Seems to me, as far as I'm following things, the discussion is far more productive in terms of roleplaying mechanics and storytelling mechanics than in terms of roleplaying games and storytelling games.

Things appear to get even muddier when no mechanics are even required to add storytelling elements to a roleplaying game.

Player "Hey DM, it would be cool if there was a lizardman village in the next hex.  I could use that potion of reptile control my dude's been carrying around."

DM "You see a wild-eyed shepherd coming up the road screaming that the lizards got his herd."

Quote from: Benoist;623672I 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.

Wait, what?  There's folks going around breaking into houses and scribbling up their books?

Scribble all you want in the 2nd edition AD&D, but leave me 1st edition hardcovers alone!

Quote from: Old One Eye;623676Wait, what?  There's folks going around breaking into houses and scribbling up their books?

No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.

Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.

Damn 3 point shot!  :mad:  And the bastards are still calling it basketball.

Yeah, I know where you are coming from and agree with you to a significant extent.  I'm just being stupid trying to get my mind off the fact that my wife is late getting home, doesn't have her cell with her so I can't call, waiting, waiting, waiting.

Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.

The way the Prisoner "re-imagining" stamps on the heart of the original by replacing Patrick McGoohan's struggle against authority with Jim Caviezel stalking moodily through a desert and occasionally falling down a hole?

Quote from: Old One Eye;623648Hehehehe, 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!!!!!!"

Narrative? Or just strategy? Where's the bat-penis expert when we really need him?

If we were "pure role-players" . . . we'd be LARPers or something, I guess.

It sure ain't role-playing you're doing when you spend hours generating the game data for your DJ Heroic Persona, is it? Who in real life gets to know -- much less choose -- all those details?

It was different in Gygax's original D&D books. Roll up your character? HA! The referee did that for you. Keep your grubby hands off the dice, even before the imaginary cameras start rolling.

All the world's indeed a stage
And we are merely players
Performers and portrayers
Each another's audience
Outside the gilded cage

Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.

To some extent, I felt that this has always been true, and is a strength of the game.  D&D games vary hugely in what the game play is like - with one group's game being basically a wargame of moving your miniatures around on his fancy dungeon map; while another group's game is all talking and intrigue with nobles in a fantasy kingdom; while another group's game is gonzo comedy with lasers and mutants.  Besides the content, in my experience groups would vary the rules an enormous amount.  

Going back to 4e, what if instead of calling it "4th edition" - WotC had developed exactly the same game design but released it with a slightly different title?  For example, maybe they call it "Dungeon Wars", but otherwise the marketing is pretty much the same.  Would you still consider it an invalid change to the game?

Quote from: jhkim;623728To some extent, I felt that this has always been true, and is a strength of the game.  D&D games vary hugely in what the game play is like - with one group's game being basically a wargame of moving your miniatures around on his fancy dungeon map; while another group's game is all talking and intrigue with nobles in a fantasy kingdom; while another group's game is gonzo comedy with lasers and mutants.  Besides the content, in my experience groups would vary the rules an enormous amount.  

Going back to 4e, what if instead of calling it "4th edition" - WotC had developed exactly the same game design but released it with a slightly different title?  For example, maybe they call it "Dungeon Wars", but otherwise the marketing is pretty much the same.  Would you still consider it an invalid change to the game?

Well, the marketing couldn't have been the same, since the marketing was telling us that "zee game remains zee same" at the same time as telling us that every version up to now was total shit and this will be better.

If you mean "what would happen if they released as "D&D Battles" or something, a different game using the same IP just like Wrath of Ashardalon is...they'd probably still be selling it and 3.5e and Paizo would have folded years ago.

D&D is not a "Coherent" system, never has been.  Any version that attempts it is going to split the clans, not unite them.

Just like if FFG had kept expanding WFRP2, and then released "Warhammer Stories" or something, a different game in a different timeline, where the whole point was playing the lead up the Storm of Chaos, then ending, they'd still be selling both.

Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about...

At any moment, Benoist is likely to break out funky dice

or power cards

and nobody has any warning?

Quote from: Phillip;623733At any moment, Benoist is likely to break out funky dice

or power cards

and nobody has any warning?

Holy crap.

For a second there, I had to wonder what those cards were.

Then it dawned on me. That's D&D.

Truly D&D 4e was D&D: The Gathering.

What a pile of shit.

Quote from: Warthur;623427How is this in any way a narrative mechanic?


Well, er, not really, the way I see it is that the NPC was always there but we didn't bother detailing who they were and what their relationship was to the PC because it never became relevant. It might be news to us that your character has a contact in the police but it's not a new feature to the setting to posit that there is a thing called the "police" and some members of this organisation befriend people from outside the organisation, or that the player character has a range of contacts in different organisations whose specifics we're leaving undefined for the time being.


Personally I'd say it wouldn't be narrative if it were something you could legitimately expect to find in the location in question without too much trouble. If you're in a restaurant which serves wine and it's the right time of the evening you can grab a wine bottle without that much effort at all; if you're in a crowd at a funfair there's going to be small children around. As a GM, I'd say that if I've told you that your character is in a bar, then you don't need to ask me whether there's glassware to hand because dude, it's a bar, you're not inventing new details because the details in question are implicit in the situation I've already described.

I will leave 3 because I agree with you but was told that is was on teh edge of narativist.

points 1 and 2 both create NPCs. The fact that the NPC was always there but we didn't detail them is exactly the same thing story games say when you spend a plot point to create a contact that knows the big bad or to find a notepad left by the evil henchman that has a clue tot eh location of the secret base. Both examples assume that the thing was always there just not previously detailed referenced.

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

Can the players only effect the setting as their characters?

If the answer is yes to both then it is a roleplaying game. If it is no to either then it is a hybrid. If it is no to both then it is something else.

The trouble is though that the set of pure RPGs by your definition would be tiny.

If I can spend a background point to add a contact or a henchmen or a pet or vast wealth I am changing the game world outside my character.
Even if you were adding a caveat that said 'outside of the character creation process' (which weakens the clarity of your defintion) then all games with heropoint style mechanics or games that allow you to set stakes etc are hybrids.

What I have been saying from the start is that 90% of RPGs are hybrids so the distinction is moot.

Quote from: Benoist;623561It's kind of a backhanded way of saying I'm not being reasonable when I'm making a distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand (role playing games) and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand (story games). I can't agree this is being unreasonable.


Narrative and/or story-telling game works fine for me, because it actually means what it says: you collaborate to a narrative building exercise, and the aim of the game is to build a nice story. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.

A role-playing game, to me, implies the act of playing a role, and thereby, the act of immersing yourself into a world and seeing it through the eyes of your character.

Now as we've discussed it billions of times now, these are to me two different categories of games, like role playing games are distinct from wargames, but there are, just like in the case of wargames and RPGs, games which mix role playing with a little narrative building and vice versa. The problem for guys like me is that at some point, the presence of the underlying logic of narrative building and the use of narrative-oriented rules will just impede on my ability to immerse myself in the world and role play my character effectively, because I will be pulled constantly by the game's rules into the position of a guy building a story as an author instead of being that character in the game. That's where it ceases to be a role playing game, as far as I'm concerned.

Now that process I just explained to you is not "unreasonable," and it's not just a function of "game preferences" - I can play games that have narrative mechanics, including story games, if I am so inclined. Less often than traditional role playing games, perhaps, but I don't have a thing against the concept of a game where you'd build a story. Once Upon A Time is a great game, after all. It's a matter of a factual change in my stance as a player when I am playing these games, and since my practical experience of what's going on around the table changes, I consider them two distinct types of games.

See Ben your view is totally fine but the point is its your point of view.

I don't like Troupe play. I don't want to be incontrol of multiple characters if I am a player at the table. Its a bit of a game breaker for me and one of the reasons we stopped using hirelings very early. To me I know what I know if I have a loyal henchmen the DM should play him because only then is our relationship valid to me as a player. If I control the henchmen entirely I will know to much about their motivation, loyalties, true intent etc.

Now that is no issue for lots and lots of players. So I would never insist that we set up a special category called 'Troupe' RPGs and put Ars Magica firmly there and then start arguing that D&D should expunge all of its troupe type rules round henchmen or rename itslef a Troupe RPG. That woudl be ludicrous in the extreme.

The same thing applies to narative mechanics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623729If you mean "what would happen if they released as "D&D Battles" or something, a different game using the same IP just like Wrath of Ashardalon is...they'd probably still be selling it and 3.5e and Paizo would have folded years ago.

Right.  "D&D Battles" or "Dungeon Wars" - but it isn't a board game - it is exactly the same game as D&D4 released.  I take it you would have been fine with this.  

Out of curiosity, what if WotC created "D&D Battles" - and also stopped supporting D&D3.5e themselves and instead negotiated a deal with Paizo for Paizo to handle the line?  So this would be almost exactly the same situation we have now, except that WotC would be getting a share of the Pathfinder/D&D3.75e profits.  

Would that also be fine?

Quote from: 1989;623734Holy crap.

For a second there, I had to wonder what those cards were.

Then it dawned on me. That's D&D.

Truly D&D 4e was D&D: The Gathering.

What a pile of shit.

Hehehe its only on a card.
Its the same rule as in the rule book just in a different format.
If the rule book in on a ipad in PDF format doesn't make it a computer game.

It's just a way to make mugs buy more of your crap.