(Not sure how this post fits in. Actually I started it last night and things may have moved on since then.)

Quote from: jeff37923;220361Then again, while its obvious that Spinichcat loves 4E, that doesn't mean that his positive view of 4E should be the only one in acceptance or that 4E detractors do not have equally valid points to make.

I agree, absolutely. It's just that once you pass a certain degree of quality (and even that is pretty hard to pin down when it comes to RPGs, which get so much of their "oomph" from the people playing them as opposed to the rules), saying that you like or dislike a certain game says more about your tastes than it does about the game itself.

Sort of a digression on quality follows...

An example from board games (which are easier to pin down since the rules define play much more completely than do RPGs in general)...Everybody knows Battleship, right? I found a game at a yard sale called Impact Zone which seemed kinda cool based on the components, and the price was minimal. So I got it home and what do I see, a battleship clone with some electronic enhancements. But unlike Battleship, the bits that you're trying to hit occupy exactly one square each; there's zero strategy either in positioning the pieces or calling shots, and no suspense as a player tries to zero in on the orientation of a target. I feel comfortable saying that except for the very, very young, who will enjoy the illusion of interacting with the pretty components, the game is objectively worse than Battleship. It fails the quality test. But Battleship vs. Mouse Trap is IMO a different matter. Not that Mouse Trap has much strategy--though actually as far as I can tell it does very slightly reward dexterity and basic calculation. However Mouse Trap doesn't really pretend to be much more than a race game with an awesome gadget attached and in that respect it succeeds. By contrast, Impact Zone contains elements that really only make sense as strategy-facilitating, that is, it requires the players to make decisions about setting up their boards and calling their shots--but none of those decisions matter at all.

So what I'm saying is, by a metric that would be almost universally accepted as appropriate to the game in question, Impact Zone is a bad game. OTOH, saying you like Mouse Trap more than Battleship, or that you prefer Stratego and hate Tiddlywinks--well, these say more about you than they do about the games themselves.

Oh, yeah, the point: nevertheless I think once you recognize this, you can go ahead and decry, bemoan, rue, regret, and lament the prevalence of one taste over another in the gaming population, especially if (as described here) the people who have that taste are themselves guilty of thinking it's the only thing that counts or that the game they like, because it satisfies their taste, automatically works just as well for any other taste that matters.

Quote from: jeff37923;220393Just because 4E works for you and your taste in gaming doesn't mean that it works for everyone else. It just means that it works for you. 4E doesn't work for me.

He wasn't talking about taste, he's talking about objectively verifiable facts. "4e is not a roleplaying game" is demonstrably untrue, as there are people out there using it to roleplay.

Edit: I wrote this last night and forgot to hit post (it was 5:30am, sue me ). Looks like it's already been explained better since then.

Quote from: James McMurray;220514He wasn't talking about taste, he's talking about objectively verifiable facts. "4e is not a roleplaying game" is demonstrably untrue, as there are people out there using it to roleplay.

I'm not suggesting 4e is not a roleplaying game.

But I am interested in how you demonstrate whether something is or isn't a roleplaying game... and which of Buffy the Vampire Slayer the Boardgame, Arkham Horror, Tannhäuser, Warhammer 40K: Rogue Trader,, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Polaris and the Shab-al-Hiri Roach are (or are not) RPGs.

A game designed for roleplaying is a roleplaying game. A game not designed for roleplaying is not a roleplaying game. That doesn't mean you can't adopt a funny voice and persona while playing banker in monopoly, but the game itself is not an RPG, you're just adapting it to that purpose.

I don't know a lot of games on that list, but if they're board games or wargames, they're probably not roleplaying games. From my limited understanding, Buffy is not. Dogs, My Life with Master, and the Roach are. The others I don't know.

Somebody please name one occasion where trying to define the term "role-playing game" ever helped a thread.

Quote from: jrients;220570Somebody please name one occasion where trying to define the term "role-playing game" ever helped a thread.

Waddya mean!?!? It ALWAYS seems to make them grow and grow and grow!

Quote from: jrients;220570Somebody please name one occasion where trying to define the term "role-playing game" ever helped a thread.

Until now I'd never realized there was any doubt. It always seemed like a self-descriptive term to me.

Quote from: James McMurray;220579Until now I'd never realized there was any doubt. It always seemed like a self-descriptive term to me.

Me too. What people seem to not want to come out and say, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that because 4e places such an emphasis on mini and mat use, it is not now a rpg. Apparently the folks saying this are trying to sell the idea that a roleplaying game can't require or even emphasize the use of anything remotely resembling a board and pieces and still remain a roleplaying game. In 4e's case it's wrong. I have played Arkham Horror, and I can say that when we played it, we did not use it to roleplay, and it is not considered a rpg by anyone I've ever heard of who's familiar with it. I'm sure a whole gaggle of folks will go on about how 4e is just like it (as well as other board games).

Quote from: Sigmund;220583Me too. What people seem to not want to come out and say, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that because 4e places such an emphasis on mini and mat use, it is not now a rpg.

Since I've been involved in the conversation about 4e and minis, I want to make clear that this is not my position. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from: Stuart;220553I'm not suggesting 4e is not a roleplaying game.

But I am interested in how you demonstrate whether something is or isn't a roleplaying game... and which of Buffy the Vampire Slayer the Boardgame, Arkham Horror, Tannhäuser, Warhammer 40K: Rogue Trader,, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Polaris and the Shab-al-Hiri Roach are (or are not) RPGs.

I would deffine roleplaying game as game where roleplaying is what makes the game fun and enjoyable and when you remove this aspect of said game, the game won't be playable anymore...

Quote from: Sigmund;220583What people seem to not want to come out and say, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that because 4e places such an emphasis on mini and mat use, it is not now a rpg.

So, why should people give their opinions if this is what you think you are interpreting, regardless of what they have posted? It would all just be obfuscation to you.

Quote from: SigmundApparently the folks saying this are trying to sell the idea that a roleplaying game can't require or even emphasize the use of anything remotely resembling a board and pieces and still remain a roleplaying game.

Said gamer remains RPG as long as roleplaing isn't optional choice that can be entirely ignored, whikle the game still rpovides fun... example of scu game, where roleplaying is entirely otional would be for example Fury of Dracula... you can roleplay in this game, but you don't have to and it might actually slow down the game and make it less fun...

Quote from: SigmundIn 4e's case it's wrong.

I've played it and I am not sure if ti falls into RPG cathegory or into category of boardagem with roleplaying posibilities... It's not bad game, but i am not sure if it's RPG...

Quote from: Fritzs;220606I've played it and I am not sure if ti falls into RPG cathegory or into category of boardagem with roleplaying posibilities... It's not bad game, but i am not sure if it's RPG...

It might not be an RPG under your definition, at least not for you. Your definition brings opinion into the mix, which means it's not going to be useful in a discussion about roleplaying games, because you won't even be able to agree on whether almost any game is actually an RPG. For instance, roleplaying isn't necessary for fun in BD&D. You could play it as a combat game as well, and it wouldn't be unplayable. There are very few games where RPing is mandatory or the game falls apart (Amber springs to mind).

It's like saying "I define food to be something that tastes good." Suddenly a huge chunk of edible and nutritious stuff that was prepared for the sole purpose of being eaten is no longer food.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are very few games where RPing is mandatory or the game falls apart (Amber springs to mind).

I don't think they are few and far between... Try remove RP from White Wolf games... the system might stay intact, but it won't be fun to play and therefore fail at being game... even Shadowrun won't work this way.

Quote from: James McMurrayYour definition brings opinion into the mix, which means it's not going to be useful in a discussion about roleplaying games, because you won't even be able to agree on whether almost any game is actually an RPG.

Well, actually I don't think I am bringing oppinion here... Imagine playing Shadowrun without slightest roleplaying... said game would be just rolling dice and numericaly describing the efect (you roled 5 succeses, so anemy street samurai got 2 damages -or- you rolled 3 succeses and enemy IC rolled 4, so it's not shuted down)... this game woul not be fun, just not, but if said game has board and minis, it's different story, because it bring a lot more tactical posibilities and it's no longer abstract as boardless comabat in shadowrun is, so this might be fun, even if theres no roleplaying...

So a lot of RPGs are RPGs because they won't work without roleplaying aspect (they might work for some insignificant minority, strong emphasis on insignificance of said minority), while others are just boardgames where roleplaying is technicaly just optional...