TheRPGSite

Aye, Dark Overlord is published by Fantasy Flight as a "Party game".  It is 4-6 players, and runs on cards.

Here's a fast intro. (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=251)

And...

Here's the rulebook. (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/aye_dark_overlord/ADO_rulebook_eng.pdf)

Here's my flat statement:

This game is a Roleplaying Game.

Can you make a reasonable case that says otherwise?  The evidence for or against is all there...

NO.

Its a card game with some elements of a roleplaying game.


Can you do a campaign of it?

Can you play something with it other than the basic situation that is included in that box?


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;326555NO.

Its a card game with some elements of a roleplaying game.

It's a game in which you take on a role, and in which the way you play your role has an impact on the outcome of play.

Why is campaigning or flexibility of situation a requirement?  

I mean, I'll agree that those things make an RPG better.  But I'm not seeing how they are required.  Please 'splain this to me.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326556It's a game in which you take on a role, and in which the way you play your role has an impact on the outcome of play.

Why is campaigning or flexibility of situation a requirement?  

I mean, I'll agree that those things make an RPG better.  But I'm not seeing how they are required.  Please 'splain this to me.

It's not a roleplaying game because it lacks many elements roleplayers expect to find in a roleplaying game and player actions are restricted. There isn't even an illusion of freedom.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326559It's not a roleplaying game because it lacks many elements roleplayers expect to find in a roleplaying game

By which definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326559and player actions are restricted.

Player actions are always restricted by rules.  Unless there are specific restrictions you mean.  In which case...   Name 'em.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326559There isn't even an illusion of freedom.

Would an illusion of freedom make it more-RPG?


(Note: I'm not necessarily "fighting to win" here.  I'm fighting to find out why you think it isn't, and I'm willing to tussle on that premise.)

If you believe that Monopoly is a RPG, then so is Aye, Dark Overlord.

Nowhere in the game is there any character creation rules and you cannot do anything besides make excuses or shift blame for the failure of the Dark Overlord's last evil scheme. Too limiting to be a RPG.

It is as advertised, a Party Game. It has more in common with a Solve the Murder game than a RPG.

Just like Murder Mystery Dinner games it might serve as a way to introduce the idea or Roleplaying games to those that haven't played them yet.

However, it is still NOT a roleplaying game.


- Ed C.

I don't know why my comment makes Amber not a roleplaying game. Except for dice, Amber has all the elements roleplayers expect to find in a roleplaying game.

In a roleplaying game, a player can have his character do anything it wants within the confines of the illusion of freedom. A player's character is technically free to go wherever it wishes to go and speak to whomever it wishes to speak and do whatever it wishes to do.

You can't introduce the illusion of freedom to Aye, Dark Overlord because it would change everything about the game. The game has a single goal for all players and players can't set their own goals.

Quote from: jeff37923;326574If you believe that Monopoly is a RPG, then so is Aye, Dark Overlord.

This part's cheap.

Monopoly does not require or assume that you speak as a character.

Quote from: jeff37923;326574Nowhere in the game is there any character creation rules and you cannot do anything besides make excuses or shift blame for the failure of the Dark overlord's last evil scheme. Too limiting to be a RPG.

This part isn't so cheap.

Why does character creation matter?  Are you talking about depth of roles, or just the fact that you get to make one up?  

In terms of limited action, if we play "deathmatch D&D", where I plunk you in a dungeon with pregens to kill baddies, is that far enough off-book that we're not actually playing an RPG, even though the game is written as one?

If I gave you the chance to choose two "special power" cards to represent your goblin in Overlord, and the ability to name them, would it be an RPG?  Would it be closer?  Why?

OMG that looks awesome - I'd seen the components of the Italian version and knew about the premise, but didn't know it was being translated.  

Of course it is a roleplaying game.  It is a game; you are required to play a role.  There's even a GM.  The Aye, Dark Master variant looks like more of a card game along the lines of Bang! to me, which fails the "required" test (Universalis fails that, too, which gives me pause).

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326581In a roleplaying game, a player can have his character do anything it wants within the confines of the illusion of freedom. A player's character is technically free to go wherever it wishes to go and speak to whomever it wishes to speak and do whatever it wishes to do.

I can describe my past actions in Overlord just as I like.  Play takes the form of a roleplaying scene where the roleplay relates to a free-ranging flashback.  Are flashback scenes with fixed ends, but not fixed action, not-roleplaying?

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326581You can't introduce the illusion of freedom to Aye, Dark Overlord because it would change everything about the game. The game has a single goal for all players and players can't set their own goals.

So.  Individual character goals matter?  Why?

I'd suggest that players can set their own goals, but that the universe of possibility is tightly contained.  My goal is to heap blame on Levi.  Levi's (doomed) goal is to placate the Overlord and spare all our lives.  Gary's goal is to arouse the Dark Overlord's ire as quickly as possible to end his miserable life, so he can be the next Overlord.  Natasha's goal is to see that Gary fails.  Bill's goal is to tell the funniest story he possibly can.  Paolo's goal is to win.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326585Of course it is a roleplaying game.  It is a game; you are required to play a role.

My god.  You agree with the Pundit!

Quote from: RPGPundit;325803An RPG is a GAME where you PLAY a ROLE.

But how can this BE?

:p

(Pundit quote somewhat de-contexted for my own fucking amusement)

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326590I'd suggest that players can set their own goals, but that the universe of possibility is tightly contained.  My goal is to heap blame on Levi.  Levi's (doomed) goal is to placate the Overlord and spare all our lives.  Gary's goal is to arouse the Dark Overlord's ire as quickly as possible to end his miserable life, so he can be the next Overlord.  Natasha's goal is to see that Gary fails.  Bill's goal is to tell the funniest story he possibly can.  Paolo's goal is to win.

Waitaminute.  

I'm pretty sure he was explicitly talking about pure character goals, and it looks like you've got them all tangled up with player goals there.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326582This part's cheap.

Monopoly does not require or assume that you speak as a character.

Neither does Aye, Dark Overlord. You speak as a excuse-making Player, no more depth than that. The Shoe and the Thimble in Monopoly have similar, if not more depth.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326582This part isn't so cheap.

Why does character creation matter?  Are you talking about depth of roles, or just the fact that you get to make one up?  

Both. A role-playing game requires a character so that the Player may play the role. The depth of role becomes a sliding scale in how extensively the character may interact with the setting of the game - Aye, Dark Overlord limits the interaction too greatly to be a RPG.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326582In terms of limited action, if we play "deathmatch D&D", where I plunk you in a dungeon with pregens to kill baddies, is that far enough off-book that we're not actually playing an RPG, even though the game is written as one?

Yes. Then you are playing a wargame and not a RPG since the only option you have is to "kill baddies". It becomes closer to a RPG when you can use more options to interact with the baddies than just combat.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326582If I gave you the chance to choose two "special power" cards to represent your goblin in Overlord, and the ability to name them, would it be an RPG?  Would it be closer?  Why?

No. The Player is still limited to using a finite number of cards as pre-determined options with which to interact with the setting. Not enough freedom for the Players.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326585Of course it is a roleplaying game.  It is a game; you are required to play a role.  There's even a GM.  The Aye, Dark Master variant looks like more of a card game along the lines of Bang! to me, which fails the "required" test (Universalis fails that, too, which gives me pause).

By these standards, then CLUE should be a role-playing game.

Looks like a game what with the roleplaying to me.  I'm suspicious of its lack of dice, but it looks like an RPG.

Also, there's a blue chick in a bikini on one of the cards.  That's worth bonus points in my estimation.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326586I can describe my past actions in Overlord just as I like.  Play takes the form of a roleplaying scene where the roleplay relates to a free-ranging flashback.  Are flashback scenes with fixed ends, but not fixed action, not-roleplaying?

That's not roleplaying, that's storytelling. You're telling a story to get your arse out of a bind. Was Scheherazade a roleplayer?

QuoteSo.  Individual character goals matter?  Why?

Of course individual character goals matter - to the player. I think it's fairly easy to see why a character's goals (or the player's goals for the character) matter to that character's player. I would be much more interested in your explanation of why an individual character's goals shouldn't matter in a roleplaying game.

Jeff: (of the numbers)

So, if I'm getting your line:

To be an RPG, you must not only have a role, but the role must possess a certain degree of depth, and if you cannot interact with that setting around the character openly, you can't seriously "roleplay" your role.

If that doesn't quite fit, could you reword it to fit?

Come on, Levi, we both know that characters don't exist.  They don't have goals, players do.

Jeff37923, there's more to "you are required to play a role" than being assigned a name.  You can skate through a game of Clue or Monopoly without actively portraying a bloated plutocrat or Miss Scarlet, but you can't play ADO without getting into character, at least a little.  You must narrate, you must grovel.  

I don't buy any argument predicated on "not enough".  Who decides?

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326601That's not roleplaying, that's storytelling. You're telling a story to get your arse out of a bind. Was Scheherazade a roleplayer?

When the lady in question spoke as if she was Ali Baba, sure.  If she never did make with the funny voices, then no.

That's "playing a role", however limited.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326603Who decides?

The Dark Overlord, that's who.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326602Jeff: (of the numbers)

So, if I'm getting your line:

To be an RPG, you must not only have a role, but the role must possess a certain degree of depth, and if you cannot interact with that setting around the character openly, you can't seriously "roleplay" your role.

If that doesn't quite fit, could you reword it to fit?

That is pretty close, but the role also has to be one chosen by the Player themselves, and preferably created by the Player.

"To be an RPG, you must not only have a role, but the role must possess a certain degree of depth, and if you cannot interact with that setting around the character beyond a certain degree of complexity, you cannot "roleplay" your role, which was chosen or created by the Player."

Try that, see how it works.

Quote from: jeff37923;326610That is pretty close, but the role also has to be one chosen by the Player themselves, and preferably created by the Player.

I've run con games where I passed out pre-fabs and players got no choice in the matter.  I'm pretty sure roleplaying happened.

Quote from: jeff37923;326610"To be an RPG, you must not only have a role, but the role must possess a certain degree of depth, and if you cannot interact with that setting around the character beyond a certain degree of complexity, you cannot "roleplay" your role, which was chosen or created by the Player."

Try that, see how it works.

Awesome.

How much depth and complexity?  Got any guidelines or "tells"?

(Note again: I'm not agreeing with you, exactly.  But I don't think it bites it's own tail all that much, either.)

Quote from: jrients;326611I've run con games where I passed out pre-fabs and players got no choice in the matter.  I'm pretty sure roleplaying happened.

I agree, but you must also agree that if given the chance, most Players prefer to create their own characters and not use pre-gens. Convention games are very time-limited and are played differently than home games.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326607When the lady in question spoke as if she was Ali Baba, sure.  If she never did make with the funny voices, then no.

That's "playing a role", however limited.

Does the act of telling a story constitute in itself roleplaying? No it doesn't.

A game in which players need to outdo each other at telling the best story and can do nothing else isn't a roleplaying game, it's a storytelling game.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326616A game in which players need to outdo each other at telling the best story and can do nothing else isn't a roleplaying game, it's a storytelling game.

Okay, this is the first good against argument I've seen.

Quote from: jeff37923;326614I agree, but you must also agree that if given the chance, most Players prefer to create their own characters and not use pre-gens.

Hmm?

We were talking requirements to qualify, that kind of thing, here, weren't we?

A preference isn't a requirement, man.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326616Does the act of telling a story constitute in itself roleplaying? No it doesn't.

A game in which players need to outdo each other at telling the best story and can do nothing else isn't a roleplaying game, it's a storytelling game.

This guy gets it and can explain it better than I.

So to be a roleplaying game you have to be able to take some sort of in-game action apart from dialogue?  If I can only speak or punch someone in the nose, is that enough?

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326616A game in which players need to outdo each other at telling the best story and can do nothing else isn't a roleplaying game, it's a storytelling game.

So.  

Are you saying that Roleplaying needs to not only be present, but to have primacy?

Or are you saying, like Jeff, that roleplaying doesn't have substance unless you can ___________ (fill in the blank; something about freedom or openess or the like)?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326619Hmm?

We were talking requirements to qualify, that kind of thing, here, weren't we?

A preference isn't a requirement, man.

Levi, you are trying your best to shoehorn a Party Game into a RPG definition when even you understand the difference here.

so, is Munchkin a role-playing game?  Descent? Car Wars?

QuoteAye, Dark Overlord! is a funny and fast-paced card game of quick thinking and shameless excuse-making.

the site doesn't bill it as such, so i'd say no, it's a card game.

Quote from: jeff37923;326623Levi, you are trying your best to shoehorn a Party Game into a RPG definition when even you understand the difference here.

Levi must have lost a bet with someone - so he had to start this thread.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923;326623Levi, you are trying your best to shoehorn a Party Game into a RPG definition when even you understand the difference here.

I understand the difference between the kinds of game being discussed.  And it IS a substantial and significant difference.

There's a huge distinction to be made here.  

But I'm not sure why that distinction should be "We call this one an RPG, but not this one".

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326629I understand the difference between the kinds of game being discussed.  And it IS a substantial and significant difference.

There's a huge distinction to be made here.  

But I'm not sure why that distinction should be "We call this one an RPG, but not this one".

Because the game Aye, Dark Overlord does not call itself a RPG, but instead labels itself as a Party Game?

I know that I'm playing Master of the Obvious, but isn't this a case of Knows Answer When Given?

Quote from: jeff37923;326630Because the game Aye, Dark Overlord does not call itself a RPG, but instead labels itself as a Party Game?

D&D has, in at least one iteration, labeled itself as an Adventure Game.

Quote from: kregmosier;326625the site doesn't bill it as such, so i'd say no, it's a card game.

Why should the marketing and the reality necessarily line up?  D&D was considered an oddball wargame at first.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326622So.  

Are you saying that Roleplaying needs to not only be present, but to have primacy?

Or are you saying, like Jeff, that roleplaying doesn't have substance unless you can ___________ (fill in the blank; something about freedom or openess or the like)?

In order to have a rolaplaying game, you have to have roleplaying and roleplaying has to be the object of the game. Anything else makes any definition of roleplaying games utterly meaningless (cue the "Monopoly is a roleplaying game because I make choo-choo noises when I move my piece" argument).

Which is why Aye, Dark Overlord isn't a roleplaying game, because roleplaying isn't the object of the game. The object of the game is to tell stories, and nothing else.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326638In order to have a rolaplaying game, you have to have roleplaying and roleplaying has to be the object of the game.

So, again, would you say that it's very possible to play many RPGs (D&D and Toon among them, albeit for very different reasons), as something else?

Quote from: jrients;326621So to be a roleplaying game you have to be able to take some sort of in-game action apart from dialogue?  If I can only speak or punch someone in the nose, is that enough?

I guess you could have a roleplaying game with nothing but conversation. I don't really see the point of such a game, though, and that still doesn't make Aye, Dark Overlord anything more than a storytelling game.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326639So, again, would you say that it's very possible to play many RPGs (D&D and Toon among them, albeit for very different reasons), as something else?

I don't see where you asked this question before in this thread. Sorry, if I missed it.

"Play RPGs as something else" I'm sorry, you've really lost me with this. I have no idea where you're going. I'll need a little more transparency on your part.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326638In order to have a rolaplaying game, you have to have roleplaying and roleplaying has to be the object of the game. Anything else makes any definition of roleplaying games utterly meaningless (cue the "Monopoly is a roleplaying game because I make choo-choo noises when I move my piece" argument).

Which is why Aye, Dark Overlord isn't a roleplaying game, because roleplaying isn't the object of the game. The object of the game is to tell stories, and nothing else.

I think the object of the game is actually to not lose, right?  And the way you don't lose is to play your character, engage with the game's light mechanics effectively, and tell an entertaining story.  

Maybe, Levi, you need to find out what roleplaying is.  Because the next obvious argument is "roleplaying games do not have end and/or victory conditions".

Quote from: jeff37923;326610"To be an RPG, you must not only have a role, but the role must possess a certain degree of depth, and if you cannot interact with that setting around the character beyond a certain degree of complexity, you cannot "roleplay" your role, which was chosen or created by the Player."

"A certain degree" ... how much?  Who decides?  (I know, the Dark Overlord) Do you know it when you see it?

By the way, this is a fun conversation.

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326642I don't see where you asked this question before in this thread. Sorry, if I missed it.

"Play RPGs as something else" I'm sorry, you've really lost me with this. I have no idea where you're going. I'll need a little more transparency on your part.

I asked Jeff about this one, earlier:

We're at a con.  I run "deathmatch D&D".   RPG?  No?

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326645By the way, this is a fun conversation.

I totally agree.

Also:

Yes, it does look awesome.  I have it right next to me, and I wanna play!

I guess mileages vary immensely when you consider fringe examples of game design as to what, exactly, makes a given game a "role-playing game".

In my opinion, RPGs are games where you play a role. Which means to me that it is a form of entertainment first and foremost (not a job, not a manifesto, etc), and you assume the role of an alter-ego in a world of make-believe. That's where, IMO, notions of freedom of options, character choices and goals, do matter. It's part of the immersive nature of RPGs, and matters in terms of verisimilitude, believability of the game world.

Ultimately, I think that, in my case, as far as role-playing games are concerned, I know them when I see them. Pathfinder RPG is a role-playing game. World of Darkness is a role-playing game. D&D 4e is a role-playing game. Aye, Dark Overlord, doesn't sound like a role-playing game to me.

Quote from: Koltar;326627Levi must have lost a bet with someone - so he had to start this thread.


- Ed C.

That's probably closer to the truth than you realise.

Quote from: One Horse Town;326652That's probably closer to the truth than you realise.

:huhsign:

Come on, man, if you're gonna come at me, don't play coy.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326654:huhsign:

Come on, man, if you're gonna come at me, don't play coy.

This is theory navel-gazing dressed up in fancy clothes. Just look at Morningstar creaming his pants.

Why shouldn't it be in other games?

Quote from: Benoist;326649I guess mileages vary immensely ... I know them when I see them.

Yeah, I agree.

There are a whole heap of people who don't, though, at least around here.  Plenty of blanket statements about this game or that, written with the voice of final authority.  Usually in all caps.

Quote from: One Horse Town;326655This is theory navel-gazing dressed up in fancy clothes. Just look at Morningstar creaming his pants.

Why shouldn't it be in other games?

Because it's exactly the kind of navel-gazing that many of the posters engage in here, just taken to it's logical extent?

It's about a discussion about GAMES where you PLAY a ROLE, man.  

Which is oft-stated axiomatically around here, and I want to take a poke at the axiom, and see what gets turned up.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326645"A certain degree" ... how much?  Who decides?  (I know, the Dark Overlord) Do you know it when you see it?

By the way, this is a fun conversation.

Of course it is.  This kind of doubt-casting exercise is textbook for you guys at this point.

Quote from: J Arcane;326658Of course it is.  This kind of doubt-casting exercise is textbook for you guys at this point.

I'm being all included as being "On a side".  Man, that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

So, hey, I've got some mud, too!

Certainty is for children and the hidebound.  Grownups are those who can accept ambiguity and doubt.

Gosh.  Being partisan and petty is fun!

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326663Gosh.  Being partisan and petty is fun!

Fun has nothing to do with it. It's soothing.

Quote from: One Horse Town;326655This is theory navel-gazing dressed up in fancy clothes. Just look at Morningstar creaming his pants.

Why shouldn't it be in other games?

Jesus fuck, Dan.

!i!

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326663I'm being all included as being "On a side".  Man, that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

So, hey, I've got some mud, too!

Certainty is for children and the hidebound.  Grownups are those who can accept ambiguity and doubt.

Gosh.  Being partisan and petty is fun!

Dude, you know I've always respected you, but when you play this faux-naive act it gets really tiring.  You and I both know why the OP is deliberately wrong, the only purpose of semantic games is try and make the userbase look bad by casting doubt on an obvious conclusion.  

You're better than this, I know you are, and it's disappointing seeing you stoop to these shenanigans.

Quote from: J Arcane;326669Dude, you know I've always respected you, but when you play this faux-naive act it gets really tiring.  You and I both know why the OP is deliberately wrong, the only purpose of semantic games is try and make the userbase look bad by casting doubt on an obvious conclusion.  

You're better than this, I know you are, and it's disappointing seeing you stoop to these shenanigans.

*Shrug*

I said earlier:

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326629I understand the difference between the kinds of game being discussed.  And it IS a substantial and significant difference.

There's a huge distinction to be made here.  

But I'm not sure why that distinction should be "We call this one an RPG, but not this one".

I had this same thread on RPGnet.  Was I trying to make them look bad, too?

Fuck online-gamer-politics.  

I want what's in your goddamn head.  I want you to tell me how you sort what you do from the other stuff, because that tells me where you think the good stuff is.

You don't like this angle of approach for that?  Great; don't.  I'll have a different one next week.

Quote from: One Horse Town;326655This is theory navel-gazing dressed up in fancy clothes. Just look at Morningstar creaming his pants.

Why shouldn't it be in other games?

This is just warm up for WFRP 3E discussion threads. You should be thanking Levi.

Regards,
David R

No.
This is a game that has some role-play in it, just like a Murder Mystery game would. It is not, however, an RPG in the sense of what we play in this hobby.

As such, I'm moving this thread over to "other games".

RPGPundit

Emphasis mine:

Quote from: RPGPundit;326690This is a game that has some role-play in it, just like a Murder Mystery game would. It is not, however, an RPG in the sense of what we play in this hobby.

What, specifically, is the difference, as you see it?

Quote from: David R;326688This is just warm up for WFRP 3E discussion threads.

God, I hope not.

So far, WFRP 3E looks more like "gimmicky as hell", rather than a topic for "Is this an RPG" debate.

And trust me, I know gimmicky.  I've built a few games like that.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326671*Shrug*

I said earlier:

So what's the real point of this then?  We both know what we're talking about, why pretend we don't?  

QuoteI had this same thread on RPGnet.  Was I trying to make them look bad, too?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them got annoyed either, or thought they were being made to play the fool.  I don't read there anymore, I wouldn't know.

QuoteFuck online-gamer-politics.  

Then don't play them.  You're sure doing a good job of playing politics in this thread though.  

QuoteI want what's in your goddamn head.  I want you to tell me how you sort what you do from the other stuff, because that tells me where you think the good stuff is.

You don't like this angle of approach for that?  Great; don't.  I'll have a different one next week.

You want a simple test?  Take that game, go down to your average FLGS or games convention, round up a bunch of regular gamers, and then try to run it for them whilst telling them it's an RPG.  See how many roadblocks you run into as you explain where this and that diverges from the standard experience.

It'd fall flat on it's ass.  Advertise it as just some card game or party game like, you know, what it actually is, and I'd bet you the expectation barrier won't hit you at all.

Quote from: J Arcane;326697You want a simple test?  Take that game, go down to your average FLGS or games convention, round up a bunch of regular gamers, and then try to run it for them whilst telling them it's an RPG.  See how many roadblocks you run into as you explain where this and that diverges from the standard experience.

That would have no point to it at all.

The point is to figure out which differences matter.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326691What, specifically, is the difference, as you see it?

This is one of those funny games that really fucks up the whole rpg defintion thing. It obviously takes many elements from what many here would consider trad gaming and then mashes it into something different but vaguely familiar. I mean you're not really playing a "role". I causally take this to mean some sort of independent character building - personality etc - on "alter ego" vibe on the part of the player. *shrug* I'm not describing this very well. All this is heading into like porn I'll recognize it when I see it terrain. Interesting but not very productive.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326698That would have no point to it at all.

The point is to figure out which differences matter.

You don't think how the game would actually be taken in real life has any bearing on it's categorization?

This conversation really IS pointless, then.

Quote from: David R;326699This is one of those funny games that really fucks up the whole rpg defintion thing. It obviously takes many elements from what many here would consider trad gaming and then mashes it into something different but vaguely familiar.

Sure. That's why I thought it would be awesome to use for this.

I mean, I know why many people here don't think of story-games as RPGs.  And I learned quite a bit about what they want from an RPG in those discussions.

I also know why many people don't think of serious "adventure games" as RPGs.  Learned a fair bit there, too.

And I'm learning stuff here, too.  Most of it hits this tone:

Quote from: David R;326699I mean you're not really playing a "role". I causally take this to mean some sort of independent character building - personality etc - on "alter ego" vibe on the part of the player.

The idea that there's a "minimum depth" to a character before they matter seems almost universal.

Quote from: J Arcane;326702You don't think how the game would actually be taken in real life has any bearing on it's categorization?

This conversation really IS pointless, then.

*Headdesk*

The point is, we all know what 'goes with what'.

The question is "Why?  Where's the boundary on this side?"

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326706*Headdesk*

The point is, we all know what 'goes with what'.

The question is "Why?  Where's the boundary on this side?"

Because without those things it isn't the same fun, and thus, not the same thing?

This isn't hard to puzzle out here.  If someone wants to play a racing game, and I give them a first person shooter that happens to have a vehicle section, we don't look upon them in bafflement when they're dissatisfied with the experience because they're both fun, it's pretty obvious they'd be unsatisfied because it isn't what they asked for.  

We know it isn't what they want, they know it isn't what the want, so where's the mystery?

Why Mr.Levi, are you flirting with me?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326704The idea that there's a "minimum depth" to a character before they matter seems almost universal.

Universal to whom. People who play rpgs or people who have played a game where you play a role ?

Edit: Because IME there is no interest in "character" in the latter.

Regards,
David R

Arcane:

I think I've got at least a loose idea of the big thing here.

Check the RPG board in a couple minutes; you'll see what I got from this.

Quote from: David R;326708Why Mr.Levi, are you flirting with me?

Baby, when I flirt with you, you won't need to ask.

Quote from: David R;326708Universal to whom. People who play rpgs or people who have played a game where you play a role ?

Edit: Because IME there is no interest in "character" in the latter.

Regards,
David R

Check the RPG board.  Shiny new thread.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326691Emphasis mine:



What, specifically, is the difference, as you see it?

It is a game, with roleplaying elements. That doesn't make it an RPG in our sense. There are plenty of differences: the characters, the setting, emulation, immersion, etc.

RPGPundit

By the way, please don't see me moving this thread as a "punishment". I'm glad you're posting here again, Levi. I'm just trying to keep the forums in their appropriate context, particularly given that recent posters (and posts) have been blurring these lines, sometimes intentionally. I don't want the main RPG forum turned into a free-for-all where non-RPG material gets thrown in there willy-nilly.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;326747By the way, please don't see me moving this thread as a "punishment".

If a whole whack of people had actually thought that the premise of the thread was unusually *strong*, I might have taken issue with unilateral judgement on it.

But your move seemed pretty much in accord with the consensus.  Not an RPG by standards of this board, in the end.

I'm not familiar with 'Aye, Dark Overlord' at all.

Readin the thread, I think the key thing that's missing is complete freedom of choice. In a 'deathmatch' D&D game, can you not choose to attack your allies or create weird traps out of things that are lying around the dungeon? If you are surrounded by walls, can you not use your sword to dig them out? If players choices of action (not necessarily their resolution, but action) are not unlimited, then it is not an RPG.

Quote from: KrakaJak;326765Readin the thread, I think the key thing that's missing is complete freedom of choice. In a 'deathmatch' D&D game, can you not choose to attack your allies or create weird traps out of things that are lying around the dungeon? If you are surrounded by walls, can you not use your sword to dig them out? If players choices of action (not necessarily their resolution, but action) are not unlimited, then it is not an RPG.

Quibble:

In an RPG, character action choices are limited by the player group's tacit agreement.  You don't knife the other guy in the back because the players will call you a dick.

I'm pretty sure I've had this argument here before and seen enough of the other side to be satisfied, though, so I won't chase that one further unless you want to.

Just:  It's not quite as simple as that.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326768Quibble:

In an RPG, character action choices are limited by the player group's tacit agreement.  You don't knife the other guy in the back because the players will call you a dick.

I'm pretty sure I've had this argument here before and seen enough of the other side to be satisfied, though, so I won't chase that one further unless you want to.

Just:  It's not quite as simple as that.

this ties in with that illusion of freedom I was talking about earlier. Your character can't actually do anything it wants to, but the player has the sense that he can make his character do anything he wants it to do.

Also, the limits aren't imposed by the game mechanics. Huge difference.

After first seeing this thread asnd link I thought "Gee, that game looks damn familiar."

 Yep - we had a copy on our shelves.

 It is shelved with the other FFG card games.

Mentioned to my manager the gist of the thread question. He agreed with me - its a card game, NOT an RPG.

However, to be fair - playing it might be one way to gauge if some friends might be interested in regular roleplaying games or have the hidden creativity involved for it.

- Ed C.

Quote from: LeviJust:  It's not quite as simple as that.

I'm sure it is as simple as that. You just wish it was more complicated.

Quote from: LeviIn an RPG, character action choices are limited by the player group's tacit agreement. You don't knife the other guy in the back because the players will call you a dick.

In RPGs, you can choose to be a dick.

Quote from: KrakaJak;326779In RPGs, you can choose to be a dick.

I'm pretty sure you could find the "that's lame" line in your group.

But, well, I'm not gonna encourage you to try...

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326812I'm pretty sure you could find the "that's lame" line in your group.

But, well, I'm not gonna encourage you to try...

That's true, but that's the group. I can also find groups of Monopoly players that don't put money down on free parking. People sure do play games lots of different ways, don't they?

I wouldn't even put the limits on the group in an RPG. It's in 'playing the role' that the limits of your characters actions would appear. As a player and GM I relish the times I can witness a well played asshole. One of the guys I regularly play with plays them pretty frequently and in a very entertaining way. He has screwed other PC's and the Players themselves are cool with it because he deals with the consequences of those actions. He's considered a dick.

It's not always flowers and rainbows and 'let's help each other out!' at my table. It's all the more fun for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhmUj9QJ9RM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9FMURHhgzc

Quote from: MarionPoliquin;326844http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhmUj9QJ9RM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9FMURHhgzc

....While funny...

...Are there actually people that play like that?  I've never seen fuckwittery of that scale.

(And I mean the jackass Serious Business Twins and the Oh I Just Describe Things And Apply Rules And Have No Other Input DM, more than I mean beer dude.)

Yes, there are people that play like that. With any luck, they are few. Though I suspect they used to be quite common.