Difference From 10 Years Ago?

[pemerton]

To some extent, yes.

<snip>

There are no original ideas. Everyone gets theirs from somewhere; usually from novels, film, and TV, but sometimes from other sources.

Taken together, these seem to imply that everyone's "ownership" is compromised. Is that what you intended?

I do find it odd that someone would pay for those ideas in that format.

Well, ideas have to be located in a source that I interact with. I can look through a module on the train to or from work and get ideas that way. Or I could subject myself to TV, cinema or novels that I have zero interest in engaging with from the point of view of literary/creative merit. For me the choice is fairly easy.

I don't know anyone who would play an rpg without having the sense of a shared objective reality and the idea of some kind of ingame physical laws

(1) I don't know quite how you reconcile "shared objective reality" with the GM having ultimate power over action resolution mechanics and outcomes.

(2) In my own experience, "shared intersubjective genre understanding" does as well as, if not better than, ingame physical law expressed via mechanics, for maintaining consistency and permitting arbitration of contentious actions.

Obviously these are two of the key issues in the discussion with [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] on the other thread.

Commercialization is one thing that's likely caused changes over the past decade.

I don't think so, at least not in any general way (perhaps for you and your friends?).

I mean, Ron Edwards wrote his rant about "The nuked apple cart", about the need for RPGers to recapture the industry from commercial publishers, well over 10 years ago.

And I'd say a lot of people have listened: look at his "new myth", and then look at the current slew of indie games, OSR/retroclone games, etc, and you'll see that people are doing it.

To the extent that some posters on ENworld haven't noticed, I think that tells us as much about ENworld's membership as it does about the current state of RPGing as a hobby.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Taken together, these seem to imply that everyone's "ownership" is compromised. Is that what you intended?

Again, yes, to an extent. The ideal game is 100% original, but that's the holy grail. It's not achievable, simply an ideal to strive for.

A game composed from a plethora of sources, many unconscious, that combines the input of DM and players is different than one in which the bulk of the content comes from one explicit source.

(1) I don't know quite how you reconcile "shared objective reality" with the GM having ultimate power over action resolution mechanics and outcomes.

I don't see any problem there. If anything, the DM's vision is what defines the shared reality, and rules sometimes get in the way.

(2) In my own experience, "shared intersubjective genre understanding" does as well as, if not better than, ingame physical law expressed via mechanics, for maintaining consistency and permitting arbitration of contentious actions.

That just looks like word salad to me.

To the extent that some posters on ENworld haven't noticed, I think that tells us as much about ENworld's membership as it does about the current state of RPGing as a hobby.

Maybe. I wish some of the other online communities were civil enough that I could see myself comparing them with this one on a regular basis.

 

[billd91]

I mean, Ron Edwards wrote his rant about "The nuked apple cart", about the need for RPGers to recapture the industry from commercial publishers, well over 10 years ago.

And I'd say a lot of people have listened: look at his "new myth", and then look at the current slew of indie games, OSR/retroclone games, etc, and you'll see that people are doing it.

I'm not sure people listened to that screed too much. Aside from sounding awfully full of himself (a bit of a turn-off), it's hard to separate the boom in small game companies and self-publishers from a much more broad-reaching event that happened a couple of years later: D&D went OGL and self-publishing games started making a little more business sense. A professionally designed game suddenly became available, saving many hours of potential R&D.

To the extent that some posters on ENworld haven't noticed, I think that tells us as much about ENworld's membership as it does about the current state of RPGing as a hobby.

It may also point out the weaknesses in the indie/Ron Edwards Myth approach. The big publishers may advertise plenty in their magazines (and honestly, this was one of the best aspects of the big gaming magazines, particularly before Dragon focused on just TSR products), but they also were a dense source of information on smaller products - something that's now very diffuse in the internet. Plus, publishing books, glitzy supplements, and so on offer cross promotion opportunities. All of this means the bigger published games have a much better shot at capturing the consumers' attention. Self-publishing and selling something like Sorcerer? I'd be surprised if more than a 1% of the gaming consumers have even heard of it.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see any problem there. If anything, the DM's vision is what defines the shared reality

My puzzle is: in what sense is this reality "shared"?

That just looks like word salad to me.

Well, intersubjectivity and objectivity aren't always equivalent - eg when it comes to the laws of physics - but sometimes they are - eg when it comes to the question, at a given RPG table, of what wizards can and can't do in that particular gameworld.

And once there is intersbujective agreement on what a wizard can and can't do in a particular gameworld, contentious actions can be adjudicated - they're either automatic successes (can the wizard cast a known spell), automatic failures (can a wizard click his/her fingers and thereby bring the multiverse to an end) or require a check at a metagame-determined DC (can the wizard tweak a known spell to do some related but not-identical thing - eg summoning sandworms rather than hippocampuses with a Phantom Steed ritual, which came up the other day in my 4e game).

Where actions aren't contentious - ie no one at the table disuptes the narration (eg "I pull up my socks and shoulder my backpack") - then of course no adjudication is necessary within the approach I am talking about. (Contrast eg Rolemaster, which uses an "objective physics" model, and can require resolution and adjudication of actions even when they are not contentious at the table.)

I wish some of the other online communities were civil enough that I could see myself comparing them with this one on a regular basis.

I've never spent much time at WotC, and really none in the past 5 years. I don't hang out that often at rpg.net, but when I do I find it pretty reasonable.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure people listened to that screed too much.

<snip>

Self-publishing and selling something like Sorcerer? I'd be surprised if more than a 1% of the gaming consumers have even heard of it.

But the influence of The Forge, and the games that inspired it and have been inspired by it, is huge - whether or not people have actually read Edwards or heard of Sorcerer.

For instance, Vincent Baker - probably the most successful of the Forge designers - is in the acknowledgements for games as diverse as Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP. (Not to mention Dungeon World, which began its life as a hack of Baker's Apocalypse World.)

And 13th Age, with its much-lauded "One Unique Thing" and "Backgrounds as skills", is basically recycling PC build techniques that Jonathan Tweet pioneered in Over the Edge, and that since then have appeared in many other games (perhaps most notably HeroWars/Quest, with its free-descriptor approach to PC building) before turning up in a D&D clone.

(Slightly tangentially: this thread might be interesting to see some Forge types discussing the dynamics of OSR D&D play.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

My puzzle is: in what sense is this reality "shared"?

In that the DM is sharing it. Every piece of communication between a DM and a player is basically the answer to this question.

Where actions aren't contentious - ie no one at the table disuptes the narration (eg "I pull up my socks and shoulder my backpack") - then of course no adjudication is necessary within the approach I am talking about. (Contrast eg Rolemaster, which uses an "objective physics" model, and can require resolution and adjudication of actions even when they are not contentious at the table.)

IIRC, the 3.0 DMG gave an example of a check for a check that was too easy to be worth rolling (tying one's shoes), simply because the DC would be so low that the character could not fail.

That is to say, simply because a die is not rolled for every action, does not mean that the underlying rules are not modeling the reality. The DM may decide that a DC is too low, perhaps allowing the character to take 10, but even if not explicitly spelled out, this is still what is happening; every action is described by a d20 check. Just as every object that is in the game world has a hardness value and every creature has hit dice and all the accompanying statistics, whether the DM specifically enumerates these values or not.

I don't see that contentiousness really plays into it that much.

I've never spent much time at WotC, and really none in the past 5 years. I don't hang out that often at rpg.net, but when I do I find it pretty reasonable.

I was a regular at WotC before here, and it pretty much descended into chaos and hasn't recovered. I was never on rpgnet, but it's never struck me as being moderated as well as ENW and I've definitely seen enough trolling not to bother joining. Not a huge fan of Paizo's boards either.

 

[pemerton]

That is to say, simply because a die is not rolled for every action, does not mean that the underlying rules are not modeling the reality. The DM may decide that a DC is too low, perhaps allowing the character to take 10, but even if not explicitly spelled out, this is still what is happening; every action is described by a d20 check. Just as every object that is in the game world has a hardness value and every creature has hit dice and all the accompanying statistics, whether the DM specifically enumerates these values or not.

I don't see that contentiousness really plays into it that much.

That was my point. You are describing an approach to resolution that is shared between (for instance) 3E, RQ, RM, HERO, GURPS etc.

But it is not shared by 4e, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, or any other RPG where "say yes or roll the dice" applies - ie where the threshold for engaging the action resolution mechanics is not ingame difficulty (as per your example of tying shoes) but narrative contention among the participants at the table.

 

[Imaro]

But the influence of The Forge, and the games that inspired it and have been inspired by it, is huge - whether or not people have actually read Edwards or heard of Sorcerer.

Define huge...

For instance, Vincent Baker - probably the most successful of the Forge designers - is in the acknowledgements for games as diverse as Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP. (Not to mention Dungeon World, which began its life as a hack of Baker's Apocalypse World.)

Okay I'm sorry but I wouldn't really classify any of these as "huge". MHRP is gone, is Burning Wheel still being published? And are the sales or players of DW anywhere near those of Pathfinder, WoD, Exalted, or Dark Heresy... I would guess not. So again what do you mean by huge?

And 13th Age, with its much-lauded "One Unique Thing" and "Backgrounds as skills", is basically recycling PC build techniques that Jonathan Tweet pioneered in Over the Edge, and that since then have appeared in many other games (perhaps most notably HeroWars/Quest, with its free-descriptor approach to PC building) before turning up in a D&D clone.

I like OtE... HW/Q, not so much... but isn't it kind of circular to note that Johnathan Tweet (who is the co-author of 13th Age) used techniques in the game that he pioneered in OtE as the influence of indie games... when it's just the influence of a particular author using the mechanics he created.

 

[Storminator]

But it is not shared by 4e, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, or any other RPG where "say yes or roll the dice" applies - ie where the threshold for engaging the action resolution mechanics is not ingame difficulty (as per your example of tying shoes) but narrative contention among the participants at the table.

Ye gads, I was mentioned in a thread . . .

An example of what pemerton's discussing here: in my 4e game, the PCs are a bunch of murderous goblinoids. It is beyond dispute that they are a competent, bloodthirsty and violent group. We frequently use "murderizing" as a skill in skill challenges. And frequently, I will let them auto-succeed at murdering people.

It is our narrative contention (to use pemerton's phrase) that this group kills townsfolk, so I usually have them roll a related check to see how much style they've done it with. Are they looking to scare others? Intimidate. Pin the murder on someone else? Stealth. etc. But we know for a fact the target is dead as soon as he's named in the challenge.

PS

 

[S'mon]

I see plenty of 4e people talking about what they do in their own games - me, [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=305]Storminator[/MENTION], [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], [MENTION=59411]Pour[/MENTION], [MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION] and others (though some have left the boards due to being fed up with edition-warrior dogpiling).

I haven't posted much recently because the moderation policy seemed to have gone from apolitical to Politically Correct, which eliminated ENW's advantage over rpgnet and thus the attraction of posting here for me. Nothing to do with edition warring in my case AFAIK.