The Forge Forums Read-only Archives
The live Forge Forums
May 22, 2022, 03:21:49 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Members Latest Member:
Most online today:
- most online ever:
(October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
The Forge Archives
General Forge Forums
Topic: Introducing myself... (Read 3071 times)
June 06, 2001, 03:46:00 PM »
Hello all ! :smile:
The name is Martin, the rest is in my profile. :smile:
I used to come to the forge once in a while. But I hadn't been here for some time and it looks more alive than ever before.
I'm first and foremost known on RPG.net, and that's in fact how I got back here. The numerous threefold discussions taking place these days.
I'm very much interested in indie gaming. I have followed the works of many posters here. I am myself designing a game.
I feel very much like a stranger here. My views are quite different from many. For instance, unlike Ron Edwards, I believe in generic engines.
Not only that, but to quote Doc Fortune: I know it's feasable, because I've gamed with it for months without any problems. :smile:
I started designing over a decade ago. At the time, simulationist concerns were at the forefront. I was very much obsessed with this. So much so that to have a very smooth scale, attributes were ranging from 1 to 999. Yep, this isn't a typo, sadly.
Ever since then, my views have shifted. I now put elegance, ease of use, "evocativeness" if such a word exists :smile:
I was introduced to rules-lite and narrative systems (I still confuse the two terms, but I know they mean something different) pretty late.
The first few experiences left a sour taste in my mouth. For instance, "The Window" didn't do it for me. At all. I was unimpressed.
All of this changed when
A) I picked up Everway in the bargain bin
B) I bought "The Story Engine"
I still like more details in systems, but I am convinced I can now enjoy gaming while "cutting in the fat" of game systems.
Although I believe in generic, I also believe system should be tied to settings. I just belive I can adapt my rule set without too much problems.
I'm going to keep a low profile around here, but I'll make sure to read what's going on. I'm working on a website right now. Slowly but surely.
More than the threefold, I'm interested in the *other* aspects of gaming. How to promote, how to design, critique etc...
RPG.net is not such a bad place, you know. I don't know why it gets such a bad reputation here and on GO. I'm taking my chance here, hoping I'm welcome. I'll try to contribute positively.
Thanks for reading ! :smile:
Reply #1 on:
June 06, 2001, 05:48:00 PM »
The phrase "believe in" is one of those tricky things.
Clearly, systems calling themselves generic or universal DO exist, so "not believing in them" would be silly. And I certainly don't think it's impossible for a game to apply to multiple settings - hell, Sorcerer is all about that, right?
So I'm not posting to fight with you about this. The following is just for clarification, and if you recognize any or all of as my POV already, then accept my apologies in advance for telling you what you know.
I'm skeptical about an RPG that claims to function well for ANY role-playing goal. As you know, my thoughts on the diversity of these goals, and the role of system design in facilitating them, results in a trade-off situation among the goals. (In one of my reviews, of Story Engine I believe, I think I use stronger language. The present construction is more to my thinking.)
Given similar goals, though, and since these are very broad, a given system will do very nicely across many, many applications.
So maybe our views aren't as divergent as it seemed.
P.S. Disagreeing with me about anything doesn't make you a "stranger" here.
Reply #2 on:
June 06, 2001, 08:06:00 PM »
Indeed, "believing" is tricky. That's they key. Roleplaying is after all an extension of make believe. Some kind of illusion we feed collectively.
And often enough, no matter how far-fetched the "realities" we play in, they are colored by our real-life views, experiences and biases. Even our misconceptions.
I think that explains why some groups remain perfectly happy with the same system, no matter what genre they play.
I know friends who have played for GURPS for anextended period of time. This has colored their experience so much, that they won't be happy using something else.
The fiction, real-life, fantasy. All realities have been blend into GURPS. I don't blame them either. They are perfectly happy, and enjoy successful campaigns of modern day, old west, a lot of CoC and even Supers.
In various instances where they have tried (either individually or collectively) to play under a different system, they have felt an intrusion, a violation of their "reality". It's become a set of laws of nature.
That being said, I agree that we aren't *that* much different you and me. I try to focus on immersion, and care about setting.
That's where you realize the diversity out there. For example the fact that some systems are used for other purposes.
CORPS is an omniversal system but I use it exclusively for a doom/alien like dark future. It's probably good for a lot of things, but not in my case.
I've worked with a friend on a modification of SAGA (Marvel and Dragonlance 5th age) for Star Wars. The doom mechanics striked us as having good potential for Force rules.
So far, we prefer it to the two commercial SW games.
On the other hand, even though that friend loves SAGA, he is unable to use it for fantasy games (the primary intent of the damn game). He prefers the use of Fantasy Hero or D&D for that purpose, even for Dragonlance gaming.
In the end, it's just one big, tasty illusion. You choose your flavor :smile:
What I have been trying to say, I guess, is that being the designer, and having played with the same people for a number of years now, has made me aware of our biases, quirks, needs. I'm in the driver seats to create a game that will be versatile enough to cover most of our needs. Does that make sense ?
Ron, I suppose that question must have been asked often, but:
What do you think of "house systems" that are modified for each setting ? For instance BRP, Silhouette, Fuzion... is that a suitable compromise in your opinion ?
I'll answer my own question and say I think it can be. At least it seems a couple of publishers have enjoyed relative success with that formula.
Bye ! :smile:
Reply #3 on:
June 07, 2001, 08:26:00 AM »
I decided the discussion was moving into the direction of RPG design, so I hopped it over.
See you there.
Please select a destination:
Welcome to the Archives
=> Welcome to the Archives
General Forge Forums
=> First Thoughts
=> Actual Play
=> Site Discussion
=> RPG Theory
=> GNS Model Discussion
=> Indie Game Design
Independent Game Forums
=> Adept Press
=> Arkenstone Publishing
=> Beyond the Wire Productions
=> Black and Green Games
=> Bully Pulpit Games
=> Dark Omen Games
=> Dog Eared Designs
=> Eric J. Boyd Designs
=> Errant Knight Games
=> Galileo Games
=> Green Fairy Games
=> Half Meme Press
=> Incarnadine Press
=> lumpley games
=> Muse of Fire Games
=> ndp design
=> Night Sky Games
=> one.seven design
=> Robert Bohl Games
=> Stone Baby Games
=> These Are Our Games
=> Twisted Confessions
=> Wild Hunt Studios
=> My Life With Master Playtest
=> Adamant Entertainment
=> Bob Goat Press
=> Burning Wheel
=> Cartoon Action Hour
=> Chimera Creative
=> CRN Games
=> Destroy All Games
=> Evilhat Productions
=> Key 20 Publishing
=> Memento-Mori Theatricks
=> Mystic Ages Online
=> Seraphim Guard
=> Wicked Press
=> Review Discussion
=> XIG Games
=> SimplePhrase Press
=> The Riddle of Steel
=> Random Order Creations
=> Forge Birthday Forum
Powered by SMF 1.1.11
SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC