D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[SableWyvern]

It may well have changed from way back when I first learned about it - back then it was pretty much just a tactical war game. Perhaps it was just the way the people I talked to treated it.

The Battletech RPG is Mechwarrior.

Edit: Which I see @Maxperson already mentioned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, what would Vincent Baker know about designing RPGs? Much earlier in this thread we worked out that he's just some internet rando.

I'm not talking about qualifications, or even whether or not I like their opinions. I'm talking about tone. Everything in your designer quotes reads as superior and condescending to me, like it's obvious that what they think is the only right way to think about it. To a degree, a lot of Narrativist talk sounds like that to me.

 

[grankless]

lmao this thread has gotten completely unreadable when logged in now due to ignores (both toward me and by me). funny

I'm astonished at this thread going for 1540 pages in complete circles. I really wonder what value the people so vehemently insisting that non heavily prepped hypersimulationism is illegitimate are gaining from their arguments here. Newsflash, you're already in the dominant paradigm of play.

 

[pemerton]

Everything in your designer quotes reads as superior and condescending to me, like it's obvious that what they think is the only right way to think about it.

Here is Baker again:

If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate no more.​

Where is the condescension? And what do you think is the right way to design narrativist RPGs.

Here's Tuovinen:

some Simmy games are just more easily drifted towards Narrativism, while others are easier for Gamism. Sure, Fate can do Narrativism, but if you think that proves that Sim and Nar are similar, you should try playing Battletech and see how Narrativist you’ll feel yourself.​

How is that "academic" in tone? As opposed to, say, journalistic? And who is being condescended to? The narrativist player who thinks that sim and narrativism are the same? And how is it wrong - what's your view on the extent to which games aimed primarily at simulationist play are also suitable for narrativist play? I mean, you sure seem to think that simulationism and narrativism are different priorities - are you angry at Tuovinen for agreeing with you?

And [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html]are some requotes from Edwards:

In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements [Character, Setting, Situation] tie together . . . are intended to produce "genre" in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention. . . . the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. . . . when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).​

That is a bit more abstract - "genre" in the general sense of the term, some longer sentences, etc. But I don't see who it is supposed to be condescending to. And I also don't see what you disagree with in it: it seems completely consistent with everything you post, especially your preference for the game to flow from a GM-authored-and-administered setting.

I am frankly puzzled as to what your objection is, other than they subject RPGing to any sort of analysis at all.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

lmao this thread has gotten completely unreadable when logged in now due to ignores (both toward me and by me). funny

I'm astonished at this thread going for 1540 pages in complete circles. I really wonder what value the people so vehemently insisting that non heavily prepped hypersimulationism is illegitimate are gaining from their arguments here. Newsflash, you're already in the dominant paradigm of play.

Lol, it's like a train wreck/broken record, at this point I check it every day or so an speed scroll looking for red text.

 

[Maxperson]

If you mean that Tuovinen has a sense of superiority about simulationist play, I think that's a bit unfair.

It's completely fair. He uses derogatory terms like...

GM Story Hour
Princess Play
Under Substantial Exploration he says, "This is not just a big pile of GM notes..." Disparaging DMs with notes by referring to them as "a big pile."

And more, but I've proven my point.

There are non-derogatory ways to say all of that, but he opted not to use them in favor of disparaging those playstyle. It's telling that under Princess Play he recognized how it came across and used it anyway, saying he didn't mean it to be disparaging. I'm sorry, but if you know it's a disparaging term and you use it anyway, saying you don't mean it that way fails the sniff test.

 

[Maxperson]

lmao this thread has gotten completely unreadable when logged in now due to ignores (both toward me and by me). funny

I'm astonished at this thread going for 1540 pages in complete circles. I really wonder what value the people so vehemently insisting that non heavily prepped hypersimulationism is illegitimate are gaining from their arguments here. Newsflash, you're already in the dominant paradigm of play.

We haven't hit 300 RPM yet. This is just getting started.

 

[Maxperson]

lmao this thread has gotten completely unreadable when logged in now due to ignores (both toward me and by me). funny

I'm astonished at this thread going for 1540 pages in complete circles. I really wonder what value the people so vehemently insisting that non heavily prepped hypersimulationism is illegitimate are gaining from their arguments here. Newsflash, you're already in the dominant paradigm of play.

Not one person that I've seen has said that it's illegitimate. In fact, the opposite has been said many, many, MANY times by various people.

Saying that it's not for us and saying why, isn't saying that it's illegitimate.

 

[pemerton]

It's completely fair. He uses derogatory terms like...

GM Story Hour
Princess Play
Under Substantial Exploration he says, "This is not just a big pile of GM notes..." Disparaging DMs with notes by referring to them as "a big pile."

And more, but I've proven my point.

There are non-derogatory ways to say all of that, but he opted not to use them in favor of disparaging those playstyle. It's telling that under Princess Play he recognized how it came across and used it anyway, saying he didn't mean it to be disparaging. I'm sorry, but if you know it's a disparaging term and you use it anyway, saying you don't mean it that way fails the sniff test.

He's written the essay to praise simulationist play. He is showing that it is worthwhile, and that it doesn't need to be described in different terms to defend itself.

If you didn't work that out, I encourage you to re-read the blog.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is Baker again:

If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate no more.​

Where is the condescension? And what do you think is the right way to design narrativist RPGs.

Here's Tuovinen:

some Simmy games are just more easily drifted towards Narrativism, while others are easier for Gamism. Sure, Fate can do Narrativism, but if you think that proves that Sim and Nar are similar, you should try playing Battletech and see how Narrativist you’ll feel yourself.​

How is that "academic" in tone? As opposed to, say, journalistic? And who is being condescended to? The narrativist player who thinks that sim and narrativism are the same? And how is it wrong - what's your view on the extent to which games aimed primarily at simulationist play are also suitable for narrativist play? I mean, you sure seem to think that simulationism and narrativism are different priorities - are you angry at Tuovinen for agreeing with you?

And [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html]are some requotes from Edwards:

In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements [Character, Setting, Situation] tie together . . . are intended to produce "genre" in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention. . . . the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. . . . when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.​

​

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).​

That is a bit more abstract - "genre" in the general sense of the term, some longer sentences, etc. But I don't see who it is supposed to be condescending to. And I also don't see what you disagree with in it: it seems completely consistent with everything you post, especially your preference for the game to flow from a GM-authored-and-administered setting.

I am frankly puzzled as to what your objection is, other than they subject RPGing to any sort of analysis at all.

Like I said, it's not about agreement, it's about tone. I just really prefer a more casual examination.