@CRKrueger

Being a fan of video games as well, I walked over to my shelf of games and started picking up the boxes and reading through.

The closest one of the games got to saying what genre it was on the box was BL2 which listed "A new era of shoot and loot" which... really doesn't tell me what genre other than that I am shooting and looting. (3PS?, FPS?, Loot so is it an Action adventure? RPG?)

Not only that, genre blending is a huge thing in video games now. In reality BL2 is FPS + RPG.

The thing I think is funny is the strict adherence to purity and exact labeling. Honestly this is one of the few places where I've ever seen such a burning desire for genre purity that they get legitimately angry at people who don't care about it much.

The truth is, people will find the games they like and they will play them. All the hyperspecific labeling doesn't matter. If someone buys something in this day and age with all the information we have constantly at our fingertips without doing some cursory research, I honestly have zero sympathy for them.

(Also, find it funny that people mock System Matters, while at the same time absolutely showing the fact that system matters to them. (Yes, yes, I know that there are more connotations in the original Edwards thing about system mattering, but its still funny to me))

Quote from: Emperor Norton;623098@CRKrueger

Being a fan of video games as well, I walked over to my shelf of games and started picking up the boxes and reading through.

The closest one of the games got to saying what genre it was on the box was BL2 which listed "A new era of shoot and loot" which... really doesn't tell me what genre other than that I am shooting and looting. (3PS?, FPS?, Loot so is it an Action adventure? RPG?)

Not only that, genre blending is a huge thing in video games now. In reality BL2 is FPS + RPG.

The thing I think is funny is the strict adherence to purity and exact labeling. Honestly this is one of the few places where I've ever seen such a burning desire for genre purity that they get legitimately angry at people who don't care about it much.

The truth is, people will find the games they like and they will play them. All the hyperspecific labeling doesn't matter. If someone buys something in this day and age with all the information we have constantly at our fingertips without doing some cursory research, I honestly have zero sympathy for them.

(Also, find it funny that people mock System Matters, while at the same time absolutely showing the fact that system matters to them. (Yes, yes, I know that there are more connotations in the original Edwards thing about system mattering, but its still funny to me))

Even funnier when you consider tha the market for most of these Indie story games is so ridiculously small if they sell 500 copies they are on teh Indie game best seller list for 2 years ....

The purity cry isn't just about labelling though, as I pointed out there is a whole grey area between the RPG and the story game and where you draw the line is a matter of taste. How many narative mechanics does a game need before it becomes a 'Story game'. Do they really expect SW Delux to have a disclaimer 'Warning this games uses Bennies which are a kind of a narative mechanic, maybe, so according to some people it might be a bit of a story game".
A game is a game is a game. When I play Escape from Colditz all my little wooden men have their own names and personalities. Each one has prefered escape plans. Bulter is never going to risk a Staff Car run or a Do or Die, he's a tunnel guy, Polowski on the other hand will risk it all every time. So I play the game a bit like an RPG. Likewise if i play Arkham Horror I give my character a personality and way of playing that fits their character blurb not that is hte most efficient way of playing.
Its almost like the purists are asking for a set of fixed rules, this many mechanics then you must call it a Tactical RPG, this many story mechanics and you must call it a Narative RPG etc etc.. they seem to forget they are members of a diminishing hobby and the aim we should all follow is to have fun and encourage more people to play whatever the flavour of the game is.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;623098@CRKrueger

Being a fan of video games as well, I walked over to my shelf of games and started picking up the boxes and reading through.

The closest one of the games got to saying what genre it was on the box was BL2 which listed "A new era of shoot and loot" which... really doesn't tell me what genre other than that I am shooting and looting. (3PS?, FPS?, Loot so is it an Action adventure? RPG?)

Not only that, genre blending is a huge thing in video games now. In reality BL2 is FPS + RPG.

The thing I think is funny is the strict adherence to purity and exact labeling. Honestly this is one of the few places where I've ever seen such a burning desire for genre purity that they get legitimately angry at people who don't care about it much.

The truth is, people will find the games they like and they will play them. All the hyperspecific labeling doesn't matter. If someone buys something in this day and age with all the information we have constantly at our fingertips without doing some cursory research, I honestly have zero sympathy for them.

(Also, find it funny that people mock System Matters, while at the same time absolutely showing the fact that system matters to them. (Yes, yes, I know that there are more connotations in the original Edwards thing about system mattering, but its still funny to me))

Your shelf is one thing, now to go the computer games section at Fry's, Bestbuy etc and take a gander at their shelves labeled, FPS, RPG, Strategy, etc or head on over to Steam or GOG and check out their categories, or go to Amazon and... Etc.  No labels, anywhere , huh? Yeah.

Why do labels matter? The same reason any definition or classification matters.
Why do labels in this case matter?  Because the lack of labeling in some cases is deliberate.  Again, these are designers that have absolutely ZERO problem hyper-defining the specific types of narrative mechanics in their games over on Storygames.com or G+.  It's only when they try to sell the games to role players that the descrptions vanish, unless you can read the ad copy with an eye to the jargon.

One of the card-carrying members of the Distinction Denial brigade, the Jibster says "They sell 500 copies, who cares?", conveniently ignoring that the latest editions of the two largest fantasy IPs are games directly out of the Forge play book.

While Narrativism in RPGs has been around for a long time, the Forge is heavily responsible for the current crop of indie narrative and storygame designers.  The Forge espoused an outright anti-rpg philosophy.  Awful purple is full of people who will tell you DW is an old-school RPG.  Since it really is neither, the reason they are saying it is
1. The are lying, pushing an agenda.
2. The terms Old school and RPG are being broadened and re-defined to mean just about anything, how convenient that such a thing perfectly fits the more extreme positions espoused on the Forge?  Serendipity I guess.

When the term Roleplaying means anything then the term Roleplaying means nothing.  When a term means nothing, it disappears.  When no one can define a Roleplaying game, Roleplaying games disappear.  People seem to forget or disbelieve that there are some narrativists out there who actually want that to happen.  Again, how remarkably convenient that the accidental mislabeling of RPG's work to that end.  Whodathunkit?

Jasyn called Pundit out on his persona and Alinsky tactics.  Protip for those unlike Warpig who haven't figured it out yet:  It was a response in kind.


TL;DR: I'll stop caring when they stop caring.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623112Your shelf is one thing, now to go the computer games section at Fry's, Bestbuy etc and take a gander at their shelves labeled, FPS, RPG, Strategy, etc or head on over to Steam or GOG and check out their categories, or go to Amazon and... Etc.  No labels, anywhere , huh? Yeah.

Why do labels matter? The same reason any definition or classification matters.
Why do labels in this case matter?  Because the lack of labeling in some cases is deliberate.  Again, these are designers that have absolutely ZERO problem hyper-defining the specific types of narrative mechanics in their games over on Storygames.com or G+.  It's only when they try to sell the games to role players that the descrptions vanish, unless you can read the ad copy with an eye to the jargon.

One of the card-carrying members of the Distinction Denial brigade, the Jibster says "They sell 500 copies, who cares?", conveniently ignoring that the latest editions of the two largest fantasy IPs are games directly out of the Forge play book.

While Narrativism in RPGs has been around for a long time, the Forge is heavily responsible for the current crop of indie narrative and storygame designers.  The Forge espoused an outright anti-rpg philosophy.  Awful purple is full of people who will tell you DW is an old-school RPG.  Since it really is neither, the reason they are saying it is
1. The are lying, pushing an agenda.
2. The terms Old school and RPG are being broadened and re-defined to mean just about anything, how convenient that such a thing perfectly fits the more extreme positions espoused on the Forge?  Serendipity I guess.

When the term Roleplaying means anything then the term Roleplaying means nothing.  When a term means nothing, it disappears.  When no one can define a Roleplaying game, Roleplaying games disappear.  People seem to forget or disbelieve that there are some narrativists out there who actually want that to happen.  Again, how remarkably convenient that the accidental mislabeling of RPG's work to that end.  Whodathunkit?

Jasyn called Pundit out on his persona and Alinsky tactics.  Protip for those unlike Warpig who haven't figured it out yet:  It was a response in kind.


TL;DR: I'll stop caring when they stop caring.

But what is the fix?
You highlighting that the evil forgist sympathisers are injecting their venom into all the new games that get produced as if they were fifth columnists who's aim is to destroy all roleplaying.
What woudl you do to fix it?
Establish the Board of Game Classification to correctly label 'games in which you can take on a role of one or more antagonists' to the correct one of 20 sub-types?
What do you do when a game like MB's HeroQuest comes out that is mostly gamist but with lots of RPG elements? Create a new category for it? Don't you just end up with 543 different categories each with one game in it?

My point isn't that there is no distinction between different games but that there is so much distinction and the lines that demark those categories are so nebulous and the total size of the market is so small that there is no point trying to enforce ridgid categories.
I can totally see that part of the Dungeon World 'its just like OD&D' pitch is trying to get new players. But its just a sales pitch. Anyone buying Dungeon World is likely to read a review of it. The size of the market is important. Kids don't stumble across Dungeon World in Wall mart. Its only pitched at people already into games.
And you know what if it was pitched in Wall Mart and it sold 3million copies then great becuase it just bought in 3M new players players who as a result are hugely more likely to play Traveller, Paranoia, Call of Cthulu or Amber

Quote from: CRKrueger;623112Your shelf is one thing, now to go the computer games section at Fry's, Bestbuy etc and take a gander at their shelves labeled, FPS, RPG, Strategy, etc or head on over to Steam or GOG and check out their categories, or go to Amazon and... Etc.  No labels, anywhere , huh? Yeah.

OK, but as I understood it, your point is that it is the responsibility of all story game producers to properly label their products - and that their failure to do so was blameworthy.  As Emperor Norton pointed out, and you didn't dispute - video game producers don't generally label themselves with the  categories you named.  

I don't know video games, but I can confirm this for board games.  There might be somewhere some boardgames that label themselves "Euro game" - but none of the board games in my extensive collection do so.  (I'd be mildly curious if you knew of any.)  

That said, I'm totally behind promoting clearer terminology for labeling RPGs in stores, reviews, etc.  I try to use a consistent terminology in my RPG encyclopedia that communicates features like narrative mechanics, along with having some essays like my history of RPG fashions.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;623098The closest one of the games got to saying what genre it was on the box was BL2 which listed "A new era of shoot and loot" which... really doesn't tell me what genre other than that I am shooting and looting. (3PS?, FPS?, Loot so is it an Action adventure? RPG?)

Borderlands 2, Xbox 360, back of the box:

"Fun Addictive Gameplay. Frenetic first person action meets loot collecting character building roleplaying fun."

Which tells me:

• 1st person action = FPS.
• Character building roleplaying fun = classes, levels, kewl powerz.
• Loot collecting = Collecting loot.

The "1st person action" might be a little opaque to non-gamers, but at least you know, KNOW, it isn't a racer, dating sim, puzzler, 3rd person action-game, or what have you.

That's a pretty specific description, one the rest of the box reinforces.

(Not trying to harangue you, just pointing out text on the box.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623116Borderlands 2, Xbox 360, back of the box:

"Fun Addictive Gameplay. Frenetic first person action meets loot collecting character building roleplaying fun."

Which tells me:

• 1st person action = FPS.
• Character building roleplaying fun = classes, levels, kewl powerz.
• Loot collecting = Collecting loot.

The "1st person action" might be a little opaque to non-gamers, but at least you know, KNOW, it isn't a racer, dating sim, puzzler, 3rd person action-game, or what have you.

That's a pretty specific description, one the rest of the box reinforces.

(Not trying to harangue you, just pointing out text on the box.)

Holy crap, I did miss that line. It did go the furthest towards defining genre on the box itself. The other one that pretty much spelled out the genre it was Eternal Sonata, but that was because it had giant screenshots on the back with "blend of turn based combat" and stuff like that.

Most of the other ones had minimal text, and most of it was just buzzwordy HAVE FUN ADVENTURE IN A WORLD OF X, usually a mention of the setting, stuff like that.

Also, I still once again have no sympathy for people who don't research their purchases. Its too easy now to research stuff.

Quote from: jibbajibba;623114What woudl you do to fix it?

Exactly what I said. Go to their forums, send feedback, or post to a blog or Google+ (yours or theirs) and have calm, clear discussions with fans and designers, where you explain the differences between Cooperative Fiction Creation (aka simming) and roleplaying, and why that matters. Ask them to be clearer.

We're customers. Our dollars matter, especially in a market where one customer is actually a worthwhile get, and one customer can influence 5, 10, 15 more. If you're selling 500 copies, 5 copies is 1% increase.

Piss off one customer, and you could lose 1% of your gross. Just not worth it.

Other topics I'd explore:

Explain why the Narrativist or Gamist approaches have ruined the newest edition of a very old game.

Ask them that, if such mechanics are to be included, they be optional or easily overlooked.

Be patient, be informed, be passionate but friendly.

That's what I'd do to fix it.

Quote from: jhkim;623115As Emperor Norton pointed out, and you didn't dispute - video game producers don't generally label themselves with the  categories you named.

First, I appreciate your site and its deep collection of information about RPG's and RPG mechanics. You should be applauded.

With respect to video games, in my experience video games go out of their way to clearly label themselves with the general public, including their box art, demos, and articles and interviews with gaming sites and gaming magazines.

Honestly, BL2 was a bad pick for Norton, because it has the most clear genre labeling out of the dozen or so games in arm's reach that I glanced at.

CoD4, for example, is described as "the next generation of combat shooter", which means FPS.

That may be somewhat opaque to non-gamers, but CoD is almost a genre in itself (as is, for example, Grand Theft Auto). Smaller games, without that level of name recognition, go out of their way to associate themselves with those landmark market leaders.

They are pretty clear, just not on the back of the box. Again, in my experience. That's anecdotal information, I know, and I'm not trying to pass it off as anything but.

For what its worth.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623112Jasyn called Pundit out on his persona and Alinsky tactics.  Protip for those unlike Warpig who haven't figured it out yet:  It was a response in kind.

I so almost jumped on this. Then, when quoting I gave it a reread, and realized you meant the opposite of what I thought.

Apologies for almost-but-not-quite jumping down your throat? :rotfl:

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623118Exactly what I said. Go to their forums, send feedback, or post to a blog or Google+ (yours or theirs) and have calm, clear discussions with fans and designers, where you explain the differences between Cooperative Fiction Creation (aka simming) and roleplaying, and why that matters. Ask them to be clearer.

We're customers. Our dollars matter, especially in a market where one customer is actually a worthwhile get, and one customer can influence 5, 10, 15 more. If you're selling 500 copies, 5 copies is 1% increase.

Piss off one customer, and you could lose 1% of your gross. Just not worth it.

Other topics I'd explore:

Explain why the Narrativist or Gamist approaches have ruined the newest edition of a very old game.

Ask them that, if such mechanics are to be included, they be optional or easily overlooked.

Be patient, be informed, be passionate but friendly.

That's what I'd do to fix it.

:

But your whole discussion is loaded.
You are starting from a position that gamist and narativist approaches are wrong, primarily because you don't like them.

If I am selling a story game and I [piss off someone that hates story games but bought it becuase i didn't label it a story game I have lost no sales becuase if I had labelled it then you wouldn't have bought it. Much better to sell it to you then let you complain as they already have your money, and you know what if you play it you may actually like it .....

The designers of these games already know the distinction between simming and rpgs. They already know that their game contains story game elements because they um designed it. You can explain to them why you don't like them whcih is a valid exchange but apropos of not a lot.
You you may have more luck persuading them that their game would be more economically viable if they made the 'story' elements (or indeed the gamey or roleplaying-y) more dialable, easy to opt in and out off and they may take that on board, though very few indie game designers are trying to make a living most are just trying to publish a game they want to publish that includes the stuff they think is important in a game. So ...

i) They already know what you are trying to tell them but have a different opinion
ii) they are not in it to make money but to publish a product they believe in
iii) they like narative mechanics but quite possibly draw the line between simming and RPG in a differeent place and so as far as they are concerned they are playing an RPG

Quote from: jibbajibba;623132But your whole discussion is loaded.

You are starting from a position that gamist and narativist approaches are wrong,

Of course I am, because that's what your question was about: "How would you fix this problem?"

Your very question presumes that Krueger (in this case) had a problem. I was just giving my answer.

Quote from: jibbajibba;623132I have lost no sales becuase if I had labelled it then you wouldn't have bought it.

Except for the people I didn't rave to about it, or bitched about it to, or who read an (entirely theoretical) review about it...

Yes, customers talk to each other and influence each other. Word-of-mouth is king.

One pissed off customer isn't just one lost sale. It could be one, or two, or five, or more.

Wise companies accept this, and work with it. P.R. is that very thing.

Quote from: jibbajibba;623132The designers of these games already know the distinction between simming and rpgs.

Then, when they describe them as RPG's, they're deliberately misleading people?

Look, I never said that. I don't believe that. But you (I think) do. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)

How can you think that's okay? And doesn't that lend credence to Krueger's claims that Storygame designers are trying to "suck on the teat" of RPG's?

I put it down to an issue of education or differences in perceptions. (I've encountered that a lot here.) I'm less comfortable assuming malice. "Innocent until proven guilty" and such.

But if it is malice... that's really ugly.

Quote from: jibbajibba;623132but quite possibly draw the line between simming and RPG in a differeent place and so as far as they are concerned they are playing an RPG

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said; I don't want you to think I ignore it. There are clear storygames, and clear RPG's, and a number of games that have story-ish elements that exist in a vaguely defined no man's land between the two.

Again, this is because simmers are very amenable to using RPG rules. They can even use the RPG rules of a game that has no Narrativist elements.

That's why Narrativist elements (if present in a sim-rpg hybrid) should be optional: because the storygame crowd doesn't need them, and RPG players don't necessarily appreciate them. And their presence can limit the game's appeal. Which leads me to...

Quote from: jibbajibba;623132very few indie game designers are trying to make a living most are just trying to publish a game they want to publish that includes the stuff they think is important in a game.

All creatives appreciate an audience. We all like it when others read our material, appreciate it, and use it.

Mislabeling storygames as RPG's, deliberately or accidentally, can harm your appeal and can limit your audience. That's something designers might want to consider, and something RPG fans might want to inform them of.

I'm not saying the solution is perfect. There is no perfect solution to disputes of opinion.

It's not the perfect solution, it's the only solution. For what that's worth.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623133Of course I am, because that's what your question was about: "How would you fix this problem?"

Your very question presumes that Krueger (in this case) had a problem. I was just giving my answer.


Except for the people I didn't rave to about it, or bitched about it to, or who read an (entirely theoretical) review about it...

Yes, customers talk to each other and influence each other. Word-of-mouth is king.

One pissed off customer isn't just one lost sale. It could be one, or two, or five, or more.

Wise companies accept this, and work with it. P.R. is that very thing.


Then, when they describe them as RPG's, they're deliberately misleading people?

Look, I never said that. I don't believe that. But you (I think) do. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)

How can you think that's okay? And doesn't that lend credence to Krueger's claims that Storygame designers are trying to "suck on the teat" of RPG's?

I put it down to an issue of education or differences in perceptions. (I've encountered that a lot here.) I'm less comfortable assuming malice. "Innocent until proven guilty" and such.

But if it is malice... that's really ugly.



I actually agree with a lot of what you've said; I don't want you to think I ignore it. There are clear storygames, and clear RPG's, and a number of games that have story-ish elements that exist in a vaguely defined no man's land between the two.

Again, this is because simmers are very amenable to using RPG rules. They can even use the RPG rules of a game that has no Narrativist elements.

That's why Narrativist elements (if present in a sim-rpg hybrid) should be optional: because the storygame crowd doesn't need them, and RPG players don't necessarily appreciate them. And their presence can limit the game's appeal. Which leads me to...


All creatives appreciate an audience. We all like it when others read our material, appreciate it, and use it.

Mislabeling storygames as RPG's, deliberately or accidentally, can harm your appeal and can limit your audience. That's something designers might want to consider, and something RPG fans might want to inform them of.

I'm not saying the solution is perfect. There is no perfect solution to disputes of opinion.

It's not the perfect solution, it's the only solution. For what that's worth.

But your argument still basically comes down to "you are using mechanics in your game that I don't think should be in an RPG so you should call it something else".

Not terribly persuasive

Quote from: jibbajibba;623134Not terribly persuasive

That's where explanation and education comes in. Counter bad information with good. "Here's why RPG's do not 'tell stories' ", and the like.

I know that few people (perhaps no-one) will listen, and those few people would take time to convince.

That's how the real world works.

It's not a perfect solution, it's the only solution.

I just hope I can convince others of that.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623137That's where explanation and education comes in. Counter bad information with good. "Here's why RPG's do not 'tell stories' ", and the like.

I know that few people (perhaps no-one) will listen, and those few people would take time to convince.

That's how the real world works.

It's not a perfect solution, it's the only solution.

I just hope I can convince others of that.

Well whatever floats your boat I guess.
I can't help thinking embracing more styles of play and being a broad church is a better way to go but maybe that is just me.

I say running the games you like (and telling the world about it online through blogging your ruminations about what you've run) is far more effective than any amount of abstract political campaigning. Be the change you want to see, yaknow?

Quote from: Warthur;623145I say running the games you like (and telling the world about it online through blogging your ruminations about what you've run) is far more effective than any amount of abstract political campaigning. Be the change you want to see, yaknow?

I agree. If you believe in a style of play or a particular definition of rpgs, let people see it through your work and your game sessions. I disagree with the premise of gumshoe for example (not the mechanics themselves but the idea that investigations can be failed by missing clues is wrong, for me the fun is trying to find the clues). However, I don't feel the need to define away Law's approach (or to paint Laws as somekind of villain). It works for some people. Instead I would rather demonstrate that his method isn't the best approach for everyone and that you can have a rewarding experience with a mystery where finding the clues is the challenge (and are part of success in the game). So that is how I run my investigations and its how I talk about them online. Look at Justin Alexander, people all over the net point to his three clue article all the time, and lots of people embrace it as an alternative remedy to concern Laws raised Gumshoe. But he didnt have to attack Laws to achieve that, he just pointed out that laws offered a mechanical solution, when a structural can achieve much the same result without altering the way the game works. To me these arguments are just getting too zealous and too negative (heck, that is one of the reasons I get so irritated by people pushing forge doctrine on me in the first place----I don't want to start acting that way myself as a reaction to it).