Paradox one: I'm an indie gamer who doesn't like indie games. Well, sort of anyhow. I don't regularly follow any Forge discussions (I don't speak, as ChadU puts it, their "crazy moon language") but I follow links to specific threads now and again, and I get a lot of the theory secondhand in various blogs and such. And Carl's been buying and/or downloading various games and so forth, so I'm seeing some of the results as well. That said, I have to agree with the post on 20x20 Room (http://www.20by20room.com/2005/12/qien_es_mas_mac.html), which observed that the more egregious "if you don't play my way, you're doing it wrong" sorts of posturing is, well, mostly just macho posturing. I imagine a lot of it is what I tend to do when I'm brainstorming: throw out absolutes, sometimes really off-the-wall absolutes, and see what the results are. I don't usually have as much invested in them as I make it sound, I'm just trying to get things moving in *any* direction, even if it's a wrong one at first. But some people seem to have a lot invested in it. Yeesh. At any rate, some of the indie stuff seems to be trying awfully hard to codify what has always happened naturally in PBeM. To a certain extent, this is cool for me, because I've never quite worked out why it is that it works in PBeM but I can't make it work face to face. But I've almost decided that the codifying never quite works not because the rulesmaking is still in the debugging, but because everyone's codifying *his* (or her, though I can't think of any indiettes offhand) own style, and not mine. Overall, it makes my head hurt. "Hard choices" and "playing like you mean it" sound good until I start hearing precisely what whoever happens to be championing it at the moment really *means*, which always comes down to "If you don't game like me, you're having Hurting Wrong Fun." Or rather, "you only *think* you're having fun, but if you'd overanalyze it you'd realize you can't possibly be." And don't even get me started on "if you change anything, you shouldn't be playing this game." Yeesh. The Greek tragedians called, and they want their hubris back... -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:28:48AM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >But some people seem to have a lot invested in it. Yeesh. The feeling I get from talking to indie gamers is that they have had experiences of bad RPGs and want to codify rules that prevent those experiences from being repeated. While avoiding bad RPGs is a laudable ambition, I don't think that doing it with rules is the way to go. In my "day" job in computer security, we call that "technical solutions to social problems", and it doesn't work. In fact, my sloppy terminology may give a new handle on the problem: more or less any given _game_ (thing that is published) can be enjoyable or not, depending on the GM and players. (OK, I have my doubts about FATAL.) If a particular group isn't enjoying a particular game, the proximate cause is most often the people in the group, not the game. Certainly some groups can have a more enjoyable experience by going to the lower-immersion, more mechanical style of a "standard" indie RPG, but that isn't going to work for everyone. (Even if everyone could agree on what a "bad game" is...) As someone who typically GMs more than plays, I tend to resent the deliberate limitation of the power of the GM that indie RPGs tend to encourage; it may stop me from running a bad game, but it will also stop me from doing something that the players won't immediately like in order to set up something really fun that happens later. >At any rate, some of the indie stuff seems to be trying awfully hard to >codify what has always happened naturally in PBeM. To a certain extent, >this is cool for me, because I've never quite worked out why it is that it >works in PBeM but I can't make it work face to face. Can you specify _what_ it is that works for you in PBeM but not face to face? >Overall, it makes my head hurt. "Hard choices" and "playing like you mean >it" sound good until I start hearing precisely what whoever happens to be >championing it at the moment really *means*, which always comes down to >"If you don't game like me, you're having Hurting Wrong Fun." Or rather, >"you only *think* you're having fun, but if you'd overanalyze it you'd >realize you can't possibly be." That seems to me a reaction to the "bad GM ruins good game" concept. In fact, what really put the indie-games ideas into perspective for me was the Arkham Horror boardgame. It is purely a board game - you move your marker around Arkham and other places, you pick up clues and equipment and so on, and you fight monsters. Played purely mechanically, though, it isn't that interesting; what makes it fun is that, because it's a very familiar setting to most gamers, one tends naturally to role-play. Now, this is basically at the level of snarky comments; it has no effect on the game. But one could certainly argue that in some respects it's a close match for the indie RPG concepts: there are rules to cover the things the game designer considers important (for example, the rising level of terror as more monsters turn up on the streets), and the role of the GM is entirely eliminated. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>The feeling I get from talking to indie gamers is that they have had RBW>experiences of bad RPGs and want to codify rules that prevent those RBW>experiences from being repeated. Makes sense. RBW>While avoiding bad RPGs is a laudable ambition, I don't think that doing RBW>it with rules is the way to go. In my "day" job in computer security, we RBW>call that "technical solutions to social problems", and it doesn't work. That's kind of been my feeling... now, some of the games that I've seen have been interesting in that yeah, it might be helpful to play under certain rules just to develop certain habits, or to get people over their inhibitions, or whatever. But I don't see playing the more stylized/ heavily scripted games as a regular diet. RBW>In fact, my sloppy terminology may give a new handle on the problem: RBW>more or less any given _game_ (thing that is published) can be enjoyable RBW>or not, depending on the GM and players. (OK, I have my doubts about RBW>FATAL.) If a particular group isn't enjoying a particular game, the RBW>proximate cause is most often the people in the group, not the game. RBW>Certainly some groups can have a more enjoyable experience by going to RBW>the lower-immersion, more mechanical style of a "standard" indie RPG, RBW>but that isn't going to work for everyone. (Even if everyone could agree RBW>on what a "bad game" is...) And having such closely defined games helps "sort" people into groups according to their preferences. We do, as I mentioned in Carl's blog, have some of that going on in our game: Chris is a newbie, and is still in the wish-fulfillment "I can do ANYTHING? Cool!" stage, where Bill and I are going other directions. RBW>As someone who typically GMs more than plays, I tend to resent the RBW>deliberate limitation of the power of the GM that indie RPGs tend to RBW>encourage; it may stop me from running a bad game, but it will also stop RBW>me from doing something that the players won't immediately like in order RBW>to set up something really fun that happens later. Yeah, I don't much care for downplaying GMs, even as a player. RBW>Can you specify _what_ it is that works for you in PBeM but not face to RBW>face? Clearly? Probably not. :} It'll come up in a later paradox post, though, but I'm not done with that one quite yet. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > Well, sort of anyhow. I don't regularly follow any Forge discussions (I > don't speak, as ChadU puts it, their "crazy moon language") but I follow I don't follow the Forge itself (can't keep up with web boards), though I read several of the designers' blogs and have read a few of the games. The only one I've actually played is _Dogs in the Vineyard_ and I don't get why "everybody" thinks its mechanics are such hot stuff. There are some others I'm interested in playing. I have read some of Ron Edwards' theory essays, but they're tough stuff to wade through. The fact that he hijacks some of the Trifold model terms and uses them to mean something else (he uses Simulationism to mean Immersion, and Gamism to mean Simulationism, more or less) doesn't help. > That said, I have to agree with the post on 20x20 Room > (http://www.20by20room.com/2005/12/qien_es_mas_mac.html), which > observed that the more egregious "if you don't play my way, you're > doing it wrong" sorts of posturing is, well, mostly just macho > posturing. That article is missing, btw. So's another recent one. I've really started seeing a lot of this in some of the blogs I read. Many of the Forge indie authors think they've discovered not just _a_ new thing, but _the_ big new thing. Some of them go so far as to imply that the majority of gamers are dysfunctional. The big thing I'm starting to see is that some of the indie game designers are trying to fix broken _social interaction among the *players*_. And that's where they're starting to go off in a direction that doesn't interest me at all, trying to fix social problems with game rules. "Bankuei" (in his blog) is really big into this... he says 95% of roleplayers aren't having any fun, but keep going through the motions in the hope that it gets better. > I imagine a lot of it is what I tend to do when I'm brainstorming: Not from what I'm reading. They've been working on GNS theory for at least a couple years now. > And don't even get me started on "if you change anything, you > shouldn't be playing this game." Yeesh. The Greek tragedians > called, and they want their hubris back... The thing going wasn't just "this game" but "any game." That you should be playing _every_ game exactly as written, or that game isn't right for you. Which I think is BS, because no game is a perfect fit for any group of people. Even game _authors_ don't always play their games exactly as written. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ My Roleplaying Blog -- http://raven.phoenyx.net/mutterings/ ] If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:16:05PM -0600, Carl D Cravens wrote: >"Bankuei" (in his blog) is really big into this... he says 95% of >roleplayers aren't having any fun, but keep going through the motions >in the hope that it gets better. There are several possible explanations for this, some more charitable than others. I really don't know how much non-fun role-playing is out there; I know that if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't keep doing it (and I have occasionally dropped out of campaigns for just this reason). I do know that it's rare in my experience, and I rarely get players leaving my campaigns either. >The thing going wasn't just "this game" but "any game." That you >should be playing _every_ game exactly as written, or that game isn't >right for you. Which I think is BS, because no game is a perfect fit >for any group of people. Even game _authors_ don't always play their >games exactly as written. There's a two-fold consideration there: (1) Game Authors are somehow "above" Normal Gamers, perhaps because they are enlightened (at least _proper_ game authors); (2) they _should_ play the games as written, because only by strict adherence to the (social) rules can a bad player/GM be prevented from ruining the game. The sorts of rules that I see in indie-type RPGs are indicative of the sorts of bad GM they're trying to stop, I think: the GM who has just one clue to lead to the bad guys and lets the players spend all evening looking for it, or the GM who doesn't want his favourite NPC killed so will fudge the numbers so that he gets away. R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: > (2) they _should_ play the games as written, because only by strict > adherence to the (social) rules can a bad player/GM be prevented > from ruining the game. This makes a lot of sense if the author is coming from a "these rules are to keep the GM and players from ruining things." -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ Wichita RP Community Resource -- http://www.wichitagamers.com/ ] 4 out of 5 people think the 5th person is an idiot. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>I don't follow the Forge itself (can't keep up with web boards), CDC>though I read several of the designers' blogs and have read a few of CDC>the games. The only one I've actually played is _Dogs in the CDC>Vineyard_ and I don't get why "everybody" thinks its mechanics are CDC>such hot stuff. There are some others I'm interested in playing. Dogs' dice mechanic is cool, except that you only roll dice once, but you have to keep mechanicking through the conflict. I like some of his other multi-roll variants better. I kind of like single-roll conflict resolution *if* you can then just play it out without continuously referring to mechanics. CDC>I have read some of Ron Edwards' theory essays, but they're tough CDC>stuff to wade through. The fact that he hijacks some of the Trifold CDC>model terms and uses them to mean something else (he uses CDC>Simulationism to mean Immersion, and Gamism to mean Simulationism, CDC>more or less) doesn't help. Crazy moon languageS, yeah. CDC>> That said, I have to agree with the post on 20x20 Room CDC>> (http://www.20by20room.com/2005/12/qien_es_mas_mac.html), which CDC>> observed that the more egregious "if you don't play my way, you're CDC>> doing it wrong" sorts of posturing is, well, mostly just macho CDC>> posturing. CDC> CDC>That article is missing, btw. So's another recent one. It's a conspiracy. CDC>I've really started seeing a lot of this in some of the blogs I read. CDC>Many of the Forge indie authors think they've discovered not just _a_ CDC>new thing, but _the_ big new thing. Some of them go so far as to CDC>imply that the majority of gamers are dysfunctional. More hubris, yeah. CDC>The big thing I'm starting to see is that some of the indie game CDC>designers are trying to fix broken _social interaction among the CDC>*players*_. And that's where they're starting to go off in a CDC>direction that doesn't interest me at all, trying to fix social CDC>problems with game rules. I don't mind, as I said elsethreadwhere, trying to *practice* better social interaction with game rules, but yeah. CDC>"Bankuei" (in his blog) is really big into this... he says 95% of CDC>roleplayers aren't having any fun, but keep going through the motions CDC>in the hope that it gets better. I don't actually know who this is. CDC>Not from what I'm reading. They've been working on GNS theory for at CDC>least a couple years now. Hey, some people brainstorm faster than others... -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> CDC>"Bankuei" (in his blog) is really big into this... he says 95% of
> I don't actually know who this is.
"Deep in the Game" is the blog. I don't know his real name, or if
he's actually published anything.
> Hey, some people brainstorm faster than others...
"Once you try this, you'll never go back" isn't brainstorming. :)
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ Trim Your Quotes! ]
Bad Command! Bad, Bad Command! Sit! Staaaaay...
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>"Once you try this, you'll never go back" isn't brainstorming. :) Well, no. But there's a certain amount of mistaking one's personal experiences for universals, and I think it might be safely said that "once you find a game that perfectly matches your desired play style, you won't want to change" is the general case for that. I don't know that there's anything wrong with strong social rules provided they either eliminate behavior your group couldn't otherwise overcome, or they require (or at least get out of the way of) the behavior you wanted anyway. Or both. But that's sort of a "people who like things like this will like this" kind of statement at that point. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:55:37PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >I don't know that there's anything wrong with strong social rules provided >they either eliminate behavior your group couldn't otherwise overcome, or >they require (or at least get out of the way of) the behavior you wanted >anyway. Or both. I think that at least some experienced players will tend to resent the rules even if they don't actually prevent them from doing what they'd do anyway - just as people object to not being able to rip a CD to MP3 even if they hadn't intended to do so before they were told they couldn't. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>I think that at least some experienced players will tend to resent the RBW>rules even if they don't actually prevent them from doing what they'd do RBW>anyway - just as people object to not being able to rip a CD to MP3 even RBW>if they hadn't intended to do so before they were told they couldn't. Well, but I was sort of thinking those sorts would probably not be inclined to take up those rules in the first place because they're already doing it. Back to that "if you like this, you probably will" stuff. Of course, there's always the potential for "player A has trouble with this, but if we make a rule to guide him, player B won't be happy even though it probably won't affect him because he's already doing it." -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 05:50:33PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >Well, but I was sort of thinking those sorts would probably not be >inclined to take up those rules in the first place because they're already >doing it. Back to that "if you like this, you probably will" stuff. Ah. Most of the groups I play with stay together as groups, at least loosely, and what gets played is a matter of negotiation; most often, someone (usually I) says "right, that campaign's over and I feel like running something next, here are some options" and the players choose the campaign that sounds most interesting. We aren't in a gaming club setting where someone can run a single campaign up the flagpole and see who's interested. R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>Most of the groups I play with stay together as groups, at least RBW>loosely, and what gets played is a matter of negotiation; most often, RBW>someone (usually I) says "right, that campaign's over and I feel like RBW>running something next, here are some options" and the players choose RBW>the campaign that sounds most interesting. We aren't in a gaming club RBW>setting where someone can run a single campaign up the flagpole and see RBW>who's interested. Oh, us too. (Though Carl *has* got a Meetup-spawned roleplaying group meeting these days.) I was sort of thinking at the group level, though. I figure most groups that manage to stay together at any length have roughly the same playing styles and so forth. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
