Quote from: Sacrosanct;566787A role-playing game is any game in which you play a role other than yourself.  A tabletop rpg is that, as well as using books and rules and a set of mechanics to accomplish it by comparing dice results against the rule you are using.

Anything else is just elitist BS, IMO.  "Storygaming" or whatever the hell that is overlaps so much with a "traditional tabletop rpg" that it's dumb to try to separate the two out.  You can't draw a firm line in the sand on this issue, and it comes to personal preference.

I don't recall this ever being an issue when Vampire came out.  That was role-played just like those of us who were playing D&D, and nobody really cared about the difference.  I might not have preferred to play Vampire, but I didn't get indignant about how they weren't "real" rpgs.

:idunno:

Yes, exactly. As soon as you start going into the specifics of what happens in various games, the distinctions fall apart, especially since no two people in the universe apparently agree on what the definition of "role playing game" is in the first place.

Quote from: soviet;566788So WFRP 1e isn't a roleplaying game because of fate points?

if the game has outside-looking in mechanics used by the players, then yes.  
Simple.

Quote from: soviet;566788So WFRP 1e isn't a roleplaying game because of fate points?

That sort of mechanic does make things a little fuzzy, I'll grant you; however, that is more like the exception that proves the rule -- seizing a bit of narrative control in a game that is otherwise immersive. Suggesting that doing so makes a roleplaying game into a storygame is a bit like saying that any pizza with anchovies on it counts as "seafood".

Quote from: noisms;566790Yes, exactly. As soon as you start going into the specifics of what happens in various games, the distinctions fall apart, especially since no two people in the universe apparently agree on what the definition of "role playing game" is in the first place.

But then you get to a roleplaying game being anything anyone calls a roleplaying game -- and that's where you get to silliness like Munchausen calling itself an RPG.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566795But then you get to a roleplaying game being anything anyone calls a roleplaying game -- and that's where you get to silliness like Munchausen calling itself an RPG.

If thats the case, why not create a new word for your specific definition ? I mean, roleplaying already have a very clear definition - the act of playing a role. Add a "game" to that and you have a "game where you play a role". Simple. Isnt it more logical to invent a new term/word for the specific style of roleplaying game you guys mention here, instead of trying to impose a new meaning on something already stablished ?

(I suggest something in the line of "Simulation-Roleplaying" or just "Sim-Roleplaying". Games like D&D could even be called Combat-Roleplaying, since all its rules originate from combat. What do you think ? )

Quote from: Ladybird;566728Sure, I'd agree with that. I don't have any major problems with being on the plot railroad, sometimes it's fun, but it's not how I really like to game.

What we need isn't big letters saying DON'T DO THIS, because it's pointless to just tell people they're doing things wrong without trying to help them do it right. It's guides on how to avoid doing it, guides on how to set things up and watch them go, and encouragements to not get attached and protective about bits of your campaign world. It's not something you can teach, it's something that has to be learned through experience.

One book that I've read recently with plenty of advice on that sort of thing - and there are others, of course - is... Apocalypse World. Which specifically says "do not plan storylines, provide scope for confrontations" at a number of points, and gives methods to help with that.

But another other thing that you need is lists of STUFF you can just pull out, at the table, to keep things going and to give you quick imagination-jogs, because coming up with a world on the fly is HARD; at the risk of sounding like a fanboy, SWN and Other Dust have plenty of tools for that, and there's things like Vornheim (Which I really should get) and all of Zak S's blog in general.

I agree, it's better to help a GM understand how to run a game without railroading his players. And I'd expect that nearly all well-written RPG books have at least some advice for GMs on running a game. (But that's almost a tautology; if an RPG book doesn't have that section, it's probably not very well-written.) I also think that most of the GMs you and I would consider "good" GMs have read a lot of those and put that advice into use. They may have also been to a few seminars at conventions on how to run better games, and asked for advice in online forums because they really want to improve as GMs.

The problem is GMs who insist on railroading. (I'm not talking about "noobs" who don't know any better here, but the experienced GMs who are convinced they know what they're doing.) They've read all the advice in their books and ignored it, don't go to seminars at conventions because they already know it all, and don't ask for advice online. Some people can't be taught; you can lead a horse to water, but you can't hold his head underneath it until the bubbles stop coming out.

Fortunately I've found these latter types uncommon. I game with them once, and if they don't "get" the problem then I move on and game elsewhere. So do most of their other players.

Quote from: silva;566796If thats the case, why not create a new word for your specific definition ? I mean, roleplaying already have a very clear definition - the act of playing a role. Add a "game" to that and you have a "game where you play a role". Simple.

Isnt it more logical to invent a new term/word for the specific form of roleplaying game you guys mention here ? What about "Sim-Roleplaying" or somethign like that ?

That's certainly one option; however, I think it behooves those pushing an activity beyond its original boundaries to come up with a new term for what they've created. Right now, it's as if rock n' roll were still calling itself just another sort of blues.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566798That's certainly one option; however, I think it behooves those pushing an activity beyond its original boundaries to come up with a new term for what they've created.

Exactly. So anyone not using classes and levels or playing outside the fantasy genre is not allowed to call themselves a roleplayer. :-P

I should point out also that according to Old Geezer's posts on rpg.net, OD&D as run by Gygax did not prioritise immersion very much at all.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;566798Right now, it's as if rock n' roll were still calling itself just another sort of blues.

But if someone argued that techno, classical, and blues were all types of music, but that rock n' roll was something else entirely and had no more in common with proper music than chess or cycling (relegating it to the 'other activities' sub fora, no less), you'd think they were pretty crazy, right?

Quote from: silva;566796If thats the case, why not create a new word for your specific definition ? I mean, roleplaying already have a very clear definition - the act of playing a role. Add a "game" to that and you have a "game where you play a role". Simple. Isnt it more logical to invent a new term/word for the specific style of roleplaying game you guys mention here, instead of trying to impose a new meaning on something already stablished ?

(I suggest something in the line of "Simulation-Roleplaying" or just "Sim-Roleplaying". Games like D&D could even be called Combat-Roleplaying, since all its rules originate from combat. What do you think ? )

This I think is the answer. Off the top of my head you have:

Challenge RPG: we are actively and predominantly trying to win 'encounters' and overcome obstacles through tactical play
Simulation RPG: we are actively and predominantly trying to experience a feeling of 'being there' in the gameworld
Storygame RPG: we are actively and predominantly trying to create a story through the actions of our characters
Storytelling RPG: we are predominantly trying to experience a story through the actions of our characters and the plotting of the GM

Quote from: soviet;566801But if someone argued that techno, classical, and blues were all types of music, but that rock n' roll was something else entirely and had no more in common with proper music than chess or cycling (relegating it to the 'other activities' sub fora, no less), you'd think they were pretty crazy, right?

Good thing no one is doing that here then, right?

Seriously, sometimes I think the distinction denial is simply out of concern that once the distinction is drawn, it will be somehow used to marginalize something someone likes.

Since the concept of the "physics of the world" task-resolution engine used in the original RPGs has its roots in wargaming, it's no surprise that you can use one of these systems and not role-play much at all.  

If that's how someone is used to playing RPGs, it really is no surprise that drawing a distinction between that and a game where the mechanics require you to be outside your character becomes difficult to see, because you're already there, for you there really is no difference.

Quote from: soviet;566806This I think is the answer. Off the top of my head you have:

Challenge RPG: we are actively and predominantly trying to win 'encounters' and overcome obstacles through tactical play
Simulation RPG: we are actively and predominantly trying to experience a feeling of 'being there' in the gameworld
Storygame RPG: we are actively and predominantly trying to create a story through the actions of our characters
Storytelling RPG: we are predominantly trying to experience a story through the actions of our characters and the plotting of the GM

I agree. But youre naming the different styles acording to what the players are wanting to do. Instead, I think its more coherent to classify it acording to what the rules look like/try to acomplish.

So, I think we would have 3 main categories:

- D&D-like games could be called simply Combat-RPGs, since all its rules stem from combat.

- Runequest-like games could be called Sim-RPGs.

- Houses of the Blooded-like games could be called Narrative-RPGs.


(Vampire is a schyzo one, since its fluff and texts promote storytelling, but its system dont, at least not more than it does other styles)

Quote from: soviet;566788So WFRP 1e isn't a roleplaying game because of fate points?

Of course not but fate points are a metagame mechanic, something that the player can do but not the character. The presence of metagame mechanic is not sufficient to say this game a RPG that game is a storygame. No more than the fact Freedom in the Galaxy had rules for individual characters make it a roleplaying game.

What ultimately make a game a storygame, an RPG, or wargame is the focus. In Freedom in the Galaxy it was two people fighting for control using fleets, armies and character. In D&D it is a group of character exploring dangerous locales and finding treasure, in Once a upon a time it about constructing a collaborative narrative based around fairy tales by the use of a card deck.

If the game is focused on simulating a situation with opposing sides then it is a wargame.

If the game is focused on the playing of individual characters who actions are adjudicated by a referee then it is a roleplaying game

If the game is focused on the creating of a collaborative narrative through the cooperation and moderation of the players then it is a story game.

Wargames can have individual characters
Roleplaying games can have metagame mechanics
Storygames can assign individual characters to specific players.

What make them different is what they focus on.

Quote from: estar;566815Of course not but fate points are a metagame mechanic, something that the player can do but not the character. The presence of metagame mechanic is not sufficient to say this game a RPG that game is a storygame. No more than the fact Freedom in the Galaxy had rules for individual characters make it a roleplaying game.

What ultimately make a game a storygame, an RPG, or wargame is the focus. In Freedom in the Galaxy it was two people fighting for control using fleets, armies and character. In D&D it is a group of character exploring dangerous locales and finding treasure, in Once a upon a time it about constructing a collaborative narrative based around fairy tales by the use of a card deck.

If the game is focused on simulating a situation with opposing sides then it is a wargame.

If the game is focused on the playing of individual characters who actions are adjudicated by a referee then it is a roleplaying game

If the game is focused on the creating of a collaborative narrative through the cooperation and moderation of the players then it is a story game.

Wargames can have individual characters
Roleplaying games can have metagame mechanics
Storygames can assign individual characters to specific players.

What make them different is what they focus on.

OK, but storygames also focus on the playing of individual characters whose actions are adjudicated by a referee. Burning Wheel has that just as much as Pathfinder or 4e does.

Quote from: silva;566812I agree. But youre naming the different styles acording to what the players are wanting to do. Instead, I think its more coherent to classify it acording to what the rules look like/try to acomplish.

So, I think we would have 3 main categories:

- D&D-like games could be called simply Combat-RPGs, since all its rules stem from combat.

- Runequest-like games could be called Sim-RPGs.

- Houses of the Blooded-like games could be called Narrative-RPGs.

So... CNS then?