>forge exists
>moron cult leaders really wanted to be the cormacks of ttrpgs
>baited a bunch of sycophants into making it happen
>only one managed to not brain himself from terminal foot in mouth disease
>20 years later
>im still irrationally angry about it
>wasn't even there but I no lifed reading up on it
>murderous autismo rage is unending
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
yeah they were shitheads
they were like know-it-all youtube movie critics
They birthed the entire narrativist RPG subgenre and that by itself is enough to condemn them all to the 5th circle of Hell in pain neverending.
what the frick is frick is forge?
An indie ttrpg forum that "pushed boundaries" thinking they were making better games, and their bad ideas have been a turd in the soup of better games for like 20 years now. It's why the newer games are so drastically different than the ones that came out around 2000.
I think with the big increase in VTT players over the pandemic, the next wave of TTRPGs will hybridize with videogame tech and we'll see more complex and nuanced mechanics come back, but run by your phone or PC or VR setup or whatever. Ideally it would be one and done digital purchases, but most of them will probably be gachafied subscription microtransaction slop that won't work qhen your internet goes out or if the company shuts it down to make something new.
We'll see though. Maybe a few good ones will come along.
??? Skitzobabble, learn to be normal
What the frick is with all these newbies seething about GNS?
You know the type of grog who played D&D maybe 3 times in 1987 and nothing else yet gets into online fights about how that was true D&D experience? The one that shits blood at the words "session zero" but when asked to articulate their rage they assume every session zero is a 5 hour formal affair complete with a X-card checklist because they heard from a guy who heard from a guy who likely made something up? It's the zoomer generation of those guys desperately looking for something to be smugly angry about.
>Session 0
If session 0 isn't a session why is it called a session?
I have such sights to show you.
You know how comics sometimes put out an issue 0 despite it coming much later than issue 1? It's kind of like that.
Because in the 90s before we had cellphones and an internet connection you had to do it in person, and it usually was done as your first session. Everyone would get together but you all knew the actual game wouldnt start until next time. Some GenX gamers still do it that way.
GNSgays were cancer, man. It's not just us. Academia hates them, too. They ruined an entire field of game study with their shitty internet essays and "I fricking made it up" categories that didn't hold up under research.
Just like that, a whole burgeoning field became a laughingstock, and grants stopped flowing in, killing the careers of a number of people who were doing legitimate work in analyzing tabletop games trends.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people waste so much fricking time and energy on this bullshit.
Literally no other games in the world suffer from this garbage hobbyist theorycrafting trying to reinvent game design over and over.
I swear these fricking losers who are so elitist over tabletop being superior over other games are the worst, because its ALWAYS those people pushing this crap
GNS is fine and descriptive. The only people who have a problem with it are gamists who are revealed for the duplicitous gays they are. Simulationism is the only valid way to run a game and they are fake simulationists.
I am not sure if I am a gamist or simulations, having just come across this theory but why are they (or we) gays?
I do optimize for combat and enjoy being better than other players at the tactics of battle in ttrpgs. I have taste though, I will pick a character archetype that I enjoy and want to roleplay and then try to optimize them based on the idea that they could experiment with different fighting styles, research different spells, or whatever and determine just like I can ooc which is more effective and pick that option.
I consider excersizes like punpun, the d2 crusader, and any Totally Optomized (a 3.5e era gitp term that I don't see used anymore) character build as useful and interesting to build and examine for the sake of the game mastery such examples demonstrate and provide, but I wouldn't sacrifice all elements of style for power in an actual game. Any character I make is a compromise between style and power, but power in my view enforces your style. No one respects the panache of a spoony bard who sucks in a fight. And having played games that flatten chargen and tactics down to nonsignificance, I can say that it is precisely the disparity in power between players, ans between the players and their enemies, that makes chargen and combat enjoyable affairs for me. In the most charitable case the disparity is complex and you have multiple dimensions of power (speed, raw dpr, mitigation; solo independence vs team synergy, or other hax). And the player can build and play towards some combination of these dimensions of power. But usually there is a disparity in pure power as well, and usually due to player skill (in bad games like 5e, due to horrific internal balance of class archetypes - but even there player skill is a huge factor).
I feel like I'm all three. This theory is kind of dumb, I don't know why I have to choose between the three.
You don't have to and anyone that tribes up is an idiot. All styles are valid and ideally have some interoperability. Drawing ideological lines to be adhered to in an imaginative past time is the sign of a diseased mind. Ron Edwards is the Karl Marx of gaming. He created a theory that can only exist as untested data, a thought experiment, and it has no value that actually informs what happens at the table.
The map is not the terrain, the song is not the emotion it evokes, and how much you enjoy a meal isn't what keeps you alive.
You're not supposed to have a strong loyalty to one: what happened was basically
>It would be moronic to mix a scoop of strawberry ice cream into a bowel of spaghetti
>Oh man you're right! Am I a person who eats spaghetti, or a person who eats ice cream?
>No don't be moronic, I just mean don't mix them together in one bowel
>What an ice-creamist thing to say
>I just mean don't mix them together in one bowel
I think you'll find I mix all sorts of food together in my bowels.
Gamism is about subverting the simulated world in order to make the player feel more intelligent and involved in the action. It's basically the same impulse as narrativism, just with more number autism. Character optimization isn't gamism, but gamists often make characters intended to exploit rather than explore the simulation, optimized or not.
Simulationists desire above all else to accurately reflect the circumstances of a simulated world in the way they control their characters and interact with the setting. Simulationist players with a simulationist GM with a simulationist system is the highest form of tabletop RPGs.
>Simulationist players with a simulationist GM with a simulationist system is the highest form of tabletop RPGs.
So the person running a specific style with a system that enforces that style with players who enjoy and are experienced or like to learn that style is a lot of fun?
Wow, who would have thought, huh? Crazy. It's almost like a Narrative based GM running with a narrative based system with players who enjoy and are experienced with or want to learn this style could also be "the highest form of table top rpgs".
If you didn't pick up on it, that anon is a baiting homosexual trying to troll the thread in to more replies.
No it can't be, because a purely narrative ruleset is by definition not a game, and thus not an rpg. Go write a book together or start a theatre troop ya bunch of candyasses
Okay... so if I understand the definition Munchkin would be an almost purely gamist version of a ttrpg? How would you tell the difference between a gamist and a simulationist in a game of dnd, assuming neither were allowed to come in with something that was punpun levels of broken.
>a gamist and a simulationist in a game of dnd
According to GNS, a gamist player will try and find a way to beat a given encounter to a detriment to the story and verisimilitude; abusing his PCs powers and RAW interpretation of the rules.
Simulationist player will stick to what's 'realistic' in his mind, sticking to the rules and numbers where possible, often at the expense of the plot and enjoyment of others.
3.PF (and 5e to a lesser extent) lends itself to simulationist playstyle, where there's a rule and numeric representation for everything; while 4e angles towards gamist play with arbitrary difference between At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers and Minions and whatnot.
However, this is all very much divorced from the actual play experiences. GNS has been repeatedly proven to be incomplete and irrelevant in many aspects.
If you choose to stomp around in the goblin forest at high level, and nothing is able even begin to challenge you, are you amused by this, or bored?
If someone points out an obviously mechanically superior option that no character in the game world is prepared to use or counter, something that should be obvious to anyone actually living the implications of the rules, are you more happy rewriting the setting to take the mechanical ability into account, or more happy house ruling the system to make the tactic a non-issue?
So if i get this correctly
>Gamists - People who want "numbers go up" experience with more creative freedom
>Narrativists - People who value creative freedom and choices made by character
>Simulationists - Smug vegans of the hobby
Did I get it right
Anyone who defines themselves as one of the extremes is a smug vegan of the hobby.
so wait, is this GNS/OSR shit just a formalized term for nu-dnd (critical role fans and such), vs grognards (I think dungeon crawlers, and dudes who don't care for stories in their games?).
Frick, we really need a timeline for this shit.
Not quite.
>OSR
"We only play basic d&d, and maybe AD&D 1e, all about gygax style dungeon looting survival games, no actual characters."
>GNS
A very broad categorization scheme for classifying games and the people who like them. I'm not sure its all that useful, but it gets used a lot regardless. OSR would be a flavor of G>S>N under this classification, mostly G, and nearly no N.
GURPS with the relevant fiddly options turned on would be S>G>N with more of an even mix than OSR.
FATE would be N>G>S, with basically no S.
>So if i get this correctly
>Gamists - People who want "numbers go up" experience with more creative freedom
>Narrativists - People who value creative freedom and choices made by character
>Simulationists - Smug vegans of the hobby
>Did I get it right
Not quite, the narrativists don't care about "it's what my character would do", and meaningful choice, they care about story arcs and "it would be dramatic!".
The simulationists are the "its what my character would do" crowd, playing the campaign as a world simulator trying to accomplish their characters goals and whatnot.
Gamists, yeah more or less. The 4e players. Dont really care if the mechanics make logical sense in character.
You haven't really described narrativist and simulationist that distinctly, making them seem far closer to one another than gamist. But the notion seems to be that these three form a triangle.
The narrativists care about "muh three act structure and 'satisfying narrative'" more, the simulationists care more about "muh suspension of disbelief and consistently and impartially presented game world" more and the gamists care mostly about game mechanics.
If you skew heavily narrativist you probably like meta mechanics like fate points or bennies, 'compels', scene editing, and dice fudging. If you skew heavily simulationist you probably hate that stuff.
And yeah, the idea is that its supposed to be a triangle and you can supposedly plot any game or person's preferences somewhere in that triangle, like a set of coordinates.
Again though, not everyone is convinced its a very useful triangle.
Narrativism as you've described it seems to be a question of how the game is organized and planned between sessions, while simulationism would be how it is run during a session. Those feel like more or less completely independent axes.
Narrativism vs Simulationism is at the table.
Do you engage with the game entirely in character trying to do what your character would want for your in character immersion experience, or do you engage with it treating your character as a pawn in a novel youre co-writing with friends, interacting with the game world outside of your character's knowledge and abilities to try to push for a compelling narrative that would be entertaining for other people to watch? Do you decide to fail on purpose because "it would make a better story" or do you try to make in character choices based on how you understand the world to function, to make your character succeed,because your character would want to succeed?
If those still sound the same to you, I dont know what to tell you, other than that theyre pretty different wants served best by pretty different mechanics.
Clarification: simulationists only care about an impartial game world. It’s immersionists who care about the suspension of disbelief. These are actually two axis that are often clumped together, but actually have distinct goals and playstyles.
Simulationists are the people who espouse that the DM's role is to be an impartial referee. A huge amount of 2000s TTRPG design was about catering to simulationists, it's why 3.5 has rules for killing monsters with smoke inhalation and exactly how long it takes to suffocate during underwater combat and why there's a billion different diseases and conditions and such even if they rarely come up and it's why if somebody's paralyzed or sleeping you can Coup De Grace them to insta-kill them even if that makes Hold Person ridiculously strong against single targets, because "it makes sense", it's all about tables and extensive rules that try to simulate at least to some degree what's happening in-universe
Another way to talk about Simulationist is Verisimilitude or Immersion. Anything that takes people out of the game and reminds them this is NOT a real, genuine living and breathing world and is theater kid story hour or a glorified board game combat simulator goes against Simulationism.
As an example, PF2E is pretty much as anti-simulationist as it gets. Being simultaneously prone, feinted, blinded, paralyzed, and flanked gives you the exact same armor class as just being flanked, because "it wouldn't be balanced" if conditions stacked. A simulationist playing GURPS says "Well OF COURSE it's easier to kill somebody if he's fricking blind, paralyzed, and on the ground choking on tear has! That's the whole point!" while "MUH BALANCE" ultra gamist systems like PF2E say "no, it wouldn't be a balanced game of that was the case so it doesn't happen, even if it doesn't make sense". Simulationist games are Combat as War, not Combat as Sport.
narrativist games often do away with in-universe action entirely, everything just runs on "what would be dramatic" and many story gamers will scoff at someone trying to do something just because "it makes sense". Games like Masks or Monster Hearts are the epitome of this shit
nta, but where would the various editions of dnd fall with these classification? Is there any difference between editions?
>nta, but where would the various editions of dnd fall with these classification? Is there any difference between editions?
3.5 is the most simulationist edition by far. There's defined DCs and checks for pretty much everything you can think of, to the point it was sometimes derided as "20 minutes of fun stretched into 4 hours", but frankly that's an issue in ANY game where people don't know the rules and are unwilling to commit, you'd have a bad time playing Football with a bunch of players who had to constantly be explained what the rules were too, and it'd take a hell of a lot more than 4 hours to get them caught up to speed AND finish a full game.
As we see with 5e, even having simple rules doesn't stop people being fricking illiterate morons. 3.5 isn't harder than GURPS.
4th edition is a very gamist approach, and many people argue it should have (and maybe would have been more successful) if it was marketed as D&D Tactics or something instead of pushed by WOTC as a replacement of 3.5, complete with firing everybody at dragon magazine (who went on to make Pathfinder, WHOOPSIES) and trying to switch from the OGL to a new, more restrictive Games System License for 4th edition (which had backlash back then as we saw today when they tried nuking it).
PF2E is even more gamist than 4e, with virtually all non-combat actions taking place in a JRPG over world map handled in """"exploration mode""""
AD&D was simulationist in that you had to describe what your character did to the point "player skill" and the actions of your character were not considered separate from you as a player. There weren't rules for many things, so the assumption was you could simply DO them, which involved a lot of "mother may I" and interrogating the DM, which is why the "impartial referee" stance was considered so important.
Right now 5e players PLAY it like it's a narrative story game but the reality is its actual ruleset is made for multiple encounter dungeon crawls.
D&D was pretty much entirely simulationist up through 3.5. It's especially noticeable in 3.5 itself because it's very rules-heavy (which technically isn't part of the GNS spectrum as such, but having more rules tends to be a result of either simulationism or gamism), whereas OD&D/AD&D/OSR had fewer rules because the assumption was that the DM would make a judgement call based on what makes sense. For example, there's no rule specifically stating that you can set off a tripwire at a distance using a 10-foot pole, but the DM will usually allow it because there's usually no logical reason for it not to work. That's simulationism.
Anyone who's been on /tg/ long enough will remember the edition wars. Almost all of those arguments were caused by 4e taking a hard turn towards gamism at the expense of simulationism, with one of the more notorious examples being Bloody Path (pic related).
>why the frick does running past an enemy force it to attack itself
>because that's what the rules say
>they can't resist? am I mind-controlling them? are rogues magic now?
>the rules say that's what happens
>what if it's a beholder or something, how is it going to attack itself?
>it could bite its tongue
>that's fricking moronic
>it's what the rules say
Repeat ad nauseam for like five fricking years. It's one of the few things I don't miss about those days.
5e was the result of WotC panicking and reversing basically everything they did in 4e, but the gamism stuck. It's semi-officially codified as "no secret rules" now, which basically means "turn off your brain and do what the book says". Why does a blind, prone, and disoriented character have no penalty to hit an opponent who can't see him? Because having any source of advantage will negate all sources of disadvantage and vice versa, so you just roll normally (i.e. that's what the rules say). As you can probably tell, I'm not a fan of this. Maybe 6e will piss everyone off again by trying to become a CR-inspired storygame.
The ability would be better if it just said "dude stabs everyone he runs past". No discussions about mind control, no having to roll separate attacks for different enemies, and it makes a lot more sense that a quick Rogue can just run past a few enemies and give a few quick stabs than a Rogue somehow tricking enemies into stabbing themselves.
I finally understand why people hate 4E.
If you want fantasy games with more "well what would make sense" and less "it doesnt need to make sense, thats what the rules say", Runequest, Rolemaster, HARP, Harnmaster, The Dark Eye, and GURPS Fantasy / GURPS Dungeon Fantasy all lean more in that direction. I like all of them better than 4e and 5e.
No. D&D was nakedly gamist.
Was it though?
I think it was a mix of gamist and simulationist elements.
Yes. Right from the beginning. More simulationist elements leaked in as time went on, but it was very much a game with inane, arbitrary bullshit that makes no sense divorced from a gameplay context.
Not him but personally i think that "gamist" is a false vertex in the GNS coordinates triangle and the very element that makes the theory fall apart, to me makes more sense having only two ends: Abstraction (instead of narrativism) and Immersion (instead of simulation), complimenting so your position on d&d (which exist somewhere in the middle).
>Abstraction vs Immersion
That makes sense as an axis. Narrativist vs gamist could explain the primary purpose of the abstractions, and could then be a second axis. Giving us a 2d plotter. That would probably work better than the triangle nonsense.
>Narrativist vs gamist
Then Story vs World may drive the point somewhat better. I wouldn't use the word "gamist" in any case because it's a given (afterall we're talking about a game to be located in these coordinates).
>World
On second thought "Scenario" instead of World may work better, but i'm not really sure.
Gamist as in a focus on game balance vs a focus on storytelling. Because generally the immersion breaks serve a purpose.
While I agree that "gamist" is complete bullshit - it was a later addition to force a cool triangle - "abstraction" and "immersion" are somehow even more moronic than GNS.
>"abstraction" and "immersion" are somehow even more moronic than GNS.
Maybe but expand on that. To me they make more sense in defining the general design a (ttrp)game may have with abstraction as the way to cage a game within a specific "path" (gameplay, loop, etc...) vs overall world interaction and immersion to define the pov level to which the game interaction is built upon.
"Abstraction" itself is a good word for describing rules. Sometimes a week's worth of action is condensed to "we look for a patron" and one roll of 2d6 (d66 if successful). Very abstract. In the same Traveller, combat still happens in ten second rounds that take all kinds of things into account. Less abstract. However, how would you give a game a rating of how well it lines with "abstraction", when different actions resolve at different levels of abstraction?
>to define the pov level to which the game interaction is built upon
You only need to use "abstraction" to describe this property as it applies to a standardized method of resolution, but games rarely have a fixed level of abstraction throughout the session, i.e., you end up resolving different actions at different levels of abstraction, so this isn't a word you would use to describe an arbitrary TTRPG. Rules, house rules, the style in which a GM resolves certain actions, yes, but not entire games.
"Immersion" is okay for describing how you felt about a session, or even a campaign. It doesn't cover any of the things that "abstraction" does, that is, rules, and as the two have mutually disjoint domains of application, using them as two ends of the same scale is just silly.
Sure. NTA, but uts clear what he means in context, even if the terms ge picked aren't perfect. Lets bring back terms from the edition wars:
The axis is "Associative" vs "Dissociative" mechanics.
Someone who likes more simulationist games won't enjoy a highly dissociative game, but some people are fine with it to varying degrees, either for gameplay reasons or narrative reasons.
You're describing types of rules.
GNS attempts to explain styles of play and game fun.
Different rule sets can be used for the same types of game and fun, and the same rules can be used for different kinds of game and fun.
Gamism as a design goal or component of play is nonsensical sophistry. There's a reason this shit taxonomy isn't used by designers of any other type of game.
DnD is a good sourcebook for really dumb abilities you'd never think of inventing yourself.
>doesn't stab everyone as he runs by
>doesn't cause the enemies to hit other enemies by mistake as they try to attack the rogue
No, the rogue mind controls them to punch themselves in the face or stab themselves with their own swords.
thanks for the clarification anons appreciate it.
So I guess this kinda stuff varies from table to table with some valuing say the game, and narrative, while other may focus on simulation and game, with a dash of narrative, etc
I think it will vary by the player, and you're ultimately aiming for a group and system that can compromise on something agreeable enough to everyone present.
mh, what systems would be G>N>S, S>N>G or N>S>G
GNS
Game Balance > Narrativism > Simulationism
D&D 4e.
SNG
GURPS with luck and impulse buys.
NSG
Not caring about game balance, and putting plot control and narrative editing over a world that makes sense. I don't have an example of this one.
mh, good to know, thank you
Timeline.
OSR.
People who never moved on after the early '80s, or people who went back to the TSR games of the early 80s and close clones thereof. Started picking up steam in the late 90s.
>GNS
2004-2005ish. Based on someone else's GDS classification from 1997.
That’s funny to me (an ex-simgay, now gaymer), because while I respect your preferred playstyle, I constantly see you lot confusing it for immersion. And being elitist about it. Nobody likes an arrogant dunce.
Gamist and Simulationist are incoherent categories. The only thing GNS accurately categorizes are the Narrativist storygames they invented.
To be fair, if you get annoyed by PbtA or metacurrencies making their way into a new edition of a game you like, it's the Forge's fault.
QRD? None of that makes sense to me
Since OP apparently fricked off, Imma try and give a short explanation.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php
'The Forge' was a cite and an active forum in the 00's where people would discuss tabletop game design and try to create a 'proper' RPG experience from scratch, divorced from wargaming roots of D&D and everything that came after it up until the late 90's.
Among Forge's users are people behind Fate, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel and more, people who did redefine the gaming field and went on to create what's now known as 'Narrative' RPGs.
However, especially early on, Forge has produced a lot of fringe theories (although I'm not sure GNS mentioned in the thread was devised on the Forge itself; Ron Edwards is cited as it's author, but I am pretty sure it's publication predates Forge as a forum), and those theories supposedly did hinder developments in the field and lead people to a few dead ends.
They were like the Something Awful of the RPG hobby. Lot of annoying homosexuals found their footing there and proceeded to go out and continue to spread that annoying homosexual behavior for the rest of their lives.
A lot of them were, but some of the stuff produced was actually good. Burning Wheel for example was sick.
The problem isn't that they made stuff that sucks.
BITD is fine, for what it is. Burning Wheel is fine as far as I've heard. I LOVE Microscope (Ben Robbins, also on the Forge).
But the problem is that, especially for Vincent Baker, Harper, the FATE devs, and Ron, they DEFINED what an RPG is, as a narrative experience.
The reason that 5e defines itself as "Collaborative Storytelling" is thanks to them. They define an RPG as a 'conversation' or some shit like that and then it's like, "I don't need rules to roleplay, you must be an idiot if you want mechanics."
I'm with you OP. Because 10 years ago I didn't have to explain to people that there's a point to having mechanics in a game, but I do now. I didn't have to explain that representing the things with the system, was not some pointless or bad endeavour.
>Because 10 years ago I didn't have to explain to people that there's a point to having mechanics in a game, but I do now.
That's because 10 years ago you had to beg people to play games other than d20 derivatives and that every fricking thing doesn't need hard rules and a chain of feats behind it.
this so much. game that have infinite times depth and granularity like GURPS with all source books have their place. But for the vast majority of users the increased mechanical depth of the system adds nothing but clerical WORK, which is not fun.
There is a reason every major RPG is moving to ruleslight systems and that's because they are more fun and more conducive to actually finishing stories and producing interesting anecdotes.
Its also why we got an entire generation of great board game rpgs that try to capture that 'game' aspect that starts to go missing when you make it entirely about storytelling.
the diversification of the genre into multiple sub genres is sensible and let's people get into systems they will actually enjoy. for the grognards who want 800 pages of rules text we still have excellent mature rpgs that offer that. you can't remake these systems in any meaningful way, which is why all the new systems are different. if you just release 3.5 again its not a new system. and these older systems don't go anywhere and are still very playable.
>There is a reason every major RPG is moving to ruleslight systems
The only RPGs in the entire world that actually matter are doing the exact opposite.
6e D&D is explicitly adding in more rules and systems and defined conditions, including changing the horribly vague rules for hiding and stealth and now providing actual mechanical access to magic item production and base management with Bastions.
PF2E is so fricking rules heavy you are literally not allowed to do anything unless a rule gives explicit permission. Even everything done out of combat is formalized into "Exploration Activities", it's more like a highly structured videogame than actual TTRPG
Call of Cthulhu is the second-most popular TTRPG in the world after D&D (largely based off its popularity in Asia) and is anything but rules-lite
A million shitty PBTA knockoffs with six players total don't matter. The genre is absolutely not moving towards rules-lite shit, if anything the pendulum is swinging back and people in 2024 want more defined rules and subsystems than they did in 2014, where 5e players were tired of 3.5 autism and 4e "gaminess"
huh, i see your point. guess like all culture this is the axis rpgs cyclically rotate around.
This
I need a story b***h
FRICK JUST HAVING GOOD MECHANICS YOU YURONERDS
I NEED A TAAAAAAAAALE
AMERISHIT FOREVERRRRRREEEEEEEERRRRRRRR
There getting crunchier again. Personally I'm hoping to see some that just go all in on the VTT trend and give me software to handle complex game mechanics, but actually have those more complex game mechanics.
Give me that moddable automated-mechanics digital GURPS.
Ironically one of the things the Forge was famous for at the time was pushing back against a huge movement that games didn't need rules at all. System Matters was a forge article
That article was also absolutely right.
I know, but they were also preaching that the real point of RPGs was narrative experiences.
Thank you for the sanity check appreciate it anon
You're telling me all modern TRPG trannies came from the same place? How fricking old are they then?
>all modern TRPG trannies came from the same place
Sorta? But not really.
I wouldn't personally consider Baker spouses, John Harper and Luke Crane those 'trannies' - those guys are in their late 40s at least and have done a tremendous job over the years (less so for Crane, perhaps). However, a lot of the people who are putting derivative shovelware based off PbtA/FitD and their second-thirtd-forth generation descendants on itch and drivethru these days are certainly worthy of disgust.
Anon do I really have to sit here and explain why someone with a mental disorder that makes them feel uncomfortable in their own skin would be attracted to a hobby where for hours at a time, you pretend to be someone you want to be, rather than someone you have to be?
>Fate, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel
all these games are pure fricking AIDS
if you can't form an interesting character or narrative with basic dnd rules you are hopelessly brain damaged
Lines and veils are legitimately useful conceptually; what topics players don't mind existing as long as they aren't described, and those they don't want all.
Not him but i think that codifying a natural occurrence stemming from interaction to be counterproductive, normally playing at a table you may stumble in uncomfortable situations but those get resolved instantly with a stern clarification (like: "dude cut it off, that's too graphic"). Lines and veils are better than the consent sheet but suffer from the same issue: ever expanding granular reference list the gm has to take constantly into consideration.
Having used L&V as a main 'safety tool' thing for years, I don't think there were ever more than two or three things players mentioned beyond what's I set up and told them as part of the campaign premise.
Honestly, with well-established premise and good choice of players (people who are able to buy into the narrative and won't do idiotic inappropriate stuff for shits and giggles, at the very least) L&V or consent checklists are largely unnecessary. But if you play with randos in FLGS or god forbid online - it's still something to consider; it might save everyone time and filter out the players who didn't read your LFG post or whatever properly.
> ever expanding granular reference list the gm has to take constantly into consideration.
This is my experience. It's just a shitload of things that put pressure on me when I can just say "Hey we're doing a campaign about X. It has the themes of Y and Z."
Those shovelware types actually practice what was preached.
>practice what was preached
What was preached (especially by Baker) is to break the mold wherever there's a reasonable need for it to make a game about what you want. What ve get instead is mindless rewrites of the fluffy parts of AW or FitD 'core' (or worse, Lasers & Feelings, because who the frick has the time to make a proper game, amirite?) that barely fit a hairbrained idea or culture war topic of the week and get raging applause from twitter types.
Solo indies is even worse, mind you.
Bro...There is very little worth gained from being this angry. Relax and go do something that will give a positive impact on your life, whether it's playing fun games, meeting new people, or developing your skills.
>hasn't even been there
>free to not let them live in his head
>does so anyway
The forge is less of an issue than your incurable moronation, homosexual.
Narrativism is for control freaks and failed authors. Dice fudging, railroading, character arcs and any form of planned "story" is just not RPG. It could be fun, but its something else entirely. And in the end, its just writing, in group, with extra steps, to actually achieve nothing of value.
Simulationism is for autists and uber-nerds. And its the richest waste of time. People who care this much about fiction are clearly on it to win arguments and feel superior, which is a pathetic attitute toward entertainment.
RPGs are GAMES. The fun in it is to make choices, roll dice and see what happens. You make a character within a set of rules and manage these resources to overcome challenges and see how far can you get, while the GM builds situations and challenges for you that will cost these resources. Both players then discover what happens. RPG as a game is the only fun, satisfying form of play.
>to actually achieve nothing of value.
all gaming produces nothing of value
>Ignore any narrativism or simulationi, 100% gamism.
If I want to play a highly abstracted boardgame I can just play a boardgame. That level of simulationism (of the people, not a physics engine) is the main thing an RPG offers over other game mediums. I agree the game side is important, but unless it's also leveraging that simulationism side (particularly for characters, which videogames are shit at) - I could just be playing a boardgame / wargame or videogame instead and it would be easier to get everyone together.
But yeah, I'm also not terribly interested in the "I want to be Spielberg" script-writing feeling games like FATE.
>Any form of planned story isn't an RPG
What a genuinely moronic take.
Agreed. An unsatisfying railroad of an rpg campaign is still an rpg.
All the categories you described are still games no matter how hard you want to spin it. Eg: Fiasco is a narrativist game where you don't have complete control over the unfolding story, the fun is to see wtf is going to go wrong as you go, Traveler is simulationist as you can get yet is a fairly simple game (literally just 2d6+mod vs TN). There, neither of them fits your asspulled definition. moron.
alright I feel this is the appropriate thread to ask, but can someone explain to me what nu-dnd is? Context clues makes me think its shit like tumblrinas from 2014, down to the SJW label, with bright ass colors, feel good emotions, often associated with 5e, critical role fans who demand their DMs play like matt mercer, unironically clone characters from their favorite shows etc. Am I missing something? What makes it that there is a need to make a distinguish them when the lexicon is already full of terms that can do the job? Was it the result of changes in the last ten years, is it related to gamergate? Sorry for all these questions, I would like to have a fuller picture of this, cause i feel its tangibly related.
Depends who is using it. It's not a very specific term. I've seen some use it for just the newish critical role style "ignore the game rules and play it as improv audio theatre", but I've seen others use it to refer to everything that's not an OSR Gygax approved basic / ad&d1e survival dungeon looter. I've also seen it as a reference to just Hasbro/Wizards D&D when it started focusing more on lots of combats and character builds, and not including 2e. Seems to depend when the speaker thinks D&D jumped the shark.
"Nu-D&D" means two things: that the poster thinks D&D was better at some point in the past (probably when he was a teenager), and that the poster is too moronic to explain or even understand his own opinion in any sense beyond "muh feels" so instead he relies on buzzwords.
>hey I've got any idea for a narrative game
Or you could just write a fricking book you Black person
Omg you fricking morons entertaining this bullshit need to stop. Stop giving legitimacy to the ramblings of a brain damaged egoist