I read a post earlier this week that was one of those that makes you wonder what world the poster lives in. The thrust of the argument was that The Forge has ruined indie publishing, and that the theory discussions there were pretentious, and that Ron Edwards hates old school.
The last point is fairly simple, as Ron have posted a lot publicly about games he has played and what he has liked or not. That he wrote a essay about D&D and used the words "brain damage" doesn't prove much. I have myself used those words when talking about alignment, many times. I have played with Ron, read his actual play posts about e.g. T&T, and know how ridiculous that claim is. But, even if it's true, what does it matter? How does Ron and The Forge threaten you?
I wonder, why do some people who feel affiliated with OSR sensibilities feel so threatened by The Forge and its inheritance? I can understand how an approach to gaming that focuses on actual play to see how it works, can feel theoretical underpinnings and that kind of talk to be pointless. Let's disregard for the moment to what extent a theoretical conversation means you do not play. I know I found some of the jargon sometimes obscured the experience of play, so I see some point with that criticism.
But, apart from that, what is so threatening? Is it the thrust towards cooperative storytelling, where the DM no longer reigns supreme, the big threat? I know some people don't care for player narrative powers and just want to explore the world and roll dice. I can sympathize with that approach as well, even if I don't see it as a threat.
This leaves me wondering.
Showing posts with label Ron Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Edwards. Show all posts
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Ron Edwards talking about how to run old school games
I just found this very good review of Ron's game Sorcerer. It highlights how the core of the game goes back to The Fantasy Trip, and Wizard and some other game mechanical details I had missed. I especially like how the reviewer praises the initiative system for the kind of free wheeling action D&D was always intended for. Maybe something worth importing? Likewise, the GM advice in Sorcerer is definitely worth checking out, especially for someone of old school bent.
When I got my copy of the new Sorcerer books, I found the annotated edition a bit hard to read, as the flow of the text being interrupted by the annotations. This review, and the fact I got my copy of Ron's new game Circle of Hands, made me want to take it down and read it some more. Maybe I might even play it.
When I got my copy of the new Sorcerer books, I found the annotated edition a bit hard to read, as the flow of the text being interrupted by the annotations. This review, and the fact I got my copy of Ron's new game Circle of Hands, made me want to take it down and read it some more. Maybe I might even play it.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Everything carries baggage
For those who read my post from yesterday about how game systems might colour your experience when converting a setting, this is a good read.
The big thing is how things are presented in Ron Edwards game Circle of Hands and how some attitudes about controversial things can seep into a game text in a way not intended. Sometimes a text might be coloured by your views, and sometimes your views are so natural to you that you do not write them out, which also colour it. Ron has already revised the text for it to clearer reflect his views on these topics and it will make it a better game I'm sure.
Naturally, the lesson here is how not only the game rules, but also the game text can carry meaning and sometimes even baggage you did not intent it to. It pays to have an open mind.
Some people say they just want to kill some orcs and relax among their friends. Sure, that's fine. But, this conversation between Ron and the owner of the Go Make Me a Sandwich blog (who I for the life of me can't find the name of anywhere!) brings out an interesting potential as well.
Instead of having a game carry unintended baggage, bring it out into the open! In a post-apocalyptic game I ran last year we had some quite interesting sessions where the conflict between the owner of a sawmill and the sawmill workers escalated and involved the players. My political views was not a hidden agenda, it was up for debate, forcefully so! We had great fun and it worked out ok. It pays to have an open mind, right?
While I think you have to tread carefully, I think this hobby of ours can even handle problematic issues like sexism and rape (and just plain politics). Unless you game with dickheads, and you don't do that, do you? Good.
The big thing is how things are presented in Ron Edwards game Circle of Hands and how some attitudes about controversial things can seep into a game text in a way not intended. Sometimes a text might be coloured by your views, and sometimes your views are so natural to you that you do not write them out, which also colour it. Ron has already revised the text for it to clearer reflect his views on these topics and it will make it a better game I'm sure.
Naturally, the lesson here is how not only the game rules, but also the game text can carry meaning and sometimes even baggage you did not intent it to. It pays to have an open mind.
Some people say they just want to kill some orcs and relax among their friends. Sure, that's fine. But, this conversation between Ron and the owner of the Go Make Me a Sandwich blog (who I for the life of me can't find the name of anywhere!) brings out an interesting potential as well.
Instead of having a game carry unintended baggage, bring it out into the open! In a post-apocalyptic game I ran last year we had some quite interesting sessions where the conflict between the owner of a sawmill and the sawmill workers escalated and involved the players. My political views was not a hidden agenda, it was up for debate, forcefully so! We had great fun and it worked out ok. It pays to have an open mind, right?
While I think you have to tread carefully, I think this hobby of ours can even handle problematic issues like sexism and rape (and just plain politics). Unless you game with dickheads, and you don't do that, do you? Good.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Some thoughts on veils and lines
Today I was listening to an episode of the podcast Saving the Game, and they were discussing the terms lines and veils. These come from the Sorcerer supplement Sex and Sorcerer. The idea is that in your play group you might have themes that one of the players or the GM feel is uncomfortable to bring up at the gaming table, and veils are things that might crop up, with it wont be played out in detail. Naturally, in Ron Edwards book he talks mostly about sex.
When I listened at the podcast I started to wonder about the things the hosts listed as their personal lines and veils. Naturally they talked about sex, but also about other things. What made me think was when they brought up torture.
Personally I find torture really horrifying. It dehumanizes both the perpetrator and the victim, and it's useless for information gathering so it's basically just a power game. Still, it happens in games. But, more to the point, it happens in real life.
So, should you just ignore such icky stuff in your game? Should you maybe include it, and face it and through play explore what it does to people and include it as a motivator for stopping the bad guy/gal?
This reminds me of when I first started playing Dogs in the Vineyard. Our GM noticed that some of the things we as dogs encountered was making me shrink back and try to do ignore, maybe hoping to push it into the lap of some other player. Naturally he saw me squirm and pushed it harder towards me, forcing the issue and forcing me to make a stand. It was an awesome session. Someone might consider this a dick move, but I was playing God's emissary with power over life and death. There was a Situation going on, demanding me to act, and it made for a better game when I was forced out of my comfort zone.
So, how about that torture thing?
I can look at my visitor statistics and find that a large percentage of my visitors are living in a country that practice torture, and where people in the highest political levels have shown their support for the practice. Are you really cool with that? Would it be a good thing for you, if this applies to you, to be forced into that same situation I was in when I was playing Dogs? It did make me take a closer look at who I am and how I act.
I guess the answer is, it depends. I had signed up to play Dogs in the Vineyard. I knew what I was getting into, and wanted hard choices. Most people don't want to play that way.
The idea of having Lines and Veils, and talking them over before your game might be a good idea. To make sure you are on the same page, and so the GM can go all in after that, and not have to pull any punches. She knows you can take it. Sometimes, just sometimes, it might be worth thinking about those lines and where they are drawn in the sand.
I know for a fact that if I ever run Kult again, there will be no lines or veils. Then I will mess with my players, and if they squirm I will push harder to blow through beyond any lines. I know that something interesting will come out the other side.
When I listened at the podcast I started to wonder about the things the hosts listed as their personal lines and veils. Naturally they talked about sex, but also about other things. What made me think was when they brought up torture.
Personally I find torture really horrifying. It dehumanizes both the perpetrator and the victim, and it's useless for information gathering so it's basically just a power game. Still, it happens in games. But, more to the point, it happens in real life.
So, should you just ignore such icky stuff in your game? Should you maybe include it, and face it and through play explore what it does to people and include it as a motivator for stopping the bad guy/gal?
This reminds me of when I first started playing Dogs in the Vineyard. Our GM noticed that some of the things we as dogs encountered was making me shrink back and try to do ignore, maybe hoping to push it into the lap of some other player. Naturally he saw me squirm and pushed it harder towards me, forcing the issue and forcing me to make a stand. It was an awesome session. Someone might consider this a dick move, but I was playing God's emissary with power over life and death. There was a Situation going on, demanding me to act, and it made for a better game when I was forced out of my comfort zone.
So, how about that torture thing?
I can look at my visitor statistics and find that a large percentage of my visitors are living in a country that practice torture, and where people in the highest political levels have shown their support for the practice. Are you really cool with that? Would it be a good thing for you, if this applies to you, to be forced into that same situation I was in when I was playing Dogs? It did make me take a closer look at who I am and how I act.
I guess the answer is, it depends. I had signed up to play Dogs in the Vineyard. I knew what I was getting into, and wanted hard choices. Most people don't want to play that way.
The idea of having Lines and Veils, and talking them over before your game might be a good idea. To make sure you are on the same page, and so the GM can go all in after that, and not have to pull any punches. She knows you can take it. Sometimes, just sometimes, it might be worth thinking about those lines and where they are drawn in the sand.
I know for a fact that if I ever run Kult again, there will be no lines or veils. Then I will mess with my players, and if they squirm I will push harder to blow through beyond any lines. I know that something interesting will come out the other side.
Monday, August 19, 2013
More loot!
I've got more loot!
Who does not want an intense roleplaying game, eh?
This is the annotated edition, where every other page is just commentary on the text on the other page. I've wanted this for some games. I mean, how often did you ask yourself "what were they thinking?".
Frankly, when I got it, I had forgotten I would also get all the supplements in a big fat book. Goodies.
I also like to say that Ron had been communicative, quick and delivered exactly what he promised without long delays. Listen and learn, people!
This is the annotated edition, where every other page is just commentary on the text on the other page. I've wanted this for some games. I mean, how often did you ask yourself "what were they thinking?".
Frankly, when I got it, I had forgotten I would also get all the supplements in a big fat book. Goodies.
I also like to say that Ron had been communicative, quick and delivered exactly what he promised without long delays. Listen and learn, people!
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Sorceror is on Kickstarter!
I just today decided that I probably should get Sorceror. Yeah, I know it is kind of odd that I don't own it. Now I decided to remedy it. But, guess what? I now know why I think you should join this funding project as well. Let me quote Ron
If 20 people pledge for this reward, then Jim Raggi and I conduct an unrehearsed, topic-unlimited, candid, and complete conversation to be posted on-line.Come on! I put my $50 on the line, since this just has to happen! I mean, two smart, opinionated and passionately creative individuals like Ron and Jim, what is there not to love? Victor Raymond and Ron Edwards were having a conversation on The Walking Eye podcast and that was great.
You also get some really interesting game books which have been highly influential in modern game design. I'm just saying.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
What I don't like about Trail of Cthulhu
Since I just ran a game of Call of Cthulhu, including some rules and concepts from Trail of Cthulhu, I have spent some time pondering the qualities of the latter.
Why did I not just run a ToC game?
Basically, my main beef with ToC is that I don't really feel very comfortable about rolling one die. It might seem like a small thing, but I want more randomness in my games.
If you, like in ToC, rolls 1d6, may add in "spends" from your pools (all skills are pools of points) trying to beat difficulty of, say, 3-4, it goes without saying that most times randomness wont be a factor. Naturally, this is a design feature. Robin Laws who designed the game clearly states that his idea is to make the system drive a kind of narrative that behaves in a specified way.
Personally I like the quality of "new school" games, like the forge style games and others, to have rules that reinforce and drive toward a style of play the designer envision his or her game to be about. Many times, almost as many times that I have claimed Alignment leads to brain damage, I have elevated the rule of gold equals xp to sublime levels of design mastery, due to the effects it can have in enforcing a style of play. This is something I think is the great re-discovery stemming from Ron Edwards "system matters".
What kind of style is it then that ToC reinforce with its pools you can spend for basically guaranteed success? Well, it is a game where you can be sure, as a player, that the actions of your character will succeed. If you have a decent pool of at least 2, trying to beat 4 (a rough mean of a 2-8 scale) is an average chance of success of more than 80%. I think that makes it kind of pointless to have a randomizer with those odds. Before we delve too deep into math and probabilities, the main point of my argument is that on such a small scale a spend of one point, to say nothing of more than one, makes successes almost certain.
So, why is that bad? Isn't it good for the players to have say in when they get to shine? Well, no. Not when the object of the game is horror.
Horror demands giving up certainty and hope. Vagueness and isolation, and the strong possibility of failure and its following painful result is what drives the sense of horror. I think ToC is a fine game for CSI, but not for horror.
Some say the rules don't work that way in actual play, and they might be right. I have only played ToC once, but it did not falsify my principal objections to the rules. Feel free to disagree!
Why did I not just run a ToC game?
Basically, my main beef with ToC is that I don't really feel very comfortable about rolling one die. It might seem like a small thing, but I want more randomness in my games.
If you, like in ToC, rolls 1d6, may add in "spends" from your pools (all skills are pools of points) trying to beat difficulty of, say, 3-4, it goes without saying that most times randomness wont be a factor. Naturally, this is a design feature. Robin Laws who designed the game clearly states that his idea is to make the system drive a kind of narrative that behaves in a specified way.
Personally I like the quality of "new school" games, like the forge style games and others, to have rules that reinforce and drive toward a style of play the designer envision his or her game to be about. Many times, almost as many times that I have claimed Alignment leads to brain damage, I have elevated the rule of gold equals xp to sublime levels of design mastery, due to the effects it can have in enforcing a style of play. This is something I think is the great re-discovery stemming from Ron Edwards "system matters".
What kind of style is it then that ToC reinforce with its pools you can spend for basically guaranteed success? Well, it is a game where you can be sure, as a player, that the actions of your character will succeed. If you have a decent pool of at least 2, trying to beat 4 (a rough mean of a 2-8 scale) is an average chance of success of more than 80%. I think that makes it kind of pointless to have a randomizer with those odds. Before we delve too deep into math and probabilities, the main point of my argument is that on such a small scale a spend of one point, to say nothing of more than one, makes successes almost certain.
So, why is that bad? Isn't it good for the players to have say in when they get to shine? Well, no. Not when the object of the game is horror.
Horror demands giving up certainty and hope. Vagueness and isolation, and the strong possibility of failure and its following painful result is what drives the sense of horror. I think ToC is a fine game for CSI, but not for horror.
Some say the rules don't work that way in actual play, and they might be right. I have only played ToC once, but it did not falsify my principal objections to the rules. Feel free to disagree!
Friday, April 29, 2011
A new way to use the Ronnies
Since I have had no time lately to devote to even think about designing a game, and the Ronnies always makes me want to try, I have held off the Forge for a while.
The last round had these words from which you had to pick two and had to ignore the rest.
amazon lust chains queen
Can you feel the wheels start spinning? I mean, who will not get at least some imagine in their head from those words? Rob Kuntz have posted many times on his blog about creativity, and I think this is making me think about that elusive quality.
Ron suggests you take two of those words and then start to associate and get the mind roam around those words to get the creative juices going. This set of words I think is extra good at showing how that helps creativity. Talk about loaded words.
How about this as a spur to make great adventures, not whole games?
* amazon & chains - Why are those amazon warriors seem plundering caravans in the Purple Forest? Is there something behind the fact that they just claim all the copper items on the baggage train? Why have they suddenly stopped, after kidnapping the village smith? Are they making chains for something big and dangerous?
What kind of adventure can you make up from those words? I know I have more images in my head I'm not developing here...
The last round had these words from which you had to pick two and had to ignore the rest.
amazon lust chains queen
Can you feel the wheels start spinning? I mean, who will not get at least some imagine in their head from those words? Rob Kuntz have posted many times on his blog about creativity, and I think this is making me think about that elusive quality.
Ron suggests you take two of those words and then start to associate and get the mind roam around those words to get the creative juices going. This set of words I think is extra good at showing how that helps creativity. Talk about loaded words.
How about this as a spur to make great adventures, not whole games?
* amazon & chains - Why are those amazon warriors seem plundering caravans in the Purple Forest? Is there something behind the fact that they just claim all the copper items on the baggage train? Why have they suddenly stopped, after kidnapping the village smith? Are they making chains for something big and dangerous?
What kind of adventure can you make up from those words? I know I have more images in my head I'm not developing here...
Thursday, February 10, 2011
What Ron Edwards taught me about Call of Cthulhu
In the comments I got on my post from yesterday I could see that the idea of house ruling CoC might not be the most immediate idea for some, and also what you focus on to be worth focusing on. Basically, my interest in the idea of a Drive and Pillars of Sanity is to codify the System. Let me expand a bit upon that last point, it's important.
A while back I listened to an interview with Ron Edwards, on the Walking Eye podcast, I think. He talked about what constitutes a System. I remember thinking I should post something about it, but don't remember if I got around to it. Anyway, the idea is that one reason the early games look so sketchy is that there were a lot of common experiences which everyone could be counted upon knowing. Thus, there are procedures and "rules" which never end up in the book, since they are just "how you do things". Ron calls the whole of that the System. One of the great achievements of the Forge is to codify, and analyze how those invisible rules enhance and influence play, and then use that for deliberate effects.
So, why would a CoC Investigator go down into that crypt again? Why would that Investigator looks for clues to a disappearance just after getting a letter from a NPC relative? There are no System for it, yet everyone does it and expects it to be part of the game.
Now, the idea of having rules about Drives supplying reasons to go investigating, or Pillars of Sanity as reason to go on fighting, is just such a System - codified.
The conclusion is of course that even though I still think it shoddy game mastering to make a game falter because of a failed but vital die roll, I have changed my mind and think that the "autoclue" rule together with Drives and Pillars of Sanity would make a lot of sense in a Call of Cthulhu game. Finally, all of the System is written down.
A while back I listened to an interview with Ron Edwards, on the Walking Eye podcast, I think. He talked about what constitutes a System. I remember thinking I should post something about it, but don't remember if I got around to it. Anyway, the idea is that one reason the early games look so sketchy is that there were a lot of common experiences which everyone could be counted upon knowing. Thus, there are procedures and "rules" which never end up in the book, since they are just "how you do things". Ron calls the whole of that the System. One of the great achievements of the Forge is to codify, and analyze how those invisible rules enhance and influence play, and then use that for deliberate effects.
So, why would a CoC Investigator go down into that crypt again? Why would that Investigator looks for clues to a disappearance just after getting a letter from a NPC relative? There are no System for it, yet everyone does it and expects it to be part of the game.
Now, the idea of having rules about Drives supplying reasons to go investigating, or Pillars of Sanity as reason to go on fighting, is just such a System - codified.
The conclusion is of course that even though I still think it shoddy game mastering to make a game falter because of a failed but vital die roll, I have changed my mind and think that the "autoclue" rule together with Drives and Pillars of Sanity would make a lot of sense in a Call of Cthulhu game. Finally, all of the System is written down.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
A new round of the Ronnies
For those out there that are creative, quick and adventurous, I suggest you take a peek at this round of the Ronnies.
Take a peek at the four words, choose two and design a game around them in 24 hours or less. Shouldn't be that hard, should it?
I have picked two words, but I wonder if I will have 24 hours to spend developing them!
Take a peek at the four words, choose two and design a game around them in 24 hours or less. Shouldn't be that hard, should it?
I have picked two words, but I wonder if I will have 24 hours to spend developing them!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
To swell the ranks of the hobby?
I found this link today from an old thread at The Forge. It made me think about the need of more clone rules and how to make a game that appeals to new and potential gamers. Food for though.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Everything you wanted to know about Ron Edwards, and then some
Since everyone know that random tables are fun, talking about cthulhu or Ron Edwards makes your visitor statistics go through the roof, I just couldn't resist this randomly generated fact about Ron Edwards.
There is no Ron but Ron!
Basically that site, Abulafia, is a boatload of random tables. I love tables and some of these are just wonderful. While there might not be any Slime Ladies or Mouldy Hieroglyphs I still think there are some true gems in there.
How about the adventures of the amazing super heroes The Canadianster and The Ebony Squidlass, and working against them are the Venomous Association of the Imperial Mountains that are political assassins, currently playing a deeper game than anyone realizes? A campaign just like that. Too bad I don't do superheroes.
I'll conclude with this random fact. Hilarious!
James Cameron wanted Chuck Norris to play the Terminator. However, upon reflection, he realized that would have turned his movie into a documentary, so he went with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
There is no Ron but Ron!
Basically that site, Abulafia, is a boatload of random tables. I love tables and some of these are just wonderful. While there might not be any Slime Ladies or Mouldy Hieroglyphs I still think there are some true gems in there.
How about the adventures of the amazing super heroes The Canadianster and The Ebony Squidlass, and working against them are the Venomous Association of the Imperial Mountains that are political assassins, currently playing a deeper game than anyone realizes? A campaign just like that. Too bad I don't do superheroes.
I'll conclude with this random fact. Hilarious!
James Cameron wanted Chuck Norris to play the Terminator. However, upon reflection, he realized that would have turned his movie into a documentary, so he went with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Who in gaming is worth knowing about?
After my exasperated outburst about people not knowing about Ron Edwards I started thinking. Jeff Rients, always with his eye on the pulse of gamerdom, asked a very relevant question. Maybe the contributions by the "Forgeites" are not really impacting the hobby very far? Maybe rpg theory is largely ignored by most gamers? Even if that it true (and I hope it's not), it still leaves me with the question of who you should know about?
Earlier this year, a friend was giving me a ride home after a gaming session. I was kind of tired, and as I usually do in that state I was blathering on about whatever my mind had gotten stuck on. Amazed (and bored?) my friend asked me "How do you know all these biographical details about all these game designers!?" after I had talked about when someone started this or that game company. I am interested in the history of our hobby, and some things sticks in my mind. The ups and downs of the business end of the hobby seem to be one such thing. So, is this something everyone should know about? Quick! When did Greg Stafford start The Chaosium? Who else was involved? What? You don't care?
So who do you think everyone should know about in gaming? I guess the most famous people probably are Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Being there from the start counts a lot. How about Rick Loomis, who in 1970 started the oldest game company still around doing the same kind of business? How about Mark Rein*Hagen who helped create the phenomenon that is White Wolf? How about Matthew Sprange who runs one of the most successful game companies today? How about Ed Simbalist? Frankly, I'm not sure I know who everyone should know about. I have many times found that the one-game-gamers who only know of Gygax and D&D to me seem like they have deprived themselves of some of the sublime heights possible in the hobby which so succinctly combines game elements, storytelling and performance art. And some really cool game mechanics and worlds, to boot! Just look at two very distinctly different games like Dogs in the Vineyard by Vincent Baker, and Tunnels & Trolls by Ken St Andre. Both opened vistas in my head I didn't even suspected existed!
So, hell know who is important enough in the big scheme of things. I just hope everyone out there treats the whole field of the hobby is one big dungeon, filled with treasure. Who don't want to explore some more, and get just a little bit more loot home? Happy delving!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Ron Edwards? Who?
I just read Jim Raggi write this in a response to something Ron apparently got published in the latest issue of Fight On! magazine. What really makes me sigh about this is that so many people, especially over at the post about it on Grognardia, have no idea who Ron is!? Guys, Gary is dead! Things have happened the last thirty years! Ron Edwards has a somewhat abrasive on-line persona, but his is very smart and have thought a lot about gaming. Do yourself a favour and read up on his stuff. You might hate it, but it will expand your views on gaming. Read carefully, please do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
