Yes, Absolutely, But that's not what you said, you said that you wouldn't be caught discussing something you didn't know enough about. You've said before that you make an effort to say exactly what you mean, so I'll brook no complaints when I take your word on that, and assume that you mean what you say.
I said "don't knock it if you haven't tried it." I'll assume that your nationality let you to misinterpret this old saying. Knock, in this context, means to negatively criticize. Of course, you probably shouldn't be positively criticizing or judging something in any way whatsoever without sufficient knowledge and experience in the relevant subject matter.
Think of it like this. You go to see a movie. It's the first movie you've ever seen. If you want to talk about what you liked, what you didn't like, that's all good. You want to say what you thought, and maybe people want to hear about it. Maybe you figured out the mystery early on, ok so brag that you figured it out before everyone else.
The problem comes when you start to make judgmental statements such as "That movie was the worst!" Well dude, if you've never seen any movie before ever, who are you to say what's the worst? Even if you have seen movies before, how many have you seen? How much do you know about film? You haven't even seen Citizen Kane? Like it or not, that fact alone invalidates any film criticism you can possibly offer.
I said "don't knock it if you haven't tried it." I'll assume that your nationality let you to misinterpret this old saying. Knock, in this context, means to negatively criticize. Of course, you probably shouldn't be positively criticizing or judging something in any way whatsoever without sufficient knowledge and experience in the relevant subject matter.
No, we have that idiom, too, trust me, the issue is normally the other way around, where we have idioms that don't make sense to Americans - we get a lot of entertainment media from the US, so there is plenty of cultural bleed.
I just broke your statements way down, and got picky over a single word - discuss, vs critique, essentially - or to put it another way, I was pointing out that you DO discuss things you don't know so much about, but wasn't making the point that you tend not to critique them - since you chose the word discuss, but it seemed like you meant critique, but I wasn't entirely sure, so I went with what you said, rather than what I thought you meant. Further, if you do, it's only on a very superficial level - for example of what I mean, "That looks stupid, but I'll try it anyway, because I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable attitude to have, because you're not disregarding it because it looks stupid to you at that point in time, you're making the effort - you're just stating your opinion on how it looks, before you try it.
The problem comes when you start to make judgemental statements such as "That movie was the worst!" Well dude, if you've never seen any movie before ever, who are you to say what's the worst? Even if you have seen movies before, how many have you seen? How much do you know about film? You haven't even seen Citizen Kane? Like it or not, that fact alone invalidates any film criticism you can possibly offer.
I think it's less of a problem of judgemental statements, but more of Personal judgement vs objective - Like you said, "That movie was the worst!" is a useless statement, because you've not seen every movie ever, or in your example, the subject had never seen another movie. However, a judgemental statement like "That's the worst movie I've ever seen." Is acceptable, because all you're saying, obviously, is that out of all the movies you HAVE seen, that's the worst.
Discussing != critiquing.
I know - that's why I disputed your original sentence, in the first place, as I said before.
Jungle Speed looks like spoons at a glance, but it's got some weird stuff going on that makes it averydifferent game.
Agreed, I spoke too imprecisely. It LOOKS like spoons, with some rules-changing cards. It also looks like a hell of a lot of fun. Most likely, it's going to be rather different. I'm still keen to play it with any of you lot, give me something more complex than spoons to try my reflexes at.
Jungle Speed also has punching and wrestling. I'm surprised it isn't regulated like Boxing.
Thus, part of the reason I'd like to play it. It's not just a card game, and it's not just spoons, it's something new and interesting - and let's face it, I know I can take it, I want to see how many others can really give it out.
The problem I see here is that you talk about "Your story". It seems that as a GM you have a story that you want to tell and your players are just an audience to a interactive story.
Not quite; if I was aiming for that, I'd probably write that choose-your-own-adventure book --- or an outline for a video game, or, hell, an adventure module for a pen-and-paper game. When I run a campaign, though, I also see it (ideally) as everyone contributing to the story: I'm providing setting and basic plot outline, they're providing primary protagonists and plot details.
But thing is that when I run a game I don't have a story and I don't want to tell a story. I want to see the story being created around the table by players (including GM) with gamesystem as a toolset, bringing limitations, direction, suspense and chance to the story.
See, I honestly can't see myself having fun just "refereeing" a game like that. Maybe part of the problem is that I can't properly put myself into the head of someone who can.
D&D; and Burningwheel being setting optimized is not a bug it's a feature. Also you say that you want system to stay away from limiting you story, but what are those things you want from a game. Why to play GURPS instead of freeform, or writing a choose your own adventure book or playing some lighter ruled generic system?
I never meant to imply that being optimized for a particular genre or setting was a flaw for the system in general, just that it's usually working at odds with my goals. I cross genres in a lot of my campaigns, so I like to know that the system I'm using isn't going to kick up too much of a fuss when I try something new.
I use an actual system as opposed to freeform role-playing partly because it takes some of the load off of worrying whether things like the physics of the story is internally consistent, and partly because in my gaming group IRL freeform RPing would feel really weird. As to why GURPS specifically as opposed to a lighter system...well, mainly because a lighter system wouldn't be taking as much of the aforementioned load off.
Don't get me wrong, I am interested in actually trying a few of the indie systems eventually --- Shock in particular pretty much gave me a geekgasm the first time I heard about it. But when I'm in the mood to run a game (as opposed to just being another player), it generally means I'm in the mood to create a story, not tell someone else's; systems with their own agendas are going to be a hard sell for me in that regard. (Again, another reason Shock is looking attractive to me).
Some people play actual role playing games where role playing is inherent in the game itself
[emphasis added] This is a large part of what's bugging me (and I'm quoting Scott here, but I'm addressing the thread at large). Faulting something that calls itself a "role-playing game" for not actually codifying mechanics in it's rules set for the role-play itself strikes me as akin to faulting something that calls itself a "golf club" because the club itself doesn't actually contain any golf.
Don't get me wrong, I am interested in actually trying a few of the indie systems eventually --- Shock in particular pretty much gave me a geekgasm the first time I heard about it. But when I'm in the mood toruna game (as opposed to just being another player), it generally means I'm in the mood tocreatea story, not tell someone else's; systems with their own agendas are going to be a hard sell for me in that regard. (Again, another reason Shock is looking attractive to me).
You shouldn't take all the talk about system creating a story too literally. Yes some inde games have strict focus on what stories they tell, Mountain Witch is always about Ronins who climb to Mount Fuji to face the witch and Dogs in the Vineyard is always about fantasy wild-east mormon paldin gunslingers going from town to town solving problems. But games like Burning Wheel (I'll like to come back to it, because I know it somewhat well) don't really restrict one too much, Burning Wheel is all about "Fight for what you believe" so in Burning Wheel there should always be characters who believe something and are willing to do something about it. Doesn't seem very restrictive to me.
Also I'm not having fun just "refereeing" a game I play the antagonists and world around the protagonists. I just like to play as a reactive GM seeing where characters are going and throwing hardship, conflict, and interesting situation in their way where in traditional GM style players react to GMs inputs.
And I would recommend you to try some indie rpgs. Maybe something that is as far away as possible from what you normally do, you might not like it, but it might teach you something.
This is a large part of what's bugging me (and I'm quoting Scott here, but I'm addressing the thread at large). Faulting something that calls itself a "role-playing game" for not actually codifying mechanics in it's rules set for the role-play itself strikes me as akin to faulting something that calls itself a "golf club" because the club itself doesn't actually contain any golf.
Fuck, I've been trying to say something like that for two pages now. I'm absolutely stealing this analogy, or at least, the rough template of it.
This is a large part of what's bugging me (and I'm quoting Scott here, but I'm addressing the thread at large). Faulting something that calls itself a "role-playing game" for not actually codifying mechanics in it's rules set for the role-play itself strikes me as akin to faulting something that calls itself a "golf club" because the club itself doesn't actually contain any golf.
Not quite. You should only ever evaluate a game by what it brings to the table itself, just as you only evaluate golf clubs by what they bring to the course. You don't evaluate a golf club by how nicely your golf shoes fit or how well the other golf clubs you brought perform.
D&D; brings x tools to the table. Other games bring other tools. D&D;'s tools are limited in scope and usefulness for many kinds of role playing. You might bring all of that other stuff to the table yourself, but then D&D; isn't the factor: you are. Futz with the rules, and you're not playing D&D; any more, but some other game. Futz with them a lot, and you're far enough from D&D; that it was a poor starting position to begin with. You shouldn't evaluate D&D; by any factors other than the rules it provides. Otherwise, you're just evaluating yourself.
As a side topic: I've never loved how D&D only rewards accomplishments. You only get XP for "besting" the monster, saving the princess, or any sort of quest completion. This leads players to only use options that are they're already good at doing and have the highest chance of success. Lots of Min/Maxing with little need to make a balanced character. Seriously, "Adventurers" are genocidal maniacs.
I like how indy RPG's tend to reward the attempt of an action. This lets players choose options the best suit the situation. It may not work and all hell will break loose because of it, but they at least had the option of giving it a shot. This leads to most well rounded character creation. It's better to have a few options to overcome an obstacle then relying on a "One Trick Pony."
This is a large part of what's bugging me (and I'm quoting Scott here, but I'm addressing the thread at large). Faulting something that calls itself a "role-playing game" for not actually codifying mechanics in it's rules set for the role-play itself strikes me as akin to faulting something that calls itself a "golf club" because the club itself doesn't actually contain any golf.
Fuck, I've been trying to say something like that for two pages now. I'm absolutely stealing this analogy, or at least, the rough template of it.
It's not a very good analogy, actually - or not for the point you're trying to make. You'd evaluate a golf club based on how well it performed at allowing you to play golf. If it didn't enable you to accomplish what you wanted to do when trying to hit a little ball a long way, you wouldn't consider it a very good golf club.
Translate and apply: if a role-playing game doesn't enable you to role-play better than you could without it - if it doesn't make your game of role-playing better by its use - then it's not a good role-playing game.
I'm not taking a side in this battle, mind you. I'm just saying this particular analogy doesn't support your arguments nearly as well as you seem to think.
I'm not taking a side in this battle, mind you. I'm just saying this particular analogy doesn't support your arguments nearly as well as you seem to think.
Never said that it was a GOOD support to my argument. Just that I'd be stealing it, and that I'd been trying to say something like that for two pages.
Comments
Think of it like this. You go to see a movie. It's the first movie you've ever seen. If you want to talk about what you liked, what you didn't like, that's all good. You want to say what you thought, and maybe people want to hear about it. Maybe you figured out the mystery early on, ok so brag that you figured it out before everyone else.
The problem comes when you start to make judgmental statements such as "That movie was the worst!" Well dude, if you've never seen any movie before ever, who are you to say what's the worst? Even if you have seen movies before, how many have you seen? How much do you know about film? You haven't even seen Citizen Kane? Like it or not, that fact alone invalidates any film criticism you can possibly offer.
Discussing != critiquing.
I just broke your statements way down, and got picky over a single word - discuss, vs critique, essentially - or to put it another way, I was pointing out that you DO discuss things you don't know so much about, but wasn't making the point that you tend not to critique them - since you chose the word discuss, but it seemed like you meant critique, but I wasn't entirely sure, so I went with what you said, rather than what I thought you meant. Further, if you do, it's only on a very superficial level - for example of what I mean, "That looks stupid, but I'll try it anyway, because I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable attitude to have, because you're not disregarding it because it looks stupid to you at that point in time, you're making the effort - you're just stating your opinion on how it looks, before you try it. I think it's less of a problem of judgemental statements, but more of Personal judgement vs objective - Like you said, "That movie was the worst!" is a useless statement, because you've not seen every movie ever, or in your example, the subject had never seen another movie.
However, a judgemental statement like "That's the worst movie I've ever seen." Is acceptable, because all you're saying, obviously, is that out of all the movies you HAVE seen, that's the worst. I know - that's why I disputed your original sentence, in the first place, as I said before. Agreed, I spoke too imprecisely. It LOOKS like spoons, with some rules-changing cards. It also looks like a hell of a lot of fun. Most likely, it's going to be rather different. I'm still keen to play it with any of you lot, give me something more complex than spoons to try my reflexes at.
I use an actual system as opposed to freeform role-playing partly because it takes some of the load off of worrying whether things like the physics of the story is internally consistent, and partly because in my gaming group IRL freeform RPing would feel really weird. As to why GURPS specifically as opposed to a lighter system...well, mainly because a lighter system wouldn't be taking as much of the aforementioned load off.
Don't get me wrong, I am interested in actually trying a few of the indie systems eventually --- Shock in particular pretty much gave me a geekgasm the first time I heard about it. But when I'm in the mood to run a game (as opposed to just being another player), it generally means I'm in the mood to create a story, not tell someone else's; systems with their own agendas are going to be a hard sell for me in that regard. (Again, another reason Shock is looking attractive to me). [emphasis added] This is a large part of what's bugging me (and I'm quoting Scott here, but I'm addressing the thread at large). Faulting something that calls itself a "role-playing game" for not actually codifying mechanics in it's rules set for the role-play itself strikes me as akin to faulting something that calls itself a "golf club" because the club itself doesn't actually contain any golf.
[EDITED for clarification]
Also I'm not having fun just "refereeing" a game I play the antagonists and world around the protagonists. I just like to play as a reactive GM seeing where characters are going and throwing hardship, conflict, and interesting situation in their way where in traditional GM style players react to GMs inputs.
And I would recommend you to try some indie rpgs. Maybe something that is as far away as possible from what you normally do, you might not like it, but it might teach you something.
D&D; brings x tools to the table. Other games bring other tools. D&D;'s tools are limited in scope and usefulness for many kinds of role playing. You might bring all of that other stuff to the table yourself, but then D&D; isn't the factor: you are. Futz with the rules, and you're not playing D&D; any more, but some other game. Futz with them a lot, and you're far enough from D&D; that it was a poor starting position to begin with. You shouldn't evaluate D&D; by any factors other than the rules it provides. Otherwise, you're just evaluating yourself.
I've never loved how D&D only rewards accomplishments. You only get XP for "besting" the monster, saving the princess, or any sort of quest completion. This leads players to only use options that are they're already good at doing and have the highest chance of success. Lots of Min/Maxing with little need to make a balanced character. Seriously, "Adventurers" are genocidal maniacs.
I like how indy RPG's tend to reward the attempt of an action. This lets players choose options the best suit the situation. It may not work and all hell will break loose because of it, but they at least had the option of giving it a shot. This leads to most well rounded character creation. It's better to have a few options to overcome an obstacle then relying on a "One Trick Pony."
Translate and apply: if a role-playing game doesn't enable you to role-play better than you could without it - if it doesn't make your game of role-playing better by its use - then it's not a good role-playing game.
I'm not taking a side in this battle, mind you. I'm just saying this particular analogy doesn't support your arguments nearly as well as you seem to think.