Not that it matters at all, but when it comes to computer/videogames I always thought of the old text-based Infogram games, and newer stuff like Kings Quest, Kyrandia and the Monkey Island games as 'adventure games'... they're not much about combat and more about searching and choices. AFAIK your character doesn't 'level up' in those games they way they do in RPGs like Final Fantasy and such. So combat and character improvement seem to be what I associate with CRPGs.

No, I think you're onto something. It sounds like backwards taxonomy creep (totally a thing, too ;-) ). That is, computer game taxonomists often distinguish computer Adventure Games from computer Role Playing Games. I wonder if the dude in question was trying to extend that to tabletop games.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;875560People make arbitrary bullshit distinctions all the time.

"Role playing game" is a term somebody pulled out of his ass in 1976 and we all said "sounds good."

There never was a precise taxonomic analysis.

Right here.

We waste far too much energy and breath trying to invent labels, and then foam at the mouth for decades defending our inventions.  To a large degree, this is the root of my hatred for GNS: knowing that a certain game is "simulationist" -- or, far more correctly, that someone claims that it's "simulationist" -- does jack shit to help me run it or play it.

Gronan, just out of curiosity, what did Gary call D&D coming out of the gate?  A wargame, or some other appellation?

Quote from: Ravenswing;875635We waste far too much energy and breath trying to invent labels, and then foam at the mouth for decades defending our inventions.

I've got a degree in botany and so much energy was spent identifying/classifying plants by their morphology... I could see the use but always knew it was imaginary language... so I was secretly joyful when DNA evidence started coming out that a good bit of the old relationships were wrong.

Quote from: Warthur;875549Shawn Driscoll is the one who was pushing this distinction in the MgT2 thread, though I confess I only have the haziest idea what he is talking about.

So far as I can tell, he believes that immersive roleplaying with the players making decisions from an in-character perspective based on what their characters would know and feel about a situation was basically not known in the early hobby - certainly it must be a post-1977 innovation, by his reckoning, since he classes Classic Traveller as an adventure game.

Which is not true to the point of being funny:).
Gronan has told the tale how in pre-publication OD&D games, they were playing without knowing what the rules were.

Quote from: Ravenswing;875635Right here.

We waste far too much energy and breath trying to invent labels, and then foam at the mouth for decades defending our inventions.  To a large degree, this is the root of my hatred for GNS: knowing that a certain game is "simulationist" -- or, far more correctly, that someone claims that it's "simulationist" -- does jack shit to help me run it or play it.

Gronan, just out of curiosity, what did Gary call D&D coming out of the gate?  A wargame, or some other appellation?

Isn't the answer to that on the OD&D's cover, and in TSR's name;)?

For people who missed the thread that birthed this one, here's some context:

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;875491They are different game styles is all. I prefer only one of them. Most people prefer only one of them. No one plays both styles.

There is a world of difference between the Classic rules and the Mongoose rules. They are not compatible with each other. Players that don't role-play go for the Classic rules and are more than happy with them. The rules cater to their adventure gaming style. If you know of a Classic Traveller player group that role-plays, I would love to hear about it. I have not heard of any since '77.

And when I called him on that bullshit, this is the reply I got:

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;875505No problem, Nathan. I'm used to non-role-players getting upset with me. I would think that strength in numbers would make you feel better on your side. It's nice to be in bigger group where others play your style. But no, that never seems to be the case, adventure gamers are not happy as long as there are still role-players in much smaller groups.

As you can see, it's the typical ego driven nonsense you find on the internet when someone decides they get to be the gate keeper of who is a real participant in their hobby.

My own approach is actually an extreme minority position where the players don't have any rules on their character sheets and as much of the game mechanics as possible are held behind the screen.  Players only have description to make decision making off of and can only do things by describing what their character does and having dialogue.  I also get to play in a game like that another friend runs about once a month.  

However, since I expressed a positive initial impression of Classic Traveller (and more importantly, disagreed with Shawn Driscoll) I immediately lost my role-player status and became one of the teeming masses of adventure gamers who just can't be happy as long as real role-players are doing their thing out there some where.  Woe is me. :rotfl:

It was both ludicrous and hilarious.

Quote from: Ravenswing;875635Gronan, just out of curiosity, what did Gary call D&D coming out of the gate?  A wargame, or some other appellation?

He called it a "Fantastic Medieval Wargame" on the cover.

The original rules don't call it a Roleplaying game, but they do say that it's a game where you play a role:

QuoteBefore they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user.

I think "playing a role" morphed into "role-playing", and that this is a description of the game, not a name applied later to describe optional extra elements. That is, the term describes the central conceit of D&D - the referee tells you what your character sees / hears / experiences, you ask questions about this information and say what your character does. The rules are used to resolve situations, as opposed to driving gameplay.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;875539To me, the difference between RPGs and adventure games are best qualified by comparing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (a RPG) to Warhammer Quest (an adventure game).

Adventure games are hybrid board games with light RPG elements, adding random elements of danger to the game. An RPG, on the other hand, is the evolution beyond the board.

Quote from: Omega;875575In board gaming circles an Adventure game usually has a board of some sort and usually more rigid and focused rules and scope. Dungeoncrawling devoid, or darn close to, of role playing would be the best example. Melee/Wizard, Warhammer Quest, HeroQuest, Arkham Horror and Descent come to mind. Solo Gamebooks fall into this as well.

This is roughly my understanding of the terms as normally used.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;875597I reiterate what I said before on the matter, having been the initial person in conflict with Shawn: this was a straw man argument with no root to it beyond condescension.

In this particular case, given the context and how he hurled the "not-roleplay" epithet around, I'm quite convinced that this is how Shawn was using the terms.  He is, however, more than welcome to refute this conclusion.

Quote from: NathanIW;875654My own approach is actually an extreme minority position where the players don't have any rules on their character sheets and as much of the game mechanics as possible are held behind the screen.  Players only have description to make decision making off of and can only do things by describing what their character does and having dialogue.

We experimented with that style in my last ACKS campaign and it went quite well, despite initial skepticism from many of those involved (including myself).  Having tried it, I think I prefer it, since it so handily cuts min-maxing, charop, and other approaches focused more on rules mastery than on interaction off at the knees.  Not to mention that it's much friendlier to players who are new to the game and/or the hobby.

Quote from: nDervish;875661We experimented with that style in my last ACKS campaign and it went quite well, despite initial skepticism from many of those involved (including myself).  Having tried it, I think I prefer it, since it so handily cuts min-maxing, charop, and other approaches focused more on rules mastery than on interaction off at the knees.  Not to mention that it's much friendlier to players who are new to the game and/or the hobby.

In my group it stuck for all those reasons.  I had to talk a couple people into trying it.  People occasionally ask to sit in on a session to learn how to play first and I just tell them they don't have anything really to learn.  Just describe what they want to do.  Ask other player's for advice.  Go from there.

Every so often I go around the table at the beginning of a session and ask people questions about their character and what they are good at and so on to make sure I'm on the same page as them and it's never come up that they've developed a radically different set of expectations.

Quote from: Skarg;875628No, I think you're onto something. It sounds like backwards taxonomy creep (totally a thing, too ;-) ). That is, computer game taxonomists often distinguish computer Adventure Games from computer Role Playing Games. I wonder if the dude in question was trying to extend that to tabletop games.

Boardgamers use this distinction too.

Its useful too to sort out types of play.

If someone says they are setting up an adventure game then I can reasonably guess its going to be something like Arkham Horror, Descent, Doom, Gears of War, HeroQuest or the 3 D&D Adventure Board Games for example.

Its most often used synonymously with pure hack-n-slash dungeoncrawlers.

If they say they are running an RPG then I would not expect any of the above.

Drifting the term Adventure Game back into RPGs just doesnt work. The term is used differently.

If someone says they are setting up an adventure RPG session that could mean alot of things. But it does not usually bring to mind a pure hack-n-slash dungeoncrawl. For that theyd say they are setting up a dungeoncrawl or hack-n-slash session.

Roleplaying is what Shawn Driscoll does by himself in his solo roleplaying games. Adventure gaming is what everyone else does because we lack his intellectual ability to obfuscate, deviate, hem, and haw.

Quote from: nDervish;875661We experimented with that style in my last ACKS campaign and it went quite well, despite initial skepticism from many of those involved (including myself).  Having tried it, I think I prefer it, since it so handily cuts min-maxing, charop, and other approaches focused more on rules mastery than on interaction off at the knees.  Not to mention that it's much friendlier to players who are new to the game and/or the hobby.

Most people like it once they try it, though it takes a bit to get them weaned off attribute modifiers.

I am having a much harder time getting people weaned on "adventure paths" and modules to learn to find their own adventures.

RPG's? Adventure Games? Pfft. Plebes. I play FMW's.

Fantastic Medieval Wargames!

/gong!

SO mote it be! /devilhorns!


and thus... a new tribe was born.

Quote from: tenbones;875753RPG's? Adventure Games? Pfft. Plebes. I play FMW's.

Fantastic Medieval Wargames!

/gong!

SO mote it be! /devilhorns!


and thus... a new tribe was born.

We prefer to be known as "Board Challenged" now-a-days. :hmm:

I prefer calling mine Math Garage House Games, and I was playing the 12" adventures when it was only available on acetate. Poseurs... :hand:
/returns to my "Echoes of the Afternoon" cold brew coffee.