Its not how LARGE it is... its HOW its used.

[silva]

I see and understand what you´re saying, Frank. But what Im referring to here are procedural assumptions about how the game should be played. Ie: Sorcerer revolves around Bangs the same way D&D revolves around Encounters, only Bangs serve to press players to make important choices about their Kickers, while D&D Encounters serve to tactically challenge players/builds and give XP/gold for feeding back into its reward cycle. This is what Im talking about here, and the reason I questioned Kaelik assertion that the playing structures cited in OP incentivize players to do "shit willy nilly" or something.

But I think that, between this thread and the one over at RPGnet, I grasped why this is such a newish thing - the existence of explicit procedural playing assumptions in the books - : because the early indie games wanted to break the mold of play established by D&D, which was generally seen as the default mode for playing any rpg. Thus, the early indie games had to explicitly state in its texts the importance of letting go any previous playing assumptions the reader had, and expose (and really emphasize) new ones.

[RobbyPants]

Silva,

I hope you won't find this overly petty, but my biggest problem with your argument this thread is that I can't figure out how the dick joke is supposed to fit in.

Ironically, the dick joke in unintentional (based on the preferences of the author). In *World, the outcomes of your actions is based less on the die rolls, and more on the whims of the GM, which leaves the players wide open for...

...well, you get the idea.

[silva]

Well, I prefer to be on the whims of GM improv and interpretation if thats subordinate to an open-ended player-driven gaming experience (like is the case in Apocalypse World), than to have resolution system with strict outcomes thats open to railroading on the GM´s part (as is the case with most trad rpgs).

But thats a matter of preference, of course.

[...You Lost Me]

Well, I prefer to be on the whims of GM improv and interpretation if thats subordinate to an open-ended player-driven gaming experience (like is the case in Apocalypse World), than to have resolution system with strict outcomes thats open to railroading on the GM´s part (as is the case with most trad rpgs).

*snort*

[silva]

*barf*

[RobbyPants]

Yes, because it's impossible to be railroaded when the GM can insert any success or fail condition he wants regardless of whether or not the roll is nominally a success or failure.

[silva]

Yes, because it's impossible to be railroaded when the GM must submit any success or fail condition he wants to the game´s Principles, Agendas and GM Moves

Corrected for you.

[Username17]

Yes, because it's impossible to be railroaded when the GM must submit any success or fail condition he wants to the game´s Principles, Agendas and GM Moves

Corrected for you.

silva, stop twatshitting. People do not want feces in vaginas. It's disgusting.

-Username17

[silva]

Frank, repeating the same bullshit over and over wont make it any less bullshit.

[Kaelik]

Frank, repeating the same bullshit over and over wont make it any less bullshit.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Lack of self-awareness: total.

edit: ninja'd

[silva]

A bunch of people talking bullshit dont make it any less bullshit.

Self-corrected.

[DSMatticus]

So En passant was introduced to chess in the 15th century. Were the people pre- the 15th century not playing chess, or the people post the 15th century are no longer playing chess?

This is the sort of problem that happens when you don't separate your semantics from your concepts. It is trivially obvious that "chess without en passant" and "chess with en passant" are different games. They have different rules. It is also the case that human beings decided to assign the same title to each of those two obviously different games (because they have a shared origin; one is clearly derived from the other). But that does not mean you can argue backwards from the shared title to conclude that they are the same game. My cousin and I share the name Matt. Are we the same person?

Words describe concepts, but you are supposed to do your reasoning with concepts, not words. If you asked a bunch of different people to describe AD&D rules to you, you'd end up with a different ruleset each and every single time. And every single one of them would tell you they were playing AD&D, and it would be obvious to see how each and every single one of those rulesets was derived from a common origin. But they would still be different rulesets and different games, and you cannot let the limitations of language confuse you on this point.

so I can go to my local chess group and tell half of them that they are playing it wrong?

It's not a prescriptive statement. ([sadly irrelevant example of a prescriptive statement goes here])

There is no prescription for action associated with the acknowledgement that there is more than one game called chess. This isn't Highlander, and there can be more than one. It's not even a suggestion that we change the language, because the language is useful. But there are instances where it is important to note the difference between games that share a common title, and in those instances we have to be more careful. And yes, "____ isn't unplayable because houserules" is one of the instances where this is actually very important. That's equivalent to arguing that "X isn't unplayable because Y is playable, and Y is derivable from X." That's obviously not a valid argument, but when X and Y share a name it's a much harder flaw to spot. And that is why you have to separate your semantics from your concepts.

[Aryxbez]

Do we say that Windows is an unusable Operating System because certain things can crash it?

For all the people on the internet claiming that one system is godawful or another doesn't work, I've yet to see anyone show me a perfect system. All they can really do is trade flaws for other flaws. If you keep chasing the perfect RPG system, you won't be doing a lot of gaming.

Depending how often it may come up, then to some extent, said Windows, or rule(s) could make the game rather unplayable. Such as if ye have a basic resolution system that doesn't work due to causing arguments, or otherwise not giving a defined result better than MTP.

I think that's because nobody here is advocating that any given system is "perfect", and simply don't want shoddy games. Just because there is a desire to play not shoddy games, doesn't mean a game therefore must be "perfect", or that we think its "perfect" if we play it. Obviously creating the "perfect" system per its definition we know is impossible, but one that's not shoddy, and has minimal issues for its purpose is an attainable goal one should strive for in design. Fact people want to use cop-out arbritrary statements like "Funs & emotions" to get in the way of design discussions hurts the above eventual goal. Which those people aren't useful to discussion, and perhaps the hobby either, and should likely stay out of the discussion. That, or be willing to learn that they are wrong, and use that information to better themselves for playing RPGs in the future.

Only idealistically, is one wanting a "perfect" system, that, or if it is being said, it's not being mentioned by its literal definition and moreso that of "what I've always wanted working ruleset for!" in this case.

[Cyberzombie]

I think that's because nobody here is advocating that any given system is "perfect", and simply don't want shoddy games. Just because there is a desire to play not shoddy games, doesn't mean a game therefore must be "perfect", or that we think its "perfect" if we play it. Obviously creating the "perfect" system per its definition we know is impossible, but one that's not shoddy, and has minimal issues for its purpose is an attainable goal one should strive for in design. Fact people want to use cop-out arbritrary statements like "Funs & emotions" to get in the way of design discussions hurts the above eventual goal. Which those people aren't useful to discussion, and perhaps the hobby either, and should likely stay out of the discussion. That, or be willing to learn that they are wrong, and use that information to better themselves for playing RPGs in the future.

It's fine to point out flaws in other RPGs, but calling them unplayable is stupid and counterproductive.

People can and did play 3.5 even though it had a bunch of broken rules. People can and did play Shadowrun even though it had a bunch of broken rules.

The fun and emotions is what hooks people to games. Rifts had a horrible system, but people still liked it. AD&D had numerous flaws, and yet it built the largest brand name in TTRPGs. And the reason you will either like or dislike Dungeon World is going to be because of fun and emotions.

[silva]

man, there are people that have fun with CYBORG COMMANDO.



go tell them its a broken game.

[darkmaster]

in silva's case he is using "people have fun with bad rules; therefore bad rules can't be bad"

I know I'm like a page late, but can we call that the Silva fallacy and try to get the name to catch around the net?

[silva]

That would be cool. Lets do it.

[Voss]

I think that's because nobody here is advocating that any given system is "perfect", and simply don't want shoddy games. Just because there is a desire to play not shoddy games, doesn't mean a game therefore must be "perfect", or that we think its "perfect" if we play it. Obviously creating the "perfect" system per its definition we know is impossible, but one that's not shoddy, and has minimal issues for its purpose is an attainable goal one should strive for in design. Fact people want to use cop-out arbritrary statements like "Funs & emotions" to get in the way of design discussions hurts the above eventual goal. Which those people aren't useful to discussion, and perhaps the hobby either, and should likely stay out of the discussion. That, or be willing to learn that they are wrong, and use that information to better themselves for playing RPGs in the future.

It's fine to point out flaws in other RPGs, but calling them unplayable is stupid and counterproductive.

People can and did play 3.5 even though it had a bunch of broken rules. People can and did play Shadowrun even though it had a bunch of broken rules.

The fun and emotions is what hooks people to games. Rifts had a horrible system, but people still liked it. AD&D had numerous flaws, and yet it built the largest brand name in TTRPGs. And the reason you will either like or dislike Dungeon World is going to be because of fun and emotions.

Now, wait a minute. There are games that have flaws that are functional. But there are also unplayable pieces of shit that should be tossed on fire and ignored. Just because you have a case (flawed but playable) doesn't mean the converse is always true (all games are playable, despite flaws)

[K]

man, there are people that have fun with CYBORG COMMANDO.

....

go tell them its a broken game.

Find five. Then bring them here to prove it.

[DSMatticus]

Hard mode: they were sober.

[...You Lost Me]

I have played games of Dragonquest and all-fighter, no WBL games with people who loved them. I'm sure there are crazies that would play Cyborg Commando and call it a totally great game.

That being said, it's still terrible, and even if people enjoy a bad game it's still objectively a bad game and thus you should suggest a different Space Opera any time someone asks for it.

[K]

Sure, terrible games have their place.

For example, I have enjoyed every game of Paranoia that I've played. I played it at lunch with some friends, didn't take even some of it seriously, and it was probably the third RPG of any kind that I'd played.

That being said, I wouldn't play it again. Old gamers get tired of shit games a lot faster than the newly initiated, so my days of playing TMNT or Rifts or Paranoia or Amber: Diceless are long behind me.

Hell, I'd probably last all of one session with Exalted or a GURPs game at this late stage of life even though my experience with either consists solely of half-heartedly browsing some books.

[Cyberzombie]

Now, wait a minute. There are games that have flaws that are functional. But there are also unplayable pieces of shit that should be tossed on fire and ignored. Just because you have a case (flawed but playable) doesn't mean the converse is always true (all games are playable, despite flaws)

Granted, there are a few that are truly unplayable, but it's rather rare. We're in realm of joke games, like FATAL or that racist holy war game that forgot to include a combat system at all.

The term unplayable is tossed around way too lightly. But calling 3E, Shadowrun, Rifts or Dungeon World unplayable is crap, because people actually do play them.

Now, that may not make them fun or enjoyable, but they are capable of being played.

[Aryxbez]

[quote="Cyberzombie]It's fine to point out flaws in other RPGs, but calling them unplayable is stupid and counterproductive.

The fun and emotions is what hooks people to games. Rifts had a horrible system, but people still liked it. AD&D had numerous flaws, and yet it built the largest brand name in TTRPGs.[/quote]

If an RPG is in fact unplayable, or has a design element that's being referred to as unplayable, then it is NOT stupid/counterproductive to discuss at all. That way belies the notion of it being bad to have RPG design discussions, so that said more unplayable elements can be salvaged into something better, or palatable at least.

AD&D has its history that's been discussed before, following from the first of its kind (Besides, everyone houseruled their respective games to the point of it being something else entirely). RIFTS is popularly known for having awesome ideas and such, I'm sure the actual system was never used, and just fiat rolls.

And the reason you will either like or dislike Dungeon World is going to be because of fun and emotions

Actually, I'll probably dislike X-World games it for it not being an actual "game", where rolls actually deliver outputs, and fiat severity of things happening to me ranging from unfair to forgettable (penalized to the point of not getting to play for awhile, or cosmetic defect). I don't have issue recognizing that just because I had "fun" with some given game, doesn't mean it was a good system, or that fun had actually come from the game itself, or that I'd even play it again. I've had fun with QAGS at a con before, but I knew it was because of the players, and not the actual system itself (similar with Koumei's 5th edition Shadowrun campaign no doubt I'm sure).

"Fun & Emotions" otherwise referring to poor excuses people use to try and halt RPG design discussions. Where instead of being objective, using Critical Thinking skills, people take observations or disagreements as personal attacks, overly assume others emotion states in their writing, and perhaps even try to seek false superiority because they're "more emotional" or whatever. Mike Mearls himself, uses the whole "what Feels right" on pretty much everything, even things that can be objectively measured.

Granted, there are a few that are truly unplayable, but it's rather rare. We're in realm of joke games, like FATAL or that racist holy war game that forgot to include a combat system at all.

The term unplayable is tossed around way too lightly. But calling 3E, Shadowrun, Rifts or Dungeon World unplayable is crap, because people actually do play them.

Terrabad realm of "joke games" and "Forge-lite" are what I have been referring to prior in my examples of games flat-out unplayable, objectively speaking. While I can agree that Shadowrun has a functioning base resolution system (its best design feature apparently), but its Vehicle combat, and Matrix minigames have been terrible at best, and otherwise found unplayable by most. To the point Matrix is usually reduced to a die roll, or an extended test. RIFTS I disagree, as its skills apparently have no functioning results from what I've been told, and need to be made up purely, for any resolution. Which, making stuff up isn't unique to RIFTS, or any other RPG, MTP is that thing we've done for free as kids.

So far with the discussion, I believe it's been mentioned that certain aspects of an RPG would halt the games progress. Like Shadowrun (any) Matrix rules, D&D's stealth systems, RIFT alchemy checks?
There are times where some given rule issue will halt the game with arguments, till a solution is found. If it's terrible enough to spring up in the "beginning" of a session, that will also halt it before it begins (had the unfortunate event of that happening to me once).

I would agree saying because 3.5 has a broken Stealth System, the entire game = unplayable, would be little exaggerating. However, don't think that is what is being fully argued. Though as said prior, if it comes up used as is, it could very well lead to halting the game.