Quote from: jhkim;624666For what it's worth, MetroFinal (the game mentioned in the OP) is in beta release and free from the author in that form.  Also, it does not call itself an RPG.  (I haven't played it myself.)  

http://corvidsun.com/2011/11/05/metrofinal-beta-released/

Yep, that was definitely it

Quote from: Simlasa;624386Yeah, for me it was 'Once Upon A Time'... which is a great game.

A really awesome game.....

Forever ruined for me because of a somewhat disturbing use of an ending card many years ago.

Its amazing the amount of wrong that can be communicated by four little words.

"....and it fit perfectly"

Quote from: CRKrueger;624581Yeah, at most, if you want to criticize the guy, ding him for not having a free quick-start available.

Can't even do that I'm afraid!

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/98108/Other-Worlds-Free-Preview-Edition

Quote from: soviet;624808Can't even do that I'm afraid!

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/98108/Other-Worlds-Free-Preview-Edition

The Bastard!

My definition of RPG is any game where I can play from a character's PoV at some point in the process of play. Yes, it is broad, but I also define board games as anything that can be played on a board.

So things like Chess and Go are not RPGs (no character perspective). And things like Universalis are Storygames to me (cannot act from character perspective), but everything else is a gray area.

Quote from: trechriron;6243601) People don't generally roleplay from a first person "in character" perspective.

While some games may focus more on character PoV than others, what you describe is almost always a product of confidence and comfort rather than taste. And the safer people feel in a group, the more likely they are to take their character's PoV.

You can even see a transition between children and adults pretty clearly. Young kids take character PoV almost exclusive. Adolescents take character PoV most of the time, but will break character if something occurs which doesn't match their expectations. Adults take a director's PoV most of the time, to maintain control, consensus, and emotional distance.

It has NOTHING to do with Storygames specifically. I've seen people play 'Storygames' (like Fiasco) by describing what their character says instead of just saying it. So far so good, but I see the same players play 'RPGs' exactly the same way.

Quote from: trechriron;6243602) Things get gonzo. Every time. People get weird at the story game table, trying to accomplish things that seem WAY out of genre just because they can.

If this is happening then it's either a badly designed Storygame or the players are ignoring the rules. Because the whole point of a Storygame is to focus premise, theme, and tone.

There's a reason Improv is almost always gonzo. It's because the rules to freeform Improv do not constrain results enough to explicitly avoid it, and because gonzo is safe. It's all about issues of emotional safety.

For example, there's no rule in freeform Improv that says I can't propose I just ran over my cat with a car. But most of the time that proposition will be built on for comedy effect because who the hell wants to deal with the genuine emotional repercussions of that as characters? And if you treat any important topic such as health care, torture, right to choose, gun ownership, global warming in any other way, you risk triggering someone. Again, all about emotional safety.

FUCK THAT NOISE! >_<  That's not why I play. Gonzo is fun, but even in that I want something a little more open, honest, and substantial.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;624767A really awesome game.....

Forever ruined for me because of a somewhat disturbing use of an ending card many years ago.

Its amazing the amount of wrong that can be communicated by four little words.

"....and it fit perfectly"

Many of the "Happy Ever After" cards in Once Upon a Time tend to be ambiguous enough for unhappy endings: for example, "They ate it at the feast and it was delicious", "So he realized how loyal his brother had been", or "And when they died they passed it on to their children".

I have no problem with separating some games as 'not rpgs', after all boardgames cardgames and video games are, ime, not rpgs either. What annoys me is this bizarre one man crusade against a proposition that has no evidential basis: that these games and, more importantly, their creators are actively destroying those things that are rpgs, and that this necessitates active manouevreing of threads on this board according to some paranoid sorting hat process. Neither of those things are productive.

I have yet to find a story game that interests me, but their existence, even those that really do some like a load of tosh, doesn't offend me nor impinge on my own interests. This hobby survived hobby game stores giving space over to Magic the Gathering (and all that passed after it, including the insanity of Pokemon), I don't think any of these games, where they are even sold, is going to do any worse.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010My definition of RPG is any game where I can play from a character's PoV at some point in the process of play. .., but everything else is a gray area.

I don't agree with your definition of an RPG. If you're not playing from a character's perspective, you're not roleplaying IMO. You're certainly playing a game. I don't mind that the games exist or people play them, hell I played various "story" games for years. I think there are some creative and savvy people making these games. My experience is not a value judgement of the people or the games. It IS a value judgement regarding my feelings about playing those games.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010While some games may focus more on character PoV than others, what you describe is almost always a product of confidence and comfort rather than taste. And the safer people feel in a group, the more likely they are to take their character's PoV.

You can even see a transition between children and adults pretty clearly. Young kids take character PoV almost exclusive. Adolescents take character PoV most of the time, but will break character if something occurs which doesn't match their expectations. Adults take a director's PoV most of the time, to maintain control, consensus, and emotional distance.

I've had 14 year old girls roll up on a group at a demo at the FLGS, ham it up in first person, and play it up like a pro. I've had 50 year old veterans direct 3rd person non-committal game play like a socially reclusive (what I thought would be) 14 year old girl. I don't care if you're not confident or emotionally secure. I just want you to play a character, from that character's POV. I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but my experience informs me that these games are designed with a heaping helping of meta game involvement. That HAS to impact game play regardless of a player's emotional maturity. After playing several of these games, I believe that factor is more profound than a player's emotional security.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010It has NOTHING to do with Storygames specifically. I've seen people play 'Storygames' (like Fiasco) by describing what their character says instead of just saying it. So far so good, but I see the same players play 'RPGs' exactly the same way.

I disagree. Your example speaks to what I think storygames are encouraging in game play. It is true some players play RPGs in 3rd person. I don't like that either. I encourage players in my games to work past any "fear" and just get into it. I've had great success encouraging people to do so. My experience with storygames, is they have mechanics that encourage the "director's" stance. I appreciate you feel it has nothing to do with it, but my experience informs me differently.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010If this is happening then it's either a badly designed Storygame or the players are ignoring the rules. Because the whole point of a Storygame is to focus premise, theme, and tone.

The games I have played or ran are touted as some of the best designed story games; Mountain Witch, Dogs in the Vineyard, Fiasco, Dread, Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, Lady Blackbird, Tech Noir and a couple I have forgot the names of. I appreciate the "point" of Story Games, I was well versed in Forge theory, have been schooled by several indie game designers on why they made the choices they made, and I think I have a pretty clear understanding of the design principles. These games are designed to evoke a different play style. Period. It's a hallmark for these designers and the games do work as designed. I just don't consider that play style to be fun. I also have experienced the effect it has on the players at the table and these games do not encourage a play style I appreciate. Perhaps others' experience is different.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010... It's all about issues of emotional safety.

I don't want to psychoanalyze people's emotional security at my table. I just want to play and have fun. Story games yielded very little fun for me. I found the whole 3rd person director let's game our game style to be trying. Your thoughts on improv and gonzo are nice. For you. I just don't like that crap at my table. Maybe if the genre calls for it, and we're playing a lighter game. But again, my experience was a constant jarring me out of character and out of belief as the antics at the table were what I consider gonzo (<--pejorative).

I would like to shift the nomenclature to a taxonomy like this:

story games
|
RPGs -- non-RPGs
|
traditional -- non-traditional

I think that

(a) it's needlessly awkward to be calling games that centrally involve role-playing "not role-playing games", and games that centrally involve emergence of story (more on which later) "not story games"

(b) the terms are being applied in a very pariochial fashion that may not be clear to the much larger majority of the game-playing public

I have in mind the confusion and disputation engendered by people who call this or that game of war "not a wargame," when the really useful distinction is that it's not designed as a simulation.

The currently developing situation is fraught with negative emotions; Al and Bob can easily agree that their tastes differ, but when they accuse each other of "not playing an RPG" sparks may fly.

I think a game probably fits in the "story game" category if it often seems worthwhile to point out how it's not like a novel or TV show. That's been the case with RPGs ever since D&D moved beyond its initial audience of wargamers.

Story does not necessarily mean "predetermined story." A real-life biography is a story; whether it is deterministic or probabilistic is something we cannot know from this frame of reference, but most people seem to have a sense of "free will."

Fiction ranges from the "slice of life" packed with verisimilitude to the artfully "well-crafted tale." Games can head in either direction, regardless of other elements.

Most "traditional" RPGs are also wargames, but not all wargames are RPGs. Likewise, despite the focus of interest at Web sites such as this, not all story games involve playing the role of a particular character.

Among those that do, some limit players to doing what their characters can do, while others allow them out-of-character options.

Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't agree with your definition of an RPG. If you're not playing from a character's perspective, you're not roleplaying IMO. You're certainly playing a game. I don't mind that the games exist or people play them, hell I played various "story" games for years. I think there are some creative and savvy people making these games. My experience is not a value judgement of the people or the games. It IS a value judgement regarding my feelings about playing those games.

So where does World of Warcraft fit into your model? It is certainly described by some as an MMORPG.


It's (by definition) not a traditional boardgame, wargame, or tabletop RPG.

It can be be played as a FPS, without any RP element at all.

It can be played in character on "RP servers", with heavy emphasis on chat-roleplaying. We would all likely agree the ruleset is not conducive to that kind of gameplay (since the game focus is about splatting mobs and bosses), but that's simply a limitation of the current format and technology, it's not too hard to imagine a WoW2 that made such social roleplaying a more feasible aspect of the game.



For myself I see all these games, including D&D, V:TM, MLWM, as overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.


Is Hold'Em Poker an RPG? By the strict definition some would like to apply, of course not. Maths, reading your opponent, and luck, are key pillars of the game. But there is definitely a degree of roleplaying involved as well. I'm a better poker player because of my years of experience rolling d20s.

Quote from: Motorskills;625488So where does World of Warcraft fit into your model? It is certainly described by some as an MMORPG. ...

For myself I see all these games, including D&D, V:TM, MLWM, as overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.

Is Hold'Em Poker an RPG? ...

WoW is a computer game. I play tabletop in-person roleplaying games. I wouldn't consider it (or any computer games) for my "model". Also, you won't be convincing me anytime soon that they fall into any model for RPGs.

I don't play most computer games (a few RTS things here and there, but generally don't play 'em). I don't consider any computer games to currently support my desire for 1st person in-character interaction.

I can buy into the idea of a Venn diagram. Just note that I will point at my happy place on it and probably not enjoy much else mapped on it. You can argue that games include some elements of roleplaying to varying degrees. I just probably won't enjoy many of them. :-)

Quote from: trechriron;625549WoW is a computer game. I play tabletop in-person roleplaying games. I wouldn't consider it (or any computer games) for my "model". Also, you won't be convincing me anytime soon that they fall into any model for RPGs.

I don't play most computer games (a few RTS things here and there, but generally don't play 'em). I don't consider any computer games to currently support my desire for 1st person in-character interaction.

I can buy into the idea of a Venn diagram. Just note that I will point at my happy place on it and probably not enjoy much else mapped on it. You can argue that games include some elements of roleplaying to varying degrees. I just probably won't enjoy many of them. :-)

I do appreciate your position. I guess my frustration is with the one-true-wayism espoused by those who argue that roleplaying games can only equate to (old-school) tabletop role-playing games.

Role-playing games precede D&D, and new variants (LARP for example) crop up all the time.

The reason I roll my eyes is that even for OSTTRPGs
a) you don't need a tabletop any more, new technology allows a wide variety of formats
b) D&D didn't start out as a roleplaying game


For me the Venn diagram model does work very well. And I would hesitate to put D&D even at the heart of the model. To me it's just another circle, albeit a large, popular, and important one.

While _I_ don't find WoW an enjoyable roleplaying experience, I'm certainly not going to snipe at those gamers that do RP their WoW characters. That style of gaming is a circle, and it does overlap with other elements of the hobby, albeit in a limited way.

"Role playing" certainly precedes D&D; but the "Role Playing Game" starts with D&D.  It has produced certain notable variants, like "Computer RPGs" (and its subset, MMORPGs), or "Live Action Role Playing Games" (though you could in fact argue that LARPing also predated the tabletop RPG, it just wasn't termed a "roleplaying game" until well after tabletop RPGs emerged).

Storygames also emerged from RPGs.  Like LARPing or computer-RPGs (tabletop RPGs' other offspring) or Wargames (RPGs' "ancestor"), they too are a different hobby. The chief foundation of my argument against Storygames is that their advocates refuse to recognize themselves as such.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;626211The chief foundation of my argument against Storygames is that their advocates refuse to recognize themselves as such.

RPGPundit

and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;626211"Role playing" certainly precedes D&D; but the "Role Playing Game" starts with D&D.  It has produced certain notable variants, like "Computer RPGs" (and its subset, MMORPGs), or "Live Action Role Playing Games" (though you could in fact argue that LARPing also predated the tabletop RPG, it just wasn't termed a "roleplaying game" until well after tabletop RPGs emerged).

Storygames also emerged from RPGs.  Like LARPing or computer-RPGs (tabletop RPGs' other offspring) or Wargames (RPGs' "ancestor"), they too are a different hobby. The chief foundation of my argument against Storygames is that their advocates refuse to recognize themselves as such.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;626278and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.

I have to say I don't consider it a different hobby, and I am pretty sure you would have a hard time convincing a non-gamer of the fact as well.

I think the main flaw with your argument Pundit are those games that have a foot in both camps (even if they haven't been written yet .

Something like chess-boxing is a deliberate attempt to weld two seemingly-incompatible hobbies together, and they really had to contort the fabric of reality to mesh them together as they did. (Looks hella fun though!

But a storygame with OSTTRPG elements is much easier to imagine, as would an OSTTRPG that featured storygame chapters.

But I think more importantly, the need to create such a firm division between the two hobbies (if you will) only serves to inhibit innovation IMO.



TLDR - the walls are thin, perhaps illusory, and are potentially damaging to the wider gaming hobby.