Quote from: SettembriniSo what? The whole scene is circular, so that´s just fitting. See Elliots misdiagnosis argument.

Out here in fleshspace, I meet player after player who try Sorcerer, or My Life with Master, or Primetime Adventures, or Dogs in the Vineyard, and enjoy it. Interestingly, many of the people I've found to be most resistant are, in fact, long-term White Wolf afficionadoes.

Sure, and do they buy the game?
Do they stop playing real campaigns?

EDIT: As with ASL vs. Memoir 44, you can enjoy both. More power to you.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSett can answer you on that.

Actually he won't or can't which is part of the problem. You, though seem to have a grasp of his dodgy statements, so it's more productive talking to you.

QuoteI think the distinction is worth observing because it shows how to avoid chocolate-peanut butter arguments. (Or more like fried liver-ice cream. Again, take a look at many, many of Blakkie's contributions.)

Yeah, but again, does this distinction mean that certain games are not rpgs ?

QuoteActually, it does make sense to me. Conceiving of RPGs in terms of "story" makes it allowable to regard concrete cause-and-effect, internal dynamics, as peripheral--so you can gloss over them with mechanically-irrelevant description. (Or even mechanically-relevant description that has nothing to do with internal dynamics. Dogs and Wushu go here. Also, in a way, any GM-fudged & stage-managed game.)

Yes Elliot but do you think that those games are not rpgs...because you see, if Sett's description makes sense and how could it since he's talking about playstyles or sometimes he's talking about playstyles, then you would surely see the distinction as being that of the old rpg/not rpg argument.

Also if you notice Sett isn't conceiving rpgs in terms of story....thematic is the word he uses. He should withdraw that word....I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

Edit:

QuoteElliot wrote:
...well, it's not a perfect fit but pretty much every game which recommends GM fudging and stage-managing demonstrates that Sett's Thematic/Adventure split isn't all about the Forge.

Now fudging is thematic play?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogNow that's a radical statement. Care to back that up with examples?

Burning Wheel Revised, The Shadow of Yesterday: relatively un-Forge-y games that were developed at least partly at the Forge. BW perhaps a bit less than TSoY, because a lot of the conditions for earning Artha require you to basically act against your character's interests, while IIRC, TSoY only requires you to express the character by hitting your Keys, if you want to get points.

Forge-y games not developed at the Forge: well, it's not a perfect fit but pretty much every game which recommends GM fudging and stage-managing demonstrates that Sett's Thematic/Adventure split isn't all about the Forge. So: (based on hearsay) Dragonlance & much of WoD, frankly many, many published modules since the mid-80's. In terms of recent games (not modules) I'm at a bit of a loss...again based on hearsay & reviews I'll offer Pantheon (Hogshead).

Quote from: droogThat's a separate issue, as I pointed out above.

It's the issue of the thread.

Quote from: SettembriniSure, and do they buy the game?
Do they stop playing real campaigns?

Yes, they buy the games. As for 'real' campaigns, I couldn't say. If you mean "Do they stop playing in other ways?", not in most cases. But then, many of the groups I've known play only one or two games regularly anyway. A friend of mine back in Perth recently ran three different games in six months (a Greek game based on RQ, a house-ruled game of Cyberpunk, and Dust Devils). He wants to try DitV. This is after spending over a decade playing nothing but GURPS. My story is similar--after running nothing but RQ for years, I branched out with Pendragon (by the way, are you going to answer my question regarding PD?), then HQ, then several Forgenik games.

If there ever was a wargamey heir in RPGs, it´s Pendragon. Pendragon is all about simulation and strategy.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's the issue of the thread.

No, it's not.

Quote from: SettembriniIf there ever was a wargamey heir in RPGs, it´s Pendragon. Pendragon is all about simulation and strategy.

Strategy? Are you kidding me? There's about as much strategy in PD as in Toon. Or as in Malory.

Then you are playing it wrong. You are a knight and plan your family´s way through the ages. Manors, land, political marriages, faith, winter courts: It doesn´t get much mor strategic in a medieval environment.

EDIT: Even if you ignore these aspects, you aren´t adressing a "premise" in a meta-way. All things are about an imaginary world, and the adventures and fictional lives of the characters.

Quote from: SettembriniThen you are playing it wrong. You are a knight and plan your family´s way through the ages. Manors, land, political marriages, faith, winter courts: It doesn´t get much mor strtegic in a medieval environment.

No, you're playing it wrong. Good argument, eh?

Quote from: Greg StaffordPendragon is unlike any game you have played. It has many revolutionary features which are novel to roleplaying games. It provides an imaginary method for you to participate in the wondrous world of King Arthur.
......................
The myth of Arthur's world has grown over the fourteen centuries of its literary existence, added to by many authors, whose ranks you are about to join.

Huh? Every adventure game is supposed to transport you into an imaginary world. That´s a major fucking point of playing!

EDIT: From your erratic comment I take it, there´s a major misunderstanding going on. You can´t be in any way  discussing the same things we are. Whatcha talking about?

Quote from: SettembriniHuh? Every adventure game is supposed to transport you into an imaginary world. That´s a major fucking point of playing!

Yeah, that's what Ron Edwards calls Exploration.

Quote from: David RYeah, but again, does this distinction mean that certain games are not rpgs ?

I'm with Lisa Padol in her review of Pantheon: she says it's a story-telling game; I've said that games which give players a lot of control outside their characters, or which require players to regard their characters in the "third person", or which expect players to accept rather transparent story-motivated manipulation by the GM all feel more like "story-telling games" than "roleplaying games" to me. I just don't say that much in public anymore because people flip out when they hear it. Besides, it's a relative distinction, and the two genres are related and overlapping both in form and in audience.

The important question I think is, "So Elliot doesn't consider Polaris to be as much of an RPG as Runequest, so what?"

So...I don't think it's crap, in fact based on a little play I think it's kinda fun. I don't think it can or should be excluded from discussion at RPG.net or theRPGsite. I just don't think that when somebody has a problem with D&D, the answer is automatically to drop D&D in favor of a Forge game, or to introduce Forge-y techniques to D&D.

QuoteAlso if you notice Sett isn't conceiving rpgs in terms of story....thematic is the word he uses. He should withdraw that word....I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

I don't think he means the word "Thematic" to define the distinction so much as to represent the most common motivation for not playing in "adventure" mode. Again, I like "expressive/experiential", "storytelling/immersive", or a number of other possibilities.

QuoteNow fudging is thematic play?

I think we've had this discussion a bunch of times; fudging is anti-experiential because it fosters metagame expectations and calculations.

So fucking what?