Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082040estar,

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.)

Glad to be of service.

It is rare that anybody gets beyond the debate about definitions and ask what are the implications of either my view or other view.

Side Bar
I think this is a side effect of the dominance of the Dungeons & Dragon brand (or Pathfinder in some years). Since the late 70s, much of the industry and hobby has been defined by how they are not or are like whatever edition of D&D is currently being published.

So it is important to the identity of alternatives in the hobby and industry that they are seen in the same category as D&D i.e as synonym for tabletop roleplaying games.

When games were sold by being shipped to distributors and then game stores, being seen like D&D was an important distinction.  However in the last decade this now only true for game companies printing in volume. For everybody else the Internet has lowered the barriers to communication and sales the point where it doesn't matter.

Anybody with the smarts, the savvy, and the willingness to the work can grow a niche of their own, provided that the material is "interesting"*. What more important is to get the work known period. An important component of that is to be accurate about what you are trying to do with your work.

If that doesn't fit any commonly used labels then don't use them. Put the time in writing a good terse description of what you are trying to do.

"the result of any RPG session is a story"

and

"RPG tend to be of the same story structure as how 'Road movies' are told"

///Simplified (A road movie is a film genre in which the main characters leave home on a road trip, typically altering the perspective from their everyday lives).

Quote from: Tanin WulfAssuming 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?

Quote from: estar;1081972We 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.

Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.

Personally? I do not believe there is a problem, but I'm always willing to be convinced.

But I suspect that was directed at estar and my question was just for context!

Quote from: jhkim;1082065Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.

There's not a big problem but I have seen articles on places like The Mary Sue for beginners saying "DnD too complex? Play these easier RPGs instead!" - followed by shilling for storygames that are nothing like what the average newbie is after.

Quote from: jhkim;1082065Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.

The problem is only on the margins.  There is the technical sense of the terms, in which Pundit's complaint is precisely correct.  And then there is the looser, general usage sense of the term, in which the complaint is irrelevant.  Which is nothing special as an event in language, especially English.  

Specifically, the problems are only with those that want to pretend that there is no difference in the technical sense while hiding behind arguments that invoke the general usage.  How big a problem that is, I couldn't say, since the people that tend to make those kinds of arguments get me to stop listening to them too quick to make an informed judgment.    I suppose it could go the other way, too.  

Mostly, I think it's a prescriptive versus descriptive language fight.  I sympathize with the prescriptive position by nature, but know that it always loses over time ...because, that's how people are.

Quote from: jhkim;1082065Do you think that there is a problem with current usage? I don't get the sense that anyone buys Fiasco or 1001 Nights thinking that it is a traditional RPG. As far as I can tell, people pretty much understand what they're getting when they buy different RPGs or whatever you want to call them.

Only when we talk shop.

I think outside of D&D and a few exceptions like the OSR, Traveller, and perhaps Runequest. Hobbyists have a clear idea of what is what and it is system or brand centered.  With the OSR, Traveller, and Runequest; they are associated with multiple systems/editions and multiple settings.

The Pundit is big on the idea of McLuhan's the medium is the message. Which is a large part of why he does what it does to promote his products. So here it seems like it a big deal that X group is taking over the definition of what X style of game means as is shouted loudly and often by the forum owner. Hobbyists don't give two shits about story games versus RPGs versus wargames.  As long they can play a character having adventures in the time that they have for a hobby in way that fun it is in the ballpark so to speak. When they don't have fun well decline of D&D 4th edition is instructive*.

*D&D 4th edition IMO is fun and well designed. The problem were it was just D&D in name only thus it hard to use older material. Plus the way Wizards followed up with the core book it got old quickly and thus not as fun to play after the umpteenth campaign or session. People play wargames for decades, but only a handful of individual wargames are fun enough to play over and over again. This is the problem with D&D 4e supplements and adventures because they were oriented toward combat encounters. And Wizards never used the exception based design to it advantage like Magic the Gathering did.

For example imagined a core book for a D&D 4e Dark Sun with a completely different set of class and powers designed to give a campaign a Dark Sun feel. But otherwise uses the same engine as Core books.

Mage the Gathering is still going strong because the core of the still works the way it does in the nineties but ever sets tweaks the game so that the strategies changes in interesting ways.

Kind of like what Adventures in Middle Earth does relative to D&D 5e core books

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082049What 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.

Well I like acting as my character personality. However I recognize it not require or necessary. In the late 80s I was a bit of a snob about "roleplaying" as your character. But after a few more years, I realize I being a bit of a dick about it and that all I really needed was the player to act as if they were there as the character. They can be a version of themselves with the abilities of the character and how I run my campaigns will still work.

The only rule at my table in this regard is that you roleplay in first person not third. You don't have to do funny voices, you don't have to come up with a backstory. Just pretend you are there and act accordingly. If you don't know the rules I will help with coaching but in the meantime just describe what you are doing as if you are there.

Flashforward from the early 90s to circa 2010 and Playing at the World is out and we are starting to learn about the origins of the hobby. My general impression that for the most part (there were exceptions) most players did the above, they acted as if they were there with the abilities of the characters. Later as the hobby grew and diversified, people started to roleplay different personalities more.

On the flip side, prior to Blackmoor and tabletop roleplaying, many gamers roleplayed their "general" or another character in the wargames they played. Strategy & Tactics is filled with classified and account of hobbyists talking shit about their games or each other while roleplaying a personae.  And the impression I got after reading everything that most only enjoyed it in small doses.

So the answer is characterization is not important but people do it anyway just because it fun, funny or in some cases to annoy. It not part of the design of a wargame like Tomb the way it is in D&D. Unless you play Munchkin but that just a silly game

I will work up an answer to your previous post later this evening.

Also, "characterization" is not "acting", as estar indicated.  However, there are degrees and kinds of characterization even once you make that distinction.  First person/third person voice is one way to emphasize, but it is still possible to do a good job of characterization in third person voice, though different tables will have different tolerances for that kind of thing.  (Also, some people may not do as well using third person for characterization, though like anything else, you get better with practice.)  Though I'm also not going for the same level of immersion as most people here, either.  First person is more important for immersion than characterization, per se, though anyone that wants a lot of immersion is likely to want the characterization too.

As a supplement to estar's point, I don't demand first person specifically, though I'm fine with anyone using it.  Most players in our games slip back and forth between first and third, as the situation warrants.  I do want strong characterization, though, at least from long-time players.  A personality needs to emerge, and the other players need to have some idea of those role play decisions you are making on behalf of your character, without you explicitly stating what they are.  We tend to rely more on consistent behavior from the characters in stressful situations to produce that, supplemented by mannerisms, speech patterns (even in third), and that sort of thing. You can also get a long way towards a start of that goal with simple motivations (e.g. greedy) for new or casual players.  Just because some people stop with simple motivations, they are still a fairly solid foundation for players that want to do more.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;1082038A 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.

Off topic:  But by the 1980s, Brits started to turn against the word. "The penetration of the game into American culture," Szymanski writes, "has led to backlash against the use of the word in Britain, where it was once considered an innocuous alternative to the word 'football.'"

That is my source.  Apologies for the derail.  I will NOT pursue.

Does it count as a Tabletop RPG if you combine tabletop football (Bloodbowl?) with a game to simulate being a manager of a football team over a whole season? Because then this football derail is totally on topic! (I jest.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1082117Off topic:  But by the 1980s, Brits started to turn against the word. "The penetration of the game into American culture," Szymanski writes, "has led to backlash against the use of the word in Britain, where it was once considered an innocuous alternative to the word 'football.'"

That is my source.  Apologies for the derail.  I will NOT pursue.

Don't pursue - fine.

You win. Article in an American magazine, quoting an academic from an American university. Clearly correct.

I just happen to have lived in the UK all my life (60 years old now, soddit), so what do I know? Christ!

Quote from: estar;1082075So the answer is characterization is not important but people do it anyway just because it fun, funny or in some cases to annoy. It not part of the design of a wargame like Tomb the way it is in D&D. Unless you play Munchkin but that just a silly game

Well, characterization can take on many forms. If a buddy of mine who isn't good at role-playing his PC picks level advancements based on how he sees his character and not for character optimization - that is characterization.

On the other hand, we shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at the fringes of cluster - when we define role-playing games as opposed to wargames, we're looking for common proporties of entities (games) that lie near the center of each cluster. For example, in some RPGs you get to play more than character - but it's not typical. In wargames, you can role-play as a general or whatever - but it's not a defining feature; it's something some people add on top outside of the rules of the game.

So for me, playing as individuals and characterization of these individuals are core features of RPGs. And, if you will, yes, that you can "go off the map" (ignore the plot, leave the boundaries of the sandbox) of a scenario, if the GM is willing to improvise. That would be very uncommon in wargames. Plus, RPGs are generally more cooperative, wargames generally more competetive.

AGAIN: we're talking about widespread (as opposed to universal) properties. I just wanna avoid somebody coming in and flashing his knowledge how RPG X, Y and Z do not have one of those features. That only shows that there may be outliers. If someone wanted to dispute any of the above, they'd have to show instead that most common RPGs do not have one of those features.

I think they do.

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

A game focused on players running singular characters, cooperative play (players work together with an impartial GM to arbitrate results) and ability to improvise (no set scenario) should definitely be near the center of the traditional RPG cluster.

There's obviously a range though. For example, even up through 2e there was an expectation that the PCs would be wrangling and even running their henchmen and hirelings. But that was always through the lens that these were the agents and employees of the actual PC (and that much of running them was simply to cut down on the GMs work load... the GM could absolutely step in and override the player if they felt they weren't being run properly).

The adversarial vs. impartial/cooperative GM is another example of how that range could be shifted. I suspect, a fair chunk of the "let's give the players more agency/GM as another type of player" sentiment in terms of design stems from specific instances of players encountering such adversarial GMs and wanting a game system that reigned in the GMs ability to do so.

MMORPGs are a solid example of where the ability to improvise actions is strongly curtailed. You could improvise during freeform RP sessions between fellow players, but as soon as you start running any actual content you're locked intonthe scripted conversations and combat built into the game.

Railroad adventure modules/Living campaign style play are lesser examples because it's not that they can't go off the rails, just that the GM has strong incentive to keep it on them lest they have to start improvising.

The primary break point for the story game genre from that core would be the degree to which the players manage the world outside their PC. They aren't just managing the decisions of their PCs henchmen in combat, they're managing aspects of the world their PC is interacting with.

The secondary point is that they lean more towards true cooperative play where the GM (if there even is one) is seen more as a fellow player constrained by the rules than as a referee who can decide the rules.

For me I think the point where it ceases to be an RPG would be the point where there is no longer a distinct GM/Referee. Computer games can be RPGs (albeit ones with no ability to improvise outside the lines) so long as the ending is at least somewhat dependent on the PCs actions (ex. Dragon Age Origins had a number of possible endings for both your character and the kingdoms involved based on your PCs choices so would definitely fall under the RPG header for me) because the program itself is an utterly impartial referee for your actions in the game.

But no matter how you slice it, Monopoly or Risk can't be RPGs (at least not without some serious house rules) because they are designed for play without any sort of referee.

Fate would still be an RPG (albeit one with a lot of metagame elements) because there is still a GM who, even if not all-powerful, still has the vast majority of control over the world and events. Fiasco would not be because it completely lacks a GM/Referee beyond the same level of consensus you'd need to play Monopoly with some house rules.

So long as there's a referee, the players are playing "something" inside the setting, even if it's not a discrete individual. It might effectively be the gods/cosmics forces behind the Northmen in their struggle to defeat the Southlanders, but it's not "the setting" as a whole they're in control of. That would be a pretty trippy game (though less so if you anthropomorphized it into the PCs playing the gods involved in something like The Illiad), but it'd still be an RPG of sorts.

At least that's where I'd draw the line.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;1082167Don't pursue - fine.

You win. Article in an American magazine, quoting an academic from an American university. Clearly correct.

I just happen to have lived in the UK all my life (60 years old now, soddit), so what do I know? Christ!

My late bridge partner Brian, who played Rugby for Bath in his youth,  said that it was a class thing in England. Soccer was used more often by the people he hung out with and football was more often by the upper classes. Of course, he and I both called it "kickball" but that was just being snotty, sort of like calling something a storytelling game.