  I thought I clarified that with my next sentence which went on to list four other options.  

To pick another two arbitrary data points:  It is possible for Amber DRPG to sell to diceless Amber fans at the same time as Rolemaster is selling to its fans.  There is no need for a "war" between these two games, because they don't need to sell to the same people, and there are some people who will buy both.

Ahhh...intelligence.  So much nicer to deal with than monkeys flinging poo.

Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: blakkieI guess it wasn't the very last post I saw of yours, but it one of the last ones in the "Your Empowerment is Ruining My Fun" thread. Your very last post there had a few other different flavours of stinking pile instead.

The irony is thick (like your head, apparently). I disagreed with you there by asking you to point to a specific example of your "assertion." You couldn't, because it doesn't exist.

So here, when I ask you for a specific example, you...ummm...can't. I see a pattern developing.

Quote from: blakkiePlease keep in mind that I avoid the other forums here.....largely because of the presence of postings like yours in it. :/

If I go in enough forums, will you avoid them all? that would be great. Thanks.

Quote from: blakkieI also see you are posting in the thread in this forum about the usefulness of the term "fun". A thread title that just screams to me "beware, high possibility of convoluted bullshit ahead". *shrug*

Hey, neat! You can use the "View other posts by this user" Feature. I'm sure the guys at HQ will be happy to see this function being put to use; especially by one as illustrious as yourself.

However, if you took the time to actually look at what I posted ( I know, too difficult for you to be bothered with reading others' posts - much easier to fling poo!), you'd see I only posted with snide comments ("Is 'useless' a useful term?") and one post that starts with a disclaimer that it was off topic.

So again, your proof of concept falls a bit short, eh? Yup, a pattern.

Perhaps it would be best just to ignore each other.

My apologies for derailing this thread with this silly personal disagreement.

Quote from: jhkimUm, so now acting like you're cool is comparable to Pol Pot style purges of the sensitive geeks who feel like they're not cool anymore?!?  

I don't see it.  Traditional gamers in the late nineties still had plenty of support and following -- far more than there is today in the tiny community of indie RPG gamers.  Indie role-players seem to be doing fine within their much smaller niche.  In 1999, in terms of system, D&D was still the top RPG by a long shot, with Palladium close behind -- and the top ten included games like GURPS, Alternity, and Shadowrun.  

Very clever.  In the late nineties, AD&D wasn't a trad game anymore. It had been subverted into a story-based game long back, and its highlites were things like Planescape and metaplot-uberheavy Forgotten Realms.

QuoteI suppose you could claim that the end-of-the-nineties AD&D had become perverted by story-based play.  But then I really can't see it as a war, since it's the same people on both sides.  Wizards of the Coast acquired D&D in early 1997.  So the people who did D&D3/D20 were the same people who were purging in 1999.  Jonathan Tweet was the author of Ars Magica, Over the Edge, and Everway -- while Monte Cook and Skip Williams were active D&D authors.  There was no changeover of hands.  

By the mid-nineties AD&D (due in part to the intellectual bankruptcy of TSR) was already hopelessly subverted to Story-based gaming.
Between 1997 and the release of 3rd edition, Wizards didn't really do much with D&D; it took them that long to figure out what the fuck to do; and in the meantime they mostly just finished off a couple of outstanding projects that they inherited from TSR, and coasted.
There was a quantum leap from the final days of 2nd edition to the birth of 3rd Edition.  Fuck, the DMG for 3.0, if you read the introduction, reads like the anti-manifesto of a "counter-revolution to take back gaming from the fuckers who stole it from us".

QuoteThe only major changeover of hands was the WotC acquisition in 1997 -- but WotC were the publishers of The Primal Order and Everway, which seems to put them in the non-traditional camp.

Please. First of all, just as you did above all you're doing here is really trying to fiddle with dates to get to the ends you want; you know as much as I do that by the time Wizards bought TSR they weren't publishing RPGs AT ALL.  They were no longer an RPG company. They had shut down that entire department after Everway.

Besides which, neither of the products you mentioned above were "story-based"; Everway, for all its new-ageyness and funky mechanics was basically just an Amber homage; and since this was all pre-Forge they weren't tainted by the stupidity of things like GNS theory.

RPGPundit