Quote from: Dan Davenport;566716I've played (and enjoyed!) Wushu, octaNe, InSpectres, and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Not RPGs. At least, not as the term is commonly understood.

Why does this matter? Because if I invited friends over to play an RPG and brought out Munchausen, they'd be all, "WTF?"

Clear communication matters.

What universe do you live in, in which people don't tell their friends what they are going to be playing when they invite them over to play a game?

"Come over to mine on Saturday for a game. I'm not telling you what it is, though. It's a secret."

There is a more worrying issue there than lack of clear definitions about what an RPG is.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566726So when we post on our own forum, it's an echo chamber, and when we go to other forums and have discussions, we're just trolling. Beautiful Catch-22 you've set up there.
!

When you post in a forum where there is no oppposition or dissenting voice, its an echo chamber. I never said anything about trolling. If you want to post in other forums that is great. We have lots of posters here who are regulars in other boards. I was just talking about the hypocrisy of the criticism you made. Had someone else made the criticism I wouldn't have said anything.

Quote from: noisms;566742What universe do you live in, in which people don't tell their friends what they are going to be playing when they invite them over to play a game?

"Come over to mine on Saturday for a game. I'm not telling you what it is, though. It's a secret."

It could have been OD&D, 4e, Spacemaster, Prince Valiant, Phoenix Command, Amber, FATAL, Og, Changeling, Nobilis, or Racial Holy War and they would have been all like: Whatever, they're all RPGs, that's cool, let's play!

But Burning Wheel? AW HELL NO IT'S A TRAP

Quote from: soviet;566744It could have been OD&D, 4e, Spacemaster, Prince Valiant, Phoenix Command, Amber, FATAL, Og, Changeling, Nobilis, or Racial Holy War and they would have been all like: Whatever, they're all RPGs, that's cool, let's play!

But Burning Wheel? AW HELL NO IT'S A TRAP

I just like the idea of the evil GM cackling over his cornflakes that morning. "I just can't wait to see the look on their faces when they come over later and realise they're going to have to play a story game!"

Quote from: Black Vulmea;566673The way I read this, you seem to be saying that the best way to run a linear adventure is to not run a linear adventure and run a sandbox instead. I think that rather misses the whole point, which is reduce the likelihood of linear adventures turning into railroads or relying on illusionism to make them work.

OK, going back to earlier points in the convo, and please pardon me for that, becasue I am doing this at work, then during online gameplay (awesome night last night, sesion 128 of the steel isle game), and now at work again.

One of the reasons mentioned a few times in the rise of shared narative games was the rise of linear, molded, controlled games...that removed meaningful player choice.  One of the factors, mind you, and not the only one.  And this is not to say that shared narrative games have not actualy done a lot for gaming in general.

I have always postulated the critical importance of meaningful player choice to really roleplay a long term game.  So my comments about prioritizing sandboxing in terms of this conversation, at least, can be boiled down to that goal; that the agency that changes a railroad into a mere linear-style adventure is Meaningful Player Choice.  Just telling people to avoid railroading is not helping, as it is a symptom.  Might as well tell people to stop being fat, instead of promoting healthy eating and exercise.

Sandboxing, as a style and as a system/game design goal, is fundamentally about player choice.  Therefor, and as I have been trying to say previously, perhaps poorly, I believe we need to prioritize this in game design and style conversation to reduce the likelihood of railroading.  
"Railroading, the antonym of sandbox, is simply extreme constraint of choice. Some perceived constraint of choice is always there in any simulated world in that there are always choices that are impossible to physically perform or clearly undesirable, but where you cross the line to railroad is when these things are obviously being imposed by the GM/metagame (usually in the name of "The Story" or "The Plot"). "
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/662/what-is-sandbox-play

Basically, instead of talking about the friggin symptom and effect as the problem, I am advocating a reversal of the trends mentioned earlier that took away player choice to a design and style strategy that focuses on Sandbox play as a primary mode (perhaps something of a back to basics, but call it what you will) to promote as much meaningful player choice at the base level of game design, setting desigh, play style, and conversation.

Quote from: noisms;566746I just like the idea of the evil GM cackling over his cornflakes that morning. "I just can't wait to see the look on their faces when they come over later and realise they're going to have to play a story game!"

But then the joke will be on him as soon as they start playing and he realises that he is neutered and totally at their mercy.

Quote from: silva;566733Apocalypse World has the best advice Ive ever seen for sandbox gaming.

I talked about it here. (by the way, even on that thread the ONe-True-Wayism is present, when people start complaining that what I was running wasnt a true sandbox, but a improvisational game or whatever. Hmmm... I see a pattern here...  )

well, I love writing setting work, and plot lines, and adventures...I really do.  But the thing that makes it a sandbox is that the players can choose or not choose to enter into a plotline or go to a well described andventure.  It's only if a game removes that player choice that it moves away from sandbox play.  If by providing 'scope for confrontations', you are going to put the players into that situation no matter what, then it's not sandboxing.  If you have created these same 'scopes for confrontation' and the players can choose to investigate them, learn about themn, brashly enter, or avoid them altogether and hit the tavern, well, then yeah, you're doing the sandbox.

Quote from: soviet;566748But then the joke will be on him as soon as they start playing and he realises that he is neutered and totally at their mercy.

"God damn it, why do I never think these things through?!?"

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566716I've played (and enjoyed!) Wushu, octaNe, InSpectres, and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Not RPGs. At least, not as the term is commonly understood.

Why does this matter? Because if I invited friends over to play an RPG and brought out Munchausen, they'd be all, "WTF?"

Clear communication matters.

yes.  Another major point I agree with.  Language is a tool to create communication, shared understanding and more precise defintions create better communication.  I agree, yes, they are all tabletop, pen and paper games, but the fact that some people don't want it to be broken down into proper descriptions of what makes these games different seems to me (and I apologize to Noisms and others who really seem to be working in good faith) a group who don't want to admit there is a difference in games where the mechanics and goal are based on the players playing from and making decisions only from the role of the character... and a game that does that AND also allows for choices and decisions being made from outside-looking in by players.
Just that simple.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566753yes.  Another major point I agree with.  Language is a tool to create communication, shared understanding and more precise defintions create better communication.  I agree, yes, they are all tabletop, pen and paper games, but the fact that some people don't want it to be broken down into proper descriptions of what makes these games different seems to me (and I apologize to Noisms and others who really seem to be working in good faith) a group who don't want to admit there is a difference in games where the mechanics and goal are based on the players playing from and making decisions only from the role of the character... and a game that does that AND also allows for choices and decisions being made from outside-looking in by players.
Just that simple.

I think what people object to is not the label storygames, but the notion that they are different from roleplaying games rather than a subdivision of them. I don't think the difference between, say, Burning Wheel and 4e, or Dogs in the Vineyard and Ghostbusters, is really any more profound than the difference between 4e and Ghostbusters. Which is to say, they are recognisably different, but also recognisably the same.

Quote from: soviet;566756I think what people object to is not the label storygames, but the notion that they are different from roleplaying games rather than a subdivision of them. I don't think the difference between, say, Burning Wheel and 4e, or Dogs in the Vineyard and Ghostbusters, is really any more profound than the difference between 4e and Ghostbusters. Which is to say, they are recognisably different, but also recognisably the same.

Well, I am advocating for the descriptor, and I have NO ISSUE with them being a subdivision, becasue I agree that there are differences, which mean we need the differentiator, but that there are also degrees and major differences between all these games.

Quote from: noisms;566742What universe do you live in, in which people don't tell their friends what they are going to be playing when they invite them over to play a game?

"Come over to mine on Saturday for a game. I'm not telling you what it is, though. It's a secret."

There is a more worrying issue there than lack of clear definitions about what an RPG is.

That's a little silly.

Perhaps I don't have a specific game in mind, but do plan on playing an RPG of some sort. It happens.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566765That's a little silly.

Perhaps I don't have a specific game in mind, but do plan on playing an RPG of some sort. It happens.

Sure, I get that, but I would be vastly more concerned about picking a genre that I know everybody can get on board with, than I would be about "hang on, is this a story game or a traditional RPG?"

Quote from: noisms;566766Sure, I get that, but I would be vastly more concerned about picking a genre that I know everybody can get on board with, than I would be about "hang on, is this a story game or a traditional RPG?"

Well, that's where we differ, because I'd want to know what kind of game we're actually playing.

Put another way, I don't see Munchausen as having anything more in common with a fantasy roleplaying game than does a fantasy board game. Knowing that everyone's interested in "fantasy" isn't really sufficient.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566750well, I love writing setting work, and plot lines, and adventures...I really do.  But the thing that makes it a sandbox is that the players can choose or not choose to enter into a plotline or go to a well described andventure.  It's only if a game removes that player choice that it moves away from sandbox play.  If by providing 'scope for confrontations', you are going to put the players into that situation no matter what, then it's not sandboxing.  If you have created these same 'scopes for confrontation' and the players can choose to investigate them, learn about themn, brashly enter, or avoid them altogether and hit the tavern, well, then yeah, you're doing the sandbox.

Yup, I agree.

QuoteI think what people object to is not the label storygames, but the notion that they are different from roleplaying games rather than a subdivision of them. I don't think the difference between, say, Burning Wheel and 4e, or Dogs in the Vineyard and Ghostbusters, is really any more profound than the difference between 4e and Ghostbusters. Which is to say, they are recognisably different, but also recognisably the same.

Thats how I see it, too.