From the challenge thread:

Quote from: RPGPunditYour position is so intellectually confused it baffles reason. You admit that Ron was either wrong or lying in his claim that GNS is universal, yet you don't want to reject GNS.

I've got a theory, let's call it PIFOS. This theory, simply stated, is Pundit Is Full Of Shit.  It's a very useful piece of information to keep in mind when surfing these boards, and will help people stomach a lot of the insanity without getting too carried away.

It doesn't hold true for every single post he makes, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Quote from: StuartI agree with this 100%.  I've worked with a lot of Academics and IT Professionals, and looked at hundreds of resumes over the years -- and never seen someone put "role-playing games" on there in any way.

I think it varies a lot - I understand that there are big differences between American resumes and European CVs (European CVs tend to include interests and hobbies, resumes don't, is how it's been explained to me), but as far as academic CVs go you wouldn't put your hobbies on it. Academic employers are interested in what you've studied and what you've published; outside of academia employers might be interested in your hobbies if they want to hire well-rounded individuals instead of workaholics with no life.

As far as Ron's CV goes, it would make far more sense for him to say "I run a small publishing company as a hobby" than "I play D&D", because that shows that he has at least accomplished something.

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, I think that, in a purely definitional sense: My Life with Master more deserves the title "Roleplaying Game" than D&D (which would be better called "Roleplaying Toy")

First off, I'm going with Settembrini's definition of "Roleplaying", for a start, i.e. "talking to advance a make believe situation". Both D&D and MLwM use that, so hence "Roleplaying" for both. But to distinguish it from, as the Pundit colourfully describes as "furries who go to online chats to masturbate at each other's fantasies", there must be something else:

Greg Costickyan's 1994 article "I have no words and I must design"; (who is extending a classification proposed by Will Wright) a game is a toy with an intrinsic (& challenging) objective in it.

A ball, for example, is a toy. It offers many interesting behaviours, which you may explore. You can bounce it, twirl it, throw it, dribble it. And, if you wish, you may use it in a game: soccer, or basketball, or whatever. But the game is not intrinsic in the toy; it is a set of player-defined objectives overlaid on the toy.

That sounds rather like D&D, to me: The ruleset "offers many interesting behaviours, which you may explore". Combat, monsters, skill checks, settings and so on. But the GM and players the come up with the goals themselves to turn it into an interesting game (rack up the old experience points. Or fulfil the quest your friendly GM has just inflicted on you. Or rebuild the Imperium and stave off civilization's final collapse. Or strive toward spiritual perfection. Whatever.) But the goals are not intrinsic in the D&D rules themselves; it is a set of player-defined objectives overlaid on the toy.

If, for some reason, your players don't have a goal, they'll find one right quick. Otherwise, they'll have nothing better to do but sit around the tavern and grouse about how boring the game is. Until you get pissed off and have a bunch of orcs show up and try to beat their heads in. Hey, now they've got a goal. Personal survival is a good goal. That's D&D.

The rules to My Life with Master, on the other hand, has a very defined and rigid set of rules for when the "endgame" is triggered, and the exact type of ending (i.e. a "Win" or "Lose" condition) for each PC. The goal for anybody playing My Life with Master is clearly defined in the rules; Kill the Master.  The game simply won't support any other goals properly. It would be like trying to play of Monopoly when the goal for each player is to open the finest art gallery in London. It just won't work.

But it's not wholly fixed, either. In Monopoly you don't know that whoever plays the Boot will win, or how they will do so before you play. You know that eventually, the game will end, somebody will have got more money, somehow, than everybody else, and will win. Same with MLwM. You know that the game ends when the Master is killed. But you play the game to find out who does it, how, and what that means for each PC.

In that case, I can see MLwM being closer to other games ("Football", "Monopoly", "Scrabble", "Clue", "Poker" and so on) than D&D. D&D is more like a ball or a deck of cards; it's a toy you use to play games with.

This, I think is the good thing and bad thing that separates these two forms of roleplaying. A single toy (like a ball, or the D&D rules) can support many different goals pretty well, and doesn't impose any on the people playing with it. Some toys may suit some goals better than others of course, but generally, a toy is pretty versatile and adaptable to the group playing with it.

A game (like Monopoly, or the MLwM rules), on the other hand, has an inbuilt objective that it supports, and it doesn't really work if you try and go outside that objective. On the other hand, having a goal built into the rules means that any bunch of random people can get together and play the thing without having to do anything else. Toys, due to their versatility, don't get that luxury. (Imagine if somebody brings a deck of cards to a group, and tells his group that they will be "playing cards". One guy might want to play Poker, another Bridge, and a third Snap. If something isn't sorted out, nobody is going to have much fun that evening.)

So "D&D=Toy, MLwM=Game".

(Waits for the Pundit to explode!)

That´s correct.
But don´t overlook textual and historical development of Adventure Games:

Modules and campaigns are the time-tested frames of reference for them. And they have goals and endings. Thusly, there might not be in-built and expressed endings and goals, but in the way people actually play, it most often becomes a game.

So Adventure Games are way more versatile than Thematic Games, even on the thematic playground.

It is only when four or five GM-Alpha beings come together, that the limitations and focus of Thematic Games really serve a positive purpose.

Polaris (which I personally loathe) is a prime example:
A nice game for four GMs. (which is an actual sales pitch from the german forgers, not my idea)

It´s structurally built for those situations.

Quote from: SettembriniModules and campaigns are the time-tested frames of reference for them. And they have goals and endings. Thusly, there might not be in-built and expressed endings and goals, but in the way people actually play, it most often becomes a game.

Yeah, but I would suggest that these (published modules and so on) are kinda like the rule(book)s for soccer, or bridge, or whatever. They are a seperate thing that you use with the toy to provide the game objectives and structure.

And yeah, I totally agree that in actual play, groups using toys will come up with goals of their own, and therefore provide the game structure themselves. (See my 6th para; players will come up with their goals by themselves or get bored). Just that those goals (by design, I think) aren't hardcoded into the rules themselves. Now tradition accounts for a lot; most roleplayers are familiar with D&D and similar, so they can come up with a coherent set of objectives quite easily -- the GM does this, players do that -- and certainly rules lend themselves to some goals better than others (i.e. Phoenix Command isn't great for cinematic action, just like a Soccer ball isn't great for playing Tennis with). All that helps "everybody get on the same page" about the game they will play. But it's not perfect. Sometimes you can get a mismatch of expectations between players (the GM wants to run a political heavy game, when some of the players just want to kill dragons and take their stuff) which need to get ironed out, somehow, before the game starts to suffer.

If the objective is an intrinsic part of the rules, on the other hand, everybody can get going in the same direction straight away. (And usually, because of that, the rules can be built to suit that objective perfectly. No having to use a tennis ball to play softball, if you see what I mean.) But if people aren't interested in that direction, the game isn't going to work for you.

Warren,

Aside from your casual dismissive of D&D and like games as 'toys'... which you have to agree sounds vaguely derogative depending upon your cultural context...

This actually reads like a case FOR D&D and like games.  Is, say, UNO ever going to eclipse Poker? Of course not, not everyone has a UNO deck, nor can other games be played with such decks, while an ordinary deck of cards is all you need for Poker. And if you don't like poker, you can play Spade, Hearts or any of a thousand other card games with that same deck.

UNO may be fun and easy but ultimately it is limited by its having only that one specific game built into the mechanism. Never mind that a very UNO like game could probably be played just as easily with your poker cards...

Spike you dastardly devious diminuitive Pika!
UNO and Poker cards, that´s a good one.

I also see more virtues in the LEGO of of Adventure RPGs than in those decks of coherent UNO...

Quote from: SettembriniSpike you dastardly devious diminuitive Pika!
UNO and Poker cards, that´s a good one.

I also see more virtues in the LEGO of of Adventure RPGs than in those decks of coherent UNO...

Thus, I am the creator of yet another RPG theory... UNOism!!!

Quote from: warrenIn that case, I can see MLwM being closer to other games ("Football", "Monopoly", "Scrabble", "Clue", "Poker" and so on) than D&D. D&D is more like a ball or a deck of cards; it's a toy you use to play games with.

This, I think is the good thing and bad thing that separates these two forms of roleplaying. A single toy (like a ball, or the D&D rules) can support many different goals pretty well, and doesn't impose any on the people playing with it. Some toys may suit some goals better than others of course, but generally, a toy is pretty versatile and adaptable to the group playing with it.

A game (like Monopoly, or the MLwM rules), on the other hand, has an inbuilt objective that it supports, and it doesn't really work if you try and go outside that objective. On the other hand, having a goal built into the rules means that any bunch of random people can get together and play the thing without having to do anything else. Toys, due to their versatility, don't get that luxury. (Imagine if somebody brings a deck of cards to a group, and tells his group that they will be "playing cards". One guy might want to play Poker, another Bridge, and a third Snap. If something isn't sorted out, nobody is going to have much fun that evening.)

So "D&D=Toy, MLwM=Game".

If you don't like the word "toy" you could use "toolkit" instead. Some RPGs (like D&D) are toolkits to make a wide variety of different games.  Other RPGs (like MLwM) are specific games.

Do the games built with the toolkit RPGs have clearly defined rules / goals / challenges / endgames in the same way a complete game does?  Do groups sit down and play the same game with a toolkit RPG... or are the players in each "game" actually playing a lot of different games with the same toy, at the same time?

Quote from: SpikeAside from your casual dismissive of D&D and like games as 'toys'... which you have to agree sounds vaguely derogative depending upon your cultural context...

True, but I'm using the language Will Wright came up with (originally for Sim City, which he designed and described as a toy), as I'm from a video games background.

Quote from: SpikeThis actually reads like a case FOR D&D and like games.

I wasn't really trying to advocate one or the other with this metaphor (yeah, "toy" may not be the best choice of words, agreed). I think it shows the difference between the two pretty well tho' (as you point out with UNOism

Quote from: warrenTrue, but I'm using the language Will Wright came up with (originally for Sim City, which he designed and described as a toy), as I'm from a video games background.


I wasn't really trying to advocate one or the other with this metaphor (yeah, "toy" may not be the best choice of words, agreed). I think it shows the difference between the two pretty well tho' (as you point out with UNOism

Ah, yeah, I can see that then. Sim City is fun, but it's hardly a game. Legos are fun, but they aren't really games either.  So, Toy.  I suggest that D&D and it's kin are more like tools for games than actual 'toys' which can be harder to game with (see Sim City, which while fun ultimately is not to different than pushing matchbox cars around the table...)..

Quote from: StuartDo the games built with the toolkit RPGs have clearly defined rules / goals / challenges / endgames in the same way a complete game does?  Do groups sit down and play the same game with a toolkit RPG... or are the players in each "game" actually playing a lot of different games with the same toy, at the same time?

The way I see it, everybody has to end up playing the same game, pretty much, to enjoy a toolkit RPG. Taking it back to the card-game or ball-game examples; before people start having fun, there has to be some agreement over the real game being played.

Like if we are playing with a ball, and decide to make a game up. It involves throwing & catching the ball to each other, let's say. Your personal goal/game could be throw the ball the highest on each pass. My goal/game is to return a caught ball as quickly as possible. Now as long as there is somebody else who is interested in throwing high and returning the ball quickly, we can all have fun with this game. But if somebody comes along and kicks the ball out of the park, or the other person loses interest in trying to better your high throws, our fun, as a group, is going to be diminished.

So even with toolkit rules, I think that everybody needs to be playing the same game, or at least compatible games, for the play to actually be y'know, fun.

Quote from: SpikeAh, yeah, I can see that then. Sim City is fun, but it's hardly a game. Legos are fun, but they aren't really games either.  So, Toy.  I suggest that D&D and it's kin are more like tools for games than actual 'toys' which can be harder to game with (see Sim City, which while fun ultimately is not to different than pushing matchbox cars around the table...)..

Yeah, from the article I linked to earlier:

QuoteSim City has no goals. Is it not a game?

No, as it's own designer willingly maintains. It is a toy.

And the only way to stay interested in it for very long is to turn it into a game -- by setting goals, by defining objectives for yourself. Build the grandest possible megalopolis; maximize how much your people love you; build a city that relies solely on mass transit. Whatever goal you've chosen, you've turned it into a game.

Quote from: warrenThe way I see it, everybody has to end up playing the same game, pretty much, to enjoy a toolkit RPG. Taking it back to the card-game or ball-game examples; before people start having fun, there has to be some agreement over the real game being played.

Yes, I agree with this.  

So if you consider games like "My Life with Master" as "complete games" what would be similar examples of complete games you could build with a toolkit RPG?

For example, I think the original D&D dungeoncrawl game, where you explore the dungeon, avoid the traps, kill the monsters and collect the gold seems like a complete game you could build from the toolkit.

What about other toolkit built games?  Are they as solid as something pre-built like My Life with Master?  

What about the "players invent their own goals" type RPGs?  If the players all have different goals, is the resulting game something like baseball-soccer-football-tennis?  Is the GMing just refereeing 4 seperate games where the players sometimes run across each other's playing fields?

I just wish those two would hurry up and decide whether I'm allowed to be in "the hobby" or not. I need to mark up my calendars.