TheRPGSite

This is aimed mostly at Settembrini,

I've noticed you refer more than once to adventure games, are you trying to draw some distinction between those and other types of rpg and if so what are the categories of rpg you have in mind?

Just curious.

Yepp.

The distinction is between Adventure Roleplaying Games, and Thematic Roleplaying Games.

The idea behind is that most of all "traditional" RPGs are following the lines of adventure novels:

"Go to exotic (non day to day life) places, and overcome obstacles through brains and brawns. Suspense derives from the unsure outcome of the challenges. Exploration, sense of wonder, romantic entanglements are vital Elements for enjoyment, as the are enjoyed for their own sake and to load up the situation with meaning"

This leads to the setup we all know and love: GM in charge of the world, Players in charge of their character, doing cool stuff in unlikely places.

Thematic RPGing on the other hand only shares the method of Roleplay, but basicall is a different hobby. The difference is not unlike between Wargames (World in Flames) and German Games (Settlers of Catan).

TRPGs focus on Character centered Story development, and they go to great length to ensure that their chosen theme comes up during play.

To keep ARPGS interesting, you constantly change and elaborate the situation ( different adventures), whereas the character is, at it's roots, exchangable.

To keep TRPGS interesting, you have to keep changing players or games (that`s why there are so man narrow ones out there), whereas the situation is, at it's roots exchangable.

Furthermore there surely are hybrids, like Axis and Allies is a hybrid in another realm. "The Shadow of Yesterday" is one such hybrid approaching from the Thematic side, whereas you can have a thematic dimension in any regular adventure game too.
Thematic in that context means mostly: "concerning and exploring the nature of human emotions and conflicts".


The big fallacy is to think that the theory (forge) specifically developed for production and discussion of Thematic RPs is of any inherent value to the successfl conduct of Adventure Games.

Surely, a lot of gamers (Like Ron Edwards, starting with very character centered, un-adventerous Champions play) wanted to play thematic RPs right after learning about the RPG hobby. He actually did the bootstrap thing, and invented another type of game, to scratch this itch.

The big thing is: Most people don't have that itch.

Quote from: SettembriniThe big thing is: Most people don't have that itch.

Most gamers anyway, god only knows what people who don't currently participate in the hobby at all want.

Other than that, that makes sense to me, though I would probably call the other category Story Games.

QuoteOther than that, that makes sense to me, though I would probably call the other category Story Games.

That's no good, cause many people think and claim they play story games. Story is to wide a field.

QuoteOther than that, that makes sense to me, though I would probably call the other category Story Games.

They don't really deserve that. Both types are story games. Just one is an adventure story, and one is a thematic story.

Fair enough, thematic works for me too.  Anyway, I think there is a real distinction, I think both are rpgs but very different types of rpgs.

Personally I prefer the Adventure Games, but I imagine that's true of almost everyone posting here as Thematic Games are well served by the Forge after all.

Thematic games is also accepted terminology at the forge. At least they know what you mean by that. So it's the word of choice.

Quote from: SettembriniThematic games is also accepted terminology at the forge. At least they know what you mean by that. So it's the word of choice.

And so for, it seems to have the added advantage that it doesn't seem to trip any of Nisarg's "forge hate" triggers. ;)

Well, thematic games can also be non-forge, think about Everway for example. That was all about the issues of the characters, and had widely different rules. There is a subtle difference though, between thematic play (you can do this with almost any game) and specifically designed TRPGs.

I really get behind Settembrini on this: I think there is a distinction and it's good to point it out. I like "story games," but I also understand where it can be taken offensively.

I do think there are places where the two touch and can learn from each other, and hybridize. I'm glad S. brought up The Shadow of Yesterday: it is meant to be a hybrid game, much like I'd think of "Ticket to Ride" as a hybrid between European board game design and American board game design.

Quote from: SettembriniWell, thematic games can also be non-forge, think about Everway for example. That was all about the issues of the characters, and had widely different rules. There is a subtle difference though, between thematic play (you can do this with almost any game) and specifically designed TRPGs.

Belief: No intricate detail escapes my sharp eye and nothing trips up my clockwork hands.

I believe that's how you play a trap disarming, lockpicking rogue in Burning Wheel. Adventure BW style. I can't really offer any insight on other Forge games though.

The biggest difference I see with your methodology is that the GM puts a lot more solo prep work up front and largely alone decides what the general 'themes' are.  The depth of the prep work creates a large list of options and it is hoped that the player will find something of interest on that list in a reasonable amount of time.

You certainly seem to make the best use of that prep work with props and intricate detail.

After that it's pretty much pah-tay-toe, po-ta-toe.

P.S. This thread feels more like gaming, so I thought I'd bring it here. :)

Well I guess I should qualify that "pah-tay-toe/pa-ta-toe".  For example I'm not sure what the equivalent of Artha Baiting, which is sort of a game of chicken, would be. Plus there might be differences in PC to PC interactions, and how conciquences of character choices are handled.  I'll need some sleep before I pursue the details further.  Later.

You might want to look at another acronym other than "TRPG". Maybe "THRPG" or something. TRPG has been alive since the 1980s in asian countries as an acronym that referrs to OUR RPGs. T stands for "Tabletop" or "Table-Talk". They use that term to indicate that they're not "RPGs", which in those countries are assumed to be Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy and other console-only games with the HP, MP and levels.

You can see it yourself if you punch in "TRPG" into Yahoo or Google.  

Just wanted to give you a heads up so you can fix it now, rather than getting lost in millions of webpages (search results) later if the term takes root.

-Andy

Thanks! I think we'll spell it out. Thematic shall be the word, as shall adventure be.

Quote from: BalbinusPersonally I prefer the Adventure Games, but I imagine that's true of almost everyone posting here as Thematic Games are well served by the Forge after all.

I dig both, and plenty of 'em.

I cannot accept your terminology, Settembrini; for one simple reason: only one of those "two types of games" are actually RPGs.

There is no such thing as "thematic RPGs". You could call them "Thematic story games", if you like. That would be acceptable.

There is likewise no need for such a distinction as "adventure RPGs".  Because those ARE RPGs, and the only real game that can be defined as an "RPG".

I refuse to give agency to the Forge-style story-games to continue to try to pretend that they are actually in the same hobby as we are.

The more absolute the distinction between these types of games, the easier it will be to resist having people try to shift the standards and interests and ideas of one into the other; namely, the less possible it will be for Forge-theorists to go prosletyzing at mainstream gamers.

RPGPundit

There must always be someone more radical than me.:)

Still, they undeniably use the method of roleplay, don`t they?

Quote from: RPGPunditI refuse to give agency to the Forge-style story-games to continue to try to pretend that they are actually in the same hobby as we are.

Gosh.

Do you "refuse to give agency" to the multimillion dollar computer RPG and MMORPG industries, too?

Because they don't give half a shit what you think.

QuoteDo you "refuse to give agency" to the multimillion dollar computer RPG and MMORPG industries, too?

Because they don't give half a shit what you think.
-Levi

Serious, non snarky answer: I don't really consider them (MMOs and such) to be roleplaying games in the tabletop sense and I'm pretty sure they don't see themselves that way, either.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSerious, non snarky answer: I don't really consider them (MMOs and such) to be roleplaying games in the tabletop sense and I'm pretty sure they don't see themselves that way, either.

The point is, "RPG" is a ridiculously broad term.

If you say, "Forge games often aren't traditional tabletop RPGs", I'll nod along vigorously.  But nobody is denying that - what people are trying to deny is that they're RPGs at all.

RP = Method of moving fictual situation forward through verbal process
RPG = RPs which are done as a leisure activity

Case settled.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenGosh.

Do you "refuse to give agency" to the multimillion dollar computer RPG and MMORPG industries, too?

Because they don't give half a shit what you think.

Yup, but they don't claim to be "tabletop RPGs". The fact that its a whole different medium makes it a bit more forgiveable that they subverted that term.

In any case, many online RPGs have more in common with mainstream RPGs than, say, "the Mountain Witch" or "the shab-al hiri roach" does.

That's how far in left field your thematic story games actually are, that fucking World of Warcraft is closer to being a mainstream RPG than they are.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe point is, "RPG" is a ridiculously broad term.

If you say, "Forge games often aren't traditional tabletop RPGs", I'll nod along vigorously.  But nobody is denying that - what people are trying to deny is that they're RPGs at all.

The Forge considers its games part and parcel of the same hobby as D&D or GURPS, and try to apply their ideas and concepts forcefully to discussions about these other games all over the internet.

So yea, they are trying to deny it.  Hell, they're trying to argue that their games are the way RPGs "should" be.

That's why I don't buy the live and let live bullshit. The Forge is asking for appeasement while it annexes the sudetenland...

RPGPundit

This thread almost has me convinced that Pundit and Settembrini are playing good cop/bad cop, because Pundit's over-the-top reaction nearly has me convinced that Set has the right of the situation.

Quote from: RPGPunditYup, but they don't claim to be "tabletop RPGs". The fact that its a whole different medium makes it a bit more forgiveable that they subverted that term.

In any case, many online RPGs have more in common with mainstream RPGs than, say, "the Mountain Witch" or "the shab-al hiri roach" does.

That's how far in left field your thematic story games actually are, that fucking World of Warcraft is closer to being a mainstream RPG than they are.

I have Mountain Witch right here in my hand.  And going strictly by the actual mechanics of play, it's easily more traditional than Amber.  It's an oddball simply because it's written in theorese, which I think was a really bad move - it interferes with my enjoyment of the book a lot, and most people would simply view it as an impenetrable mess.

Never read or played the Roach, can't speak to it.

Your point stands for, say, Capes, and a few others.  It might suffice for Polaris.

It fails utterly for Dogs in the Vineyard.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe Forge considers its games part and parcel of the same hobby as D&D or GURPS, and try to apply their ideas and concepts forcefully to discussions about these other games all over the internet.

Some do, some don't.  

Quote from: RPGPunditHell, they're trying to argue that their games are the way RPGs "should" be.

And so are you.

QuoteThe point is, "RPG" is a ridiculously broad term.

If you say, "Forge games often aren't traditional tabletop RPGs", I'll nod along vigorously. But nobody is denying that - what people are trying to deny is that they're RPGs at all.
- Levi

You know, in another time, maybe not so long ago,  I would have agreed with you. I would have said "sure, both types are roleplaying games" and been happy about it. In recent months though I've seen a lot of forgies piss on my hobby, declare that what I do isn't "really" roleplaying or isn't "really" a story, or whatever else.. and as a result I've become a lot less tolerant of them as a movement.

So if this makes me seem intolerant, I apologize.  I have to kinda agree with Pundit though. Seperating the two hobbies completely is a nice clean first step.

Quote from: SettembriniRP = Method of moving fictual situation forward through verbal process
RPG = RPs which are done as a leisure activity

Case settled.

RPGPundit is just being his wacky ol' self, just pay him no mind. Of course they are RPGs.

They are even closer that you thought.  Like above where I point out that what you refer to as "adventure" is in truth another 'theme' that can be chosen. Further up than that you say, in part:
   To keep TRPGS interesting, you have to keep changing players or games...
Well actually no as long as the particular game includes mechanics for evolution of the 'theme' attached to a character. Although it something that is very hard to quantify, it comes out to a point roughly similar to the general RPG tendancy to change characters when changing the focus of the game.

Quote from: jrientsThis thread almost has me convinced that Pundit and Settembrini are playing good cop/bad cop...

Make that sane cop/drunken singing rodeo clown (http://nivasgigs.net/newimages/insanecp/icp004.jpg) and I'm right there with you. :D

Quote from: Abyssal MawSo if this makes me seem intolerant, I apologize.  I have to kinda agree with Pundit though. Seperating the two hobbies completely is a nice clean first step.

Okay.

So what kind of game is this? (http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange2.pdf)

Hmm?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOkay.

So what kind of game is this? (http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange2.pdf)

Hmm?

Let me read it first and get back to you..!

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 (http://www.atlas-games.com/onceuponatime/), 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? (http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Exchange2.pdf)

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 (http://www.atlas-games.com/onceuponatime/), 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.

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

I think it's a mistaken categorization in the first place to assert that Forge-related games are the sole mutually-exclusive group from "traditional" tabletop RPGs -- or that there is a single extreme by which it differs.  This is sometimes promoted by Forge-related folk, and sometimes by others -- but I think this is largely ignorance of the larger picture.  

Role-playing games are diverse and varied, and I oppose the idea they have to follow tradition to be "RPGs" -- like rolling dice, or including fantasy or magic in the fiction, or violence, or having a game-master.  If you're sitting around a tabletop playing characters as part of a game, I think it's reasonable to call it a tabletop RPG.  

The definitions suggested here aren't exclusive or complete.  For example, Settembrini defines "adventure games" as following along the lines of adventure novels: "Go to exotic (non day to day life) places, and overcome obstacles through brains and brawns."  That describes fairly well The Mountain Witch -- a quest to a distant mountain with a group of heroes, overcoming obstacles.

That's why my categorization is superiour:

I look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

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

I think it is more an application of the concepts (theory if you like) of collaborative gaming in creating a general purpose ('gamist' friendly if not bordering on centric) system.

The idea of a closer to peer relationship between GM and player is certainly nothing particularly new. What has happened is that the tools, meaning the rules, are refined to make that happen more smoothly. In the case of BW this results in returning to a much closer to the old wargame roots of two sides with the rules overall. I see BW as a step closer to closing that circle.

Burning Empires is a step even closer yet to wargames, with even more a peer relationship between GM and player. Incidentally I think the closing of the circle is linked to it's more focused setting and structed play.  I can't think of a particular wargame off the top of my head that isn't quite structured and limited in setting scope. Some more than others obviously.

Quote from: SettembriniThat's why my categorization is superiour:

I look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

I believe your catagorization is leading to unwarrented assumptions about the ability to use the concepts in a general purpose game.

Just because the ball you see is red doesn't mean that all balls must be red.  Especially when you are told about another ball that is blue and then assume this means that it is a 'hybird' or just something else entirely.  You seem to be viewing the evidence with a very strong prejudice that is creating a somewhat circular argument. Or maybe better put you are viewing the situation through a specific lens without realizing the lens is there.

Going sophistic again? Stop socio-babbling, say what you think. At least name that "lens".
and I'm not forcing anyone to use my categories. I find them neat for discussions and that is great.
Talking about lenses, Ron Edwards has one, he rarely notices:

Story. It's a value unto itself for him, which he rarely challenges.

Quote from: SettembriniI look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

Your categories, like all others, exclude the stuff in the middle.

There's quite a lot of it.

QuoteGoing sophistic again? Stop socio-babbling, say what you think. At least name that "lens".

Whoa now, just saying. :P  But fair enough, I'll describe the lens, which I think is related to the below.

Quote from: SettembriniTalking about lenses, Ron Edwards has one, he rarely notices:

Story. It's a value unto itself for him, which he rarely challenges.

Of the limited stuff I've read of his I think he has named 'story', as you likely mean it, as what he likes personally and as such a lot of what he talks about is going revolve around implementing that. That is his frame of reference. I believe he is largely aware of that, although momment to momment we sometimes forget about our lenses. We certainly aren't explicit every momment of them, even when we are aware of them.

The lens you seem to be using is that the techniques [edit]for[/edit] more collaborative play are only good for or are only ment for "story centric" games. They happen to be IMO very helpful for "story centric" gaming since without them you tend to have something more resembling a book, play, or movie instead of what we think of as a game. But they have more general applications too.

Quote from: SettembriniThat's why my categorization is superiour:

I look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

I don't follow what you're saying here at all.  What are you saying that your categorization is superior to, and what are you saying is "actually there"?

P.S.  I'm no particular fan of Ron Edwards BTW. I'm not going to get into why because it doesn't really serve any purpose, but don't take my comments as some sort of overall defense of Ron and his style.  Not unlike how in the past I have disagreed with some negative comment someone had about RPGPundit, but I still think he's off his rocker a good deal of the time. ;)

In truth I am only here because I can tolerate RPGPundit, if not occationaly enjoy the entertainment value he provides (http://nivasgigs.net/newimages/insanecp/icp004.jpg). :)

I was only trying to your lens comment. But you yourselve have a lens:
In that you see me trying to do anything with forge games. I don't care for them, not for the good, nor for the bad.

And my categories don't have to be clear cut. No reason. Just like "German Game" is, upon closer scrutiny a stupid category if defined in a clear-cut way.  It helps me define what I talk about. And I'm concerned with adventure games, the rest is, well, the rest.

Several people are with me in viewing things like this. If you are not, so be it. I know I've got a functional distinction for my needs, I don't have the urge to prve or explain it to everybody further than by giving the definition at the start of this thread. I'm out as this is getting too much non-gamey and way too much semantic sophism. This is, in my eyes inappropriate for a broad and simple category. Broad and simple things surely always break up upon closer inspection, nevertheless they remain useful. And it's way more hate-less than the things of the past:

roll play vs. role play
traditional roleplaying
forge games
forge crap
story games
dungeon crawling
hack'n'slay

Most importantly, my point is a positive one: To underline that the games I like are not a challenge-fest between GM and players (or some other singled-out element), but games of "High Adventure" with romance, cleverness, intrigue, combat, defeat, suspense, immersion all in a joyous bundle of awesomeness.
I'm in love with adventure, to me it's a value unto itself.
This is my lens, this is my word, this is my game.
Don't tread on it.

Walk around it, to avoid it.

Quote from: Settembrinitraditional roleplaying

:confused:

In what way is this term hateful?

Quote from: BalbinusWhether 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.

(To both you and Levi.)

This business of fighting over the term "RPG" isn't something I can really take seriously--the fight has its merits and its limits and once you acknowledge both, I think you're done. This is why I put Settembrini's concepts in quotes--I don't find it useful to argue over the definitions as long as the ideas are understood. (BTW, Vincent has always been a gentleman in his dealings with me personally, although the way he runs his blog I have little interest in being his guest there.)

The aesthetic "problem" with Dogs from an "adventure gamer" perspective, is that it does all sorts of things to subvert the player's interest in discovering, interacting with, and manipulating the "little reality" inside the game. You can see this in the way the players need to decide for themselves what is a legitimate raise, what sorts of Fallout to take, and what The Faith means both allegorically and in its particulars. These get in the way of the player identifying with the character's desire to win out over obstacles. (I suppose it's a bit like a figure skating competition in which the participants judge themselves.) On top of this there's GM advice to tailor scenario-setups and in-scenario decisions to push psychological conflicts that have been established earlier. The player-character who doesn't have a problem with child-beating for example can expect (if he's read the rules) to encounter more and more severe challenges to that attitude, for example.

The "problem" that I alluded to as "colonizing" basically comes from responding to any criticism by denying that any of this is different from or inconsistent with what the critics already enjoy in their games. In fairness Vincent is far from the most extreme in this regard. Not even close. But it does come up among advocates of "thematic gaming". And aside from the outreach and handholding comments, my general sense of Dogs is that it's designed to perform a sort of RPG aikido: if you come in with traditional RPG impulses, it will rechannel their energy into thematic output. The GM advice alluded to above for example is presented in sort of conspiratorial tones, suggesting a sort of "Look what we're going to hit them with" attitude. Whereas a more straightforwardly-presented "thematic game" would be more upfront procedurally.

If anyone finds this post provocative, I'd urge some thought on Ron's comments where he describes a lot of Forge games (and I think he singles out Vincent's) as "prosthetics".

Quote:confused:

In what way is this term hateful?

Unto itself it isn't. The way it is used, implying old, abandoned, not hip, it is. Go to the respective places and look how it's used.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhereas a more straightforwardly-presented "thematic game" would be more upfront procedurally.

Boiled down, are you basically calling for truth-in-advertising?

Sure, but it carries an implied accusation that I wouldn't endorse.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe "problem" that I alluded to as "colonizing" basically comes from responding to any criticism by denying that any of this is different from or inconsistent with what the critics already enjoy in their games. In fairness Vincent is far from the most extreme in this regard. Not even close. But it does come up among advocates of "thematic gaming". And aside from the outreach and handholding comments, my general sense of Dogs is that it's designed to perform a sort of RPG aikido: if you come in with traditional RPG impulses, it will rechannel their energy into thematic output.

Hm.  I don't find any problem with Dogs being deceptive as a game.  I think it's pretty clear from the point of dealing with initiation in character creation what the game is like.  

I have the opposite complaint, actually.  i.e. The advertised idea that something like Dogs or The Riddle of Steel is something completely different than Wraith or Adventure!  They're all games with a story-ish bent -- yet the claim is that Wraith is in some way essentially the same as D&D, whereas The Riddle of Steel is something essentially different.  I don't buy it.  TROS is a violent medieval adventure game.  Regarding Dogs -- yes, Dogs isn't very immersive-friendly, but that's also true of Feng Shui -- where you really can't think too hard as your character or things will start to fall apart.  There are lots of adventure games which aren't immersive.

Well, once again reality is multi-dimensional. Categories singling out one dimension can't catch all angles on a problem.

It's, as always, a spectrum, and single elements from one thing can belong to the other. Where is it written, that categories have to absolute? Axis & Allies can be seen as a a ultra-light wargame, but what is Risk then? Reality is nuanced, no matter what others will try to make you believe.

The history of the hobby has it, that people overlap. Thematic gaming is different from Thematic games. Clearly Feng Shui lend itself to thematic gaming, as as early as the days of OD&D there were people with a thematic itch, who desperately tried to scratch it. So some developed games for that, some only included elements. Lots and lots of hybrids developed thusly. It is now, in our enlightened days, that people have better tools for scratching their itches, be they what they may.

Quote from: jhkimHm.  I don't find any problem with Dogs being deceptive as a game.  I think it's pretty clear from the point of dealing with initiation in character creation what the game is like.

Well, first, we don't have to stick hard & fast to Settembrini's definitions (2nd post in this thread). I admit that I'm talking more about immersive exploration of a setting than I am about the details of challenge and whatnot that he brought up. But the general issue of "colonization" or "infiltration" as the Pundit puts it is one of denying others the ability to interpret their own experiences. Often it starts with "what you really mean is..."

Really this thing goes back before the Forge to discussion of "storytelling games" and through all the arguments that led to the Threefold.

Quote from: SettembriniThe history of the hobby has it, that people overlap. Thematic gaming is different from Thematic games. Clearly Feng Shui lend itself to thematic gaming, as as early as the days of OD&D there were people with a thematic itch, who desperately tried to scratch it. So some developed games for that, some only included elements. Lots and lots of hybrids developed thusly.

Well, I'm not even sure what the dimensions of your terms are.  I roughly understand "Adventure Game" to be about how close something is to the archetype of adventure: namely exotic locales, heroic characters, and emphasis on challenges.  

I'm not sure what "Thematic Games" applies to, though.  You apply it to Feng Shui.  What about Toon and/or Teenagers from Outer Space?  Paranoia?  Pendragon?  These are thematic in a sense, but I'm not sure what your criteria is.

QuoteI'm not sure what "Thematic Games" applies to, though. You apply it to Feng Shui. What about Toon and/or Teenagers from Outer Space? Paranoia? Pendragon? These are thematic in a sense, but I'm not sure what your criteria is.

They are all adventure games by tradition, with thematic elements in them. But they follow the Adventure Game setup. Thematic Game is a design category not a play category.
I can have thematic play with a Pizza, if needed.

Quote from: SettembriniThey are all adventure games by tradition, with thematic elements in them. But they follow the Adventure Game setup. Thematic Game is a design category not a play category.
I can have thematic play with a Pizza, if needed.

So, you're saying that there are games that are thematic without being "Thematic Games".  And do I also read the implication that there are games which emulate the tropes of adventure fiction without being "Adventure Games"?  (i.e. perhaps non-traditional games like Theatrix or The Mountain Witch)  

I understand that you think that many Forge-related games are "Thematic Games", but I'm not sure what the quality about them is that you're distinguishing.

Maybe we could make a distinction between Adventure games and Eliza games.

As in, these games are like Adventure, and those games are like Eliza.