Forge thread: "LOTFP is made of lies" (1 Viewer)

[Libramarian]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=32094.0

I can't make out most of what is going on in this thread. I do get the sort of giddy sense that they're missing something obvious because it's in a theoretical blind spot for them.

Some of the more straightforward contentions are pretty interesting though.

Do you agree that the GMing text and weird horror motif of LOTFP is at odds with the mechanics of the game?

 

[Piestrio]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=32094.0

I can't make out most of what is going on in this thread. I do get the sort of giddy sense that they're missing something obvious because it's in a theoretical blind spot for them.

Some of the more straightforward contentions are pretty interesting though.

Do you agree that the GMing text and weird horror motif of LOTFP is at odds with the mechanics of the game?

It's an ideological blind-spot.

I've observed over the years that to many people the mechanics ARE the game, in toto. So talking about "the game" while dismissing or down playing the rules is nonsensical.

To other people "the game" is what happens around the table when you play and so talking about "the game" while referring only to the rules is equally nonsensical.

If I had to guess I'd say the author of LotFP is the latter.

EDIT: another way to put it is that some people buy a product expecting to get a game while others buy a product expecting to use it to make a game.

EDIT2: In fact under the second assumption such a thing as "the game" doesn't even really exist (or at least is completely meaningless), the only thing that is real is "my game" and "your game". Thus taking about a problem in "the game" is as close to a content free statement as you can make.

 

[The Wyzard]

In essence, the forgeite view (and I agree with this implicitly), is that if you are going to say that your game is about X, Y, and Z, then you had damned well better have mechanics that support X, Y, & Z, if not outright enforce them.

Imagine the following scenario. We take a body of rules, let's say BECMI because it's pretty close to what we're talking about here. Now, we release it as a generic sci-fi game, a game of high fantasy, a game of gritty sword and sorcery fantasy, a horror game, and a game of urban occult romance. One full-color glossy hardback for each, without any indication they're related to each other. Maybe even from different publishers.

We have exactly the same mechanics in all three, and all the same monsters. In the sci-fi version, we may cross out references to bows and replace them with ray-guns, we may also strike out the references to boats (there are purchase prices for galleons, etc.) and instead something about starfighters and cruisers.

The GMing text, artwork, advice to players, examples of play, etc., all are different. However, the machinery of the game is unchanged, up to and including PCs in a modern occult romance gaining levels via the gaining of wealth (although perhaps it's an XP per benjamin, rather than per GP.)

The forgeite view is that this is some serious bullshit, and it's roughly what they're accusing LotFP of.

 

[andreww]

I pretty much agree with eveything The Wyzard says. I have recently bought LotFP and there is very little with the mechanics of the game which actually supports what Raggi says it is about. It also comes with a whole lot of old school D&D baggage which would seem to actively detract from such a game. Do you really need prices for 17 different types of boat?

Having said that I do quite like some of the underlying mechanics of the game and I am currently prepping a one shot for our gaming groups gaming weekend away by stripping out some of the stuff I dont want and adding in stuff I do.

 

[akajdrakeh]

I don't agree with The Forge about much, but I was very disappointed with LotFP for failing to back up the claim of "weird" mechanically. Mechanically, it's a pretty vanilla fantasy game - bringing the weird is, IMO, entirely dependent upon the GM and the players.

 

[Holden]

Just as a note, this thread is being watched in case cross-board drama begins to appear. That would be a bad thing.

Otherwise, carry on.

 

[Piestrio]

The forgeite view is that this is some serious bullshit, and it's roughly what they're accusing LotFP of.

Whereas from another perspective there is nothing wrong with that as each one will presumably be used to help make different games happen and having different versions of a book tailored to make different games is perfectly fine.

It's certainly not a weird fringe idea either, see all the different publishers that have used the same system in different games over the years (BRP, unisystem, D&D, D6, FATE, etc..), also all the "universal" games out there (savage worlds, GURPS, HERO, etc...).

It's a stream in our hobby that has been there since the beginning, just as "the rules should support the playstyle" has.

 

[Old Geezer]

Imagine the following scenario. We take a body of rules, let's say BECMI because it's pretty close to what we're talking about here. Now, we release it as a generic sci-fi game, a game of high fantasy, a game of gritty sword and sorcery fantasy, a horror game, and a game of urban occult romance. One full-color glossy hardback for each, without any indication they're related to each other.

Welp... that's kinda what D&D was originally envisioned as...

 

[Carbuncle]

Can anyone actually point to a specific case? Even the OP of that post admits to being unable to pinpoint an actual example.

I guess this is a problem if you follow a game's mechanics 100%. I've literally never met anyone who can claim to following RAW to the letter but I guess there's a first time for everything.

 

[Piestrio]

In fact until I came to the Internet I don't think it ever occurred to me that there might be something wrong with "a game" (as I mentioned the statement doesn't make sense to a certain mindset). Certainly there were books/mechanics/advice I liked and the same I didn't like but I never thought that there was something wrong with them, just that I didn't like them.

Interesting.