Quote from: David R1) That I don't need rules for this kind of play, but just like DiTV because it's an interesting game.

'Need' is a loaded word. Frankly I don't think you 'need' any rules at all for anything (EDIT: including martial combat). However there are clear positives for having rules, besides the fact you end up creating them in the end anyway.

You know this. You act on this. Why else would you even consider adopting DitV rules for a WH setting game? Rules are about what we say is important. Do we make/use/propagate rules about something because we think it isn't important? Of course not. Rules (and maybe the word instructions would be better choice) are just another form of communication and people [when being effective] communicate about the things that are important.

Quote from: blakkieYou know this. You act on this. Why else would you even consider adopting DitV rules for a WH setting game?

Because I think the rules would be cool for this setting. And I don't need them, I want them because I think they would be...you know cool. (My players have since said no :deflated: )

Regards,
David R

QuoteSett has not defined them. Actually Sett brought up the whole issue of relationships. I can't help it if his definition is dodgy or that it does not reflect the reality of what happens around the gaming table.

Well, here's what I think the definition is:

Thematic games are pretty much games about exploring themes. You can't play Dogs in the Vineyard as a game about a party discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. You CAN make it about all of the judgemental things a group of people might do or say to each other as they discover the treasure of the Sierra Madre.  See also, this discussion. Notice how he starts out trying to redefine the word "fun" as thematic. And finally settles on thematic by post #4.

I'm glad you think it's bullshit. It is. Just remember who it really came from.

An Adventure game is about people who go places and so stuff. That could be about discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. Interestingly, the situation is not binary- it's not either or. You can have a D&D adventure where characters have relationships, and you can switch gears. You can switch during a session, or have one session full of bear-wrestling, and then one session where you go all sturm and drang.

QuoteRubbish. I asked folks to define relationships in their games simply because, different people have different ways they define it. I want folks to talk about their games.

No, you wanted to disprove Settembrini. The goals are related, but you can't  disprove him by changing the definition to something meaningless, gather up support, and then turn around and say your'e proving your point.  

QuoteYeah one person. Another person said it was vital to his game. Most if not all have said that it's important. What info can I get ? That gamers not necessarily adventure gamers view relationships as important in their games.

This was a misunderstanding, probably my fault for phrasing it like that. I agree that you can't do both at the same. But my point is all the answers here are useless, since you left the defition up to the respondent.

QuoteNo this is where your bias is showing. Look through some of the old Nutkinland threads where Maddman, blakkie and I clashed over this very issue. Most gamers don't need rules for relationships in their games.

I am completely biased, so you can take that as a given. I also agree that most gamers don't need any rules for relationships.

QuoteBut what are thematic games? Sett does not seem to have a clue. The one thing I see bandied about is, that these games have rules for relationships...

This part is where you go wrong. Thats not "the one thing", however it's an important signifier. You can look at my defintion above (restated in the other thread) for what I assert that thematic means in this context.  

Quoteso a thematic game is a game where there are rules for relationships...

No. You missed.

Quoteso what about gamers who carry out relationships in their games without rules...are they engaging in thematic play?

The answer is "sure", but not in the binary way that thematic games support. Because as I said, you can have thematic non-enforced 'play' in any game.

But the distinction is not about 'play', it's about 'games' as entities.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, here's what I think the definition is:

Now you are giving my your definiton?

QuoteThematic games are pretty much games about exploring themes. You can't play Dogs in the Vineyard as a game about a party discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. You CAN make it about all of the judgemental things a group of people might do or say to each other as they discover the treasure of the Sierra Madre.  See also, this discussion. Notice how he starts out trying to redefine the word "fun" as thematic. And finally settles on thematic by post #4.

We have had this discussion before. I think we both know where each other is coming from.

QuoteI'm glad you think it's bullshit. It is. Just remember who it really came from.

All of it is bullshit. That's why I don't like folks introducing jargon.

QuoteAn Adventure game is about people who go places and so stuff. That could be about discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. Interestingly, the situation is not binary- it's not either or. You can have a D&D adventure where characters have relationships, and you can switch gears. You can switch during a session, or have one session full of bear-wrestling, and then one session where you go all sturm and drang.

This sounds familiar. We have talked about this before. Game focus is one thing, lumping games into adventure/thematic another. I don't think the definition is accurate.

QuoteNo, you wanted to disprove Settembrini. The goals are related, but you can't  disprove him by changing the definition to something meaningless, gather up support, and then turn around and say your'e proving your point.

No. I wanted to show that gamers regardless of the type of games they played valued the role of relationships in their games. I was pretty upfront about it.

QuoteThis was a misunderstanding, probably my fault for phrasing it like that. I agree that you can't do both at the same. But my point is all the answers here are useless, since you left the defition up to the respondent.

It is because I left the def up to the respondents that it is usefull. The play not the game defines reality around the gaming table.

QuoteBut the distinction is not about 'play', it's about 'games' as entities.

And the distinction is not accurate IMO as far as games are concerned. Focus may be a bold choice to use. Thematic/adventure is not.

Regards,
David R

I decided to make this its own post. I'll give you some thoughts of my own.

QuoteHere's a few more thoughts you might want to chew on.

1) That I don't need rules for this kind of play, but just like DiTV because it's an interesting game.

Strangely enough, I don't actually care what anyone else likes or dislikes. I gather that many if not most of the people here hate my favoritest thing in the world, D&D3.5. I don't actually care that much.

I do care about things like intellectual honesty and the tyranny of mob rule. So after a few sustained years of people saying broadly untrue and sometimes downright vicious things about my hobby or trying to ghettoize me, I have developed this persona as a way to strike back at the mob. (This is why I think TonyLb got it exactly wrong when he stated that theRpgSite is about Mob Justice-- thats exactly wrong. It's a place where even the mob is powerless.)

I know. It's kind of brutal the way I-- or we-- all of us--  act sometimes. I'm not a very likeable person here. :hehe:  But I think some of us here have had a great effect on a few people, and I'm willing to take that hit. We've made some people unhappy, which I acknowledge. We've also made some people modify their behaviors. You'll notice that there's a lot less "flamewar fuel" out there in the swine-o-sphere. They keep it hidden or to themselves. Thats a good thing. Ron Edwards is largely discredited. Chris Chinn is just a funny memory at this point. The rest of the gang are sort of devolving into a left-wing parody of self-loathing. Turns out it was all really about politics and not gaming after all!

So that's great. In a lot of ways, I think we won the culture war that so many people were so keen to deny ever took place.

Quote2) Trying out new games is something we do as a group and we get a lot of fun out of them...most times.

Thats great for you. Personally, I don't care what anyone else plays or doesn't play. I care how they act, what they say.
 

Quote3) I'm not so set in my playstyle that other types of play is anathema to me.

Well, me neither, actually. But it isn't about playstyles, really. I personally despise the smug supremacism of the forgies and their associations with certain playstyles annoys me...

...I can never go back.

Quote from: blakkieRules are about what we say is important. Do we make/use/propagate rules about something because we think it isn't important? Of course not. Rules (and maybe the word instructions would be better choice) are just another form of communication and people [when being effective] communicate about the things that are important.

Actually, I think relationships are so important that I wouldn't dare make rules regarding them. The other things in roleplaying are easily codified, but relationships are too nuanced to be bruted about by rules. People know how to deal with relationships, so that's the best course.

But then that's just my feelings.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawI decided to make this its own post. I'll give you some thoughts of my own.

You know, if you wanted to talk about this stuff, why don't you go start a thread about it.

I don't know what to make of this little ...whatever.

Look you seem to really care about a war which most gamers don't know exist. I gather the battlefields were tBP and some other sites, that most gamers didn't even know existed or cared about. You seem to think you have won this so-called war even though tBP still seems to be a hotbed of Swine and Villainy.

You seem to be affected by the thoughts and games a few folks play even though most gamers have not heard of either. Whatever. Now could you please answer the questions I put forward...if you are at all interested.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBecause I think the rules would be cool for this setting. And I don't need them, I want them because I think they would be...you know cool.

Exactly. Because they embody the type of game you'd like to be involved in. EDIT: From an action and character interaction POV.

Quote from: David R(My players have since said no :deflated: )

Sorry to hear that. *shrug* Not because you won't be using DitV rules. But because you are playing with people that don't want one of types of game you'd really like to play. But on the very positive upside those explicit rules aided in you and the players communicating and averting a potential campaign that could easily have been a real letdown.  Hopefully you'll have another shot at it in the future, people's interests do change over time.

You might review this thread, were my definition, that seems to be of concern to some people, is in.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4624

I think relationships are what make RPGs what they are.

There are two ways a gam can go with it:

#1- Give the players a framework. A settings with cultures,events, and overall mood that makes a player want to explore. However, all of the relationship stuff up to the players to come up with.

#2- Influence relationships through mechanics as done by many indie games.

nothing wrong with either way, imo.

Quote from: blakkieExactly. Because they embody the type of game you'd like to be involved in. EDIT: From an action and character interaction POV.

Yeah which is why I like to try different systems. I mean the 40KDogs is not abandoned but rather we are looking for a system which we all like. Strangely a lot of stuff from DiTV is still in there, but we're looking for another system.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySettembrini has been reluctant to discuss his adventure game thing in any depth for a while now. Until he lays the groundwork for an actual discussion, or points to earlier links in which he's done that in the past, I'll just call him a boardgamer, not a roleplayer.

Now, now let's not go down the "You aren't playing an RPG" path. :whistleblower:

What it boils down to is basically whatever Settembrini has decided he wants in a game gets tossed into "Adventure" and everything else gets sorted into a big bin called "Thematic". Everything gets sorted into one of the two categories even if he doesn't actually understand the item/rule/game/whatever in question. So trying to figure out things by the names or even some sort of objective rationale is an exersize in futility....or maybe an excersize in uncovering Settembrini's personal tastes because the most accurate names for the two categories are "What Settembrini has decided he likes" and "Other".

I get the distinct impression that interpersonal affairs aren't Settembrini's bag in any sense. They get in the way, they just aren't interesting. So in RPGs it is a lock tossing them into the Other Bin because there they are getting in the way.

Quote from: David RYou know, if you wanted to talk about this stuff, why don't you go start a thread about it.

I don't know what to make of this little ...whatever.

Look you seem to really care about a war which most gamers don't know exist. I gather the battlefields were tBP and some other sites, that most gamers didn't even know existed or cared about. You seem to think you have won this so-called war even though tBP still seems to be a hotbed of Swine and Villainy.

In this world, there are joiners and there are influencers. RPGnet is set up as a community of joiners- mostly because of the way it is moderated.

TheRPGSite is a community of influencers. So we can win the war here, and thats enough for me.

QuoteNow could you please answer the questions I put forward...if you are at all interested.

Regards,
David R

Hah! I can!

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Player-NPC:
I'd say they are important to driving the plot forward and making the adventures interesting. For a long while in our campaign we had a thing where the group psion was in a relationship with an NPC psion called Kizmet. In the session before last, she sacrificed herself to break the curse of a wraith queen, and her personality was transferred into a magic sceptre. The psion now carries the sceptre around and still talks to it.

Player-Player:
We celebrated our 1-year anniversary as a campaign last night. The group is a team and a family. They joke and converse in-character just as if they were really like that team. They rescue each other from catastrophes and certain death at least once a week. They play pranks on each other just like a family would.  

2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

Nope. They are part of the fun.  

3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Absolutely not. But then, I'm playing an adventure game with adventurers who are .. adventuring. Last night, they shrank down to microscopic size and entered a "bottled city" demi-plane called the Egg of Rodnak.  They fought a Nightwing. They made friends with a female Eldritch Giant and made a deal to locate a Caerceran Keystone that would help them all escape. The goblin PC flirted with her and she threatened to turn him into her new familiar. Then they explored some caves and battled a Roper.

It was fun.

But then, this was not a thematic game about exploring relationships or tackling various political issues through our exploration of relationships or any of that other crap.

Quote from: blakkieNow, now let's not go down the "You aren't playing an RPG" path. :whistleblower:

What it boils down to is...

Wrong.

The "big bin" is the "adventure" bin. Nearly everything ends up in there. And the very small bin is the one labelled "other". Its demonstrably much easier to qualify as an adventure game than a thematic game by anyones definition.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWrong.

So stroke out the size reference if you like. *shrug* I'd hardly call it 'wrong' on that. It is really just is what has Settembrini decided he likes and everything else.  Look at your game, all that relationship shit getting in the way. :rolleyes: