Quote from: two_fishes;378947This is where I part ways from the OP. Why shouldn't RPGs go in a wide variety of directions, adopts forms from all over the place to suit specific roleplaying desires?

Because then you wind up with a bunch of Murky crap games - and no one really wants that (Except maybe Angsty artsy-fartsy types that never got out of a College Sophomore Philosophy class way of thinking...)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;378948Because then you wind up with a bunch of Murky crap games - and no one really wants that (Except maybe Angsty artsy-fartsy types that never got out of a College Sophomore Philosophy class way of thinking...)

Yeah I guess we should all be happy with the same boring retreads of stuff that's already been done to death until the end of time, right Ed?

Quote from: Koltar;378948Because then you wind up with a bunch of Murky crap games - and no one really wants that (Except maybe Angsty artsy-fartsy types that never got out of a College Sophomore Philosophy class way of thinking...)

Nobody's making you play all of them. The relevant question is, why shouldn't RPGs be varied enough to provide enjoyable play experiences to a variety of people with different play preferences? Why should all RPGs be similar to each other?

Quote from: two_fishes;378947Hm, well since you specify:



That almost seems to strip out the "game" aspect. If you strip out from the definition of role-playing games the things it has in common with war/board/video/card games in the same way you want to strip out the story-telling aspects from any definition, then what kind of game is left? The only sorts of rules that would fit would have to be directly related to enforcing, guiding or encouraging the playing of a role. In slightly more concrete terms, the most roleplaying-ly rules of all might be those that enforced setting, or character boundaries, things like Sanity rules in CoC, or the Virtues and Passions of Pendragon. Things that deepen the player's understanding of the role they are playing. Does that make any sense?



This is where I part ways from the OP. Why shouldn't RPGs go in a wide variety of directions, adopts forms from all over the place to suit specific roleplaying desires?

I don't see where Benny wrote that RPGs shouldn't go in a wide variety of directions. All I see him saying in the OP is that RPGs are not those things he mentioned. Ya know what, they're not. TTRPGs are not capable of providing an identical experience as a MMO, or a novel, or a movie. If folks try to make them provide such an experience it's most likely going to be less than successful. They can provide similar experiences, they can inspire similar feelings of enjoyment, and more. They are not, however, the same. I was disappointed when I read the EQ RPG for this reason. As much as I loved playing EQ, the EQ RPG was never going to feel the same for me. I believe that what Benny is saying is that designing and playing RPGs to try to recreate the experiences of other forms of entertainment and/or experience is most likely going to be disappointing.

At least that's what I get from the OP, he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: Sigmund;378957I don't see where Benny wrote that RPGs shouldn't go in a wide variety of directions. All I see him saying in the OP is that RPGs are not those things he mentioned. Ya know what, they're not.

Well after listing all the things they are not, he wrote what I quoted:

Quote from: Benoist;378672Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become.

Which seems, to my reading that he is saying it's a bad thing to bring influences from board games, war games, story-telling, experiments, movies, etc into RPGS; that RPGs should remain "pure" of being influenced by other media and should not try to do things that fall on the edges of being a RPG.

This idea of purity of form is something I deeply disagree with. In general, I think playing around with form is a good thing. It can lead to failures, but it can also lead to exciting new ways of doing things. You can also find tricks and techniques in other forms that actually work. For a specific example, I've found that describing scenes in play in terms of film scripts, like camera angles and movement, wide shots, medium shots, etc, can be very useful for providing detail and a sense of place. Or, playing around with the form can reveal new aspects of the "essence" of the form.

QuoteTTRPGs are not capable of providing an identical experience as a MMO, or a novel, or a movie. If folks try to make them provide such an experience it's most likely going to be less than successful. They can provide similar experiences, they can inspire similar feelings of enjoyment, and more. They are not, however, the same. I was disappointed when I read the EQ RPG for this reason. As much as I loved playing EQ, the EQ RPG was never going to feel the same for me. I believe that what Benny is saying is that designing and playing RPGs to try to recreate the experiences of other forms of entertainment and/or experience is most likely going to be disappointing.

Obviously, TTRPGs can never provide the exact experience of other mediums of play or entertainment, but they can be enhanced by adopting and re-interpreting ideas from other forms.

Quote from: Shazbot79;378935Randomness.

Can't agree there. Amber is an RPG.

And I think RPGs can be all of these things. Or none of them. I simply prefer to not limit myself or others.

Quote from: two_fishes;378960Which seems, to my reading that he is saying it's a bad thing to bring influences from board games, war games, story-telling, experiments, movies, etc into RPGS; that RPGs should remain "pure" of being influenced by other media and should not try to do things that fall on the edges of being a RPG.

We'll have to ask him what he meant then. I don't think that's what he was saying... hell, the hobby's founders were influenced by those things when they created the hobby. It'd be silly to desire no influence from other media, and I don't think Benny's that silly.

QuoteThis idea of purity of form is something I deeply disagree with. In general, I think playing around with form is a good thing. It can lead to failures, but it can also lead to exciting new ways of doing things. You can also find tricks and techniques in other forms that actually work. For a specific example, I've found that describing scenes in play in terms of film scripts, like camera angles and movement, wide shots, medium shots, etc, can be very useful for providing detail and a sense of place. Or, playing around with the form can reveal new aspects of the "essence" of the form.

Somehow, I don't think what you're describing is what was being objected to. Benny'd hafta weigh in on this. I think it's impossible for RPGs to strive for "purity of form", because they arose out of other "forms". I think what Benny is referring to, at least what I'm reading into it, is trying to create a game that mimics other media too exactly, or focuses too much on things that work better in moderation.

QuoteObviously, TTRPGs can never provide the exact experience of other mediums of play or entertainment, but they can be enhanced by adopting and re-interpreting ideas from other forms.

They can also be enhanced by eschewing ideas from other forms. It all depends on what you wanna do with it, or what your tastes run towards. I once again don't think the OP is calling for an all-out ban on outside influence. I think it's simply trying to say that it's ok for an RPG to be an RPG. It's a game, not a self-help tool, or some high-falutin' art form, or literary masterpiece, or slick eye-candy. The best games are ones that are meant to be played and enjoyed for what they are. If they end up also being aesthetically pleasing and pinnacles of creativity then that's just a bonus.

By the OP, and how I percieve it (and how I have already once answered), Benoist's 'List of Naught' seems to be more of an 'anti-incorporation' rant, an appeal to stop trying to take RPG's under the umbrella of other art forms, to allow it to stand on it's own.
It is not a request for purity; many of the games we create are directly inspired from the 'List of Naught', like literature or movies or crpgs.  It is an affirmation of independence and status.

Quote from: BenoistIf we want to change this, we need to treat role playing games as such. We need to stop endlessly comparing them to other things and try to shape them into something, anything, that they ultimately are not. This has been done time and time again, sometimes with pleasant results, and sometimes with not so pleasant ones. Regardless of these results, I think we need to get beyond this stage, somehow, and let RPGs be RPGs, and evolve as such.

This is not a question vocabulary, structures and design only. It's a problem of mindset and culture.

I don't know if we ever will. I sure wish we would, though.

Quote from: VreegGetting on with them and pushing the evolution.maturation of the RPG hobby is merely a removal of small mindedness. Increase the dialogue and respect. Let me be heretical here, my friend.

Stop trying to make them 'only games'. You want them to stand on themselves as a medium? Then allow them the stature of the other mediums. Every moron who propogates the 'it's just a game' attitude is condemning it to the second class status, the 'Bastard Child' status.
You can't have it both ways. RPGs are games, they are fun, they can be casual, the same way that pulps and paper backs and bad campy moves are fun and lighthearded.
But RPGs can be socially relevant, they can change people and be mature, they can produce emotion, they have flexibility. They can be art.

Only when you allow them the freedom to be fun and serious, only when you allow them to be goofy and intellectual, only when you allow them to incorporate eveything on your 'Naught' list will they evolve into being an equal to movies and literature and performance.

Only when they become equal in our minds will they stop being sublimated to other things. You want RPGs to be treated as such, to stop endlessly comparing them to other things? Treat them as equals to what they are being compared to, and then it will happen.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378991By the OP, and how I percieve it (and how I have already once answered), Benoist's 'List of Naught' seems to be more of an 'anti-incorporation' rant, an appeal to stop trying to take RPG's under the umbrella of other art forms, to allow it to stand on it's own.
It is not a request for purity; many of the games we create are directly inspired from the 'List of Naught', like literature or movies or crpgs.  It is an affirmation of independence and status.

I agree. That's how I read it too.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378991By the OP, and how I percieve it (and how I have already once answered), Benoist's 'List of Naught' seems to be more of an 'anti-incorporation' rant, an appeal to stop trying to take RPG's under the umbrella of other art forms, to allow it to stand on it's own.
It is not a request for purity; many of the games we create are directly inspired from the 'List of Naught', like literature or movies or crpgs.  It is an affirmation of independence and status.

You got it.

Quote from: Sigmund;379045I agree. That's how I read it too.

You too.

tl;dr RPGs are their own thing.

I am doing it right?

Quote from: The Butcher;379144tl;dr RPGs are their own thing.

I am doing it right?

Or at least, they could be, maybe, if we tried.

As for doing it right, I don't know: Are you playing the game RAW or not? For some people, playing RAW is doing it right, others think that not playing RAW is doing it right, ah... what the fuck. Just more muddied water in the end.

Quote from: Benoist;378672I think that RPGs are just that: Role Playing Games.
[...]
Discuss.

I agree with your definition. But what is the point of the discussion?

What purpose does a definition of "rpg" serve? So that when someone invites us to a session we know what we're in for? Not really - invite someone, they don't ask if it'll be an rpg or not, they ask if it'll be D&D, if they can play a drowlesbianstripperninja, where is the game and can someone give them a lift, and so on.

I have gamed with over 500 people in 27 years, and never once has anyone got up from the table saying, "this is not a roleplaying game!" They might complain about the GM railroading them, or not having enough character points to build their character concept, or the system being stupid, or someone else eating all the snacks, but no-one says, "this isn't an rpg!"

So we have a working definition which is agreed on by unspoken consensus. There's no mystery about it. We like to pretend there's a mystery so we can say, "this is an rpg, but this is not - by an amazing coincidence, every game I like is an rpg, and every game I dislike is not." Thus, "rpg" becomes another way of saying "what I like."

But in practice at the game table away from semantic discussions, people agree and know what they're doing is an rpg. So again I ask: what purpose would a more rigorous definition serve?

I'm not saying that any game that would use the term "campaign", or "story" is not an RPG. By that definition, no edition of D&D, and no iteration of Vampire, could possibly be RPGs. That is not what I'm saying.

I am saying that an RPG is not a "campaign", and is not a "story".

There is an important nuance. What I'm advocating is for RPGs to have their own cultural identity, to be more of their own thing, and not just a mish-mash of other media, and build on this.