TheRPGSite

That's the first sentence in this thread titled "Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267716-why-we-like-plot-our-job-dms.html)" on another board.

I thought it was an interesting topic, but some folks here would be more skilled I think at making a case with or against the OP than most.

The rest of the post reads as follows:

Quote from: AverageCitizenThe Caveat:
I understand that different player group/DM combinations will find different styles of gaming satisfying. Personally, I prefer rich stories so much that I avoid groups who just want to screw around. Some people are the opposite. We don't game together, and that's ok. My point here is I think they are missing out.

The Why:
We need to remember that the Players are the only audience that matters. We are assisting them in writing a story that they enjoy, through a medium of limited collaboration that makes such cooperation both more difficult and more satisfying.

We as DMs have only one job, and everything we do is periphery to it. Our job is to validate our players wildest daydreams and make every single one of them come true. Nobody wants to admit to lame empowerment fantasies, but everybody has them whether they know it or not. If the game "coincidentally" lets players live out those fantasies, they'll have an unbelievably great time. Every DM has probably run a game that struck a particularly harmonious chord and illicited a general "that was awesome" response. I would suggest that this is why.

Not only do we have to make their dreams come true, we have to do it quickly. We only have a few hours at the table a week, so we can't afford to waste time. Every encounter should either

    1. Uncover what their dreams are

    2. create a scenario in which those dreams will make the player a hero (or anti-hero, if that's what they're in to) or

    3. allow one or more PCs to realize or come closer to realizing those desires.

Pull that off, and they'll love you for it. As DMs we have to power to make people feel good about themselves, and I don't think they even realize it as it happens. They just have a good time, and they don't know exactly why. I don't even know why, I just know it works. We could probably ask Freud.

The only real way to accomplish those three tasks in the time allotted is with an engaging story. Themes, morals, conflicts and other artistic touches usually reserved for Russian tragedies are satisfying for me to share with the players and serve a double purpose: to illuminate and later validate their secret ambitions. It makes them feel like everything was planned to make some grand point or pose a deep question and that their actions as characters advanced that higher goal. Its like a music lover who's only sung in the shower taking the stage at a karaoke and getting a standing ovation. I build the world and set the story so they can live out their secret fantasies center stage and not feel ashamed. And at the end, if your good at Russian tragedy, everybody feels like they've learned something. That's why it's the greatest game ever played.

Any thoughts?

Wow.  That is so much fucking wank I don't know where to begin.

Lame

To sum up:  My gaming style is better then your gaming style because I said so.

My rebuttal:  If the GM isn't having fun - no one is going to have fun.  So if you are the GM and like story driven games find a group that's into story driven games.  If you are a GM that's into hack'n slash find a group that's into hack'n slash.  If you fall in between, congratulations you'll basically get to pick a 'normal' group that enjoys bits of everything.

Yeah......


The poster known as Average Citizen is full of shit.


- Ed C.

*farts*

This guy has no idea what he's even talking about. I mean, did he even read what he, himself, posted?

He's not talking about "story games". He's talking about circle jerks.

AverageCitizen names himself quite aptly. I am sure that he is entirely ordinary as a GM and player.

Also... Tits!

Quote from: Mistwell;343147Any thoughts?

I think that if I wanted to join in a discussion of an ENworld forum thread, that I would go to ENworld to do so.

QuoteWe as DMs have only one job, and everything we do is periphery to it. Our job is to validate our players wildest daydreams and make every single one of them come true. Nobody wants to admit to lame empowerment fantasies, but everybody has them whether they know it or not.

[/I]

Please, someone invite this guy to theRPGsite.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;343160I think that if I wanted to join in a discussion of an ENworld forum thread, that I would go to ENworld to do so.

And yet you replied here.  Next!

0/10

QuoteOur job is to validate our players wildest daydreams and make every single one of them come true.

:confused:

Shit.  Even most Forge games don't go this far.  That's some of the worst advice I've ever heard.  

I mean, RPGs are games, right?  We're playing a game?  Because the way this guy makes it sound I have to be Secret Cheerleader for my players all the time.  I think they'd grow quite bored if I was always granting them their every wish all the time.  

Like hell.  My players struggle to get what they want in my games, and they revel in every second of it.

Quote from: jeff37923;343160I think that if I wanted to join in a discussion of an ENworld forum thread, that I would go to ENworld to do so.

Quote from: Mistwell;343166And yet you replied here.  Next!

Well, yes. You are the one who is not original enough in your thoughts so that you have to drag an ENworld thread here and then asked what people thought about your action.

Sorry if it makes you look foolish and unoriginal, but that is what you set yourself up for.

As a trolling attempt, you get a 0/10.

Quote from: Peregrin;343170Like hell.  My players struggle to get what they want in my games, and they revel in every second of it.

Exactly, that's because most people enjoy escapism and not empowerment fantasies.

Regards,
David R

I do get the author's point  that roleplaying games should be "player-centric" in that frankly players is all they've got. The game isn't being filmed for posterity or quality audited by a third party. As the poster says the players are the game's only audience, so why not try to please them? And games in which the players consistently fail (however fairly), end up looking like chumps or worse still are outshined by NPCs rarely last very long.

However in my opinion uncrtitical, automatic validation of whatever the players do or want will eventually cheapen the experience. For it to be meaningful, the right to live out one's fantasies (I would not necessarily phrase it that way, but sticking to the original poster's way of putting it) has to be earned, which is where the risk of failure comes into play and which is also one of the reason you cannot really count on a game having a pleasing story each time.

The funny thing is the two extremes kind of GMs, the strict GM who only allows things the fit with his visions and the collusive GM that goes along with whatever the players say both end up depriving the players of any meaningful choices.

Is this quoted post even real?  It has the ring of "Dear Penthouse Forum, You're never going to believe this, but..."  I mean, this is like dog meat for the likes of Pundy.  I'm getting a whiff of barnyard.

!i!

Perhaps the original quote was "Story games are more rewarding than having your period."

Anyway it sounds like an argument that video games are better in 'cheat mode', to which the counter-argument is "not for very long."

Quote from: Peregrin;343170:confused:

Shit.  Even most Forge games don't go this far.  

It is however, a very accurate description of the RPGnet school of Exalted play.

Quote from: jeff37923;343171Well, yes. You are the one who is not original enough in your thoughts so that you have to drag an ENworld thread here and then asked what people thought about your action.

Sorry if it makes you look foolish and unoriginal, but that is what you set yourself up for.

As a trolling attempt, you get a 0/10.

If you will look on the thread list, you will find several threads from other boards (An Interesting Post on Realism, Ryan Dancey Post, etc..), and other blogs.  Heck the entire " WoTC Doesn't Want Fan Sites?" thread was started by Pundit quoting someone on EnWorld. For some reason you didn't voice an objection to other threads like this one until it was me.  

And, you continue to reply here.  If it really held no interest at all for you, you would never click on this thread again after the first time.

You don't have to participate.  Nobody is twisting your arm Jeff.  I'm sorry if the mere existence of this thread, which others seem happy to discuss, bothers you.  I suggest you simply don't read it if you have an issue with it, or me.

Quote from: Age of Fable;343180Anyway it sounds like an argument that video games are better in 'cheat mode', to which the counter-argument is "not for very long."

agreed...or like those weird "development league" sports groups for children where no scores are kept and everyone wins.

i can appreciate the "it should be a blast for everyone"-kinda vibe, but the GM has to enjoy the game as well.  if the GM just becomes a facilitator to the every whim of the players...hell, just start the session with "...and you all live happily ever after" and go home.

Quote from: Mistwell;343186You don't have to participate.  Nobody is twisting your arm.  If you have something constructive to say, please do say it.

Sometimes to be constructive you have to be destructive first. Before you can build something useful, you have to tear down the old mess and clear it away.

The original article doesn't need a detailed analysis. It's obviously wrong, because most gamers don't show up to the game session hoping the GM will give them a handjob.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;343188Sometimes to be constructive you have to be destructive first. Before you can build something useful, you have to tear down the old mess and clear it away.

The original article doesn't need a detailed analysis. It's obviously wrong, because most gamers don't show up to the game session hoping the GM will give them a handjob.

OK you're right.  Constructive was the wrong word, and destructive would be useful as well.  I should have said "Do you have anything to say on the topic".

Jeff's objection is to me posting the topic at all, and to me personally.  He has yet to opine as to the actual subject.

And as for the subject, I really wanted to check my own reaction against others.  My own reaction was "Say what? That's some crazy shit right there.  That would be a really boring game really quick".

And I have to admit, the "Is this really an RPG" discussion came to mind.  If all the DM is doing is fulfilling his players wildest dreams and whims, I'm not sure if that is an RPG.

Quote from: Mistwell;343189He has yet to opine as to the actual subject.

Because the subject from the ENworld thread is obvious crap. Even you think so. If you took Average Gamer's idea and implemented it, the result would be a Monty Haul campaign.

Quote from: Mistwell;343189And as for the subject, I really wanted to check my own reaction against others.  My own reaction was "Say what? That's some crazy shit right there.  That would be a really boring game really quick".

So why didn't you say that in your OP?

If you could kill a muppet, which one would it be, and how would you go about it?

Quote from: J Arcane;343181It is however, a very accurate description of the RPGnet school of Exalted play.

Haven't been around RPGnet long enough to know how they play Exalted.  Some of them may not like the way I run Exalted, though.

Quote from: Mistwell;343189And I have to admit, the "Is this really an RPG" discussion came to mind.  If all the DM is doing is fulfilling his players wildest dreams and whims, I'm not sure if that is an RPG.

Of course it's still an rpg.

I mean, a lame, boring and stupid movie is still a movie.

Quote from: Aos;343191If you could kill a muppet, which one would it be, and how would you go about it?

They're felt and fabric - just once or twice through the washer and dryer set on the wrong settings intentionally and they're a wrinkled tattered  mess.



- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923;343190Because the subject from the ENworld thread is obvious crap. Even you think so. If you took Average Gamer's idea and implemented it, the result would be a Monty Haul campaign.



So why didn't you say that in your OP?

I wanted to check my reaction, which is usually best done when you don't bias the responders by telling them your opinion up front.

Utter bullshit.

If a thread topic's interesting, it's interesting.  I don't think we need to extend  IP rights to individual fora.  Most of us post on several anyway.

I agree with Kyle that this topic doesn't warrant much discussion, and there aren't enough posters at TRPGS to spam up the front page with Mary-Sue-ish threads, so we can just ignore it if we like.

As to the topic, I agree with the handjob comment and all the others in similar vein.

But, hey, how about some edition wars?  Is it fair to say that this type of pathetic wish-fulfillment game philosophy is more prevalent since 4E?

To nobody's great surprise, Hairfoot says yes.

Quote from: Peregrin;343193Haven't been around RPGnet long enough to know how they play Exalted.  Some of them may not like the way I run Exalted, though.

The general expected order of Exalted play there IME was that the player makes the most ridiculously powerful character they can by more or less breaking the system, and then the GM is expected to prop up a series of both social and physical punching bags for the players to knock down and thus be able to demonstrate how brilliantly awesome and wonderful their character is.

Frankly, it kinda makes you want to puke.

Quote from: J Arcane;343204The general expected order of Exalted play there IME was that the player makes the most ridiculously powerful character they can by more or less breaking the system, and then the GM is expected to prop up a series of both social and physical punching bags for the players to knock down and thus be able to demonstrate how brilliantly awesome and wonderful their character is.

Frankly, it kinda makes you want to puke.

Oh...that type of play.

TBH, I originally wasn't too interested in Exalted, thinking it was too weird and too high-powered (I originally wasn't a huge fan of supers/high-power type games), spent months warming up to it and almost loving it, only to become jaded with the rules and the problems they caused from a GMing standpoint.  

I know a lot of people on RPGnet still play it and use the system quite a bit, but with the way some posters come across it's almost like they're a battered wife or something.  Or maybe the only reason they can put up with it is because they handwave everything.

Quote from: J Arcane;343150Wow.  That is so much fucking wank I don't know where to begin.

Agreed.

While I feel story is the important product, the line about "wildest daydreams" is pure bull. A good story comes from a good framework, cooperative players & GM, reasonable levels of simulation, and players having meaningful (and real) risk to their characters.

The coddling of players in the quote from average citizen guarantees a munchkin circle-jerk. It's counter even to most forge games' ethos.

Yeah, AverageCitizen (more like outlier than average) posted another gem in the sister thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267646-confession-i-like-plot.html) to the one Mistwell linked:

Quote from: AverageCitizenTo craft my campaigns to include plot, I've learned that I have to break a few rules.

Specifically the unspoken rules that say "Players have control over their characters" and "DMs have control over everything else."

The best opening to a campaign I have ever run involved me creating roles for the players to play. They made their characters, named them, and then I decided how they all fit together and who they were in the game world. For example, one player rolled a Dedicated Hero (We were playing d20 Modern,) who he said he wanted to be a doctor. Once I had a good idea of how the story would go I told him something like "You are a surgeon in St. Joseph's trauma unit in Chicago. Your wife, Barbara, recently left you and took your 11 year old son Spence and your 3 year old daughter Julie with her. Earlier in the day, there was a streak of gang-related violence as a 3-week drug war  continues, and you've been in surgery with the victims all night long. You have just been relieved and are about to go home. It's about 3 A.M." The other characters followed similar patterns, all building on the one before.

Trusting me with some creative license allowed me to not only connect the players to each other, but to ensure that they had personal stake in the events that were about to unfold. By the time we were rolling everybody was interconnected somehow. Not everybody knew everybody, but they knew someone who knew each character. More importantly, they all had relationships that would prove to be their main motivation in the story. Because they had all been provided with vested interest in the game-world, when things started happening they took it a lot more personally. When things went all Wrong, with a horrifyingly paranormal capital W, their characters had a good reason to care.

This came with some very beneficial side-effects. By pretty much assigning them a role in the story, players who had previously been very timid about role-playing were much less self-conscious. Fulfilling an assigned role is a lot more personally justifiable than spouting a backstory of your own creation to any one who will listen. Not to say that I did all the work for them, once we got rolling we worked together on the fly to flush out the skeletal frame-work I gave them, and then they played their parts to the T. "Why did my wife leave me?" he says. "I dunno," says I, "It'd be more interesting if it were your fault." "How bout I had a stroke a few years back and now she says it's like I'm a different person?" "Thats good, that'll work really well." So when things go all X-Files on him and he starts to wonder if he really IS another person, everything all ties together, and he helped create the story possibilities.See, it all becomes co-operative.

Referring to the rules I mentioned at the beginning, you can see what I mean when I said I broke them. They gave me some of their creative control, and I gave them some of mine, and what we made together was way, way more awesome.

Yeah, not so much for me, bunky.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;343188The original article doesn't need a detailed analysis. It's obviously wrong, because most gamers don't show up to the game session hoping the GM will give them a handjob.

That depends.  Is she going to buy me dinner afterwards?

As to the original post, that guy is the very essence of 'should be in a writer's collective'.  His goofy notions are the exact reason people think GMs are failed novelists.  It's also the logical progression of that 'say yes or roll the dice' idea, especially when you avoid rolling the dice so as to prevent upsetting the railroad plot.

If his style works for he and his crew, more power to him. Other than that, I'm not interested on that style of gaming, and in my experience, players like to face real challenges, with real chances of losing it all. So, there.

Not much need about getting all worked up because some godforsaken guy somewhere likes playing in a different way, though.

Quote from: Imperator;343223players like to face real challenges, with real chances of losing it all.

Seems to be true.

I started running a RuneQuest game recently. One PC died because rather than ambushing it as is traditional, he decided to go toe-to-toe with a great stag - who gored his arm and then he bled to death.

A second PC, the group had slain some foes, and were snooping around the camp of another group... and stood around discussing whether or not or how to attack them, when they hadn't actually got close enough to see their numbers. Four of the foe came out to have a look at what the noise was, the PCs slew them but suffered one injured. Then they saw torches in the woods - more foes coming. They paused to decapitate and loot the four dead, and then limped away with the heads, loot, and injured comrade. One of the PCs decided to create a diversion, lead the foes away.

While running in the darkness, he tripped and fell and a foe came up to him, got a lucky strike and downed him. He's been captured and will probably be horribly tortured to death if the other PCs don't rescue him.

I said afterwards in email, perhaps we should have some kind of "hero points" thing, if you present a picture or short backstory of your character, or bring beer, you get to turn a failed dice roll into a success... or maybe we should just harden up? I left it to the players.

One responded, "I like it better hardcore."

I like it better when PCs live, but hey, if that's what the players want... :)

Quote from: Mistwell;343147Any thoughts?

Bullshit.

If you want to create a work of narrative excellence...then forgo the rulebooks and dice and just write a damn book.

If you want to create a work of compelling theater...then try out for a stage play.

Both offer potentially more tangible rewards than an RPG...last I checked, they don't give out Pulitzers or Tonys for "best roleplaying game."

We play games for one purpose above all else...to have fun. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.

"It's not ROLL-playing it's ROLE-playing!"

We see this little rhetorical gem bandied about constantly on gaming forums...but in actuality, neither is correct. It's a roleplaying GAME...and as someone much more eloquent than I has stated:

"Anyone who prioritizes artistic expression over fun in a GAME has their head so far up their own ass, they can tongue their tonsils from behind."

Quote from: Shazbot79;343228"It's not ROLL-playing it's ROLE-playing!"

We see this little rhetorical gem bandied about constantly on gaming forums...but in actuality, neither is correct.

Of course not. It's all about rolling dice and eating snacks while talking shit with your mates :)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;343233Of course not. It's all about rolling dice and eating snacks while talking shit with your mates :)

Natch.

Quote from: Average CitizenBy pretty much assigning them a role in the story, players who had previously been very timid about role-playing were much less self-conscious. Fulfilling an assigned role is a lot more personally justifiable than spouting a backstory of your own creation to any one who will listen. Not to say that I did all the work for them, once we got rolling we worked together on the fly to flush out the skeletal frame-work I gave them, and then they played their parts to the T.

This part alone I'm going to credit.

My partner enjoys conventional RPGs, but tunes out when it comes to combat and game mechanics.  She has, however, been heavily involved in LiveJournal games in the Buffy and Harry Potter universes.

Strangely, to me, the goal of those games is not to create an original character within the setting, but to play an existing character convincingly, so that he or she acts and sounds as though the author was writing the LJ entries.

I think that's mostly a feature of fiction fandom, but also of the way that non-gamers connect primarily to characters and only secondarily to setting.

Providing interesting pre-gen characters for new gamers - without lumping them the burden of building one from scratch – can be a useful introductory technique to RPGs.

Quote from: Hairfoot;343243Providing interesting pre-gen characters for new gamers - without lumping them the burden of building one from scratch – can be a useful introductory technique to RPGs.

Taken out of context, that snippet almost sounds reasonable.

But the way OutlierCitizen claims to do it, once you put the quote back in context, is ridiculous. Roll stats and make a name and then I'll assign you a character is a far cry from choosing from a selection of pregens.

Quote from: The Shaman;343244Taken out of context, that snippet almost sounds reasonable.

But the way OutlierCitizen claims to do it, once you put the quote back in context, is ridiculous. Roll stats and make a name and then I'll assign you a character is a far cry from choosing from a selection of pregens.

If I was going to take that sort of shit in context I'd be posting at ENworld.

Quote from: Hairfoot;343245If I was going to take that sort of shit in context I'd be posting at ENworld.

Good point.

That was almost a classic enworld thread.  I mean, that was fit nearly right to the template of what an enworld thread is:

OP says something controversial to some percentage of the population.

OP then engages in 2-3 pages of "nuh-uh!" and "I never meant it like that!" faux-butthurt posts.

Following posters rail.

Two to four posters spend the next eight to twelve pages doing a damn good impression of "Argument Clinic" that slowly decays from anything meaningful into a semiotics debate.

The only thing it was missing was a mod defending the OP's post which, let's face it, is from the MOOOOOOOOOOON and shouldn't have been allowed to stand.  It's a meta edition wars post: I promise you if someone posted "AD&D is the right way to play, superior to all others" assuming the thread wasn't just deleted outright it'd be locked, they'd get a Stern Warning(TM) from the mods, etc. etc.

Yes the OP's post is wrong, but the whole thread is kind of ridiculous.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;343277Two to four posters spend the next eight to twelve pages doing a damn good impression of "Argument Clinic" that slowly decays from anything meaningful into a semiotics debate.

haha nice.

In reply to the OP.

I can kind of see where his reaction is coming from.

I've got two-three gaming groups depending on how you slice it, and I'm generally the most popular GM. One of the main reasons for it I nailed down a long time ago.

As a player, I became absolutely sick to fucking death of playing in games where the GM humored himself by turning the players actions into a comedy of errors.

Most GMs I've met constantly run indecipherable mysteries or describe PC actions as if they were being performed by sub par real people. NPCs are always more powerful, no matter how powerful you get. There is always some gloating, invulnerable menace. No body with a name can get killed. Every time you roll a natural one in combat you trip over your own sword, fall out of a vehicle, or get hit by a friend.

So when I run, I make certain to depict the player characters as awesome. For example, I like having a consequence for rolling a one in combat. Usually, I'll say something like, "your bow string breaks. You need to take a move equivalent to fix it" or, "you slightly overstep when you take your strike, giving your enemy an attack of opportunity." My way of describing it is much more enjoyable to my friends than, "you break your sword" or "you fall off your horse and get stepped on."

It also has to do with how the world perceives the characters. In my games, a 1st level wizard is respected by the community because magic missile is otherwise known as "slay average person." First level fighters can fight and kill 3-4 orcs or level 1 warriors, so they get respect as well. Not to mention, the simple fact that player characters have above average stats means people will treat them with respect.

This doesn't mean my games aren't hard. I probably kill more player characters than any other game master I know, but my players respect it because while they were alive, they were badasses.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287This doesn't mean my games aren't hard. I probably kill more player characters than any other game master I know, but my players respect it because while they were alive, they were badasses.

That's the same approach I take. I've got no interest in making the PCs look like mooks or fools, or be outshined or rendered inconsequential by NPCs. The PCs are awesome heroes (or anti-heroes, as the case may be). But they're also going to face challenges as tough as I can make them and are going to be called on to prove their awesomeness or die (or retire into non-awesomeness, I suppose). Yeah I want the players to succeed, but I want them to do so by being smart, not because I gave it away (or because the challenges were set up so that success was pretty much inevitable barring a major screw-up).

Quote from: Aos;343191If you could kill a muppet, which one would it be, and how would you go about it?

Miss Piggy.....death by bacon sandwich.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343228Bullshit.

If you want to create a work of narrative excellence...then forgo the rulebooks and dice and just write a damn book.

If you want to create a work of compelling theater...then try out for a stage play.

Both offer potentially more tangible rewards than an RPG...last I checked, they don't give out Pulitzers or Tonys for "best roleplaying game."

We play games for one purpose above all else...to have fun. Some people find the more thespy/talky aspects of the game more fun than the hack n' slash which is perfectly fine...but for the OP to claim that beer n' pretzel gamers are "missing out" because they don't share his/her playstyle is nothing more than pretentious, self-important ass-hattery of the worst order.

"It's not ROLL-playing it's ROLE-playing!"

We see this little rhetorical gem bandied about constantly on gaming forums...but in actuality, neither is correct. It's a roleplaying GAME...and as someone much more eloquent than I has stated:

"Anyone who prioritizes artistic expression over fun in a GAME has their head so far up their own ass, they can tongue their tonsils from behind."

Thank you!  Something about all of these storygaming threads has been bugging me for a while now but I couldn't quite put it into words.  Well said.  If they are having fun playing these games then great for them, but the people/designers posting these threads need to leave off with the pretentiousness and the thinly veiled attempts at looking down on old school gaming.  My players get empowered by overcoming obstacles and outsmarting and outfighting their adversaries and that has been good enough for the 30 years I've been playing.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287In reply to the OP.

I can kind of see where his reaction is coming from.

I've got two-three gaming groups depending on how you slice it, and I'm generally the most popular GM. One of the main reasons for it I nailed down a long time ago.

As a player, I became absolutely sick to fucking death of playing in games where the GM humored himself by turning the players actions into a comedy of errors.

Most GMs I've met constantly run indecipherable mysteries or describe PC actions as if they were being performed by sub par real people. NPCs are always more powerful, no matter how powerful you get. There is always some gloating, invulnerable menace. No body with a name can get killed. Every time you roll a natural one in combat you trip over your own sword, fall out of a vehicle, or get hit by a friend.

So when I run, I make certain to depict the player characters as awesome. For example, I like having a consequence for rolling a one in combat. Usually, I'll say something like, "your bow string breaks. You need to take a move equivalent to fix it" or, "you slightly overstep when you take your strike, giving your enemy an attack of opportunity." My way of describing it is much more enjoyable to my friends than, "you break your sword" or "you fall off your horse and get stepped on."

It also has to do with how the world perceives the characters. In my games, a 1st level wizard is respected by the community because magic missile is otherwise known as "slay average person." First level fighters can fight and kill 3-4 orcs or level 1 warriors, so they get respect as well. Not to mention, the simple fact that player characters have above average stats means people will treat them with respect.

This doesn't mean my games aren't hard. I probably kill more player characters than any other game master I know, but my players respect it because while they were alive, they were badasses.

I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I admit my DM'ing skills are not as good as the DM'ing skills of some others whose games I've been in (particularly at GenCon private games).  But, I am working to get better.

Though DMing is the best way to become a better DM, I do find reading threads, like some of those on this board, helps as well.  Heck, even this thread I think helps with it.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I'll admit that I got to be DM because I was the only one willing to buy and read all of the books.  Is that close enough?

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I once admitted fucking up and causing my game group to implode.

I was trashed for it online for months afterwards.

Saying, "I was wrong," is such a rare thing online that people have the urge to stick the boot in pretty viciously. So I can't recommend it.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

Online or offline I think the issue is the really bad GMs don't even realise it. If they did they would either do something about it or quit GMing.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287As a player, I became absolutely sick to fucking death of playing in games where the GM humored himself by turning the players actions into a comedy of errors.

Most GMs I've met constantly run indecipherable mysteries or describe PC actions as if they were being performed by sub par real people. NPCs are always more powerful, no matter how powerful you get. There is always some gloating, invulnerable menace. No body with a name can get killed. Every time you roll a natural one in combat you trip over your own sword, fall out of a vehicle, or get hit by a friend.

Intresting, personally I tend to find that 'invincible NPC' syndrome is associated with 'you will follow my story' syndrome rather than acting against it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;343343Online or offline I think the issue is the really bad GMs don't even realise it. If they did they would either do something about it or quit GMing.

Except when no-one else will GM :)

There's a bit at the end of the DM of the Rings webcomic where the players trash the GM viciously, and he says, "alright, what are you going to run, then?" and they all go, "oh no you're alright, you'll be okay, you'll get better, we'll help you..."

Bad GMs can get game groups because most gamers are too lazy and disorganised to get a group together and run a campaign. It may not last but... :)

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I think most nerds that are excited enough about their games to talk about them online will be good at it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;343343Online or offline I think the issue is the really bad GMs don't even realise it. If they did they would either do something about it or quit GMing.

That's true of bad anything. Most people think they are above average. The quality that lets people become experts is the same quality that lets them be self critical.

I am have been in the past, a bad GM/Referee/DM for one reason or the other.  Usually it's because of under-preparedness, and/or lack of familiarity with the rules (or misunderstanding them).  Also not really feeling out the target gaming group that well.  It is a problem I still have from time to time, but I'd say in my defense that I'm probably about 75%/25% good/bad on a broad spectrum.  If you're talking one system, say...oh...I dunno maybe...AD&D? Yeah, I'm in my element and I excel there.

Quote from: Cranewings;343287...

So when I run, I make certain to depict the player characters as awesome. For example, I like having a consequence for rolling a one in combat. Usually, I'll say something like, "your bow string breaks. You need to take a move equivalent to fix it" or, "you slightly overstep when you take your strike, giving your enemy an attack of opportunity." My way of describing it is much more enjoyable to my friends than, "you break your sword" or "you fall off your horse and get stepped on."

It also has to do with how the world perceives the characters. In my games, a 1st level wizard is respected by the community because magic missile is otherwise known as "slay average person." First level fighters can fight and kill 3-4 orcs or level 1 warriors, so they get respect as well. Not to mention, the simple fact that player characters have above average stats means people will treat them with respect.
...

Same here.  I also try to throw in a "repeat" encounter later, one that once would have made them tremble but now is a cake walk.  Of course now that they are slaying frost giants like they once slew orcs (orcs were once tough) they feel pretty badass.

Now that my players are 9-10th level (in D&D terms) even the King treats them with respect.

I absolutely agree with the title of this thread.

For me.

For you? Who knows. And because I'm not a game nazi, I do still play with my local crunchy-BRP fans. And I attempt to infect them with my namby-pamby circle-jerk touchy-feely narrativist style. It hasn't worked. :)

Quote from: Pelorus;343401It hasn't worked. :)

Good.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;343407Good.

Oh, get over yourself.

Quote from: Shazbot79;343321I wonder if anyone ever admits to being a bad DM online?

I am altogether atrocious, but my players keep showing up so I keep running games.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343417Oh, get over yourself.

No, no, he's right, GW.

If that infection starts to spread, we could have story gamers showing up in all our games. Better to quarantine and contain the vector.

Pelorus, please step into the yellow plastic tent . . .

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;343422I am altogether atrocious, but my players keep showing up so I keep running games.

I'm a pretty lame, but since I keep trying to run stuff no one's interested in playing (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/le-ballet-de-l-acier) anyway, at least I'm not responsible for the, "Look what my horrible GM did to me!" rants on web forums.

So I have that going for me.

Quote from: The Shaman;343427I'm a pretty lame, but since I keep trying to run stuff no one's interested in playing (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/le-ballet-de-l-acier) anyway, at least I'm not responsible for the, "Look what my horrible GM did to me!" rants on web forums.

So I have that going for me.

I can write a pretty good rant about that, if you need one.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343417Oh, get over yourself.

That the best you got?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343489That the best you got?

In fairness, you didn't exactly bring much to the table yourself.

Quote from: J Arcane;343490In fairness, you didn't exactly bring much to the table yourself.

Point conceded.

Quote from: The Shaman;343426If that infection starts to spread, we could have story gamers showing up in all our games. Better to quarantine and contain the vector.
Pelorus, please step into the yellow plastic tent . . .

I joined a group of 3 hardcore BRP fans. They had tables for their tables. And loved the whole "cool, we're beta testing some new BRP rules" vibe.

And now...

There's me ("But it's all about the STORY") and another bloke who teaches non-conflict and creativity in a touchy-feely way ...and I think we're winning..

Quote from: Pelorus;343536There's me ("But it's all about the STORY") and another bloke who teaches non-conflict and creativity in a touchy-feely way ...and I think we're winning..

How is a good story created, though?  As I've said in another thread, even the nWoD corebook tells the ST to back-off a bit and react to the players rather than forcing a set plot.  

Personally I find the best "stories" to be the ones when we're concentrating on playing our characters and the game, rather than trying to play off of some sort of improv narrative.  It's like if an improv actor were to suddenly step out of their role to decide where the improv should go, rather than just playing their part to the hilt and having the fun and interesting things come about naturally.  If the players have interesting characters and their GM provides interesting situations for those characters to interact with, then an interesting narrative should come about through play fairly easily.

Story as a product of good play rather than story as a goal, IMO.

And it's not like I'm anti-everything-Forge or anti-whatever makes a narrative.  I own and love Burning Wheel.  But even BW stresses conflict, heavy consequences, application of the rules and roleplaying over GM and player wankfests.  The person in OP's quote is talking about pure player and GM masturbation.  If you want that sort of thing, you may as well just toss the rulebooks aside, grab some booze, light a fire, and have story-hour.  I'm not saying that in a mean way--storytelling can be fun, but pursuing story in-and-of-itself without regard for the emergent nature of roleplaying in-general and RPGs is kind of defeating the purpose of play.

Why, Mistwell, why? WHY?????

Quote from: Pelorus;343536I joined a group of 3 hardcore BRP fans. They had tables for their tables. And loved the whole "cool, we're beta testing some new BRP rules" vibe.

And now...

There's me ("But it's all about the STORY") and another bloke who teaches non-conflict and creativity in a touchy-feely way ...and I think we're winning..

Good for you.  You weaseled your way into a group that was enjoying itself and instead of simply playing along like a normal person, you manipulated the situation for your own selfish ends because you just can't stand the notion of someone playing somehow other than you do.

You post shit like this as if it's something to be proud of, and yet you fucksticks wonder why you get the reaction you do online.

Quote from: J Arcane;343540Good for you.  You weaseled your way into a group that was enjoying itself and instead of simply playing along like a normal person, you manipulated the situation for your own selfish ends because you just can't stand the notion of someone playing somehow other than you do.

Why constantly talk like anyone these people talk to are complete and utter fucking morons who will do whatever they're told? If they don't like the style, they would most likely tell these two to shove off; if they do like the style, then there is no harm being done.

Do you get pissed off when someone introduces you to a new kind of food, too?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343546Why constantly talk like anyone these people talk to are complete and utter fucking morons who will do whatever they're told? If they don't like the style, they would most likely tell these two to shove off; if they do like the style, then there is no harm being done.

Do you get pissed off when someone introduces you to a new kind of food, too?

No, but I would get pissed if I started a club for chili enthusiasts, and then some new jackass shows up and starts trying to get everyone to turn it into a curry club instead.

It's fucking rude, and obnoxious.  If you don't like the way the group plays, find another fucking group.  What the hell right do you have to insist on it being something other than what it was?  What the hell makes your fun more important than everyone else's at the table?  Especially when they're all enjoying it just fine?

From the sounds of it, this asshole has already driven players out of the group.  Isn't that the sort of behavior we should be discouraging if we want the hobby to be a welcoming place for new gamers?  Or at least ensure that the one we have now doesn't implode from useless infighting and selfish politics?

Quote from: J Arcane;343540Good for you.  You weaseled your way into a group that was enjoying itself and instead of simply playing along like a normal person, you manipulated the situation for your own selfish ends because you just can't stand the notion of someone playing somehow other than you do.

You post shit like this as if it's something to be proud of, and yet you fucksticks wonder why you get the reaction you do online.

Wow. You're a dick!

No-one has left the game. The story-gamers give and take some banter about what they like. The guys abusing the 'box tick for experience' rule continue to do so. The Story gamers provide entertaining narrative on their blogs of the games and- truth be told - we take the best notes.

But, man, such hostility -  I reckon there's something you should examine in there. You know- with some touchy feely conflict resolution shit.

Makes me think you really WISH you were a story gamer...

Quote from: J Arcane;343547No, but I would get pissed if I started a club for chili enthusiasts, and then some new jackass shows up and starts trying to get everyone to turn it into a curry club instead.

It's fucking rude, and obnoxious.  

No, rude and obnoxious is just you.

Do you honestly run groups for non-forgers only? Your way is the only way? That's exactly what you're describing and accusing me of doing. The group is BETTER because it has a mix. But go on, vomit some more...

I recommend saving the amateur psychoanalysis for your storygame circle jerks.

You're not really any good at it.  

If you can't see what's rude about imposing your tastes an an otherwise functioning group, then you've got far too many personal problems to be judging anyone else on that front.

Quote from: J Arcane;343552I recommend saving the amateur psychoanalysis for your storygame circle jerks.

You're not really any good at it.  

If you can't see what's rude about imposing your tastes an an otherwise functioning group, then you've got far too many personal problems to be judging anyone else on that front.

LOL. This is your attitude to anyone having the wrong kind of fun?

I call Godwin.

Quote from: Pelorus;343555LOL. This is your attitude to anyone having the wrong kind of fun?

You illiterate Aspy twat.  This has nothing to do with the "wrong kind of fun", it has to do with imposing one's personal idea of fun on others uninvited.

I'd be just as crass to march into a game of My Life with Master and start demanding the players cater to my desire for a mindless D&D dungeon crawl.

QuoteI call Godwin.

WTF does this even have to do with anything?

You realize someone actually has to use the comparison before you can call Godwin, right?

Or are your basic lingual skills so utter atrophied that in all this time you've failed to pick up this obvious nuance?

Quote from: pawsplay;343539Why, Mistwell, why? WHY?????

Because he's a dick.

This is a fuck-up of a thread from start to finish.

Quote from: One Horse Town;343561Because he's a dick.

This is a fuck-up of a thread from start to finish.

There is some good discussion in here, mixed with some swill.  Like many threads on this forum.

Quote from: Pelorus;343536There's me ("But it's all about the STORY") and another bloke who teaches non-conflict and creativity in a touchy-feely way ...and I think we're winning..

Commie.

Quote from: PelorusBut, man, such hostility - I reckon there's something you should examine in there. You know- with some touchy feely conflict resolution shit.

Conflicts are best resolved by intimidation and violence. I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning something!

Fuckin' commie.

Quote from: Pelorus;343551Do you honestly run groups for non-forgers only? Your way is the only way? That's exactly what you're describing and accusing me of doing. The group is BETTER because it has a mix. But go on, vomit some more...

IME good mix when it comes to Forgey/Non-Forgey normally means the group is willingly to play a variety of games. I don't really see how you can incorporate elements of forge and trad play in a same campaign with everyone being on the same page. And I say this as someone who enjoys Forge games. Thespy type play is of course different from Forge play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pelorus;343551No, rude and obnoxious is just you.

Do you honestly run groups for non-forgers only? Your way is the only way? That's exactly what you're describing and accusing me of doing. The group is BETTER because it has a mix. But go on, vomit some more...

The cognitive dissonance is thick enough to cut with a knife.  Do you grasp the difference between "I run games for a group of like-minded gamers" and "HEY I FOUND A GROUP THAT DOESN'T GAME THE WAY I LIKE SO I'LL JUST GO IN AND FUCK THAT SHIT UP".

You're siding with griefers, and it's making you look like a cunt.

Quote from: David R;343579Thespy type play is of course different from Forge play.

Definitely. Thesp involves profound themes. Forgers are all about a depressing worldview and being super-shock-edgy-cool. Forgers are the emo teenagers of the rpg world.

Quote from: Pelorus;343551No, rude and obnoxious is just you.

Do you honestly run groups for non-forgers only?

Yo Pelly,

Got news for you: The majority of the gaming world are Non-Forgers.

Thats because they've never heard of the damn Forge website and the fucked-up associated theories.


- Ed C.


Although....if someone says to me "RPGs seem to be getting weirder or fucked up somehow."  I might ask them if they want to know why....but thats fodder for another/dsifferent thread. .....

Quote from: Koltar;343600Yo Pelly,

Got news for you: The majority of the gaming world are Non-Forgers.

I think that kinda proves the point though.

I've never played a Forge game - but I'v enjoyed some of their darlings (DITV, TMW). But in their GNS, I'm much more into the N than anything else so my contribution beyond showing up and rolling dice is writing the Actual Play. Michael, our RQ GM is very much into the S. He loves the tables of tables.

But the thing is: this is all an American problem. We don't differentiate like that because, frankly, there's not enough gamers here and once you remove the gamers who are actual dicks (you know, guys who argue every point, cheat their rolls and points, only want to play Werewolf, etc ), there's just not that many people around. If someone came into a group with the built-in hostility, then he'd be kicked out -  not because of his hatred of forgers but because there's no need for it in such a small population of gamers.

I'm kinda shocked at the hostility because we just don't have it here. There's no adversarial stance and , to be honest, you're right, most of the gaming world are non-Forgers but that's mostly because they've never heard of it. The local big gaming club here lets anyone in who likes 'games'. Period. You like RPGs, great. Chess, fine. Collectable Trading Card Games, yes. Wargaming, fine. Videogames, over there with the videogamers.

Just because some Forgers killed someone's puppy one day, doesn't mean everything that comes out of it is bad. The escalation mechanic in DITV, I've modified for my own GMing use. The Trust mechanic in TMW, great for spy games, which I've reworked into some more house rules for my own games (like 23rd Letter). And we didn't come into an existing working group to shit on it - we came to play games. We just brought with us additional fun. And yes, we have banter about how next week we will replace dice-based conflict resolution with poetry competitions or counting magpies as they fly past the window - but it's just banter and we all know it.

But as an olive branch...

One thing I have found in my experience: Ron Edwards. I don't want to meet the man after his review of Godlike. He needs a punch in the face.

I totally agree. I try to stick to a use whatever techniques work for me and avoid getting tied down to ideological positions which frankly seem rather silly.

Also what I find helps with regards to Internet forums is to mentally translate any stream of abuse and profanity to "I respectfully disagree".

Quote from: Soylent Green;343607I totally agree. I try to stick to a use whatever techniques work for me and avoid getting tied down to ideological positions which frankly seem rather silly.

Quite. But then even left to themselves, pre-Forge roleplayers were happy to turn on each other.

Quote from: Pelorus;343604The escalation mechanic in DITV, I've modified for my own GMing use. The Trust mechanic in TMW, great for spy games, which I've reworked into some more house rules for my own games (like 23rd Letter).

Very interesting ideas here. If I was better at messing around with systems I would definitely incorporate some Forgey mechanics in my games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pelorus;343604But the thing is: this is all an American problem.

Not really. It's a theRPGsite and tBP problem. More of the former actually.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pelorus;343617But then even left to themselves, pre-Forge roleplayers were happy to turn on each other.

See, it's stuff like that which makes Forgers sound like pretentious twats.

Quote from: Pelorus;343604One thing I have found in my experience: Ron Edwards. . . . He needs a punch in the face.

Then again, perhaps we can find some common ground.

Pelorus: I saw your location as Northern Ireland and was wondering if you had come across Forgers in Ireland? I've met a good few indie gamers in Ireland, mostly at Gaelcon (and the best dude at Dominicon) but none of them gave off overt Forger vibes. There was one attempt to get us to have a go at misery tourism, but mostly it was general honesty about what the games entailed.

And I think this is why you generally don't see the trad v Forger conflict in the real world. In the real world people are too busy playing games, and associating with people they like. People are generally civil at conventions, and I can say for a fact that of all the people in my gaming community only the people I regularly booze with know what the Forge is. The forge doesn't appear on most people's radar. And that's within the active gaming community. At one seminar there was a shop owner talking about how the actual gaming community only represents a tiny proportion of actual gamers. He classified the others as, "kitchen table gamers" people who don't get active in clubs, and don't post on the internet. Their only link to gaming culture would be what's stocked in the shop. People posting here are a small percentage of gamers, and forgers are a small percentage of people who are actively arguing online.

Buceph makes a lot of sense. My current crew don't participate online , never have been members of any clubs, visited conventions or heard of Forge games before they met me. I think there's a lot more of them then us.

Regards,
David R

I often wonder what proportion of gamers actually posts to forums.

Have any of the larger boards been polled on that recently?

Quote from: Hairfoot;343670I often wonder what proportion of gamers actually posts to forums.

Have any of the larger boards been polled on that recently?

Just talking in the past to gamers I associate with, there are about 15 gamers who do not post to gaming forums for every gamer who does. It is a pretty big ratio.

Quote from: Koltar;343600Yo Pelly,

Got news for you: The majority of the gaming world are Non-Forgers.

Thats because they've never heard of the damn Forge website and the fucked-up associated theories.


- Ed C.

Indeed, you speak truth.

Quote from: jeff37923;343677Just talking in the past to gamers I associate with, there are about 15 gamers who do not post to gaming forums for every gamer who does. It is a pretty big ratio.

That's my experience as well.

Quote from: Hairfoot;343670I often wonder what proportion of gamers actually posts to forums.

Have any of the larger boards been polled on that recently?

Of the people I've gamed with in the last 10 years (approximately 25 people), only 2 don't post on the internet. One's dead. The other is in afghanistan.

About half of them posted on WWIVnet before the internet.
10 participate in one or more gaming forums, and another 4 do online shared story RP.

Quote from: David R;343669Buceph makes a lot of sense. My current crew don't participate online , never have been members of any clubs, visited conventions or heard of Forge games before they met me. I think there's a lot more of them then us.

Regards,
David R

My experience as well. We don't represent gamers as a whole, not in the least.

Quote from: Imperator;343701My experience as well. We don't represent gamers as a whole, not in the least.

I do.

:p

Out of my own local gaming crowd, I have 5 posters / 1 perma-lurker / 8 couldn't give a fuckers who don't even browse RPG forums, but are active RPG players.

At California conventions, I can mention RPG.net and ENworld and OSR and all I get are blank stares 90% of the time.

I did a poll at our fall 2006 D&D tourneysevents to find out how many of our players were on RPG.net and ENWorld.   The plan was to see if we should be buying banner ads.  Out of 40 players for the weekend for the tourney events, only 3 people were poster / lurkers and almost 30 of them had never heard of either website.    The complete lack of knowledge was most impressive and informative.  

However, the SoCal conventions have an indie clique who attends the cons to play Forge stuff and almost all of them are involved in the various indie forums.    

At their height, they were a pretty good clique for the vendors.  Unlike grogtards, the Forgies are into buying new shit whenever it comes out.    Camarilla LARPers are decent customers too for WW and prop/costume stuff.  

But boardgamers are A+ great customers - always buying new shit.   And they've got Boardgame Geek which really does a great job building their community to keep them aware of new games.  

RPG.net is too fucked up and bitchfesty to ever develop into any kind of marketable community.   ENworld is too fractured and soon won't matter at all as people continue to migrate away to either DDI or Paizo.

Buceph does make a good point.  I'm the only one in any of my gaming groups that has ever even heard of Forge/GNS/Ron Edwards, etc.  I had never heard of them either until I read some of Pundits comments on Ron Edwards.  I don't personally know any other gamers who actually hit the forums and they would yawn at the debate over the best style of play since they know what they like.

As far as Pel's attempts to "convert" his BRP crowd, if he isn't interfering with the game or being a tool about it then I don't see the harm. J Arcane is right that if you join a group just to convince them your style of play is better then that is rude to the GM and the rest of the group, but there is nothing wrong IMHO with talking up another game to your friends.  That is how I converted the AD&D group I was running to playing RQ (I know, heresy, but we play both now).  From personal experience though having purchased Hero Quest (the original version) I can tell you none of our group (myself included) wanted to switch to story gaming and I think I'm using the game books as coasters now.

Quote from: Grimjack;343731As far as Pel's attempts to "convert" his BRP crowd, if he isn't interfering with the game or being a tool about it then I don't see the harm. J Arcane is right that if you join a group just to convince them your style of play is better then that is rude to the GM and the rest of the group, but there is nothing wrong IMHO with talking up another game to your friends.

I'd like to point out that I didn't convert anyone. The BRP fans still roll their dice with glee and record their experience check-marks. We've not replaced any conflict resolution with competitive circle jerks or anything else alluded to by J Arcane. We all still roll Specials and Criticals with our D100s. We just have a different perspective.

And yes, we might debate the merits of taking a story approach -  but like many other things, it's not the be-all and end-all.

To be honest, we're too busy pointing fingers at those bastard War-gamers and sonofabitch card-gamers to be picking on other role-players.*

M

*or that's the way it used to be. Our rationale was scarcity of tables. One table at our local club could cater for 6 roleplayers OR two card gamers or it was 4 tables for 2 wargamers. With a scarcity of tables, we fought over space.

And we loved LARPers. No fecking tables!

Quote from: Buceph;343662Pelorus: I saw your location as Northern Ireland and was wondering if you had come across Forgers in Ireland? I've met a good few indie gamers in Ireland, mostly at Gaelcon (and the best dude at Dominicon) but none of them gave off overt Forger vibes. There was one attempt to get us to have a go at misery tourism, but mostly it was general honesty about what the games entailed.

There are some local folk who played Sorcerer but there wasn't any angst about it. I don't think the locals see any conflict because, end of the day, geeks gotta stick together (against the other more socially acceptable obsessive compulsives, like footie fans).

The folk in the south of the Island are more 'social' definitely. They have good links across the nation. Up north, we're a lot quieter and less overt. Back when I ran Q-CON, the big issues of the day were 'Magic The Gathering' and 'Holy Crap, Vampire just brought a load of girls into the hobby. Quick, date them!'.

So yes, there isn't a Forge issue over here. Some people play Forge-type games and people either join in or look bemused. There's no way I'd get my gaming group to play the new Narrativist Runequest game. Not when there's Specials and Crits in BRP!

Quote from: Buceph;343662And I think this is why you generally don't see the trad v Forger conflict in the real world. In the real world people are too busy playing games, and associating with people they like. People are generally civil at conventions, and I can say for a fact that of all the people in my gaming community only the people I regularly booze with know what the Forge is. The forge doesn't appear on most people's radar. And that's within the active gaming community. At one seminar there was a shop owner talking about how the actual gaming community only represents a tiny proportion of actual gamers. He classified the others as, "kitchen table gamers" people who don't get active in clubs, and don't post on the internet. Their only link to gaming culture would be what's stocked in the shop. People posting here are a small percentage of gamers, and forgers are a small percentage of people who are actively arguing online.

It's fair to say that:

1) I visit here and RPGnet. Here because the conversation is better quality. There because there's more people talking and sometimes it's nice to have something to talk about. I realise I have to watch my mouth over there and have been told off a few times for being 'passive aggressive' (which is a load of donkey cock). That sucks bigtime but really...

2) the only place, of the two sites, where I see vitriol and abject hatred is here. I realise there's reasons for it but just as I don't see an issue with talking about Gamist, Simulationist and Narrativist in common parlance, I don't see an issue with DitV or TMW. Now - I don't agree with the main positions in the Forge  -  probably because I don't understand them (and they seem like analysis for the sake of analysis) - but the vitriol is hard to take. I guess it's more of a 'qhy can't we get along' vibe. Which then leads me to...

3) I don't mind the tools but I dislike the Tools. I think you can learn something from anyone, from any book. And yes, I find some of the Forge stuff to be condescending (see my earlier comment about Ron Edwards and his Godlike review). But that's not a GNS issue or a Forgist issue. It's a Ron Edwards issue and if I think he's a Tool then - whatever. I'll never meet the guy face to face so I won't need to plant him for that shitty review. I've met a few big name game developers wayback when and the only one who bothered me was Sam Chupp (and that's more because he wandered around in flannel loungers at a convention and looked mostly like a homeless person). And that was wayyyy...pre-Forge.

Quote from: The Shaman;343620See, it's stuff like that which makes Forgers sound like pretentious twats.Then again, perhaps we can find some common ground.

I meant, previous to the Forge even existing, gamers turned on each other for the smallest of things. Our school club was dominated by the 'highbrow' folk who only played Consulting Detective and Call of Cthulhu. It was real high school stuff. Which is why I don't *seriously* point fingers at groups. End of the day, we're here to play games. How dicky is that?

Quote from: Pelorus;343745So yes, there isn't a Forge issue over here. Some people play Forge-type games and people either join in or look bemused. There's no way I'd get my gaming group to play the new Narrativist Runequest game. Not when there's Specials and Crits in BRP!

It is good that they have recognized BRP as the one true path of gaming!

Quote from: Pelorus;3437452) the only place, of the two sites, where I see vitriol and abject hatred is here. I realise there's reasons for it but just as I don't see an issue with talking about Gamist, Simulationist and Narrativist in common parlance, I don't see an issue with DitV or TMW. Now - I don't agree with the main positions in the Forge  -  probably because I don't understand them (and they seem like analysis for the sake of analysis) - but the vitriol is hard to take. I guess it's more of a 'qhy can't we get along' vibe. Which then leads me to...

I'm too tired most days for vitriol but having read some of the Forge threads to see what Pundit was so worked up about I have to say that I do take offense at the "holier than thou" attitude that seemed pervasive there.  If this were just a debate between which type of game is more fun I don't think there would be any vitriol involved.  After all, everyone is going to have their own preference for gaming, even those godless card gamers:p, and if they have fun then more power to them.  The vitriol seems to come up in situations like the OP where there is an implication that we neandrethals who don't like story games are just too stupid to understand that they are superior.  In fairness, I didn't get that impression from your posts but I think that is why these debates always strike a nerve with some people.  Being talked down to by story gamers, some of whom wouldn't last 5 minutes in a D&D game before being fragged by other players is annoying to say the least.  But since you are still in a BRP game you have some street cred at least (assuming the party doesn't roast you and your storygamer buddy on a regular basis that is). ;)

Quote from: Pelorus;343745I meant, previous to the Forge even existing, gamers turned on each other for the smallest of things. Our school club was dominated by the 'highbrow' folk who only played Consulting Detective and Call of Cthulhu. It was real high school stuff. Which is why I don't *seriously* point fingers at groups. End of the day, we're here to play games. How dicky is that?

In my high school gaming club the 'highbrow' folk played Traveller or EPT.  In college, the debate was over whether computer RPG's were better (and we are talking text only games or maybe Ultima on the Commodore 64 at that time).  Man I'm old!

Quote from: Grimjack;343754It is good that they have recognized BRP as the one true path of gaming!

I'm too tired most days for vitriol but having read some of the Forge threads to see what Pundit was so worked up about I have to say that I do take offense at the "holier than thou" attitude that seemed pervasive there.  If this were just a debate between which type of game is more fun I don't think there would be any vitriol involved.  After all, everyone is going to have their own preference for gaming, even those godless card gamers:p, and if they have fun then more power to them.  The vitriol seems to come up in situations like the OP where there is an implication that we neandrethals who don't like story games are just too stupid to understand that they are superior.  In fairness, I didn't get that impression from your posts but I think that is why these debates always strike a nerve with some people.  Being talked down to by story gamers, some of whom wouldn't last 5 minutes in a D&D game before being fragged by other players is annoying to say the least.  But since you are still in a BRP game you have some street cred at least (assuming the party doesn't roast you and your storygamer buddy on a regular basis that is). ;)

I'm of the school that says someone who is a horseback warrior from an equestrian culture shouldn't have to make a Ride roll to gallop down a street. This sort of discussion sparks much debate in our RQ games because we have some amazingly powerful heroes and they get such bad dice rolls. :)

With regards to the vitriol at Story Gamers -  don't go to the Forge! -  if you're going to be a spectator at a 'story gamer circle jerk', don't be surprised if you get a splash...

Totally with you on the card gamer front. Godless soulless bastards who'd skin their own granny for a booster pack.

Quote from: Pelorus;343757I'm of the school that says someone who is a horseback warrior from an equestrian culture shouldn't have to make a Ride roll to gallop down a street. This sort of discussion sparks much debate in our RQ games because we have some amazingly powerful heroes and they get such bad dice rolls. :)

I agree with you.  I actually use a combo of old RQ and new MRQ rules  and in my games skill rolls are only used when you are doing something extraordinary.  IIRC one of the games in the BRP/RQ line actually says that. The way we play it, for example, galloping down a nearly empty street shouldn't require a skill test but galloping down a crowded street at midday should require a skill test to either avoid or deliberately ride down pedestrians (player preference).  Of course the occasional fumbled die roll is amusing, but at the risk of sounding like a "story gamer"* I don't think the game benefits from players stopping to make die rolls in every situation.  A good example IMHO is in "Fear of Girls" when Krunk the Barbarian meets the Elf princess in the dungeon:

Raymond/Krunk: "I'm going to have sex with her."
GM: "Okay. Roll for it".

Mind you it is not that I want to role play one of my gaming buddies trying to seduce some chick (fortunately they are all married and are probably worried their wives will overhear anyway) but it is better for players to think and come up with a plausible strategy to do something in character than to just rely on the luck of the roll to solve everything.  OTOH, going back to the OP, I don't care if the player's dream is to bang an Elf princess, I don't think it is my job to tailor the game "bring his secret dreams to life", that is why they invented internet porn!  In the Krunk/Elf scenario above, unless he has mad seduction skills or at the very least some ruffies, Krunk would only be getting intimate with her steel-toed boot in his nards.

*Ron Edwards would have to pry my D100 out of my cold dead fingers first.

I tried to join a group of "Story game" players once. They were really serious about it. The story teller just talked and talked. Occasionally he asked a player what they might do, but usually twisted it to his needs for the story anyway. It was the most mind numbing and boring session I have ever sat in on. Maybe I could have enjoyed it if I knew 3 years of story history or if the segment I witnessed made any sense.

Unfortunately it left a bad taste in my mouth for that style of play. I'm sure plenty of players enjoy it. But it's not for me and I doubt I'll try it again. Odd, I'm usually really opened minded. Crap, that experience scarred me. Maybe I should try it again...

Oh, and;

Quote from: Pelorus;343757Totally with you on the card gamer front. Godless soulless bastards who'd skin their own granny for a booster pack.

Funny, even though I play those games too.

Quote from: Malvor;343829I tried to join a group of "Story game" players once. They were really serious about it. The story teller just talked and talked. Occasionally he asked a player what they might do, but usually twisted it to his needs for the story anyway.

That's not even "story gaming."  That's just pure GM masturbation.

Hopefully it wasn't a WoD game, because if so they're really misrepresenting the line.  The games are quite good if you can avoid asshats like the ones you encountered.

Quote from: Pelorus;343757I'm of the school that says someone who is a horseback warrior from an equestrian culture shouldn't have to make a Ride roll to gallop down a street.

But how often does that sort of thing really come up among gamers who are, say, more than twelve years old?

I see stuff like this thrown out there, and so often digging down a little bit one finds that (1) the person is recounting a youthful gaming experience or (2) what one gamer describes as JRA ("just riding along") was actually racing full-tilt-boogie down a street blocked by flaming barricades and a teeming crowd amid volleys of musket fire: "But of course my character should be able to do it! See, right here on my character sheet, I wrote 'Skill: Can Do ANYTHING in the Saddle!'"

I know some gamers really get tweaked about runs of bad luck with the dice; in my experience it's often a problem with a system that's too random (such as rolling 1d20 instead of 2d10). But there are ways around this, from 'taking 10' in d20 games to allowing characters with high skill levels of experience to succeed: in Flashing Blades, the rules state that a character who is a Master or Master Superior in a skill should't be asked to roll for all but the most challenging circumstances, and then they get a +3 or +6 bonus if the gamemaster calls for a skill check.

Quote from: The Shaman;343842But how often does that sort of thing really come up among gamers who are, say, more than twelve years old?

It's happened this year. And I think I'm second youngest out of a 5 man group (and I'm 37!).

Quote from: The Shaman;343842I know some gamers really get tweaked about runs of bad luck with the dice; in my experience it's often a problem with a system that's too random (such as rolling 1d20 instead of 2d10).

I sat twiddling my thumbs through an entire session of Delta Green with the same group because I fumbled climbing a tree (out of 60% climb) in non-dramatic circumstances and took so much damage (critical rules) I had to be driven to hospital. Now THAT was fun.

Don't get me wrong, I love BRP. I love the feel and the detail. But the dice scare the nads off me. And they love BRP -  and wouldn't consider moving to another system. Tongue in cheek, I've offered them resolution mechanics using SixSimple, my card based system (works with Tarot as well as playing cards) and they've called me all the names you would think appropriate for a pretentious twat like me.

But I continue to play with them because they're good guys, fun gamers and the plots are excellent.

Quote from: Malvor;343829I tried to join a group of "Story game" players once. They were really serious about it. The story teller just talked and talked. Occasionally he asked a player what they might do, but usually twisted it to his needs for the story anyway. It was the most mind numbing and boring session I have ever sat in on. Maybe I could have enjoyed it if I knew 3 years of story history or if the segment I witnessed made any sense.

Unfortunately it left a bad taste in my mouth for that style of play. I'm sure plenty of players enjoy it. But it's not for me and I doubt I'll try it again. Odd, I'm usually really opened minded. Crap, that experience scarred me. Maybe I should try it again...

Oh, and;


Funny, even though I play those games too.

Bad GM'ing and railroading can occur in any type of game.  I had a very similar situation in a Gamma World game at Gencon.  I can't remember what year exactly but it must have been late 70's and it still irritates me 30 years later.

To be honest, I've played card games too with my kids but you're right, it is still funny.

Quote from: Pelorus;343856It's happened this year. And I think I'm second youngest out of a 5 man group (and I'm 37!).

But I continue to play with them because they're good guys, fun gamers and the plots are excellent.

Your last line is the most important one.  If you are having fun who cares what rules you are using.  

I think Shaman is right that over emphasis on dice rolls is more common among younger gamers but I've seen more experienced gamers who picked up the habit early on and still do it.  In addition to over-rolling mundane situations,  I've also seen the opposite situation where you have players who think they can accomplish the impossible just because they rolled a special or critical.  Logic has to ultimately be the deciding factor.

I've played so many versions of RQ/BRP over the years that I can't remember where I saw it, but I know in one of the rules sets it specifically said that skill rolls aren't needed for everyday activities and should be reserved for actions under pressure or that are extraordinary, as Shaman mentioned.  IMO he hit the nail on the head, in that too many die rolls can make the games too random.  For that reason I stopped rolling dice for the reactions of major NPC's a long time ago since IMO interactions with the PC's shouldn't be governed by random dice rolls.

I had better stop before I start sounding like a story gamer.

Quote from: Peregrin;343833That's not even "story gaming."  That's just pure GM masturbation.

That's a good way to describe my Gamma World experience, and probably literally true since it started after a girl joined the group (nearly unheard of in those days) and he bent over backwards to make her happy despite the fact that she hadn't even signed up for the game.

Quote from: Grimjack;343880That's a good way to describe my Gamma World experience, and probably literally true since it started after a girl joined the group (nearly unheard of in those days) and he bent over backwards to make her happy despite the fact that she hadn't even signed up for the game.

Meh, I was guilty of that when I was 17. And it worked ;)

Quote from: Pelorus;343956Meh, I was guilty of that when I was 17. And it worked ;)

I don't fault him for trying but the girl was there with her boyfriend and the GM was 300lbs and dressed like a monk.  So we got railroaded for nothing.

Quote from: Grimjack;343963I don't fault him for trying but the girl was there with her boyfriend and the GM was 300lbs and dressed like a monk.  So we got railroaded for nothing.

This makes me cry just a little.