Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4751150" data-attributes="member: 3192">Fair enough.  I pointed it out as many positions presented as personal positions seem only to be rewordings of a single "one true way" of playing and designing roleplaying games.  I have faith you have your own opinions where some are also in disagreement with the Forge and the Big Model, so I agree this point really doesn't need to be discussed.That a good description, but it leaves out the core element that makes it a roleplaying game versus a simulation game.  The rule is on the DM's Screen, not the Players'.  The operation of the rule is learned it play. As it is a definer of the role it's an element that must be determined through play.  Or proof of proficiency in the role becomes suspect.  As you might read in my response to Hussar: any such response in example C. becomes simply the repeating of a stolen answer back to the teacher (or test giver in a Referee's case).So I have this right, do you consider all Forge task, conflict, and scene resolution the resolving of conflicts "in the fiction"?  Those games are not roleplaying games as no amount of roleplaying ability is measured or rewarded.  This has nothing to do with creating fiction. It has to do with roleplay.  The definition of the role may be fictional (in fact, there is never a role a person can play that isn't fictional: parent spouse, teacher, whatever), but the fiction created by Forge games is a story being told, not a role being performed.  As I understand them, each of those games' mechanics is about putting narrative resolution in the hands of the players.  This may be confusing as traditional games have been redefined under Forge terms as not RPG's at all, but as storygames.  The key point to remember about mechanics in RPGs is they are they resolve represented elements which are abstracted.  By definition abstractions are not roleplayed.  You cannot act out a the action a die roll (or whatever mechanical resolution) is being substituted for.  Nor can a die roll by a sufficient description of an action to count as knowledge of a role.  It would seem quite clear: When something is not acted out, it is not roleplayed.  I'm with you there. I like Storygames, I just don't care for the theory that promulgated them, which espouses not just a false definition of roleplaying, but defines actual roleplaying, roleplaying game design, and roleplaying objectives as inherently faulty, bad, and un-"fun" (beginning the 4E meme).If you follow Forge theory, I would hope you agree I am not misrepresenting the conclusions of its theories nor the manner in which many adherents refer to "bad design" (a.k.a. roleplaying game design and play).  If I use terms like roleplaying not to refer to storytelling, it's mainly because there is a war of definitions, which I did not start nor wish to engage in.  "Don't propose an argument, redefine the vocabulary" is a common means of distributing propaganda.  Redefining the terms and their relation is how any advertised message can alter listener's thinking and thereby their concluded beliefs.  In my opinion, using the vocabulary of the Forge not only creates an inherent misunderstanding of roleplaying and RPGs, but it reinforces its' followers efforts to redefine the entire hobby by redefining the very activity as something different than it nearly ever was.  As I said above, my understanding of the Big Model is all RPGs (storygames) use NAR rules.  That no non-Social Contract rule isn't a NAR rule (maybe those too).   If I'm wrong on based on your beliefs or your understanding of the theory, please let me know.  If you'd like to talk more about the games you listed, that's cool too.</blockquote>

Verification