Quote from: noisms;570425Can you name a single game where this is the case? Where a story game seems to masquerade as a traditional role playing game and hence confound people's expectations? Because I think this is a mythical scenario. Most "story games" make it fairly clear what they're about. And let's not forget they are usually played by only a tiny portion of die-hards anyway.

I fully agree with this. Every time I read osmeone claiming  about attempts of "subversion" of the RPG hobby I winder how is that possible when many story-games go out of their way to say that they're not like other RPGs. And the only storygames who don't is because they play like fucking RPGs, as Sorcerer, Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard.

Quote from: noisms;570444There is absolutely nothing "cowardly" about recognising this. "I know it when I see it" is good enough for plenty of definitions in a variety of legal settings, after all - and if we allow judges discretion in how they interpret terms, I hardly think we are bring about the apocalypse of the hobby if we do the same for its participants.

Very well put. That is why the distinction is irrelevant for me: 99% of the time all play the same way, producing similar experiences. And if the few that don't, I can't see how that is bringing the hobby down.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;570238Would you agree that Diplomacy, Arkham Horror, and Clue are roleplaying games? They fit the literal interpretation of this definition. Can the concept of "in-character decision" needs to be clarified in a way which distinguished the decisions of Arkham Horror from the decisions of Call of Cthulhu?

Good point.

By "in-character decision", I mean a decision taken by the player in accordance to the mindset of a character he's playing.

This means that, if at any point in a Clue game, you take an action motivated not by your intention to win the game, but because "Colonel Mustard would never do that", then yeah, you're roleplaying.

The rules don't support this, and in fact, taking decisions under the guise of roleplaying a character is likely to be detrimental to your performance at any game with victory conditions; while in role-playing games, it is pretty much the whole point of the game.

Quote from: rabalias;569783*googles adult swim* *remains faintly bamboozled*

TheRPGsite isn't the kiddie pool - take the slings and arrows in stride, give as good as you get, and you'll fit right in.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;570527TheRPGsite isn't the kiddie pool - take the slings and arrows in stride, give as good as you get, and you'll fit right in.

LOL! And to think all this time, I've been having what I thought were adult discussions. How silly of me - what I've really been waiting for all this time is an opponent who feels ok to insult me!

Sarcasm aside, thanks for the welcome. I think I'll judge for myself whether I'm dealing with kiddies or not, on  case by case basis.

Quote from: rabalias;570725And to think all this time, I've been having what I thought were adult discussions. How silly of me - what I've really been waiting for all this time is an opponent who feels ok to insult me!

Slinging insults is par for the course on any forum - but here, the moderators have better things to do than wag their fingers at you for it.

I suppose 'no lifeguard on duty' is a better analogy than the kiddie pool.

Quote from: rabalias;570725I think I'll judge for myself whether I'm dealing with kiddies or not, on  case by case basis.

Again, you'll do fine here.

From John Morrow's comments on the origins of D&D and hence roleplaying comes a fairly telling reason why its questionable to call shared narrative games RPGs:

Quote"We had to change it almost after the first weekend. Combat in Chainmail is simply rolling two six-sided dice, and you either defeated the monster and killed it … or it killed you. It didn't take too long for players to get attached to their characters, and they wanted something detailed which Chainmail didn't have. The initial Chainmail rules was a matrix. That was okay for a few different kinds of units, but by the second weekend we already had 20 or 30 different monsters, and the matrix was starting to fill up the loft.

I adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army. They didn't care if they could kill a monster in one blow, but they didn't want the monster to kill them in one blow."

So Arneson claimed that the problem with Chainmail was that it was hard to keep adding to the troop types on the matrix so he scrapped it, bringing in rules he's used to simulate… Ironclads. The purpose wasn't realism but because the players didn't want their characters to die in one blow, and that still seems to be the purpose of hit points (and all of the whining about save-vs-death effects) -- players want ample warning to run away before their characters die.

This right here is the point where we see actual roleplaying starting to emerge largely out of the ether. Top down third person shared narrative games on the other hand have come full circle back to wargames. That's what Ron managed to achieve after years of thought, deep debate, and starting his own movement: he reset the clock back to the 19th century.

So much for avant garde cutting edge theory.

Quote from: The Traveller;578270From John Morrow's comments on the origins of D&D and hence roleplaying comes a fairly telling reason why its questionable to call shared narrative games RPGs:

This right here is the point where we see actual roleplaying starting to emerge largely out of the ether. Top down third person shared narrative games on the other hand have come full circle back to wargames. That's what Ron managed to achieve after years of thought, deep debate, and starting his own movement: he reset the clock back to the 19th century.

So much for avant garde cutting edge theory.

Pfft. The argument is what, that to be a role playing game you have to care if your character lives or dies?

First, you're just begging the question. You're arguing for a conclusion assumed in the premise.

But secondly, I'm pretty sure anybody who has played role playing games knows that trying to make a distinction between "traditional role playing games" and "shared narrative games" on the basis of character death just doesn't hold water. Let me ask these two questions:

a) Have you ever played a shared narrative game in which you didn't care about the characters and what happened to them?
b) Have you never played in a so-called traditional role playing game in which a character's death was seen as fitting and appropriate in the circumstances and an emotional pay-off outside of the in-game effects?

Unless the answer to both those questions is yes, then the argument is entirely unconvincing even on its face, setting aside the fact that it is logically incoherent.

Quote from: noisms;578273setting aside the fact that it is logically incoherent.

Did we not already have a discussion about you using words you didn't understand?

Its a straightforward fact, there's no real argument to be had here. Shared narrative games have more in common with ye olde wargames than roleplaying games; the main difference being the goal is to write a plot rather than outmaneuver an opponent.

What makes RPGs different and new is that bizarre personal relationship with an imaginary character, that's the RP part. I don't think from the sounds of it that the originators expected it to happen, they didn't set out to invent RPGs, reacting with rule changes rather than trying to develop the behaviour aforethought.

Diluting the experience with multiple characters and an overarching shared narrative is moving away from what makes RPGs different, moving instead backwards towards good old fashioned Kriegspiel. It matters not at all whether its as impersonal as chess or minor differences for a few people, its the wrong direction if you're trying to roleplay.

Forge theory is far more akin to a religion than anything of real use to the hobby.

Quote from: The Traveller;578277Did we not already have a discussion about you using words you didn't understand?

Its a straightforward fact, there's no real argument to be had here. Shared narrative games have more in common with ye olde wargames than roleplaying games; the main difference being the goal is to write a plot rather than outmaneuver an opponent.

What makes RPGs different and new is that bizarre personal relationship with an imaginary character, that's the RP part. I don't think from the sounds of it that the originators expected it to happen, they didn't set out to invent RPGs, reacting with rule changes rather than trying to develop the behaviour aforethought.

Diluting the experience with multiple characters and an overarching shared narrative is moving away from what makes RPGs different, moving instead backwards towards good old fashioned Kriegspiel. It matters not at all whether its as impersonal as chess or minor differences for a few people, its the wrong direction if you're trying to roleplay.

Forge theory is far more akin to a religion than anything of real use to the hobby.

More question begging.

Quote from: noisms;578273a) Have you ever played a shared narrative game in which you didn't care about the characters and what happened to them?

Yes. A friend of mine just cannot shut the fuck up about HeroWars/Quest. How it's so awesome and shared narrative and blah blah blah. Playing the game just puts me in an author's stance and frankly, from there, I don't care much about my or other characters in the story. They are constructs used to fulfill the premise of the game, which is to build a narrative together.

Quote from: noisms;578273b) Have you never played in a so-called traditional role playing game in which a character's death was seen as fitting and appropriate in the circumstances and an emotional pay-off outside of the in-game effects?

Yes, but that isn't the point of a role playing game. The point of a role playing game is to allow you to experience the game world as though you were there as your character. In that context, there's no such thing as a death "fitting and appropriate to circumstances", it just happens, like it does in RL. There might be such a thing as an emotional pay-off from the player's stance, but it is a secondary effect, a consequence or afterthought, of the death happening in the game, and not a concern that affects the events unfolding themselves.

You can keep on denying our experiences and believe that we're just making this shit up just to annoy you, but that's not exactly conducive of mutual understanding. I get that you don't see a significant difference between those two things and it boggles your mind that someone might actually care about that to the point the two types of games become enjoyable for two completely different reasons. But just because you have not experienced this, or are convinced -and this is evident to me from the way you phrased your second question above- that an RPG is in effect a "shared narrative" with a purpose to "build a story where fictional constructs intervene at appropriate moments to create emotional pay-offs" doesn't mean that others, who are not construing RPGs that way, are lying to you.

Quote from: The Traveller;578277What makes RPGs different and new is that bizarre personal relationship with an imaginary character, that's the RP part. I don't think from the sounds of it that the originators expected it to happen, they didn't set out to invent RPGs, reacting with rule changes rather than trying to develop the behaviour aforethought.

Diluting the experience with multiple characters and an overarching shared narrative is moving away from what makes RPGs different, moving instead backwards towards good old fashioned Kriegspiel. It matters not at all whether its as impersonal as chess or minor differences for a few people, its the wrong direction if you're trying to roleplay.

I make a distinction between:

1) trying to role-play
2) trying to do pure role-play undiluted by anything from wargames or other games

I think a lot of people are interested in #1 but not in #2.  They're fine with doing RPGs that also have other elements in them - just like some people are fine with playing a board game that uses cards, or a card game that uses dice, etc.

Quote from: jhkim;578387I make a distinction between:

1) trying to role-play
2) trying to do pure role-play undiluted by anything from wargames or other games

I think a lot of people are interested in #1 but not in #2.  They're fine with doing RPGs that also have other elements in them - just like some people are fine with playing a board game that uses cards, or a card game that uses dice, etc.

Sure, you could roleplay a game of poker if you wanted. I'm not saying that experienced RPers can't RP in shared narrative games, of course they can. I'm saying that roleplaying came about due to a fairly unlikely combination of circumstances and people, which while adding to the fun of these games immensely is nonethless quite peculiar behaviour in the grand scheme of things.

So much so that dear old Ron ended up calling it "brain damaged" in his boundless bafflement - unfortunately he never even came close to understanding it, choosing instead to grope around blindly among murky forests of fantastical structures of rules and regulations to try and sidestep the phenomenon. A declaration which incidentally set off uneasy alarm bells in even the most tone deaf of his following.

All of which led Ron et al right back to wargames, entirely unbeknowst to themselves.

The concept of "roleplaying", no matter how many groups attempt to subvert it, is something quite unique. For this reason I agree with the Pundit's often strident stance about where shared narrative games belong. The further from that strange confluence of events you get, the less it makes an appearance, simply put.

Quote from: Benoist;578326Yes. A friend of mine just cannot shut the fuck up about HeroWars/Quest. How it's so awesome and shared narrative and blah blah blah. Playing the game just puts me in an author's stance and frankly, from there, I don't care much about my or other characters in the story. They are constructs used to fulfill the premise of the game, which is to build a narrative together.


Yes, but that isn't the point of a role playing game. The point of a role playing game is to allow you to experience the game world as though you were there as your character. In that context, there's no such thing as a death "fitting and appropriate to circumstances", it just happens, like it does in RL. There might be such a thing as an emotional pay-off from the player's stance, but it is a secondary effect, a consequence or afterthought, of the death happening in the game, and not a concern that affects the events unfolding themselves.

You can keep on denying our experiences and believe that we're just making this shit up just to annoy you, but that's not exactly conducive of mutual understanding. I get that you don't see a significant difference between those two things and it boggles your mind that someone might actually care about that to the point the two types of games become enjoyable for two completely different reasons. But just because you have not experienced this, or are convinced -and this is evident to me from the way you phrased your second question above- that an RPG is in effect a "shared narrative" with a purpose to "build a story where fictional constructs intervene at appropriate moments to create emotional pay-offs" doesn't mean that others, who are not construing RPGs that way, are lying to you.

Fuck off, Benoist. You know very well that I've never said that "an RPG is in effect a shared narrative with a purpose to build a story where fictional constructs intervene at appropriate moments to create emotional pay-offs". If you think that's the kind of game I play, read my fucking blog - the last two are AP reports from the D&D game I run, which are just about as traditional as you can get.

All I'm saying is that your definition of an RPG is arbitrarily and artificially narrow.

Quote from: noisms;578431You know very well that I've never said that "an RPG is in effect a shared narrative with a purpose to build a story where fictional constructs intervene at appropriate moments to create emotional pay-offs". If you think that's the kind of game I play, read my fucking blog - the last two are AP reports from the D&D game I run, which are just about as traditional as you can get.

So ... you do agree that the distinction exists, if I understand you correctly.

And I'm sorry, but I don't do blogs anymore. Not with any regularity, in any case.

Quote from: noisms;578431All I'm saying is that your definition of an RPG is arbitrarily and artificially narrow.

You have not shown to me in any way, shape or form why I should reconsider this definition. All that you've shown to me is that you are really, really pissed off about it, to the point you make me think about this guy:



Don't worry about it. We are all this guy on the internet. Sooner or later.

Quote from: Benoist;578435So ... you do agree that the distinction exists, if I understand you correctly.

And I'm sorry, but I don't do blogs anymore. Not with any regularity, in any case.


You have not shown to me in any way, shape or form why I should reconsider this definition. All that you've shown to me is that you are really sensitive about it, to the point you make me think about this guy:



Don't worry about it. We are all this guy on the internet. Sooner or later.

Nice try. You're the one who started the thread, as a branch from another thread: if anybody is annoyed about people being wrong on the internet around here, it's you.

The point is not that you should reconsider your definition. The point is that you and others should just shut the fuck up about it, because it's an idiotic argument which spoils a heck of a lot of potentially interesting discussion on this site.