Quote from: Phillip;623598Again? Yes, I agree that there is a useful distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand.

In other words, am I playing the role of Hawkeye, or the role of James Fenimore Cooper?

Alright.

Quote from: Phillip;623516Is it not then legitimate (...) for someone to say, "I'm role playing subset x of the world, hence I am playing a role playing game?"

I think it is possible to play a game where you would effectively and actually "role play a subset of the world", as opposed to managing a device or set of devices in a story-as-it-is-being-built as an author. How exactly this type of game would be different from an actual wargame with a referee, where you take charge of a part of the world (an army or faction(s) on the battle field) and have one particular player adjudicate edge cases (the referee) would be interesting to consider. I guess that playing a role playing game like D&D and managing several characters at once, like one or two main player characters plus the retinue, henchmen, hirelings, bearer all at the same time in the dungeon might qualify in that sense. You can immerse in one character at a time and switch between them just like a GM would do with NPCs. In that sense, there would be immersion and role playing, yes.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623600He asked about dice, and how they were related to roleplaying games. (Suggesting they weren't. At all.)

I was answering that specific (kind of silly) question... which is why I mentioned dice, and only dice.

"Where do dice come in?"

"They're part of the 'game'."

See?

Check that question before you disagree with my answer.

Fair enough, I didnt follow the plot of the thread that far back.

QuoteLike "assault rifles", "improv", and "hacking", the terms arose in other communities, and exist no matter what RPG'ers think. There's a lot of confusing terminology other subcultures/endeavors use.

You use the jargon, or you sound ignorant.

I don't think thats necessarily true, when it comes to transposing the jargon from one hobby/online community to another though.

Quote from: TristramEvans;623605Fair enough

Apparently my edit arrived too late.

I erased the original answer, and was going to respond when I could act like a human being, and not a snark- and irritation-driven robot.

Can we take it as read I would have given a much more pleasant answer tomorrow? Similar in substance, but not so short-tempered.

Anyway, that's what I meant to do.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623607Apparently my edit arrived too late.

I erased the original answer, and was going to respond when I could act like a human being, and not a snark- and irritation-driven robot.

Can we take it as read I would have given a much more pleasant answer tomorrow? Similar in substance, but not so short-tempered.

Anyway, that's what I meant to do.

No worries man. I just accept snark as the standard mode of address here on the RPGsite, to the point I'm sure my posts often come across as way more hostile than necessary, but I don't hold it against anyone here. Its the adult swim

I'll try and put in 2c though I admit to having no familiarity with HeroQuest. Judging just from the example, I'm not seeing the player having much or any input into the 'story' - although what Soviet says a bit later about 'negotiating stakes' with his ranger raises some red (orange? ) flags.
If that's the case the player isn't being forced into an OOC perspective in a non-immersive way - although I doubt the game would 'feel' very real to me, with everything being structured around plot events, and if characters can't judge difficulties in advance without knowing what the plot expects of them...?

It looks like in effect the game is a railroading tool where the GM has carte blanche to reset task difficulties to whatever suits his plans, without having to worry about plot derailment due to task difficulty being unexpectedly high/low or other rules getting in the way.
I'm not sure it would properly be called illusionism - that would be where the players don't know what's going on.

Actually, in Law's and Soviet's defense, I said "don't quite agree."  It's very clear that the GM is NOT Roleplaying the world.  The GM is constructing narrative with a specific eye towards RPGs as a form of literary medium.  He's creating an artifice for the entertainment of the players just like Shawn Ryan makes TV shows for the entertainment of the audience.

However, Robin also gives advice on how to not run it that way, but tells you, you're basically gonna have to rewrite some rules.

Also, whether or not the GM is creating narrative or not, doesn't speak directly as to whether the player is or not.  It's pretty clear I think from examples from the Heroquest book that there's a lot more then just IC decisions going on there, especially in the "Resolution Point" system that allows for extended narrative-based social combat in a conflict-resolution style.  However, I won't argue the particulars of HQ for the players here, I'll do that in another thread.

Quote from: estar;623564Are the actions of the players as their characters adjudicated by the referee?

Quote from: soviet;623566As I understand you, yes. But you might want to expand on that a little to make sure we're on the same page here.

1) Do the players of the game play individual characters?
2) Is there one person designated as the referee?
3) Does the referee describe what the players see?
4) Do the players tell said referee what their characters do?
5) Does the referee adjudicate the results of their actions?
6) Jump to #3 and repeat.

It really not that complicated.

Hehehehe, I am imagining playing a mercenary in Dangerous Journeys.  Now I am pretty damn sure it is a roleplaying game, because the dude that created D&D also created DJ and he calls it a roleplaying game.

There my mercenary is, all beat up and bleeding fleeing from some Necropolis nasties.  As a player, I know my dude is going to be gacked.  But hey, I spend a Joss and my faithful steed just happens to be in the next gully and my mercenary can escape to freedom.

Everyone at the table stares at me in aghast.  "We are supposed to be roleplaying!  What the hell are you doing?!!!!  NARRATIVE!!!!!!"

Quote from: estar;6236471) Do the players of the game play individual characters?
2) Is there one person designated as the referee?
3) Does the referee describe what the players see?
4) Do the players tell said referee what their characters do?
5) Does the referee adjudicate the results of their actions?
6) Jump to #3 and repeat.

It really not that complicated.

Yes to all, not only for HeroQuest but also for other storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel and Other Worlds.

Quote from: soviet;623650Yes to all, not only for HeroQuest but also for other storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel and Other Worlds.

Note second proviso of my OP about player ONLY able to actions that their character could do. Spending plot points, etc, is not emulation but a meta-game mechanic.

The deal is that games can and are hybrids. RPGs came out of wargames and still share many elements with that category of games. From the 70s onwards there were a lot of hybrid wargames-rpgs. The same thing has happened with storygame-RPG hybrids.

The more meta-game mechanics the game has the less of a tabletop RPG it is. Meta game mechanics that have nothing to do with emulation of a character. One type of meta-game mechanics turns the game to into a wargame another into a storygame depending on their focus.

Quote from: estar;623655Note second proviso of my OP about player ONLY able to actions that their character could do. Spending plot points, etc, is not emulation but a meta-game mechanic.

The deal is that games can and are hybrids. RPGs came out of wargames and still share many elements with that category of games. From the 70s onwards there were a lot of hybrid wargames-rpgs. The same thing has happened with storygame-RPG hybrids.

The more meta-game mechanics the game has the less of a tabletop RPG it is. Meta game mechanics that have nothing to do with emulation of a character. One type of meta-game mechanics turns the game to into a wargame another into a storygame depending on their focus.

So WFRP 1e and D&D 4e are hybrids, one with storygaming and one with wargaming I guess? (I'm thinking here action points, dailies, etc). Are Vampire (willpower) and Cyberpunk 2020 (luck) also hybrids? What about barbarian rages in 3e? Or taking ten?

I'm not trying to catch you out here. But it seems to me that metagame mechanics are pretty widespread even among what we would call traditional RPGs. To the extent that I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against. For some people, sure, that's the best kind of RPG. But not definitionally, not for everyone. Otherwise logically D&D itself is less of a pure RPG than freeform is (due to the faint metagame effects of any kind of mechanics, even in-character POV ones).

Joss in Mythus is absolutely a metagame mechanic.  In the examples described in the book, it runs the gamut from "get a better roll" luck, to full-blown narrative style world-editing.

The reason Mythus isn't a Storygame however, is that if I remove Joss entirely from the game, the core constructs and rules structures are not metagame, are completely associated, and are totally unaffected by the removal of Joss.

Dungeon World could be a Roleplaying game with 100% associated mechanics.  All you would need to do is write the moves with that focus and introduce randomness for the "succeed with consequences" range, so the player isn't choosing consequences the character could not possibly be aware of, let alone choose.

Quote from: soviet;623664So WFRP 1e and D&D 4e are hybrids, one with storygaming and one with wargaming I guess? (I'm thinking here action points, dailies, etc). Are Vampire (willpower) and Cyberpunk 2020 (luck) also hybrids? What about barbarian rages in 3e? Or taking ten?

I'm not trying to catch you out here. But it seems to me that metagame mechanics are pretty widespread even among what we would call traditional RPGs. To the extent that I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against. For some people, sure, that's the best kind of RPG. But not definitionally, not for everyone. Otherwise logically D&D itself is less of a pure RPG than freeform is (due to the faint metagame effects of any kind of mechanics, even in-character POV ones).

One single non core mechanic out of hundreds does not a hybrid make.  WFRP1 had one metagame narrative mechanic Fate Points, again something you can cut and the other 99.99% of the game runs exactly the same and is not metagame.  4e was dissociated tactical metagame for a significant portion, if not the majority of the rules, a definite wargame hybrid.

A) Player can change the game world via desire.

B) Character can change the game world via abilities.

There is an A.5 however.

Talking more broadly, for the record, if there was a clear labeling of narrative games versus tactical skirmish games versus traditional simulation/immersive games versus whatever else, I would be very happy. I would be even more happy if people stopped trying to change traditional classic role playing games and re-make them into something else. If those two things happened, I'd be cool with that.