O.k. So one of my most successful games is Squirrel Attack! It does not follow what seems to be "acceptable" around here in terms of game style. I was wondering if it (and I) fall into "wanker naval gazing" category and should "go away".

It:
1. Is strongly set up against hack an slash. A group of squirrels that decide to attack a dog are, well, dog meat.

2. It has Karma which is a mechanism for meta gaming, player plot control.

3. It's subject matter is a mix of not traditional (playing squirrels) and traditional (I would go as far as to say trite) fantasy tropes.

4. It was never part of a "grand design" but done on a lark. (This may be a point of disqualification).

So, I could see how some might qualify it as too narrow and not traditional, thus making it somehow unacceptable. SA! has been on my mind since I am writing and prepping a lot of Gen Con and saw some pretty clear and decisive statements in other threads about who is welcome and who is not on theRPGSite. I mean, there are mission statements and then there is the culture of a site. I am starting to think that this site is more narrowly focused than I once thought.

So, to sum up the questions:
1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?
2a. Examples of mechanics or setting that make them so please.

Thank you for your time.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, to sum up the questions:
1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?
2a. Examples of mechanics or setting that make them so please.

Thank you for your time.

Bill

1. Yes. All games are acceptable for discussion and inclusion, including wanker navel-gazer games. Silly games are also not necessarily wanker navel-gazing games - ref TOON - though they may be.
2. Emphasis on Player actions vs. emphasis on Player Character actions. No GM or very limited GM role. Others will I'm sure follow, but these are the ones I am sure of.
2a. Apres moi, le deluge.

-clash

Dude, honestly, the only people that would seriously care about the answer to that question aren't worth dealing with anyway.  

Talk about whatever the fuck you like.

Quote from: flyingmice1. Yes. All games are acceptable for discussion and inclusion, including wanker navel-gazer games. Silly games are also not necessarily wanker navel-gazing games - ref TOON - though they may be.
2. Emphasis on Player actions vs. emphasis on Player Character actions. No GM or very limited GM role. Others will I'm sure follow, but these are the ones I am sure of.
2a. Apres moi, le deluge.

-clash

Clash,
It would seem that non-trad games are unacceptable, not in the letter of the law but in the court of public opinion. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying they "should" be allowed or loved or whatever but that it is stated, much as you have, that they are included but then held up as a derisive mark against a poster. So, it may even be the intention of the sites owner to include (I do not believe this) by way of his mission statement but the community seems to deride and mock any such discussion.

Or, have I had too much coffee and am on a caffeine high?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt1. Is a game about squirrels, with the above clarifications, unacceptable subject matter (since there are apparently acceptable and not acceptable) for discussion and inclusion on the RPGSite?

Not if you rewrite it for Amber Diceless.

Quote2. What the hell are non-trad/"wanker naval gazing" games anyway?

Naval gazing... tricky. Not to presume, but In Harm's Way might qualify here. Clash?

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
It would seem that non-trad games are unacceptable, not in the letter of the law but in the court of public opinion. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying they "should" be allowed or loved or whatever but that it is stated, much as you have, that they are included but then held up as a derisive mark against a poster. So, it may even be the intention of the sites owner to include (I do not believe this) by way of his mission statement but the community seems to deride and mock any such discussion.

Or, have I had too much coffee and am on a caffeine high?

Bill

The court of public opinion doesn't consist of only two or three people. There are a lot of us here who don't foam at the mouth reflexively. This is besides the fact that I know your systems, and you are more trad than I am if anything, which makes me suspect that this post is intended as a test-case precedent-setting sort of deal.

-clash

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, honestly, the only people that would seriously care about the answer to that question aren't worth dealing with anyway.  

Talk about whatever the fuck you like.

And I do. However, if no one wishes to discuss it, or worse yet will turn the thread into a flame war where I am not even talking about what I started out with, then what good is talking about what I want on this site?

I mean it in this way. I do not go to a cooking site and talk about RPGs. Why? Because it is not what the community wants to talk about. Now, they may get flamey or snarky or just ignore it and let it sink but any way you cut it, I do not get to talk about RPGs. And I would not expect to. The same applies here. If the culture is such that discussion of such games is frowned upon/ignored/flamed then I should look elsewhere for that type of discussion (as has been suggested).

Personally, if that is such a culture, the mission statement of the site should be altered and maybe a sticky of topic guidelines should be thrown up. Something like, don't mention the forge or stated positively like "This is a site for discussion of Traditional RPGS" and then a definition of what such a game is.

Bill

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot if you rewrite it for Amber Diceless.



Naval gazing... tricky. Not to presume, but In Harm's Way might qualify here. Clash?

Definitely. I even have a couple of illos of Naval guys gazing off into the distance - some through telecopes! You nailed it, Pierce!

-clash

Yep! Test-case!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThe court of public opinion doesn't consist of only two or three people. There are a lot of us here who don't foam at the mouth reflexively. This is besides the fact that I know your systems, and you are more trad than I am if anything, which makes me suspect that this post is intended as a class-action precedent-setting sort of deal.

-clash

Clash,
Oh, I am not trying to be coy here. Yes, it is an attempt by me to raise awareness and discussion on a matter that I feel affects the site and the quality of discussion. I use my own games as I do not like singling out other publishers but I believe arguments could be made for others far more involved with this sites basic functioning than I.

As for consisting of 2-3 people, well, that is another thing I had hoped to find out here. The right 2-3 people could be very important in effecting the culture and discussion of the site. If we do not ban, then those three people can chase off people who would discuss non-trad games or the like, this forming and shaping your discussions. Do you see my point?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
Oh, I am not trying to be coy here. Yes, it is an attempt by me to raise awareness and discussion on a matter that I feel affects the site and the quality of discussion. I use my own games as I do not like singling out other publishers but I believe arguments could be made for others far more involved with this sites basic functioning than I.

As for consisting of 2-3 people, well, that is another thing I had hoped to find out here. The right 2-3 people could be very important in effecting the culture and discussion of the site. If we do not ban, then those three people can chase off people who would discuss non-trad games or the like, this forming and shaping your discussions. Do you see my point?

Bill

I'm cool with it. Just remember - I don't lead, I don't follow, and I don't get out of the way.

-clash

Please ignore.

Talk about whatever you like, Bill.

Personally, I enjoy all games, even the one the "hard core" here despise.  In fact, tonight I'm playing Dogs in the Vineyard...one of my all time favorite games.

I think there should be a more tolerant attitude here on some sorts of games.  This place should have been a place where one can talk about RPGs and not be censored for speaking one's mind.  Instead, it's gotten almost as bad as RPG.net's d20 ghetto.

I'm almost fed up with the place.

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, honestly, the only people that would seriously care about the answer to that question aren't worth dealing with anyway.  

Talk about whatever the fuck you like.

Rarely do I just plain old say "What He Said", but...

...What He Said.

I dunno if I'm one of those 2-3 guys...prolly not, more like an interpreter.

I don't think discussion of any sort of game is excluded. What gets attacked rather is a kind of rhetorical bait-and-switch. E.g. I know nothing of Squirrel Attack other than what's in the original post. Let's suppose the original post didn't exist, or didn't explicitly acknowledge that "Karma is a mechanism for meta gaming, player plot control."

So now somebody says, "I love the Karma mechanics from SA, they let me do X, Y, and Z." (It really doesn't matter what XYZ are.)

Then somebody else says, "I don't care for metagame mechanics like that, they tend to make the game more like improvisational theater; I prefer a 'virtual world' that's independent of me as a player-character." That person may even say, "With mechanics like that, it's not really a roleplaying game."

[Edit: someone else might say "We do XYZ all the time without using anything like the Karma mechanic.]

At this point the conversation can go in several directions. (1) We argue about what a roleplaying game is, which some take as a veiled attack on their preferred style of play or an attempt to drive them from the site. (2) Somebody says all RPGs are improvisational theater, there's no such thing as 'virtual world', the concept of distinct 'metagame mechanics' is nonsense, you're deluded if you think any mechanics aren't metagame, Karma is just a way of formalizing what "we all do anyway" when we play RPGs.

Or (3), you respond, "Well, I guess it's not the game for you," or even "Yes! That was exactly my goal, to make the game more like improvisational theater, too bad you're not into that, if you've never tried it maybe you'd like it, but it's up to you."

(1) & (2) are tedious, bring out the worst in people, and frankly (2) is at least arrogant and possibly intellectually dishonest. (3) isn't going to cause any trouble, would certainly be welcome as far as I'm concerned, but if you're trying to generate traffic so you can gain exposure for your game, it may not be the best tactic.