Quote from: droogPersonally, I would like to expunge the word 'story' from this discussion , unless every single user defines his usage of it.

Ahem - that´s exactly one reason, why "story games" is a term to be avoided.

Quote from: SettembriniAhem - that´s exactly one reason, why "story games" is a term to be avoided.

Quite. On the other hand, the other proposed divisions are lacking as well. I submit that looking at some specifics makes hash of your schema. These are all games I have played, by the way.

Thematic vs Adventure
Sorcerer=thematic adventure
Donjon=adventure
My Life with Master=thematic
DitV=adventurous thematics
Agon=adventure
Burning Wheel=adventure+theme

cf.
Paranoia=thematic adventure


Expressive vs Experiential
Sorcerer=experiential
Donjon=expressive
DitV=expressive
Agon= experiential
Burning Wheel=experiential+expressive

cf.
HeroQuest=expressive+experiential

I allow for overlap, explicitly so in the case of BW; so, no hash.

Droog,
you misunderstand adventure on every account. I propose we better talk about experiential vs expressive.

That seems to be easier. Except for Sorcerer, that is not experiential, especially after having seen Ron GM and talk about it. It´s expressive, big time. Don´t know about Agon.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI allow for overlap, explicitly so in the case of BW; so, no hash.

Okay, then what's the point unless you're going to say "this is an RPG and this is not." Because you're trying to categorise games into two broad camps according to techniques (or methods), and you're not allowing for the great range of techniques in RPGs.

When I play My Life with Master, I, in my subjectivity, feel that what I'm doing is spiritually close to things I have done in older games such as RQ. It's more focused, certainly, but then, so is Toon or Paranoia.

When I play Dogs in the Vineyard, the family resemblance is so strong as to be undeniable. And a game of Sorcerer is just like some runs of mine in RuneQuest, or Villains & Vigilantes (minus the demons but plus the methods of gamemastering).

I think you guys are being very stuffy in your thinking.

Quote from: SettembriniExcept for Sorcerer, that is not experiential, especially after having seen Ron GM and talk about it.

No way!

Quote from: Elliota) We try to have "what the player knows" roughly match "what the character knows", and "what the player does" maps structurally to "what the character does".

This is Sorcerer.

No, we are not.
You just haven´t got such a wide range of experience as we do. That is my take.

What you are taking, is Ron´s stance: He played Thematic since he started playing. He even thinks Thematic about movies and pop cultural artifacts. He is blind to all other things.

I get the feeling, if DitV comes even close to your RQ-gaming, then you have a pretty narrow range of playstyles.

QuoteOkay, then what's the point unless you're going to say "this is an RPG and this is not." Because you're trying to categorise games into two broad camps according to techniques (or methods), and you're not allowing for the great range of techniques in RPGs.

My bloody point is to avoid denying the RPGness of anything. It´s interesting that you didn´t know this. Misunderstandings all the way. BTW, I more and more get the feeling, that it´s you who doesn´t even know a lot of RPG techniques. Just like Ron.

QuoteThis is Sorcerer.                                                              _________________

No. Definitely not. Sorcerer is [AFAI understood & observed] about "How low can you go?".
There is nothing to explore, nothing to solve, nothing to build.

There aren´t modules or maps or deity listings or whatever for Sorcerer. There is no "interesting place" or "stuff to do".
It´s only moral quandaries.

It´s the penultimate Thematic self-search.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, we are not.
My bloody point is to avoid denying the RPGness of anything. It´s interesting that you didn´t know this. Misunderstandings all the way.

Yes, I get that. But what is the point in making this very broad categorisation, then? Let's just talk about the techniques used in individual games (by all means acknowledging influences).

The place Sorcerer falls is where your and Elliot's definitions split, I think. It's because you're both trying to make a broad classification work with a level of detail that has infinite possibilites.

Mmm.
I think the onus is on you to show us the "adventure" in Sorcerer.
I´m still of the opinion that you aren´t understanding what Elliot and I mean.
And I do so, because when I talked to Ron, he wouldn´t understand it.
He really, really couldn´t wrap his head around it.
It was amazing, I was stunned.

So: I presume there could be other people out there, who don´t understand why one would adventure, just because.

Quote from: SettembriniMmm.
I think the onus is on you to show us the "adventure" in Sorcerer.
I´m still of the opinion that you aren´t understanding what Elliot and I mean.
And I do so, because when I talked to Ron, he wouldn´t understand it.
He really, really couldn´t wrap his head around it.
It was amazing, I was stunned.

So: I presume there could be other people out there, who don´t understand why one would adventure, just because.

Now, don't be a silly boy. You won't get anywhere (if you hadn't noticed) with this you-don't-know-what-you're-doing angle.

Again, when you reduce 'adventure ' to 'modules or maps or deity listings', you're just talking about techniques. I reckon the onus is on you to show that this lack (of modules etc) constitutes a positive quality.

Huh?
That´s pretty obvious and common knowlegde:

Sorcerer is a different kind of game from most other RPGs before it. That´s the public opionion, common wisdom, YOU chose to challenge. Also techniques and structure are an important dimension to seperate things from each other. What´s wrong with that?

As for the rest: I did not say what you implied. I raised the notion, that it could be, that you don´t understand me, because you never have experienced what I have. For example, you haven´t played D&D, AFAIK.
You also said your RQ was JUST LIKE DitV. That´s pretty funky stuff to say, and I´m giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you don´t know better. Elsewise you would be deliberately trolling.
Because it´s plainly, plainly plainly: wrong.

Please review what I actually said, Mr S. It is not your paraphrase.

Mmm. I think we better drop it.

Let´s assume we just don´t understand each other. As in literally not understanding.

I´ll watch while you and Elliot sort it out. He seems to be more on your wavelength.

You are like from another star to me.:confused:

EDIT: Maybe it´s because I´m from Skaro?

Quote from: SettembriniMy bloody point is to avoid denying the RPGness of anything.

Then what the fuck was your first post about?