Quote from: T. Foster;621056It feels to me like he's pining for the groupthink days of the 90s when "everyone agreed" that, for instance, White Wolf was the model of rpg-progress in both system (dice-pools) and release strategy (fluff, splat, railroads, novel tie-ins) because "everyone" was actually a couple dozen "rpg professionals" (folks like Mike Stackpole: see recent thread here with relevant quotes) kibbitzing at GenCon and the GAMA trade show and nobody else had a voice. I don't think he's so much lamenting people having opinions about the "right" and "wrong" ways to do rpgs as that his and his friends' opinions on those matters are no longer the only ones the count - that we're actually telling them what we do and don't like and not just trusting their "professional" opinions about what we should like (whatever shiny new hotness they're shoveling out) and not like (70s/80s-style A/D&D).

I love the level of hilarious overarching cynicism that I'm always sure will be displayed by at least one person on this site the moment someone doesn't buy into the groupspeak of THIS forum. He doesn't agree that your grand war is important enough, so of course he has to have some ulterior sinister motive, it couldn't be that he just really does think its bullshit. He disagrees, we need to turn him into the BAD GUY.

That is absurd, because absolutely the moment I read that section, it resonated with exactly what I feel about the situation: Stop giving a shit about trying to build your walls and flinging shit at each other and just have fun and play games.

"Trad" vs "Storygame" doesn't matter except in your own preferences. You like one and not the other? Cool, have fun. You like both? Cool, that's awesome, too. You like one and want to have a massive hateboner for the other that causes you to manufacture bullshit motives for the other side so that you can demean them as people? ... no that isn't cool.

And no, I'm not talking about just you guys. I think the people on the other side who legitimate are calling trad gamers "brain damaged" etc are just as bad. The screwed up thing is this imaginary bullshit where anyone who designs or prefers a game that isn't to your standards is immediately considered interchangeable with whatever lowlife dick who talked down to your style.

They aren't. There are plenty of designers who just like the style and write for it, and don't give a single FUCK about taking away your toys are calling you a bad bad gamer for liking something else. Let them game in peace, all you are doing is engendering and continuing a war that is unnecessary and toxic to the community.

When games like D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, Star Wars, Marvel, and soon Call of Cthulhu ALL get modified to include narrative mechanics as if that really was just common sense, it's all the same, who cares, right? You SHOULD expect some backlash coming from gamers who actually do not feel that way. Pretending after the fact like you don't get what they're talking about and wonder why they are mean while not acknowledging the distinction they're making in the first place and going about your merry way pretending like nothing happened IS condescending, and intellectually insulting.

It matters to me. These are not the same kind of games AT ALL to me. And I don't have nearly as much fun playing story games (which I actually can play and enjoy on their own merits) as I do role playing games. I can play story games once in a while. I love role playing games, obviously. What really annoys the fuck out of me is when you change traditional games instead of coming up with your own new games however you want. To his credit, Monte Cook is doing just that with his narrative game Numenera. I have no interest in the project at this point, but I wish him luck in his endeavors.

By the way. I got a God-given right to like what I like and dislike what I dislike, and actually talk about it on the internet. You think it's nonsense? Fine by me. But don't you start pushing your own "all kumbayas, everybody must sing with the choir" bullshit on me. That is really some nasty group-think, as far as I'm concerned, and I consider this kind of rhetoric to be just as nasty as the extremists on either and all sides.

If Wizards had decided years ago to support all editions of D&D, much of this could have been avoided.

Quote from: Benoist;621070And I got a God-given fucking right to like what I like and dislike what I dislike, and actually talk about it on the internet. You think it's bullshit? Fine by me. But don't you start pushing that "all kumbayas, everybody must sing with the choir" bullshit. That is really groupthink nonsense of the highest order, as far as I'm concerned.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

The constant DEMONIZATION of the people on the other side is the problem. You don't like storygames, you don't want narrative mechanics in D&D or whatever? That's fine. Whatever man, its cool to have different tastes.

Accusing a person of sinister motives because it fits your narrative of them as the bad guys and you as the good guys fighting a holy war? That's bullshit. And that is just what the dude I was quoting did. I GENERALLY don't have a problem with your posts (you as in Benoist), because you are less prone to that behavior.

Its the same thing Monte was talking about: Yeah we all have always gotten into arguments about which system is better, what mechanics are better for A or B or whatever. But at the end of the day, if some other group used the system we didn't like, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

EDIT: Also, Star Wars and Marvel are LICENSES, not GAMES. D&D should play like D&D every edition, because D&D is the GAME. Star Wars and Marvel aren't games, they are licenses being adapted to games. Faserip is a game, Cortex+ is a game, SAGA edition is a game, WEG D6 is a game. Expecting the license to be used in the same kind of game every time is absurd.

Quote from: Dimitrios;621049I think some of the 3e designers were surprised by the directions it ultimately went in.

This. Truth is, no playtest is going to predict what happens when thousands of people get your hands on their game. Especially if the playtest had prior edition players and the release hit (maybe even mostly) new players.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

I understand you're pissed about stereotyping "the enemy" and the like. But don't use this to miss what MY point was about, please. When you act in a condescending manner, dismiss people's concerns about games and what they like and dislike about them, then stereotype them, treating them like they're just "trolls" and "dinosaurs" and "people who should get on with the times" or "really ought to be nicer," if they are not "rape victims" who really are "brain damaged" to begin with, then you create the kind of backlash we're seeing now.

Start by acknowledging what people like me are talking about, that there IS a difference between a story game and a role playing game. That this difference is actually paramount to my and other people's interest in playing a role playing game, and then we can start talking about how we can have games for everyone, that the Story Games hobby can flourish out of the RPG hobby just like the RPG hobby did out of the Wargames hobby in the past, and how games which are already classics in the minds of a lot of gamers out there ought to be treated from there, in regards to options, editions reboots and the like.

But if you continue to pretend like the difference just doesn't matter, and keep pointing out dismissively "who cares?" we'll keep having these discussions over, and over, and over again.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075Its the same thing Monte was talking about: Yeah we all have always gotten into arguments about which system is better, what mechanics are better for A or B or whatever. But at the end of the day, if some other group used the system we didn't like, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing wrong with people loving Apocalypse World.  However, when you buy into the notion (which started with Uncle Ron) that the narrative style of play was objectively superior, and that philosophy winds up taking games with a 20-30year history of non-narrative gaming mechanics, and turning it a game system with narrative mechanics, expect people to voice their opinion.

The problem is, when people did voice their opinion about the change in the game systems, the narrative folks denied there was any change at all.  The "System Matters" people who design specific narrative mechanics, deny that there is a meaningful difference between a game with those mechanics and one without.  At the point when they are arguing against something that is so fundamentally obvious as to be practically axiomatic, what is there to do but challenge the assertion that they are arguing in good faith?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075Yeah we all have always gotten into arguments about which system is better, what mechanics are better for A or B or whatever. But at the end of the day, if some other group used the system we didn't like, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Except, as Benoist points out, they're not just over there happily playing their games... they're actively seeking to push their ideas of 'progress' into traditional games that have never had those features.
I'm not a fan of Fate Points and Aspects but I'm not lobbying that those games that have them should change or that they need to be more like something I want to play. My complaint is when people who like those games think those features should be injected into all the games I DO like... such as WFRP and COC.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621078There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing wrong with people loving Apocalypse World.  However, when you buy into the notion (which started with Uncle Ron) that the narrative style of play was objectively superior, and that philosophy winds up taking games with a 20-30year history of non-narrative gaming mechanics, and turning it a game system with narrative mechanics, expect people to voice their opinion.

The problem is, when people did voice their opinion about the change in the game systems, the narrative folks denied there was any change at all.  The "System Matters" people who design specific narrative mechanics, deny that there is a meaningful difference between a game with those mechanics and one without.  At the point when they are arguing against something that is so fundamentally obvious as to be practically axiomatic, what is there to do but challenge the assertion that they are arguing in good faith?

Entirely agree.

Quote from: Simlasa;621080Except, as Benoist points out, they're not just over there happily playing their games... they're actively seeking to push their ideas of 'progress' into traditional games that have never had those features.
I'm not a fan of Fate Points and Aspects but I'm not lobbying that those games that have them should change or that they need to be more like something I want to play. My complaint is when people who like those games think those features should be injected into all the games I DO like... such as WFRP and COC.

Ditto.

Quote from: Monte CookNumenera empowers players not by taking power from the GM and giving it to players, but by taking power from the game and giving it to players. In other words, players don't exert influence on the narrative by changing or creating things outside their characters, but by having more power over how their own character performs and what happens to him or her. In Numenera, players can choose to prioritize tasks, to help ensure that they have a much better chance to succeed at the ones they deem the most important.

Emphasis mine.  Monte seems to be not getting the point that if the player is making a decision that the character cannot possibly make, then it is an OOC choice, a metagame mechanic, and it really doesn't matter whether the rationale is for narrative purposes (like a storygame) or for tactical game mechanic purposes (like 4e).  

If my character cannot possibly make the decision, then that mechanic of the game, by definition, inhibits my roleplaying because it pulls me out the mental viewpoint of the character into the mental viewpoint of the player looking at the character as an avatar, a character in a story or a piece in a game.

When you are creating a game that requires you to interface with the core mechanics in an OOC viewpoint, it's really hard to just call it an RPG without some form of qualifier.

I never said they don't matter. I said they don't matter beyond your own preferences.

Your preferences do not define what RPG means. If you want to divide it into Traditional RPG and Narrative RPG... well, yeah that works. You aren't telling people "Get the hell out of my hobby, you don't belong here".

The problem is, you define RPG ENTIRELY on how you play an RPG, when that isn't the only way to play them and has NEVER been the only way to play them. Are storygames catering to a niche? Yes, yes they are. They don't cater to hardcore immersionists. But that has never, in my long history with RPGs, been the only way to play RPGs anyway.

I remember reading through Old Geezer's posts on RPG.net (Yes, I know, fuck the big purple and all that jazz), I found it interesting how he described the game as played back in the early early days of D&D. From listening to your descriptions of what IS roleplaying... they weren't roleplaying either.

So how do you get to come along and define the word. Maybe Old Geezer's group was the ones that were really roleplaying: They were here first. So why didn't you find another word?

(Funny thing is: Honestly, I don't like the incredibly storygame games. I don't mind a few narrative mechanics, but overall I'm much more of a trad player and DM. I've even stripped some of the narrative mechanics from games I do like that have them. I just think its categorically unfair and toxic to manufacture motives for people so that one side can be the "good guy")

Quote from: Monte CookIn the open arena, for every one person interested in thoughtful discussion, there seems to be at least one person interested simply in putting forth an agenda. In other words, many people just don't understand the difference between examining something critically and tearing it apart. They don't understand the difference between analysis and advocacy. "Discussing rpgs" becomes "proving that the RPG I enjoy is the best."

...There wasn't the idea, though, that if you played one game, people who played other games were playing RPGs wrong.

That kind of strange, defensive way of looking at the hobby is relatively new. Frighteningly, it creates the kind of self-destructive toxicity that may one day destroy tabletop RPGs...All we'll be left with are the argumentative assholes, and I don't want to design games for assholes.

Quote from: 1989;621021I like the part where he said that 3e basically made people play with miniatures, and 3.5/4e taking that and making it moreso.

3e killed RPGs.

2e was the last great D&D.

Psst.  You're the asshole in the room.  You're just not self-aware enough to know that the thing you just did in response to this article, is the very thing he's talking about.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621084If you want to divide it into Traditional RPG and Narrative RPG... well, yeah that works.

Brother, that's all I want.  I don't care if 14 of the top 15 games at DTRPG are highly narrative.  I just want to know either on the cover, in the advertising or somewhere, that the games contain highly narrative mechanics and aren't labeled just "RPG".

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621084The problem is, you define RPG ENTIRELY on how you play an RPG

No. Just no.

I'm not into GURPS. GURPS is a role playing game.
I don't like Champions. Champions is a role playing game.
Savage Worlds is very "meh" to me. It's a role playing game.
Etc.

Quote from: Benoist;621091No. Just no.

I'm not into GURPS. GURPS is a role playing game.
I don't like Champions. Champions is a role playing game.
Savage Worlds is very "meh" to me. It's a role playing game.
Etc.

I never said you are defining RPG by the RPGs you like. I said by HOW you play RPGs.

You are a hardcore immersionist. All those games you mentioned not liking, don't interfere with you being an immersionist, at least not in any way I can see. I'm sure your dislike of them comes from something else in them.

Hardcore immersionist play is not the only way to play an RPG.