The new and improved defender of RPGs!

Sunday 13 December 2015

Storygamers Really Don't Like it When You Tell Them Narrativism Doesn't Belong In RPGs; But It Doesn't

So on G+ there's been quite a lot of response to my article about how Player-Narrative control is always a bad idea.  One responder wrote the perfect storm of a constructed and bullshit rebuttal. First he talked about the "30 years he's run games"; only a quick glance at his G+ profile reveals that he despises D&D, including a story about how D&D was the first game he ever tried and he hated it and didn't want to ever play it again. He likes 13th age of all things. Well, I mean, of course he would!

So then he responds by telling me a little story about a game session that ended badly for him lately, and how his group talked about it after to figure out what went wrong and the one thing they all agreed on was that Immersion doesn't matter, and they all have different goals and that's OK.
I imagine they later held hands while singing Kumbaya and praising the end of the oppression of having to roleplay your character, because everyone knows that's what you do with your RPG buddies, right?

The interesting thing was what he said his players were into: One player, he said, "wanted to put her character through dramatic moments and role-play to the hilt, but she asked me to give her massive signposts to these events and discuss them ahead of time".
The next "likes to explore the mystery and setting, she comes close to what you want from 'immersion' but admist placing herself distant from the character.
The third "just wants to switch off and have fun... that is all she wants".
The fourth "lacks (sic) to make plans. He likes situations in which the group can discuss what they are going to do".

So clearly these four fascinating individuals that Mark has at his gaming table are PROOF that I'm totally wrong about Immersion being the most important goal of the player experience in RPGs, and that it's totally fine for the GM to hand over his testicles and give narrative control over while raising the Storygames flag.

This was my response to him:

Wow! It must be *absolutely fascinating* to be running a game with 4 Forge Theory Talking Points.   I have so many questions! I mean, do they have bodies?! Do they eat? Do they look like human beings?

Oh, can other people see them?? Do they have some kind of cover story? I noticed you mentioned genders (nice touch that most of them were women, you'll get extra stars on your Groovy Card for that one); are they able to talk about other invented details of their lives or past?  I guess what I'm asking is how easy it would be for them to 'pass' as Human?  Would it be immediately obvious that there's something horrifically wrong with them and that they're actually just theoretical models of what pseudo-intellectual wankers wish RPG players were like, wearing human skin? Or could they trick a regular person for a while before the madness-inducing truth came out?

Do they know that they don't really exist in anything but Storygamer's wet dreams?
How does that make them feel? If they can feel at all, I mean.

Their self-awareness is clearly at least more limited than human's, otherwise they'd know not to congregate as four *different* Forge models of "possible gamers" all in the same place, even to attempt to win an argument, because it just looks so obviously fake...

Does it hurt them to know that real human beings are not like them at all, and that they were created to subvert the core landmarks of a hobby by trying to make-believe that most RPG gamers don't like or need Immersion so that a game based on engaging with a virtual world can be turned into a pretentious quasi-artistic exercise in 'addressing theme' while feeling smug about how much better you are than those smelly D&D players?

Do constructed propaganda-humans dream of electric sheep?

He rebutted by claiming the people were absolutely real and how 'disappointed' he is at my intolerance.

Oh please, you picked them right out of the Forge's bullshit 'models of play' or whatever. They are TALKING POINTS.  Ron Edwards and company pulled them out of his ass, by just wishfully thinking RPG gamers are like that rather than based on any kind of research, and completely contrary to everything that decades of collected experience said people like and get out of RPGs. And then you pulled them right out of the Forge's ass in turn.

Of course, I have played with lots of players who have lots of different goals.
I have some players who like more intrigue and interaction.
I've had a couple of players who mostly like to travel to interesting places and meet interesting people.
I have the guys who want to just kill things and get treasure and feel bored out of their minds if they're not in the dungeon killing stuff because everyone else is planning or talking.
Speaking of planning, I have the guy who likes to make intricate schemes almost always turning out to be too complex for their own good.
I have the players who don't really 'want' anything other than to be entertained and have a good time.

You know what they all had in common?

Because that's what RPG players want. If you don't want to immerse yourself in a character, and go into the virtual world the GM has crafted out of his consciousness (and if he's really good, is so 'Alive' that he no longer consciously controls it), and be MOTHERFUCKING *IN IT* until part of them is not themselves anymore.

Because that's what RPGs are.

No amount of wishful thinking on the part of pretentious Swine is going to change that. They tried and they lost.

And the more you try to pull someone OUT of Immersion, the shittier the experience becomes. Always.

But he insisted and expressed offense at the insinuation that his four picture-perfect models of Forge propaganda weren't real!  OK.

So you just happen to have four people that almost perfectly fit the models that no one else has ever fit into of what the Forge imagines in their fever-dreams that RPG gamers are like and want?

You just happen to have FOUR DIFFERENT descriptions of those? You have a perfect Narrativist, a perfect Simulationist, a perfect Gamist and a perfect disinterested player all in one group, even though the first three have been shown over and over again to be total bullshit?

Yeah, ok.

Anyways, let's pretend you do for a moment. This would be my advice to you, then: STOP PLAYING RPGS WITH THEM.

If none of them want Immersion, then they are PLAYING THE WRONG GAME.

RPGs will not satisfy them, EVER. The one realistic thing about your little tale is that they were unhappy with how the campaign went, because if you had four people who all didn't give a flying fuck about immersion, what you would have is four people who have no business playing RPGs

I'd advise you to dump them and find an OSR D&D group.. oh but you hate D&D, right?

Well, maybe you can all go off into the sunset and play "fiasco" or whatever stupid thing is popular in the storygames crowd together. Just don't call them RPGs. Because they're NOT.


Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Oversize + H&H's Beverwyck


  1. How do you define Narrativism, as it pertains to your post? Are you implying that there is no storytelling in D&D play? Ever seen D&D players so attached to their characters, that they carry a whole portfolio dedicated to it and they can go for thirty minutes or longer talking about their PC. That's not bringing a story into a game? A role playing game is where you assume a role of person other than yourself for the purposes of the game. No? Can you conceive of a role playing game that does not involve tactical or any other combat? Just curious as to your definitions.

    1. In regular RPGs, story is a byproduct. People tell stories about their PCs the way that fishermen tell stories about going fishing, or golfers about golfing. The "purpose" of fishing or golf isn't to "generate story".

    2. Excellent point well taken. RPG's and literature are different media. I have a sandbox campaign, with objectives that players may or may not attain, and an epic ending, which I want the players to reach without any linearity or sign-posting. That requires a great deal of Player initiative, a challenge in itself.

      The novel, about this, will tell the same story, but using largely different incidents and pacing, because literature works differently from an RPG.

      More than once I've seen people using games as story generators. Not so long ago I was able to find an unopened set of the AH Source of the Nile board game on e-bay for a present to friend of mine. Awesome game, I wish someone would have adapted it for a computer game. That friend of mine ran it as a solitaire game and wrote a self-published novel as a result. Any writing to advise a GM on how to develop own adventure for an RPG can also double as advice for writing a story. There is a greater connection between RPG gaming and story-telling, than you would think.

      Narrativism, as you define it, is a different animal, and I agree with you, that GM is a story runner, and any game, where everyone takes an equal part in creating the story is a different type of a game.

    3. I think the idea of storygames can appeal to people who are too stuck in video game mode to actually roleplay or wrap their head around autonomy. But I doubt most of them enjoy it even then.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I did make a comment but I realised it would just add to something that in the end really does not matter.

    However I will ask again.

    Could you please stop calling me a liar.

    You do not like it when someone says you lie.

    1. I had made a point of avoiding your name, as a courtesy. This was more about making a rebuttal of your claim than trying to embarrass you. I'll reiterate my point: it's impossible for me to know with 100% certainty that you are telling the truth, and it seemed really convenient that your four friends were each perfect representations of one of the 'priorities' that the Forge claims gamers are supposed to have instead of horrible things like Immersion and Emulation. But if you are telling the truth, I have already given you my advice: don't play RPGs with these people, because if they don't want Immersion they will never be happy with RPGs.

      If they are the legendary 'white whales' that Storygamers are looking for, then by all means they should quit RPGs and play Storygames instead.

    2. I will accept that. I can see why you have to be defensive about these things. I have seen people come after you. It is the reason I deleted my first message, it was not the way I'd want to be spoken too.

      I won't be running for them again. I told them today. I am playing something in the new year, what it is I don't know because the gaming society won't open again until all the students return.

    3. I think that you made a mistake. Rather than get caught in the conversation of what kind of a game they wanted, you should have just presented your first adventure and seen how it goes, accommodating their desires the best you can. Also, you don't run the game for anybody. You do it for yourself, because you enjoy it.

  4. Stop writing checks that your THAC0 Can't cash.

    The OSR is about emulating what a select group of people in the hobby collectively call it's glory days, not insulting people just because they have a different opinion of what those are.

    Seriously man, you're the Glenn Beck of the OSR now. Cut it out, you're making the other people in that community look bad.

    1. It's funny, you try to sound like you're concerned about the OSR, and yet in the very same post you're insulting it.

      The Forge dedicated the better part of its existence (and the Storygames movement continues in that legacy) to mocking and looking down on regular roleplayers and D&D. I will shed no Beck-like tears for their hurt feelings now that they lost and we won.

    2. Where exactly did he insult the OSR in that statement?

    3. By the suggestion that the OSR is only somehow just delusionally nostalgic, rather than the forefront of RPG design today and more successful than the worthless Forge-Theory community ever was. He insults old-school itself for that matter, and the origins of our hobby, by suggesting that the origin of the hobby is just what 'some CALL' the glory days, obviously implying they were actually all shit until Ron Edwards came along or whatever.

      He also calls it "that community" which makes it pretty clear he's not in it.

    4. What constitutes an OSR game? I was part of a large and established old time D&D game once. Here is how it ran: Typical adventure were randomly stocked recycled maps from published modules, or new maps of the city sewers. Players grunted and rolled dice. There was little other communication, besides the mapping and fighting to get to the treasure. However, on the next day on their blog, there was a flowery description of the game session, complete with the background and events, that NEVER HAPPENED during the actual game session. I wished that the DM was more of a story teller and told half of the subsequent story during the actual session. Then it dawned on me, that they were engaged in a story-creation ritual. What elements define an OSR game?

    5. I wasn't insulting OSR at all. I was stating that other people have different ideas as to what constitutes the best years for Pen and Paper.

      A little background: I've played and enjoyed games of DnD from 1E to 5E, Chaosium's BRP, Fudge, Fate, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, and True20. Of these, BRP (IE, the system that powered Runequest and Call of Cthulhu) is still my favorite. I own at least six GURPS Books, primarily as references but also as game materials.

      As far as DnD goes, I prefer 2E over all other editions.

      For me, though, I consider now one of the best times to be a PnP gamer. Why? Because of choice.

      When I want a classic experience, there's hundreds of products to choose from, both emulating the classics and FROM the classics. When I want something else, there's hundreds of flavors to choose from. If I want a system that's from a now-dead company, guess what? It's just a click and a few weeks away.

    6. I can't disagree with you about this being one of the best times ever to be a gamer. The hobby has a healthy flagship again with 5e, the OSR is the vanguard of innovation, storygames are largely marginalized. And yes, within all that, people can choose whatever type of RPGs they want, instead of having a tiny gang of pseudo-intellectual Swine elites dictating to them.

  5. For me the division is streaightforward. If you are making a decision as if you are there as the character you are roleplaying in the context of a tabletop RPG. If you are making a decision as a player then you are metagaming. Narrative mechanics are a form of metagaming because they do not arise from a decision of a character living within the setting. But rather from the player deciding what is best for the narrative of the encounter, session, or campaign.

    Where the Pundit has it wrong is the fact you do not have to immerse yourself in order to roleplay a character. I have found the minimum is that the player acts as if he is there with the capabilities of the character. He does not have to do funny voices, it he even does not have to act out a different personae. It all works if Bob Smith plays the character as if it is Bob Smith the Mage, or Bob Smith the Fighter. I will say that it is my experience that even Bob Smith playing as Bob Smith the (X) sometimes finds himself immersed in the game. Simply because when you repeatably acts as if you are there as the character and the referee is helping this along, there comes a time when Bob Smith finds himself naturally reacting to unfolding events.

    The problem with metagaming mechanics is that forces the player to switch to between thinking of the campaign as a player, and thinking of the campaigns through the eyes of his characters.

    1. I never said he had to do funny voices or act out a persona. Immersion is a mental state, not a model of acting.

      Otherwise, you're right here.

    2. As I see it, immersion is all about how you feel as a player. If the bad guy makes you, the player, mad then you are immersed. If it's just your character that is mad (either because it's better for the story or because the game mechanics say so), then you aren't role-playing, you are acting.

      IOW, role-playing is about the feels, not the performance.

    3. @Pundit, I thought so, but I felt you weren't clear about it. Immersion means many things to different people. Some view it solely as doing "funny voices". And it was obvious that some of the other commentators were taking your article that way.Now you clarified it.

      @Hedgehobbit, you are basically right however not quite as simple as that. You can be acting as a different personality and still get immersed. Basically it is different variations of getting caught up in the moment.

  6. Rob, others, regarding your definition of meta-gaming, aren't power gaming and roll playing common forms of players trying to meta game in D&D? My pet peeve is the following example: A PC Cleric lost his clerical powers as a consequence of his actions in the game. There was a non-combat encounter with a shaman, the cleric took some of the NPV Shaman's Ahuayasca and wanted to see God. Player rolled a critical failure confirmed as another critical failure (00,99 on percentile dice). I had to spend three days to figure out why this action would cost the player character his powers. During the next game session, another player, who was playing a Buddhist Monk, told me - I will use my character's knowledge and ability to try and help (cleric) get his powers back. I asked - how are you doing this? The Player tells me: I don't know... just use his skills and abilities. I pointed to the Cleric's player and said - talk to him - in game - try to figure out what happened and take some action. I was thinking - try to figure out what might have happened, joint meditation, prayer, anything, but the player merely sputtered and failed to come up with any plan or proposal to deal with the in-game situation. What am I doing, what am I insisting on, when I am trying to get the players to think and deal with the situations in the game as if they were in it themselves?

    1. Power gaming and roll playing are indeed forms of meta gaming namely because the player treating the campaign solely as a game.

      Also understand that all of this is a spectrum. The presence of one type of meta-game mechanic or trying to find the best game options after leveling doesn't mean you slide completely in one direction or the other. But the more you metagame the more the whole campaign became more a exercise in pure storygaming or pure wargaming.

      In regards to your specific questions at the end of your comment. One problem that ever referee has to wrestle with is the fact that verbal nature of the game means everything known about the setting of the game is communicated through one person.

      The situation you find yourself in the account you relate is a result of the player not having enough knowledge to act as if he there. Now it could be your fault by not providing enough information. But it is not as simple as that. It could be that the player simply doesn't have knowledge to play the dynamic wise character he envisions. Or it more likely it is a little of both.

      All I can give you as an answer is how to handle both extreme.

      For when it my fault, I try to be patient and just calmly explain what the player would know as their character. It is bit of metagaming but given the verbal nature of game and different ways that people learn things there are rare times when you call a timeout and explain things better.

      In the second case where the player obviously lacking initiative or knowledge. I will in essence lead him by the nose step by step through what he wants to do. The only thing I won't do is let him off the hook in speaking and acting in the first person. Remember acting in first person is not the same as being a actor in a role. It could be but not required.

      if after all this the player is still not there. Then maybe my campaign is not the best fit for him. Maybe he has other issues independent of the campaign. In any case this is not a out of game issues that need to be handled on a person to person level.

      I don't see your incident at that level but I want to be complete in my explanation.

      Also some of this stems from my answers to the question what if a person with a 3 charisma in real life tries to play a character with a 18 charisma?

    2. Thank you for the detailed answer. I think that it was more of a player's attitude, where he really didn't want to think. He wanted to scout ahead with a drawn bow in his hands while making his Herbalist skill roll to find any useful herbs, never mind what kind of herbs, he is not a herbalist, just let him make the roll and roll something up in the way of useful herbs. This player did indeed end up leaving my game, but largely for other reasons.

      If a person with a CHA 3 tries to play an 18CHA, there are game mechanics, that give the players the advantage, that s/he doesn't have in the real life. For a while, I wrestled with the Social Skills, which interfered with role playing, such as Fast Talking, Interrogation, Bribery. rather than role-play, players would say - I use my so-and-so skill. I've cooled down since, and I insist on role-playing those scenes, and then have them roll to see if they succeeded, with good role-playing trumping a bad skill check, unless it is really, really bad roll.

      I think that a good DM will also be a good story-teller. Is story-telling something that OSR scene frowns upon?

    3. @Brooser, sounded like the player wasn't a good fit for your style of campaigns.

      The OSR prizes referees making good rulings that are fair and make for a more interesting game.

      It not the same as storytelling. It more about managing a dynamic world that changes in response to what the players do as their characters.

      You job as a referee is to create an interesting experiences for the players. In some ways you are the travel agent booking a trip to the setting you have created. A good travel agent is skilled at crafting a series of destinations that make for a exciting trip and arranging good lodging and travel arrangement.

      Trips that are interesting experience may make for a interesting story but most are not. Because of the "You kinda of had to be there" factor.

      But the travel agent analogy is not prefect. Because a Travel Agent puts a trip together and hopes for the best. After the customer begins the journey there is little he or she can do.

      However with RPG Campaigns you are not only putting together the trip. You are also bringing the destinations to life. And to do the job right you have to weave this all together into something that feels like a dynamic living world that has a life of it own and changes in response to what the players do or not do as their character.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Keep tilting at those windmills Don Quixote.

    Your drawing inference Joseph’s statement, on the most tenuous grounds, to build a big old stawman. Nowhere in that post, does he say that “just delusionally nostalgic”. He in fact states that it is about emulating early gaming experiences. This is factually accurate description of the core of what the OSR formed around. It is why the OSR is where you find Retroclones, It is why documents like Matthew Finch’s Quick Primer for Old School Gaming exists, it is why DCC RPG marketing bumf says “Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery.”

    That the OSR is deeply grounded in nostalgia is so patently obvious, it defies reason that you would take offense at someeone pointing it out.

    That the OSR is the forefront of RPG design, is your opinion, and one you are entitled to, but it does not seem to be supported by evidence:
    - Sales of OSR martial through DTRPG are fractional (RIFTS outsells OSR products).
    - The Story Games movement is producing way more new game than the OSR.
    - Story games have the OSR beat on kickstarter, both in terms of number of project and money raised.
    - The largest victory the OSR can claim, which is some impact on the development of 5th edition DnD, is largely aesthetic. In fact, mechanically 5th edition took several major steps towards Fatevil Insperation.
    - The OSR wasn’t responsible for FATE, Powered by the Apocalypse, Eclipse Phase, or Trail of Cthulhu. You know, the standouts successes of innovation in gaming in the last decade or so.
    - Story games continue to influence developments in Trad RPG and the big games companies way more than the OSR does. See Fantasy Flight’s starwars games, the development of AGE by green ronin, transition from tiny side line company to headliner by evil hat, adoption of numerous story game style mechanics by 5e DnD.
    -As far as actual writing on, discussion, and podcasting on games design, the OSR is way behind the curve.
    -The OSR has no monopoly on zines and do it yourself. From the Arkham Gazzette and Delta Green shotgun scenario competition(a decade long tradition at this point ), through to the plethora of games design competitions such as Three-Forged.
    -The OSR is famously the sub-culture that runs game jams and play storms, collaboratively creating five or six new games in a London pub every couple of months.

    No, the OSR is not the “forefront of RPG design today”, it is just one of may areas where games design is happening, and it happens to be your favourite. It is a favourite you are entitled to, but the fact that it is your preferred, does not make everyone elses fun, wrong and bad.

    He isn’t insulting the old school when as you put it “by suggesting that the origin of the hobby is just what 'some CALL' the glory days” (good job misquoting him within quotation marks.)
    What he actually says is “a select group of people in the hobby collectively call it's glory days”. Well guess what, that is another one of those factual statements, which seem to offend you so much. Not everyone looks back on the earliest editions of DnD as the good old days. You need to learn to accept that not everyone does. You also need to learn that “not everyone things thing you like is the best” is not the same as “the thing you like is shit, and Ron Edwards is the best. ” It will stop you tilting at imaginatry giants

    Lastly, I know this must be a weird concept for you. But here goes...

    - I am not a member of the world of darkness fan community.
    - I do not play in any world of darkness games.

    This two statements, in no way class as an attack on that community or those games. In fact, I am a huge fan of Wraith, Mage and Changeling, all of which as super awesome. The fact that Joseph Hines does not consider themselves a member of the OSR, is utterly irrelevant.

    1. Wow are you ever full of shit, Swine. I guess they all crawl out of their rocks when you call them out on how much they hate GMs, and real RPGs.

      The OSR was the foremost direct influence on 5e other than 3e and pre-3e editions of D&D itself. You'll note that Fred Hicks and Rob Donoghue were NOT hired to advise on 5e; nor were Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, Luke Crane or any of the other gang of mouthbreathing intellectualoids from the Forge movement (and why should they be, when 4e lost 2/3rds of its customer base because of GNS ideas).

      Who was hired again? Oh right.. ME and Zak Smith.

      The number of people who play FATE are several orders of magnitude less than the number of people who play 5e D&D.
      Also, no one thinks "powered by the apocalypse" is clever innovation. It's shit. Eclipse Phase is shit. Trail of Cthulhu is shit. Almost no one plays any of those.

      Everyone plays D&D.

      I know you hate that. You hate that so very very much. But there's nothing you can do about it. You tried, all through the 2000s. But you were stopped, weren't you?

      Your movement is a fucking ruin. And people have now turned back to the oldest of old school, the game you most despise, and the person you most hate, to lead them.

      You're fucked, bitch. You live in Pundit's world now. Your sad and pathetic attempt to spin doctor to make it look like you are still somehow doing well in a world where 5e is MINE just makes you seem really hopeless, especially when "trail of cthulhu" was the best you could come up with.

    2. Dude, you DID misquote me without understanding the context. Seriously, my favorite DnD IS 2E. You know, when TSR still owned it.

    3. I quote you, I didn't 'misquote' you. If you are now qualifying your earlier statements and trying to explain them, well that's another story.

  9. Mmmm...You mean the fifth edition that many contributors:

    - Jonathan Tweet (Ars Magic and 13th Age)
    - Margaret Weis (who's house system is Cortex)
    - Rob Heinsoo (13th age and 4th edition)
    - Aaron Allston (4th edition)
    - Kenneth Hite (of trail of Cthulhu and Nights Black Agents)
    - Robin Laws (Feng Shui, Gumshoe and DRAMA system)*

    Ah man, how could I have not realised, with a list like that, the only people who had any imput into the creation of 5th edition were hot young dynamic OSR people like you and Zak. There no one anywhere in the credits who have ideas about games design that goes off in directions that conflict with yours.

    And it's not like their are any systems in there, which haven't previously existed in DnD that look suspiciously like they have been lifted out of Vampire: The masquarade of all places, nor nor did they pup in a narrative control rule option in the DMG, oh and the existence of one of the more detailed social conflict resolution systems in DnD ever.

    *most of these get heighter billing than you and Zak

    1. I hate to burst your bubble here -- aw, who am I kidding? I fucking LOVE to burst your bubble! -- but Tweet, Weis, Heinsoo, and Allston are all listed only as "Drawing from further development by" after "based on the original game" (where they credit Gygax, Arneson & co.).

      That means they weren't actually involved with 5e directly at all. They are not being credited in 5e for 13th age, Cortex, or (with the exception of Heinsoo) 4e; they're being credited because all of those were people who PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON D&D. Tweet is being credited as the architect of 3e. Weis and Allston for their work in the TSR era, and yes, Heinsoo gets credit for 4e (the edition that was almost completely ignored in the creation of 5e, because it was by far the least successful version of D&D ever).

      Now, as for the other two guys you named, along with Jeff Grubb, Kevin Kulp, S. John Ross, and Vincent Venturella, they were consultants. And certainly deservedly so, but because Hite and Laws (along with all the other guys named there) are all people who had massive influence on regular RPGs. Long before Trail of Cthulhu, Hite was a master of supernatural RPG work, including Unknown Armies, and contributions to Cthulhu lore that cannot be ignored. That Trail of Cthulhu is in every way inferior to Call of Cthulhu doesn't erase his previous good work. Robin Laws (just like Hite) has for years been seen as one of the great innovators in regular RPGs, and for a long time had a powerful rep as one of the great "gamemaster skills" guys.

      They were hired, and I give full credit to them as well-deservedly hired, because of what they've contributed to the RPG scene over the course of decades, along with the various other real consultants you decided not to mention in your highly biased and inaccurate list. Zak and I were hired because we're some of the most influential figures in regular RPG movements in the present

      Oh, and as for billing, there's this little thing called Alphabetical Order? You might have heard of it? Anyways, the Consultants are listed in it.

  10. Everyone does not play DnD.
    Most people in the world, do not play DnD. Most people who play games, do not play DnD. Most people who play Analogue games, do not play DnD. Most people who play Nerd troped games, do not play DnD.

    Now I will happily agree that the vast majority of people who play any form of RPG, have played DnD. But even here in the realms of the polyhedral dice, has every person who has played an RPG, played DnD. Vastly more common are those for whom DnD is a game they don't play anymore. Then there are those who arn't that keen on DnD, but will take it if there isn't anything they prefer on offer, then there are those who will seek out a game every so often because the enjoy it but like but are also into a couple of other games. These groups are representative of about 80% of the gamers I have met, with the last 20% or so being primerially(but not exclusively) DnD players. OfSmaller than any of the groups so far mentioned is the number of people I have met wh are OSR fans. Nice guys, big into labyrinth lords and DCC. They are also big savage savage worlds fans and represent some of the few proper story gamers I know outside of the internet. Coincidently, they are some of the biggist lefties I know.

    But that is all besides the point, for while "everyone plays DnD"isn't true, I wouldn't hate it, if it where. The only thing I would hate, would be DnD being the only game anyone played. That would suck.

    1. When you say 'your movement' would that be the 'Hastur is bitchin' movement, or the "first edition wfrp wilderness years survivors" movemenT? Inquiring minds wish to know.

    2. Wow, you just live in a fantasy world, don't you? Most RPG gamers don't play D&D anymore?? I guess you storygamers don't give a fuck about making coherent living fantasy worlds because you're too busy trying to make those in real life.

    3. "Now I will happily agree that the vast majority of people who play any form of RPG, have played DnD."

      How pundit reads it.

      "The majority of RPG players don't play DnD."

      Yet I am the person living in a fantasy world.

    4. I quote from your comment above "Vastly more common are those for whom DnD is a game they don't play anymore."
      Yes, you are the person living the fantasy world.

    5. And what your missing, is the sentence before that

      "But even here in the realms of the polyhedral dice,(not) every person who has played an RPG,(has) played DnD."

      Now I appreciate that my typing on this occasion made that less clear, the hazards of mixing dyslexia and the written word. But in context it shouldn't be to hard to realise that the way you are interpreting my words is less than balanced or rational.

      After all structures that argument, describing subsections of the RPG player base, as it relates to DnD should have made it clear I was referring to the preceding sentence, not the first sentence of the Paragraph.

      Even then, it is hardly an extravagant position.

      Assuming my claim where that people who have played DnD out number those who do play DnD, then I would be willing to defend that point, between deaths, lapsing from playing RPGs all together, to people who just moved on from DnD, to people who have played DnD once only.

      Yeah, I don't think that is a position that could be described as 'Living in a fantasy world' even if it turned out to be wrong.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.