Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;564098That's some shit language there, suitable for a Storytelling writing exercise, because "satisfactory conclusion" does not come from the I Am My Guy view of a proper RPG.  It comes from the I'm Sitting At The Committee Table view of a Storytelling product, and proper RPGs have sweet fuck-all to do with any of that Storytelling bullshit.

This sounds more like a problem of you having a very narrow and specific definition of RPGs than anything to do with the flaws of Fiasco. Just chill out and  play the game. Who gives a damn what people call it?

Quote from: TomatoMalone;564184Just chill out and  play the game. Who gives a damn what people call it?

Correct. It's just not a role playing game at all, but if you have fun with it, this is it. Just chill and play.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;563507What's the objective of GURPS?

1) Get The Girl

2) Kill the Baddies

3) Save The Entire Planet!!

...maybe not EVERY game but quite often thats the gist of a game session or campaign.

- Ed C.

Somewhat famous song I borrowed that from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5VDzKSoZUE

Actually, I'd argue that most RPGs are not games but toys, as they do not provide goals, nor endings. Fiasco is more gamey in that sense: It ends.

Quote from: 1of3;564270Actually, I'd argue that most RPGs are not games but toys, as they do not provide goals, nor endings. Fiasco is more gamey in that sense: It ends.

'strooth!  good observation.

Quote from: Benoist;564232Correct. It's just not a role playing game at all, but if you have fun with it, this is it. Just chill and play.

It's not an RPG, but that's fine, because nobody is claiming it is. It's a game in which some roleplaying happens.

Quote from: Ladybird;564294It's not an RPG, but that's fine, because nobody is claiming it is. It's a game in which some roleplaying happens.

Good. We've got an agreement.

Brad's a sensible poster usually, and his Rifts stuff (which is mostly about making Rifts Earth a more coherent and lifelike setting) is excellent and well thought out. I don't get why he's so adamant about Fiasco "not being a game." As others have pointed out, if Fiasco isn't a game, neither are most RPGs I know of.

I only like the beginning setup of Fiasco. The rest, with the dice and choosing to setup or resolve, and the dice calculations to "win," and the cliquish power struggles, just really exhaust me as a game. I hate having to play the table (including its IC and OOC cliques,) as well as I play the characters. That sort of metagaming I enjoy in Jyhad where I'm explicitly trying to play a bastard methuselah.

Basically to win, IME, you kick back and let other players resolve you IC and collect dice to see which direction the meta is placing you in their OOC pecking order. After the first intermission look for where your OOC allies will be, sometimes you can game connections here depending on IC relationships. Halfway switch to deciding resolution and game the players OOC to go with the majority of your dice. Being passive can be a major help here. And towards the end decide resolution explicitly and care not a whit for setting. As long as your char survives, IC is just about cruising to the end.

Collect as many of the same colored dice as possible and hope to roll big. And I HATE that I know that. I don't like playing social backbiting games glazed with a friendly, uncompetitive veneer.

It's almost as bad as playing Once Upon a Time with people metagaming cliques. "Take-backsies" on story connections by claiming card spamming, or nigh-lock out by incestuous group characterization, and general incoherence to drop cards really gets on my nerves. I like Once Upon a Time as a two player game, but anything larger than 3 and it gets aggravating.

I hate having to kick in my social manipulation, even passively, due to imbedded competitive mechanics in otherwise fluffy games. Kicking it in during rpg toys I love because I choose to do so for good immersion and fun characterization. And kicking it in during explicitly competitive games I love because I enjoy the art of The Game with actual stakes. But doing so when I feel I'm on break with beer and pretzels just ticks me off.

Basically, strip out the win conditions from both games and I'd be happy. 1of3's comment about the difference between toys and games really applies here. I'd prefer these games to be toys, instead. Rant off.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;564098GURPS is a toolset, as with HERO and similar products.

You seem to have lost track of your argument: I agree that it's not an RPG.

But your claim that it's not a game remains bullshit.

QuoteGiven that there is a mechanic that defines what it means for your guy to do well--collect dice of the right color like you're a starving piranha--it would be fucking trivial to make it a proper game and state, without reservation: "The objective is to be the one with the most favorable dice." Or something close to that, such as "Have the highest favorable result total.", and tie something useful to it like "The winner gets (X) in the next game." like a lot of games do.

Interesting. You claim that both Heavy Gear and Fading Suns have the explicit goal of "victory for your faction". Can you find explicit language of the type you claim is necessary for a game to be a game in the rulebooks for Heavy Gear or Fading Suns?

Of course not. Because your claim is bullshit.

Quote from: The Butcher;564416As others have pointed out, if Fiasco isn't a game, neither are most RPGs I know of.

To be fair, Brad is now on record claiming that GURPS isn't a roleplaying game.

You can't make that shit up.

Fiasco on desktop? I had one of those once! One of my pens poked my wife in the butt, right at the wrong... Oh! THAT fiasco!

Nevermind!

-clash

i had missed the part 2/finale of the story.  lots of fun watching everything resolve.  

This thread could really use some more definitional arguments. Those are always fun and useful.

I've played one session so far. I had a character. I played that character, though I narrated stuff too obviously because that's how the game worked. I've not got to play it again yet which is a shame, as the game clearly has tons of potential. I tend to find people are more interested in genreifying it whereas my interest is in the non-genre playsets which are so much more interesting.

Great game. Also, if Jason Morningstar is trying to convert people into evil non-rpgs he keeps that way close to his chest. He always comes across to me as a cool guy talking about stuff he finds fun. I have huge time for him. Fiasco sits on my shelf, in the hope I find a way to play it more, and is in fact one of very few indie games to survive my massive rpg book cull. It's one of the very few of them that tries to do something trad rpgs don't already do better in my view (which is the only view I care about when it comes to my purchasing decisions).

Quote from: D-503;569053I've played one session so far. I had a character. I played that character, though I narrated stuff too obviously because that's how the game worked. I've not got to play it again yet which is a shame, as the game clearly has tons of potential. I tend to find people are more interested in genreifying it whereas my interest is in the non-genre playsets which are so much more interesting.

Great game. Also, if Jason Morningstar is trying to convert people into evil non-rpgs he keeps that way close to his chest. He always comes across to me as a cool guy talking about stuff he finds fun. I have huge time for him. Fiasco sits on my shelf, in the hope I find a way to play it more, and is in fact one of very few indie games to survive my massive rpg book cull. It's one of the very few of them that tries to do something trad rpgs don't already do better in my view (which is the only view I care about when it comes to my purchasing decisions).

i'm sorely tempted to pick it up on the off-chance i'll find a group that would enjoy the premise and run with it.  as far as "party game" potential, what would anyone* think would be the max comfortable number of players?  and how long would a game run for?  an hour, two, three?

*anyone that has experience with it, not definition-arguing assholes, that is

Four is a good number if you're all beginners being guided by an experienced player who will play the minor characters.  Three is good if you're all experienced; if the group dynamics give you problems (it's too easy for two people to gang up on the third) try four.  Five is right out and the game doesn't really work with two.

Two hours is about right if everyone's experienced and moving the game along to a swift conclusion.  More realistically, three.  Longer than that and the game's dragging somewhere.

You don't want to play Fiasco with people who tend towards analysis paralysis.  You should be encouraging people to make their decisions quickly and without thinking too much about them.