Quote from: StuartI think you can find roleplaying in Monopoly (The Doggie says "woof, woof").  I used to game with two guys who did *A LOT* of roleplaying in Axis & Allies, that would threaten to turn into Live Action Roleplaying (with combat) if they got too excited / had too much to drink.

Axis and Allies is great for accents.  Hmmm.  Perhaps we need a thread on role-playing in board games and whether there is a sharp line between the two or not.

GDW's Asteroid game was a lot like a Forge game in many ways.  It had a very tight focus (a team of specialists sent to an asteroid to stop a deranged computer from crashing into the Earth).  The player playing the deranged computer was a lot like a GM.  It had all sorts of genre cliches that gave it a lot of flavor.  The main difference is that all of the characters where already created and you had to build a team out of them (e.g., the Professor, his beautiful daughter, the McGee brothers -- Lucky and Muscles, the jewel thief, and reporter, the space dog, etc.)  Good stuff.

Quote from: VellorianI guess what I read in was the "ongoing campaign" aspect, which changes the perception markedly.

Correct, but an ongoing campaign can still require a lot of prep from the GM.

QuoteAxis and Allies is great for accents. Hmmm. Perhaps we need a thread on role-playing in board games and whether there is a sharp line between the two or not.

What was this thread about again?

I generally find that boardgames have very clear rules that govern what you can and can't do, and players must stay within these rules in pursuit of "winning" the game.  Roleplaying usually doesn't have a direct impact on "winning" the game.

Rules for RPGs are often much less clear (or much more verbose), and players are often not restricted in what they can and can't do by these rules.  Many RPGs are very fuzzy about the actual goal of the game, and  "winning" is often an absent concept.  Ironically, roleplaying often doesn't have a direct impact on "winning" a roleplaying game either. (!)

Quote from: gleichmanOh great, another Levi Forge-Lite sticky at the top of the board.

One may as well rename this the Levi Forum.

No, actually the "Levi Forum" on here is the "Actual Play and Craft" forum, which I made specifically thinking of him. He's sort of failed to do much with it so far, though, which is a real pity.

RPGPundit

Okay thank's for the links people I've so far read the Wiki link on GNS theory and the "System Does Matter" essay.

Considering I personally have played in or run campaigns (not just tournaments) for

AD&D, D&D, D&D 3+, Cyberpunk, Everway, Conspiracy X, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, 2300AD, Traveller: The New Era, Shadowrun, Vampire, V:DA, Star Wars D6/D20, Feng Shui, Champions, Flashing Blades, Dark Conspiracy, Call of Cthulhu (BRP/D20), Cybergeneration, Star Trek. (from memory, so I've probably missed some out).

And enjoyed each and everyone, I fail to see his initial assertion

"Three player aims or outlooks have been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, crossover possible."

Admittedly a lot of those games fall into the Gamist or Simulationist, group but then that's what most major RPG Publishing groups print, the Narrative games I have played/run I've enjoyed as I have enjoyed the Narrative aspects of other games.

Saying there is little or no crossover possible, just isn't my experience, I've been in several groups that have run a wide mix of games with several players taking turns at being GM. So I'm not the only player or GM I've come across that enjoys a variety of playing styles.

Also surely if you have an RPG that is say 50% Gamist, 30% Narrative and 20% Simulationist at least people that have a preferance to the Narrative style are supported to some degree. Not that any game has fixed percentages like that, after all a narrative player will make better use of the narrative aspects of the game, so will get more than say 30% out of it.

If a game just was 100% Narrative or 100% Gamist then I wouldn't be able to play with my friend who happens to prefer the Simulationist style if I prefered the Gamist one.

With that in mind most of the rest of his essay falls to pieces.

Sure you could have a game with 100% Narrative style, and the Narrative GM would then not need to do any work adapting the system to his prefered way of playing, but then he'ld have to find Narrative players to play with. If could well be his best mate is a bit of a Gamist, and the only Narrative players he can find are real jerks (stealing all the Cheetos!).

Surely is makes sense to design a RPG for a broad market, then GM's and players can take what they want out of it, a bit of G with their N and S.

Not only will it make it easier to find someone to buy your product as it will have appeal to G, N or S GM's (and even GN&S GM's like me) but it will make it easier for those GM's to find players, as they can appeal to G, N or S players (or GN&S players like me).

Edit: Having looked at RPGPundit's Landmark's post my ideas seem to fit well with Landmark 4.

Not to mention that GNS doesn't cover all the bases...

There are people who:
* game to hang out with their friends, socialize, or even meet romantic partners (eg. Vampire LARP)
* game to become deeply immersed in an alternate world, and forget about the troubles of everyday life (eg. Too many RPGs to name...)
* game to get an opportunity to make their friends laugh (eg. Balderdash can be played to win... or played to make everyone laugh... an RPG can be played like that too)
etc

Quote from: StuartWhat I haven't yet found in a "roleplaying game", are rules that let you *honestly* play equally, and competitively with all the other players at the table.  

Amber.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAmber.

RPGPundit

Also Rune.

Quote from: BagpussEdit: Having looked at RPGPundit's Landmark's post my ideas seem to fit well with Landmark 4.

Indeed it does. One of the fundamental self-evident truths that I've noticed is that far more gamers actually play and enjoy playing with multiple different "agendas", sometimes switching from one to another, and sometimes at the same time; and that this can and does often work for them. The idea that the different "agendas" have to be exclusive seems contrary to how most people Roleplay and how most people enjoy roleplaying.

RPGPundit

Bagpuss, two bits that might be helpful.

1)  Levi Kornelson wrote a theoretical paper that had some similarities but got rid of such things as declaring games to be entirely one camp.  You might prefer it, if I had a link to it, I'd put it up (can someone help me out?)

2) Of the little that I've read, Maddman is by far the best at extracting useful bits out of theoretical frameworks and stating them in simple terms.  He's given examples of how narrativist elements have improved his cinematic Buffy game.  Try searching for threads started by him here and at Nothingland, especially dealing with Buffy.  There's a big thread where he tried to explain his cinematic approach to P&P that has some interesting bits if you can slog through it.

Quote from: RPGPunditAmber

I find that hard to believe, Pundit, unless one assumes the GM is really good at separating what they think should happen from what they want to have happen. I don't think that's too much too assume (I disagree with those who bandy around the term "GM Fiat"), but it is a requirement that has to be filled by the people and isn't supplied by the game. Unlike say Chess, where you can play fully competitively and if somebody breaks a rule, you can point it out to them and if they disagree, you don't have to doubt whether they're a jerky idiot (or an idiotic jerk).

To be honest, Stuart, as long as "roleplaying game" means either "freeform procedures" (as with Roach) or "interpretation of the mechanics is more important than the mechanics themselves" (as with My Life with Master)--a competitive RPG is going to fundamentally rely on the integrity of the GM and/or the players in interpreting and managing their powers and responsibilities in the game.

OTOH Rune I don't know enough about to judge, so it might prove me wrong. I suspect that if Rune is an RPG, then so are the wonderful old TFT solo adventures/modules, as well as probably the new stuff being made for Dark City's Legends RPG.

Quote from: BalbinusAlso Rune.

Would "The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and "Pantheon and other Roleplaying Games" also fall into this category?

Quote from: Nicephorus2) Of the little that I've read, Maddman is by far the best at extracting useful bits out of theoretical frameworks and stating them in simple terms....

Yes I do follow a lot of Maddman's posts over at Nothingland, but I try to keep quiet about it, don't want to give him a big head.

Except the GM has to play referee.

The more time I spend working on my game, the less it looks like a traditional RPG and the more it looked like other things (CCG, Boardgame, Gamebook).  

I think authority for narrative control / rules moderation has to rest someplace, and there seems to be 3 choices:

1) A Game Master -- like in traditional RPGs like D&D, Amber, etc
2) Shared amongst all the players -- like Dogs in the Vineyard etc
3) The game itself -- like a boardgame, CCG, or what I'm thinking of

In many ways what I'm working on / talking about has more in common with Talisman than D&D.

Quote from: BagpussWould "The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and "Pantheon and other Roleplaying Games" also fall into this category?

Possibly, but they are very different.  Rune is a fairly rules intense cod-vikings game based on the Ars Magica rules.  The others are more storytelling games and are doing something very different.