This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

When did everyone having equal "authoring" power become the holy grail of RPG?

Started by PencilBoy99, January 14, 2015, 12:40:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 10 11 12
User actions

Catelf

#165
January 25, 2015, 07:51:54 AM Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 08:00:26 AM by Catelf
Quote from: dbm;812211There is an implication, given that it is one of three named styes, each given 'equal billing'.
The problem with defining them as styles, is that they are Aspects, not Styles.
Even the most Narrativistic rpg ever still includes the other two aspects(Gaming and Simulation) or it seize to be a Roleplaying Game.
Instead you get a game like Once Upon a Time or a Choose your own Adventure, but without battles.
(EDIT: ) If you make a purely Narritavistic game, I mean.
I may not dislike D&D any longer, but I still dislike the Chaos-Lawful/Evil-Good alignment system, as well as the level system.
;)
________________________________________

Link to my wip Ferals 0.8 unfinished but playable on pdf on MediaFire for free download here :
https://www.mediafire.com/?0bwq41g438u939q

RPGPundit

#166
January 28, 2015, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: dbm;812211There is an implication, given that it is one of three named styes, each given 'equal billing'.

If you were to base it on the relative attention that the Forge gave to each one, in terms of games produced, you'd think they imagined that 9/10ths of all gamers would be narrativists once they were properly "educated" about how little fun they were having being all incoherent and brain damaged.

Of course the truth is that 0% of regular gamers are "narrativists".  Or "gamists", or "simulationists".  The entire theory is fucked up, because what most gamers really like is precisely what they define as either incoherent (a large and varied combination of elements in the game) or impossible/wrong (Immersion and Emulation).
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Catelf

#167
January 28, 2015, 01:17:36 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;812791If you were to base it on the relative attention that the Forge gave to each one, in terms of games produced, you'd think they imagined that 9/10ths of all gamers would be narrativists once they were properly "educated" about how little fun they were having being all incoherent and brain damaged.

Of course the truth is that 0% of regular gamers are "narrativists".  Or "gamists", or "simulationists".  The entire theory is fucked up, because what most gamers really like is precisely what they define as either incoherent (a large and varied combination of elements in the game) or impossible/wrong (Immersion and Emulation).
Even though the Forge was more homogenic than this site, I do need to point out that there were several there who didn't agree with the "Braindamage essay", nor did all there focus solely on "Narrativist" games.

"Narrativist Gamer", from my understanding, used to only mean a gamer that preferred that aspect of the game, not someone that ONLY wanted that aspect in games.

But I agree that the theory became severely fucked up, by the interpretation that the GNS should become either G, N or S, rather than a mix of all.
I may not dislike D&D any longer, but I still dislike the Chaos-Lawful/Evil-Good alignment system, as well as the level system.
;)
________________________________________

Link to my wip Ferals 0.8 unfinished but playable on pdf on MediaFire for free download here :
https://www.mediafire.com/?0bwq41g438u939q

Haffrung

#168
January 28, 2015, 08:54:49 AM
Quote from: soviet;812039Sure, a more focused game has a lower potential audience than a less focused one. I agree with that. I think it's no coincidence that so many self-published games go down this kind of route - if your goal is to realise your personal vision of a game rather than to publish a game more than 20 strangers will ever actually play at a table, you can afford to take risks and narrow things down.

FYP

Forgites created games for other Forgites to download in PDF and gush about to each other. Liberated from any chance of commercial viability or actual play by non-theorists, they could indulge their every exotic whim and abstract theory.
 

Panjumanju

#169
January 28, 2015, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: soviet;812138Note that narrativism being a playstyle doesn't mean that narrativists are a player type. Or simulationists, or gamists, etc. People will have preferences, sure, but I think most people can enjoy most types of game.

GNS theory? Really? I can respect it as the beginnings of critical theory on the topic, but hasn't it been entirely debunked at this point as "A For Effort, F for Fact" nonsense?

//Panjumanju
"What strength!! But don't forget there are many guys like you all over the world."
--
Now on Crowdfundr: "SOLO MARTIAL BLUES" is a single-player martial arts TTRPG at https://fnd.us/solo-martial-blues?ref=sh_dCLT6b

Catelf

#170
January 28, 2015, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: Panjumanju;812848GNS theory? Really? I can respect it as the beginnings of critical theory on the topic, but hasn't it been entirely debunked at this point as "A For Effort, F for Fact" nonsense?

//Panjumanju
It only received an F for Fact once it became clear that too many had drawn faulty conclusions from it, and decided to think an rpg could and should consist of ONLY Game, or ONLY Narration, or ONLY Simulation.
Before that, it just seemed really good.

I do not mind if you ditch the idea entirely though, as it is clearly limited.
(Just like the yin/yang model is flawed when describing reality.)
I may not dislike D&D any longer, but I still dislike the Chaos-Lawful/Evil-Good alignment system, as well as the level system.
;)
________________________________________

Link to my wip Ferals 0.8 unfinished but playable on pdf on MediaFire for free download here :
https://www.mediafire.com/?0bwq41g438u939q

jhkim

#171
January 28, 2015, 02:37:01 PM
Quote from: Panjumanju;812848GNS theory? Really? I can respect it as the beginnings of critical theory on the topic, but hasn't it been entirely debunked at this point as "A For Effort, F for Fact" nonsense?
I would say that it has become less popular, but it is still referred to in some circles.

Also, I would not call it the beginning of critical theory - especially since it is explicitly an altered version of the "Threefold Model" developed in the 90s on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Key differences include that Ron Edwards' GNS heavily redefined Simulationism to include older drama-based gaming such as most World of Darkness games.

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 10 11 12
User actions