Quote from: flyingmiceI was laughing my butt off here! It was astounding!

-clash

It's like a bunch of philosophers debating the merits of coitus by their own imaginings of what such an activity would be like.

It reads like a parody thread.

@John Morrow:
as the article is obviously talking about the appeal of traditional RPGs, not "storygames" or "indie games" etc., I would suggest, that YES, you missed the point of the article.

Okay, EVERYBODY take an "Old Geezer says you ALL missed the point, ya damn punk kids!"

The article is about... hold on...

HOW TO DESCRIBE RPGS TO SOMEONE WHO ASKS.

It's not attempting to define RPGs.  It's attempting to arrive at a metaphor that can be understood by somebody who doesn't know what an RPG is.

Now all of you get off the Proletariat's lawn.

Quote from: alexandroas the article is obviously talking about the appeal of traditional RPGs, not "storygames" or "indie games" etc., I would suggest, that YES, you missed the point of the article.

It's important to bear in mind that different gamers have played for different reasons since the beginning of the hobby.  There are many different things that appeal to people in traditional RPGs.  Here is a good place to start about that, backed by survey data rather than simply anecdotal evidence:

ttp://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html


To try to narrow that down to any one thing is going to miss why a lot of people role-play (maybe 75%).  

The reason why I'm being so picky about "story" is that once people get the idea into their head that role-playing is all about telling a story, all sorts of unfortunatley assumptions and mistakes seem to follow.

I do think that the article makes an interesting observation about the value of uncertainty and divided authority, but I think the argument is overstated quite a bit.

Quote from: Old GeezerIt's not attempting to define RPGs.  It's attempting to arrive at a metaphor that can be understood by somebody who doesn't know what an RPG is.

That wouldn't be my first pick.

Don't kids go outside and play cops and robbers or house anymore?  Is the reason for all of this obsession over creating, consuming, and control a side-effect of video gaming?

(response to Geezer) Except that the article falls into the same trap that RQ2 did when it described roleplaying, in the opening paragraphs, as akin to improvisational radio theater. Which then opens the way to various...deviations. Why isn't "playing pretend with rules & dice" a good enough description?

Quote from: John MorrowThat wouldn't be my first pick.

Don't kids go outside and play cops and robbers or house anymore?  Is the reason for all of this obsession over creating, consuming, and control a side-effect of video gaming?

No, it was already there in the late 80's/early 90's. I've linked a few times to a Usenet thread started by Robert Plamondon talking about how he doesn't get "storytelling games", and you can find the same arguments there--basically between people who see RPGs as a rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend, and people who want to tell a story.

Quote from: John MorrowThat wouldn't be my first pick.

Don't kids go outside and play cops and robbers or house anymore?  Is the reason for all of this obsession over creating, consuming, and control a side-effect of video gaming?

I've said before that roleplaying is a natural activity. Every kid I know - and as a guy with 7 brothers and sisters and 66 first cousins, I've known a lot - roleplays as part of their normal play. Somewhere in middle school, most kids stop doing it and seemingly forget how. The only really difficult part is the game aspect.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenI've linked a few times to a Usenet thread started by Robert Plamondon talking about how he doesn't get "storytelling games", and you can find the same arguments there--basically between people who see RPGs as a rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend, and people who want to tell a story.

...and the people who want to play them like a wargame with their character as their piece on the board.  Yes.  Those categories were also present in Glenn Blacows article in Different Worlds in 1980.  But it's as if the old "rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend" is the style that people are having trouble understanding, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone who played pretend as a child couldn't get that.

Quote from: flyingmiceSomewhere in middle school, most kids stop doing it and seemingly forget how.

The way a person I knew in college put it, "We used to play D&D until we discovered beer."  Girls/boys are another popular distraction that kicks in around middle school.  Of course it might help if people were actually creating games to catch people at that age.

Quote from: flyingmiceThe only really difficult part is the game aspect.

Well, given how bad mental math skills seem to be getting over the years (I'm still amazed at schools giving kids calculators), I can see where doing basic math in your head or having to use a calculator to add up modifiers could be a show stopper.

Yeah, I'm in crotchety old man mode.

Quote from: John Morrow...and the people who want to play them like a wargame with their character as their piece on the board.  Yes.  Those categories were also present in Glenn Blacows article in Different Worlds in 1980.  But it's as if the old "rules-and-ref-mediated version of pretend" is the style that people are having trouble understanding, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone who played pretend as a child couldn't get that.

Ah well, that gets into another thing. Back in that discussion (or maybe it was another Usenet thread, probably several) what happened was that the story guys couldn't distinguish between "rules-and-ref-mediated-pretend" and "board wargame". Somehow they conflated stuff like playing by the rules, having to understand detailed rules, not having rules to cater to "story concerns", and focusing on combat--so that emphasizing any of these characteristics was seen as trying to turn RPGs into wargames.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen....Why isn't "playing pretend with rules & dice" a good enough description?

That would be the basic definition I would use, it covers the gamet from pretending to be fighting (bang bang your dead) to pure social (playing house).

The "game" aspect ist pretty easy to explain...
... but it is hard to explain to someone WHY exactly one does this "pretend-thingie" ("Like playing 'Cops'n'Robbers'? We are no 5 year-olds anymore, bub") and so far this is the best explanation I have encountered.

You could probably apply John Morrows "experience"-tack, except I think it sounds so hokey I'm keep thinking about petitioning the Pundit to change the name of this channel (from "Game design and theory" to "Let's all hold hands, sing and tell each other we are all special in a way"). :haw:

@ all:

Quote from: John MorrowWell, given how bad mental math skills seem to be getting over the years (I'm still amazed at schools giving kids calculators), I can see where doing basic math in your head or having to use a calculator to add up modifiers could be a show stopper.

When he said that the "game" part was the difficult part, I think Clash meant that explaining to a non-rpger why we need rules for roleplaying is the difficult part, and/or getting the rules right for the kind of roleplaying you'd like to do is difficult.

That's what I've found in describing rpgs to non-rpgers. When I describe what happens at the game table, with characters and adventures and choices, that all makes sense to them. But then they ask, "yeah, but that's a big pile of books, why do you need all those rules for that?" If I point them to some rules-light game, they say, "why do you need any rules."

I usually give them HeroQuest's thing of how when you're watching a movie or reading a book, part of the fun of it is not knowing what'll happen next, and that since with an rpg session you control what happens next, to have the same uncertainty you need rules and dice, but... well, it doesn't usually convince them.

Really it's just one of those things you have to see or experience to "get."