How is DitV not an RPG?

Levi Kornelsen · December 15, 2006, 12:24:09 PM

Quote from: James J SkachBut, see, this is a ruse. Because the idea of the Forge, if I get my GNS dogma correct, is that in a truly inspired GNS game, you wouldn't be able to play it as a gamey-game in the first place. That makes DitV Incoherent.

Uh, wrong.

To quote Ron:

"That muscle might be in a dog. But that muscle doesn't define a dog."

James J Skach · December 15, 2006, 12:48:27 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUh, wrong.

To quote Ron:

"That muscle might be in a dog. But that muscle doesn't define a dog."

OK...so then what the hell is Incoherent? I mean, my understanding, admitedly flawed by only have read the material, is the two or more Creative Agenda's are supported/possible. Is this incorrect? I mean, would D&D be coherent if it just said "Oh, by the way, you can play historical intrigue narratavist games with D20, but we think you should just play gamist adventures."?

So if you're playing gamey-gamed characters with dump stats and everything, that's OK, as long as everyone is?

Wait, perhaps Incoherence isn't really to be applied to game design, only to actual play. If that's the case, then Ron shouldn't apply it to game designs.

Wow. What a Theory.

Erik Boielle · December 15, 2006, 12:50:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQrA4VKAwg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py8z1u79X9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMHjFdFyF8

Levi Kornelsen · December 15, 2006, 01:08:55 PM

Quote from: James J SkachWait, perhaps Incoherence isn't really to be applied to game design, only to actual play. If that's the case, then Ron shouldn't apply it to game designs.

Wow. What a Theory.

Only actual play can be, in GNS, one of the three things. But a game can support and encourage a chosen one of those things.

And here we enter the territory where I have to state my own objection. Because, yes, a game can support and encourage a given vision of play. But there are far more than three possible visions or approaches, and lumping them into three categories, even if you can make it work, has no practical value to me.

Does the game have a vision? Is that vision clear? Does that vision make room for the things my group likes in play?

...If the answers to all these questions is yes, I'm, cooking with gas.

Sethwick · December 15, 2006, 01:22:47 PM

Quote from: Abyssal MawActually the rhetorical skill of the pundit is much more subtle. It isn't so much about winning (nobody ever really 'wins' an argument- the win is in having the argument in the first place). I think TheRPGsite is brutally efficient at scoring wins. After all, here you are.

But there's also making the other guy lose, which can also be done. And Pundit manages that one too, from time to time.

As for Dogs in the Vineyard: it seems like an RPG to me, in general terms.

Basicly all you do in this game that I can tell, is 1) Your characters stroll into a 'troubled town', 2) conduct interviews, 3) have "conflicts" regarding the trouble. The 'trouble' of the town is usually involving some form of sexually degrading thing- often something like infidelity or incest (as per the authors advice), and then finally 4) the characters invariably murder civilians (often including women and infants if actual play reports are to be believed) or possibly each other-- in order to illustrate the author's feelings about religion and morality. The end result is reportedly full of heavy themes and issues.

So at one point some of these guys tried to rename 'fun' as meaning 'having heavy themes and issues', but that kind of revisionism didn't stick.

So yeah, it's an RPG. It's an RPG for people who basicly hate themselves, but sure. RPG.

So it IS an RPG! You win! (Did you see what I did there?)

Finally: I love Erik Boielle's answer!

Wow... that's some opinion you got there... I've never heard anyone state quite so clearly their objection to RPGs having serious themes. It's just like... Wow.

So you don't watch movies what are depressing? Don't read books that leave you feeling down?

Personally I love dark movies where terrible things happen to people, and I like RPGs where the same happens.

TonyLB · December 15, 2006, 01:47:12 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOnly actual play can be, in GNS, one of the three things. But a game can support and encourage a chosen one of those things.

My sense, being a person who (personally) doesn't use the terms much, is that a game is incoherent not when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and supports Y. It's much simpler than that. It's incoherent when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and then doesn't, in fact, support X. If it supports X and Y (and possibly Z, epsilon and Squid) then that's cool ... so long as it actually supports the way it tells you to play the game.

Anyway, like I said: Not an expert. But I think that's meant to be the gist. More games should support Squid.

rcsample · December 15, 2006, 01:49:53 PM

Quote from: TonyLBAnyway, like I said: Not an expert. But I think that's meant to be the gist. More games should support Squid.

Squidism is inferior to Octopusism!

arminius · December 15, 2006, 01:50:18 PM

Quote from: James J SkachI mean, would D&D be coherent if it just said "Oh, by the way, you can play historical intrigue narratavist games with D20, but we think you should just play gamist adventures."?

Actually, I think this is very close to what GNS does say, as a design philosophy.

Erik Boielle · December 15, 2006, 01:51:15 PM

"I sweep my coat around and the bullets spark off it, like pang pang pang! I'm mighty with the power of righteousness!" Then you raise with something like this: "I Call you by your Secret Name and command you to drop the gun!"

I mean, whats not to like?

TonyLB · December 15, 2006, 01:52:08 PM

Quote from: rcsampleSquidism is inferior to Octopusism!

I'm-a gonna ink all over you. Take that, you octopussy-whipped ... uh ... person!

Levi Kornelsen · December 15, 2006, 02:02:23 PM

Quote from: TonyLBIt's incoherent when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and then doesn't, in fact, support X.

In nicely general terms, I think that's right.

James McMurray · December 15, 2006, 02:06:09 PM

Quote from: TonyLBI'm-a gonna ink all over you. Take that, you octopussy-whipped ... uh ... person!

Not to mention that while you're arm wrestling the squid can use his extra two tentacles to poke the octopus in the eyes.

Squids #1!

And from an RPG standpoint, they're a much better D&D druid power gamer form because of the extra two tentacles.

Blackleaf · December 15, 2006, 02:06:24 PM

The problem, as it seems to be with all Forge terms, is that it's a bad choice of words to describe the concept.

flyingmice · December 15, 2006, 02:17:13 PM

Quote from: TonyLBMy sense, being a person who (personally) doesn't use the terms much, is that a game is incoherent not when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and supports Y. It's much simpler than that. It's incoherent when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and then doesn't, in fact, support X. If it supports X and Y (and possibly Z, epsilon and Squid) then that's cool ... so long as it actually supports the way it tells you to play the game.

Anyway, like I said: Not an expert. But I think that's meant to be the gist. More games should support Squid.

What do you mean "support," Tony? Generally when I read "this game supports Squid!" and actually read the game, it turns out to mean "This game virtually mandates Squid because the mechanics have been constructed so that you can't avoid Squid!" It's very difficult to "Drift" (did I use the term correctly? I mean Play X when only Squid is 'supported') these games without ripping them to shreds and reanimating the corpse.

-clash

Erik Boielle · December 15, 2006, 02:21:33 PM

Quote from: StuartThe problem, as it seems to be with all Forge terms, is that it's a bad choice of words to describe the concept.

I dunno - theres a subdiscussion about wether Inchoerence matters.

DitV, I think, for instance, takes a pretty ambivilant view on what its about. It presents an adventure format and ways of generating conflict and then sends you off to play.

It can't be incoherent cause it don't tell you how you are supposed to play it.

And its a good game. Good games don't have to be about something, they present a situation thats good for gaming - be it investigating dungeons disguised as Towns, Corporate Research Labs or Mansions your dead uncle has left you, or a politcial situation loaded with conflict (Like Vampire or Burning Empires).