Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6301592" data-attributes="member: 87792">Given the frequency in this thread alone with which you have made strictly false statements, and assumed bad faith (especially about Ron Edwards who in his Gamist essay was defending D&D - which was deeply unfashionable with his audience at the time) I have no interest at all in doing so.Bwuh?  Role playing isn't about learning to perform a social role.  Immersive roleplaying is about putting yourself in someone else's shoes (fictional or real) and acting as if you were them.  Which isn't just a social role. Yeaaahhhh.  My biasses as a kid in the 90s.  Before I'd ever read anything Ron Edwards had written.  Riiight.This is true in precisely the same way there are no rules for playstyles for chess.  Therefore, by your logic, no one can be an attacking chess player or a defensive player. By declaring it a smear campaign (and thereby attacked Ron Edwards directly) you have shown that you have no understanding of it.  And by declaring it to be a smear campaign while also boasting you have not studied it shows that you are assuming bad faith.First if you haven't forgotten it dig it up.  I for one would be interested in reading it.  I'd be even more interested in seeing what sort of outcomes it lead to and how the theory actually improved current games.   Second, who the hell says that it never references pattern recognition?  It doesn't reference it by name, but without pattern recognition you can not have a narrative.Was that meant to be self-parody? Eurogames did something else.  They stopped trying to compete with computers.  Eurogames use simple and elegant mechanics with effectiveness and almost no flash - in short they don't try to either use reams of rules the way the old Avalon Hill wargames did or flashy mechanics and pieces the way "Ameritrash" boardgames did.  You can't call Avalon Hill games things that aren't boardgames.Eurogames are the 1 Page RPGs of the boardgaming market.  Simple and relatively fast to play, elegant mechanics, promote social interaction, and don't do anything computers would do better.  But boardgaming is a slightly different hobby from tabletop RPGs.It's not a quote. No it isn't.  It's one where there are rules for common situations and guidance the rest of the time.  I'm saying that 1 Page RPGs beat 0 page RPGs - but every page of mechanics beyond that has diminishing returns.Which is what lead to both The Forge + Storygames and to the OSR which <a href="http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf" target="_blank">actively promotes "Rulings not rules".</a>Boardgames had their 10,000 counter Avalon Hill Wargames.  Those died because few people wanted to wade through so much text and because computers could do it better.  Roleplaying games have their 500,000 word games - and no mass market traction outside D&D.  The 500,000 word RPG has always been a specific style of RPG - but it's the only one you can make a significant amount of money out of.  Once someone owns a one page RPG what then?  How are you going to get more money out of them?  Sell a second page?  The best you can do with a basically one page RPG is either license it and sell it as a one-off toy, or wrap a book round it and hope all the buyers buy a single copy and then sell adventures for it.  (Evil Hat is trying both these).  If you have a 500,000 word game you can sell the same person literally dozens of books (I probably own three dozen GURPS books).Every time I've dealt with someone who claims to be a fan of AD&D and interrogated them in detail about how they play they've told me they do exactly this for a lot of the rules.  I don't understand it either.  Nevertheless it is a phenomenon I've seen time and time again from AD&D fans (and Palladium/Rifts fans) And here you are confusing Storytelling with the 90s White Wolf "Storyteller" games that The Forge was a reaction against.  Being good at storytelling for a good GM involves being good at describing everything and good at keeping everything consistent.  The story itself in a storygame is an emergent property of the game.  It's what happened.  Storygames exist to make it easier for the DM to be good at describing things, have a solidly balanced system, and use suggestions that are important for the style of game in question while minimising the need to be good at math.Ahahhahaha! YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON TALKING ABOUT SINGLE SOLUTIONS.  Mechanically Fiasco has nothing in common with Monsterhearts.  Both are awesome games, and both are indisputably storygames.  There is a vastly greater difference in terms of mechanics and playstyle between Fiasco and Monsterhearts than there is between D&D, Runequest, and Vampire: The Masquerade.The problem with the Big Model is the opposite of what you are claiming.  <a href="http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/The_Big_Model" target="_blank">The Big Model</a>'s problem is that it is too big  By the time it was done the Big Model could be boiled down to "Different people like to play different ways.  Here are some ways of thinking of those ways."  The trap The Big Model itself falls into is that, to quote Popper, "The theory that explains everything explains nothing".  But [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wasn't saying that The Big Model explained what was going on at your table.  He was saying that what was going on with The Big Model was in line with what went on at your table.  If you were to play an RPG where you could only act when standing on your head, and conflict resolution was handled by both players being waterboarded until one gave up the narration rights that too would be in line with the Big Model.  As would one being played dressed in tutus, speaking in Pig Latin and involving boxing matches between the players to handle individual actions.And that is why the Big Model outlived its usefulness.  Once it reached that point it became a simple statement that "Different people like different things - here is a way we can categorise those things".  And this is something you have projected onto the discussion.  Edwards said a lot of things, many of them interesting, some of them right, some of them wrong, and doubled down on the thing he really shouldn't have said.  But your blithe dismissal of him reflects more on you than it does on him.  And you claim to want to "support free thought" by straight up rejecting what someone influential said rather than analysing it. You are doing the opposite here.   Attacking the messenger without reading the message.  Pure ad-hominem.</blockquote>

Verification