TheRPGSite

I don't hate storygames.

I can play them, and might like them for what they are.

What does not sit well with me at all is when (1) I expect to play a role playing game and I end up playing a story/narrative game, and (2) when story/narrative mechanics are injected in traditional role playing games I like (such as D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Role play and others), which changes them into something else I do not recognize as an RPG.

Aside of that, I just surprised the shit out of a few regulars of the RPG Site on Facebook because I just picked up Margareit Weis Productions Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Basic Game. Oh yeah. Narrative mechanics, Plot Points and everything. Heck, I surprised myself picking it up today. And I can appreciate it for what it is... whatever that is, whether storytelling game or storygame, I am not sure.

Anyway, yeah. I could play Fiasco and enjoy it. But don't push a game of Fiasco on me when you tell me we're going to play an RPG tonight.

I...feel somehow responsible for this post.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;568910I...feel somehow responsible for this post.

You very much are! It's good though. Makes for a good conversation, potentially.

At first I was like, "whaaa...???"

and then I was like, "ah ha!"

but seriously, can a moderator be banned?

Anyway, I've never really understood the whole, "story game" thing. Maybe because I've never played a Forge game. However, I found the Forge long before I found the RPG site, or even RPG.net, and I found some of the games on there intriguing, if not impossible to actually play.

For example, there was a free game about teenage girls who smoke a lot or something, (I never understood what the point of the game was, other than for fat fucking fucks to pretend they were hot lesbian high school girls) but it had ONE really cool mechanic that I liked; the smoke break. Players could exit play and take a smoke break to discuss their next move. I thought that was pretty neat.

Otherwise, to me, a story game and a campaign are essentially the same; both end up telling a story, that is at least in some part directed by the GM. and if it's not directed by the GM, then why have a fucking GM in the first place?

Quote from: everloss;568927For example, there was a free game about teenage girls who smoke a lot or something

That would be Nicotine Girls (http://www.halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html), by the author of My Life with Master.

Quote from: everloss;568927(I never understood what the point of the game was, other than for fat fucking fucks to pretend they were hot lesbian high school girls)

You say that like it's a bad thing.

So, I don't really get it, because I don't really understand why you think D&D is an RPG but Fiasco isn't. Sure, they use radically different mechanics - to my mind (and I haven't played D&D for two editions, so I may be out of date here) D&D is essentially a wargame, or computer RPG without the computer. Meanwhile Fiasco is essentially an improv game. The focus of the system is on generating crazy antics. But both are equally susceptible to roleplaying, i.e. taking the role of a fictional character.

Am I missing something here? I agree that it's a good idea to let people know what kind of game you're going to run in advance so they don't turn up all stoked for some D&D action and end up playing Fiasco (or vice versa) but I'm not clear why you're defining one as roleplaying and the other not.

Is it violating the membership rules if I laugh salaciously that my title is "junior member"?

Quote from: noisms;568951You say that like it's a bad thing.

Hmm... Before the "Perfect" edition of Panty Explosion was released, early versions of its example-of-play comics started showing up in previews: one (http://atarashigames.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/peinstruct01.jpg), two (http://atarashigames.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/peinstruct02.jpg), three (http://atarashigames.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/peinstruct03.jpg). Lately I've been thinking about purchasing that since it seems conveniently available in deadtree.

Nice OP, Ben.

I can certainly see how expectations play a huge role in the fun you can get of a gaming session. And I agree on one key thing: everyone needs to know in advance (and be cool with) what it's going to happen in the session.

If I am expecting to run an RQ game and my crew asks me to do Universalis instead, I may feel a bit disappointed.

Generally I kind of like to know what I'm getting into on game night. That's not a storygame thing. Fiasco, cool. CoC, cool. What I don't want is to think I'm playing pulp and find it's gritty horror, or think I'm playing a game about exploring the wilderness and discover I'm co-creating the wilderness.

The whole storygame/rpg thing is just one detail among a great many.

Quote from: everloss;568927I never understood what the point of the game was, other than for fat fucking fucks to pretend they were hot lesbian high school girls

You do know that game isn't remotely about that? It's free online, it's not like it would be hard to check or anything.

There's plenty of reasons to have a GM other than to direct the story. To referee the interactions of PCs and world for example.

Also, if you haven't seen fat fucking fucks pretending they're hot lesbian high school girls I wouldn't knock it. It's like watching whales mate. It's a beautiful thing.

Quote from: D-503;568988Also, if you haven't seen fat fucking fucks pretending they're hot lesbian high school girls I wouldn't knock it. It's like watching whales mate. It's a beautiful thing.

:rotfl:

THREADWINNER!!!!

Quote from: rabalias;568964Am I missing something here?

Just dozens of discussion threads we've had about this over the years.

Here, I'll give you a primer: RPGs do not tell stories. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18804)

Quote from: Imperator;568977Nice OP, Ben.

I can certainly see how expectations play a huge role in the fun you can get of a gaming session. And I agree on one key thing: everyone needs to know in advance (and be cool with) what it's going to happen in the session.

If I am expecting to run an RQ game and my crew asks me to do Universalis instead, I may feel a bit disappointed.

Yes, I think that's a key point that matters no matter what particular POVs or opinions are on the topic. That's why I bring up "Session Zero" whenever I can, i.e. just meeting in some social setting and talking about the games, the characters people want to play, agreeing on a setting and feel for the game before it gets launched. Ensures everyone is playing the same game, you know.

Quote from: Benoist;568907I could play Fiasco and enjoy it. But don't push a game of Fiasco on me when you tell me we're going to play an RPG tonight.

Quote from: Imperator;568977If I am expecting to run an RQ game and my crew asks me to do Universalis instead, I may feel a bit disappointed.

Agreed, but I don't think this has much to do with storygame or not.  If I am expecting to GM Amber Diceless and my crew asks me to do AD&D instead, I may also feel a bit disappointed.  

Within my group at least, though, we may well discuss about what sort of rules system to use for a game idea - and these may straddle what people consider to be the divide between story games and traditional RPGs.  i.e. We might talk about starting a superhero campaign, and we'd discuss about whether to use the new Marvel Heroic, or Truth & Justice, or the original Marvel Superheroes RPG.

Honestly I don't really see a difference between Dnd and say something like Fate both are about character archtypes in particular scenarios made by players, the GM or both in concert. Just so I know which like what others have said makes it fine because I know what to expect.

Quote from: Benoist;568907I don't hate storygames.

I can play them, and might like them for what they are.

What does not sit well with me at all is when (1) I expect to play a role playing game and I end up playing a story/narrative game, and (2) when story/narrative mechanics are injected in traditional role playing games I like (such as D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Role play and others), which changes them into something else I do not recognize as an RPG.

Aside of that, I just surprised the shit out of a few regulars of the RPG Site on Facebook because I just picked up Margareit Weis Productions Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Basic Game. Oh yeah. Narrative mechanics, Plot Points and everything. Heck, I surprised myself picking it up today. And I can appreciate it for what it is... whatever that is, whether storytelling game or storygame, I am not sure.

Anyway, yeah. I could play Fiasco and enjoy it. But don't push a game of Fiasco on me when you tell me we're going to play an RPG tonight.

cool story bro

I guess I'm unfamiliar with the concept of someone saying "hey, let's come round my house and do some roleplaying". If I'm going to a game, then I generally know what I'll be playing (Club session-games in the event of a GM being ill being an exception, and usually preferable to no game).

For the last few years I've went to the Student Nationals roleplaying tournament, and I do pick "indie" as my category, so I genuinely have no idea what I might be playing each day (Which leads to me and a friend making jokes for the week before the tournament that I should buy everything I see, in case I need it for my games. A deck of cards? Yep. Beads? Hell yes. Pint of pigs blood? Well, anything's possible, better get one). But this is due to finding it easier to play competitively when player skill, not system mastery, is being tested; I haven't had a duff session yet, but it was also with a group of other players, each of which were coming along for a play session rather than a specific game.

Great post, Ben. Faith in theRPGsite somewhat restored.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;569085cool story bro

The Butthurt is strong in this one.

Quote from: jhkim;569055Agreed, but I don't think this has much to do with storygame or not.

I very much have a problem with the player stance in this particular case. It's got very much to do with whether I am playing a character in a verisimilar world, or whether I am a co-author in control of a character in a narrative, building a story.

I CAN appreciate both. I know I appreciate traditional RPGs very much. I may like some narrative games occasionally. But don't try to sell me one as the other, or try to pretend there's no difference between the two, or tell me I'm delusional if I happen to see one.

Quote from: Benoist;569126I very much have a problem with the player stance in this particular case. It's got very much to do with whether I am playing a character in a verisimilar world, or whether I am a co-author in control of a character in a narrative, building a story.

I CAN appreciate both. I know I appreciate traditional RPGs very much. I may like some narrative games occasionally. But don't try to sell me one as the other, or try to pretend there's no difference between the two, or tell me I'm delusional if I happen to see one.

I would never do any of that but honestly to me the difference is so negligible that it doesn't bother me or I literally can't see a difference when I actually play. Yes as a discussion or theory I definitely understand and see the difference but in real time it just doesn't impact my enjoyment at all.

Quote from: Marleycat;569128I would never do any of that but honestly to me the difference is so negligible that it doesn't bother me

I got that the first time you posted in the thread. Now please understand what you feel, what bothers you, or does not bother you, doesn't have any impact on how I feel, what bothers me, and what doesn't, when I play an RPG, or other related games.

To be crystal clear, I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion about whether my concerns are legit or not, whether you believe there is a difference between RPG and storygames or not. (1) That's not the topic of this discussion, and (2) there's about a zillion other threads on this board, including one I linked in this very thread, where you can do that to your heart's content.

The topic is that, though I do see a difference between RPGs and story/narrative games, I can appreciate the latter nonetheless.

You really need to relax you'll live longer.  First I was saying I support you're position even though I think the position itself is hairsplitting to a degree that is irrelevant to me. But you have a right to that position and it's even the correct position for those that care for that degree of separation.  Second knock off the patronizing attitude towards me it's NOT appreciated.

Quote from: Benoist;568907I don't hate storygames.

You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor!

Take him away!

Quote from: Marleycat;569137You really need to relax you'll live longer.  First I was saying I support you're position even though I think the position itself is hairsplitting to a degree that is irrelevant to me. But you have a right to that position and it's even the correct position for those that care for that degree of separation.  Second knock off the patronizing attitude towards me it's NOT appreciated.

I don't mean to be rude. It's just that there has been dozens of threads on this board talking about the difference some gamers see between traditional role playing games and story games. We've debated the issue over and over again. By now it must be clear that some people don't feel like it's relevant or noticeable for them in play, while others do feel like it is important to them and their enjoyment of a traditional role playing game.

And yet there's always been this assumption, explicit and implicit, coming from some of the people who don't see any difference between a trad RPG and a storygame, that people who do see a difference and don't want narrative and overtly metagame mechanics in their RPGs hate storygames, hate all sorts of games but the role playing games they play. That they just don't want these in their RPGs because they just hate the mechanics, and that's it.

This thread was my way of saying that's not my case. I do like all sorts of games: I like wargames, I like games like Chess or Abalone, I play Trivial Pursuit and Cranium, ... and I could play a storygame too, provided I'm interested in the premise of the game and feel like building a story with friends tonight.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;569138You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor!

Take him away!

(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t157/mostly_harmless5/325px-Darth_Vader_Recruitment.png)

Quote from: Marleycat;569137You really need to relax you'll live longer.  

Eh, is he a wizard? :p

Quote from: Marleycat;569137First I was saying I support you're position even though I think the position itself is hairsplitting to a degree that is irrelevant to me. But you have a right to that position and it's even the correct position for those that care for that degree of separation.  Second knock off the patronizing attitude towards me it's NOT appreciated.

Like Ben I have no problem with shared narrative games as such, even their self anointed designation as RPGs, well that horse left the stable a while back with MMORPGs and CRPGs really, now anyone can whip something up involving sitting on your arse and swords and call it an RPG, if we're being honest. Doesn't mean he's not factually correct mind you, they aren't RPGs.

The reason for all the kerfuffle and indeed the reason for the Pundit is the uniquely objectionable attitude of the narrativangelists.

I have seriously never seen the level of vitriol these people deal out, and I used to be fairly involved in real-world politics, the kind of bizarre peer pressure which itself indicates that something is wrong. Its a most peculiar phenomenon, particularly for such an inoffensive hobby.

The near religious zeal and high levels of cooperation displayed by these types indicates to me there is something seriously fucked up going on here, whether its a variation on mark buy-in, a group needing self affirmation from any available source, or some kind of pseudo-political factionalism. They self identify as not just different, or better, but as morally and socially correct, in the same way that equal rights advocates do.

Unlike said advocates of course they seem to have built up an artificial position and decided that everything else is a morally wrong throwback for no good reason. Beyond the intellectual dishonesty, the insult to people who are actually trying to make the world a better place is not insignificant.

In any case, if someone enjoys shared narrative games without feeling the need to try to hijack the hobby towards whatever end, I have little difficulty with them. Otherwise, we have a problem. And its not a gaming problem, or a theory problem, or whatever, its a people problem. The catpiss men have been replaced by the "staring intently at your left ear while talking to you" men.

I'm not sure if this thread was meant to be an olive branch of sorts, but the problem needs to be identified correctly before it can be resolved, which is where theRPGSite really shines - robust discussion without fear of being banned for going against the groupthink.

Quote from: Benoist;569149I don't mean to be rude. It's just that there has been dozens of threads on this board talking about the difference some gamers see between traditional role playing games and story games. We've debated the issue over and over again. By now it must be clear that some people don't feel like it's relevant or noticeable for them in play, while others do feel like it is important to them and their enjoyment of a traditional role playing game.
And yet there's always been this assumption, explicit and implicit, coming from some of the people who don't see any difference between a trad RPG and a storygame, that people who do see a difference and don't want narrative and overtly metagame mechanics in their RPGs hate storygames, hate all sorts of games but the role playing games they play. That they just don't want these in their RPGs because they just hate the mechanics, and that's it.
This thread was my way of saying that's not my case. I do like all sorts of games: I like wargames, I like games like Chess or Abalone, I play Trivial Pursuit and Cranium, ... and I could play a storygame too, provided I'm interested in the premise of the game and feel like building a story with friends tonight.

We're good Ben, I just want you to remember I was not here for those threads and don't care about them that much because I'm far more casual about gaming and have learned fairly empherically that I'm in the "excluded middle". My actual issue is the patronizing attitude but no worries it's not important enough to ruin the purpose of your thread.  I apologize if I read it wrong.

Benoist,

I totally see where you are coming from. I like all kinds of games myself, and play them when I can. It doesn't matter if it's say Sorcerer or Villains & Vigilantes, I'll give it a shot if it interests me. Some I enjoy, and some I don't. They offer different play experiences, but that's part of why I like to play them.

Quote from: rabalias;568964So, I don't really get it, because I don't really understand why you think D&D is an RPG but Fiasco isn't.

Here ya go:

Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)

Quote from: Benoist;569020Just dozens of discussion threads we've had about this over the years.

Here, I'll give you a primer: RPGs do not tell stories. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18804)

Heh. Perils of joining a new forum I guess.

Having read some of that thread (not all, admittedly) I'd have to say that, while I accept there's a difference here between playing for story, and playing to be your character for the day, I don't really agree that D&D is more conducive to one than to the other. Sure, it doesn't have the same mechanics as Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and nothing like the same mechanics as Fiasco. But I reckon you can play Fiasco to be your character, and I reckon you can pay D&D with a focus on story.

Most importantly for the point I was making earlier, both are games that involve playing a role, so it's kinda hard to argue that one's an RPG and the other isn't. In fact I think you can play D&D without any actual roleplaying happening (i.e. play it like a board game), whereas with Fiasco that's actually impossible; so if one has a better claim to be a "role playing game" it's Fiasco, though of course I'm not trying to argue that D&D isn't an RPG, that would be insane.

At any rate, they're very different kinds of roleplaying games, I don't think anyone would argue with that; and as I say, I agree that there's room to be disappointed if you come expecting one and end up getting the other.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569181Here ya go:

Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)

Nice article. I mean, as a veteran roleplayer I don't really agree with the terminology you're using (as outlined in my previous post) but I can't disagree with the distinction you're making, and it's very well explained in your article.

I'd be interested to know how you'd classify a game my other half has created called When the Dark is Gone (available here for free: http://blackarmada.com/free-games/). It is fully immersive, almost a LARP in fact, but has no mechanics at all for resolving conflicts. None. Nor does it have any story mechanics. In my head it's a story game, but your article made me feel like perhaps you'd classify it as an RPG because it's totally immersive.

Also: WFRP was cited at the top as a proper roleplaying game, but it includes Fate Points, which are essentially a "dissociated" mechanic. Obviously it was Benoist who gave the example so maybe you just disagree on that point - er. What do you think?

Quote from: Benoist;569149I don't mean to be rude. It's just that there has been dozens of threads on this board talking about the difference some gamers see between traditional role playing games and story games. We've debated the issue over and over again. By now it must be clear that some people don't feel like it's relevant or noticeable for them in play, while others do feel like it is important to them and their enjoyment of a traditional role playing game.

And yet there's always been this assumption, explicit and implicit, coming from some of the people who don't see any difference between a trad RPG and a storygame, that people who do see a difference and don't want narrative and overtly metagame mechanics in their RPGs hate storygames, hate all sorts of games but the role playing games they play. That they just don't want these in their RPGs because they just hate the mechanics, and that's it.

This thread was my way of saying that's not my case. I do like all sorts of games: I like wargames, I like games like Chess or Abalone, I play Trivial Pursuit and Cranium, ... and I could play a storygame too, provided I'm interested in the premise of the game and feel like building a story with friends tonight.

That's fair enough, but I think there's a lot of bad faith on both sides of that particular debate: people who like story games are trying to destroy the hobby from within, they're a threat to the entire concept of role playing games, swine, blah blah.

Like you I'm pretty philosophical about games: I'll play anything. I just have a broader definition of what a role playing game is. It means the argument is ultimately about taxonomy and actually excruciatingly pointless at the end of the day.

I came here originally to get away from the GNS evangelists who were dominating other boards with their gibberish - the games they were promoting were largely secondary, it seemed, to convincing you that they were right and you were wrong.

Quote from: GrimGent;568947That would be Nicotine Girls (http://www.halfmeme.com/nicotinegirls.html), by the author of My Life with Master.

yep, that's the one.

Quote from: rabalias;569192I'd be interested to know how you'd classify a game my other half has created called When the Dark is Gone (available here for free: http://blackarmada.com/free-games/). It is fully immersive, almost a LARP in fact, but has no mechanics at all for resolving conflicts. None. Nor does it have any story mechanics. In my head it's a story game, but your article made me feel like perhaps you'd classify it as an RPG because it's totally immersive.

Immersion during play really has nothing to do with whether or not something is a roleplaying game. You can engage in immersive roleplaying while playing Arkham Horror, but that doesn't make Arkham Horror a roleplaying game.

QuoteAlso: WFRP was cited at the top as a proper roleplaying game, but it includes Fate Points, which are essentially a "dissociated" mechanic.

This is addressed in the essay you said you read. Short version: Seeking ideological purity is not necessary. Believing that a lack of ideological purity means that the distinction between STG mechanics and RPG mechanics doesn't exist is like believing that the existence of Reese's Pieces means that there's not difference between chocolate and peanut butter.

QuoteI'd be interested to know how you'd classify a game my other half has created called When the Dark is Gone (available here for free: http://blackarmada.com/free-games/).

After skim-reading the rules, my conclusion is that it is neither. It is, in fact, barely a game at all. It appears to have only three rules:

(1) You need to define and agree on close relationships with two other players.
(2) Write down one agreed upon shared memory.
(3) Once the Therapist calls Time In, always talk in character.

There are no associated mechanics and there are no narrative control mechanics. Therefore, it is neither a roleplaying game nor a storytelling game.

What it appears to be, primarily, is a brief primer describing and encouraging the creation of a semi-specific freeform improv environment focused on creating scenarios around a generalized premise.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;569085cool story bro

Screeching Stalker Strikes!

Quote from: rabalias;569183Sure, it doesn't have the same mechanics as Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and nothing like the same mechanics as Fiasco. But I reckon you can play Fiasco to be your character, and I reckon you can pay D&D with a focus on story.

The question for some people when this kind of thing comes up isn't whether a game can support multiple playstyles or "stances" to use an old term, but whether the mechanics force you into a particular playstyle, particularly games that force you to make decisions from an "out of character point of view(OOC POV)".  For people who prefer to make their decisions from an "in character point of view (IC POV)" whenever possible, the core mechanics of the game making them do otherwise means that for them such a game is fundamentally different from one that does not require the OOC POV.

Quote from: rabalias;569183In fact I think you can play D&D without any actual roleplaying happening (i.e. play it like a board game), whereas with Fiasco that's actually impossible; so if one has a better claim to be a "role playing game" it's Fiasco, though of course I'm not trying to argue that D&D isn't an RPG, that would be insane.

Now we're back to the definition of roleplaying.
If I'm Vince Gilligan and I'm writing an episode of Breaking Bad, and deciding what Walter White is going to do and say: am I roleplaying Walter White?  Am I being 100% true to the character, or am I putting in some lines or scenes where Walter might not be acting true to character but I do it for dramatic effect, because it might make for a good story.
Did Michael Cimino cry when he wrote scenes in The Deer Hunter because he was experiencing the character's emotions?  Robert DeNiro, 20 years after the fact cried when thinking about this character, he had identified with and immersed so deeply into that character. (Now admitted DeNiro is about as pure a Method Actor as there is, but I hope you see the point.)  Directing a character in the story does not necessarily mean you're roleplaying the character.  You could play Fiasco from the POV of a Director, just like I could play AD&D like a videogame.

Most games using narrative mechanics also have roleplaying so that you are caring about the IC POV as well as the story.  Some storygames however, do not, and I'll give them credit as some of them don't call themselves RPGs.

Quote from: rabalias;569183At any rate, they're very different kinds of roleplaying games, I don't think anyone would argue with that; and as I say, I agree that there's room to be disappointed if you come expecting one and end up getting the other.

Some roleplaying games include IC POV, but a large chunk of the game's mechanics are dissociated from the character's point of view to provide a boardgame or cardgame-like tactical challenge.  D&D 4e is one of these types of RPGs.

Some roleplaying games include IC POV, but a large chunk of the game's mechanics are dissociated from the character's point of view for the purpose of dramatic effect, and creating a story.  Some RPGs with narrative mechanics fall into this subcategory.

Some roleplaying games simply function as simulation or "physics engines", so when the character decides to climb the wall, there's a way to figure out whether he succeeds or fails, simple task resolution.  These types of games do not require you to roleplay at all.  However, if your view of roleplaying is IC POV, the simple "physics engine" games provide, by definition, no impediment to IC POV, because they include no mechanics that force a decision from an OOC POV.

Quote from: rabalias;569192I'd be interested to know how you'd classify a game my other half has created called When the Dark is Gone (available here for free: http://blackarmada.com/free-games/). It is fully immersive, almost a LARP in fact, but has no mechanics at all for resolving conflicts. None. Nor does it have any story mechanics. In my head it's a story game, but your article made me feel like perhaps you'd classify it as an RPG because it's totally immersive.

What is the point of this? A teaching tool for psychotherapists?  It seems to require decent knowledge of psychological disorders.

There's not any "game" in this.  I don't know enough about the medium to classify it, but I would suggest you google up Jeepform, that's what this seems more like to me.  It's definitely not a Storygame, there is no creation of Story here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569633Most games using narrative mechanics also have roleplaying so that you are caring about the IC POV as well as the story.  Some storygames however, do not, and I'll give them credit as some of them don't call themselves RPGs.

I think we're agreeing. Most story games are roleplaying games. I'm prepared to accept that some are not, though I struggle to think of any.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569633What is the point of this?

It is a form of structured entertainment for multiple participants, a "game" if you will.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569633There's not any "game" in this.

An odd thing to say. I think we're wasting time debating definitions, but it seems rather arbitrary to say there's no "game" in it.

Dictionary.com: game [geym]
an amusement or pastime: children's games.
the material or equipment used in playing certain games
a store selling toys and games.
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one: the final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge.
the number of points required to win a game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569633I don't know enough about the medium to classify it, but I  would suggest you google up Jeepform, that's what this seems more like to me.

It has a lot in common with Jeepform, I agree.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569633there is no creation of Story here.

You self-evidently haven't read the game if that's what you think. The entirety of the game consists of the players discussing their recollections of dramatic events - practically the definition of telling a story.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569604Immersion during play really has nothing to do with whether or not something is a roleplaying game. You can engage in immersive roleplaying while playing Arkham Horror, but that doesn't make Arkham Horror a roleplaying game.

I guess I misread the essay as referring to immersion as opposed to playing a role. Still, it seems rather arbitrary to say that a game which includes elements of what you call dissociated mechanics isn't a roleplaying game and, indeed, you seem to step back from this at the end of the article by pointing out it's really a spectrum.

QuoteThis is addressed in the essay you said you read. Short version: Seeking ideological purity is not necessary. Believing that a lack of ideological purity means that the distinction between STG mechanics and RPG mechanics doesn't exist is like believing that the existence of Reese's Pieces means that there's not difference between chocolate and peanut butter.

The thrust of your article seems to be that you have to have mechanics that are concerned with character action to be an RPG, and any other kind of mechanics moves you away from being an RPG. I personally agree that there's a spectrum there, and I think that any game which contains a significant element of roleplaying is a roleplaying game. The bit at the end of your article tips the hat to that but hardly takes away from the fact that the article is primarily concerned with separating roleplaying games and story games.

QuoteWhat it appears to be, primarily, is a brief primer describing and encouraging the creation of a semi-specific freeform improv environment focused on creating scenarios around a generalized premise.

Hmmm. Well, thanks for your view. For myself I reckon as per my response to CRKrueger above it is a game, albeit one with little in common with (say) D&D, and indeed since each player plays a character (roleplays) in it, it's hard to get away from the idea that it's a roleplaying game. Similarly see my comments re "story" above.

But it doesn't seem likely that dickering over definitions will get us anywhere. As per my first comment in this thread there are clearly different kinds of game on what is commonly called the roleplaying games market, and it's reasonable to have preferences between them and/or be disappointed if you're expecting to play one and get the other. As to the definition of terms, perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Quote from: rabalias;569674It is a form of structured entertainment for multiple participants, a "game" if you will.

:rotfl:

Welcome to the adult swim, rabalias, and may Gawd save you, if it is right that he should do so.

Notice I said "creation of Story" (cap intended), not "telling a story".  If each character basically retells their own experience, without there being a "shared narration" where we can create and affect each other's stories, or a shared story then it's not really a Storygame.  If there's no way to resolve any conflict, no randomization element at all, no way to win, then it's hard to really call it a game at all.  It's one thing to not possess certain game elements, it's another to have none of them.

By the definition you are using, sex with rules is a game.

Apologies if this borders on threadjacking; Benoist, let me know if you want a different thread for this and I'll be happy to oblige.

Justin, a question:  how many dissociated mechanics does it take to make a game a storytelling game instead of an RPG?  (I feel like I just made a light-bulb joke there.)  I ask because you pretty clearly call out Apocalypse World (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9584/roleplaying-games/apocalypse-world) as being a role-playing game, despite the fact that it has a couple of dissociated mechanics (in particular, the GM can ask the player to choose from a list of broad outcomes based on the player's dice results).

More on-topic, this is why I'm personally unsure of how useful the distinction is:  how does one know where to draw the line?

Thanks!

Quote from: CRKrueger;569762Notice I said "creation of Story" (cap intended), not "telling a story".  If each character basically retells their own experience, without there being a "shared narration" where we can create and affect each other's stories, or a shared story then it's not really a Storygame.  If there's no way to resolve any conflict, no randomization element at all, no way to win, then it's hard to really call it a game at all.  It's one thing to not possess certain game elements, it's another to have none of the.

Well, it's implied (but maybe not stated in the game rules?) that you don't just arbitrarily contradict each other's narratives, but rather that diverging stories are a point of interest and drama. So yeah, there's no way to "win" - but again, see the dictionary definition for why that isn't necessary to something being a game. Same comment applies to randomization, conflict resolution. The game isn't concerned with those things.

QuoteBy the definition you are using, sex with rules is a game.

Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by sex with rules. It sounds like it could be a game, specifically a sex game. Indeed it could even be a roleplaying game. But you'd need to be a bit more specific if you want to reductio me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;569741:rotfl:

Welcome to the adult swim, rabalias, and may Gawd save you, if it is right that he should do so.

Thanks... *googles adult swim* *remains faintly bamboozled*

Quote from: rabalias;569782Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by sex with rules. It sounds like it could be a game, specifically a sex game. Indeed it could even be a roleplaying game. But you'd need to be a bit more specific if you want to reductio me.

"Structured entertainment for multiple participants."
More then one person.
Entertainment.
Structure.

Pretty wide definition of a "game".  If you're leaving out any form of task or conflict resolution or any means of determining success or narrative control, then it's hard to qualify as a game.

Under that definition, sex with predetermined rules is a game, so is battle-rapping.
More then one person.
Entertainment.
Structure.
It's not that that "game" doesn't have all of the usual defining elements of a game, it really has none.

BTW, the fake bafflement technique doesn't go over too well here. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;569792Under that definition, sex with predetermined rules is a game, so is battle-rapping.

Why should that come as a surprise?

Quote from: rabalias;569678Still, it seems rather arbitrary to say that a game which includes elements of what you call dissociated mechanics isn't a roleplaying game

(1) You claim that I wrote this in the original article. I didn't.

(2) I explicitly point out that I didn't write this in the original article; in fact, I wrote exactly the opposite.

(3) You repeat your claim that I wrote this.

I'm willing to continue discussing things with you, but only if you'll do me the courtesy of demonstrating that you are actually capable of reading what I write and responding to it.

For example...

QuoteWell, thanks for your view. For myself I reckon as per my response to CRKrueger above it is a game,

Did you somehow miss the part where I said it was a game?

It is simply neither a roleplaying game (which would have mechanics which require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) nor a storytelling game (which would have mechanics for determining which player possesses narrative control).

What you have here probably qualifies as an improv game. Check out the work of Viola Spolin.

Quote from: soulbro;569765Justin, a question:  how many dissociated mechanics does it take to make a game a storytelling game instead of an RPG?

I think trying to think of this in some sort of quantitative terms is misleading at best. It's just a different form of purity test.

QuoteApocalypse World[/URL] as being a role-playing game, despite the fact that it has a couple of dissociated mechanics (in particular, the GM can ask the player to choose from a list of broad outcomes based on the player's dice results).

We were just discussing mechanics like this in another thread here on RPGSite. Most of the "choose which outcomes you're pursuing" mechanics in AW aren't dissociated.

QuoteMore on-topic, this is why I'm personally unsure of how useful the distinction is:  how does one know where to draw the line?

One easy example is the radical difference in how you prep material for an STG compared to how you prep material for an RPG. And, IME, this is true for every skill involved in playing the games: Narrative control decisions are just fundamentally different from roleplaying decisions.

Drawing the kind of purity-based hard line you're pursuing here simply is not necessary for the distinction to (a) exist or (b) be useful.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;569815Why should that come as a surprise?

Point taken.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569792"Structured entertainment for multiple participants."
More then one person.
Entertainment.
Structure.

Pretty wide definition of a "game".

And yet wider than the dictionary definition I posted above.

QuoteBTW, the fake bafflement technique doesn't go over too well here. ;)

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to. I can assure you there's been no "fake" bafflement on my part. If you're referring to the adult swim reference, you should be aware I'm not from the US so certain references get lost on me. If not... well I'm genuinely not sure what you mean.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569836(1) You claim that I wrote this in the original article. I didn't.

I evidently have misunderstood the point of your article. I guess I got confused by the fact that it is titled "roleplaying games vs. story games" and was cited in response to my original point, which was saying that story games are a form of roleplaying game. It appears I have mistaken you for countering that statement.

QuoteI'm willing to continue discussing things with you, but only if you'll do me the courtesy of demonstrating that you are actually capable of reading what I write and responding to it.

Believe it or not, I read it from start to finish, but haven't been going back and cross-referencing everything I said. I don't usually treat my casual discussions on the internet like a debating contest... sorry about that. I guess this means we can't continue to discuss.

QuoteDid you somehow miss the part where I said it was a game?

It is simply neither a roleplaying game (which would have mechanics which require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) nor a storytelling game (which would have mechanics for determining which player possesses narrative control).

What you have here probably qualifies as an improv game. Check out the work of Viola Spolin.

I was simply pointing out that as (a) a game in which (b) roleplaying happens and (c) stories are told, it seems an odd claim that it is neither a story game nor a roleplaying game.

I tend to agree it could also be categorised as an improv game; thanks for the rec, I may just check it out.

Words don't have "inherent meaning" (take that Aristotle (http://lcnl.wisc.edu/publications/archive/96.pdf)). Definitions live in a context, and when context changes so does the meaning in use for the word being used. Each of the definitions quoted from the dictionary requires a different context to become the "meaning in use".

In Game Design (especially Roleplaying Game Design) it can be important to limit ourselves to specific definitions (to avoid ambiguity with the "general sense" of a word). Scientific disciplines do a similar thing with terms like "energy", etc.

Your Improv-play-system fails the "Game Test" because while the outcome is Uncertain, it's not ultimately Quantifiable. It totally counts as "Play" tho (and there is an important distinction). It's kind-of light on the "Strategies" angle, too (no goals, risks, or rewards are tied to your mechanics).

Quote from: Telarus;556300A Game is a period of structured play (play ~ an activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose). Let us differentiate Game from other forms of Play (Toys, "Pretend", etc).

Games have:

• Agents ~ a list of players and/or their symbolic representations.
• Strategies ~ moves or series of moves governed by rules, that each player may make and the associated goals, risks and rewards.
• Uncertainty ~ the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable but ultimately quantifiable (if we could predict it 100% of the time in advance, why go through the ritual of acting it out, right?).
  

Lacking multiple agents, we have Playthings. Playthings with goals (puzzles, etc) are Challenges. Playthings without goals are Toys. Play with multiple agents but lacking one of the other two aspects also fall outside of Game territory (say a theatrical Play with a script/"goal" but little-to-no uncertainty, or simple "let's pretend" Play with no preestablished goals and plenty of uncertainty).

Now that we have defined Game-space, I would say that:

Roleplaying Games are games where one of the Players (usually labeled the "Game Master" or "Dungeon Master") is given authority to interpret the rules as well as advance the Narrative of Events by describing situations and outcomes and choosing strategies for all NPC Agents (Non-Player Characters). The other Players control an Agent (the "Player Character") and choose their strategies by associating themselves with the in-game representation presented by the GM's fictional narrative and considering the PC's the role in the story, character goals, and resources and game mechanics available to that PC. The usual Uncertainty lies in if the PCs as a group will succeed in the Goal for the current Session of Play (stated or unstated, GM chosen or collaborated upon), while the GM presents opposition without being emotionally invested in the PC's failure. Uncertainty can also lie in the method used to resolve in-game activities by characters, usually by rolling one or more dice and consulting the game's rules.

To get the thread back on topic, I have successfully ran a story game: The Mountain Witch, a game about a group of ronin samurai hired to climb Mt. Fuji and kill the sorcerer who lives on the peak.

I was clear with the group that this wasn't a "game like D&D" and that it involved trading Narrative Control (in fact, the Dark Secret mechanic allows any player to introduce new elements to the story as long as it relates to their dark secret... I.E Players get to "lay pipe" or provide exposition, in script writing terms). Then the GM gets to use that new material to challenge the group.

It's a totally different experience than D&D/Earthdawn/etc, primarily because of the mechanic-focus on who wins narrative control.

One of the players had to leave early the first session (I ran it in two sessions). I (along with some Dark Secret play from the other players) totally killed his character. This isn't that big a deal in The Mountain Witch. Dead characters can still aid or betray others, can still use mechanical resources, etc. The player wasn't used to this, and having left early didn't get to see how it played out. He was kind-of disturbed by what happened to his character, once the "story" of the game was told to him later (my fault, really for not explaining _how_ different it was from D&D until the 2nd session). It turned him off the game, because without the game-rules there to consult.... dead meant DEAD (no narrative control) which made him feel like "he lost".

Quote from: rabalias;569844I was simply pointing out that as (a) a game in which (b) roleplaying happens and (c) stories are told, it seems an odd claim that it is neither a story game nor a roleplaying game.

And it's truly bizarre to claim -- as you are claiming here -- that Arkham Horror, Risk, and Super Mario Bros. are all roleplaying games.

When you use the word "roleplaying game" are you truly thinking of Super Mario Bros.? If not, then you need to revisit your definition. If so, then I think you need to resolve yourself to the fact that your usage of the term simply does not match the way the vast majority of people use and understand the term.

Quote from: Telarus;569865Your Improv-play-system fails the "Game Test" because while the outcome is Uncertain, it's not ultimately Quantifiable. It totally counts as "Play" tho (and there is an important distinction). It's kind-of light on the "Strategies" angle, too (no goals, risks, or rewards are tied to your mechanics).

I agree that under the definition you've supplied, it's probably not a game. Of course, that's your definition. I'm grateful to you for supplying it - it makes the discussion a lo easier - but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I certainly don't see why anyone would accept it above the dictionary definition, which is the normal means to overcome the lack of inherent meaning that you have highlighted.

By way of progressing the discussion, I would suggest, in line with Wittgenstein, that games cannot be strictly defined at all but merely have a family resemblance to each other. Which, of course, means our discussion is essentially empty, as it is a matter of judgement and perception who is right. Some of the characteristics that you have highlighted are commonly the property of games, but not all games. It is therefore inevitable that where something lacks these common properties there is disagreement over where the boundaries lie. As Wittgenstein said:

QuoteWhat still counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never troubled you before when you used the word "game".)

Perhaps the fact that one of the modern eras most famous philosophers was unable to tackle this problem is an indication that, uh, we're on a hiding to nothing.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569916And it's truly bizarre to claim -- as you are claiming here -- that Arkham Horror, Risk, and Super Mario Bros. are all roleplaying games.

For someone who was earlier getting quite annoyed about me claiming that you were saying something you never said, you do a fine line in it yourself.

I am assuming from the quote above that you have misread what I mean by "roleplaying". I assume you are playing off the fact that in Mario Bros you "play" a "role"  ie. that of Mario (or whoever). If I've got that wrong then the rest of what I say in response probably won't make sense.

By "play a role" I mean something along the lines of "put yourself in a character's shoes and say what they say and do what they do, within the restrictions imposed by the game". In a LARP the restrictions referred to are minimal (usually, but not always, no full contact fighting, no use of real weapons, no thrusting with boffer weapons); in a tabletop the restrictions are that you only talk as your character and use the dice to deal with their actions and/or verbally describe them. In WtDiG you are acting out your character entirely, but it's implicit that you won't in fact be punching each other or whatnot (possibly needs stating in the book!).

At any rate, in Super Mario you do not do this. (Well, I don't.) Same with Risk, same with Arkham Horror. As a matter of fact though, I do know someone who has run Arkham Horror as a roleplaying game on more than one occasion. I guess they probably fiddled the rules a bit, but not much; the main distinction was that they were, uh, roleplaying.

It's impossible to try to categorise "role playing game" as distinct from "story game" without a whole load of question begging and special pleading and "yeah but you know what I mean"....As far as I'm concerned that means they are so close to one another that pretending there is a distinction is totally arbitrary: it's a spectrum, with infinite shades between the two extremes. And it varies from group to group as much as it does from game to game, I would imagine.

Following Telarus's lead:

I've played a lot of trad roleplaying games, from LRP to classic tabletop. In the last year or so I've played a lot of so-called story games (Fiasco, Durance, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, Archipelago, Microscope, Apocalypse World).

My experience of the latter has been that some of them really aren't all that different from trad RPGs. Apocalypse World, for instance, has a GM, who does prep in advance to work out the sort of crap he's going to be throwing at the players. The only difference I observe is (by trad game standards) an unusual system and the injunction not to try and work out in advance what is going to happen - something which tends to chime with the way I roleplay, though I admit to having spent hours as a GM trying to figure out the different actions my players might take in advance of the session.

Others though are radically different. The first difference is that they often hand out power traditionally associated with the GM to all the players. Fiasco being a prime example. That's cool for me because I often GM anyway, but could be a struggle for some players I imagine. Having said that I've never seen anyone struggle with it, including people who have never GMed before.

The other difference is the frequent lack of any prep at all. If you'd asked me 5 years ago whether I'd like to run a game without any prep, I would have been daunted. I felt that prep was pretty much the only thing that allowed me to keep my game together. Otherwise I'd go forgetting who my NPCs were, why they were here, and generally messing stuff up. I've been pleasantly surprised at how easy it is to manage this, especially when the power is divided between several GMs (so there's no pressure on one person to be the guy who knows everything).The fact that these games often provide mechanisms to help you remember crap in the form of printed character sheet-esque crib sheets really helps.

So anyway; I'd say I'm equally comfortable with both modes of play. Doing story games has made me lazy though - when I go back to my regular (Dark Heresy) campaign I tend to dread doing the prep that's required, something I used to look forward to. I wouldn't blame my story gaming experiences on that as such - after many years of doing this campaign I was starting to flag anyway - but they do highlight the difference to me. I'll definitely be doing both kinds of roleplaying in years to come.

[Ah, the thread seems to have moved on and I don't want to derail, but I do want to address Wittgenstien and provide some of the references from which I built my definition...Also, noism has a great point... rpgs and story-games are definitely "related"... the author of the below article actually calls out the similarities between "games" and "stories" as one of his points.. but to also draw distinctions between them]

Valid points, rabalais (great nick, btw.. not too many are familiar with Gargantua and Pantagruel now-days). Although I believe he was using the German root "Spiel" which has various context and can be used as "Game", "Play", "Match", "Dalliance", "Acting" or even "Slackness" (Praise Bob!) depending on context. I find that this level of abstraction lines up with the modern meaning of "play" more than the specific type of play we call "games" in english.

Again though, as with scientific disciplines, it is useful to define the term while in the specific context of game design as much narrower than the general sense. I recommend you read this article, as the author goes quite in-depth on the subject (and specifically contrasts the modern term with Wittgenstein's usage). It's 6 pages, tho, so I've only quoted a section.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134922/what_is_a_game_an_excerpt_from_.php

QuoteTreating "what is a game?" as an ontological question will not settle it once and for all, although that is not to say that ontology doesn't have an important role in a philosophical investigation of games. There are in fact some rather crucial questions in the intersection between games and reality -- and particular that nebulous concept "virtual reality" -- that warrant addressing.

For the time being, though, we must set this domain of philosophy to one side in order to undertake a philosophical investigation as to what the unifying concept behind "game" might be given that we can so easily and confidently act as if we know what a game is, despite not actually agreeing on any particular answer to the question "what is a game?"

[snip]

In her 1974 philosophy paper "The Game Game", Midgley became only the second philosopher to tackle the question of "what is a game?" This paper, I'm sad to report, is largely unknown in both philosophical and game studies circles, despite its relevance to the foundational question in the latter domain's area of exploration.

The first philosopher to explore this space, Bernard Suits, initially approached the subject in a 1967 paper actually entitled "What is a Game?" which he later revised and expanded into his 1978 book The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia.

Sadly, Sarah Hoffman (2009) has suggested that among the philosophical community Suits' work remains largely unknown, and Midgley's paper is similarly quite obscure.

This is unfortunate, since Midgley and Suits between them have much to offer that is useful in decoding the game concept, and interestingly both of their approaches involve something of a swipe at another philosopher who is far more well-known -- Ludwig Wittgenstein. Indeed, Thomas Hurka in his 2005 introduction to Suits' The Grasshopper has suggested that Suit's book is "a precisely placed boot in Wittgenstein's balls."

Working towards a deeper understanding of language in his magnum opus, Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein specifically singles out games as an example of what he calls family resemblance. He observes that the vast variety of games -- board games, card games, ball games and so forth -- have nothing specific common between them, but instead are tied together by a series of commonalities and relationships.

He relates this to the way in which members of a family display common traits -- a similar nose, or build, or hair color, for instance. It is precisely Wittgenstein's claim that "you will not see something that is common to all [games]" that Midgley and Suits take task with.

Suit's complaint is that Wittgenstein asks us to "look and see" if there is anything common in all things we call games, but then doesn't do so himself. Suits thus objects that Wittgenstein had "decided beforehand that games are indefinable", and indeed accuses Wittgenstein of believing in the "futility of attempting to define anything whatever".

Alas, Suits seems to have thoroughly misunderstood Wittgenstein's purposes, for despite the explicit reference to games it is a point about language that the Austrian philosopher was trying to make, namely that the way words come to be used does not originate in definitions; definitions are post-hoc justifications for the way words are used, and it is this usage that Wittgenstein insists is the genuine meaning of the word, not any definition we might propose.

Midgley accepts Wittgenstein's main point, but disagrees with his use of family resemblance to characterize the underlying concept. As she noted to me earlier this year (2010), words such as 'game':
"...have neither a single, fixed meaning (which was what Wittgenstein pointed out) nor merely a vague string of resembling meanings (as his idea of family resemblance suggested) but a definite shape, an underlying organic unity which is often mysterious but must be present in the background to account for e.g. their being usable as metaphors."

She observes, indeed, that Wittgenstein is quite dependent upon understanding the word "game" in a particularly subtle way, for without this he cannot make use of his idea of a "language game" which is a central concept in his later philosophy. This is only possible because we do have a general grasp of the concept of a "game" and can thus understand appeals to this concept in a wider context, such as in the case of Wittgenstein's language games.

In "The Game Game", Midgley (1974) draws from the work of Julius Kovesi to develop her argument. Kovesi had very similar issues with the apparent nebulosity of Wittgenstein's concept of "family resemblance", and his argument can be felt resonating in Midgley's paper. In his book Moral Notions (1967), he had been pursuing a rigorous argument counter to the attacks on moral philosophy by A.J. Ayer and G.E. Moore and others that had attained considerable notoriety in the first half of the twentieth century.

Kovesi demonstrated the relationship between needs and concepts by the example of particular kinds of furniture, claiming that provided you understand the need that (say) a chair embodies (i.e. to support a person while sitting), you know what characteristics are relevant in distinguishing a chair from other kinds of objects [Or, as the Buddhists put it, "It ain't a chair while it's on fire" -Tel]. This example generalizes to other cases. As Midgley observes (directly following Kovesi) "in general, provided you understand the need, you know what characteristics to look for. To know what a chair is just is to understand that need."

Thus -- despite disagreements over the details concerning games -- we are all perfectly able to deploy the concept of a game precisely because there is an underlying unity to it. It is because games meet human needs (and, for that matter, animal needs), and because human nature has its own structure, that we can identify what constitutes a game. Those needs that a game meets are precisely what is involved in understanding what the concept 'game' must mean.

One way of exploring our need to play is to dig deep into the biology of the gaming experience.

[snip a fascinating 2 pages worth of how biology interfaces with games]

The anthropologist Thomas Malaby has taken a particular interest in play and games, and has published a number of fascinating papers on the subject (2007, 2009), with particular reference to time he spent studying the role of play in contemporary Greek culture. One of Malaby's key observations concerning games are that they are processes, sustained by human practice. But what kind of process?

He notes that "Games are, at root, about disorder", recognizing a central role for contingency in games, and suggesting that the incredible unpredictability of our everyday experience bridges the gap between games and life in general: games contrive unpredictability, but life is by its very nature always already unpredictable. Contriving contingency is one of the things that games excel at, since games which are readily predictable rapidly become boring.

The element of uncertainty, while crucial, is not the whole of the matter. Malaby (2007) observes that a second crucial aspect of games is their capacity to generate meaning. The many kinds of situation that can occur within a game (including but in no way restricted to the goal states and final outcomes, such as winning) happen in never wholly predictable ways and are "subject to interpretations by which more or less stable culturally shared meanings are generated."

This generation of meaning is a critical aspect of the game experience, and it is thoroughly open-ended. Not only can the way games are played alter within any particular social group, but the meanings that a game can generate can also change.

This appreciation of the meaning of the internal states of games is crucial to understanding the play of a great many games, and particular of digital games. The more complex games are not always undertaken for the sake of winning, even if this forms part of the framework of motivation.

No, what is rewarding in a game is the interpretability of the states the rules of the game throw into the player's awareness. Nowhere is this more clear than with a game like The Sims (Maxis, 2000) or the game I designed with Gregg Barnett, Ghost Master (Sick Puppies, 2003), where a great deal of the player's enjoyment is in the stories they tell about the little people running around on screen.

There is an important connection at this point with stories. Stories too are processes, and like Malaby's games they aim to be compelling or engaging, and possess a characteristic capacity to generate meaning by their internal states. There is a temptation to say that, unlike games, the content of stories is fixed, static -- but this reaction is premature.

Perhaps the most important states generated by a story are the emotional states of the participant --the reader of a book, the viewer of a play -- and these do indeed change, and the meaning of the internal states of the story also change (for instance, upon seeing the end of a movie, we may have a different understanding of what happens in the middle).

Furthermore, uncertainty is central to stories. It is oft said that "stories are about conflict", but this is a gross simplification. True, conflict is a common storytelling device, but there are many stories without express conflicts, such as love stories which rest upon misunderstandings, rags-to-riches tales of outrageous fortune, and adventure stories, all of which sustain the reader's interest by maintaining curiosity.

What is common to all well-regarded stories is uncertainty, the desire to discover what happens next, and conflict (i.e. competition) is just one of many ways that uncertainty can be generated. All this underlines the affinity between stories and games, and emphasizes the connectivity between play and art.

Malaby ultimately defines a game as "a semibounded and socially legitimate domain of contrived contingency that generates interpretable outcomes." This is something of a mouthful... Much of the wording goes to acknowledging that there is a special space that play occurs within -- what is often termed the magic circle -- but that it is porous ("semibounded").

The key point is that games are about contriving contingency to be interpreted. This is also true of stories. It is equally true of many other forms of art that are not expressly narrative in nature; I am unsure how Jackson Pollock's work is to be understood if it is not a form of contrived contingency intended to be open to interpretation.

The perspective on play presented in Malaby's work is refreshingly distinct from the usual tropes in game studies, for Malaby (2009) insists on seeing it not as a state (which would make it just a different aspect of a game) but as a disposition. He asserts, with reference to William James (1961) that "play becomes an attitude characterized by a readiness to improvise in the face of an ever-changing world that admits of no transcendently ordered account."

Malaby thus recognizes that when we play -- in games or in life -- we are adopting a particular attitude towards our activity, one that is fundamentally different from the attitude expected in the formal games of culture (such as the institution of money or bureaucracy) which "aim to bring about determinate outcomes".

Thus, following Malaby, games can be understood as processes that utilize uncertainty in particular ways to create compelling and engaging experiences, while play is best understood as a willingness to improvise in the face of uncertainty. Play is thus an attitude we adopt towards uncertainty, and games processes that may make use of this disposition, contriving, simulating or even suppressing contingency so that we might interpret what results. Paradoxically, games on this reading need not be undertaken in a playful spirit, even though the notion of a game may depend upon an understanding of play.

There are a lot of other great expositions on this (this one comes to mind: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatIsaGame.shtml ). Hope that was an interesting wall-o-text. ;)

Quote from: rabalias;569990For someone who was earlier getting quite annoyed about me claiming that you were saying something you never said...

As I said (but apparently you didn't bother reading again): I'm applying the definition you proposed. If you don't like the implications of that definition you need to change it.

QuoteBy "play a role" I mean something along the lines of "put yourself in a character's shoes and say what they say and do what they do, within the restrictions imposed by the game".

Here, for example, you revise your definition so that an RPG requires spoken words. So Super Mario Bros. isn't an RPG because it doesn't have dialogue. Fair enough.

Risk and Arkham Horror, of course, still qualify as RPGs under your new definition.

QuoteAs a matter of fact though, I do know someone who has run Arkham Horror as a roleplaying game on more than one occasion. I guess they probably fiddled the rules a bit, but not much; the main distinction was that they were, uh, roleplaying.

As you admit here for Arkham Horror.

Which just brings us back to my original point: The current definition you've proposed includes Risk, Arkham Horror, and the anniversary edition of Halo (which includes spoken dialogue as part of the game) as roleplaying games.

You need to either further refine your definition or you need to accept that your definition does not match the way the term "roleplaying game" is used in actual practice.

If you're interested in finding a definition which fits actual practice, my suggestion would be to focus on (a) the difference between a game where players are assigned a particular role (as in Clue) and roleplaying games. And (b) the difference between a game in which players are capable of roleplaying extensively (like Arkham Horror or Knizia's Lord of the Rings) and a roleplaying game.

Quote from: rabalias;569993My experience of the latter has been that some of them really aren't all that different from trad RPGs. Apocalypse World, for instance, has a GM, who does prep in advance to work out the sort of crap he's going to be throwing at the players.

That's because Apocalypse World is an RPG, not an STG. Its mechanics are non-traditional, but almost universally roleplaying mechanics (i.e., in using the mechanics the players are making choices as if they were their characters; the mechanics are associated). And if it has any narrative control mechanics whatsoever, they're minor enough that I don't recall them from my experience playing the game 8 months ago.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;570001As I said (but apparently you didn't bother reading again): I'm applying the definition you proposed. If you don't like the implications of that definition you need to change it.



Here, for example, you revise your definition so that an RPG requires spoken words. So Super Mario Bros. isn't an RPG because it doesn't have dialogue. Fair enough.

Risk and Arkham Horror, of course, still qualify as RPGs under your new definition.



As you admit here for Arkham Horror.

Which just brings us back to my original point: The current definition you've proposed includes Risk, Arkham Horror, and the anniversary edition of Halo (which includes spoken dialogue as part of the game) as roleplaying games.

You need to either further refine your definition or you need to accept that your definition does not match the way the term "roleplaying game" is used in actual practice.

If you're interested in finding a definition which fits actual practice, my suggestion would be to focus on (a) the difference between a game where players are assigned a particular role (as in Clue) and roleplaying games. And (b) the difference between a game in which players are capable of roleplaying extensively (like Arkham Horror or Knizia's Lord of the Rings) and a roleplaying game.



That's because Apocalypse World is an RPG, not an STG. Its mechanics are non-traditional, but almost universally roleplaying mechanics (i.e., in using the mechanics the players are making choices as if they were their characters; the mechanics are associated). And if it has any narrative control mechanics whatsoever, they're minor enough that I don't recall them from my experience playing the game 8 months ago.

Justin, you're admirably defending to the death your entirely arbitrary classification system, but it isn't terribly convincing. Risk doesn't involve playing any sort of role - it's almost entirely abstract: you represent, at best, a faceless and characterless generalissimo, but in most people's game you are simply representing, and represented by, a colour. It is the same for any board game your could mention. Sure, I suppose there are some people who do a little voice for the little hat, or walk the little dog, on the Monopoly board, but in practice most people don't do that and it is totally tangential to the game - and you know it. At best when people play board games they talk about "I" and "me" as if the piece is an avatar of themselves. There is no role being played.

Your introduction of computer games is done in pretty bad faith: "role playing game" has its own meaning in that context and we, in any event, clearly talking about social tabletop games which do not take place through the medium of a computer.

Finally, your analysis of Apocalypse World just shows how empty the distinction is, because you have to resort to special pleading to escape the fact that it could easily fit into either of your categories, as could, really, any traditional role playing game or "story game": more so because it's not even the case that every group plays such games in the same way.

Quote from: Telarus;570000[Ah, the thread seems to have moved on and I don't want to derail, but I do want to address Wittgenstien and provide some of the references from which I built my definition...Also, noism has a great point... rpgs and story-games are definitely "related"... the author of the below article actually calls out the similarities between "games" and "stories" as one of his points.. but to also draw distinctions between them]

Interesting! I doubt that our little discussion here can do justice to the depth of analysis that the article you quoted has gone into. If I get time later on I'll click through the links you provided. I think for now I'll just say thanks for providing some fascinating reading material.

QuoteAgain though, as with scientific disciplines, it is useful to define the term while in the specific context of game design as much narrower than the general sense.

Re "in the specific context of game design", I suppose it depends on what kind of game you're trying to design. Certainly, I know the author of WtDiG put quite a bit of time into thinking about the design of that (I'll keep calling it this for ease of reference, but please don't take it as an invitation to further definitional argument!) game to heighten certain aspects of play and and eliminate others. One way or t'other it doesn't seem to make much difference whether it's a "game" or whether what she was engaged in was "game design" or something else; but certainly those who have played it believed they were taking part in a game.

Quote(great nick, btw.. not too many are familiar with Gargantua and Pantagruel now-days)

Thanks! However, I must reluctantly admit that the source of the name isn't anywhere near as erudite as this... it's take from the WH40K universe, specifically a character I played in it. Maybe the WH40K authors took it from Gargantua and Pantagruel. :)

Quote from: noisms;570011Justin, you're admirably defending to the death your entirely arbitrary classification system, but it isn't terribly convincing. Risk doesn't involve playing any sort of role - it's almost entirely abstract: you represent, at best, a faceless and characterless generalissimo, but in most people's game you are simply representing, and represented by, a colour. It is the same for any board game your could mention. Sure, I suppose there are some people who do a little voice for the little hat, or walk the little dog, on the Monopoly board, but in practice most people don't do that and it is totally tangential to the game - and you know it. At best when people play board games they talk about "I" and "me" as if the piece is an avatar of themselves. There is no role being played.

Your introduction of computer games is done in pretty bad faith: "role playing game" has its own meaning in that context and we, in any event, clearly talking about social tabletop games which do not take place through the medium of a computer.

Finally, your analysis of Apocalypse World just shows how empty the distinction is, because you have to resort to special pleading to escape the fact that it could easily fit into either of your categories, as could, really, any traditional role playing game or "story game": more so because it's not even the case that every group plays such games in the same way.

I don't think I can add much to this, or indeed to Noism's previous post. If there was a +1 button I would be pushing it now.

As it happens, yesterday I purchased the "Varsity Edition" of High School Drama (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/54604/high-school-drama-varsity-edition), which bills itself as "a comedic power structure building game with strong role-playing elements." From later in the rules booklet: "While your main student's attributes are important, you really should pick the student you think you'll have the most fun playing, since getting into character and role-playing your actions and reactions is what makes HSD the most fun." For the record, strictly from the mechanical point of view the available characters with the highest attribute totals in the game are Cheerleader and Goth Chick.

(While looking it up on BoardGameGeek, I also found an image of this combo (http://boardgamegeek.com/image/264848/high-school-drama)...)

OK, how about this:

A game in which each player necessarily plays one or more roles, and the decisions made in-character affect the game's outcome.

Shoot it full of holes.

Quote from: noisms;570011Sure, I suppose there are some people who do a little voice for the little hat, or walk the little dog, on the Monopoly board...

Okay. So here we have noisms saying that you must either talk in a character voice or physically act out your character or you're not playing a roleplaying game.

I'll be honest, I think you've overshot here: Rabalias was proposing definitions which were far too wide. You're proposing a definition which suggests, IME, that the vast majority of people playing AD&D, for example, aren't playing a roleplaying game.

Quote... but in practice most people don't do that and it is totally tangential to the game - and you know it.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Which is, of course, why I don't think rabalias' definition is correct.

But I think you've got an interesting line of thought here: Exactly why is the roleplaying tangential to, say, Arkham Horror but non-tangential in, say, Call of Cthulhu?

(Assuming, of course, that we're not sticking with your abortive "it's not roleplaying unless you're talking in a little voice" definition.)

QuoteYour introduction of computer games is done in pretty bad faith: "role playing game" has its own meaning in that context and we, in any event, clearly talking about social tabletop games which do not take place through the medium of a computer.

You want to limit the definition to just tabletop games? Sure.

So, at the moment, the definition being supported by rabalias and noisms (since rabalias has +1'd your post) is:

"A roleplaying game is a tabletop game in which roleplaying -- putting yourself in a character's shoes, saying what they say, and doing what they do within the restrictions imposed by the game -- happens. This roleplaying must involve the player either speaking in a character voice and/or physically acting out their character."

QuoteJustin, you're admirably defending to the death your entirely arbitrary classification system,

I haven't actually brought up my definition in awhile now. Right now we're discussing your definition. More specifically, we're discussing the inadequacies of it. Would you care to revise it in order to make it more accurate? Or are you comfortable with your current "people playing D&D aren't playing an RPG unless they're using character voices and/or physically acting out the actions of their characters" position?

Quote from: The Butcher;570122A game in which each player necessarily plays one or more roles, and the decisions made in-character affect the game's outcome.

Shoot it full of holes.

Would 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?

*scans thread briefly*

So how does all this shit help me design better games?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;570238Okay. So here we have noisms saying that you must either talk in a character voice or physically act out your character or you're not playing a roleplaying game...

...Right now we're discussing your definition. More specifically, we're discussing the inadequacies of it. Would you care to revise it in order to make it more accurate? Or are you comfortable with your current "people playing D&D aren't playing an RPG unless they're using character voices and/or physically acting out the actions of their characters" position?

I don't think there is much point in continuing the discussion if you're going to purposefully misinterpret and misrepresent what I've said. You're an intelligent person, so you clearly know that isn't my position at all.

To re-state my point, which I will stress was addressed to the specific issue of where the distinction between Risk and a "role playing game" lies, in the context of rabalias' definition: in Risk or Monopoly it is true that people occasionally do little voices for the characters or pretend to be a generalissimo, but that does not in themselves make those games role playing games. This is because those games are not predicated on the players having those roles, or indeed any roles. And moreover, when the vast majority of people play those games, they at most view their piece or pieces as avatars of themselves, but in most circumstances just manipulate them like pawns in chess. They are not really roles.

For what it's worth, though, I haven't even brought up a definition, and to be perfectly frank I view the idea that it matters as utterly laughable. The act of defining what a role playing game is, versus what a story game is, is far more damaging to the hobby then the lack of a clear definition in my opinion.

Ultimately, indeed, I don't particularly have a problem with the notion that Risk, Monopoly, Halo or even noughts-and-crosses could be played as role playing games if people see fit. I'm relatively secure in the blind faith that this won't bring down D&D as we know it.

Quote from: The Butcher;570122OK, how about this:

A game in which each player necessarily plays one or more roles, and the decisions made in-character affect the game's outcome.

Shoot it full of holes.

I would draw the line, if one must be drawn, at games without a GM. Or where hotswapping the GM role is part of the game.

But i have yet to see a decent consistent defintion of what a traditional rpg is either. So definitions aren't meaningful.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;570256So how does all this shit help me design better games?

Call a spade a spade, and don't screw with your potential customers' expectations. If you are designing a story game, call it what it is. If you are designing a role playing game, or acquiring a traditional RPG IP, don't start injecting narrative metagame bullshit while clamoring to whoever wants to hear it that "ze game remains ze same".

Quote from: Benoist;570386Call a spade a spade, and don't screw with your potential customers' expectations. If you are designing a story game, call it what it is. If you are designing a role playing game, or acquiring a traditional RPG IP, don't start injecting narrative metagame bullshit while clamoring to whoever wants to hear it that "ze game remains ze same".

Can 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.

The only example where I think this bait-and-switch was actually a problem was the oWoD games (don't know much about the new ones), which had traditional RPG mechanics but were obsessed with getting everybody to "tell a story". But I think that was more a case of Ron Edwards-style incoherence than anything else.

EDIT: Or are you aiming a dig at D&D 4e here?

Quote from: noisms;570261For what it's worth, though, I haven't even brought up a definition, and to be perfectly frank I view the idea that it matters as utterly laughable.

I can't quite figure out if you actually revel in ignorance and stupidity... or if you're just a coward who realized he couldn't meaningfully define RPGs in a way that wouldn't distinguish them from STGs.

But I am comfortable in saying that your attempted semantic quibbling between "classification" and "definition" is pathetically transparent. So we do know for a certainty that you're a liar.

Disappointing. I thought it possible you might actually be capable of participating in an intellectual conversation.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;570432I can't quite figure out if you actually revel in ignorance and stupidity... or if you're just a coward who realized he couldn't meaningfully define RPGs in a way that wouldn't distinguish them from STGs.

But I am comfortable in saying that your attempted semantic quibbling between "classification" and "definition" is pathetically transparent. So we do know for a certainty that you're a liar.

Disappointing. I thought it possible you might actually be capable of participating in an intellectual conversation.

Blimey. Might I be so brave (pun intended) as to suggest you are slightly over-invested in this?

There is no semantic quibble involved between "classification" and "definition" - this isn't a court of law. I'm using the words interchangeably, in layman's terms. There is no point in having either a classification or a definition of RPG, story game, "traditional RPG", or anything else in my view. The people who know what they are, know what they are, inasmuch as it suits them to know, and any definition would be arbitrary and restrictive and probably fail to capture a whole host of nuances.

For instance, for Benoist there is a distinction between role playing games and story games, and for him that distinction is important and he will make decisions about games accordingly. For me the distinction does not really exist and is not very important, and likewise, I will make decisions about games accordingly.

There 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.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=577825&postcount=64) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=577825&postcount=64) 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:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone%2Bis%2Bwrong%2Bon%2Binternet.png)

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:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone%2Bis%2Bwrong%2Bon%2Binternet.png)

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.

Quote from: noisms;578436Nice 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.

I'm sorry, but I pretty much stopped caring about debating the issue. I know where I stand and that's good enough for me. You're quite obviously the guy who can't let go and feels the urge to jump on the keyboard as soon as Traveller bumps the thread and keeps posting nonstop on it from there.

It's ironic really. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.

Quote from: noisms;578436The 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.

That's a very effective way to communicate your idea and I'm sure this will change our minds. ;)

Quote from: Benoist;578439I'm sorry, but I pretty much stopped caring about debating the issue. I know where I stand and that's good enough for me. You're quite obviously the guy who can't let go and feels the urge to jump on the keyboard as soon as Traveller bumps the thread and keeps posting nonstop on it from there.

It's ironic really. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.

Benoist, if there is anybody more pathetic than the person who resurrects a weeks-old thread to try to dig up an old argument, it's the person who bites. And if there's anyone even more pathetic than that person, it's the one who replies next and keeps the whole thing going. That's *you* in this thread, gobshite. Maybe time to take a long hard look at yourself?

In any event, I think I've made my point (that fat guys who like pretending to be elves should stick together, not create arbitrary divisions between themselves). It's like Ebony and Ivory, really.

Quote from: noisms;578440Benoist, if there is anybody more pathetic than the person who resurrects a weeks-old thread to try to dig up an old argument

Eh new (old) information came to light which effectively ended the argument that this entire site is intrinsically connected to once and for all.

Game over man.

I felt it was worth the risk of being called pathetic.

Looks like old school is actually far more cutting edge than the latest gaming theory darling, the real pioneers and leaders are right here. Man those people on grognards.txt are going to feel like idiots. That's why I stand by my decription of forge theory as a religion - its a parallel phenomenon whereby otherwise educated, intelligent and well balanced people vanish up their own jacksies in a welter of self congratulatory back slapping.