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.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Once More, Defining "Swine"  (Read 43071 times)

estar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10065
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #255 on: July 14, 2015, 09:07:08 AM »
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;841596
I mean, most of the OR seems to have categorically rejected  his views directly,. The 4e edition is widely disdained in that space, yet he seems to think it's "more OSR than the OSR" Because it leans Gamist. That's another rejection.


On my part it is because they are simplistic. Despite the thousands of words nothing predicted matches what gamers actually do nor it describes anything accurately. They just sound logical.

Ron's problem is similar to what a lot of people think about RPGs. That if we only had the right set of rules it would fix everything.

The reality what makes RPGs are not the rules. The rules are important but what makes Roleplaying games , roleplaying games is the fact they are about a bunch of players acting as their characters with their actions adjudicated by a referee (in the case of tabletop a human referee) often interacting with a setting over a series of sessions linked into a campaign.

The campaign (even if it just one session) is what makes a RPG, a RPG.

If you want to develop a theory of RPGs than that where you need to start. The Campaign is what literally what came first i.e. Blackmoor and later Greyhawk. The rules are just the tools to help with all this. A campaign can endure over major changes in the rules.

OSR is only special in all this not because it tries to reach back to the earliest editions, but because from the starts it was a cacophony of multiple efforts, attitudes and approaches. From the very beginning of the movement, the norm was kitbashing whatever rules you liked for the campaign you were about to run. Yeah there were purists but they were dwarfed by the kitbashers like myself.

With this situation it is hard to sell a pure rules products. If you are not trying to sell a clone, then you can find success in selling a CAMPAIGN. Which is what my Majestic Wilderlands does, which Mutant Future does, Arrows of Indra, Dungeon Crawl Classic, and now Dark Albion.

In short you try to craft an experience that is exciting and interesting using the mechanics of classic D&D as your tools. Blackmoor and Greyhawk ignited tabletop roleplaying not because of their rules but because Arneson and Gygax created compelling, addictive, and above all fun experiences.

Forge Theory completely misses the boat on this by only focusing on the rules. Which is why Ron Edwards efforts to appealto the OSR crashed and burned.

Haffrung

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5155
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #256 on: July 14, 2015, 11:24:07 AM »
Quote from: estar;841603
Forge Theory completely misses the boat on this by only focusing on the rules. Which is why Ron Edwards efforts to appealto the OSR crashed and burned.

Yeah, most RPGers are not anywhere near as interested in mechanics as Forge theorists like to think. Learning and analysing game systems and mechanics for their mathematical design value is what boardgames are for.

Furthermore, Forge theory focuses on the rules to support a very narrow premise. Aging Victorian explorers uncovering vampires. Or mercenary bands competing at committing atrocities in a steampunk civil war. Most people want broader and more accessible settings and premises.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 11:38:49 AM by Haffrung »
 

Haffrung

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5155
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #257 on: July 14, 2015, 11:37:52 AM »
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;841456
I don't know what Rick Baker has said, but here's an interesting link to a Ron Edwards interview.

Well, that interview explains why Edwards had such a hate-on for D&D. Sounds like he played with a bunch of dickheads, and assumed that was the norm.
 

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #258 on: July 14, 2015, 02:14:38 PM »
For my two cents,

1) I dislike Ron Edwards' GNS theory and I think it is mostly wrong-headed. Actually, I'm still arguing against it currently in another forum.

2) However, that is far from the whole of the story games movement, especially after the shutdown of The Forge. There are lots of people who enjoy playing story games and story-game-influenced systems - including the popular FATE-derived and Apocalypse-World-derived games as I mentioned.

3) I don't particularly care about D&D edition wars, and I don't think they are at all central to the story games movement.  Even if Rick Baker was influenced by GNS theory, I don't think that 4th ed being commercially unsuccessful somehow proves that story games are wrong.  People should be able to play whatever D&D edition they like.


Quote from: Haffrung;841632
Yeah, most RPGers are not anywhere near as interested in mechanics as Forge theorists like to think. Learning and analysing game systems and mechanics for their mathematical design value is what boardgames are for.

It seems to me that the popularity of Pathfinder and other systems runs counter to this.  Personally, I'm mostly into rules-light games these days - but there are folks with difference preferences in mechanics, and no reason why they can't enjoy different games.  I don't personally play Pathfinder, but for those who enjoy it, more power to them.

ArrozConLeche

  • No Más
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #259 on: July 14, 2015, 03:00:22 PM »
Quote from: jhkim;841667
I don't think that 4th ed being commercially unsuccessful somehow proves that story games are wrong.  


I'm not sure how you mean "wrong" in this context, but I certainly don't think they're crap. Some very interesting games have come out of that space such as Remember Tomorrow and Shock.

Quote
there are folks with difference preferences in mechanics, and no reason why they can't enjoy different games.  


Yeah, the whole preference for "crunch" comes to mind.

Haffrung

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5155
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #260 on: July 14, 2015, 04:07:24 PM »
Quote from: jhkim;841667

It seems to me that the popularity of Pathfinder and other systems runs counter to this.  Personally, I'm mostly into rules-light games these days - but there are folks with difference preferences in mechanics, and no reason why they can't enjoy different games.  I don't personally play Pathfinder, but for those who enjoy it, more power to them.


Sure, there are RPGers out there who enjoy mastering a complex system. But chasing after the new shiny and comparing and analysing a relentless intake of new systems is something I associated more with the boardgame hobby than RPGs. I'd guess most RPGers who have an appetite for the kind of novelty promoted by the storygamer design movement do more reading of RPG books than playing. My sense is there aren't all that many groups out there who enjoying learning multiple new systems a year.
 

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #261 on: July 14, 2015, 04:20:14 PM »
Quote from: Haffrung;841696
My sense is there aren't all that many groups out there who enjoying learning multiple new systems a year.
I don't use more than two systems in a year and the only new system I've introduced this century is Honor+Intrigue. My players want to play characters. They aren't particular interested in learning new rules since they don't need new rules to play new characters (or their old characters).
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

GreyICE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 133
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #262 on: July 14, 2015, 05:50:04 PM »
I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).  

But anyway, this seems a tad bombastic.  White Wolf games were and are a ton of fun.  They have a lot of character, were always houseruled to hell and back, and we had a ton of fun with them.  They're the epitome of story games (well, for the 90s, back when we liked to have mechanics to explain how our mechanics worked) but I don't ever remember them being boring, and only occasionally being a vehicle for GM self-inserts.  

What killed RPGs in the 90s was that the newer generation of video games were getting interesting enough to actually in some ways supplant roleplaying, and that the hobby was growing increasingly bogged down under the weight of its own self-importance.  White Wolf was nearing the end cycle of their metaplot bullshit, TSR was producing enough paper for their printing schedule to be an ecological crime, and what else was there?  GURPS?  Shadowrun?  Rifts?  

Fuck, that's a decade before rules-lite story games were a thing.  When old-school WOD is your least rules-complex mainstream system, there's a serious problem.  

As for pretentious bullshit, you're taking your own internet arguments too seriously.  Most people never ever get anywhere near even the biggest of these places.

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #263 on: July 14, 2015, 05:58:01 PM »
Quote from: GreyICE;841738
I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).
No. I'm certain a few people agree with you. Not me though. I think they both suck.*

Quote
Fuck, that's a decade before rules-lite story games were a thing.
We did rules lite in the 90s. We just didn't publish our house rules.

Quote
As for pretentious bullshit, you're taking your own internet arguments too seriously.
Says the man arguing on the internet. :D


* And by "suck" I mean a game I don't happen to enjoy.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

GreyICE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 133
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #264 on: July 14, 2015, 06:07:49 PM »
Quote from: Bren;841741
We did rules lite in the 90s. We just didn't publish our house rules.


Publishing house rules was a good 50% of TSR's business during the 90s.

I mean hell, Rifts is just a bunch of house rules for D&D that grew into a system.

Haffrung

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5155
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #265 on: July 15, 2015, 12:05:39 AM »
Quote from: GreyICE;841738
I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).  


Nah, I'm with you. While 3E was ostensibly closer to the tradition of D&D I enjoyed, it grew into something grotesque and unmanageable. It was too much of a hassle to run. 4E is a completely distinct game from TSR D&D, but far easier to play at the table than 3E.
 

Chivalric

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 649
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #266 on: July 15, 2015, 06:38:18 AM »
3.x led me to take a 4 year break from RPGs out of frustration.  Something that hadn't happened with any game since since I started with B/X.  4E actually got me back in.  I ran it so often it was crazy.  Eventually I tired of it and houseruled it into oblivion and then eventually just started running B/X.  I see know I made a mistake in letting my 3.x frustration colour my experience with RPGs in general, but at the time it was all anyone I knew was willing to play.  For a while my Call of Cthulhu group all started advocating for the d20 version and the Keeper listened :(

Right now I wouldn't play PF/3.x unless someone paid me.  4E... also.  But I'd do it for slightly less.  Though I did run a short miniseries of PF for people the year before last.  It was tolerable but after six sessions I'm glad I didn't make a commitment to anything beyond that.  I gave PF a fair shake.

It was during this dark time of d20 saturation that I thought the Forgist had something of value.  Turns out that reasonably fun Story Games are better than RPG play with rules you hate.  Just like I'd have been better off spending my time with board games and miniature games rather than play an RPG I don't like.  Or being by myself reading a book.  Bad gaming really is worse than no gaming.

estar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10065
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #267 on: July 16, 2015, 11:49:33 AM »
Quote from: GreyICE;841738
I suppose I'm alone here in really liking 4E and despising 3E (it kind of grew off me in a big way).


4e is a fun game, even a great game given how it's design neatly makes complex tactical choices manageable. It got that from Magic the Gathering but it great how they implemented it for a RPG.

But it doesn't make that game D&D. Nor does make it interesting when all you present at first are adventures and supplement make fantasy superheroes 24/7. It could have supported other subgenres and flavors of fantasy. But that just never got traction.

Not D&D, and fantasy superheroes is the lion share of why 4e is despised. Which is sad because if it was its own thing it would have a solid niche of its own. Perhaps it does today in the form of 13th age.

ArrozConLeche

  • No Más
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #268 on: July 16, 2015, 12:03:09 PM »
now that you say that, it sounds as if the 4E engine would have made a superb mavel super hero skirmish game.

GreyICE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 133
Once More, Defining "Swine"
« Reply #269 on: July 16, 2015, 12:24:10 PM »
Quote from: estar;842168
4e is a fun game, even a great game given how it's design neatly makes complex tactical choices manageable. It got that from Magic the Gathering but it great how they implemented it for a RPG.

But it doesn't make that game D&D. Nor does make it interesting when all you present at first are adventures and supplement make fantasy superheroes 24/7. It could have supported other subgenres and flavors of fantasy. But that just never got traction.

Not D&D, and fantasy superheroes is the lion share of why 4e is despised. Which is sad because if it was its own thing it would have a solid niche of its own. Perhaps it does today in the form of 13th age.


As a big fan of running 13th Age - and I am, it's really designed from the ground up for a sandbox exploration experience, my favorite genre - it doesn't quite scratch the itch of 4E.

4E just gave me so many tools.  The combat was fluid and just gave me a rigidity of form and structure that just worked.  Like, one of the biggest things I hate are modern systems where "you can do anything", but it's all the same.  Fate, Fate is a huge offender.  "Why, if I want to, I can sprint off the balcony, catch the curtains on the way down, and surprise them!"  "What does that do?"  "Creates an advantage, same as every fucking other thing in this system."  Look, love Dresden Files, great city creation rules, but stand and fight combats are just fucking bad.

In a way I don't disagree with the superheroes comment.  I mean it's totally wrong, but there is a certain comic book aesthetic I like.  Spiderman running around the rooftop dodging Pumpkin bombs and taunting Goblin is fun.  Really fucking fun!  And I loath it as an abstract.   As an abstract, what's the difference between that and running around a lake dodging turtle shells?  Fucked if I know (THANKS FATE).  In earlier D&D, how the fuck do you dodge anything?  Most of it has an attack area of "small planetoid".    

I'd agree that it should have had a different line.  They should have launched it as something else, killed a few more sacred cows, given it time to mature.  

But damn if I wouldn't run a game exactly like it in a heartbeat.  There are things I did in 4E that I could only have done in 4E.  I mean I agree part of it was that I would rather have swallowed a gun barrel than read the latest 3E monstrosity character that I had to negotiate with my players about, or try and figure out what the fuck "Challenge Rating" even meant before dropping a monster in combat (hint: nothing.  Was inserted by random number generator to 3E monster blurbs, removing the perfectly adequate AD&D system) .  But 4E was clean and pure in its weird way.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 12:28:13 PM by GreyICE »