Quote from: flyingmiceYes!

-clash

For example, one of my players a while back wanted to play Tunnels & Trolls, because it didn't have many rules to get in the way of the roleplaying.

On Blakkie's analysis that is a nonsensical statement, but the flaw is that it's a statement large swathes of gamers would understand quite easily.

But I think Blakkie puts this on for rhetorical effect in large part, he understands perfectly well, he's simply choosing not to.

Quote from: jdrakeh[On other topics, note that adventure can be a theme -- the term "thematic" doesn't mean "non-adventurous"]

So true.

If I may get "meta" for a moment here...

I think there's a tendency in these discussions to read stuff into what other people say based on who they are or certain hot-button buzzwords that they use. At least that's a phenomenon I see in a lot of Forge-centric discussion (leading to both wrong-headed support and wrong-headed rejection of the theory), and I can't help worrying that it's what's going on with Settembrini's concept. Because to me, Abyssal Maw's gloss of Sett makes perfect sense, but I don't really know if Sett has said what AM attributes to him.

For what it's worth, my gloss of AM's gloss is that "adventure games" are those where the players interact with the game entirely, or nearly entirely, through their in-game personas, using mechanics that represent the way the persona is imagined to interact with the game world.

Another way of putting it, I think, is to say that adventure games don't contain mechanical rules which operate directly on the metatextual level--the level of theme, interpretation, and abstraction. Whatever is there in the game that does touch on that level isn't intended to be read as "rules", nor is it received by the participants as such.

By the by, I'm borrowing a bit from fusangite in this ENworld thread. But you can also look at what Vincent wrote about Technical Agenda in his blog. His first group is pretty clear, I think:

QuoteProceduralist
The rules explicitly organize the interactions of the people, with little reference to the fictional stuff. Examples: Primetime Adventures, Universalis, The Nighttime Animals Save the World.

Technical Simulationist
The rules work on the pretense that they directly represent the fictional stuff. They leave organization of the players' interaction strictly unspoken. (Of course they do organize interaction, but indirectly and often without consideration. I consider this pretense socially destructive.) Examples: GURPS, Vampire: the Masquerade, Ars Magica.

Effectivist
The rules refer extensively to the fictional stuff but don't pretend to represent it directly. They organize the players' interactions explicitly, but based on the fictional stuff. Examples: Dogs in the Vineyard, Over the Edge, The Mountain Witch.

IMO the middle category is the same as "adventure game", Vincent's reaction to it is typical of the way "adventure games" are misunderstood, while the "effectivist" category is what's typically offered as a superior tool for accomplishing what, it is supposed, the unwashed masses really want.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo true.

One of the main reasons that I don't participate in game forums as much as I once did is that I've seen no other place where the English language is so frequently raped -- as if, somehow, capitalizing the "a" in "adventure" makes all currently recognized definitions of the word incorrect and elevates Whatever Rant Poster X is Currently On About to the status of a new universal standard for language :rolleyes:

[Back on Topic]

David's three questions were of interest to me because I (often) hear the completely unsupported strawman argument that elevating relationships (in-game) to the status of central focus for play somehow invalidates all other aspects of the game. Naturally, games such as SOAP prove that this argument has absolutely no merit. Still, it persists. By answering the questions the way that I did, I hoped only to illustrate that any element of a game is only as intrusive as the players let it be.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor what it's worth, my gloss of AM's gloss is that "adventure games" are those where the players interact with the game entirely, or nearly entirely, through their in-game personas, using mechanics that represent the way the persona is imagined to interact with the game world.

I should have said, that the players' mechanical interaction with the game is through their in-game personas. I'll add that perceiving a distinction between mechanical & nonmechanical is probably also a criterion, as well as the nature of the nonmechanical, social interaction with the game, in terms of roles & responsibilities.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think there's a tendency in these discussions to read stuff into what other people say based on who they are or certain hot-button buzzwords that they use. At least that's a phenomenon I see in a lot of Forge-centric discussion (leading to both wrong-headed support and wrong-headed rejection of the theory), and I can't help worrying that it's what's going on with Settembrini's concept. Because to me, Abyssal Maw's gloss of Sett makes perfect sense, but I don't really know if Sett has said what AM attributes to him.

Whether AM's take on adventure gaming makes sense depends on the individual - to me it makes sense in that I understand where he's coming from but it really does not accurately describe what I have seen happen around the gaming table and to a lesser extent some of the stuff I've read - but I can say for sure it's not what Sett has been saying.

I think there is a tendency by supporters of problematic theory/jargon to make the theory/jargon more palatable or gloss over some of the more extreme rhetoric and of course the old "here's what he/she said...this is what he/she meant" type posts.

QuoteOriginally posted by jdrakeh
David's three questions were of interest to me because I (often) hear the completely unsupported strawman argument that elevating relationships (in-game) to the status of central focus for play somehow invalidates all other aspects of the game. Naturally, games such as SOAP prove that this argument has absolutely no merit. Still, it persists. By answering the questions the way that I did, I hoped only to illustrate that any element of a game is only as intrusive as the players let it be.

(Bolding mine) This is exactly what Sett has claimed/hinted at in many of his posts including the thread I linked to.

And Elliot, how about answering the questions.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R(Bolding mine) This is exactly what Sett has claimed/hinted at in many of his posts including the thread I linked to.

I've seen many of these assertions elsewhere, but never a single shred of evidence to support them. A group of people deciding to focus on relationships in the game that they're currently playing does not make all other aspects of the rule set cease to exist, nor does it prevent said focus from shifting to those other aspects in the future (should the players decide to do so) :rolleyes:

[Edit: Come to think of it, the crux of these claims is essentially that the game has shifted away from the playstyle that the complaintant enjoys more. In short, it's not a rule issue, but simply an issue of one person's interests diverging from what the rest of a group wants and, subsequently, that one person complaining loudly that the group won't do things his/her preferred way and is therefore wrong. It's all value judgement in the absence of emperical evidence and, thus, it's a valid statement of opinion but not a thing that can be proven conclusively and by no means a universal truth, as Settembrini seems to be suggesting.]

Quote from: BalbinusFor example, one of my players a while back wanted to play Tunnels & Trolls, because it didn't have many rules to get in the way of the roleplaying.

On Blakkie's analysis that is a nonsensical statement, but the flaw is that it's a statement large swathes of gamers would understand quite easily.

But I think Blakkie puts this on for rhetorical effect in large part, he understands perfectly well, he's simply choosing not to.

I understand that attitude perfectly and intuitively. Blakkie's points I have to work at, not being the sharpest tool in the shed. I think I understand him better now, though, and that helps a lot. It's been worth the effort.

-clash

Quote from: David RThis is exactly what Sett has claimed/hinted at in many of his posts including the thread I linked to.

"Because Adventure is something new and exciting. Whereas relationship problems are the same old same old."

Fair enough, David. Here you go.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

They're pretty important. To me "relationships" however means how the character is situated or defined in the game world. It really is pretty nebulous because I get a kick out of playing some pretty dungeon-crawly games with minimal characterization, that are still recognizably RPGs or RPG-like. E.g. first-person shooters like Marathon would have far less attraction without the atmospheric dress and narrative continuity.

Put another way, if you give me a completely rudimentary character with no predefined relationships, I'll enjoy exploring "the world" and forming relationships with its inhabitants, as opposed to just seeing them as tools in my pursuit of leveling-up or kicking ass. I enjoy the latter, but without a setting that offers relationships & narrative continuity, I think I'd prefer a board game--basically because board games typically provide more interesting mechanical interactions.

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

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. My relationships are meaningful and significant. Other players' relationships (and especially NPC-NPC relationships) are angsty wankery.

Seriously, I have limited tolerance for playing that stuff out. I'd rather have it in terms of "Oh no, the duke is in prison! He was always cool to us, let's save him!", or "Crap, Nasferdin again! Always complicating things for us".

PC-PC stuff is generally good unless forced. Though frankly it takes a lot of effort to develop distinct PC-PC relations, as opposed to just messing with each other through each others' PCs.

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

Not in the games I've enjoyed most; conversely, the RP games that I've played which do use rules for exploring relationships have been pretty hard to work with.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Very, relationships drive the action, the PCs do x to help y, do a to thwart b, the PCs are allies of c, enemies of d, PC e has a budding relationship with npc f and so on.

Relationships are the glue that binds the adventure together by and large, not always, but often.

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

No, they drive the action.  The PCs are friends of the Baron, who is threatened by forces unknown, so for friendship they investigate.  The PCs cut a deal with Carlos Fuentes, but poison his friend Sebastien, because they fear them both but think they can take Sebastien.  The two key motives for action are relationships and advancement (in the in world sense, the acquisition of wealth and power).

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

No, none at all, we don't use rules for relationships and I have no especial interest in doing so.

Feel free to ask questions.

Quote from: blakkieWhat would happen if you sat down to write an essay about how you handle social character interactions in a game and accidentally wrote it in "rules" form?

What would happen if you sat down to write an essay about how you handle social interactions in your day-to-day real life and accidentally wrote it in "rules" form?  How long would your essay be?  How many rules would they contain?  And would you switch to using the rules defined in the essay to run your life rather than just, uh, interacting socially with other people like you always have?

Quote from: GrimGent"Because Adventure is something new and exciting. Whereas relationship problems are the same old same old."

Thank you. So, that clarifies a lot -- I gather that "Adventure" is apparentlly a new term for "What I personally like" and "Thematic" is a new term for "Everything I personally dislike". I come to this conclusion because, using the actual English definition of both words in question, elements of what Settembrini defines as "Adventure" are not precluded from being themes (and, hence, thematic) and vice-versa. This being the case, I'm not certain that there is much to discuss here.

I think this thread would go smoother if we didn't try to explain for Set what he meant, because as the thread continues I think we get further and further from whatever that was.

Besides, that's its own topic, David has asked quite a good question here and I appreciate it's related, but we don't need to agree with or even understand Set's division to answer David's questions.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

They are very important in most games; they provide the meaning and context for the action. At the start of the game, we usually have defined

* Relationships between PC's -- often way beyond "you all meet in a bar"
* Relationships between PC's and NPC's -- in many cases game rules allow for the creation of DNPC's, patrons, contacts, etc. In other cases, a player will just say, "My Editor hates me and always sends me on stories that'll get me killed" with no formal rules.
* Relationships between NPC's that serve to explain the starting situation of the game
* Relationships between the characters and the world (status, jobs, history, etc.) -- often specified with game-system stuff where appropriate

Sometimes we play games where they're not so important. The last time I ran D&D (a couple of years ago) the PC's were all completely independent and all met in a bar. But once we started the game relationships arose and eventually drove the action, so even then they became important...

Quote from: David R2. Do these relationships get in the way of the "action" ?

I think I kind of see how this could be the case -- if a player defines a relationship that would...

* Separate him from the rest of the PC's for extended times
* Have a dramatic effect on the game in a way that was not interesting or disruptive ("Hunted by Viper" is an example: when Viper shows up, everyone's in a big fight, usually. If that happens *every* scenario, people might start complaining.
* Take a *lot* of attention (this is usually less about the relationship itself and more about how it manifests -- but the nature or number of relationships can impact this)

... I can see there being a problem. In most cases we just downplay (or in extreme cases) ignore the relationship, or talk about the problem before the game starts. I can't, off the top of my head, think about an issue like this in the past several years.

If the question was more about "does human interaction get in the way of killing monsters" then the answer is a kind amused smile. Of course it does.

Quote from: David R3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

If they were no rules for this kind of thing, would you still have them in your games? [/QUOTE]

The rules can give some structure and formality to the creation of relationships but I find that relationships exist as much in games without rules for them as for games that do.

I'm *ONLY* interested in rules that help to define the existence of a relationship. I probably wouldn't play a game with significant mechanics for interpersonal communication or the like.

Cheers,
-E.