Quote from: Emperor Norton;621193How would you define something like the ability to activate an opportunity to create a resource in MHRP.

Quick rundown for people who aren't familiar: Resources represent contacts/info/items that you get to help you out in the coming scenes. Normally you can only create them during transition scenes when there is a bit of downtime.

On the other hand, if the GM rolls a 1 on one of his die, you can spend a plot point to create one on the spot.

To me personally, this doesn't feel narrative.

Thats about as narrative as it gets. Per scene resources? Plot points?

Quote from: Bill;621437If I were to join a game you were running, you would not have any idea I ran rpgs without them unless I mentioned it.

You might be able to conceal it for a while, but not over the long term. The truth always comes out.

Quote from: gleichman;621444You might be able to conceal it for a while, but not over the long term. The truth always comes out.

That does not really make sense.

I am adept and experienced with maps and minis.

The truth would simply be that I am also able to play without maps and minis.

I would also not conceal it; no reason to do that.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;621438Thats about as narrative as it gets. Per scene resources? Plot points?

A scene is just a period of time given a distinct measurement to determine the length of effects. Its definitely a bit metagamey, but metagame != narrative. 4e has effective scenes in "per encounter" type stuff. And as has already been determined in this thread 4e is heavy metagame, but not narrative.

Plot Points is just a name. They could have been called Hero Points, or Power Points, or whatever the fuck you want to call them. I don't see them as anything different from what Benoist was describing of hero points in Bond.

I still see nothing but an argument of intent, except in the case of gleichman who's argument is so hilariously dogmatic that I'm not sure any game actually qualifies as an RPG if you look at it closely enough.

And even if it is narrative, which I won't say it isn't, only saying that everything about your argument that it is is semantic, does the inclusion of ANY narrative mechanics suddenly make a game no longer an RPG?

Where is the line. I'm not saying there is no difference between RPGs and Storygames, I'm saying that there are lots and lots of blending between the two, and tons of corner cases that a group of 5 dudes could never classify as cleanly one or the other unless they were hiveminding.

Does MHRP have narrative mechanics... yeah it does. I'm pretty sure it does. I don't think that disqualifies it in its entirety from being an RPG or being PLAYED as an RPG. This is the other problem. Look at how Benoist described how jibbajabba (sp?) played Bond. I think this is really why there is so much disagreement over what is and isn't a ____ game. jibbajabba was clearly playing a narrative game according to Benoist, but was DOING IT WITH A GAME THAT WAS NOT A NARRATIVE GAME.

Just because a game is designed one way, doesn't mean it can't be played in another. When I played MHRP, I was playing AS Cyclops. I always felt like I was playing as Cyclops and I was making decisions I felt Cyclops would make (mostly being a leader and kind of an asshole.) While I won't deny there are ways to affect the world outside of your character, I don't even REMEMBER doing it playing as Cyclops.

So was I playing a Storygame as an RPG? Or was I playing an RPG with a few Narrative mechanics? Or was I just playing a Storygame? Or is it possible that how a game is played at the table has just as much to do with what kind of game you are playing as the rules themselves.

(As a note, having read them all, imo MHRP is the LEAST narrative of the C+ games. Also, I know I bring up MHRP a good bit in the discussion, but that is because C+ is the only system I like that could be considered the "other side")

Quote from: Bill;621461I would also not conceal it; no reason to do that.

If you didn't conceal it, you wouldn't get into the game in the first place.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621462I still see nothing but an argument of intent, except in the case of gleichman who's argument is so hilariously dogmatic that I'm not sure any game actually qualifies as an RPG if you look at it closely enough.

To correct your error here, I didn't say that a game with Hero Points wasn't an RPG. I said it was a meta-game story mechanic, and that's all I said.

Oh, and I implied that I hate them- and I do.

Quote from: gleichman;621465To correct your error here, I didn't say that a game with Hero Points wasn't an RPG. I said it was a meta-game story mechanic, and that's all I said.

Oh, and I implied that I hate them- and I do.

Fair enough.

Quote from: gleichman;621464If you didn't conceal it, you wouldn't get into the game in the first place.

That makes sense to you?

Quote from: Bill;621469That makes sense to you?

Of course.

Adding a new player to a group can be a painful experience, and I'm too old and too set in my ways to waste my time with people who wouldn't fit in with the existing group.

So if you said, "Map and minis based tactical play? I can take it or leave it".

My response is leave it, I don't need someone who isn't committed. I have cats to seat warm although they are rough with the dice.

Quote from: gleichman;621475Of course.

Adding a new player to a group can be a painful experience, and I'm too old and too set in my ways to waste my time with people who wouldn't fit in with the existing group.

So if you said, "Map and minis based tactical play? I can take it or leave it".

My response is leave it, I don't need someone who isn't committed. I have cats to seat warm although they are rough with the dice.

You could not be more wrong.

That's funny. I am probably the most commited player you will ever meet.

I also easily rank in the upper percentiles of skill with maps and minis.

Quote from: Bill;621480You could not be more wrong.

That's funny. I am probably the most commited player you will ever meet.

I also easily rank in the upper percentiles of skill with maps and minis.

Sorry, but your take it or leave it approach leaves me cold. And I have to go with that impression no matter what you think of your own abilities.

Besides, you wouldn't want to play in my campaign anyway. Homegrown rules governed by traditional morality and a bizarre mix of meta-plot and individual freedom. Insanity according to today's gaming world.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621066changeable with whatever lowlife dick who talked down to your style.

They aren't. There are plenty of designers who just like the style and write for it, and don't give a single FUCK about taking away your toys are calling you a bad bad gamer for liking something else. Let them game in peace, all you are doing is engendering and continuing a war that is unnecessary and toxic to the community.

+1. QFT.

Plus, see my sig.

Quote from: gleichman;621475Of course.

Adding a new player to a group can be a painful experience, and I'm too old and too set in my ways to waste my time with people who wouldn't fit in with the existing group.

Your stubborness is keeping you from having fun.

I mean, seriously.  Getting new players is 'painful'?  Yeesh! If they're turds, I boot them after 1 session.  I don't claim to be able to read minds upon first meeting a person.  It's the play which shakes things out.  Even if we disagree after an initial chat, I usually give a new player the benefit of the doubt if they show respect and interest.

My friend, with that attitude you'll be roleplaying to a mirror soon.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621462Just because a game is designed one way, doesn't mean it can't be played in another.

(Since I can actually have a conversation with you)

That's true of a majority of games in the middle (it's a shades of gray thing, remember, but that doesn't mean there aren't clearly two types of games, just like you can put wargames elements into role playing games and vice versa doesn't mean there are no such things as "wargames" and "role playing games" distinct from each other).

Another example of that is the WoD games, which I ran in "by Night" sandbox fashion, before sandbox was a "thing", while not caring for the "storytelling" spin on the games. But there are also games which might be hard on the extremes to pick up from one style to play into the other.

Actually, it's probably easier to play something that doesn't involve narrative mechanics as a narrative game, construing the game as a storyline, with plot, narrative building and so on, rather than the reverse, i.e. playing a trad campaign with a game that does involve narrative mechanics, mostly because these games's schtick tends to revolve around these mechanics, so if you ignore them, you're losing like 50+% of what makes the game interesting in the first place, whereas you can always add plot points or whatnot to a trad game without having to ignore a whole bunch of stuff in the process.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;621491Your stubborness is keeping you from having fun.

Hardly.

It was my attempt to be opened minded and accept some of the things I don't now that caused me problems. Currently I'm having a blast with people I know and trust.

And basically that's how we get new players when that should happen, people we know and trust. I've given up on the existing gamer population, way too poisoned by the current industry and its failures. I don't have time anymore to retrain them like I used to.