Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081959I do have a question however, what is the benefit in separating styles of RPGs, other than to accuse others of playing the 'Wrong' game?  Because that's all this talk of RPGs and Story Games always lead to.

I'm honestly trying to figure out what other benefit there would to splitting the hobby, yet again.

That's a really good question.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081960That's a really good question.

Ask all the Europeans who call football soccer. Or is it calling soccer football? I'm not a sports fan.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081962Ask all the Europeans who call football soccer. Or is it calling soccer football? I'm not a sports fan.

But both would fans would, presumably, admit that they are games that involve a ball.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081960That's a really good question.

Because the metagaming required by collaborating on a narrative is antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting. Just as pretending to be a character within a setting is antithetical to trying achieve a victory condition to declare a winner and to bring the wargame to an end. To make a good wargame is not the same as what needed to make a good tabletop RPG nor it is the same thing as what needed to make a good storygame. The shift in focus means what each form focus on differs.

Not unlike the changes to tabletop RPGs to make a LARP or to subsitute a software algorithm for a human referee. The shift to live action and the shift to a software algorithm as a referee means while they are still roleplaying games they are very different than tabletop RPG with human referees. What I had to do manage a MMORPG server creatively was different than what I had to creatively with a LARP event and different still from running a tabletop RPG campaign which different still from getting a group to collabrate on a narrative which is again different than playing a wargame either competitive or cooperative.

Some of hard to explain. You need to get in there and do some of this to appreciate the differences.

Assuming I agree that it is antithetical: how do we then draw a bright line that says, "This far is acceptable, but not this" and why that line?

But I'm not sold that it is antithetical. It can be opposed, but I do not see how it must be opposed. Which is probably why I don't see a clear, bright line to say, "This game is OK in this forum, but this one is not."

EDIT: I do like your analogy of the shift from LARP-to-software-referee, etc. They're still RPGs, but of a different experience. So that's a place to begin drawing a line, I suppose!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081959I do have a question however, what is the benefit in separating styles of RPGs, other than to accuse others of playing the 'Wrong' game?  Because that's all this talk of RPGs and Story Games always lead to.

  It can be useful for identifying what games best support different styles of play and aims.

  I wouldn't try to hash out the distinction here, though, because whether or not Pundit has used the term to condemn games he doesn't like, its use on this site is certainly associated with his vendetta against people he doesn't like. Swine, anyone?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081967Assuming I agree that it is antithetical: how do we then draw a bright line that says, "This far is acceptable, but not this" and why that line?

We don't, we just recognize that there is a center of gravity among major type of games and design accordingly. Be honest when presenting a hybrid and come up with a description that brief but accurate.

Basically what I do in regards to my material in regards to the OSR. While I use the label OSR heavily in my promotion like blog posts, I don't rely on it. Nor do I use the term my product. Instead I take the time to tersely describe what I am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme.

I like the label OSR but I don't assume people will know what it means or use in the same way I do. The same way with tabletop roleplaying, wargame, and storygames if pertinent to my works. And it just useful enough to save having to write the group of hobbyists who play, publish, or promote classic editions of D&D and RPGs with related mechanics.

Brady complained about segregation. What he doesn't get that games already segrgate themselves. Just not the way he think they do. When they want to play a wargame they go to places that cater to wargame, the same for tabletop RPGs, and story games. Gamers rarely just play one thing. They are people with multiple interests. However especially in this day each with dozens of games released every day all year, they, me, and you need a starting point.

So hence storygames for those looking for collaborating on creating narrative with a game. Tabletop RPGs for those looking to pretend to be a character having adventures in a setting, and wargames who is looking compete or in some case cooperate to achieve some victory conditions.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081967But I'm not sold that it is antithetical. It can be opposed, but I do not see how it must be opposed. Which is probably why I don't see a clear, bright line to say, "This game is OK in this forum, but this one is not."!

When you are pretending be an elf it is a distraction to be forced as a player to consider other factors other than the circumstances of the situation you are in and what your character is capable. In addition to most Fate points and other metagame mechanics that allows you create stuff out of thin air to benefit your character feels like cheating. Technically there is a downside to Fate Points and similar mechanics, but from long experience that doesn't get emphasized because players don't like to be out of game asshats. And Fate compels and other similar ideas make you feel like an asshat.

This not from me, but paraphrasing comments I got from players in the year I was trying out Fate after the kickstarter fulfilled.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081967EDIT: I do like your analogy of the shift from LARP-to-software-referee, etc. They're still RPGs, but of a different experience. So that's a place to begin drawing a line, I suppose!

LARPS, and especially CRPGs are little more relatable in discussing how a singular change in focus can make for a very different experience. Many of the first MUDs, MUSHes, and Adventures were literally the D&D rule encoding in software with various algorithm acting in lieu of a human referee.

You had your puzzles with Adventure Games, your first MMORPGs with MUDs, your first AIs style algorithm with Rogue-likes. Along with RPGs like Kingsquest and so on. You even have Pen & Paper version of CRPGs with the Fighting Fantasy series like Warlock on Fire Mountain.

Again this is something that more understandable if you actively try the alternatives and see what it actually takes. Not just one or two but the whole gamut of alternatives. You will see what the common elements are and effects of differences.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081962Ask all the Europeans who call football soccer. Or is it calling soccer football? I'm not a sports fan.

The term Soccer comes from the 1800's in England, where it was called Association Football, they took the Association to Soc, and then added -cer to make the word.  However, in the 1980's, England in a fit of superiourity decide to make a show that American Football was somehow bad, and renamed Soccer back to Football.

In essence, they wanted to 'split the hobby' by claiming one group of sports fans as liking the wrong game.

Which leads back to my honest question, as I would sincerely like to know, what benefit is it to split the hobby via ideological lines?  What do we, as players and lovers of these games gain?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081974Which leads back to my honest question, as I would sincerely like to know, what benefit is it to split the hobby via ideological lines?  What do we, as players and lovers of these games gain?

See my reply above yours and a half a dozen of other my posts.

Quote from: estar;1081966Because the metagaming required by collaborating on a narrative is antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting.

Asking Billy Bob Joe to hand you over that bag of Doritos could also be seen as going counter to pretending to be someone else. So it depends, as role-playing doesn't depend on being continuously in character (actor stance) anyway. Which metagaming techniques are how disruptive anyway?

Quote from: estar;1081966Just as pretending to be a character within a setting is antithetical to trying achieve a victory condition to declare a winner and to bring the wargame to an end.

Quite ironic, given that role-playing was born just out of such a hybrid.

Quote from: estar;1081966What I had to do manage a MMORPG server creatively was different than what I had to creatively with a LARP event and different still from running a tabletop RPG campaign which different still from getting a group to collabrate on a narrative which is again different than playing a wargame either competitive or cooperative.

The main difference between a cooperative wargame and some hardcore hack&slash D&D games seems to be adoption of a single character, as opposed to entire units.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009Asking Billy Bob Joe to hand you over that bag of Doritos could also be seen as going counter to pretending to be someone else. So it depends, as role-playing doesn't depend on being continuously in character (actor stance) anyway.

There is a difference between a social disruption and one built into the mechanics.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009Which metagaming techniques are how disruptive anyway?

Blades in the Dark and the structure of a Score.
Whimsy Cards and coming with something that fits the description on the card.
The Fate Economy and the idea that Aspects are what players know about and not necessarily the character.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009Quite ironic, given that role-playing was born just out of such a hybrid.

Hybrids are the norm not the exception when it comes to actual campaigns. Published works on the other hand are not quite as flexible due to limited page count, time and budget. So published work tend to be focus. But occasionally something works and spawn a new type of game or slightly more likely a new subgenre with in a existing set of game.

While Wesely's Braustein was a crucial element that led to Arneson's Blackmoor, there others like the Grand Napoleonic Campaign that Dave ran. However the first few months of Blackmoor were just a sophisticated wargame campaign where everybody played a individual character. Unlike the mixed scope of Wesely's Braustein.

Also the last paragraph of the wikipedia is a simplification of how Blackmoor developed into the first tabletop roleplaying campaign. For example it leads one to think that the Castle Blackmoor Dungeon were part of the campaign initially. In fact it introduced well after it start after several scenarios were run. (see Judges Guild's First Fantasy Campaign, Playing at the World, and Hawk & Moor).

Another tidbit, it not well known that all the factions of Blackmoor were player run including the bad guys which are typically run by the referee in later years. Dave function was arbitate

What turned Blackmoor into the first tabletop roleplaying was having all the things it combined plus Dave Arneson saying "Yes" when players started to ignore the current scenario in favor of their own goal. The decisive point so to speak is when Dave introduced the Blackmoor Dungeon and wound up becoming the most popular part of the campaign. To the point that the good guy players ignore the ongoing war and the baddies (also players) took over Castle Blackmoor.

The PCs were exiled to Lake Gloomy and instead of "learning their lession" promptly started exploring the region for more dungeons (Glendower for example).

I was recently told by several partipcate in the Blackmoor campaign, Dave liked being the neutral referee of opposing player factions better then running the monsters and NPCs of the Blackmoor Dungeon. But his defining characteristic was his ability to run things by the seat of his pants in a way that was fun for all. So despite his preferences, he went along with the players and thus tabletop roleplaying was born.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082009The main difference between a cooperative wargame and some hardcore hack&slash D&D games seems to be adoption of a single character, as opposed to entire units.

Shadow Crossfire, Tomb and other similar games have the players playing individual characters. Along with older examples of Freedom in the Galaxy, SPI's War of the Ring, Melee, and Wizard. The line between RPGs and Wargame is a lot more fuzzier than what you describe above. The same fuzziness exist between storygame and RPGs.

However while the border are fuzzy all three types of games (and others types as well) have a center of gravity that is defined by their primary focus. And because of that focus they emphasize different things in a way that produces a distinct type of game. This is despite sharing many elements in common.

As I said to Tanin, a designer is better off taking the time to tersely describe what they am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme. The use of labels best used as a promotional signpost to let other now what general ballpark you are in.  

Even more narrow labels like OSR, Savage Worlds, Fate, or GURPS doesn't preclude the need to describe the specifics of one's work.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081974The term Soccer comes from the 1800's in England, where it was called Association Football, they took the Association to Soc, and then added -cer to make the word.  However, in the 1980's, England in a fit of superiourity decide to make a show that American Football was somehow bad, and renamed Soccer back to Football.

In essence, they wanted to 'split the hobby' by claiming one group of sports fans as liking the wrong game.

Which leads back to my honest question, as I would sincerely like to know, what benefit is it to split the hobby via ideological lines?  What do we, as players and lovers of these games gain?

A brief aside re: sport - the above is total crap.

In the UK football (what Yanks call soccer) has always been called football.

Soccer is a slang name which is occasionally used in the UK, sometimes to differentiate football from rugby (a game similar but not identical to American football). There was no 1980's decision to start calling soccer football, as it was normally always called football. There was no fit of superiority to change names as American football was deemed 'bad', as in the 1980s American football had as high a visibility in the UK as ice hockey - i.e. obscure.

Where the hell did you come up with this bollocks?

Sorry for the divertion - you can now return to your normal programme.

estar,

I was going to PM you, but your inbox is full. So I guess I'll do this publicly: thanks for contributing to this conversation in such detail and thought. It's nice to see that here, in Mos Eisley, free speech leads to more than just tit-for-tat, but actual constructive free and open exchange of ideas! So, thanks!

(And disclaimer to anyone, anyone, feeling thin-skinned: there was nothing in the above aimed at anyone other than estar. if you read it that way, the problem is you. Don't kill this moment of joy. Don't do it. Just enjoy the good conversation.)

Quote from: estar;1082035There is a difference between a social disruption and one built into the mechanics.

Sure but the significance of that difference depends on how much time an average player is in-character in a session otherwise. If it's 95%, then a built-in mechanic that takes you out of character is a definite problem. If it's 5%, then it makes no difference anyway.

Quote from: estar;1082035Blades in the Dark and the structure of a Score.
Whimsy Cards and coming with something that fits the description on the card.
The Fate Economy and the idea that Aspects are what players know about and not necessarily the character.

Yeah but then you have in Twilight 2nd edition the option to not define gained contacts during character generation but to save any of them to come up with them on-the-fly when needed. So trad games have always had their fair share of players momentarily stepping out of character and acting as players. Role-playing games are a mix of being someone else and acting as a player. It's neither just role-playing, nor just game (except for outliers, see below).

I guess what I fail to comprehend the purism that some people (not necessarily you) pursue in insisting that it's a big problem if you occasionally step out of character and make a decision as a player. This is a part of role-playing. I do get the objection, however, if that takes over and players get to setup their own challenges and solve them through metacurrency.
 

Quote from: estar;1082035Shadow Crossfire, Tomb and other similar games have the players playing individual characters. Along with older examples of Freedom in the Galaxy, SPI's War of the Ring, Melee, and Wizard. The line between RPGs and Wargame is a lot more fuzzier than what you describe above. The same fuzziness exist between storygame and RPGs.

I couldn't agree more. I have linked to a blogpost of mine a while ago and of course nobody read it, so I feel I have to repeat my point here: classification into genres or subgenres is a clustering problem.



We'll never be able to agree if the square on the middle should be yellow or red (or blue). What's even more important: imagine the 3 clusters above were all really close next to each other: coming up with universally accepted definitions for any of them becomes impossible. That's why debates about definitions regarding commonly understood terms are pointless and futile. Plus fringe cases can always be construed with ease for every formal definition.

Everybody here knows roughly what a role-playing game is (thus my invoking the wikipedia definition). Everybody knows roughly what a wargame is. That suffices for most subjects of conversation. And if things touch on the borderline of, say, wargaming and role-playing, we don't have to push our personal formal definition of onto others if they have a different one. All that is required is that we explain our definition so that the others understand the point we're trying to make. It's fine if we personally all draw the line slightly differently; we don't have to make it into a crusade of converting everyone else to our understanding where exactly the border must be drawn.

Quote from: estar;1082035However while the border are fuzzy all three types of games (and others types as well) have a center of gravity that is defined by their primary focus. And because of that focus they emphasize different things in a way that produces a distinct type of game. This is despite sharing many elements in common.

As I said to Tanin, a designer is better off taking the time to tersely describe what they am doing, why, and how it fits in the larger scheme. The use of labels best used as a promotional signpost to let other now what general ballpark you are in.  

Even more narrow labels like OSR, Savage Worlds, Fate, or GURPS doesn't preclude the need to describe the specifics of one's work.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote from: estar;1082035Shadow Crossfire, Tomb and other similar games have the players playing individual characters. Along with older examples of Freedom in the Galaxy, SPI's War of the Ring, Melee, and Wizard.

What I forgot to ask: how important is characterization to these games? I do play as a single character in Talisman or similar games as well. I even do get to customize that Talisman character via events that happen to that character. But a distinct personality for that character, stepping into that character and making decisions from his point-of-view is absent. In Talisman, it's always pawn stance, not even author stance - much less actor stance.