I have no problem with the terms roleplaying game and storytelling game.  Sure there's roleplaying and storytelling in both, heck you could say there is storytelling and roleplaying in small doses in LOTS of games -- but it's where the focus lies that makes a difference.

In a roleplaying game, you focus on playing the fictional character in the game -- narrating their direct actions and speaking for them.  It's like improv acting.

In a storytelling game, you tell the story about the fictional character (and often other characters they encounter) -- like the narrative voice in a novel, rather than the character themself. It's like improv storytelling.

The closer a game is to Once Upon a Time: The Storytelling Card Game, the less it's an RPG at all...

Narrative control means you can tell a story about your character, but whenever you do you aren't roleplaying -- you're storytelling.  

Player empowerment to control the overall narrative is a good tool to help players tell better stories themselves.  It is not a good tool to help them focus on roleplaying more than they would in a traditional RPG.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOkay.

So what kind of game is this?

Hmm?

A cool one.  Seriously, it looks pretty good.

QuoteLike above where I point out that what you refer to as "adventure" is in truth another 'theme' that can be chosen

Well, all roleplay endeavours, be they educational, psychological or whathevuelz then would be just a special case of them "thematics". That is clearly revisionist history and shows only that roleplay is a method, which needs goals to be a seperate activity. Adventure Roleplaying is the one that started using Roleplay as a leisure activity and keeps being the biggest and largest and most sophisticated. Whatever some other people do, doesn't change that. So keep history near to the truth. This "special case" you are implying is way more flexible, encompassing and widespread, than the current flavour of narrow (which they are on pupose, mind you) thematic designs is. blakkie, I think your semantic & syntactic sophistries might amuse you, or educate you. Still they are of diminishing value to the discussion and the no-nonsense, down to earth nature of the board. So inquire yourself, inquire your methods, inquire your aims, and think about adjusting those to a general audience mindset. I'm not planning on theoretic discussions to grab more of my time, especially as my point has been made quite clear and in simople terms. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not getting paid for it. My fun derives out of:

1) Talking about games and connected stuff
2) being right.

Number two is a poor substitute for number one, and I can do without it.

Levi, I have to take issue with your example of DitV. In fact, while I hate to personalize the issue, I think that Vincent's design is a perfect example of what "adventure gamers" resent about the efforts of "thematic gamers" to colonize their hobby--starting with Vincent's belief that it's important to reach out to traditional gamers. (Or something like that. I thought the comment was on Nathan Paoletta's blog, but it's not there now.)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd so are you.

No, I'm arguing that my games are the way RPGs ARE.  There's a huge difference.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenLevi, I have to take issue with your example of DitV. In fact, while I hate to personalize the issue, I think that Vincent's design is a perfect example of what "adventure gamers" resent about the efforts of "thematic gamers" to colonize their hobby--starting with Vincent's belief that it's important to reach out to traditional gamers. (Or something like that. I thought the comment was on Nathan Paoletta's blog, but it's not there now.)

Man, if you want to feel 'colonized', go with this quote from Vincent on Anyway:

"Ron says I'm a hand-holder."

I'm sure you could read all sorts of things into that, were you in the mood.

Or you could say that a lot of people have found a method for roleplaying that works for them, and they want to find ways to make it accessible and inviting to new people - that is, to reverse the exact thing people gave them shit for by calling them unapproachable.

But Pundit, of course, hates them enough to want to get them coming and going - they can't be distant without being elitist, they can't be friendly without being invasive.

It's quite the line of bullshit.

Quote from: LostSoulA cool one.  Seriously, it looks pretty good.

Many thanks.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut Pundit, of course, hates them enough to want to get them coming and going - they can't be distant without being elitist, they can't be friendly without being invasive.

It's quite the line of bullshit.

You can actually be seperate without being pretentious, and you can be friendly without being patronizing. The problem is that this isn't what has happened in practice.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou can actually be seperate without being pretentious, and you can be friendly without being patronizing. The problem is that this isn't what has happened in practice.

It's almost like we're on the internet or something.

QuoteMan, if you want to feel 'colonized', go with this quote from Vincent on Anyway:

"Ron says I'm a hand-holder."

I'm going with a different one- the one where they tried to redefine the term 'fun' (which by the way?, offensive as hell).  

From here
http://lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=159

Watch how he suddenly changes direction in post 4. What began as a discussion of "what fun is" suddenly turns into this:

"1) Play is thematic;
2) All participants participate meaningfully in the creation of theme."

This redefinition scheme of 'fun' was in full swing last year, but seems to have backed off hugely.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, I'm arguing that my games are the way RPGs ARE.  There's a huge difference.

RPGPundit

Sure, but the thing is you're wrong.

These thematic games or whatever are games in which I play a role.  Thus rpgs.  I have played Dogs and for that matter My Life with Master, the differences with games like DnD are often exaggerated, they're plainly the same kind of beast although I think the thematic/adventure game split does capture something real.

But, I am happy to flatly state that these games are rpgs and that you're wrong.  They may not be the same type of rpgs, hence the thematic/adventure split, but I refuse to redefine language to satisfy dogma.

They're a different form of rpg, one that interests me less than adventure games, but they definitely are rpgs and having actually played them I can safely say that when I sit down and pretend to be a mormon missionary and roll dice to see how I succeed at stuff within the context of a town created by the GM it takes a special sort of argument to convince me I'm not playing an rpg.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLevi, I have to take issue with your example of DitV. In fact, while I hate to personalize the issue, I think that Vincent's design is a perfect example of what "adventure gamers" resent about the efforts of "thematic gamers" to colonize their hobby--starting with Vincent's belief that it's important to reach out to traditional gamers. (Or something like that. I thought the comment was on Nathan Paoletta's blog, but it's not there now.)

Whether we like a given game or like it's designer is a side issue though to what the game is.  I don't actually enjoy Dogs, nor do I enjoy anything with mecha, I think Kevin Siembiada is a creepy guy who is leeching off his fans in a way that comes close to fraudulent behaviour, that doesn't stop them being rpgs or him being an rpg designer.

Quote from: StuartThe closer a game is to Once Upon a Time: The Storytelling Card Game, the less it's an RPG at all...

Well, I once played Death ("They were buried in the same grave, and the kingdom mourned them") as opposed to someone else's Life ("When her father saw her babies, he realized that he had to allow for the marriage") in OUaT, with the endings drawn from two specially prepared decks (one for happiness, the other... less so). Granted, for the most part our characters didn't appear directly in the story that they were telling, but there was still a certain strong element of playing our parts involved.

Quote from: SettembriniThis "special case" you are implying is way more flexible, encompassing and widespread, than the current flavour of narrow (which they are on pupose, mind you) thematic designs is.

I think this is where my experience and yours diverges drastically.  Because I've played Burning Wheel and no other Forge game. Which of the games have you read the rules for or played with?  From the general descriptions of a lot of them I can see them easily fitting into the "narrow" catagory. Which I assume you mean in contrast to a general gaming engine to the scope of say D20 or maybe even Tri-stat? Burning Wheel is definately a general gaming engine in that neighbourhood of those two.

BW character BITs (Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits) are the definer of the 'themes'. BITs do indeed naturally change and evolve during the normal life and playing of a character.

For all I know it might even be entirely unique among Forge games in this. I don't know. It is my understanding that the game itself originated somewhat outside of The Forge instead of directly from it, though admittedly I'm not really that up on the history. Likely because I don't care that much. Maybe I should?

Let's say, at least from what I've read, BW is a hybrid between the two theoretical extremes.