TheRPGSite

John Wick hates D&D. I'm sure no one's heard that before. Here's the article. (http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/)

Benoist's posted a huge epic rebuttal on Facebook, right here (https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152734249038421/).

This has got everything this site loves: online drama, theorywank, D&D... I'll be mighty disappointed with y'all if this clocks in at less than 1000 posts. ;)

I felt John Wick made a well-reasoned argument, with an excellent rebuttal by Benoist. I also appreciate that Benoist didn't degrade his response back to the often-parroted "story gamers are not real gamers" tripe. In fact, I strongly suspect that Benoist has toned down his rhetoric due to his business relationship with Ernie Gygax.

Bravo, I say.

edit - I would like to point out that I am particularly fond of this quote from Jon's article. It's simple, poignant and promotes positive discourse on the nature of role-playing games:

Quote from: John Wickroleplaying game: a game in which the players are rewarded for making choices
that are consistent with the character’s motivations or further the plot of the story.

Drivel from John Wick; a thoughtful response by BP.

I miss BP's presence on these boards. His posts were always an interesting read.

Wick goes wrong with "or further the plot  of the story." That's not role-playing, unless you've got one of those unusual roles who knows she's a character in a story and what plot she wants to further.

"Consistent with character motivations" is bullshit if that requires acting delusional when the character  is not delusional. If a teacup is as good as a gun, then why does anyone carry a gun? If you live in a world in which a kung fu master is deaflier with a thumb than an ordinary soldier with a gun, does that mean the ordinary soldier is on the same footing? In most such fiction I've seen, the answer is no. The kung fu master  is an excception to the rule.

Indeed, there is a major problem when you try to run a previously set story since only game that does that well is a first person shooter console game.

I wonder if either of those two have any game design education?

I agree with Mr. Wick on a number of points... but not his fervor or absolutism about them. I don't take his 'further the plot' to mean there's an actual plot to follow... just that the thing brings something to the actual play... rather than merely satisfying the Player's lust for math and minutia.

And yeah... I miss having Benoist around here.

John Wick did ask an important question, and the answer is...Yes, Sean Connery's thumb does indeed do megadamage.

I can't really disagree with Wick - good gameplay should have meaningful choices, but for the rest of his screed I'm not gonna support either Wick or Benoist because I'm bored with all flavors of onewayism.  Some gamers, but not all gamers, certainly do enjoy playing RPGs as either of these guys describe.

Wick used to GM at LA conventions, so I've had the pleasure of gaming with him several times. He's a good, fun GM and he's had a hard-on against D&D forever, but when I gamed with him (over 6 years ago), he was a more of traditional GM that what I consider a Forge/Indie GM. Now? Who knows? I haven't read his recent RPGs to really find out how his vision plays out on the table.

As for Blogger War 2014, Wick proves he's overall the better writer, so too bad he's not writing a new edition of L5R or 7th Sea. Benoist may make some RPGsite friendly points, but I got too bored to finish it.

Hopefully, RPGPundit will also erupt forth a truly entertaining tirade. With the USA going into Iraq War III, its high time for the War on Swine to be revived yet again!

Why is Benoist no longer posting here?

I posted my own response.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/10/chess-is-game-dungeons-dragons-is.html

The issue I have with Wick's article is where he takes it. I would agree if I am playing a genre heavy game, then yeah that cup it makes sense for it to obliterate skulls. But I am not always doing that. For some games, for some groups, what he suggests works. It is taking that to the level he does, where he defines RPGs as having to basically follow a particular set of genre conventions, where I think the problem is. His way is fine, but then so too is having a realistic setting with weapon charts.

Quote from: Spinachcat;789781I can't really disagree with Wick - good gameplay should have meaningful choices, but for the rest of his screed I'm not gonna support either Wick or Benoist because I'm bored with all flavors of onewayism.  Some gamers, but not all gamers, certainly do enjoy playing RPGs as either of these guys describe.

I think Benoist's post was much less onetruewayism than Wick's in this case though. Benoist basically said at the start, if RPGs are about story for your, then fine, but they are not for everyone, the hobby is big enough for lots of approaches. There were some jabs at the forge in there but otherwise he just seemed to be saying do whatever works for you and your group but don't tell me I am doing it wrong just because I do it different than you.

I actually kinda agree with both of them. I don't give a fuck about gear porn, it's just tedious bullshit getting in the way of playing a character. If your guy is a specialist on a particular type of kit, fine, roleplay it, lecture my character if they say something dumb, but the game mechanical differences aren't likely to be enough to matter. It's easy to get caught up in stuff like this, rather than actually play the game; too much of this bullshit is usually a sign that the designers don't know what is meant to happen at the table, in my experience.

If I'm playing a game where there genuinely are differences that matter, I probably still won't care - I'll play a character who isn't concerned about it, and ask the GM what gun gets used in the movies. That'll do.

The 40k games probably have the right balance for me; lots of guns, yes, but each type is clearly defined, with the encouragement to ornament the name as necessary.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;789784Why is Benoist no longer posting here?

Amongst other things, he was fucked off with the venom directed at anyone who didn't like D&D5 enough or dared question any of Holy Mearls' decisions, including being called out by Our Host on his blog.

You should follow him on facebook, if you're not already. He's pretty cool (Benoist, that is).

I don't get Lawsians.  They're always on about "Roleplaying", but all they ever really talk about is collaborative story-telling as an art form.  

The concept of roleplaying as experiencing a setting through playing a role is just totally alien to their way of thinking.  Which is fine, except when they attempt to exclude it as a playstyle, or go down the Uncle Ronnie route of brain damage bingo.

You're being unfair to Ben there, Spinach, he was remarkably restrained and very "unwayist".


Wick did say one thing that was correct - In a roleplaying game, game balance does not matter.  Unfortunately, that's pretty much all he said that was correct.

I agree with Wick about is that balance doesn't matter and that you only get better by doing. Also agree that 4th edition was a tactical game and not a role playing game. Doesn't change the fact that I enjoyed playing it, but I had no illusions about it.



Haven't gotten to Benoist's rebuttal yet.

Just finished Benoist's rebuttal.

Was he always that long winded? I seem to remember him being more concise and to the point in the past.

I find myself agreeing with both of them on different points.

I agree with Benoist that there is no right way to play an RPG and that the rules should fit the setting. At the same time, I agree with Wick in that I don't believe that balance matters in an RPG.

I absolutely believe that Chess can be turned into an RPG, however, I think once it is, it is no longer Chess.

50/50 for me. I think both have some good points, but I think both miss points severely.

Quote from: everloss;789817I agree with Benoist that there is no right way to play an RPG and that the rules should fit the setting. At the same time, I agree with Wick in that I don't believe that balance matters in an RPG.

Based on what I remember of his posts here I don't think Benoist prays at the shrine of Balance either... at least not mechanical balance.

Rather than the game ratings of tea cup and thumb, my concern would be whether Riddick himself could be killed by a teacup blow to the chest... because otherwise he's just a Mary-Sue and I don't wanna play in that game.

After reading that John Wick post, I honestly have to ask if he's ever played an actual roleplaying game before. Emphasis on game. I mean, sure, he wrote Legend of the Five Rings and 7th Sea, but did he ever play them? As a game?

Wick's telling me that having pages of gun stats is not OK.

Funny, I've experienced synaptic events I interpret as "fun" poring over them and using them in play. Must be something wrong with me.

Or with Wick.

Wick is one of those people who think drow are "problematic" and Benoist once told me he felt ok about not fact-checking what he says when he attacks people because the truth always comes out on the internet.

This means neither of them can ever say anything meaningful ever.

Drow are problematic?

What idiocy.

Wick is a commie storygamer. Who cares what he thinks?

I have met many storygamers. They never bring snacks.

Quote from: Brad;789834I mean, sure, he wrote Legend of the Five Rings and 7th Sea, but did he ever play them? As a game?

I did a lot of research in my naive attempt to fix 7th Sea's various piss poor subsystems. I got the distinct impression Wick himself felt the system had been fatally diluted by too many compromises on behalf of market realities. The magic system, for instance, was not to his taste, even though it's one of the coolest things about 7th Sea; left to his own devices he would have only included the Sorte sorcery.

To his credit, he was also upset with some of the ways the infamous metaplot went on to develop. For instance, he wasn't a fan of the inclusion of Sophia's Daughters in the first place (they often came off as redundant with many of the setting's baseline feminist assumptions), so when their splatbook came out and turned them into an army of Mary Sues...

Wick's article reads as a big false dichotomy to me. Basically "rules exist to generate game balance, game balance is wargaming, down with rules". Except...rules don't exist just to generate game balance. I don't think he gets what a lot of them are for.

Like, Riddick killing someone with a teacup is interesting precisely because a teacup does shitty base damage; this is actually something that a rogue in 3E could do maybe with a d2 improvised weapon + a large enough bucket of sneak attack damage. Someone opting to do that would be roleplaying, and it'd be an example of a "procedurally generated" story - events being generated by the rules.

I don't quite know what alternative he's proposing is, but, say, just having a player spend 15 Spotlight Points to evaporate a Minor Dramatic NPC and describe it however they want is all well and good if it floats your boat, but its not really cool in the same way.


Also, I'd agree "spotlight balance" is more important that "number" balance, but, I'm pretty loathe to reconstruct my gameworld or adventure specifically to provide the former, or really want this provided for me. I think vaguely comparable numbers gives the players a fair chance at spotlight time, and after that its up to them.

Wick's article and argument basically boil down to him telling me I'm having badwrong fun. I'm not playing properly, not following the one true way. Roleplaying, apparently, is solely about telling a story.

If you find it fun to have a character with a long list of various weapons with slightly different stats and uses, you're doing it wrong.

If you find killing orcs in spectacular fashion to be fun, even if it doesn't advance a plot, you're doing it wrong.

I just shake my head. Is he just mad that only a handful of people are playing Houses of the Blooded compared to legions playing D&D 5e? So tell them they're doing it wrong?

Quote from: Warboss Squee;789850Drow are problematic?

What idiocy.

Well, they ARE a little goofy. Think about it: the only well known established Matriarchy in D&D lore are a bunch of evil sexy S&M slavers who worship a demon queen goddess of darkness and evil.

Oh and they're "black".

Yes I hated Drizzt and those stories.

EDIT: i had never heard of John Wick before. He made some interesting points, but I rather disagree with him. Who the hell is HE to tell me that I'm playing my games wrong? Is this some kind of rebuttal to an opposing force of the RPG industry?

As Old Geezer keeps on saying: just roll the fucking dice. There are gaming styles for everyone out there: the trick is to find groups who match yours. By communicating (I mean in person, not in opinion pieces on social media).

Wankery. All pure wankery. If two members of my gaming group got into a drivel filled argument of this sort I'ld post guards at the door to keep them away from our next session.

I like Benoist, but I didn't read his post entirely. Too long and not really going anywhere. Basicly play it like you like it, but the very long winded version.

John Wick I actually agree with. It's a bit absolutist, but a lot of people play D&D like Munchkin. Kick in door, kill monsters, loot the room, repeat. If you play it like Heroquest, then you are playing a boardgame. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Most pc RPG's are like that. But the story takes the backseat.

D&D and Warhammer both originated from Wargames, right? So a lot of people are only thinking about meta stuff like the best gear and min-maxing your character. It is a combat simulator. I like it better when there are a lot of NPC's, different factions and choices and consequences. To me that's more rewarding but harder to pull off.

I can't believe I'm getting drawn into having an opinion about this... but, in addition to being pointless, this is a false dichotomy. There is something else that is different from a board game and has nothing to do with advancing a 'story' and that is obviously roleplaying. You know it when you see/do it. It involves a group of knuckleheads riffing off each other and having fun pretending to be heroes or villains or whatever while getting in scraps and poisoning the Viscount of Burbleham and stealing the salt shakers from the best restaurant in Burbleham, and so forth. It is ridiculous to call it a story because no one knows where it is going and can't remember afterwards what the point of it all was. But it is also obviously not a board game. So, as far as I can tell these guys are arguing about two things that (mostly) don't exist and ignoring the thing that does exist.

QuoteJohn Wick I actually agree with. It's a bit absolutist, but a lot of people play D&D like Munchkin. Kick in door, kill monsters, loot the room, repeat. If you play it like Heroquest, then you are playing a boardgame. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Most pc RPG's are like that. But the story takes the backseat.
]f.

I just can't get behind this sentiment. It certainly isn't how I play. I really just don't have much fun with kick in the door style games, but people have been doing kick in the door since the early days of the hobby and they've been large in number. To suddenly define them out of the hobby because some of us prefer talking more in character, to me, is sophistry.

I think I've lost count how many arguments I've wound up in that I enjoy having some game in my role playing. Or at least my RPGs. A fully deterministic system just isn't nearly as interesting to me as one where I have to put something on the line to take an important action, be it failure of my action or getting punted by a troll when it's turn comes around and it's still standing.

So ideally I want a bit of both, some times I want to stare daggers at my dice because they failed me, it's just more fun to me that way.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789892I just can't get behind this sentiment. It certainly isn't how I play. I really just don't have much fun with kick in the door style games, but people have been doing kick in the door since the early days of the hobby and they've been large in number. To suddenly define them out of the hobby because some of us prefer talking more in character, to me, is sophistry.

Well said.

The ideology behind Wick's post is apparent:
"If you can play a game without Roleplaying, it is not a Roleplaying Game."
Completely and totally missing the point, that when I do something in game that looks to others like roleplaying, I could be doing it for a host of reasons, that have nothing to do with "what my character would do" and no one will know the difference, because the act of immersing in a character is a mental state, only you know if you're really doing it.

Wick's point is similar to, but not the same thing as...
"If the mechanics force you to make decisions while not Roleplaying, it is not the same type of Roleplaying Game as those which do not."

Now, for those with memory, this is basically what I say differentiates games with strong narrative mechanics from those without.  As you also know if you have a good memory, this simple concept spawns more drive-bys and mattress go-tos on this site then just about anything else.  The same people, of course, will properly accept Wick's statement as an Article of Faith.

So it's ironic.  The guy who says D&D is not roleplaying because the mechanics can be engaged without roleplaying, also belongs to a school of design that stresses mechanics which encourage "roleplaying" by which they really mean "narrative authorship of your character and his story from a 3rd person perspective".

It's like saying "The Sun is not Yellow, in fact the Moon is Blue."  It's incorrect on so many levels, there is no place to start.

Wick's post:

Typical storygamer one-true-wayism, built on a tottering foundation of assumptions that simply aren't true for 90 per cent of people who have played roleplaying games.

People play RPGs to emulate literary or movie genres? Bzzzt. Wrong. Some people do. Many don't. I'm old enough that when I grew up kids didn't spend 30+ hours a week watching movies, TV, and videogames. I read voraciously, but I started playing D&D at 10 years old, and I played more hours in a week than I read. Same with my buddies. So D&D was its own genre. We weren't trying to make our sessions mimic a book or a movie. We didn't have any literary genre expectations. We just felt making up cool characters and exploring dungeons, ruins, and crypts while taking on the role of those characters was awesome fun.

Oh, and two of my buddies from my original D&D group went on to get degrees in literature, and I myself have pretty high-brow taste in fiction and drama. So it's not as though we don't enjoy or understand narrative and themes and all that jazz. We simply don't expect or want that stuff in our RPGs.

I don't know why these clowns want to whittle down the definition of RPGs so narrowly that it's a hobby enjoyed only by a few thousand people. Actually, I know bloody well why they do - so they can console themselves that they are in fact a very big deal in a very small pond. And to place themselves in the esteemed literary academic camp rather than the far larger pool of mouth-breathing gamers. Their pretensions are almost comically transparent.

Beonist's post:

I don't remember him being that long-winded, or that even-handed, when he posted here. I do remember him being a relentlessly belligerent thread-crapper.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789892I just can't get behind this sentiment. It certainly isn't how I play. I really just don't have much fun with kick in the door style games, but people have been doing kick in the door since the early days of the hobby and they've been large in number. To suddenly define them out of the hobby because some of us prefer talking more in character, to me, is sophistry.

I don't define anyone out of the hobby. I don't say they are not roleplaying. And I don't say every player plays it like I just described it. D&D is just more geared towards being played as a roleplaying miniatures game with a lot of focus on the tactical combat aspect of the game. That's just what it is. I can't help it. Don't shoot the messenger. Just stating facts here.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789902I don't define anyone out of the hobby. I don't say they are not roleplaying. And I don't say every player plays it like I just described it. D&D is just more geared towards being played as a roleplaying miniatures game with a lot of focus on the tactical combat aspect of the game. That's just what it is. I can't help it. Don't shoot the messenger. Just stating facts here.

In your post you said they were playing D&D as a board game, not a roleplaying game. Wick pretty explicitly stated that 4E is not an RPG but a tactical board game. I just can't get behind that line of reasoning where people take their preferences then build a definition of RPG around it, usually with the intention of eliminating something from the hobby they dislike.

And I say that as someone who can't stand 4E.

Wick seems to be making two points, the first being his answer to the question of "what is a role-playing game?" and the second being "on the importance of 'game balance.'" He then tries to present them as being interrelated points.

Benoist's response seems to disagree with the first point, and offer a "yes, but..." to the second one.

Personally, I think they have some good points between them, but I think that they're only tangentially mentioning the salient issues that are at the core of these questions.

Insofar as "what really constitutes a role-playing game" is concerned, I prefer Jon Peterson's analysis (in Playing at the World). While he identifies several strong themes in what role-playing games offered that, at least initially, made them different from other games (such as playing a singular character, rather than an abstract piece or single unit of nameless characters; or having a character that not only existed across multiple games, but improved over time), the single feature he defines as being at the core of RPGs is that they're games that allow your character to attempt to do anything.

Insofar as "balance" goes, I agree with Wick, but I'd phrase it differently. To me, balance is found in the execution of a game (that is, running a session), rather than in a game's design. Having characters with lopsided options and abilities isn't a big deal if the GM can tailor the game so as to give everyone some time in the proverbial spotlight. Benoist, by contrast, seems to acknowledge that and then starts talking about how balance is only important if it serves your sense of fun, which isn't quite the same issue.

So yeah, good points all around, but the overall messages seemed rather garbled.

I glanced at both, neither interested me past the first paragraph. Living in Hollywood I learned a very important saying about entertainment: "Be good or be bad, don't be boring", which is something that I think people miss. I hate to see the 100 page exegesis of rationalizations of why something failed, who cares? If you had put that much work in on the front end, maybe it wouldn't have failed. Move on.

Quote from: ”John Wick”And so, again, I ask you, what weapon do you choose for Riddick?
It’s a trick question, of course. It doesn’t matter what weapon you give Riddick, he’s going to kick your ass with it.

Of course he is. Because Riddick is the protagonist in a movie and the writer decided that Riddick kicks your ass. So, based solely on author fiat, he does. Contrast that with a game where people roll some dice to find out whether or not Riddick kicks your ass and if he does kick your ass, how many times Riddick needs to kick it before you are wearing your dumb ass around your ears.

Quote from: ”John Wick”roleplaying game: a game in which the players are rewarded for making choices
that are consistent with the character’s motivations [strike]or further the plot of the story[/strike].

I’ve improved John Wick's definition by removing the extraneous and unparsimonious story clap trap that he has tacked onto the end of his definition about roleplaying games. But an even better definition would be the following.

Quote from: Brenroleplaying game: a game in which the players make choices that are consistent with their character’s motivations.

Notice that in neither definition is furthering a plot or story a requirement of a roleplaying game. Because roleplaying games don't actually need a plot or a story.
 
Some of the most entertaining sessions of roleplaying that I have experienced are sessions where the players go off in some totally surprising direction unrelated to any plot or where the combination of the player choices, character actions, and random die rolls makes for a thrilling, dramatic, or just plain hilarious series of events.

Case in Point: Our last session of Honor+Intrigue was a masquerade ball that had a series of mistaken identities that were generated because of player choices and actions and random events. For example, a player chose the costume of Death. He then tricked the Spanish Ambassador, whose aide happened to also be dressed as Death, into thinking that the PC was the Ambassador’s aide. Meanwhile another player who chose to dress as a Bear, fooled some NPCs into thinking he was an ally of theirs but they are confused why he is dressed in the same costume as one of their other allies (who was also dressed as a Bear). The fact that all the NPC costumes were randomly generated as they were encountered made the confusion way funnier than if I had tried to plot it that way or force a “story” out of the confusion. And that is not even getting into the player who had their lumbering, unsettling looking giant male brute dress up as a veiled (to hide his perpetual 5 o'clock shadow) princess who talked in a falsetto voice during the masquerade. The player had us all laughing in stitches. Didn't have a damn thing to do with plot or story though. The giant wants to become a stage actor and he (the giant) thought this would be good practice...and so chaos ensues.

The biggest gripe I have with Wick's column is the insistence that computer-based RPGs aren't RPGs at all. Seriously? It's like he's trying to retroactively change the meaning to something that suits him better, some sort of narrativist model that excludes anyone who doesn't give a fuck about funny voices and "exploring the fiction", or whatever the hell that phrase from Dungeon World is. I can assure Wick that when I played Bard's Tale for countless hours, that was, in fact, a roleplaying game. I'd like an explanation about how World of Warcraft ISN'T an RPG. Just because you don't like something doesn't magically change its nature.

I suppose his next column will be about chess not even being a true boardgame because there's no element of chance; it's just an exercise in combinatoric mathematics, right!?!

Quote from: Brad;789911The biggest gripe I have with Wick's column is the insistence that computer-based RPGs aren't RPGs at all.?!

I agree there are issues with this. Especially something like WoW that is designed to emulate table top RPGs. That really blurs the lines and trying to use that as a stick for what RPGs are not (i.e. anything that can do exactly what WoW does, but fails at story, isn't an RPG) just doesn't work for me.

It is sour grapes in that computer rpg's sell at the 1000x rate of table top rpg's.

I find myself in the "Who Cares?" camp more and more on topics like this.

  'Roleplaying game' is a broad category that can encompass a whole lot of things, and RPG may not even be the best term for some of its variations. (I always kind of liked the "Dramatic Adventure Game" title TSR used for the Dragonlance: Fifth Age game.) But while there may be things that fall on the edges, I don't see any particular benefit in defining them as 'not RPGs' or 'swine games' or the like.

   The bit about chess and RPGs actually resonated with me because it reminded me of a passage from one of my favorite books, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis, where he discusses Lucy and Reepicheep the Mouse playing chess (Chapter 5)

Quote from: C.S. Lewis[Reepicheep] was a good player and when he remembered what he was doing he usually won. But every now and then Lucy won because the Mouse did something quite ridiculous like sending a knight into the danger of a queen and castle combined. This happened because he had momentarily forgotten it was a game of chess and was thinking of a real battle and making the knight do what he would certainly have done in its place. For his mind was full of forlorn hopes, death-or-glory charges, and last stands.

  Of course, in that case, the problem isn't that you can't roleplay during chess--it's that roleplaying in certain ways during chess is contrary to the victory conditions. RPGs have more flexibility in victory conditions and in character types, leaving a lot more room for harmonization of roleplaying and game.

  And I do care about balance, since I like games to support as broad a range of options without any being dramatically out of line with others. A good chunk of that, however, requires clarity about what the game is trying to do and making sure it does it--and the fact that a lot of people didn't understand the former (especially with *D&D) or couldn't do the latter well is the source of a great deal of sturm und drang in this hobby.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789914I agree there are issues with this. Especially something like WoW that is designed to emulate table top RPGs. That really blurs the lines and trying to use that as a stick for what RPGs are not (i.e. anything that can do exactly what WoW does, but fails at story, isn't an RPG) just doesn't work for me.

It's basicly an anti grind statement. I did the same with Baldur's Gate years ago. It's all about the sword +1 and making sure you have enough antidotes and cure disease potions on you to survive every battle. I clicked through every dialogue because that was so cliche and generic. I had plenty of fun with all the min-maxing of those games, but over the years I grew tired of it. Been there, done that. It's very meta those games. It really reminds me of playing magic the gathering. Everything you do is calculated. It's very rational.

All in all I think there are two styles of roleplaying. Both are called roleplaying, but they are very different indeed.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789921It's basicly an anti grind statement. I did the same with Baldur's Gate years ago. It's all about the sword +1 and making sure you have enough antidotes and cure disease potions on you to survive every battle. I clicked through every dialogue because that was so cliche and generic. I had plenty of fun with all the min-maxing of those games, but over the years I grew tired of it. Been there, done that. It's very meta those games. It really reminds me of playing magic the gathering. Everything you do is calculated. It's very rational.

All in all I think there are two styles of roleplaying. Both are called roleplaying, but they are very different indeed.

I am not into the grind either. That doesn't make it not roleplaying. It is just one of many play styles for RPGs.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;789774I felt John Wick made a well-reasoned argument, with an excellent rebuttal by Benoist. I also appreciate that Benoist didn't degrade his response back to the often-parroted "story gamers are not real gamers" tripe. In fact, I strongly suspect that Benoist has toned down his rhetoric due to his business relationship with Ernie Gygax.

Bravo, I say.

edit - I would like to point out that I am particularly fond of this quote from Jon's article. It's simple, poignant and promotes positive discourse on the nature of role-playing games:

i disagree. it should be:

roleplaying game: a game in which the players are not penalized for making choices that do not further the plot of the story or if they decide for themselves what are their motivations

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;789920I find myself in the "Who Cares?" camp more and more on topics like this.

Yes. I prefer to find something useable to me as a GM/player, than a long winded argument about a nebulous concept. Play balance? Rifts played fine, the deal with play balance is player whingeing.

CRPGs and proper tabletop RPGs are two hobbies I enjoy, but tabletop far, far more so than CRPGs and I don't see CRPGs supplanting tabletop.

Not even if we get god-like post-Singularity AIs beaming fantasy worlds straight into your brain.

Nothing beats friends, dice, booze and snacks.

Cheetoist credo still applies: people, snacks, setting, system.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789902I don't define anyone out of the hobby. I don't say they are not roleplaying. And I don't say every player plays it like I just described it. D&D is just more geared towards being played as a roleplaying miniatures game with a lot of focus on the tactical combat aspect of the game. That's just what it is. I can't help it. Don't shoot the messenger. Just stating facts here.

So how do you explain the fact that during the peak of the game's popularity in the mid-80s, D&D was not played by most of its 2 million-plus player base as a tactical miniatures combat game?

One thing that post reminded me is that Ryan Dancey is a fucking idiot. Computer games are simply better at analytic problem-solving, so games that involve analytic problem-solving are all going to migrate to the digital world? I guess nobody informed the tabletop boardgaming hobby, which is experiencing a golden age as a hobby and as an industry. Don't all those fools playing Agricola and War of the Ring realize that they should be playing on a computer, instead of getting together face-to-face to enjoy their analytic gameplay with cardboard, plastic, and wood?

Off on a slight tangent a moment.

But personally. Of the MMOs I have been on. None ever felt like an RPG. None of the people I talked to ever felt it was an RPG either. Not even Champions. They just utterly lack those elements I look for in TTRPGing.

I have though been in a few MUDs that did feel like RPing since they enforced being in character and there was incentive to group up and actually RP when not doing this or that NPC quest.

Everyone views, and experiences, it differently.

I did my part whilst I could, on the flipside of FB.
I will reiterate the need for the IC position being part of a Roleplaying game, and the flipside, a necessary outside, OOC, view in the rules makes it less of a roleplaying experience.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789924I am not into the grind either. That doesn't make it not roleplaying. It is just one of many play styles for RPGs.

There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

A well-written game will give you a lot of options for solving tasks, but you're still stuck within the limits the developers set for you, it's all illusory. There are good reasons for these restrictions - computing power, or the need to provide the same experience for millions of players in an MMO - but they're the restrictions that prevent a game from really being an RPG (And no, I don't consider high-metaplot, "sit around while the GM tells a story" sessions to be roleplaying either - that's a storytelling session, regardless of if the audience happen to have character sheets in front of them).

Now, I like videogames, they can be a lot of fun, and they can provide a sembelence of interaction and exploration - I really liked Alpha Protocol for this - but it's still not the same, and it can't be the same. The Sims, FIFA, EVE Online and GTA are closer to being RPG's than WoW, Alpha Protocol or Final Fantasy, but even they are separated.

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

They're games and they involve playing a role, hence, roleplaying games. "Meaningful player choice" has fuck-all to do with whether or not your character wants to be a farmer. I played Bard's Tale to save the fucking world, not worry about if my crops were going to get sufficient rain this season. Christ in heaven...

Quote from: The Butcher;789937CRPGs and proper tabletop RPGs are two hobbies I enjoy, but tabletop far, far more so than CRPGs and I don't see CRPGs supplanting tabletop.

It's substitution, computer games have an easier buy in and ease of use than table top games.

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

A well-written game will give you a lot of options for solving tasks, but you're still stuck within the limits the developers set for you, it's all illusory. There are good reasons for these restrictions - computing power, or the need to provide the same experience for millions of players in an MMO - but they're the restrictions that prevent a game from really being an RPG (And no, I don't consider high-metaplot, "sit around while the GM tells a story" sessions to be roleplaying either - that's a storytelling session, regardless of if the audience happen to have character sheets in front of them).

Now, I like videogames, they can be a lot of fun, and they can provide a sembelence of interaction and exploration - I really liked Alpha Protocol for this - but it's still not the same, and it can't be the same. The Sims, FIFA, EVE Online and GTA are closer to being RPG's than WoW, Alpha Protocol or Final Fantasy, but even they are separated.

This is basically spot on, and the main reason why I find computer games more boring than watching paint dry. Of course, my antipathy might also be influenced by the fact that the visuals make me motion sick and incredibly agitated...

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

A well-written game will give you a lot of options for solving tasks, but you're still stuck within the limits the developers set for you, it's all illusory. There are good reasons for these restrictions - computing power, or the need to provide the same experience for millions of players in an MMO - but they're the restrictions that prevent a game from really being an RPG (And no, I don't consider high-metaplot, "sit around while the GM tells a story" sessions to be roleplaying either - that's a storytelling session, regardless of if the audience happen to have character sheets in front of them).

Now, I like videogames, they can be a lot of fun, and they can provide a sembelence of interaction and exploration - I really liked Alpha Protocol for this - but it's still not the same, and it can't be the same. The Sims, FIFA, EVE Online and GTA are closer to being RPG's than WoW, Alpha Protocol or Final Fantasy, but even they are separated.

I am not terribly concerned about the question of whether computer games are RPGs (since I don't play video games). But I do think even the most hack and slash of campaigns of D&D is still a roleplaying game. I don't care for hack and slash, but when I've been at a table where it is happening I know that I am watching a roleplaying game, not a board game unfold. I have my preferences with gaming, but I don't feel the need to define the hobby around those preferences.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789924I am not into the grind either. That doesn't make it not roleplaying. It is just one of many play styles for RPGs.

Yes, I agree with that. Isn't that what I wrote?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789984Yes, I agree with that. Isn't that what I wrote?

I was referring to wick's argument. It just seems that he is labeling what he doesn't like in the hobby as not being roleplaying.

Quote from: ostap bender;789928i disagree. it should be:

roleplaying game: a game in which the players are not penalized for making choices that do not further the plot of the story or if they decide for themselves what are their motivations

Players persuing their motivations usually leads to a plot. In the 2nd edition of the WoD it's an obligation at character creation to take some Aspirations aka goals for your character. How you should merge this with the scene by scene storytelling they always promote is a riddle to me. My bet: use the aspirations for both PC's and NPC's and drop the scenes completely.

Quote from: Brad;789969They're games and they involve playing a role, hence, roleplaying games. "Meaningful player choice" has fuck-all to do with whether or not your character wants to be a farmer. I played Bard's Tale to save the fucking world, not worry about if my crops were going to get sufficient rain this season. Christ in heaven...

You have player choice in The Walking Dead, but that's just an adventure without the puzzles. I wouldn't call that an RPG.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789989You have player choice in The Walking Dead, but that's just an adventure without the puzzles. I wouldn't call that an RPG.

The difference between computer rpg's and table top, is the difference between sex and porn. One is obviously better than the other, but there always is going to be porn.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;789920I find myself in the "Who Cares?" camp more and more on topics like this.

This.

Neither John Wick nor Benoist play at my game table, so I do not care about their opinions. People come to the internet to expound on game theory, people go to the game tables for actual play - and only in rare circumstances do those two circles overlap.

Quote from: jeff37923;789999This.

Neither John Wick nor Benoist play at my game table, so I do not care about their opinions. People come to the internet to expound on game theory, people go to the game tables for actual play - and only in rare circumstances do those two circles overlap.

oh, I think I disagree, to some amount.
I agree that they don't play at your table.  But working the ideas out in terms of process and design can affect the future of the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;789999This.

Neither John Wick nor Benoist play at my game table, so I do not care about their opinions. People come to the internet to expound on game theory, people go to the game tables for actual play - and only in rare circumstances do those two circles overlap.

  I don't mind theory--I've started some notorious theory threads myself--but I'd rather the theory be "what do we want, and what's the best way to achieve that?" instead of "this is/isn't an RPG/storygame/old-school/GNS/badwrongfun."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;790013I don't mind theory--I've started some notorious theory threads myself--but I'd rather the theory be "what do we want, and what's the best way to achieve that?" instead of "this is/isn't an RPG/storygame/old-school/GNS/badwrongfun."

Right. And what is practical and what isn't.

The label "role-playing" was first applied to D&D, EPT and T&T by critics who saw common elements in these games, a sort of family resemblance. Later, game manufacturers began to apply this label to their own products for commercial reasons, especially when TSR legally challenged the use of the name "Dungeons & Dragons" in the advertisements of competitors. Trying to construct a rigid definition for a term that came into being in such a contingent manner is rarely a good use of our time and energy, though it is the sort of exercise that is popular and fun because it can be debated endlessly and anyone can form an opinion about it. But if you can't first advance an accepted definition for "game" (there is considerable literature on the problems encountered there), trying to define "role-playing games" on top of it is probably beyond our ability.

We can however outline some of elements that grant these games their family resemblance, and put together a rough list of necessary or sufficient conditions. But, as the term "family resemblance" implies, finding any single unifying quality across the games will be impossible: there will just be a handful of traits which will be exhibited by role-playing games in various degrees, but what seems integral to one game may be entirely absent in another.

Arguing that anything we generally call a role-playing game isn't actually a role-playing game - or a game at all - is, to me, pointless without a rigid definition, and I suspect the pursuit of such a definition is futile. Conversely, proposing that anything we don't call a role-playing game actually is (or could be) a role-playing game strikes me as flawed for the same reason.

Quote from: increment;790019The label "role-playing" was first applied to D&D, EPT and T&T by critics who saw common elements in these games, a sort of family resemblance. Later, game manufacturers began to apply this label to their own products for commercial reasons, especially when TSR legally challenged the use of the name "Dungeons & Dragons" in the advertisements of competitors. Trying to construct a rigid definition for a term that came into being in such a contingent manner is rarely a good use of our time and energy, though it is the sort of exercise that is popular and fun because it can be debated endlessly and anyone can form an opinion about it. But if you can't first advance an accepted definition for "game" (there is considerable literature on the problems encountered there), trying to define "role-playing games" on top of it is probably beyond our ability.

We can however outline some of elements that grant these games their family resemblance, and put together a rough list of necessary or sufficient conditions. But, as the term "family resemblance" implies, finding any single unifying quality across the games will be impossible: there will just be a handful of traits which will be exhibited by role-playing games in various degrees, but what seems integral to one game may be entirely absent in another.

Arguing that anything we generally call a role-playing game isn't actually a role-playing game - or a game at all - is, to me, pointless without a rigid definition, and I suspect the pursuit of such a definition is futile. Conversely, proposing that anything we don't call a role-playing game actually is (or could be) a role-playing game strikes me as flawed for the same reason.

Please.
The word existed before the hobby.   The term was ascribed to the rulesets because the term applied to the behaviors exhibited in the playing of said games.  Any idea that the 'Family Resemblance' actually supercedes what Roleplaying really was in the thereputic or acting setting of that time period is ludicrous.
Yes, the term has now been taken to mean other things over the years.  But that does not mean the definition has actually changed much, rather, it has been widely misunderstood.

Using Riddick as an example is really a bit silly, because Riddick is almost literally Vin Diesel's Mary Sue.


Also early on, the term "Fantasy Adventure Game" was used a lot to describe D&D, until I guess they realized the acronym it formed. But adventure gaming was still used a lot.

Quote from: Haffrung;789941So how do you explain the fact that during the peak of the game's popularity in the mid-80s, D&D was not played by most of its 2 million-plus player base as a tactical miniatures combat game?

Yup. I've been playing RPGs since the early 90s, and I knew nothing about minis until 3.5 came out and a miniatures boom occured at all the game and hobby stores. That statement does not include Warhammer 40K of which I was aware of and stared at minis in awe at the shop - I never really considered it to be an RPG. But I didn't know anyone who played any RPG, DnD or otherwise, with minis until the 2000s.

Quote from: everloss;790035Yup. I've been playing RPGs since the early 90s, and I knew nothing about minis until 3.5 came out and a miniatures boom occured at all the game and hobby stores. That statement does not include Warhammer 40K of which I was aware of and stared at minis in awe at the shop - I never really considered it to be an RPG. But I didn't know anyone who played any RPG, DnD or otherwise, with minis until the 2000s.

Wow.  
That never occurred to me as possible, since the game was spawned by Chainmail and the ubiquity of minis in every con, game mag, and hobby shop in the late 70s and 80s.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790030Please.
The word existed before the hobby.   The term was ascribed to the rulesets because the term applied to the behaviors exhibited in the playing of said games.  Any idea that the 'Family Resemblance' actually supercedes what Roleplaying really was in the thereputic or acting setting of that time period is ludicrous.
Yes, the term has now been taken to mean other things over the years.  But that does not mean the definition has actually changed much, rather, it has been widely misunderstood.

The term "role-playing game" existed before our RPG hobby - as far back as 1964, as I reckon it. But applying the term to the hobby is what bestowed the sense of it that we use. The therapeutic use of "role-playing" pioneered by Moreno is a very different thing, and the family resemblance of D&D to EPT and so on detected by early critics was done in complete ignorance of Moreno and his context.

You present no definition here, so I'll agreed it hasn't changed, in the way that something that doesn't exist can't change.

Quote from: increment;790038The term "role-playing game" existed before our RPG hobby - as far back as 1964, as I reckon it. But applying the term to the hobby is what bestowed the sense of it that we use. The therapeutic use of "role-playing" pioneered by Moreno is a very different thing, and the family resemblance of D&D to EPT and so on detected by early critics was done in complete ignorance of Moreno and his context.

You present no definition here, so I'll agreed it hasn't changed, in the way that something that doesn't exist can't change.

The term existed, and then was randomly used for the games mistakenly?

Rogerian, person-centered psychology was all the rage in every college campus across the country.  Every psych 101 class referenced it.  On those same campuses that were the hotbeds of the original game.  

It is not a very different thing.  Roleplay exercises are and were done by students constantly, and the thousands of students engaged in the game were not acting out of ignorance when they ascribed the term t their games early on.  The games and the terms grew together, not out of ignorance.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790039The term existed, and then was randomly used for the games mistakenly?

Rogerian, person-centered psychology was all the rage in every college campus across the country.  Every psych 101 class referenced it.  On those same campuses that were the hotbeds of the original game.  

It is not a very different thing.  Roleplay exercises are and were done by students constantly, and the thousands of students engaged in the game were not acting out of ignorance when they ascribed the term t their games early on.  The games and the terms grew together, not out of ignorance.

The term existed, but the people who used the term "role-playing game" (and I mean that exact term) in the 1960s were in the operations research community, not the psychology community. That usage bled into the periphery of Diplomacy fandom, dark corners where some people believed Diplomacy and serious political science intersected, and from there critics (like Richard Berg) became aware of it. They applied it to D&D and its many imitators.

I don't mean to say their application was mistaken, exactly, but it used "role-playing game" to describe practices that the term previously did not cover. This is normal linguistic drift. It was not a continuation of some previous, established definition that inadvertently happened to apply to D&D. Once Flying Buffalo and Metagaming (let alone TSR) started advertising their titles as "role-playing games," they sure as hell didn't mean anything Rogerian, or derived from Moreno, or from Diplomacy, or the operations research community, or any of those precedents. They meant something new. And that new thing isn't defined by any reference to any of those precedents.

Quote from: increment;790042The term existed, but the people who used the term "role-playing game" (and I mean that exact term) in the 1960s were in the operations research community, not the psychology community. That usage bled into the periphery of Diplomacy fandom, dark corners where some people believed Diplomacy and serious political science intersected, and from there critics (like Richard Berg) became aware of it. They applied it to D&D and its many imitators.

I don't mean to say their application was mistaken, exactly, but it used "role-playing game" to describe practices that the term previously did not cover. This is normal linguistic drift. It was not a continuation of some previous, established definition that inadvertently happened to apply to D&D. Once Flying Buffalo and Metagaming (let alone TSR) started advertising their titles as "role-playing games," they sure as hell didn't mean anything Rogerian, or derived from Moreno, or from Diplomacy, or the operations research community, or any of those precedents. They meant something new. And that new thing isn't defined by any reference to any of those precedents.

By my own history, and by what I have seen and read, I think the drift you mention is real, but occurred by and large much later than your commentary reads.  I really can't see the ignorance and subsequent separation back in the late seventies and early eighties; and certainly, nearly everyone I gamed with back then was fully aware of the proper usage and the way it applied to the games they played.

I'm not saying they were played in any theraputic sense, nor am I saying that the early players were aiming for deep immersion, we know that is not the case.  But the In character viewpoint was, I believe, already an important concept.  And to some degree, reflected in the use of the term.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790043By my own history, and by what I have seen and read, I think the drift you mention is real, but occurred by and large much later than your commentary reads.  I really can't see the ignorance and subsequent separation back in the late seventies and early eighties; and certainly, nearly everyone I gamed with back then was fully aware of the proper usage and the way it applied to the games they played.

I'm not saying they were played in any theraputic sense, nor am I saying that the early players were aiming for deep immersion, we know that is not the case.  But the In character viewpoint was, I believe, already an important concept.  And to some degree, reflected in the use of the term.

You could act "in character" in many wargames, and this is part of what makes it so hard to draw a line in the sand where wargames stopped and role-playing began. Is it at Fight in the Skies (1968), where Mike Carr encouraged you to design a pilot and play him the way his personality dictates, rather than what you as a player believe is the best tactical course of action? Is it in the innumerable manifestations of Diplomacy from 1959 forward? In Tony Bath's UK Hyboria experiments even earlier?

The difficulty there is that you can approach any game with or without behaving "in character." You can approach Monopoly acting "in character," twist your mustache and voice the sentiments of a real-estate tycoon. But that doesn't change the fact that in Monopoly you are constrained by the rules of Monopoly, and you can't decide just because you are "in character" that you want to try to burn down that hotel on Atlantic Avenue instead of paying the rent. All you can do is roll the dice and obey what happens. That - getting back to necessary and sufficient conditions, and what the "family resemblance" amounts to - starts to help us understand which attributes the things we call role-playing games share in common. That's why chess isn't a role-playing game, and ultimately Fight in the Skies isn't either.

In terms of when exactly the drift occurred, the dating is a matter of simple historical record. People like Flying Buffalo were calling T&T a "role-playing game" in 1976, and TSR called Metamorphosis Alpha an RPG on its cover before the end of that year. To your point, they didn't mean that it was a therapeutic tool, or an operations research tool. The people that wrote that copy had probably never heard of Moreno. They were simply following a usage that became common after certain critics popularized it, with some vague sense of a prior connotation, but largely just to position these products in a bucket that consumer dollars were being thrown into. It was not, to my original point, because these titles met a set of agreed criteria attached to the definition of "role-playing game." It was just a shiny new label all the cool kids were wearing.

Quote from: increment;790019The label "role-playing" was first applied to D&D, EPT and T&T by critics who saw common elements in these games, a sort of family resemblance.

Do you have a citation for this claim?

Quote from: Bren;790053Do you have a citation for this claim?

Sorry, I guess I assumed my sig would double for my cites. Moves #23 is the earliest place I'm aware of that that we see quotes like:

QuoteThe world of fantasy seems to be getting a great deal of attention lately; both the standard hex-map format and the new boardless, role-playing systems (a la Dungeons & Dragons) are in evidence.

Berg previously used the term to apply to games other than D&D just a hair earlier, in S&T #52, for En Garde. He refers to EPT as a "massive role-playing, freeform system for the fantasy world of Tékumel" in S&T #53. Bear in mind though that in September 1975, Phil Barker in the UK also makes liberal use of the term "role player" for participants in a Hyboria-style campaign - so those uses are roughly parallel. It wasn't until April 1976 that we see a claim in the Strategic Review that The Dragon will be "devoted to gaming in Fantasy, Swords & Sorcery, Science Fiction and role-playing games." T&T, Monsters, Monsters! and ultimately Metamorphosis Alpha all followed these usages.

Quote from: increment;790050You could act "in character" in many wargames, and this is part of what makes it so hard to draw a line in the sand where wargames stopped and role-playing began. Is it at Fight in the Skies (1968), where Mike Carr encouraged you to design a pilot and play him the way his personality dictates, rather than what you as a player believe is the best tactical course of action? Is it in the innumerable manifestations of Diplomacy from 1959 forward? In Tony Bath's UK Hyboria experiments even earlier?

The difficulty there is that you can approach any game with or without behaving "in character." You can approach Monopoly acting "in character," twist your mustache and voice the sentiments of a real-estate tycoon. But that doesn't change the fact that in Monopoly you are constrained by the rules of Monopoly, and you can't decide just because you are "in character" that you want to try to burn down that hotel on Atlantic Avenue instead of paying the rent. All you can do is roll the dice and obey what happens. That - getting back to necessary and sufficient conditions, and what the "family resemblance" amounts to - starts to help us understand which attributes the things we call role-playing games share in common. That's why chess isn't a role-playing game, and ultimately Fight in the Skies isn't either.

In terms of when exactly the drift occurred, the dating is a matter of simple historical record. People like Flying Buffalo were calling T&T a "role-playing game" in 1976, and TSR called Metamorphosis Alpha an RPG on its cover before the end of that year. To your point, they didn't mean that it was a therapeutic tool, or an operations research tool. The people that wrote that copy had probably never heard of Moreno. They were simply following a usage that became common after certain critics popularized it, with some vague sense of a prior connotation, but largely just to position these products in a bucket that consumer dollars were being thrown into. It was not, to my original point, because these titles met a set of agreed criteria attached to the definition of "role-playing game." It was just a shiny new label all the cool kids were wearing.

No, they didn't use it in the theraputic sense, but every kid who had High School  Psych ran into the theories of Rogers and Rank and the use of Roleplay therapy in said therapy.   I really don't know why you keep mentioning Moreno, a very minor player in the world of Psychology and a practitioner of a very specific type of roleplay (psychodrama) when the usage in Rogerian and other Person-centric theory was all the rage in the time period we are speaking of, the mid-late 70's and early 80s.
Later on, maybe by the mid-late 80s, the term really transferred into having a real independent meaning.  But before that, the term stuck because of the actual applicability, not just random chance.

To that point, due to this very applicability, dozens if not hundreds of papers have been written studying the games we play in terms of their theraputic value due to this very similarity.  RPGtheraputics and RPGresearch.com has over 80 articles in their database, and they are just one grouping.  

I understand your research into the history of the games, but I think your completeness in that field is blinding you to the equally pertinent history and historiography of Psychology.  Your comment that it is a matter of record when the linguistic 'drift' occurred neatly ignores how messy such an event is and the actual definition, which can be reduced to, "a process of linguistic change over a period of time".  In other words, it does't just happen one day.  At the time period you mention, I don't doubt or dispute that there was a gradual shifting towards it being a shiny new term to apply, but your assumption of the ignorance to the actual meaning and applicability early on is exactly that.
The line where wargames start and RPGs begin is, as you have discovered and I trust you, a fuzzy one, of academics and critics creating pastimes and remarking on them.  I just have a lot of trouble seeing these talented and bright people as ignorant in their understanding of a term in common understanding at the time, especially as well read as they were.

John Wick has always been a pompous fucking windbag, and this article seems to be more of the same.

When you've decided EVERYONE IS USING A WORD WRONG, it's a good big honking neon sign that you've disappeared up your own anus.

On the topic of theorycrafting, the most useful stuff I've gleaned from it:

Think out your assumptions for a game. Discuss these assumptions and social contract foundations with your players ahead of time. This helps keep people on the same page and prevent trainwrecks.

Topics to consider: what are PCs expected to do/not to do (to each other, to random NPCs, to enemies). What is the feel of the game? (Game of Thrones or Xena?)
What is the relationship between GM and players? (VIKING HAT vs. I'm the computer running the sim, do whatever)
How much are you generating a 'plot' vs. farting around doing things?


The least useful stuff from theorycrafting:
Arguing cladistics to death


Seriously, I think a set-driven argument about what a game 'really' is and what it should look like divorced from real world considerations is utterly backwards and a massive distraction from anything any actual gamer should care about.

Suggest cool ways to run a game, not it's intellectual purity.

(This is the result of years of stupid on TBP and spillover from Forge)

Quote from: Will;790112John Wick has always been a pompous fucking windbag, and this article seems to be more of the same.

When you've decided EVERYONE IS USING A WORD WRONG, it's a good big honking neon sign that you've disappeared up your own anus.

When you are discussing a thing, and the actual definition of that thing is in question, it can be useful in a discussion of theory to go back to defining the thing.  And it is interesting that it is in question.

There are a lot of threads where gameplay, design, setting, etc are discussed.  This thread is not one of them.

Increment, BTW, at least on the T&T side, You seem to be right.
Ken St. Andre's comment was
"Yes, when some nongamer told me roleplaying was a psychological technique used by some mental health professionals, I had to go look it up and see what they were talking about."

I think a fundamental point many people miss is the principle that data and algorithms in an rpg handbook are NOT hard rules as in Chess. They are tools the ref can use to model things, but what is in the first place to be modelled is a PRIOR question.

The whole tempest over teacups and thumbs makes sense only in the "new school" that abjures this principle (which in Wick's case may require cognitive dissonance, given his advice in L5R for gms to ride roughshod over anything that gets in the way of enforcing their plotlines on players).

Quote from: LordVreeg;790128When you are discussing a thing, and the actual definition of that thing is in question, it can be useful in a discussion of theory to go back to defining the thing.  And it is interesting that it is in question.

And if he had SAID 'let's consider what roleplaying is' and approached it that way, he might not sound like a pompous fucking windbag.

Instead, he does the usual 'your gaming is wrong and aberrant and you are mistaken and stupid for calling it a RPG.'

Wick's "balance does not matter, spotlight does" is a false dichotomy, unless he's got some peculiar definition of balance - which he ought to specify. Jim Ward  did that ages ago in The Dragon, explaining his original "Monty Haul" dynamic; I forget what term he contrasted with balance.

Quote from: Will;790132And if he had SAID 'let's consider what roleplaying is' and approached it that way, he might not sound like a pompous fucking windbag.

Instead, he does the usual 'your gaming is wrong and aberrant and you are mistaken and stupid for calling it a RPG.'

Yeah. I do hate that.  
Hell, even I am rarely that bad.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790128Increment, BTW, at least on the T&T side, You seem to be right.
Ken St. Andre's comment was
"Yes, when some nongamer told me roleplaying was a psychological technique used by some mental health professionals, I had to go look it up and see what they were talking about."

Cool to see someone taking the time to check on the facts.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;790142Cool to see someone taking the time to check on the facts.

Don't give me too much credit, I just FB messaged him.

But it is not about being 'right', it never should be. It's about getting to the truth.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790128When you are discussing a thing, and the actual definition of that thing is in question, it can be useful in a discussion of theory to go back to defining the thing.  And it is interesting that it is in question.

There are a lot of threads where gameplay, design, setting, etc are discussed.  This thread is not one of them.

Increment, BTW, at least on the T&T side, You seem to be right.
Ken St. Andre's comment was
"Yes, when some nongamer told me roleplaying was a psychological technique used by some mental health professionals, I had to go look it up and see what they were talking about."

While I'm happy not to be contradicted by Mr. St. Andre, my method also is intentionally blind to what people recall today, especially when it comes to dates and sequences. Primary sources are much more reliable in my experience.

And I would certainly grant you that lots of people in the world back then were aware of role-playing, for psychological or even industrial purposes - I went through quite a few 1960s books about roleplaying in business and education outside of psychology. So sure, potentially someone else could have suggested that "role-playing game" applies to D&D and its ilk, it could have been a messier and more gradual drift. But looking across a very broad swath of zines of the time, all the key early uses - in Owl & Weasel, in the Strategic Review, in Metagaming ad copy for T&T and others - follow hard upon the uses in S&T. Bear in mind as well that S&T had twenty or thirty times the circulation of the largest such fan periodicals, back in 1975, so ideas appearing there reached vastly more people than virtually any other media source of the hobby at the time. The term went from pretty much total disuse in the games community (again, outside the fringes of Dippy fandom) in mid-1975 to being on the cover of Metamorphosis Alpha before the end of 1976. After that, there was just no stopping it.

To circle this back to my original point, the benefit of this historical analysis is that it can show us how and why the term was adopted, which is actually more instructive than trying to build strawman definitions of the term after the fact. Tracing the chain of influence reveals how the community reacted to the presence in the marketplace of imitators to D&D, and the commercial, critical and even legal needs for new terms that motivated the adoption of "role-playing games." With this perspective, it is easy to understand why we as a group are easily troubled by questions of the form, "is X a role-playing game?" We think there should be some bedrock beneath the term we can all point to so these questions can satisfactorily be resolved. But there just isn't. Instead there is a loose cluster of qualities that various RPGs instantiate to a greater or lesser extent - a family resemblance, as I said.

Family resemblances? My Wittgenstein sense is tingling!

I'll grant - probably more liberally than most - that a great many things can be part of role-playing, and many more can  be part of rpgs. When people insist that their notion of story-telling is of the  essence, though, I think they overstep.

I think that earliest role-playing game I've seen is Viet Valley where participants are given roles such as VC Tax Collector, Buddhist Monk etc.This one was 1969 (and 1970) and I think it was used to train MACV personnel on MAAG stuff. Here is how to play Viet Cong Propagandist:
You are the propagandist for the Viet Cong. You normally reside
in the VC Headquarters except when you are out visiting the villages.
Your team objective is to gain control of at least half of the
villages of the Ao Khe District. (See Win Criteria for an operational
measure of this.) To help achieve this goal, it is your responsibility
to carryon the battle for the hearts and minds. This may well be the
most important victory to be gained.
You have few resources at your disposal except your powers of
persuasion, poster supplies, and radio broadcasts over Control ,walkie-
talkies for 3 minutes each cycle. You have the capability and manpower
to help villagers rebuild the houses that have been burned. You can
also offer them a continuation of the land reform program that Has in
operation two years ago. When you wish to talk with a villager, you
may ask Control to send him outside the door, and he must come. You
are immune from arrest or assassination in this situation. If you
enter the village, you may be shot on sight, as you are known to the
GVN Regional Forces and the RD Teams. It would be safer to travel with
a security force. You may travel by either road or by trail, but on
the roads you risk arrest or assassination by the GVN forces.

Another of those early role-playing games was POLWAR simulation where you ran a district and counterinsurgency. Here is the most relevant instruction:
"Each player is supplied with a personal biography which defines his family
relations with other players in the game. This material is very important.
The most powerful obligations felt by Vietnamese are those of family and
kinship. No Vietnamese disregards these relationships when he acts or
commits his loyalty. You should make an extraordinary effort to think
in this fashion. "

There was also a commercial WW2 era infantry skirmish war game made in 1966 by Michael Korns "Modern War in Miniature" where you had two players and judge who would describe you what happened as you told her what you'd like to do. This is pretty much first role-playing game I've seen (unless you've seen Featherstone's books describing this earlier? Has anyone?). The money quote for his rules for simulating war is: "War gaming involves special kind of imagination. One must be able to set oneself in the position of the soldier on the field in order to become interested in the game and, at the same time, one must be able to separate reality from the make-believe in the same manner as the player who takes over the German troops involving himself in hard-fought skirmishes when in reality the thought of such a Reich would be revolting to him".

Quote from: Vargold;790160Family resemblances? My Wittgenstein sense is tingling!

I do typically prescribe a healthy dose of Vitamin W to combat symptoms of excessive scientism. But yes, his account of the difficulty of defining games at all, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, should trickle down to our narrow scope. And it would be fair to say that I think furnishing a definition for "role-playing games" is a sort of pseudoproblem, very similar to philosophical pseudoproblems that generate a lot of Master's theses but evade a solution because the question posed is inherently flawed.

Quote from: everloss;790035Yup. I've been playing RPGs since the early 90s, and I knew nothing about minis until 3.5 came out and a miniatures boom occured at all the game and hobby stores. That statement does not include Warhammer 40K of which I was aware of and stared at minis in awe at the shop - I never really considered it to be an RPG. But I didn't know anyone who played any RPG, DnD or otherwise, with minis until the 2000s.

Hex crawls, dungeon maps, top down view of the combat, rules for flanking etc. All that stuff is pretty board gamy to me.

Something like this  (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedFacing.html)is very much like a boardgame and a combat simulator to me.

Quote from: increment;790056Sorry, I guess I assumed my sig would double for my cites.

Why in the world would you think that a link to your blog advertising your book would double as a citation of an original source?
 

QuoteMoves #23 is the earliest place I'm aware of ...

So the citation I was looking for that you hinted at in your reply would be the Strategy & Tactics Press magazine Moves, issue #23.

The quote doesn't use the term role-playing in a critical or derogatory way, merely as a way of distinguishing games where the player takes on the role of a person (frequently a single person) from games where they don't take on the role of a person. Perhaps you meant "critic" in the sense of a theater critic who reviews a film rather than in the sense of someone who dislikes and hence criticizes RPGs.

Quote from: Nikita;790165I think that earliest role-playing game I've seen is Viet Valley where participants are given roles such as VC Tax Collector, Buddhist Monk etc.This one was 1969 (and 1970) and I think it was used to train MACV personnel on MAAG stuff.

As I've suggested earlier in this thread, there were a ton of games like this from the late 1950s forward. The Inter-Nation Simulation of 1959 (Guetzkow et al) is probably the most important and influential. They certainly knew role-playing (from Moreno), and recognized a role-playing element was present in their games. Thus, by 1964, we see references to political wargame exercises in the highest echelons on the American military explicitly called "role-playing games."  These are the first practices that anyone applied that exact label to, as far as I can tell. They were more like a Model UN than like D&D, though.

QuoteThere was also a commercial WW2 era infantry skirmish war game made in 1966 by Michael Korns "Modern War in Miniature" where you had two players and judge who would describe you what happened as you told her what you'd like to do. This is pretty much first role-playing game I've seen (unless you've seen Featherstone's books describing this earlier? Has anyone?).

Korns is an absoutely crucial work, since both the Twin Cities and Lake Geneva crowds knew it and leveraged it. Korns built on the idea of the game transpiring as a dialog between player and judge which he had read about in Sayre, who in turn got it from Verdy du Vernois. We should probably understand Korns and Totten as the key influences on Braunstein in the Twin Cities, and thus major contributes to D&D. But was Korns really a role-playing game? The line between wargames in this tradition and role-playing games is very hard to draw. You'll find though that Korns is heavy on tables of military statistics but light on rules - it's hard to read a game into his book, it's more like a sourcebook someone else might use to design a game.

Featherstone did not approve of the works in this tradition. But again, if what makes something a "role-playing game" in your book is just that it unfolds in a dialog between a player proposing actions and a referee describing results, you can find that in any number of nineteenth-century wargames long before Featherstone.

Quote from: increment;790158While I'm happy not to be contradicted by Mr. St. Andre, my method also is intentionally blind to what people recall today, especially when it comes to dates and sequences. Primary sources are much more reliable in my experience.

Your desire to exclude people who were actually involved as a primary source seems artificial and a bit peculiar. It reminds me of the 19th century historians who preferred to use vase paintings and the writings of the ancients to determine how long a Macedonian sarissa was or could have been as opposed to the German school who had people actually drill with 16' and 21' poles to see if using such a large pike was possible. Judiciously used, direct evidence is a better source of knowledge than reading another book.

QuoteSo the citation I was looking for that you hinted at in your reply would be the Strategy & Tactics Press magazine Moves, issue #23.

The quote doesn't use the term role-playing in a critical or derogatory way, merely as a way of distinguishing games where the player takes on the role of a person (frequently a single person) from games where they don't take on the role of a person. Perhaps you meant "critic" in the sense of a theater critic who reviews a film rather than in the sense of someone who dislikes and hence criticizes RPGs.

Yes, the latter is the sense in which I use the term "critic," sorry if that was unclear. Another good example of linguistic drift, the way that "critic" now often means "someone who hates stuff" instead of "someone who judges whether stuff is good or bad." C.S. Lewis has a great book about cases like this, where usages of words slide into meaning "good" or "bad."

To your next post:

Quote from: Bren;790180Your desire to exclude people who were actually involved as a primary source seems artificial and a bit peculiar. It reminds me of the 19th century historians who preferred to use vase paintings and the writings of the ancients to determine how long a Macedonian sarissa was or could have been as opposed to the German school who had people actually drill with 16' and 21' poles to see if using such a large pike was possible. Judiciously used, direct evidence is a better source of knowledge than reading another book.

I don't exclude them, not in the sense you mean - I conducted numerous interviews with eyewitnesses to the birth of role-playing games between, say, 2006 and 2010, including putting questions to folks like Gygax and Arneson. But bluntly, I found that dates and sequences of events are matters that are not clearly remembered thirty or forty years after the fact.

Not to pick on Major Wesely, but since I just mentioned Braunstein and Korns - in a series of (quite long) interviews with Wesely, he insisted that the first Braunstein had taken place before Korns came out: that the first Braunstein was in 1967, and Korns came out in 1968. In fact, Korns came out in 1966, and a zine that Major Wesely read (and contributed to) contained a prominent review of Korns that year. Contemporary documents from 1968 furthermore show that Wesely was just beginning his work on adapting Totten's Strategos then, yet Wesely insisted that he had his "Strategos N" rules for the first Braunstein. When after much digging in Twin Cities attics, he and I found an original copy of his "Strategos N," we discovered that Wesely had hand-written the date "1970" on the inside of the cover forty years ago. While what Wesely remembers doesn't change, we as people trying to piece the history together can (and should) revise our opinion about when events occurred.

I found innumerable similar confusions about dates and sequences in the personal recollections of others - worse still, different eyewitnesses supply different dates or sequences of events, so who do you trust then? Gygax, Arneson and Wesely all made separate and contradictory claims that they "invented" polyhedral dice for gaming, say - they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to questions about a significant cultural phenomenon like D&D, there is a further problem that innovators sometimes present the history is a way that emphasizes their own role unduly. Unlike the case of the drills you mention, we cannot access the historical facts through conducting empirical tests today - the question of whether something happened in 1966 or 1968 can't be determined by any amount of drilling, say. We can however get far greater accuracy and certainty than memory from a judicious inspection of the right archives.

I guess that is part of the reason I don't feel the position that many of, if not a majority, of the principals at the inception of our hobby were aware of what roleplaying was considered to be back in the mid 70's to the early 80s is threatened.  For those that were not aware, it was a good term.  For those who were aware, it was a very appropriate term.  Especially, as mentioned, since many psychologists still feel that that similarity is valid enough to research.

It doesn't mean I'm completely right, I think this is going to turn out to be messy enough that I'm going to find a lot of conflicted middle.  But it is worthwhile.

Reading the articles made me think back to my first experience with D&D.

I was 20 years old at the time and while I started out with Palladium but the gamers at  the local store were into White Wolf stuff so I pretty much played World of Darkness (esp. Vampire) and a Shadowrun game was started by a guy which to this day was the best experience I've ever had as a PC.

A gentlemen came to our local shop, he was from the midwest and was here in the west coast for a couple of months due to work.

He was a D&D guy from the beginning of the game and I was really interested in playing.

He modified an old adventure and we played with several other players.  I recall playing a cleric.  

The important part that I recall was that there was this monster in the dungeon to which we could not defeat.  After 20 minutes or so I decided to pull a Gandalf in the Mines of Moria kind of thing and pretty much sacrificed myself so that the rest can continue on.

I ended up dying of course which sucked.  

But the peculiar thing was that all the other pcs and the dm looked at me like I was a dumbass.  They couldn't comprehend why I would do such a thing.  I thought my character would take such an action, being a good cleric believing in a good god hanging out with a bunch of miscreants and violent party.  My motivation was that I (as the cleric) wanted them to be noble and good and such.  

That's what I got from D&D and agree with some points that Wick has made but I strongly disagree with some of his other points.  I felt the purpose of D&D is to complete the adventures alive and collect the loot a la a lot of computer rpgs.  My second experience a couple of years later when D&D 3e came out, with different DM and players, didn't fare much better.  When I was trying to come up with a name and background of my elven thief (iirc) the DM told me not to worry about that. :)

By the way, nobody survived the adventure.  Near the end (I assume) there was this corridor with drops of water or blood falling and everyone died as they walked through it and got hit by the drops.

That's funny, I had a very similar experience early on. Heh.

I played D&D (basic, I think?) as a kid/in early high school. By college I had abandoned D&D as nothing but hack&slash crap and moved on to GURPS and Call of Cthulhu and a few other games (Teenagers from Outer Space!)

Then I tried a 2e game... and boy fucking howdy. The ranger and paladin were murderous scumbags that the DM couldn't/wouldn't reign in.

I played a NG cleric of elephants or something (I had a lot of ivory doodads). Bunch of cultists, we're winning, so I call for them to surrender. They do. The paladin then cuts them down. WTF.

By the end of it I was just numb to the whole situation. Then the paladin had run ahead or something and we see him, addled from some mental influence, sitting in a pit of vipers. Uh oh.

Right. I hoist my loins and quickstep over to him, attempting rescue.

Roll roll roll roll roll.

Yep, bitten and died of poison. I don't remember if I actually managed to rescue him, I suspect not. Just an utter ignoble and pointless death in the middle of some grand adventure the other guys were making nothing more than tomb raiding.

Later the party had the chance to resurrect my character, whose spirit told them to fuck off. Better off in his heaven. Idiots.


So I liked D&D when I was very young, because it was my first RPG (though quickly intrigued/entranced by CoC), and then with 3e, because it seemed actually functional.

Yeah, I think most gamers go through the "I'm to SMART for that STUPID D&D phase," some just never come out of it.

As far as defining RPGs, Wick is obviously off base as calling the game that created RPGs not an RPG is just silly but I think focusing too much on roleplaying is a mistake: it isn't RPing that makes an RPG and RPG, it's how you interact with the world.

In other games there's a set list of things you can do and everything else is simply not allowed. In RPGs you can attempt to do absolutely anything you can image and then someone else tells you if you succeed or fail. And that's something you can really ONLY do in RPGs.

For example I played a bunch of D&D with my students and they name their character things like "Stupidpie" and "Fighter" and never ever roleplay or even know what roleplaying IS really but they still loved D&D and the ones who liked it best begged me for months and months to play it again, which a reaction I've never ever got from anything else. Why? It's because they got the fact that in this game they would attempt to do anything they could image. It didn't matter that "Stupidpie" had no personality (or hell, even a gender or ANYTHING) it mattered that he could kill ghouls by pushing a cow over a cliff at them or pour a bunch of oil on the floor, get goblins to slip in it and then light it on fire or that he could try to kill his friend after his friend took all of the loot and then roll a fumble and accidentally kill his pony.

For making an RPG be an RPG being able to roleplay as if your character were real isn't so important, it's interacting with the world your character (even if his name is "Fighter" and all there is to "Fighter" is he wants to get gold and not die) finds themselves in as if the world were real.

One you get kids to realize that questions like "can I use my sword more than one" don't make sense because you can just think about what makes sense in the real world and do anything that makes sense and I'll make sure the rules catch up then the eyes go wide and the wheels start turning. That's what makes RPGs great.

That's why I don't think chess is an RPG, not because you can't roleplay in it but because you can't order your pawns to start digging pit traps.

I like D&D, but 3e and it's foul progeny killed my interest in the game. At the time, I wasn't playing D&D, not players at the table where uninterested. 3e revitalized the group's interest, but it wrong to me. I thought I was going through D&D burn out myself, I couldn't enjoy myself even through I played and ran multiple campaigns.

Burnout was the probable best cause for my disinterest. I was wrong. I played 4e D&D, and while not my favourite game, it did have some echoes of fun. I went back to play older games, and found out I prefer the older stuff when ideas where paramount, not game balance or hard mechanics.

I've never looked back.

Quote from: Daztur;790326For example I played a bunch of D&D with my students and they name their character things like "Stupidpie" and "Fighter" and never ever roleplay or even know what roleplaying IS really but they still loved D&D and the ones who liked it best begged me for months and months to play it again, which a reaction I've never ever got from anything else. Why? It's because they got the fact that in this game they would attempt to do anything they could image. It didn't matter that "Stupidpie" had no personality (or hell, even a gender or ANYTHING) it mattered that he could kill ghouls by pushing a cow over a cliff at them or pour a bunch of oil on the floor, get goblins to slip in it and then light it on fire or that he could try to kill his friend after his friend took all of the loot and then roll a fumble and accidentally kill his pony.

This brings up the nature of Immersion.  Obviously, "StupidPie's" player isn't really Roleplaying a character, but he is interacting with the world, he's immersed in an alternate reality that isn't his.


There's an overlapping line between immersing yourself in a setting without getting into character (roleplaying yourself), and immersing yourself into a specific character within a setting.  Similarly, there's an overlapping line between immersing yourself into a specific character, and also immersing yourself as author/observer into the story of that character.

Immersing into Setting
Overlap
Immersing into Character
Overlap
Immersing into Story

All three of these are usually referred to as RolePlaying, at which time the knives usually get drawn.

It occurs to me to wonder if original sin mightn't have been naming things.

Seems like most of the fights humans get into come down to semantics.

The lack of flexibility is a general shortcoming of computer games, but it's an oddity that the ones distinguished with the "RPG" label tend to be especially stereotyped in allowed actions, especially focused on numbers, and especially removed from first-person perspective. The Adventure game type, especially the old-fashioned ones with halfway decent language parsers, better evokes for me the classic role-playing-game experience. Why are FPS not considered CRPGs? Apparently, not enough number-crunching for the player - just that "roleplaying" aspect.

Quote from: Phillip;790351Why are FPS not considered CRPGs? Apparently, not enough number-crunching for the player - just that "roleplaying" aspect.

I was never much a fan of the actual RPG style videogames but I Deus Ex remains one of my favorite FPS games, because of all the optional stuff and choices that can be made... including the dreaded 'no-kill' playthrough.

Quote from: Will;790312Later the party had the chance to resurrect my character, whose spirit told them to fuck off. Better off in his heaven. Idiots.


So I liked D&D when I was very young, because it was my first RPG (though quickly intrigued/entranced by CoC), and then with 3e, because it seemed actually functional.

Funny

So yeah, there's nothing wrong with gamers or games that play that way.  It's just not what I desire from a game but I wouldn't say that it's not an rpg.  

And I have a similar nostalgic feeling towards Rifts/Robotech/Palladium books because it was my first rpg experience but I wouldn't play those games again and I shudder to think that folks will consider me snobby for saying this.

I just want something different from rpgs or at least different rules if I were to play any Palladium settings.

And I'll admit that Dark Sun and Planescape settings always interested me but no one I ever met was interested in either or more specifically running either settings.

I used to wish someone would run a Dark Sun game where all the PCs were slave enforcers/police to one of the city lords but was secretly trying to subvert the city lord's authority.

Always thought that was a nice campaign idea.

I think they were called city lords.

Quote from: Daztur;790326Yeah, I think most gamers go through the "I'm to SMART for that STUPID D&D phase," some just never come out of it.

For example I played a bunch of D&D with my students and they name their character things like "Stupidpie" and "Fighter"

Cool story.  

Maybe a lot of gamers do. Speaking for myself, I like a certain type of experience from role playing and I never got that from D&D.  I wish I had, as per my Dark Sun idea in the above post.

And I'm contemplating, as I am getting back to role playing after a hiatus of more than a decade, purchasing the 5e even with my unsatisfying experience because it's D&D (the granddaddy of them all)

It's cool that your students (don't know their age range) had a great experience role playing.  Stupidpie and Fighter are probably the best descriptors of characters that I've ever heard.  Encompassing motivation, occupation, priorities, etc.  Simple yet to the point.  Would this be called elegant?

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

Well, you do have the various Elder Scrolls games, fer ex Skyrim. You can talk to just about any NPC in the world. Most of them haven't got much to say, but then that's true about asking random schmucks in teh real world about whatever floats your boat.

More importantly, they don't force you to solve quests in any particular way. Oh, sure: Sometimes you absolutely have to kill the bad dude to take his stuff, but shockingly often you can just pick pocket it, or walk into his house when he's not home and just walk off with it, even before you have the quest!

And if all else fails, in a massive number of cases you can just go get another item just like the one you want from 'bad dude x' and give it to the quest giver without ever dealing with bad dude x in the first place.

To my mind the only thing really missing from the experience of TRPGs is the social/group dynamic.

Oh, I suppose you could claim that being geographically constrained to a single country is an arbitrary limit, to which i would then say: Daggerfall.

I'm puzzled.  Can anyone explain this to me?

If I'm supposed to be all about story-telling and not care about game balance, what's supposed to be my incentive for paying my hard-earned dollars to Wick for hundreds of pages of his presumably unbalanced abstraction?

Not only is making up a shit-who-cares abstraction easy as pie, but my friends and I were doing collaborative storytelling with no handbook at all years before D&D was published. Kids have been playing Let's Pretend for millennia without John Wick's punditry.

Philip: never much liked those games because my options always felt so constrained. I always did the most RP in TBS-style games, like Civilization or Crusader Kings since I had so many more options.

Quote from: CRKrueger;790341This brings up the nature of Immersion.  Obviously, "StupidPie's" player isn't really Roleplaying a character, but he is interacting with the world, he's immersed in an alternate reality that isn't his.


There's an overlapping line between immersing yourself in a setting without getting into character (roleplaying yourself), and immersing yourself into a specific character within a setting.  Similarly, there's an overlapping line between immersing yourself into a specific character, and also immersing yourself as author/observer into the story of that character.

Immersing into Setting
Overlap
Immersing into Character
Overlap
Immersing into Story

All three of these are usually referred to as RolePlaying, at which time the knives usually get drawn.

Yes, immersion into a setting is RPing as well and it`s something a lot of good GM and rulesets wisely cultivate but I don`t think it`s what makes an RPG and RPG any more than identifying with the main character makes a movie be a movie, despite that being what a lot of movies aim for.

OK let`s take my oldest son as another example. He can`t read yet so I haven`t started him on D&D but he loves dungeon crawling board games like DungeonQuest and the Lego one. He gets never RPs but he gets immersed into the setting and often recounts our adventures as a story to his mom.

But he keeps on butting his head into the border between RPGs and board games. While learning the games he kept on trying to do things that the rules don`t allow but that made sense in the implied setting of the game. I ran with that but as soon as he grasped the rules he stopped doing that as he understood that in this game anything not permitted is forbidden. He got that in the Lego game thw ONLY things he could ever do was fight, move, pick up stuff and drink potions and stopped trying to so anything else, which is just what the rules intend.

For me that`s not much fun and my mind gets pretty numb playing that Lego game because it doesn`t really allow for the one thing that makes RPGs special: the ability to do anything that makes sense in the impled setting of the game.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790037Wow.  
That never occurred to me as possible, since the game was spawned by Chainmail and the ubiquity of minis in every con, game mag, and hobby shop in the late 70s and 80s.

I doubt if 10 per cent of the the people who were playing D&D by 1984 had even hear of Chainmail, let alone played it. Minis were in hobby shops. People painted them. Brought them to D&D sessions. But in my neck of the woods, they were not placed on a tactical grid in combat. They were models of the PCs. Maybe used to show marching order. Apparently, that's the way Gygax himself played, so it's not as though theatre of the mind combat was some weird playstyle that only developed in the 2E era.

The thing that gets on my tits about the whole "D&D's roots were a tabletop wargame" meme, usually spouted by 3E and 4E fans to defend their games, is that it fails to recognize that the thing which made D&D so different from anything before, and sparked the exponential growth in it as a game and pass-time, was the ways is which it was different from a wargame  or boardgame.

 If D&D had remained a fantasy miniatures game, it would not have exploded out of the tabletop wargaming hobby into mass popularity in the basements and rec rooms of millions of new players. The fact that all you needed to play were some books, imagination, and some dice is what enabled that massive growth.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;790174Hex crawls, dungeon maps, top down view of the combat, rules for flanking etc. All that stuff is pretty board gamy to me.

There is no mention in the Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, or 1E AD&D of positioning and moving minis on a grid. None. Not a single one of the examples of play and combat reference grids and minis.

Dungeon maps were used by DMs, not players. In my experience, it was regarded as cheating for players to even look at them. And there were virtually no tactical-scale maps in published adventures. No battle mats. If D&D was primarily a game played on a tactical grid, why weren't those common commercial products? Why didn't the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief include a skirmish-scale map of the king's hall?

Quote from: Haffrung;790386If D&D had remained a fantasy miniatures game, it would not have exploded out of the tabletop wargaming hobby into mass popularity in the basements and rec rooms of millions of new players. The fact that all you needed to play were some books, imagination, and some dice is what enabled that massive growth.

     I'd say that massive growth had more to do with James Dallas Egbert, Pat Pulling, and things like 60 Minutes than with the presence or lack thereof of miniatures. The absence of miniatures removed a barrier, but I wouldn't say it accounts for how the game 'exploded out of the tabletop wargaming hobby.'

   The 1980s boom was a fad, folks. Drawing too many conclusions about what makes for long-term success from that event is just as big a mistake as dismissing it as irrelevant.

   (And personally, I don't care for miniatures-focused gaming, will be running tomorrow night's session of I6--my first time behind the screen in over a decade--without them, and think 4E would have done much better if it had deemphasized the grid and/or been packaged in an Essentials-style format with counters. But I also don't much care for the 'neither fish nor fowl' approach of AD&D nowadays; either exploit the use of graphic representation, a la 4E, or abstract things out a bit, like FATE or 13th Age.)

Quote from: Haffrung;790386I doubt if 10 per cent of the the people who were playing D&D by 1984 had even hear of Chainmail, let alone played it. Minis were in hobby shops. People painted them. Brought them to D&D sessions. But in my neck of the woods, they were not placed on a tactical grid in combat. They were models of the PCs. Maybe used to show marching order. Apparently, that's the way Gygax himself played, so it's not as though theatre of the mind combat was some weird playstyle that only developed in the 2E era.

The thing that gets on my tits about the whole "D&D's roots were a tabletop wargame" meme, usually spouted by 3E and 4E fans to defend their games, is that it fails to recognize that the thing which made D&D so different from anything before, and sparked the exponential growth in it as a game and pass-time, was the ways is which it was different from a wargame  or boardgame.

 If D&D had remained a fantasy miniatures game, it would not have exploded out of the tabletop wargaming hobby into mass popularity in the basements and rec rooms of millions of new players. The fact that all you needed to play were some books, imagination, and some dice is what enabled that massive growth.



There is no mention in the Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, or 1E AD&D of positioning and moving minis on a grid. None. Not a single one of the examples of play and combat reference grids and minis.

Dungeon maps were used by DMs, not players. In my experience, it was regarded as cheating for players to even look at them. And there were virtually no tactical-scale maps in published adventures. No battle mats. If D&D was primarily a game played on a tactical grid, why weren't those common commercial products? Why didn't the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief include a skirmish-scale map of the king's hall?

Yeah i started just before 2E came out and we didn't use miniatures at all, and when we did start buying them, they were mainly used for things like marching order. Eventually we tossed them because we found them distracting (I found I kept picturing my character looking exactly like the miniature). The whole thing with map tiles and stuff wasn't even something I would have thought to do at the time. Eventually we learned about the chessex mat and you'd see that in play once in a while. I don't think I ever ran a game using miniatures until at least 2000 (I had played in games using them before that but had very little demand for them in my own group).

Bla blah blah two guys on the internet are fighting but I can't be bothered to listen as it would get in the way of the fun I'm having.

John Wick wrote, I don't want you to think I just get rid of combat mechanics. On the contrary, for Vampire, I usually get rid of that whole Social trait thing entirely. Why? Because this is a roleplaying game, and that means you roleplay. You don't get to say, "I have a high charisma because I'm not very good at roleplaying."

My response to that is, "Then, you should get better at it. And you won't get any better by just rolling dice. You'll only get better by roleplaying."


I completely disagree with him on this.  I like to think I'm a decent role player but I'm a horrible actor and while I can "act" some things out others I can't like...

If I was playing a giant stupid uncharismatic ogre who has the trustworthy, honest, and sincere advantages and had to convince a bunch of dwarves that I didn't kill their companions. I will have no idea how to act it out, what he'll say, behave or anything (maybe that means I'm not stupid or uncharismatic)

But I do know and will tell the GM that my character wants to talk in a non-confrontational way, drop my weapons, and try to convince them of the truth that I had no part in the killing of their companions using a lower submissive voice.

So I roll some dice with my low charisma with whatever bonuses I get from the honest, trustworthy, and sincere advantages even knowing in the back of my mind that I probably could take down all these dwarves.

I think that's decent roleplaying, non-existent acting, but role-playing nonetheless.

I think John Wick created L5R (had the book and always wanted to play but never got to) and I believe there's social conflict resolution mechanics in that game.

Quote from: Necrozius;789875Well, they ARE a little goofy. Think about it: the only well known established Matriarchy in D&D lore are a bunch of evil sexy S&M slavers who worship a demon queen goddess of darkness and evil.

That's what makes them cool...

QuoteOh and they're "black".

That's what makes them perfect.

So Wick is another in the endless parade of people who played an RPG, usually D&D, and came away from it with some insanely narrow mindset of a "revelation" as to what RPGs are.

"I played in a D&D game and there was fighting. D&D is ONLY about fighting!"
"I played D&D and was immersed. D&D ONLY is about immersion!
"There were minis! Gygax tells you to use minis! D&D is ONLY about minis!"

etc etc etc ad nausium.

Followed by how everyone elses playstyle is NOT really real role playing.

Which is the opposite end of the crazy stick to the people who apply a term to EVERYTHING!
Reading a book is Role playing! Monopoly is Role Playing! Rugby is Role playing! Worms fucking is Role Playing!!!

Next week someone will post their revelation on how not using dice or pennies to mark position degrades the purity if immersion only real represenative miniatures can give.

Then it will be the guy who played with this really obnoxious elf player and how ELVES are a poison to RPGs and no one should ever play them and anyone playing them is not really playing.

In a few months it will be someone extolling how playing without henchmen is not really real role playing.

And on and on and on.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790037Wow.  
That never occurred to me as possible, since the game was spawned by Chainmail and the ubiquity of minis in every con, game mag, and hobby shop in the late 70s and 80s.

Reflecting on taking up RPGs in Junior High in 1978 I would guess it depends heavily on what was available at the place you bought D&D. I know there were two places to get D&D in my hometown, State Street Model Shop and the Dandelion. State Street had miniatures the Dandelion did not.

I lived in a town of 15,000 surrounded by a rural agricultural area. Having the State Shop in hindsight was a bit fortunate for a town my size. It where I picked up the Grenadier boxed set that formed the core of my miniature collection. It didn't exist there was only the Dandelion then I could see miniatures not being a big thing at all.

Slightly later with the bookstores like B Daltons picking up RPGs. That would also continue increase the chance of area without experience with miniatures.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from "role-playing" not really being a good description for "D&D and stuff like that" but it's so entrenched now that it's impossible to change.

RPing is great fun, but it doesn't really get to the core of what makes D&D be D&D and not a board game for me (being able to try to do anything you want instead of having the rules set forth a list of allowable actions) and as people have pointed out you can role-play in a gazillion games that aren't RPGs.

But because it's the name a lot of people focus on it as the end-all and be-all of the game and that anything that doesn't directly support it is illegitimate.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789914e WoW that is designed to emulate table top RPGs.

Really?  I never would have thought of that.  How so?

I ask this honestly.  For me, they're entirely different, simply because in a TTRPG I can come up with an idea the game master/programmer never thought of, and try it.

But that's just me, as Cosgrove would say.

Quote from: dragoner;789971It's substitution, computer games have an easier buy in and ease of use than table top games.

Well, yeah.  Computer games including MMOs have the strengths of convenience and visual appeal, whereas TTRPGs have openness as their biggest strength.

Quote from: increment;790050You could act "in character" in many wargames, and this is part of what makes it so hard to draw a line in the sand where wargames stopped and role-playing began.

As I observed to you after the TRACTICS battle I played at GaryCon in 2013, "The line between 'What orders would my tank commander give based on Soviet tank doctrine for vehicles separated from their platoon leader in 1941' and 'What does my guy do' is an extremely porous one.

I could see the German tank platoon right on the other side of the damn woods, but my TANK COMMANDER inside the tank couldn't; and doctrine is "Support your platoon."

Quote from: increment;790158So sure, potentially someone else could have suggested that "role-playing game" applies to D&D and its ilk, it could have been a messier and more gradual drift. But looking across a very broad swath of zines of the time, all the key early uses - in Owl & Weasel, in the Strategic Review, in Metagaming ad copy for T&T and others - follow hard upon the uses in S&T. Bear in mind as well that S&T had twenty or thirty times the circulation of the largest such fan periodicals, back in 1975, so ideas appearing there reached vastly more people than virtually any other media source of the hobby at the time. The term went from pretty much total disuse in the games community (again, outside the fringes of Dippy fandom) in mid-1975 to being on the cover of Metamorphosis Alpha before the end of 1976. After that, there was just no stopping it.

A big part of it was the very real 'What the HELL do we call this kind of game?' aspect.  D&D was "medieval fantasy wargames campaigns," but that's a real friggin' mouthful.  And we knew you could have SF, or ancient, or other kind of games.  There was a lot of blathering and armwaving as people tried out various terms for "the set of all games that kind of are like D&D in ways we can't even really define."

People -- LOTS of people, all over the place -- REALLY need to realize there was a lot less "rigid academic work" and "involved logical thought" and a lot more "pulling stuff out of our asses at a moment's notice."

A large element of my book that I need to include more of is "demythologizing".  But that's really my whole point behind "we made up some shit we thought would be fun."  For instance, the "Half Elf" came about because my 16 year old self saw that an Elf in D&D could be either a Fighter or a Magic User, and I said "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if a Half Elf could be a Fighter and a Magic User AND a Cleric?"  The amount of thought that went into the "Half Elf" took less time than it took to read this paragraph.

Quote from: Vargold;790160Family resemblances? My Wittgenstein sense is tingling!

Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel!

Quote from: increment;790172philosophical pseudoproblems that generate a lot of Master's theses

HAR!!

Quote from: Bren;790175Perhaps you meant "critic" in the sense of a theater critic who reviews a film rather than in the sense of someone who dislikes and hence criticizes RPGs.

Yes; SOME of us actually try to differentiate "critic" from "asshole."

The transformation of "critic" and "criticism" into bad words is one of the greatest lingusitic losses of the English language.  "Constructive criticism" is a term that drives me fucking batshit insane; if it's not constructive it's not criticism, it's merely condemnation.

Quote from: Bren;790180Your desire to exclude people who were actually involved as a primary source seems artificial and a bit peculiar. It reminds me of the 19th century historians who preferred to use vase paintings and the writings of the ancients to determine how long a Macedonian sarissa was or could have been as opposed to the German school who had people actually drill with 16' and 21' poles to see if using such a large pike was possible. Judiciously used, direct evidence is a better source of knowledge than reading another book.

As somebody with an actual history degree I'm VERY dubious about such methods.   This method is how some English wargamer in the 1970s concluded that the stirrup didn't make any difference in combat, because he got on his horse without stirrups and rode around waving a stick over his head.

Quote from: Omega;790417"There were minis! Gygax tells you to use minis! D&D is ONLY about minis!"

"Arneson ALWAYS used minis!  Gygax NEVER used minis!"

THE UNIVERSE EXPLODES IN A QUANTUM ABSURDITY!!!

Quote from: Haffrung;790386The thing that gets on my tits about the whole "D&D's roots were a tabletop wargame" meme, usually spouted by 3E and 4E fans to defend their games, is that it fails to recognize that the thing which made D&D so different from anything before, and sparked the exponential growth in it as a game and pass-time, was the ways is which it was different from a wargame  or boardgame.

D&D's roots WERE a table top wargame.  And we played large parts of it that way.

And we also knew it was somehow MORE.  But we had a whole lot of trouble describing exactly in what way.  And once the term "Role Playing Game" appeared, people said "YEAH!  FUCKING YEAH!  THAT's what this game is!"

Quote from: TheNextDoctor;790232But the peculiar thing was that all the other pcs and the dm looked at me like I was a dumbass.  They couldn't comprehend why I would do such a thing.  I thought my character would take such an action, being a good cleric believing in a good god hanging out with a bunch of miscreants and violent party.  My motivation was that I (as the cleric) wanted them to be noble and good and such.  

That's what I got from D&D and agree with some points that Wick has made but I strongly disagree with some of his other points.

That has nothing to do with "game" and everything to do with "people."

Quote from: Old Geezer;790468That has nothing to do with "game" and everything to do with "people."

OG is right on the money with this.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790468That has nothing to do with "game" and everything to do with "people."

True, but the only time I've ever experienced that from people was while playing D&D.

And most of the PCs were the local World of Darkness guys and they never thought I was off my rocker when I did similar things while playing Vampire with them.

Plus, while D&D wasn't my first game I respect D&D as it is the granddaddy of them all and as I mentioned in another post I've always wanted someone to run Dark Sun where the PCs were slaves who were enforcers/police to a City Lord (think that's what they were called) but secretly undermine the City Lord's authority.  

Or any lengthy campaign involving Dark Sun or Planescapes but no one wanted to.  They were only willing to run an adventure at a time followed by another adventure followed by another but not in the campaign-sense beyond us using the same characters and while those adventures didn't always involve a dungeon but did include a plethora of monsters to destroy and cool loot awaiting the PCs at the end.  I didn't play those adventures with but I was sitting next to them in many of their sessions playing some ccg or something while they played at our local store.

But yeah, you're right it was the people.  When they wanted to run a campaign it was never D&D, it was World of Darkness, Shadowrun or other games.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790463As somebody with an actual history degree I'm VERY dubious about such methods.   This method is how some English wargamer in the 1970s concluded that the stirrup didn't make any difference in combat, because he got on his horse without stirrups and rode around waving a stick over his head.

I think these approaches can supplement other knowledge but they do have to be taken with a grain of salt (after all, your average historian isn't exactly built like your average warrior from the ages past). But there have been schools of history that take this kind of first hand experience of what they are studying seriously to help illuminate the subject. If you are going to study farming, it isn't a bad idea to get some direct experience trying to use techniques from the period. But you still need to rely on primary sources and you have to remember that re-enacting the past is very different from being there. I think there is a place for oral accounts as well but there is an entire discipline around that and you have to look for all kinds of pitfalls (like rehearsed narratives and the memory issue another poster brought up).

Old Geezer, what area of history did you focus on (just curious, as that was my degree as well).

Quote from: Old Geezer;790466And we also knew it was somehow MORE.  But we had a whole lot of trouble describing exactly in what way.  And once the term "Role Playing Game" appeared, people said "YEAH!  FUCKING YEAH!  THAT's what this game is!"

My first introduction to gaming was when I was in Junior High in 1978 and my friend and I discovered Avalon Hill and SPI hex and counter wargames.

Slowly news of Dungeons & Dragons circulated in my hometown set in rural northwest PA. When my friend and I got a hold of the Holmes Basic Set. right off we knew something was different about this particular game. Even though we competed hard against each other with the wargame we had, our session with the boxed set did not have same spirit of competitiveness that despite there being only the two of us playing.

The sense was more that we were competing against the dungeon and the dungeon master was an important cog to make the game work not an opponent that needed to be beaten.

Slightly later, I was exposed in Boy Scouts to multiple players playing with one dungeon masters. During winter scouting events early darkness meant there was a lot of evening free time. In the late 70s resulted us in filling that with Dungeons  & Dragons sessions.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790458People -- LOTS of people, all over the place -- REALLY need to realize there was a lot less "rigid academic work" and "involved logical thought" and a lot more "pulling stuff out of our asses at a moment's notice."

People have assumed that, and that games have evolved as people actually, you know, start applying some ideas, design, and testing cycles of observing what works and doesn't.

And then aged fogies act all aggrieved at the notion that games could evolve, because the original game was designed to work like that ON PURPOSE, goddammit.

So, uh. Dude.

Quote from: Will;790494People have assumed that, and that games have evolved as people actually, you know, start applying some ideas, design, and testing cycles of observing what works and doesn't.

And then aged fogies act all aggrieved at the notion that games could evolve, because the original game was designed to work like that ON PURPOSE, goddammit.

So, uh. Dude.

No denies that games evolve or change over time. Where things get annoying is that is also considered as in the same light as technological progress.

Progress in game design about an increase in diversity. An increase in the choices of design and presentation available to the game designer.

Yeah, but if you're claiming new games aren't better, but different, and then say 'yeah, we just half-assed everything,' I'm going to give you a Tommy Lee Jones look.

If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

'Evolve' is not a synonym for 'improve'... at best it might mean a recent game appeals to current gamer mindsets and becomes popular, if only for a moment. But it's only 'better' in the minds of the audience that finds it so.
I agree that diversity of choice is the real matter of progress... moreso if those diverse games are actually getting played (I own a wide variety of games, but the menu of what folks are willing to play seems to remain constricted).

Games design = technology is the wasted breath of the universe.

Quote from: One Horse Town;790521Games design = technology is the wasted breath of the universe.

   I'm not sure the "game design as product of unholy inspiration" ('unholy' because so much of this hobby seems to favor the vile, the depraved and the demonic) that seems to be assumed as an alternative is any better ...

   IMO (and I speak as a pure layman here), game design is an art or craft. There are ways it can be improved, but there are also different techniques that are only 'better' and 'worse' in context of a specific goal.

Quote from: Will;790510If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

Sometimes the new stuff is better, sometimes only different, and sometimes worse.

It is the ones that are different, that are convinced that they they are the same only better, that end up being problematic.

The game remains ze same indeed.

Quote from: Will;790510Yeah, but if you're claiming new games aren't better, but different, and then say 'yeah, we just half-assed everything,' I'm going to give you a Tommy Lee Jones look.

If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

It works in conjunction with Old Geezer comment on his group making shit up as they go.

It is perfectly consistent with not having a wealth of options to choose from. Things are only better because of have more choices to draw from when making rulings. Which choice is the "better" choice is subjective.

For you Ascending AC may do wonders for other games it is THACO, for others it is using a matrix table.  My opinion is that the vast majority of gamers prefer Ascending AC based on anecdotes and my experience. But I also have met gamers that do better with THACO and table look up.

But.. but... Ascending AC requires fewer steps and just a greater than comparison. Yes but that doesn't make it universally better than THACO or table lookup. It just makes it better for MOST people. Many other view or likes things differently enough that the other two works better for them.

And to tie it back to your original point, that why the fans of THACO and Table lookup get really fucking annoyed with other people when they act like Ascending ACs is the best solution of all time.

I been doing this a long enough to know that there is no one design or method that applies to all gamers all the time including what I do. Which is why I try to learn a variety of techniques so that I can tailor my approach, to a point, to what best for the group.

Quote from: Will;790494People have assumed that, and that games have evolved as people actually, you know, start applying some ideas, design, and testing cycles of observing what works and doesn't.

And then aged fogies act all aggrieved at the notion that games could evolve, because the original game was designed to work like that ON PURPOSE, goddammit.

So, uh. Dude.

No, but thank you for playing.

Look at the conversation.  People are talking about how the term "role playing" got to be applied to these kinds of games 40 years ago, and a lot more about how things were done 40 years ago.

So, uh.  Dude.

Quote from: Haffrung;790386There is no mention in the Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic, or 1E AD&D of positioning and moving minis on a grid. None. Not a single one of the examples of play and combat reference grids and minis.

Dungeon maps were used by DMs, not players. In my experience, it was regarded as cheating for players to even look at them. And there were virtually no tactical-scale maps in published adventures. No battle mats. If D&D was primarily a game played on a tactical grid, why weren't those common commercial products? Why didn't the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief include a skirmish-scale map of the king's hall?

Ok, no grid? Well that was way before my time. I am a nineties kid. Well, maybe that comes from the later editions then. Maybe 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0? I really don't know. I never said it was default. But it seems to be some people play it like that.

I am really in favor of GM descriptions, because those combat grids break immersion. They provide clarity but it becomes to tactical for me and plays like a CCG where it's all about the stats. I always played Warhammer fantasy on a grid btw. But I identify that with listening to Greenday. Something you do when you are 15 years old.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;790488Old Geezer, what area of history did you focus on (just curious, as that was my degree as well).

Medieval Europe.  My main prof was Bernie Bachrach at the U of MN.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790463As somebody with an actual history degree I'm VERY dubious about such methods.   This method is how some English wargamer in the 1970s concluded that the stirrup didn't make any difference in combat, because he got on his horse without stirrups and rode around waving a stick over his head.

Or the professor that "proved" that soldiers could barely move in full plate by sticking some students in it and telling them to run around. Or that chainmail is useless because someone lays it on a hard wooden target and shows it getting rent by arrows. Or that chainmail is too heavy to be worn long because they rolled it up in a ball and weighed it... or just picked it up in their hands. yeesh...

So we end up with mechanics are bad in an RPG because someone used them poorly. Newsflash Wick. People can be just as big if not bigger asses in RPGs with minimal to zero mechanics. They can be dicks in board games with zero PRing just as easily.

Hell, two of the worst problem players I've had so far were problems in the RPing part and barely interacted with the mechanics side.

Quote from: Haffrung;790386The thing that gets on my tits about the whole "D&D's roots were a tabletop wargame" meme, usually spouted by 3E and 4E fans to defend their games...

I've never seen that said as a "defense of the game". I have seen it said as a way of pointing out the bat-shit crazy people who think that miniatures were never used in D&D prior to 2000 are, in fact, bat-shit crazy.

You know, after seeing this trailer (http://youtu.be/RllJtOw0USI) for the upcoming John Wick biopic, I think everyone here should know better than to disagree with this guy.

:D

Quote from: The Butcher;790587You know, after seeing this trailer (http://youtu.be/RllJtOw0USI) for the upcoming John Wick biopic, I think everyone here should know better than to disagree with this guy.

:D

Thread over. You win!!!!

Quote from: The Butcher;790587You know, after seeing this trailer (http://youtu.be/RllJtOw0USI) for the upcoming John Wick biopic, I think everyone here should know better than to disagree with this guy.

:D

About damn time that a joke about the movie came up. :)

Wick is back???CRAP!

Quote from: estar;790534It works in conjunction with Old Geezer comment on his group making shit up as they go.

It is perfectly consistent with not having a wealth of options to choose from. Things are only better because of have more choices to draw from when making rulings. Which choice is the "better" choice is subjective.

For you Ascending AC may do wonders for other games it is THACO, for others it is using a matrix table.  My opinion is that the vast majority of gamers prefer Ascending AC based on anecdotes and my experience. But I also have met gamers that do better with THACO and table look up.

But.. but... Ascending AC requires fewer steps and just a greater than comparison. Yes but that doesn't make it universally better than THACO or table lookup. It just makes it better for MOST people. Many other view or likes things differently enough that the other two works better for them.

And to tie it back to your original point, that why the fans of THACO and Table lookup get really fucking annoyed with other people when they act like Ascending ACs is the best solution of all time.

I been doing this a long enough to know that there is no one design or method that applies to all gamers all the time including what I do. Which is why I try to learn a variety of techniques so that I can tailor my approach, to a point, to what best for the group.

Ascending/Descending AC really is a great example of this.  You get people saying, "Ascending AC makes so much sense.  Why do it any differently?"  And it gets brought up an example of early D&D's illogic and incoherency.

But there was a logic and coherency.  They had a die. It was 20-sided.  They thus wanted to create results that landed between 1 and 20.  If you're using a roll-over system, that means improvement is represented by the target number going down.  Now whether AC ordinal variable went from 1-10 or from 10-1 didn't really matter, because a table was going to be referenced anyway.  Why tables?  Because that was the common-sense solution of the time.  Why do a bunch of math in your head?  Let the game do the math for you and just reference the table.  And that's how AC went negative, too.  You've got the table anyway; it's just a matter of adding more columns.

Now, how does all that relate to Old Geezer's WMUSSWTWF?  Very simply, they made up shit that made sense to them at the time.  They didn't ponder the benefits of Ascending AC vs Descending AC and chose one or the other; they just followed pretty common sense procedures.  d20 means 1-20, which means target numbers go down, we make up a table like this, and voila.

THAC0 developed in a similar way.  The goal was still to create results that landed between 1 and 20.  Some folks said to themselves, how can I work this so I don't have to review a table every time?  And they worked out a simple algorithm for it.  It was considered state-of-the-art at the time!  But it wasn't created out of any particular design aesthetic or goal.  It got its start with nerdy math guys who picked up on the math and started using it as a shorthand.  WMUSSWTWF.

The idea of target numbers that go off the d20, in ever escalating fashion, is truly an innovation.  And entirely counterintuitive.  That's where careful thought about design and comparison with many other mechanical examples comes in.  But with it comes a certain subjectivity.  Someone people can buy into that very easily.  Others can't.

Quote from: Will;790346It occurs to me to wonder if original sin mightn't have been naming things.

Seems like most of the fights humans get into come down to semantics.

Well that all depends on how you define "fights"...




... and "humans."

Quote from: Will;790510Yeah, but if you're claiming new games aren't better, but different, and then say 'yeah, we just half-assed everything,' I'm going to give you a Tommy Lee Jones look.

If you didn't actually think any of your shit through, dude, it's pretty likely some new stuff is going to attempt what you did, better.

That's not what I see in the event, though. What I see is people wanting to do something else, and doing that better because they're trying to do it.

Actually approaching the original intent more closely may be a quality of some revisions in the D&D line while Gygax was at the helm, and some things he put into AD&D turned out by his own later assessment to be not so good.

Quote from: Phillip;790716That's not what I see in the event, though. What I see is people wanting to do something else, and doing that better because they're trying to do it.

Actually approaching the original intent more closely may be a quality of some revisions in the D&D line while Gygax was at the helm, and some things he put into AD&D turned out by his own later assessment to be not so good.

Different games do different things?  That's just crazy talk!

Quote from: Old Geezer;790727Different games do different things?  That's just crazy talk!

Yea, Gary was clearly enjoying going in a new direction with Mythus, but his own comparisons with his previous work tended to get a "better than D&D" spin. That's a marketing frt

Quote from: Old Geezer;790727Different games do different things?  That's just crazy talk!

Yea, Gary was clearly enjoying going in a new direction with Mythus, but his own comparisons with his previous work tended to get a "better than D&D" spin. I'd say he showed great good humor in making himself the  butt of a marketing ploy; would Mr. Wick be able to lighten up that much?

Speaking of lightening up,  Lejendary Adventure was yet another something different. The games all deal with men,  monsters and magic; but each takes a different approach.

Quote from: Phillip;790735Yea, Gary was clearly enjoying going in a new direction with Mythus, but his own comparisons with his previous work tended to get a "better than D&D" spin.

Well, would ANYBODY under ANY circumstance not say "My new work is better than my old work?"

I've heard a number of writers say "The worst thing you can say to a writer is "I liked your first book best." "

Quote from: Old Geezer;790741Well, would ANYBODY under ANY circumstance not say "My new work is better than my old work?"

I've heard a number of writers say "The worst thing you can say to a writer is "I liked your first book best." "

I can dig that, but the particular "better" shtick was along the usual "D&D sucks" lines.

Meanwhile, Gary was (I gather) still having fun with a very rules-light OD&D. He obviously didn't really think it was much (if any) worse, just different.

Quote from: Phillip;790735Yea, Gary was clearly enjoying going in a new direction with Mythus, but his own comparisons with his previous work tended to get a "better than D&D" spin. I'd say he showed great good humor in making himself the  butt of a marketing ploy; would Mr. Wick be able to lighten up that much?

Speaking of lightening up,  Lejendary Adventure was yet another something different. The games all deal with men,  monsters and magic; but each takes a different approach.

I cant find the quote now but Gygax once stated that he liked coming up with new systems. He understood that a unified system was a viable foundation. But he liked trying new things or allowing others to. Hence the plethora of different systems for TSR. Star Frontiers, Marvel, Boot Hill, Conan, etc. That and hes stated more than once that he believed that a system should fit the setting and did not really believe a single system could "be everything". Which reinforces his ideal of new systems.

Quote from: Omega;790752I cant find the quote now but Gygax one stated that he liked coming up with new systems.

That's a big part of it.  We all liked fiddle fucking around with this stuff.  I wrote 3 or 4 different systems for spaceship combat that were all based on totally different ideas; one was Newtonian movement, one was more like "ROCKETSHIPS!" a la Flash Gordon, and one was sort of based off WW1 naval combat.  Approximately.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790037Wow.  
That never occurred to me as possible, since the game was spawned by Chainmail and the ubiquity of minis in every con, game mag, and hobby shop in the late 70s and 80s.

I've played AD&D 1 and 2 without ever using minis. I've played in games of Savage Worlds that didn't use minis (although usually they do). Same with GURPS, Cyberpunk, and Shadowrun.
I've run Lotfp, TMNT, Castles and Crusades, Basic DnD, Mechwarrior, and some other rpgs and have never used minis for any of them.  
The only rpg I've played where I would say minis were mandatory or at least very close to being mandatory is 4th edition DnD.

So, to someone like me, minis are not a requirement to play an RPG, especially older games. Only newer ones seem to require them (Savage Worlds, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4th edition)

Quote from: jan paparazzi;790174Hex crawls, dungeon maps, top down view of the combat, rules for flanking etc. All that stuff is pretty board gamy to me.

Something like this  (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/unearthedFacing.html)is very much like a boardgame and a combat simulator to me.

Didn't use any of those. Didn't play with anyone who used any of those. None of my friends even used modules, or maybe they had stopped by the time I started playing with them.

I'm starting to think that my friends and I had a monopoly on imagination.

Edit: I had never even heard the term, "hex crawl" until joining this board. Never ran a dungeon crawl until 2 years ago. Never used any sort of flanking rule until 4th edition. Hex crawls have no appeal to me because it's impossible to run a long term campaign. Dungeon crawls are boring and seem artificial. Flanking rules make me think of constantly having to flip through a rule book to look up bullshit that distracts from playing the game.

Quote from: everloss;790771I've played AD&D 1 and 2 without ever using minis. I've played in games of Savage Worlds that didn't use minis (although usually they do). Same with GURPS, Cyberpunk, and Shadowrun.
I've run Lotfp, TMNT, Castles and Crusades, Basic DnD, Mechwarrior, and some other rpgs and have never used minis for any of them.  
The only rpg I've played where I would say minis were mandatory or at least very close to being mandatory is 4th edition DnD.

So, to someone like me, minis are not a requirement to play an RPG, especially older games. Only newer ones seem to require them (Savage Worlds, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4th edition)

oh, no, please at least understand, I rarely use them.  Been years since I really took the trouble, since I seem to do ok with combat anyways, when we have them.  I was just remarking that back in the day, they were completely ubiquitous.   Not about a game, more about a time.

Quote from: everloss;790772I'm starting to think that my friends and I had a monopoly on imagination.

Yeah.  

Funny, that's not what I'm getting from you.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790786Yeah.  

Funny, that's not what I'm getting from you.

Funny, what I got from you, before you backtracked, is that you couldn't possibly imagine playing old school DnD without minis.

As someone else already said, most people then had never even heard of Chainmail (I hadn't). Nor had most kids ever been to a convention (I hadn't until my 20s). Also interesting is that several other people in this thread essentially agreed with me that they didn't use minis to play D&D in the 80s or 90s either.

I, along with others, already pointed out that most rpgs of the era (including D&D) didn't require the use of minis, or even encourage them.

While what I said about imagination was facetious at best, it was obviously meant to be. It was also followed up by examples of experience. Your experience differed from mine, and that's fine. So why be a dick about it?

Quote from: everloss;790771I've played AD&D 1 and 2 without ever using minis. I've played in games of Savage Worlds that didn't use minis (although usually they do). Same with GURPS, Cyberpunk, and Shadowrun.
I've run Lotfp, TMNT, Castles and Crusades, Basic DnD, Mechwarrior, and some other rpgs and have never used minis for any of them.  
The only rpg I've played where I would say minis were mandatory or at least very close to being mandatory is 4th edition DnD.

So, to someone like me, minis are not a requirement to play an RPG, especially older games. Only newer ones seem to require them (Savage Worlds, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4th edition)

There's a difference between never using them and "never heard of them until 3.5".  In my life, I've never been in a Hobby Shop, ever, that sold any RPG that didn't have some minis.  Maybe it's a west coast thing who knows, or you got all your gaming books in bookstores.

Quote from: everloss;790794Funny, what I got from you, before you backtracked, is that you couldn't possibly imagine playing old school DnD without minis.

As someone else already said, most people then had never even heard of Chainmail (I hadn't). Nor had most kids ever been to a convention (I hadn't until my 20s). Also interesting is that several other people in this thread essentially agreed with me that they didn't use minis to play D&D in the 80s or 90s either.

I, along with others, already pointed out that most rpgs of the era (including D&D) didn't require the use of minis, or even encourage them.

While what I said about imagination was facetious at best, it was obviously meant to be. It was also followed up by examples of experience. Your experience differed from mine, and that's fine. So why be a dick about it?

ok, You were being facetious.
Fine
Understand I am not a big miniatures guy. I rarely use them, and frankly rarely had the time for them.  I can understand that some people didn't play with them, and no, they were not required, except very early on,
But they were very much encouraged and used very heavily. TSR had their own miniatures, and the had official D&D miniatures from Grenadier.  So you misunderstood my amazement on your lack of exposure to them to be a personal allegiance.  Not a big deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons
Let's get a good look here.  The sections of the wikipedia entry start with...
"Play overview
1.1 Game mechanics
1.2 Adventures, campaigns, and modules
1.3 Miniature figures"

Hmmm..

Wow... Not encouraged, huh?  Let's look a bit more here.

"The wargames from which Dungeons & Dragons evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants. D&D initially continued the use of miniatures in a fashion similar to its direct precursors. The original D&D set of 1974 required the use of the Chainmail miniatures game for combat resolution.[58] By the publication of the 1977 game editions, combat was mostly resolved verbally. Thus miniatures were no longer required for game play, although some players continued to use them as a visual reference.[59]

In the 1970s, numerous companies began to sell miniature figures specifically for Dungeons & Dragons and similar games. Licensed miniature manufacturers who produced official figures include Grenadier Miniatures (1980–1983),[60] Citadel Miniatures (1984–1986),[61] Ral Partha,[62] and TSR itself.[63] Most of these miniatures used the 25 mm scale, with the exception of Ral Partha's 15 mm scale miniatures for the 1st edition Battlesystem.[64][65]

Periodically, Dungeons & Dragons has returned to its wargaming roots with supplementary rules systems for miniatures-based wargaming. Supplements such as Battlesystem (1985 & 1989) and a new edition of Chainmail (2001)[66] provided rule systems to handle battles between armies by using miniatures.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition (2000) assumes the use of miniatures to represent combat situations in play, an aspect of the game that was further emphasized in the v3.5 revision. The Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game (2003) is sold as sets of plastic, randomly assorted, pre-painted miniatures, and can be used as either part of a standard Dungeons & Dragons game or as a stand-alone collectible miniatures game.[67]"

It's fine when you say you and yours did not see miniatures around in your area.  But since much of what we are talking about is about historical context, I'd rather present the whole picture.  It was not that miniatures were used in every game, or every group, or every area.  But they were all over the gaming magazines, in every damn hobby shop, and were not only encouraged by D&D but the company produced their own and also licensed the name to Grenadier to make Official D&D miniatures.  

Now, if someone has a supported contrary view, I'd love to see how it fits in.

As for stuff like flanking rules, etc, they were actually on the same page in the 1E DMG as the comments about using official AD&D miniatures (page 70, just checked).  If you never used flanking rules until 4th, maybe this makes sense.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790799"The wargames from which Dungeons & Dragons evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants. D&D initially continued the use of miniatures in a fashion similar to its direct precursors. The original D&D set of 1974 required the use of the Chainmail miniatures game for combat resolution.[58] By the publication of the 1977 game editions, combat was mostly resolved verbally. Thus miniatures were no longer required for game play, although some players continued to use them as a visual reference.[59]

The bolded bit is just wrong.

I played and DMed D&D starting in 1974 with the original brown booklets. You didn't need miniatures. None of our group of 20-30 people used miniatures. That being said, most of those people knew what miniatures were - they were something used predominantly for Napoleonics and Civil War battles. So the ubiquity of miniatures is right on target.

This morning me and John Wick talked about this in person, here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqVdN09iyg&spfreload=1

I actually think miniatures always or nearly always improve the D&D experience, but not to mark detailed movement in combat. There is really only one fantasy combat game with tactical movement that I think is well enough written to move along at a sprightly clip (Melee/Wizard/TFT). I prefer my D&D with movement so schematic that people can move their little lead figures about more or less when and where they wish, provided they don't violate in any obvious way what is going on in the scene. Nevertheless, a few figures and a battle mat with a piece or two of scenery brighten up the table, help people stay focused, and facilitate quick decision making when something dramatic is happening.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790799It's fine when you say you and yours did not see miniatures around in your area.  But since much of what we are talking about is about historical context, I'd rather present the whole picture.  It was not that miniatures were used in every game, or every group, or every area.  But they were all over the gaming magazines, in every damn hobby shop, and were not only encouraged by D&D but the company produced their own and also licensed the name to Grenadier to make Official D&D miniatures.  

I would just say that for a whole picture, one mustn't forget the regular D&D line.  Miniatures get a throwaway paragraph in the back of Moldvay, and are hardly mentioned at all in Mentzer (basically, a shout-out to Official Dungeons & Dragons® miniatures), and neither B/X nor BECMI contain any specific rules for using miniatures or battlemaps at all.  Even BECMI's War Machine rules for mass battles was explicitly designed to be used without miniatures.

None of which is to invalidate your point.  But, a lot of people got their start with one of the Basic sets and moved on to AD&D from there.  Not needing miniatures in Basic, they continued to play AD&D in the same way, with miniatures a peripheral thing.

Quote from: Zak S;790803This morning me and John Wick talked about this in person, here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqVdN09iyg&spfreload=1

The talk of emergent qualities of some games... such as bluffing in Poker... emphasizes how D&D isn't chess because a group can play an entire session of D&D without engaging with The Rules, without rolling the dice a single time... but if two guys sit down to play Chess and no pieces are ever moved... they're just not playing Chess.

Phone Chess...

Quote from: Zak S;790803This morning me and John Wick talked about this in person, here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqVdN09iyg&spfreload=1

That was a very interesting conversation Zak. I think away from the craziness of online back and forth, you guys managed to have a real discussion. Thanks for posting it.

Quote from: Iosue;790810I would just say that for a whole picture, one mustn't forget the regular D&D line.  Miniatures get a throwaway paragraph in the back of Moldvay, and are hardly mentioned at all in Mentzer (basically, a shout-out to Official Dungeons & Dragons® miniatures), and neither B/X nor BECMI contain any specific rules for using miniatures or battlemaps at all.  Even BECMI's War Machine rules for mass battles was explicitly designed to be used without miniatures.

None of which is to invalidate your point.  But, a lot of people got their start with one of the Basic sets and moved on to AD&D from there.  Not needing miniatures in Basic, they continued to play AD&D in the same way, with miniatures a peripheral thing.

Good Lord, yes.
No, the point wasn't at any point to say that you needed them to play the game or that everyone did, I think I made that clear.  Not every group I played in or ran did, but they came out often. But they were an optional part of the game and very, very prevalent in the zeitgeist of the game, and that is the Historical Point I am making.  The fact that they were mentioned in the early books explains exactly that,

And Bren, please go look at the cover of your 1974 books.   Sheesh, it's right there.  
"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Pencil and Papers and Miniature Figures"  Not saying you player RAW or that you are remembering incorrectly, but before you say a source is wrong, do a bit of research yourself.  There were, if memory serves, the normal combat resolution, as mentioned above, and the alternative version postulated in the Men and Magic book.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790841And Bren, please go look at the cover of your 1974 books.   Sheesh, it's right there.  
"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Pencil and Papers and Miniature Figures"  Not saying you player RAW or that you are remembering incorrectly, but before you say a source is wrong, do a bit of research yourself.  There were, if memory serves, the normal combat resolution, as mentioned above, and the alternative version postulated in the Men and Magic book.

I know what the cover says. But the wiki source is just wrong. What the cover says is irrelevant to what actual play requires. Because "requires" has a different meaning than allows, facilitates, or includes. You can use miniatures and eventually many of us did. But you don't need to use miniatures to play OD&D.

As a tangential note this is a great example of why relying only on written primary sources can result in erroneous conclusions.

Quote from: Zak S;790803This morning me and John Wick talked about this in person, here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqVdN09iyg&spfreload=1

I couldn't get past the first few minutes: "Here I am holding a book of rules about chess, I don't know what I am doing?"

Ok, whatever.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790784oh, no, please at least understand, I rarely use them.  Been years since I really took the trouble, since I seem to do ok with combat anyways, when we have them.  I was just remarking that back in the day, they were completely ubiquitous.   Not about a game, more about a time.

I think it depends on what the local population of gamers is interested in. In my  hometown in rural northwest PA. The town was just big enough support a store with a small selection of miniatures, and just close enough to a major city like Pittsburgh that if you really wanted to get a better selection you could. But the barriers were just enough the local gamers were evenly split between those who used miniatures, like me, and those who didn't. And there were more than a few who took pride in NOT using miniatures.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790841Good Lord, yes.
No, the point wasn't at any point to say that you needed them to play the game or that everyone did, I think I made that clear.  Not every group I played in or ran did, but they came out often. But they were an optional part of the game and very, very prevalent in the zeitgeist of the game, and that is the Historical Point I am making.

Don't forget the wall of Ral Partha, Grenadier, Citadel etc. minis that dwarfed the measly selection of books.

(http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l275/m/mZ5ML8ljBwuD13AR4deqEsQ.jpg)

Quote from: LordVreeg;790799"The wargames from which Dungeons & Dragons evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants. D&D initially continued the use of miniatures in a fashion similar to its direct precursors. The original D&D set of 1974 required the use of the Chainmail miniatures game for combat resolution.[58] By the publication of the 1977 game editions, combat was mostly resolved verbally. Thus miniatures were no longer required for game play, although some players continued to use them as a visual reference.[59]

Quote from: Bren;790802The bolded bit is just wrong.
I played and DMed D&D starting in 1974 with the original brown booklets. You didn't need miniatures. None of our group of 20-30 people used miniatures. That being said, most of those people knew what miniatures were - they were something used predominantly for Napoleonics and Civil War battles. So the ubiquity of miniatures is right on target.

Actually Vreeg, Bren right.

Aside from the subtitle on the front cover we have this.

QuoteRECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT:
Dungeons and Dragons (you have it!)

Outdoor Survival (available from your hobby dealer or directly from Avalon Hill Company, 4517 Harford Road, Baltimore MD 21214)

Dice — the following different kinds of dice are available from TSR
1 pair 4-sided dice
1 pair 20-sided dice
1 pair 8-sided dice
1 pair 12-sided dice
4 to 20 pairs 6-sided dice

Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition (available from your hobby dealer or directly from TSR Hobbies, POB 756, Lake Geneva, Wi. 53147)

1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player)

Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best)

Sheet Protectors (heaviest possible)

3-Ring Lined Paper

Drafting Equipment and Colored Pencils

Scratch Paper and Pencils

Imagination

1 Patient Referee

Players

Miniature themselves are not a recommend piece of equipment.

And in the forward we have this

QuoteIn fact you will not even need miniature figures, although their occasional employment is recommended for real spectacle when battles are fought.

The use of miniatures for D&D was downplayed. And probably for very practical reasons. Gygax was looking to sell a 1,000 copies of this game. A game focused on a genre, medieval fantasy, that was not the most popular type of miniature games being playing. Building miniature armies is expensive. By deliberately designing the game so that miniature were not required or needed he vastly expanded his potential customer base.

I don't have any primary sources or anecdotes support the above but from what I read about Gygax in Playing at the World and other sources this is seems to be the type of thing he would take into account.  

We definitely know that Arneson used a lot of miniatures in his Blackmoor campaign while Gygax did not in his Greyahwk campaign. Since Dungeons & Dragons was written from the rules used in Greyhawk it reflected that.

Now D&D wasn't designed to omit miniatures either. It could be played either way and Gygax acknowledges this.

QuoteMiniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only aesthetically pleasing; similarly, unit counters can be employed — with or without figures — although by themselves the bits of cardboard lack the eye-appeal of the varied and brightly painted miniature figures.

I'm baffled as to what Wick may intend by "game balance," but it seems divorced from conventional usage. Such obscurantism puts one in mind of a certain Mr. Edwards.

World data such as a weapons list is not inherently concerned with game balance. The raw material typically originates in sources that have no interest in game design at all.

Game design adds two kinds of information:
- game-mechanical, translating behavior of the prototype to behavior of the game model
- game-balancing, keeping the contest (between player and what- or whomever) interesting

It makes no fundamental difference whether the prototype is real or fictional.

Faithful modeling does not necessarily produce a balanced game. France 1940 with historical deployment and doctrine is notably unbalanced. Barring certain stipulations (kryptonite, red sun, magic) so is Mike Tyson vs. Superman.

There are two ways to make a balanced game from such a prototype:
- Allow a player to win or lose the game (e.g., on points) even though victory or defeat in the situation may be foregone.
- Make an unfaithful model; perhaps in our game Tyson can KO Superman.

When players construct the scenario itself, they can be allowed so many points with which to purchase elements. We can balance the cost of a 105mm howitzer against the cost of a bunker, and so on. Less rigorously, we can have a probabilistic balance. That may produce some very unbalanced rare instances, yet most of the time come within acceptable bounds.

It is in this last sense, applied to player-character generation, that game balance is typically involved in RPG rules-set design. And so far from being opposed to "spotlight" balance, that is commonly just the very kind of balance being pursued.

Quote from: estar;790856Actually Vreeg, Bren right.

Aside from the subtitle on the front cover we have this.



Miniature themselves are not a recommend piece of equipment.

And in the forward we have this



The use of miniatures for D&D was downplayed. And probably for very practical reasons. Gygax was looking to sell a 1,000 copies of this game. A game focused on a genre, medieval fantasy, that was not the most popular type of miniature games being playing. Building miniature armies is expensive. By deliberately designing the game so that miniature were not required or needed he vastly expanded his potential customer base.

I don't have any primary sources or anecdotes support the above but from what I read about Gygax in Playing at the World and other sources this is seems to be the type of thing he would take into account.  

We definitely know that Arneson used a lot of miniatures in his Blackmoor campaign while Gygax did not in his Greyahwk campaign. Since Dungeons & Dragons was written from the rules used in Greyhawk it reflected that.

Now D&D wasn't designed to omit miniatures either. It could be played either way and Gygax acknowledges this.

Well, Far be it from me to argue the exact text.  I knew, from quotes from Gygax, that he was not a big one for the minis.  The quote about not needing them is the deciding one, though, in dealing with the quote from the Wiki entry.
Without that, I'd feel pretty comfortable with the fact that 'Chainmail' is recommended, therefor so are the miniatures.  But that quote changes everything.  
However, as I mentioned, I believe that the normal combat resolution was per Chainmail, and the alternate version was where we first see our friend the d20.  So as to the quote about not needing them, I would say that is referencing the alternate rules and some of the non 1:20 rules.  But, same as you, I am working from conjecture now, as the quote could mean more or less.  We always used them then, but I was much younger than and was not in charge of that part.  Hell, I remember getting desperate a few times and dragging chits from Melee over.

And yes, it makes perfect sense that in trying to move away from the miniature-heavy wargame to what were are terming a Fantasy Role Playing game, any author would streamline the requirements.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790860Without that, I'd feel pretty comfortable with the fact that 'Chainmail' is recommended, therefor so are the miniatures.  But that quote changes everything.

Remember what was needed most out of Chainmail was the Man to Man and Fantasy Section.  Both of which don't quite need miniatures in the type of game D&D was detailing.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790860We always used them then, but I was much younger than and was not in charge of that part.  Hell, I remember getting desperate a few times and dragging chits from Melee over..

I was a heavy user of miniatures since I got ahold of my first Grenadier boxed set. Partly for practical reasons, I am half deaf and hearing aids only go so far in small room with multiple people chattering. Miniature cut down the miscommunication for my games. Partly because I just plain like the spectacle.

I am very much a proponent of miniatures. But since I been at this for more than 35 years I don't knock the other point of view.

Yea! A settled question in an Internet thread. :)

When I started playing in 1974 none of us had miniatures suitable for D&D. For me using a Scottish Highlander, a French Voltigeur, and an English Redcoat to represent a Fighter, a Cleric, and a Magic User would have been worse than no miniature at all.

We all used the D20 combat system in the OD&D rules, not Chainmail. In part that was because I bought OD&D first and Chainmail second. We didn't really use Chainmail much as it seemed clearly designed for miniature armies not the sort of action our PCs were involved in for their first six levels or so - which was predominantly dungeon crawling, bar fighting, and henchman and ally recruiting when in town (typically the recruiting occurred in a bar, see bar fighting). Chainmail did get more use than the map to Outdoor Survival, but that isn't saying much.

A final word on using miniatures. I like using miniatures. I like the spectacle. I like knowing relative positions. I like the visual ability to facilitate everyone at the table seeing the same scene. I have tons (really a hundred pounds or so) of minis for Fantasy/Medieval/Ancients, Star Wars/Sci Fi, and Call of Cthulhu. The only RPGs where I haven't used minis are FASA Star Trek (though we did use post it notes and counters for ships) and Honor+Intrigue (my current free time does not allow for the painting of 1620s Musketeers, duelists, and pikemen while playing via Skype does not facilitate seeing and using minis). But I'd like to be able to use minis for H+I.

Having watched about 10 mins. of the John/Zak video, a couple of observations:

1) Not every distinction is "hair splitting." Without distinctions, we have no subject for a story. In a role-playing game - as in a story, and as in real life - the distinctions that are important are those that matter to the subject. Playing a character means assessing things from that character's perspective. If a Panther is just the same as a Panzer II, that's not faithfully representing a WW2 commander's perspective.

2) A game necessarily implies variation in outcome. Maybe somebody wants a game in which failure of the third Billy Goat Gruff to overthrow the troll is not a possible outcome. That's okay, but then what possible variations do make it a game? It's not okay to claim that a game must be constrained to follow a pre-conceived story, or else it's not a role-playing game; that is aptly enough called a "crazy" insistence.

3) If a world is presumed to be "real" to its inhabitants, then we have some reasonable expectations as to their behavior based on what they observe and therefore expect. This ties together the preceeding observations. It identifies a distinction between a role-playing game and an author-playing game. Characters regard themselves as free agents in a real world, subject to variations in outcome due to laws heedless of whether they conform to the demands of a "good story" (never mind a particular story).

Quote from: estar;790865Remember what was needed most out of Chainmail was the Man to Man and Fantasy Section.  Both of which don't quite need miniatures in the type of game D&D was detailing.

No, D&D included replacements for those, and most people agreed with Gygax that the replacements were better.

What were most needed were from the regular rules: missile ranges (added to D&D in Supp. I); initiative, combat turn sequence and rate of fire (added in cumbersome fashion in Supp. III).

QuoteI was a heavy user of miniatures since I got ahold of my first Grenadier boxed set. Partly for practical reasons, I am half deaf and hearing aids only go so far in small room with multiple people chattering. Miniature cut down the miscommunication for my games. Partly because I just plain like the spectacle.

I am very much a proponent of miniatures. But since I been at this for more than 35 years I don't knock the other point of view.

In early games of my experience, those who had miniatures painted and displayed them - but neither they, nor any other marker pieces, were commonly used with precise positioning. The D&D rules simply did not take into account anything requiring that.

With 3e, the kind of elaborations introduced in the 2e book Players Option: Combat and Tactics became standard. With 3.5 and 4e, more emphasis was placed on conformance to a grid. The shift was really to a board game mode, miniatures per se being quite as superfluous as with The Fantasy Trip or Champions.

Villains & Vigilantes was actually written, like OD&D, in miniatures-game style (distances instead of "spaces" such as hexes). It could likewise be  played with cardboard pieces or none at all, but the typical interactions of movement and timing of actions made markers of some sort more often almost indispensible.

Quote from: Bren;790880Yea! A settled question in an Internet thread. :)

When I started playing in 1974 none of us had miniatures suitable for D&D. For me using a Scottish Highlander, a French Voltigeur, and an English Redcoat to represent a Fighter, a Cleric, and a Magic User would have been worse than no miniature at all.

We all used the D20 combat system in the OD&D rules, not Chainmail. In part that was because I bought OD&D first and Chainmail second. We didn't really use Chainmail much as it seemed clearly designed for miniature armies not the sort of action our PCs were involved in for their first six levels or so - which was predominantly dungeon crawling, bar fighting, and henchman and ally recruiting when in town (typically the recruiting occurred in a bar, see bar fighting). Chainmail did get more use than the map to Outdoor Survival, but that isn't saying much.

A final word on using miniatures. I like using miniatures. I like the spectacle. I like knowing relative positions. I like the visual ability to facilitate everyone at the table seeing the same scene. I have tons (really a hundred pounds or so) of minis for Fantasy/Medieval/Ancients, Star Wars/Sci Fi, and Call of Cthulhu. The only RPGs where I haven't used minis are FASA Star Trek (though we did use post it notes and counters for ships) and Honor+Intrigue (my current free time does not allow for the painting of 1620s Musketeers, duelists, and pikemen while playing via Skype does not facilitate seeing and using minis). But I'd like to be able to use minis for H+I.

Bren,
I'm frankly into actually get stuff done on the webz.  We've had a few good ones.

Just watched the Zak/Wick video too. I think the poker analogy is a good one. Just because you can play poker without bluffing doesn't mean that bluffing doesn't become what the game is about, even though it's not in the rules....
So too with D&D.... You can play something using only the rules, but the rules being put into action with "tactical infinity" (I like that phrase) leads to roleplaying....
While it was an interesting, measured, and non-psychotic conversation, I do think that John Wick was trying a bit too hard to "prove" that D&D isn't an RPG.
His example of his Fightor character who goes around naked and has no physical appearance, nine of which impacted his game, sounds pretty specious, and like he was doing it because he had a grudge against the game. Any game that ever includes any social interaction in a world with any social mores, someone else would be sure to mention something ("so... You have no clothes. And what's with your name? ").
Also, naked is bad for your AC. mechanical effect as well...

Quote from: Phillip;790882Having watched about 10 mins. of the John/Zak video, a couple of observations:

1) Not every distinction is "hair splitting." Without distinctions, we have no subject for a story. In a role-playing game - as in a story, and as in real life - the distinctions that are important are those that matter to the subject. Playing a character means assessing things from that character's perspective. If a Panther is just the same as a Panzer II, that's not faithfully representing a WW2 commander's perspective.

Yeah, maybe watch the rest because my point is what I call "hairsplitting" can be good and important:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/09/when-is-hairsplitting-worth-it.html

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;790837That was a very interesting conversation Zak. I think away from the craziness of online back and forth, you guys managed to have a real discussion. Thanks for posting it.

Yeah some people just don't handle typing well, I guess.

Quote from: Zak S;790925Yeah some people just don't handle typing well, I guess.

Sadly, some of us don't handle listening but do handle reading.  If a transcript comes into existence later, I'd love to read it.

The most necessary thing from Chainmail for D&D is MORALE!!!!

Also:

I NEVER saw Gary Gygax use miniatures when he reffed D&D.

I NEVER saw Dave Arneson NOT use miniatures when he reffed D&D.

SO:  Miniatures are required for D&D, except when they're not.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790932The most necessary thing from Chainmail for D&D is MORALE!!!!

Nah, you can follow the suggestion in Men & Magic to use the Reaction table or do it however else you like. Why get uptight about which way we toss dice?

If you're talking about Post Melee Morale, or whatever the more complicated business was called, I call that well abandoned.

QuoteAlso:

I NEVER saw Gary Gygax use miniatures when he reffed D&D.

I NEVER saw Dave Arneson NOT use miniatures when he reffed D&D.

SO:  Miniatures are required for D&D, except when they're not.

Quote from: Old Geezer;790932The most necessary thing from Chainmail for D&D is MORALE!!!!

Some method of handling morale is necessary.  That was obvious to me and all my highschool buddies because we had already played wargames and/or miniatures games which included some sort of morale or unit disruption rules. Also, even just from watching popular media, eventually the remaining bad guys usually run away.

I honestly can't recall whether we used the morale rules from Chainmail or some other system. We did include morale rolls for NPCs though. We didn't for PCs. Though we laughed about the occassional absurdity in not having/using any morale rules for PCs. A typical sarcastic dig regarded captured PCs who calmly refused to talk under threat of death or torture or even outright torture or death, bravely and silently refusing to talk till the end. :D

Quote from: LordVreeg;790841And Bren, please go look at the cover of your 1974 books.   Sheesh, it's right there.  
"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Pencil and Papers and Miniature Figures"  Not saying you player RAW or that you are remembering incorrectly, but before you say a source is wrong, do a bit of research yourself.  There were, if memory serves, the normal combat resolution, as mentioned above, and the alternative version postulated in the Men and Magic book.

The box cover for Space Hulk says its an RPG.

Quote from: Omega;790954The box cover for Space Hulk says its an RPG.

Truth in labeling...very tricky.

Quote from: LordVreeg;790956Truth in labeling...very tricky.

In Space Hulks case, Deception of labelling. and dont get me started on the legion of MSOs that label themselves MMOs.

Quote from: Omega;790954The box cover for Space Hulk says its an RPG.

Wow!

A game where you get to play the Hulk...in Space!

That sounds absolutely Marvelous.

Quote from: everloss;790771The only rpg I've played where I would say minis were mandatory or at least very close to being mandatory is 4th edition DnD.

I've ran 4e without minis. I will agree, it's not great, but it is still playable.

Quote from: Bren;790963Wow!

A game where you get to play the Hulk...in Space!

That sounds absolutely Marvelous.

That was HeroScape. Different company... :D

Here's where I think role-playing and story-telling get conflated:

In story, the most important conflicts are within characters: not "Can I do this?" but "What should I do?" The most important growth is not in gadgetry, but in understanding and balance - or else, in some tragedies or horror stories, in dysfunctional blindness and imbalance.

External conflicts are fields in which internal ones find expression.

That's what is often missing in dungeon scenarios and other wargame-style games. It does not help that nowadays we're typically looking at a very small group of player-characters who by design have the same objectives. There's a tendency for relationships and problems to be confined to essentially mechanical manipulation of impersonal objects (even when those are theoretically people).

Apart from mere existence, nothing that really matters to a character is threatened; there are no crises risking transformation of character-defining relationships.

It's a mistake to think that enriching the game that way requires giving players "authorial" powers, or pushing them down the "railroad" of a plotted story. Those are things one either wants for their own sake, or else can do without.

Quote from: Phillip;791081Here's where I think role-playing and story-telling get conflated:

In story, the most important conflicts are within characters: not "Can I do this?" but "What should I do?"

This still treats role-playing as a story with a different focus and will ultimately resolve nothing even though you have a valid point.

I come to the conclusion that the simplest and most accurate explanation of the difference that tabletop RPGs about presenting experiences. It like climbing Everest, or going to the state park with the family on the weekend. You are doing something to experience it (for a variety of reasons).

In essence tabletop RPGs are pen & paper virtual realities where stories are not. The story in RPGs come afterwards to describe what you experienced or to make your experience entertaining to others.

If you don't like my use of experience, then just substitute wherever term you like to use when you go somewhere in order to be there to have fun or to be challenged. I think calling it an experience is the word that best fits.

In short you climb Mount Everest because you want the experience of accomplishing it, (for whatever reason). Not to create a story of climbing Mt Everest.

Quote from: estar;791088This still treats role-playing as a story with a different focus and will ultimately resolve nothing even though you have a valid point.

In practice, it does in fact resolve something: It resolves with profound clarity what is very, very often the critical missing ingredient in a scenario that many players find too bland. Whether they call it "story" or "role playing," this is what they're not getting from a game in  which the central question is, "How do we kill these monsters and take their stuff?"

I don't deal in "ultimates"; my concern is pragmatically with the actual work at hand of being a game master.

QuoteI come to the conclusion that the simplest and most accurate explanation of the difference that tabletop RPGs about presenting experiences. It like climbing Everest, or going to the state park with the family on the weekend. You are doing something to experience it (for a variety of reasons).

In essence tabletop RPGs are pen & paper virtual realities where stories are not. The story in RPGs come afterwards to describe what you experienced or to make your experience entertaining to others.

If you don't like my use of experience, then just substitute wherever term you like to use when you go somewhere in order to be there to have fun or to be challenged. I think calling it an experience is the word that best fits.

In short you climb Mount Everest because you want the experience of accomplishing it, (for whatever reason). Not to create a story of climbing Mt Everest.

Understanding the value of relationships and conflicts was a key part of what made the presentation of Balazar and  the Elder Wilds in Chaosium's Griffin Mountain such a delightful "sandbox" in which to play. Of course, it takes a GM with such understanding to cultivate the seeds and bring them to life.

Note that this is not dependent on having player-characters driven, like Frodo and Sam, by basically irresistible forces along an epic path.

It's a matter of having characters who value relationships that can grow and change and be put at risk. If most conflicts are trivial, and the only possible really significant outcomes in the remainder are either (a)  preservation of a character's status quo or (b) GAME OVER, then there's a missing dynamic. Things get repetitive in a way that is  "comfort food" for some players - but dull as dust for others.

Quote from: Phillip;791081Here's where I think role-playing and story-telling get conflated:

In story, the most important conflicts are within characters: not "Can I do this?" but "What should I do?" The most important growth is not in gadgetry, but in understanding and balance - or else, in some tragedies or horror stories, in dysfunctional blindness and imbalance.

External conflicts are fields in which internal ones find expression.

That's what is often missing in dungeon scenarios and other wargame-style games. It does not help that nowadays we're typically looking at a very small group of player-characters who by design have the same objectives. There's a tendency for relationships and problems to be confined to essentially mechanical manipulation of impersonal objects (even when those are theoretically people).

Apart from mere existence, nothing that really matters to a character is threatened; there are no crises risking transformation of character-defining relationships.

It's a mistake to think that enriching the game that way requires giving players "authorial" powers, or pushing them down the "railroad" of a plotted story. Those are things one either wants for their own sake, or else can do without.

I like this post a lot. It reflects a lot of what I try to put into my own games, a deeper context to the campaign world their characters live in. My goals are to make the world seem living with real problems and real issues both material and social so their characters can be what they want and/or be astonished by the unexpected outcomes of their naivete or better - get the outcomes they desire through "hard work" whether that's lots and lots of roleplaying and nary-a-dice-thrown or mass-murder in some lost dungeon where the problem of killing might be secondary surviving bringing the loot back because the pack animals have been slaughtered.

I don't like the seemingly simplistic OSR-mafia mentality of "The game is about *this* and that's it!" or the more noob-friendly "Mechanics are the game" or the indy-crowd "Narrative! It's all about narrative!" - to me, it's all of these things as ingredients used as needed, but most of all it's about the players doing things and GM's making whatever that endeavor *more* interesting than anyone (including the GM) might have otherwise thought possible.

The emergent gameplay IS the "story". Yes there is a story. It might be - your game's story is about how this band of adventures murdered everyone in the Temple of Elemental Evil and took their loot and went home. But the story is in how they did it.

But I've found if you put in enough context to a game, good players will rise to the occasion and make your games great. Of course if you have bad players.... you have more work cut out for you in bringing them to the fold...

Quote from: Phillip;791092In practice, it does in fact resolve something: It resolves with profound clarity what is very, very often the critical missing ingredient in a scenario that many players find too bland. Whether they call it "story" or "role playing," this is what they're not getting from a game in  which the central question is, "How do we kill these monsters and take their stuff?"

What are saying doesn't address conflating of role-playing with story with all the attendant confusion.

Creating a good story is fundamentally different then creating a good experience. But despite that there are elements that crossover. Experiences that involve interesting social relationships are in general more compelling than those that are mostly about the character versus his environment. Just as stories that involve interesting social relationships are generally more compelling than stories of man versus his environment.

When I talk about this when friends I use the example of NASA's space program in the 60s. Due various reasons, the human element of the space program during Mecury, Gemini, and Apollo was downplayed for many decades. Then around 2000s thanks in part to the internet, people loosing up, etc. We started getting stories about what the astronauts and people involve were like and how they related to each other.

I have dozen's of books on the technical details of what happen. But the best books are ones like Micheal Collins Carrying the Fire, and Mike Mullane's Riding Rockets. They are the best because they combine clear technical explanation with good stories about the relationships the astronauts had. You get a feel not only for what they did but for how they related to the people they worked with. You are to see them as human beings.

There is only so many books I am going to get about how the Gemini Spacecraft works. But I am always good for another book on people involved with the Gemni Spacecraft.

This applies to tabletop roleplaying, a campaign starts to become more compelling if you can hook the players into in-game relationships that everybody finds interesting. Do it well even the most stereotypical type of adventure becomes vastly more interesting due to the added social dimension.

But it doesn't change the fact that you read a story and experience a tabletop RPG campaign.

Estar, as best I can make head or tail of what you're saying, it's that I'm not delivering you a way to make somebody concede defeat in an Internet argument over semantics.

Well, that happens not to be what interests me now. What interests me is ways of making a fun game.

Having acknowledged that difference in priorities, I don't see  that there's any more to say about it. I assure you that trying to argue me into joining your argument any more than I have is just one pointless futility piled atop another.

I get what Estar is saying.

I have a player, he happens to be a very good player by my standards. But when it comes to making a character, he does what he calls "Schtick First". As in "What is this guy about conceptually". Usually this means in D&D - is he the Two-handed axe-wielding Barbarian? Or the Stealthy assassin? And that's about it. He'll plug into whatever location-related race/culture meme that will allow him to play that. Then through play itself he develops his background more and allows the game to grow things organically in importance as dictated by the game.

In other words (and correct me if I'm wrong, Estar) - From Estar's POV he's the Astronaut. The Campaign is the Mercury Program. And you don't know a whole lot about the Astronaut. You just know he's one of them. You don't know exactly what the Astronaut does, but within the Mercury Program campaign, the player has decided to make an Astronaut that is really good at pressing Red Button "B" - while my other Player is playing Engineer in the Control Room.

On the OTHER Side of the spectrum - I have players that want to have half-a-novel of background. Family information, culture information, race information. Friends, Contacts, personal history of every potentially meaningful detail of why they're at ground zero when the game starts. So they know precisely what's happening and relevant to their character in the context of my campaign. All the "known knowns!"


Continuing Estar's example - This player is Bob Taggart the Engineer. He grew up in Culver City, CA, to John and Peggy Taggart, both of whom were in the movie-industry. He loved Isaac Asimov and had a slide-rule since he was four. He got married right out of high-school to his girlfriend, it was kind of scandalous because she was black and it was the 60, but his liberal parents were always supportive. He went to college at Berkley where he got his undergrad degree in Engineering and got his Masters in Astrophysics from Stanford, where he immediately made it into NASA. Years later, he's got a drinking problem, he smokes, is having an affair with his bosses barely-legal daughter, and is in the control room of the Mercury launch Player A is about to go up in.

The STORY is the the interactions of these two (and the rest of the party) operating from the realities of their respective characters in the same game.

In other words - it all counts. There is no one true way. And as a good GM you take that into account and make it work so it's fun for everyone.

My philosophy of GMing is - "Everyone gets paid. Even the GM. But sometimes you might get paid in Gold. Sometimes in wet lint."

Quote from: Phillip;791081Here's where I think role-playing and story-telling get conflated:

In story, the most important conflicts are within characters: not "Can I do this?" but "What should I do?" The most important growth is not in gadgetry, but in understanding and balance - or else, in some tragedies or horror stories, in dysfunctional blindness and imbalance.

External conflicts are fields in which internal ones find expression.

That's what is often missing in dungeon scenarios and other wargame-style games. It does not help that nowadays we're typically looking at a very small group of player-characters who by design have the same objectives. There's a tendency for relationships and problems to be confined to essentially mechanical manipulation of impersonal objects (even when those are theoretically people).

Apart from mere existence, nothing that really matters to a character is threatened; there are no crises risking transformation of character-defining relationships.

It's a mistake to think that enriching the game that way requires giving players "authorial" powers, or pushing them down the "railroad" of a plotted story. Those are things one either wants for their own sake, or else can do without.

This is a really, really good post.

I'm perfectly OK with saying that I'm not interested in exploring Gronan of Simmerya's relationship with his father.

Some people want to explore that kind of stuff.

Now, if a player in my game wants to explore that, I'll go with it; it's a sandbox, and when I say players can do whatever they want, I mean it.

Quote from: Old Geezer;791132This is a really, really good post.

I'm perfectly OK with saying that I'm not interested in exploring Gronan of Simmerya's relationship with his father.

Some people want to explore that kind of stuff.

Now, if a player in my game wants to explore that, I'll go with it; it's a sandbox, and when I say players can do whatever they want, I mean it.

Yup. That's the great realization of GMing after a period of years.

Edit: or in our case... decades.

Quote from: Phillip;791081Here's where I think role-playing and story-telling get conflated:

In story, the most important conflicts are within characters: not "Can I do this?" but "What should I do?" The most important growth is not in gadgetry, but in understanding and balance - or else, in some tragedies or horror stories, in dysfunctional blindness and imbalance.

External conflicts are fields in which internal ones find expression.

That's what is often missing in dungeon scenarios and other wargame-style games. It does not help that nowadays we're typically looking at a very small group of player-characters who by design have the same objectives. There's a tendency for relationships and problems to be confined to essentially mechanical manipulation of impersonal objects (even when those are theoretically people).

Apart from mere existence, nothing that really matters to a character is threatened; there are no crises risking transformation of character-defining relationships.

It's a mistake to think that enriching the game that way requires giving players "authorial" powers, or pushing them down the "railroad" of a plotted story. Those are things one either wants for their own sake, or else can do without.

I think you're describing a certain kind of story not "story"

Again: 3 billy goats gruff and 3 little pigs are stories. They are both stories about tactics.

Explorations of motive are a specific kind of story: the kind in typical 3-act drama and literary fiction. But there's a bajillion kinds of stories.

Quote from: Old Geezer;791132This is a really, really good post.

I'm perfectly OK with saying that I'm not interested in exploring Gronan of Simmerya's relationship with his father.

Some people want to explore that kind of stuff.

Now, if a player in my game wants to explore that, I'll go with it; it's a sandbox, and when I say players can do whatever they want, I mean it.

Quote from: tenbones;791137Yup. That's the great realization of GMing after a period of years.

Edit: or in our case... decades.

This.

The caveat I would make is to have the more personal game by played with only those interested (like a side quest or inbetween regular game sessions) while the larger game is set aside for the entire group (whose memebers may not care about a single PCs relationship with their father or whatever).

Quote from: Phillip;791081Here's where I think role-playing and story-telling get conflated:

In story, the most important conflicts are within characters: not "Can I do this?" but "What should I do?" The most important growth is not in gadgetry, but in understanding and balance - or else, in some tragedies or horror stories, in dysfunctional blindness and imbalance.

External conflicts are fields in which internal ones find expression.

That's what is often missing in dungeon scenarios and other wargame-style games. It does not help that nowadays we're typically looking at a very small group of player-characters who by design have the same objectives. There's a tendency for relationships and problems to be confined to essentially mechanical manipulation of impersonal objects (even when those are theoretically people).

Apart from mere existence, nothing that really matters to a character is threatened; there are no crises risking transformation of character-defining relationships.

It's a mistake to think that enriching the game that way requires giving players "authorial" powers, or pushing them down the "railroad" of a plotted story. Those are things one either wants for their own sake, or else can do without.

I have another thought on this.

What about exploring when things gained in-game are threatened?

I've said I have no interest in exploring "Gronan's relationship with his father."

He's 9th level.  A Lord, and in OD&D he builds a castle.  And has a domian, and stuff.  And if you asked him, "By what right are you lord of this land," he would say "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the entire fucking valley."

So... what does he do when an army comes to lay siege to his castle?  What happens when a meaner son of a bitch comes along?

Quote from: Zak S;791154Again: 3 billy goats gruff and 3 little pigs are stories. They are both stories about tactics.

I did have the time and found it interesting enough to watch the long video and while I am less clear about stuff than I was before, I did love you mentioning the 3 billy goats though

I recall (hopefully correctly) that John Wick saying what happens if you fail the d20 roll and he further remarking that the story is pretty much over or something to that effect.

But I was thinking that if I was the 3rd billy goat and failed in my attempt to push off the monster that I'll have to make a flight or fight decision and pray that the other 2 pc billy goats didn't desert me and will come back with bows and arrows and maybe a pickup truck, yell "no one left behind!" and save my ass.

That's what I love about roleplaying games.  A game master can come up with a great complete story but the pcs actions and sometimes rolls of the dice could and inevitably will throw a wrench to a well constructed plot and actually add to the pc and gm experience.

Might explain how I never really come up with a detailed adventures when I gm'd like some adventure book or modules I've read in years past

Quote from: Phillip;791094Understanding the value of relationships and conflicts was a key part of what made the presentation of Balazar and  the Elder Wilds in Chaosium's Griffin Mountain such a delightful "sandbox" in which to play. Of course, it takes a GM with such understanding to cultivate the seeds and bring them to life.

Note that this is not dependent on having player-characters driven, like Frodo and Sam, by basically irresistible forces along an epic path.

It's a matter of having characters who value relationships that can grow and change and be put at risk. If most conflicts are trivial, and the only possible really significant outcomes in the remainder are either (a)  preservation of a character's status quo or (b) GAME OVER, then there's a missing dynamic. Things get repetitive in a way that is  "comfort food" for some players - but dull as dust for others.

The spaces in between adventures, for some practitioners, become more important than the adventures themselves.  Over two decades ago, I told a group that if they really didn't know why their characters were risking life, limb, reputation and sanity in an adventure but were playing 'to get to the dungeon', they were in the wrong game. What can be missing from many of our earlier games can be as simple as understanding really why a character would choose such a difficult path, and if they don't know, the game is a little less 'role' and more of a low-ratio wargame, the character nothing more than a very well detailed-out chit on the board.

And this isn't for everyone, as you note, some are looking for the more comfortable games they are familiar with, and that is fine.  However, those of us that greatly expand what constitutes our game and the focus on the taking on of a role (and horrors, institute mechanics that support what is a large portion of our game)...those of us that allow our games to grow with us as people and push the idea of taking on the role of the character a little further are not doing it wrong either.

We talk about setting development as a separate thing, a sort of add on.  But much of the internal motivation from a character come from a strong role-to-setting relationship; the character is bound and driven by features and events within the setting.  And by having setting-specific and role-specific playing still affected by some level of random dynamic (like, dice, maybe) you still have that wonderful effect we all live for, the game going places that no one really expects, the players and the GM both working with what each other gives and what the dice will.

It's also what drives a campaign forward, what gives a game dynamic impetus.  The Players are tied into the game and setting better and can feel their roles more keenly when their characters are tied to a well designed, congruent, World-in-Motion Setting.

Quote from: tenbones;791130The STORY is the the interactions of these two (and the rest of the party) operating from the realities of their respective characters in the same game.

In other words - it all counts. There is no one true way. And as a good GM you take that into account and make it work so it's fun for everyone.

Yup pretty much you got it. And I found that the minimum required to make this happen is for both players to play as if they are really there as their characters and not treat them like game pieces.

The best game for really encouraging and supporting this sort of social, between-adventure play is En Garde! It has a totally unique approach to roleplaying, where players are in charge of setting a calendar of things they get up to from week to week, which can include carousing with friends, dueling, joining a club, going to war, investing money, etc. It is quite immersive and cool. I've written a D&D-compatible fantasy heart breaker that builds off this, and have always thought someone should have jacked this idea for 'real' D&D. It turns a string of adventures into a real living campaign.

Quote from: Old Geezer;791158I have another thought on this.

What about exploring when things gained in-game are threatened?

I've said I have no interest in exploring "Gronan's relationship with his father."

He's 9th level.  A Lord, and in OD&D he builds a castle.  And has a domian, and stuff.  And if you asked him, "By what right are you lord of this land," he would say "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the entire fucking valley."

So... what does he do when an army comes to lay siege to his castle?  What happens when a meaner son of a bitch comes along?

Oh that definitely happens in my games. Its almost inevitable. Invariably - toes are stepped on in achieving success. I had players in my last campaign rise from being city watch to Ducal powers in a kingdom of Dwarves. And they were attacked mercilessly by their enemies for all the stuff they did getting to the top.

Of course this was around 10th level - which is appropriate for that kinda play. But even with their fancy titles and ducal powers they still ended up doing dungeon-dives and crazy plane-hopping adventures. I have 32 pages worth of NPC's they delegated tasks too. It was pretty phenomenal. By 18th-20th level they were the primary custodians of the Kingdom, with allies in vast empires and a couple of them were Divine Rank 0.

And at that point they had made enemies of Asmodeus, Hecate and a couple of other Gods. So it's just the next tier of play. Higher stakes etc.

Quote from: bren;790963wow!

A game where you get to play the hulk...in space!

that sounds absolutely marvelous.

hulk bored! Only in-flight magazine is cosmo!

Quote from: Old Geezer;791158I have another thought on this.

What about exploring when things gained in-game are threatened?

I've said I have no interest in exploring "Gronan's relationship with his father."

He's 9th level.  A Lord, and in OD&D he builds a castle.  And has a domian, and stuff.  And if you asked him, "By what right are you lord of this land," he would say "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the entire fucking valley."

So... what does he do when an army comes to lay siege to his castle?  What happens when a meaner son of a bitch comes along?

The thing I had in mind was that some games have a tendency to reduce to trivially solvable puzzles: There's a clearly "correct" objective, and an optimal strategy. Crunch the numbers, push the button.

Every change is simplicistically either good or bad (but not much of either). The character remains the same, like an insect in amber.

The contrast would be choices that make big differences and are not easy choices because every option is a mixed bag of nice and not so nice (sometimes nasty and not so nasty) - and what seems hardest now might (or might not) pay dividends down the line.

The big irony is that the kind of D&D John Wick seems to love is exactly the kind The Pundit so aggressively promotes, and yet here we are fighting over the one true meaning of [STRIKE]Christmas[/STRIKE] D&D instead of collaborating over that commonality.

As to those links...

QuoteJohn Wick (http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/):

Chess is not a roleplaying game. Yes, you can turn it into a roleplaying game, but it was not designed to be a roleplaying game.

QuoteBeonist (https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152734249038421/):

What I really mean here is that Chess can absolutely become a tabletop role-playing game.

***

So it doesn't matter what Chess was originally built for. If someone has the idea to add house rules or even none at all, gives motives to the game pieces, and plays out scenarios based on that idea, we have the essence of a role-playing game.

So, not so much a rebuttal as a long winded agreement. I am disappoint.

Quote from: Haffrung;789900I don't know why these clowns want to whittle down the definition of RPGs so narrowly that it's a hobby enjoyed only by a few thousand people. Actually, I know bloody well why they do - so they can console themselves that they are in fact a very big deal in a very small pond.

Wait, are we talking about John Wick, or The Pundit?

Quote from: Will;790346It occurs to me to wonder if original sin mightn't have been naming things.

That's actually an incredibly cool idea and is going into the incredibly cool idea bin.

Quote from: One Horse Town;790521Games design = technology is the wasted breath of the universe.

Ah jeeze, are we supposed to be fighting over the definition of Technology too?

Quote from: Zak S;790803This morning me and John Wick talked about this in person, here's the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqVdN09iyg&spfreload=1)

Very insightful, thanks to both of you, but why are so many people saying they only watched 10 minutes? Why not 5 minutes, or 15 minutes? Is this a useful data point on the optimal length of internet videos? Regardless, it makes me sad to think people are drawing conclusions after just 10 minutes and not bothering to watch the rest of it.

Quote from: dragoner;790851I couldn't get past the first few minutes: "Here I am holding a book of rules about chess, I don't know what I am doing?"

What John actually said was...

QuoteThe whole point of the Chess article is really a confession of confusion because for me the idea it works like this: If I have everything that is Chess, all the rules for Chess are in my left hand, and then in my right hand I add the elements that make it a roleplaying game (because I think we can agree that Chess isn't a roleplaying game, but you add the elements that make it a roleplaying game), I don't know what these elements are. I don't know what this is in my right hand.

...which is a great thesis for a debate.

But I'm not transcribing it here to discuss, only to point out to the viewers at home how people like dragoner like to misrepresent things from people they don't like. I will however give dragoner the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just acting in bad faith and not actually an idiot.

Quote from: markfitz;790913I think the poker analogy is a good one. Just because you can play poker without bluffing doesn't mean that bluffing doesn't become what the game is about, even though it's not in the rules....

I'm reminded of an old thread of mine which I won't link to as it was needlessly confrontational and I'm trying to move away from that style of vetting ideas.

Play is a product of the rules you choose to implement at the table. A rulebook is only there to help inform players of the rules which will be implemented at the table. It's not telling you what to do. It's not making value judgments on your playstyle. It's just a collection of procedures which have been found (or assumed in the case of bad designs) to help create a specific experience, and the rules you decide to implement will change what's possible or meaningful in play.

Let's take Poker. It's possible to bluff in Poker because there's hidden information. If you played with all cards facing up, bluffing would be impossible. And it's meaningful to bluff in Poker because that hidden information cannot be changed arbitrarily. If you could just decide which cards make up your hand arbitrarily without anyone else knowing, bluffing would be meaningless.

So is D&D a bluffing game?

Only when it comes to players bluffing other players. It's impossible for the players to bluff the GM because they can't keep relevant information hidden. And it's meaningless for the GM to bluff the players because they can change the hidden information arbitrarily and even make it up on the spot. So without changes to the rules, anything other than players bluffing players is either impossible or meaningless.

So is D&D a roleplaying game?

If players just engage the tactical elements, moving from encounter to encounter, considering each second in a turn, then roleplaying will be impossible and/or meaningless. And if players just engage with the roleplaying elements, exploring character instead of achieving objectives, considering time to move at the speed of plot, then tactical thinking will be impossible and/or meaningless.

All too often it ends up a zero sum game where every opportunity for one costs the other, and D&D is not clear on what should happen when they overlap. How much should good roleplaying and character skill impact a fictional negotiation? Favor the former and you're punishing players who aren't as socially deft. Favor the latter and you're punishing players who aren't as mechanically inclined. Either way, you're favoring one set of abilities over another no matter what you do.

This is why a group's creative agenda is so damn important, and how system choice (remember, not the rules in the book, the procedures you implement at the table) affects how impossible and/or meaningless engaging in that agenda will be. There's no one 'true' way, but certain procedures WILL be more effective in helping you achieve YOUR way.

Well done, Anon.

I reiterate...
Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

The first rule of frp is that there are no rules (or that the judge is the rules, if you want to put it that way).

I think that the emergent happenings of the action in D&D fit E.M. Forster's definition of "story":

http://conversationalreading.com/aspects-of-the-novel-e-m-forster/

What Wick seems to be trying to say is that RPGs, a priori, need plot as part of their definition. In my humble opinion, that's a bunch of donkey balls-- and I say this as someone who prefers plot in my games.

Quote from: LordVreeg;791576Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

If you believe that then why are you posting here of all places.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;791572The big irony is that the kind of D&D John Wick seems to love is exactly the kind The Pundit so aggressively promotes, and yet here we are fighting over the one true meaning of [STRIKE]Christmas[/STRIKE] D&D instead of collaborating over that commonality.

As to those links...





So, not so much a rebuttal as a long winded agreement. I am disappoint.



Wait, are we talking about John Wick, or The Pundit?



That's actually an incredibly cool idea and is going into the incredibly cool idea bin.



Ah jeeze, are we supposed to be fighting over the definition of Technology too?



Very insightful, thanks to both of you, but why are so many people saying they only watched 10 minutes? Why not 5 minutes, or 15 minutes? Is this a useful data point on the optimal length of internet videos? Regardless, it makes me sad to think people are drawing conclusions after just 10 minutes and not bothering to watch the rest of it.



What John actually said was...



...which is a great thesis for a debate.

But I'm not transcribing it here to discuss, only to point out to the viewers at home how people like dragoner like to misrepresent things from people they don't like. I will however give dragoner the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just acting in bad faith and not actually an idiot.



I'm reminded of an old thread of mine which I won't link to as it was needlessly confrontational and I'm trying to move away from that style of vetting ideas.

Play is a product of the rules you choose to implement at the table. A rulebook is only there to help inform players of the rules which will be implemented at the table. It's not telling you what to do. It's not making value judgments on your playstyle. It's just a collection of procedures which have been found (or assumed in the case of bad designs) to help create a specific experience, and the rules you decide to implement will change what's possible or meaningful in play.

Let's take Poker. It's possible to bluff in Poker because there's hidden information. If you played with all cards facing up, bluffing would be impossible. And it's meaningful to bluff in Poker because that hidden information cannot be changed arbitrarily. If you could just decide which cards make up your hand arbitrarily without anyone else knowing, bluffing would be meaningless.

So is D&D a bluffing game?

Only when it comes to players bluffing other players. It's impossible for the players to bluff the GM because they can't keep relevant information hidden. And it's meaningless for the GM to bluff the players because they can change the hidden information arbitrarily and even make it up on the spot. So without changes to the rules, anything other than players bluffing players is either impossible or meaningless.

So is D&D a roleplaying game?

If players just engage the tactical elements, moving from encounter to encounter, considering each second in a turn, then roleplaying will be impossible and/or meaningless. And if players just engage with the roleplaying elements, exploring character instead of achieving objectives, considering time to move at the speed of plot, then tactical thinking will be impossible and/or meaningless.

All too often it ends up a zero sum game where every opportunity for one costs the other, and D&D is not clear on what should happen when they overlap. How much should good roleplaying and character skill impact a fictional negotiation? Favor the former and you're punishing players who aren't as socially deft. Favor the latter and you're punishing players who aren't as mechanically inclined. Either way, you're favoring one set of abilities over another no matter what you do.

This is why a group's creative agenda is so damn important, and how system choice (remember, not the rules in the book, the procedures you implement at the table) affects how impossible and/or meaningless engaging in that agenda will be. There's no one 'true' way, but certain procedures WILL be more effective in helping you achieve YOUR way.

No, you're crying. Because I was right, I should care why? I promise I don't.

"An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If someone has the idea to add house rules or even none at all, gives motives to the game pieces, and plays out scenarios based on that idea, we have the essence of a role-playing game."

Benoist is right about this. I think the motives of the characters and the scenarios based around it are key for a roleplaying game. But there are people who play their characters just like a collection of skills. Like some sort of Swiss army knife without any personality. I think the rules should support the motives of the characters, but it shouldn't be the only thing that matters in a game.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;791572So is D&D a bluffing game?

Sometimes it is.

QuoteOnly when it comes to players bluffing other players. It's impossible for the players to bluff the GM because they can't keep relevant information hidden.

NOPE. Of course players can keep relevant information hidden hidden from the GM. It may not be the norm, but it is easily possible. It was a style of play used by some way back in the 1970s.

Three quick examples:

(1) Players can write down when and what protective spells they have activated. When combat, spells, or what have you could take effect, the player reveals his note or turns over his spell card and the GM learns what spells, if any, are in effect that may block, counter, or mitigate whatever the NPCs tried to do.

(2) Invisibility - use hidden movement pick your favorite from the dozens of two player games that use hidden movement. Now the GM (and hence the NPCs she controls) don't know where the invisible PC is. Of course neither do the other PCs. But see (3) below.

(3) Don't make final plans in front of the GM. That just helps the GM come up with counters to your plans. And whatever you do, don't tell the GM the goal of your strategy. Only reveal actions as you perform them. For example, the GM doesn't know why the PCs are setting up a meeting with the bad guy. The PCs may be attempting to meet with the bad guy to make a deal with him, trick him, toss some spell on him, capture him, or assassinate him. The GM doesn't know which until the PCs start doing or saying stuff.

Now most people don't (so far as I can tell) play in this adversarial style and most people never did play in this style. But some do and did. (I have.)

Hence bluffing the GM is neither theoretically nor practically impossible.

I have a friend who was using that 'hidden from GM' style as recently as 2000. I remember it kind of annoyed me, since I tend toward a cooperative style.

She is also a major optimizer type.


God. High level 3.5e with her playing a druid pretty much convinced me never to do high level 3e again.

Yeah, that smacks of treating the DM the enemy who cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

Quote from: Omega;792491Yeah, that smacks of treating the DM the enemy who cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

Sometimes the DM chooses to play things that way, so players have to deal with it.

If you openly plan to use a fireball spell and the chief villain just happens to have a ring of fire resistance, and next time you plan to use a cone of cold and the chief villain has a ring of frost resistance, you start to become suspicious. So you play your cards close to your chest. This then forces the DM to have his villains make plans without knowing exactly what the players will do.

That is, secretive players help ensure the DM roleplays NPCs better.

The ideal is that the DM just roleplays them properly in the first place. But game groups of made up of people, who are by definition rarely ideal. So we make do.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;792497That is, secretive players help ensure the DM roleplays NPCs better.

True, But its still treating the DM as the enemy. Someone who cannot be trusted right out the gate before you even know their style.

And it doesnt actually help any because the moment you cast fireball that ring of fire resistance can spring into existence.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;792497Sometimes the DM chooses to play things that way, so players have to deal with it.

If you openly plan to use a fireball spell and the chief villain just happens to have a ring of fire resistance, and next time you plan to use a cone of cold and the chief villain has a ring of frost resistance, you start to become suspicious. So you play your cards close to your chest.

No, you say "Not gaming is better than bad gaming," and you leave.

Or, you know, talk about it like grownups.  Naaaaah....

Yeah. Talk it over first. (If possible. There are cases where its not prudent to baulk) Worst thats going to happen is you end up leaving still.

Well ok, there is a worse than that scenario where the problem DM or player takes it personally and develops a vendetta against you. But that may be a problem that would have triggered no matter.

Quote from: Omega;792491Yeah, that smacks of treating the DM the enemy who cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

It's an adversarial style of play. Which is not for everyone.

Quote from: Bren;792580It's an adversarial style of play. Which is not for everyone.

The D&D 4e rules set and encounter design standards are very conducive to it. As a GM inexperienced with the fine points of the system, I was unable to play the monsters well enough to provide quite the challenge skilled players were accustomed to. In that game, I think the GM would probably do a disservice by getting distracted into consideration of "going easy" on the players; they are very well equipped to take care of themselves!

EDIT: The tactical combat and related rules are clear enough as well that fair adjudication seems hardly to call for an appointed referee. There's always the old wargamers' rule, "When you can't reach consensus, toss a die." Really, the GM is pretty much freed up to play the Opposing Force role.

I do think that bluffing and other psychological factors tend to break down in pc-npc interaction. If one holds that this should be a real test of player skill, one might reflect on how different the GM's position is from the npc's position - compared for instance with the Little Wars approach of resolving shooting with actual projectiles. In the latter case, the player can hit or miss regardless of what outcome the ref may prefer; in the psychological-influence context, such separation is less reliably attained.

Quote from: Omega;792503True, But its still treating the DM as the enemy. Someone who cannot be trusted right out the gate before you even know their style.

I disagree. In games where both the DM and players improvise aims and plans at the table, you can get an edge by doing not prematurely disclosing information. It's nothing to do with trust. Or even an adversarial playstyle. The DM's job is to challenge the players. If players surprise the DM and don't give him time to formulate a counter-plan, that's fair play.

I think it CAN be adversarial, particularly when it's part of unexamined habits.
It can also be just a different, strategy-focused style of play.

One of the big lessons I've taken from game theory is simply 'talk out what and how you are doing things, and why.'

Unexamined stuff tends to go badly.

Quote from: Will;792649I think it CAN be adversarial, particularly when it's part of unexamined habits.
It can also be just a different, strategy-focused style of play.

One of the big lessons I've taken from game theory is simply 'talk out what and how you are doing things, and why.'

Unexamined stuff tends to go badly.

I certainly think talking about what you want is a good thing in a group but I am also not convinced that getting into the murky territory of "why" is all that useful. I think people naturally reside over a broad spectrum of styles and this isn't a problem at all. But what I see often occurs when people get into theory or deep online discussions is they start artificially cutting themselves up around abstract groupings that don't really have much basis in actual play. So my advice is do what you like but don't overthink it either. Too much analysis can also go badly.

Quote from: Haffrung;792642I disagree. In games where both the DM and players improvise aims and plans at the table, you can get an edge by doing not prematurely disclosing information. It's nothing to do with trust. Or even an adversarial playstyle. The DM's job is to challenge the players. If players surprise the DM and don't give him time to formulate a counter-plan, that's fair play.

I tend to agree, though this too is a matter of taste.

Its an interesting comparison. The GM is outnumbered usually. There's more players coming up with plans. But the GM is also much better armed, so to speak, with essentially limitless resources and probably better knowledge of the PCs' capabilities than they have of the opposition.

You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793032You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

As well as the Laws of Physics, Time itself, and Lady Luck.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793032You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

Only if two things are true. (1) An interventionist god exists and (2) the GM in question is a rocks fall and then you die sort of dick.

Otherwise it is quite feasible to tactically defeat or "beat up" the GM and limiting the amount of information the GM has may help to do that. Attempting and sometimes defeating the GM's tactics was certainly an element in old school play back in the mid 1970s in the groups I played in.

Yeah, while it's not my cuppa, the positive version of that sort of game is basically no more adversarial than someone posing riddles or making crosswords.

Quote from: Bren;793049Only if two things are true. (1) An interventionist god exists and (2) the GM in question is a rocks fall and then you die sort of dick.

Otherwise it is quite feasible to tactically defeat or "beat up" the GM and limiting the amount of information the GM has may help to do that. Attempting and sometimes defeating the GM's tactics was certainly an element in old school play back in the mid 1970s in the groups I played in.

On the other hand, I always plan the bad guys tactics out in advance, and if the players come up with a good counter, they come up with a good counter.  They aren't beating my tactics, they're beating the bad guys' tactics.  The lizard men in room 26 have very different tactics from the harpies in room 27.

All I can say about John Wick is...Don't Set Him Off.

Well, at least that's what the movie poster (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1723909376/tt2911666?ref_=tt_ov_i) told me. :)

As for the author John Wick, I can't in good faith rag on him because I've had such incredible fun with L5R and 7th Sea BUT my preference would be for him to make more awesome games that I'd enjoy.

Quote from: Old Geezer;793079On the other hand, I always plan the bad guys tactics out in advance, and if the players come up with a good counter, they come up with a good counter.  They aren't beating my tactics, they're beating the bad guys' tactics.  The lizard men in room 26 have very different tactics from the harpies in room 27.

While you can plan out the bad guy's initial tactics....

Quote from: Paraphrase of Helmuth von Moltke the ElderNo plan survives contact with the enemy.

At which point you, the GM, are improvising the responses of the lizard men, harpies, etc. As you are a war gamer from way back I'm sure you understand the potential advantage of not letting your opponent know your plan ahead of time and how that can apply to player vs. GM interactions.

Quote from: Bren;793148While you can plan out the bad guy's initial tactics....At which point you, the GM, are improvising the responses of the lizard men, harpies, etc. As you are a war gamer from way back I'm sure you understand the potential advantage of not letting your opponent know your plan ahead of time and how that can apply to player vs. GM interactions.

Actually, if the PCs come up with a surprise plan I'll roll dice to see how well the NPCs can adapt to their tactics.

Quote from: Old Geezer;793290Actually, if the PCs come up with a surprise plan I'll roll dice to see how well the NPCs can adapt to their tactics.

But surely whatever you roll, their tactics are limited to what you, the DM, can think of. And you'll probably come up with less effective tactics on the spur of the moment than you would with some planning.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793032You can be adversarial against the GM, but that's a bit like dedicating your life to trying to beat up God.

That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;793588That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?

I don't know that. But I am pretty sure that god doesn't need a starship.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;793588That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?

Consult the Fiend Folio.

Quote from: Old Geezer;793290Actually, if the PCs come up with a surprise plan I'll roll dice to see how well the NPCs can adapt to their tactics.

That's fair, though it's only one way to be fair.  Equally admirable is the GM who, though not a tactical genius himself, can decide on the fly, "Yeah, but my bad guy would have thought of that, and done *this*"...as long as he puts reasonable limits on his hindsight.

How reasonable?  I guess reasonable enough that the players aren't all crying foul.  They don't *need* to know how well the GM prepared, necessarily, or that a GM had a momentary mental lapse that a supervillain would not have had.  Retconning is cheating, sure, but so is pretending to have mapped out entire worlds and billions of individual pysches therein in the first place.

A GM need not be perfect.  Just run good NPCs and don't let the seams show, when you can help it.  Cheat the players a little, when you have to, but don't cheat their characters.  Put on a good show, and sometimes that may include sleight-of-hand.

Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;793877That's fair, though it's only one way to be fair.  Equally admirable is the GM who, though not a tactical genius himself, can decide on the fly, "Yeah, but my bad guy would have thought of that, and done *this*"...as long as he puts reasonable limits on his hindsight.

How reasonable?  I guess reasonable enough that the players aren't all crying foul.  They don't *need* to know how well the GM prepared, necessarily, or that a GM had a momentary mental lapse that a supervillain would not have had.  Retconning is cheating, sure, but so is pretending to have mapped out entire worlds and billions of individual pysches therein in the first place.

A GM need not be perfect.  Just run good NPCs and don't let the seams show, when you can help it.  Cheat the players a little, when you have to, but don't cheat their characters.  Put on a good show, and sometimes that may include sleight-of-hand.

Oh, sure, there's more than one way to do it and still be "fair."  I was just showing another possibility.  I'm also a much better strategist and tactician than most of my players so the NPCs frequently don't act optimally even if I could think of better ways to handle it.

Quote from: Old Geezer;793079On the other hand, I always plan the bad guys tactics out in advance, and if the players come up with a good counter, they come up with a good counter.  They aren't beating my tactics, they're beating the bad guys' tactics.  The lizard men in room 26 have very different tactics from the harpies in room 27.

Best tactics for the lizard men in room 26?

If your neighbor is a harpy- MOVE!  :p

Quote from: Exploderwizard;794476Best tactics for the lizard men in room 26?

If your neighbor is a harpy- MOVE!  :p

Bob the Beholder disagrees.

http://yafgc.net/?id=23

Quote from: Doctor Jest;793588That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?

In JRPGs he usually has around 9999.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;793588That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?

The good news is, only 400.  The bad news is, he's immune to everything and regenerates 400 HPs a round.

Quote from: Will;793058Yeah, while it's not my cuppa, the positive version of that sort of game is basically no more adversarial than someone posing riddles or making crosswords.

Crosswords, other puzzles, computer game programs. The difference is that the gm is present. If that's  a problem, it is a bigger solution.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;793588That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. How many hitpoints does God have?

All of them

Now I'm imagining attacking God and as you do piles of damage, random things around you start shattering and dying.

Quote from: Will;794675Now I'm imagining attacking God and as you do piles of damage, random things around you start shattering and dying.

Fantasy Wargaming gave stats. I think the power of YHVH was simply infinite, but maybe not that of the Son. What if Jesus had accepted Thor's challenge? I thought it was funny that the BVM would whip war-loving Asgardians in a wrestling match.

Quote from: Will;794675Now I'm imagining attacking God and as you do piles of damage, random things around you start shattering and dying.

Marvels old Adventure comic magazine had one story where some space explorers are searching for the origin of God. Eventually tracing back to a remote world covered in deadly monsters. They fight their way to a temple and find it lined with statues of every possible iteration of God. Then run into another horror and one of the explorers has had it and blasts it.

Turns out that was God. From the wound pours fourth an all consuming darkness that spreads to erase the universe.

Moral of the story. Dont Shoot God.

In Rifts Pantheons there a bemusing note. Most of the high up pantheons leaders work together to keep even older gods asleep. Bumping one off could disrupt the effort and end everything.

So dont do that either.

Quote from: Bren;793049Only if two things are true. (1) An interventionist god exists and (2) the GM in question is a rocks fall and then you die sort of dick.

Otherwise it is quite feasible to tactically defeat or "beat up" the GM and limiting the amount of information the GM has may help to do that. Attempting and sometimes defeating the GM's tactics was certainly an element in old school play back in the mid 1970s in the groups I played in.

Except that the only two scenarios are dependent on the GM: where the GM wants an adversarial game or where the GM doesn't.

In the former case, you either have a situation that is going to be a really REALLY shitty game, or the GM will be adversarial only "to a point".  Some people MIGHT enjoy the latter, but it will be a bit like if your dad lets you win at chess.

In the latter case, it doesn't matter whether you are being adversarial or not, except in the sense that having that kind of attitude when that's not in fact the point could ruin your enjoyment (and that of your group).

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;793835Consult the Fiend Folio.

Surely, it would be in Deities and Demigods?

Quote from: RPGPundit;795078Surely, it would be in Deities and Demigods?

That, yes. I've had the artwork from both of these books on the brain as of late!

Quote from: RPGPundit;795074Except that the only two scenarios are dependent on the GM: where the GM wants an adversarial game or where the GM doesn't.

You seem really caught up in looking at this as a black and white issue. It's not.

QuoteIn the former case, you either have a situation that is going to be a really REALLY shitty game, or the GM will be adversarial only "to a point".  Some people MIGHT enjoy the latter, but it will be a bit like if your dad lets you win at chess.

The middle called and said it feels excluded.

This is no more true than is the notion that playing in a traditional OSR style is just playing mother may I with the GM. And I assume you don't actually believe the OSR is just a game of mother may I, right?

QuoteIn the latter case, it doesn't matter whether you are being adversarial or not, except in the sense that having that kind of attitude when that's not in fact the point could ruin your enjoyment (and that of your group).

Yes it could negatively impact the group's enjoyment. In the same way that any person in a group with divergent interests may negatively impact the enjoyment of the other players. But it doesn't necessarily result in a negative impact. Surely you aren't intending to claim that there is only one correct way to have fun playing an RPG?

Quote from: RPGPundit;795074In the former case, you either have a situation that is going to be a really REALLY shitty game, or the GM will be adversarial only "to a point".  Some people MIGHT enjoy the latter, but it will be a bit like if your dad lets you win at chess.

So how about "This is what is in this location.  Whatever the PCs have, it will not matter to the contents of this location.  It is a 6th level evil magic user, a 4th level fighter henchman, and eight men at arms.  I will play them to the utmost of my tactical ability.  If the PCs have three first level characters, they will die.  If the PCs have seven 10th level characters the NPCs will die."

Adversarial or not?

Quote from: Zak S;789840Wick is one of those people who think drow are "problematic" and Benoist once told me he felt ok about not fact-checking what he says when he attacks people because the truth always comes out on the internet.

This means neither of them can ever say anything meaningful ever.

That about sums it up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;790390Yeah i started just before 2E came out and we didn't use miniatures at all, and when we did start buying them, they were mainly used for things like marching order. Eventually we tossed them because we found them distracting (I found I kept picturing my character looking exactly like the miniature). The whole thing with map tiles and stuff wasn't even something I would have thought to do at the time. Eventually we learned about the chessex mat and you'd see that in play once in a while. I don't think I ever ran a game using miniatures until at least 2000 (I had played in games using them before that but had very little demand for them in my own group).

I remember using them, but most combat was diagrammed X and O style on scratch paper, chalk boards and later, dry erase boards like coaches use. In fact my first dry erase board was given to me by my high school football coach.

Quite frankly, miniatures have always been a pain in the ass. They're expensive (doubly so, including the paints), heavy and fragile. After the fourth or fifth time I glued/soldered broken limbs and weapons back together I just put mine aside. The final straw was a fire that melted my collection. I've used cardboard counters ever since.

The point is, miniatures aren't necessary for showing the layout of a fight, nor are battle mats.

Quote from: Old Geezer;795410So how about "This is what is in this location.  Whatever the PCs have, it will not matter to the contents of this location.  It is a 6th level evil magic user, a 4th level fighter henchman, and eight men at arms.  I will play them to the utmost of my tactical ability.  If the PCs have three first level characters, they will die.  If the PCs have seven 10th level characters the NPCs will die."

Adversarial or not?

Not adversarial. Emulative.  That's the GM doing the job he's supposed to, being completely neutral about the world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;795476Not adversarial. Emulative.  That's the GM doing the job he's supposed to, being completely neutral about the world.

Clarification appreciated.  I just realized I'm getting the twitching awfuls on the subject; "PCs should only die if the players agree" is more common than one would think.  It is neither limited to one plum-hued corner of the internet, nor in fact to the internet at all.  I have heard gamers say "The players should never lose" with a straight face in real life.

I think 'the players should never lose' is a perfectly valid style of play.

If they are advocating it as the ONLY 'good' style of play, they need to be slapped.

Possibly so; if everyone at the table is having fun, you're doing it right.

But it is so far from my idea of fun I find it incomprehensible, and being told my way is "wrong" (or that I only like it due to "nostalgia") gives me uncontrollable flatulence.

It's kind of like Colombo, in my mind.

In Colombo, we know who done it. We know the victim, the killer, and possibly a little of the motive. We also know Colombo is going to catch the killer.

What's fascinating is seeing how it unfolds. We don't see what Colombo is up to, what tricks he has set up until they kick in. We watch a killer try to evade capture.

And that's fun, even though we know roughly what's going to happen.


A game doesn't necessarily need winners and losers, sometimes 'how things go' is engaging and interesting.

Quote from: Will;795572It's kind of like Colombo, in my mind.

Interesting analogy Will. I guess a lot of TV series actually fall into that category.

While in general, I prefer a game where I don't know if the PCs will win (or even survive). When we played Star Trek it was a lot like the old show and Next Gen so there really wasn't any doubt that the PCs would eventually stop the alien parasites, escape from the Orion space pirates, find a way to stop the conflict on planet X, or whatever. Play was really about how, not if.

Quote from: RPGPundit;795476Not adversarial. Emulative.  That's the GM doing the job he's supposed to, being completely neutral about the world.

exactly.
I do not find it adversarial at all when a GM builds his set pieces and adventures and places them, and then runs them as they should be run logically.

Quote from: Will;795572It's kind of like Colombo, in my mind.

In Colombo, we know who done it. We know the victim, the killer, and possibly a little of the motive. We also know Colombo is going to catch the killer.

What's fascinating is seeing how it unfolds. We don't see what Colombo is up to, what tricks he has set up until they kick in. We watch a killer try to evade capture.

And that's fun, even though we know roughly what's going to happen.


A game doesn't necessarily need winners and losers, sometimes 'how things go' is engaging and interesting.

Good analogy. That close to how I thought the "fate roll" you mentioned earlier would work. You know, roughly, how your character is going to buy the farm or at least when but how it happens and what brings them to that point is the meat of the game.

Quote from: Will;795521I think 'the players should never lose' is a perfectly valid style of play.

If they are advocating it as the ONLY 'good' style of play, they need to be slapped.

I (Sometimes) play with someone who throws a strop if her character ever loses at anything, including one game-ending strop when she got outvoted on a plan (She then proceeded to sit in the corner and pointedly refuse to interact with the game for the rest of the session).

On the other hand, my fighting fantasy game ended up with the players doing something blindingly stupid (Attempting to terrorist attacks in Port Blacksand), getting double-crossed, and then captured and executed by the watch. But they went into it knowing they were likely to die, had great fun doing it, were genuinely surprised when they were double-crossed (On my side of the screen, I played it fair, my thieves guild NPC's genuinely spotted them), and had a great time.

Some people are just crap players, basically.

[responding to Columbo as an example of "how things work out" rather than "whether the crime is solved or who did it".]

Quote from: Nexus;795694Good analogy. That close to how I thought the "fate roll" you mentioned earlier would work. You know, roughly, how your character is going to buy the farm or at least when but how it happens and what brings them to that point is the meat of the game.

In Redshirts the RPG, a character's fate would be intimately tied to the contract terms of the actor playing that character.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;792497Sometimes the DM chooses to play things that way, so players have to deal with it.

If you openly plan to use a fireball spell and the chief villain just happens to have a ring of fire resistance, and next time you plan to use a cone of cold and the chief villain has a ring of frost resistance, you start to become suspicious. So you play your cards close to your chest. This then forces the DM to have his villains make plans without knowing exactly what the players will do.

Pundy has a thread about what one looks for in a player. What I look for in a DM most of all is a sense of sportsmanship, fair play and integrity. A DM who is constantly pulling things out of his ass to screw the PCs is a shitty DM. Maybe I'll elaborate further on this here or in another thread.

Quote from: Will;794675Now I'm imagining attacking God and as you do piles of damage, random things around you start shattering and dying.

Not if you have an iron chariot.

Quote from: Nexus;795694Good analogy. That close to how I thought the "fate roll" you mentioned earlier would work. You know, roughly, how your character is going to buy the farm or at least when but how it happens and what brings them to that point is the meat of the game.

I don't think I want a campaign that resembles the typical weekly TV show, where you know that no matter what happens, Colombo will be back next week.

I prefer the Game of Thrones approach.

I dunno, at least one of the campaigns I GMed back in the day felt quite Walker Texas Ranger-y...:D

John Wick strikes me as a putz.

He thinks that because characters in a couple of bad movies can take out their enemies with a thumb and a tea cup, then having a selection of weapons detracts from role-playing and telling stories.

QuoteMore important question. In fact, perhaps the most important question: how do any of those things–range modifiers, rate of fire, rburst fire, slashing, piercing, etc.–help you tell stories?

All of them.

Instead of using shitty films as inspiration, how about a good one -no, scratch that, how about a great movie? For example, let's take a look at Sam Peckinpah's classic Western, The Wild Bunch.

The characters and their stories revolve around guns, and all the things they do (or try to do) with them. The protagonists, a vicious gang of outlaws, obtain a number of modern military weapons, along with uniforms and horses stolen from the U.S. Army in order to pass themselves off as soldiers when they march into a small town and rob a railroad office. Not only are these weapons (especially the M1911 automatic pistol) an important part of their disguise, but they are also a way to increase their firepower against any who might try to stop them, since the latter are armed with old Colt revolvers and lever-action rifles. Or so they think: Some of the bounty hunters hired by the railroad have also been issued modern military weapons like the M1903 Springfield ("Just dig out that bullet and see if it ain't my ought-six!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDo7fA8sAlM)).

As the outlaws run for their lives, they meet up with a Mexican generalissimo who also wants modern weapons and hires the Wild Bunch to sneak back across the border and steal them from the U.S. Army.

So yes, the different types of guns and what they can do are VERY important to the story and the characters in one of the greatest films ever made.

QuoteJust a moment ago, I called weapon lists one of the most common features in roleplaying games. These things are not features. They're bugs. And it's time to get rid of them.

No John Wick, you need to watch better movies. Don't get me wrong, I love bad movies as much as the next guy, but I'm not about to claim that because the only weapon the aliens in Plan 9 From Outer Space ever use are their Electrode Guns, then sci-fi games that include all kinds of weapons are detracting from storytelling. And if you or anyone else really thinks so, it's only because of your stupid minds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhvDMhrws1o).

John Wick's an idiot.

IOW, agree with Elfdart.

Allthough, the importance of weapon charts etc would vary by genre. Frex a gritty Peckinpah style Western would need guns, lots of guns. OTOH it doesn't need 20 different medieval swords. ;)

Quote from: Elfdart;795810I don't think I want a campaign that resembles the typical weekly TV show, where you know that no matter what happens, Colombo will be back next week.

I prefer the Game of Thrones approach.

I don't think I'd enjoy a steady diet of it but its fun for a diversion and change of pace. I really enjoyed playing Fiasco, for instance which has a similar set up. You know everything is going to go pear shaped in a major way but the game is finding out exactly how.

Today, I think we have the answer to the question why John Wick wrote what he wrote : he has a new KS to promote, the 2nd volume of Play Dirty, his take on GM advice.

Quote from: yabaziou;796130Today, I think we have the answer to the question why John Wick wrote what he wrote : he has a new KS to promote, the 2nd volume of Play Dirty, his take on GM advice.

Oh, he's the ass that wrote that self-congratulatory bit of wankery about his fun fucking over his players in his superhero game. That explains everything.