Bedrock Brendan posted his interview of Monte Cook on his blog. (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.ca/2013/01/an-interview-with-monte-cook-game.html)
I thought we could have a discussion thread about it here, if you have any comment, insights, whatever.
The part that stuck out for me:
QuoteBD: You launched the A+ campaign (a one-month commitment to stay positive) back in July. In an interview around that time, you also mentioned the problem of some gamers not accepting the tastes of others as valid.
I can certainly remember gamers being passionate since I started playing in the 80s, but it does seem like gamer’s opinions are a lot more intense and hostile lately. How do we, as a gaming community, preserve constructive debate and discussion as we tone down the rhetoric? Where is the line between constructive and destructive criticism?
MC: Here's my rather harsh viewpoint on this. There has always been a lot of thoughtful discussion about RPGs. It's just that now, with the Internet, that discussion is being done in public rather than in small, self-selective groups. In the 80s and early 90s, these discussions were located in APAs, in game stores, in game company meeting rooms, or around game tables. Those older, closed, venues were self-selective, so people who didn't gel with the others weren't welcomed back in.
In the open arena, for every one person interested in thoughtful discussion, there seems to be at least one person interested simply in putting forth an agenda. In other words, many people just don't understand the difference between examining something critically and tearing it apart. They don't understand the difference between analysis and advocacy. "Discussing rpgs" becomes "proving that the RPG I enjoy is the best."
When I started playing RPGs, and even for the first 10 years of my professional career, sure, there were discussions about whether Traveller was better than MegaTraveller, or whether the Hero System was better than GURPS. There wasn't the idea, though, that if you played one game, people who played other games were playing RPGs wrong.
That kind of strange, defensive way of looking at the hobby is relatively new. Frighteningly, it creates the kind of self-destructive toxicity that may one day destroy tabletop RPGs. If that happens, people will say that computer games finally killed tabletop games, but you, I, and a few others will know that's not true. Tabletop RPGs weren't murdered. They committed suicide.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
This toxic atmosphere among gamers started about 15 years ago, and it's escalated since then. It worsened even more a few years ago, when some professionals in the industry believed that they should get involved in those kinds of discussions. They used this kind of "you're playing games wrong" sort of approach to try to sell their games (or the new edition of their existing game).
I don't know how to push us back from this brink, but I know that a lot of people quietly want to see it happen. They've all but dropped out of the endless edition wars and old school versus storygame labeling nonsense, so you rarely hear from them, but I think there's an eager part of the RPG audience that just wants to get back to having fun the way they want to have fun without worrying about what someone else has to say about their game or play style.
I think that smart publishers will start catering to them more and more. If they don't, those level-headed gamers will eventually get tired and fade away. All we'll be left with are the argumentative assholes, and I don't want to design games for assholes.
QuoteThat kind of strange, defensive way of looking at the hobby is relatively new. Frighteningly, it creates the kind of self-destructive toxicity that may one day destroy tabletop RPGs. If that happens, people will say that computer games finally killed tabletop games, but you, I, and a few others will know that's not true. Tabletop RPGs weren't murdered. They committed suicide.
This reminds me of the toxic atmosphere in MMOs these days. It seems that nothing is really immune to this sort of behavior.
Yeah, that part stuck out to me as well. Also, the part where he talked about how 3e D&D being tactics orientated lead to combat-encounters mindset in both the players and publishing.
A lot of this stuff on the internet really just stays on the internet. I've known a terrible forum troll who was actually a lot of fun and very easygoing at the game store. He just trolled for fun. It was what he did instead of watching TV. Posters and rpg companies who take these guys too seriously are just falling into the trap.
Personally, I was wondering if something like discussions about story-games and trad RPGs and the like even registered on the radar of people like Mike Mearls, Monte Cook and the people "from the Seattle scene" in general (Paizo etc). That quote I pulled from the interview basically tells me that they in fact do (the 'old school versus storygame' part) - it's just that these guys think it's a bunch of toxic bullshit.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;621011This reminds me of the toxic atmosphere in MMOs these days. It seems that nothing is really immune to this sort of behavior.
I don't play MMOs but friends who do have told me stories about how bad it is (apparently both in the forums and on the actual games).
I like the part where he said that 3e basically made people play with miniatures, and 3.5/4e taking that and making it moreso.
3e killed RPGs.
2e was the last great D&D.
The real issue, from my standpoint, is that the blood and volume of these kinds of dogmatic arguments drown out the very real discussion that could be going on. No matter where you go, there's usually about a dozen posters who have some valuable insight into running games, this design philosophy or that mechanical issue, but they rarely seem to have the kind of time on their hands that the people interested in no-holds-barred argument do.
I almost think the answer is to veer away from public discussion at all, and go toward either epistolary discussions displayed for the public, or podcasts, or maybe blog interactions, where you can select participants and screen for the kind of choleric interactions that cause so much trouble. I know that the most interesting stuff I've been seeing lately has been either in podcast form -- Ken Hite and Robin Law's podcasts, or the Unspeakable Oath podcast -- or in interviews, rather than forum discussions. There are exceptions, but forums seem to be of more and more limited utility, which seems to be a shame since they're unbeatable for general, public interaction.
That's because to a lot of people on the internet, it's more important to "win" an argument, than to learn from it.
Which, admittingly, is human nature. ;)
Quote from: Drohem;621012Yeah, that part stuck out to me as well. Also, the part where he talked about how 3e D&D being tactics orientated lead to combat-encounters mindset in both the players and publishing.
It's a bit of a strange thing for him to say considering he was front and centre in designing it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;621017I don't play MMOs but friends who do have told me stories about how bad it is (apparently both in the forums and on the actual games).
Yeah, it's gotten progressively worse over the past two years, ever since WoW started bleeding subs due to Cataclysm. But Bioware's Star Wars The Old Republic fanned the flames too because EA overhyped it for what it was and made the resulting backlash worse.
Quote from: One Horse Town;621038It's a bit of a strange thing for him to say considering he was front and centre in designing it.
I think some of the 3e designers were surprised by the directions it ultimately went in.
QuoteThat kind of strange, defensive way of looking at the hobby is relatively new.
I dunno... I remember things getting pretty damn shouty back in High School. I remember an ongoing dust up over one group's insistence that our group was 'doing it wrong' because we didn't level up nearly as quickly as their group did. It came close to blows on one occasion that featured our resident hotheads turning beet red in the face.
Plenty of feuds like that back in the day. It weren't all singing and dancing.
It's easier to find a lot of folks to fight with these days but also easier to build a little echochamber where you only hear opinions you agree with.
It feels to me like he's pining for the groupthink days of the 90s when "everyone agreed" that, for instance, White Wolf was the model of rpg-progress in both system (dice-pools) and release strategy (fluff, splat, railroads, novel tie-ins) because "everyone" was actually a couple dozen "rpg professionals" (folks like Mike Stackpole: see recent thread here with relevant quotes (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25421)) kibbitzing at GenCon and the GAMA trade show and nobody else had a voice. I don't think he's so much lamenting people having opinions about the "right" and "wrong" ways to do rpgs as that his and his friends' opinions on those matters are no longer the only ones the count - that we're actually telling them what we do and don't like and not just trusting their "professional" opinions about what we should like (whatever shiny new hotness they're shoveling out) and not like (70s/80s-style A/D&D).
hmmm 15 years puts it right around the fall of TSR and WotC's acquisition. I'd like to suggest that the real problem is that D&D narrowed its appeal. That D&D's real strength is that you can play it successfully with or without miniatures, with or without an involved story line, as a board game or a wargame, with preplanned adventures and without them.
I've believed for a very long time (as many here can probably recall...) that the problem really began when WotC started thinking of game design in terms of product design. They're not alone, it's what ruined Warhammer too.
But for D&D it ment a focus on maps and tiles and miniatures needed to be supported in the rules and the structure needed to be designed to allow constant expansion and a bit of an arms race.
So yeah, I basically Blame Monty and Ryan for most of the hostility in the gaming community.
Quote from: T. Foster;621056It feels to me like he's pining for the groupthink days of the 90s when "everyone agreed" that, for instance, White Wolf was the model of rpg-progress in both system (dice-pools) and release strategy (fluff, splat, railroads, novel tie-ins) because "everyone" was actually a couple dozen "rpg professionals" (folks like Mike Stackpole: see recent thread here with relevant quotes (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25421)) kibbitzing at GenCon and the GAMA trade show and nobody else had a voice. I don't think he's so much lamenting people having opinions about the "right" and "wrong" ways to do rpgs as that his and his friends' opinions on those matters are no longer the only ones the count - that we're actually telling them what we do and don't like and not just trusting their "professional" opinions about what we should like (whatever shiny new hotness they're shoveling out) and not like (70s/80s-style A/D&D).
I love the level of hilarious overarching cynicism that I'm always sure will be displayed by at least one person on this site the moment someone doesn't buy into the groupspeak of THIS forum. He doesn't agree that your grand war is important enough, so of course he has to have some ulterior sinister motive, it couldn't be that he just really does think its bullshit. He disagrees, we need to turn him into the BAD GUY.
That is absurd, because absolutely the moment I read that section, it resonated with exactly what I feel about the situation: Stop giving a shit about trying to build your walls and flinging shit at each other and just have fun and play games.
"Trad" vs "Storygame" doesn't matter except in your own preferences. You like one and not the other? Cool, have fun. You like both? Cool, that's awesome, too. You like one and want to have a massive hateboner for the other that causes you to manufacture bullshit motives for the other side so that you can demean them as people? ... no that isn't cool.
And no, I'm not talking about just you guys. I think the people on the other side who legitimate are calling trad gamers "brain damaged" etc are just as bad. The screwed up thing is this imaginary bullshit where anyone who designs or prefers a game that isn't to your standards is immediately considered interchangeable 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.
When games like D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, Star Wars, Marvel, and soon Call of Cthulhu ALL get modified to include narrative mechanics as if that really was just common sense, it's all the same, who cares, right? You SHOULD expect some backlash coming from gamers who actually do not feel that way. Pretending after the fact like you don't get what they're talking about and wonder why they are mean while not acknowledging the distinction they're making in the first place and going about your merry way pretending like nothing happened IS condescending, and intellectually insulting.
It matters to me. These are not the same kind of games AT ALL to me. And I don't have nearly as much fun playing story games (which I actually can play and enjoy on their own merits) as I do role playing games. I can play story games once in a while. I love role playing games, obviously. What really annoys the fuck out of me is when you change traditional games instead of coming up with your own new games however you want. To his credit, Monte Cook is doing just that with his narrative game Numenera. I have no interest in the project at this point, but I wish him luck in his endeavors.
By the way. I got a God-given right to like what I like and dislike what I dislike, and actually talk about it on the internet. You think it's nonsense? Fine by me. But don't you start pushing your own "all kumbayas, everybody must sing with the choir" bullshit on me. That is really some nasty group-think, as far as I'm concerned, and I consider this kind of rhetoric to be just as nasty as the extremists on either and all sides.
If Wizards had decided years ago to support all editions of D&D, much of this could have been avoided.
Quote from: Benoist;621070And I got a God-given fucking right to like what I like and dislike what I dislike, and actually talk about it on the internet. You think it's bullshit? Fine by me. But don't you start pushing that "all kumbayas, everybody must sing with the choir" bullshit. That is really groupthink nonsense of the highest order, as far as I'm concerned.
You completely missed the point of what I was saying.
The constant DEMONIZATION of the people on the other side is the problem. You don't like storygames, you don't want narrative mechanics in D&D or whatever? That's fine. Whatever man, its cool to have different tastes.
Accusing a person of sinister motives because it fits your narrative of them as the bad guys and you as the good guys fighting a holy war? That's bullshit. And that is just what the dude I was quoting did. I GENERALLY don't have a problem with your posts (you as in Benoist), because you are less prone to that behavior.
Its the same thing Monte was talking about: Yeah we all have always gotten into arguments about which system is better, what mechanics are better for A or B or whatever. But at the end of the day, if some other group used the system we didn't like, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
EDIT: Also, Star Wars and Marvel are LICENSES, not GAMES. D&D should play like D&D every edition, because D&D is the GAME. Star Wars and Marvel aren't games, they are licenses being adapted to games. Faserip is a game, Cortex+ is a game, SAGA edition is a game, WEG D6 is a game. Expecting the license to be used in the same kind of game every time is absurd.
Quote from: Dimitrios;621049I think some of the 3e designers were surprised by the directions it ultimately went in.
This. Truth is, no playtest is going to predict what happens when thousands of people get your hands on their game. Especially if the playtest had prior edition players and the release hit (maybe even mostly) new players.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075You completely missed the point of what I was saying.
I understand you're pissed about stereotyping "the enemy" and the like. But don't use this to miss what MY point was about, please. When you act in a condescending manner, dismiss people's concerns about games and what they like and dislike about them, then stereotype them, treating them like they're just "trolls" and "dinosaurs" and "people who should get on with the times" or "really ought to be nicer," if they are not "rape victims" who really are "brain damaged" to begin with, then you create the kind of backlash we're seeing now.
Start by acknowledging what people like me are talking about, that there IS a difference between a story game and a role playing game. That this difference is actually paramount to my and other people's interest in playing a role playing game, and then we can start talking about how we can have games for everyone, that the Story Games hobby can flourish out of the RPG hobby just like the RPG hobby did out of the Wargames hobby in the past, and how games which are already classics in the minds of a lot of gamers out there ought to be treated from there, in regards to options, editions reboots and the like.
But if you continue to pretend like the difference just doesn't matter, and keep pointing out dismissively "who cares?" we'll keep having these discussions over, and over, and over again.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075Its the same thing Monte was talking about: Yeah we all have always gotten into arguments about which system is better, what mechanics are better for A or B or whatever. But at the end of the day, if some other group used the system we didn't like, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people loving Apocalypse World. However, when you buy into the notion (which started with Uncle Ron) that the narrative style of play was objectively superior, and that philosophy winds up taking games with a 20-30year history of non-narrative gaming mechanics, and turning it a game system with narrative mechanics, expect people to voice their opinion.
The problem is, when people did voice their opinion about the change in the game systems, the narrative folks denied there was any change at all. The "System Matters" people who design specific narrative mechanics, deny that there is a meaningful difference between a game with those mechanics and one without. At the point when they are arguing against something that is so fundamentally obvious as to be practically axiomatic, what is there to do but challenge the assertion that they are arguing in good faith?
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075Yeah we all have always gotten into arguments about which system is better, what mechanics are better for A or B or whatever. But at the end of the day, if some other group used the system we didn't like, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
Except, as Benoist points out, they're not just over there happily playing their games... they're actively seeking to push their ideas of 'progress' into traditional games that have never had those features.
I'm not a fan of Fate Points and Aspects but I'm not lobbying that those games that have them should change or that they need to be more like something I want to play. My complaint is when people who like those games think those features should be injected into all the games I DO like... such as WFRP and COC.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621078There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people loving Apocalypse World. However, when you buy into the notion (which started with Uncle Ron) that the narrative style of play was objectively superior, and that philosophy winds up taking games with a 20-30year history of non-narrative gaming mechanics, and turning it a game system with narrative mechanics, expect people to voice their opinion.
The problem is, when people did voice their opinion about the change in the game systems, the narrative folks denied there was any change at all. The "System Matters" people who design specific narrative mechanics, deny that there is a meaningful difference between a game with those mechanics and one without. At the point when they are arguing against something that is so fundamentally obvious as to be practically axiomatic, what is there to do but challenge the assertion that they are arguing in good faith?
Entirely agree.
Quote from: Simlasa;621080Except, as Benoist points out, they're not just over there happily playing their games... they're actively seeking to push their ideas of 'progress' into traditional games that have never had those features.
I'm not a fan of Fate Points and Aspects but I'm not lobbying that those games that have them should change or that they need to be more like something I want to play. My complaint is when people who like those games think those features should be injected into all the games I DO like... such as WFRP and COC.
Ditto.
Quote from: Monte CookNumenera empowers players not by taking power from the GM and giving it to players, but by taking power from the game and giving it to players. In other words, players don't exert influence on the narrative by changing or creating things outside their characters, but by having more power over how their own character performs and what happens to him or her. In Numenera, players can choose to prioritize tasks, to help ensure that they have a much better chance to succeed at the ones they deem the most important.
Emphasis mine. Monte seems to be not getting the point that if the player is making a decision that the character cannot possibly make, then it is an OOC choice, a metagame mechanic, and it really doesn't matter whether the rationale is for narrative purposes (like a storygame) or for tactical game mechanic purposes (like 4e).
If my character cannot possibly make the decision, then that mechanic of the game, by definition, inhibits my roleplaying because it pulls me out the mental viewpoint of the character into the mental viewpoint of the player looking at the character as an avatar, a character in a story or a piece in a game.
When you are creating a game that requires you to interface with the core mechanics in an OOC viewpoint, it's really hard to just call it an RPG without some form of qualifier.
I never said they don't matter. I said they don't matter beyond your own preferences.
Your preferences do not define what RPG means. If you want to divide it into Traditional RPG and Narrative RPG... well, yeah that works. You aren't telling people "Get the hell out of my hobby, you don't belong here".
The problem is, you define RPG ENTIRELY on how you play an RPG, when that isn't the only way to play them and has NEVER been the only way to play them. Are storygames catering to a niche? Yes, yes they are. They don't cater to hardcore immersionists. But that has never, in my long history with RPGs, been the only way to play RPGs anyway.
I remember reading through Old Geezer's posts on RPG.net (Yes, I know, fuck the big purple and all that jazz), I found it interesting how he described the game as played back in the early early days of D&D. From listening to your descriptions of what IS roleplaying... they weren't roleplaying either.
So how do you get to come along and define the word. Maybe Old Geezer's group was the ones that were really roleplaying: They were here first. So why didn't you find another word?
(Funny thing is: Honestly, I don't like the incredibly storygame games. I don't mind a few narrative mechanics, but overall I'm much more of a trad player and DM. I've even stripped some of the narrative mechanics from games I do like that have them. I just think its categorically unfair and toxic to manufacture motives for people so that one side can be the "good guy")
Quote from: Monte CookIn the open arena, for every one person interested in thoughtful discussion, there seems to be at least one person interested simply in putting forth an agenda. In other words, many people just don't understand the difference between examining something critically and tearing it apart. They don't understand the difference between analysis and advocacy. "Discussing rpgs" becomes "proving that the RPG I enjoy is the best."
...There wasn't the idea, though, that if you played one game, people who played other games were playing RPGs wrong.
That kind of strange, defensive way of looking at the hobby is relatively new. Frighteningly, it creates the kind of self-destructive toxicity that may one day destroy tabletop RPGs...All we'll be left with are the argumentative assholes, and I don't want to design games for assholes.
Quote from: 1989;621021I like the part where he said that 3e basically made people play with miniatures, and 3.5/4e taking that and making it moreso.
3e killed RPGs.
2e was the last great D&D.
Psst. You're the asshole in the room. You're just not self-aware enough to know that the thing you just did in response to this article, is the very thing he's talking about.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621084If you want to divide it into Traditional RPG and Narrative RPG... well, yeah that works.
Brother, that's all I want. I don't care if 14 of the top 15 games at DTRPG are highly narrative. I just want to know either on the cover, in the advertising or
somewhere, that the games contain highly narrative mechanics and aren't labeled just "RPG".
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621084The problem is, you define RPG ENTIRELY on how you play an RPG
No. Just no.
I'm not into GURPS. GURPS is a role playing game.
I don't like Champions. Champions is a role playing game.
Savage Worlds is very "meh" to me. It's a role playing game.
Etc.
Quote from: Benoist;621091No. Just no.
I'm not into GURPS. GURPS is a role playing game.
I don't like Champions. Champions is a role playing game.
Savage Worlds is very "meh" to me. It's a role playing game.
Etc.
I never said you are defining RPG by the RPGs you like. I said by HOW you play RPGs.
You are a hardcore immersionist. All those games you mentioned not liking, don't interfere with you being an immersionist, at least not in any way I can see. I'm sure your dislike of them comes from something else in them.
Hardcore immersionist play is not the only way to play an RPG.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621092Hardcore immersionist play is not the only way to play an RPG.
Given the examples I've encountered online, Hardcore Immersionist play seems to be an offshoot of a personality disorder related to some type of narcissism.
Quote from: Monte CookThat kind of strange, defensive way of looking at the hobby is relatively new.
This toxic atmosphere among gamers started about 15 years ago, and it's escalated since then.
I don't know what hideaway Cook was hiding in 15 years ago, but serious disagreements about how RPGs should be designed and played have existed since the 70s.
That he didn't notice only indicates to me that he wasn't paying attention.
Yay! Gleichman showed up!
Isn't he just the best?
*swoon*
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621092I never said you are defining RPG by the RPGs you like. I said by HOW you play RPGs.
I just disagree with that as well. I know plenty of people who run games in a different way than I would, and I would call what they are doing role playing as well. I think this line of attack on your part is really neither here nor there, and rather pushes that very same stereotype that it's just a matter of preference and not a matter of actual difference in the processes that are going on using a narrative game versus a role playing game. I simply do not agree. At all.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621092You are a hardcore immersionist. All those games you mentioned not liking, don't interfere with you being an immersionist, at least not in any way I can see. I'm sure your dislike of them comes from something else in them.
I don't define myself as being a "hardcore immersionist". That said, I do think that one of the core concepts behind a role playing is in fact to role-play your character in the game world as depicted by the shared imagination of the participants during an actual game session, yes. Note this doesn't mean there isn't some jokes flying, some dice rolling going on, or that there'd be 100% immersion on the part of all participants all the time continuously during a game session. In that sense, I am not a "hardcore immersionist", far from it.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621092Hardcore immersionist play is not the only way to play an RPG.
Oh I agree. Cf. previous paragraph.
Question for those who think storygames are not RPGs: which category would you put the following games into?
Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
Sorcerer
HeroQuest (the Robin Laws one, not the GW one)
D&D 4e
Quote from: gleichman;621096Given the examples I've encountered online, Hardcore Immersionist play seems to be an offshoot of a personality disorder related to some type of narcissism.
And here is the other side of the hilarious demonization. Immersionist play is a valid form of play, bro. Just cause you don't do it doesn't make it some psychotic disorder
I do immersion to a degree, I would say that the vast majority of my in game decisions are based on what my character would do (and the other time is usually stuff to make the game flow better between me and the other players, not to make a better "story"), but not to a Benoist degree, but I respect that he does and that certain types of mechanics that don't bother me would bother him.
Quote from: beejazz;621076This. Truth is, no playtest is going to predict what happens when thousands of people get your hands on their game. Especially if the playtest had prior edition players and the release hit (maybe even mostly) new players.
That's the thing - when 3e came out, I played it just like it was past editions. Ignoring a lot of the tactical stuff (attacks of opportunity and such) just like ignoring the weapon speed and armor class tables in 1e.
It was only thanks to the internet that I realized otherwise.
Though that got me eventually was the higher level stuff. I'm not sure that got tested much, everything just bogged down because so much inflation in numbers.
Quote from: Dimitrios;621049I think some of the 3e designers were surprised by the directions it ultimately went in.
And doubly so for the designers of 4e. What is that about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions?
Quote from: David Johansen;621065hmmm 15 years puts it right around the fall of TSR and WotC's acquisition. I'd like to suggest that the real problem is that D&D narrowed its appeal. That D&D's real strength is that you can play it successfully with or without miniatures, with or without an involved story line, as a board game or a wargame, with preplanned adventures and without them.
Absolutely. D&D's success lies in how open-ended it is. Keeping it open-ended will ensure its future.
Quote from: JeremyR;621102That's the thing - when 3e came out, I played it just like it was past editions. Ignoring a lot of the tactical stuff (attacks of opportunity and such) just like ignoring the weapon speed and armor class tables in 1e.
It was only thanks to the internet that I realized otherwise.
Though that got me eventually was the higher level stuff. I'm not sure that got tested much, everything just bogged down because so much inflation in numbers.
I think honestly, one of the things about tabletop rpgs is that the exact system played on two different tables, could be played in such wildly different ways.
I think, in all honesty, the reason why I don't grok the whole trad vs storygame war thing is that I've seen more difference between two different groups playing the same version of D&D than I do between my group playing D&D and my group playing MHRP.
Quote from: Simlasa;621080Except, as Benoist points out, they're not just over there happily playing their games... they're actively seeking to push their ideas of 'progress' into traditional games that have never had those features.
I'm not a fan of Fate Points and Aspects but I'm not lobbying that those games that have them should change or that they need to be more like something I want to play. My complaint is when people who like those games think those features should be injected into all the games I DO like... such as WFRP and COC.
Wait a sec though. The people making these changes to existing games aren't infamous Forge posters are they? It's not Ron Edwards changing Warhammer to have cards, or Vincent Baker amping up the gamism of D&D for 4th edition. It's the existing owners of these properties that have decided to make these kinds of changes, it's not been pushed on them from outside. You're perfectly entitled to be unhappy about it, but to say that it's a result of lobbying from the forge/storygames community is pretty clearly wrong IMO.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621101And here is the other side of the hilarious demonization. Immersionist play is a valid form of play, bro. Just cause you don't do it doesn't make it some psychotic disorder.
I have nothing against the concept. On the surface it seems harmless enough and even necessary to a degree, akin to 'identifying with a character' in any work of fiction.
But in practical terms, with rare exception every strongly self-described Immersion Player I've countered online has shown all but identical traits. They are self-centered, self-righteous, convinced the Immersion justifies any and all of their behavior, closed-minded, rude and hateful of other styles.
Even more moderate Immersive Players feel justified in derailing campaigns because "it's what their character is feeling".
No idea if such people are naturally drawn to Immersive Play (but I think this likely), or if Immersive play reinforces such behavior. Or perhaps both.
But it is striking.
I wouldn't allow a Forge cult member at my gaming table. And I wouldn't allow a strongly Immersive player at my table. To me, they are basically the same people in different clothes.
Quote from: JeremyR;621102That's the thing - when 3e came out, I played it just like it was past editions. Ignoring a lot of the tactical stuff (attacks of opportunity and such) just like ignoring the weapon speed and armor class tables in 1e.
Even keeping in mind all the changes to characters, combat, and the addition of skills, if you played the dungeon as if it were a 1e or 2e dungeon, much more would have played the same. But that context wasn't adequately built into the game. Players treated 3x almost as a generic fantasy system, and a lot of stuff (some flaws, some new modes of play) was exposed when 3e hit contexts it wasn't necessarily built for.
QuoteThough that got me eventually was the higher level stuff. I'm not sure that got tested much, everything just bogged down because so much inflation in numbers.
High levels were just absurd. I don't know what they were thinking with some of their decisions on how things scale with level. But I don't wonder why 4e fans fetishize the particular math of 4e, especially if they started with 3x.
I'm kind of worried that claims of "vitriolic arguments are causing the hobby to die" might create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Cook does have a point, though, in that the public forum nature of the Internet, combined with the attitude of "My Edition is the best," does have a significant impact on the discourse.
*faint*
Oh Gleichman, you're dreamy.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621090Brother, that's all I want. I don't care if 14 of the top 15 games at DTRPG are highly narrative. I just want to know either on the cover, in the advertising or somewhere, that the games contain highly narrative mechanics and aren't labeled just "RPG".
So you buy games without doing the most basic of research, including reading reviews, looking at previews of the PDF, reading adverts and interviews with the designer, or hearing people talk about it on forums? You make your purchasing decisions based solely on whether you see the label RPG on the cover? Come on man. Are you seriously telling me that you have bought what looks like an RPG only to discover it was a storygame trap inside? If so, would you care to tell us the name of this deceptively advertised game so that we can warn other people?
Quote from: CRKrueger;621090Brother, that's all I want. I don't care if 14 of the top 15 games at DTRPG are highly narrative. I just want to know either on the cover, in the advertising or somewhere, that the games contain highly narrative mechanics and aren't labeled just "RPG".
Narrative mechanics are like salt in your soup. Sometimes it won't need it. Sometimes a little will do it good, but no two people will agree on exactly how much that is. But if you have to empty the entire shaker in there, you probably ordered the wrong soup in the first place.
Now, I like a few narrative mechanics every so often, in the right game (Be it a "role-playing" or "story" game). I also like games without them, and I don't like games with too many of them; we're all probably the same, just with different boundaries. What has ruined the discussion, and turned it so toxic, is the way certain people have poisoned the conversation and used "trad game", or "story game", or "dungeon crawl",
as insults rather than
as descriptors (Or conversely, have taken the use of those terms as insults, rather than descriptors), and that's been allowed to stick for too long. I'm not sure it's salvageable at this point; too many people on every side want to "win" the conversation, rather than enjoy the discussion for it's own sake and learn from each other.
Internet communities, as a whole, have really got nastier over the past decade; I think it's due to a lot of them essentially collapsing into echo chambers, with the people inside getting more and more worked up about anything outside their community, or that isn't tailored exactly to THEIR desires. But as petty as RPG fandom and it's uninformed punditry can get, it's really nothing compared to video game fandumb these days.
I think Ladybird described my feelings on it better than I did. I admit I came in with a bit too much venom (I have a 6 year old with a terrible flu who is currently napping who has drained me of all sense of measure right now.)
Quote from: Ladybird;621129Narrative mechanics are like salt in your soup. Sometimes it won't need it.
See, if you had said "metagame mechanics" I would have agreed. When you say "narrative mechanics", that is, mechanics which fundamentally construe the game as a narrative being built, in which these mechanics represent a currency or concrete mean or whatnot, I just can't agree with that. The goal of a role playing game isn't to "tell a story", to me. It's not like "salt in the soup". It's more like adding white vinegar to warm milk. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CGxPhW06Jvg#t=126s)
Like an anthropologist living among a strange tribe in a far-off land, after two years, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history and reasoning behind theRPGsite's (not just the Pundit's) vitriolic rejection of Forge theory and "storygames". I mean, I still don't buy the "us vs. them" party line, but I understand where it is that people come from in their anti-Forge screeds. There's a context to this. Ron Edwards and some of his associates said some really stupid and condescending things back when The Forge was at its height (I want to say 2004-2007 but I'm not sure) that smack not only of one-true-waysim and hipsterism, but of the sort of agenda that Monte Cook alludes to in the segment of the interview quoted in the OP.
The result was all-out memetic warfare in the forums at the perceived threat of Forge theory and jargon (including the dismissal of "immersion", and the idea that games should be "coherent" and focus on G, N or S to the exclusion of all else), becoming dominant in RPG design and criticism. Not a lot of people warmed up to the games the Forge circle of designers were cranking out, so a very vocal segment of traditional gaming fandom took exception to the idea of their particular brand of theory gaining a mainstream, commercial foothold.
I remain a conscientious objector in the War Against The Swine, and I still think debating whether storygames are "real RPGs" is semantic masturbation (might as well call trad RPGs "worldgames"). But the bile and the vitriol cut both ways. Though I still feel Pundit's taste for hyperbole, unfair generalization, uncouth language and assholery for the sake of assholery doesn't really do a lot for the cause of traditional gaming. I'd rather build bridges than burn them. It's not about denying that there's a difference between the two camps, or timidly accepting the sort of agenda Monte mentions. It's actually about not being a douche, mostly.
Quote from: Ladybird;621129What has ruined the discussion, and turned it so toxic, is the way certain people have poisoned the conversation and used "trad game", or "story game", or "dungeon crawl", as insults rather than as descriptors
Internet communities, as a whole, have really got nastier over the past decade;
Those terms (or ones like them) have always been insults. The conversation always toxic. The only thing that has changed is that more people are in the conversation- and they're easier to find.
Quote from: Benoist;621133See, if you had said "metagame mechanics" I would have agreed. When you say "narrative mechanics", that is, mechanics which fundamentally construe the game as a narrative being built, in which these mechanics represent a currency or concrete mean or whatnot, I just can't agree with that. The goal of a role playing game isn't to "tell a story", to me. It's not like "salt in the soup". It's more like adding white vinegar to warm milk. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CGxPhW06Jvg#t=126s)
I used "narrative" because of CKrueger, but "metagame" works for me too, to sum up the entire thing; the more of my time I'm having to devote to thinking about
how to play the game, the less I'm getting to spend
playing the game. Whether that's thinking about the story or thinking about the system, it's not as much fun for me as immersing into the character. I can do those things any time I want (And I get paid to think quite intently about systems), but I can't role play any time, and that's what I'm at a game session to do.
We're currently playing the Leverage game, and I am enjoying it, but it requires a different style of thinking to, say, Shadowrun - similar genre (Heist games), but completely different due to the management of assets, plot points and flashbacks, and having to continually think slightly outside my character. I'm not sure I'd be able to explain it in more detail than that, but it's certainly a conversation belonging on the OG board here; I'm finding it far metagamier than
In A Wicked Age, for example.
Quote from: gleichman;621136Those terms (or ones like them) have always been insults. The conversation always toxic. The only thing that has changed is that more people are in the conversation- and they're easier to find.
Bullshit. Nothing, inherently, about a "story game" makes it
worse than a "role-playing game" It's just
different, some people will like one, some will like the other.
And that's fine. As long as everyone gets games they like, it's all good.
And there's nothing wrong with saying "that's a story game" or whatever. If someone's looking for a particular type of game, using that sort of descriptor - and explaining why you used it - is being helpful.
It's the way that those terms have been used, and the attitudes of the people using them, that are the problem. They're being used as hostile terms, and they're being taken as hostile terms. Now, we could ask both sides who started it, and they'd both say "the other side, for sure", but that doesn't solve anything. Until we get rid of the dickheads on both sides, that don't share the other side's choices and don't see why the other side should get things they like, we're going to have this problem.
Quote from: Benoist;621133See, if you had said "metagame mechanics" I would have agreed. When you say "narrative mechanics", that is, mechanics which fundamentally construe the game as a narrative being built, in which these mechanics represent a currency or concrete mean or whatnot, I just can't agree with that. The goal of a role playing game isn't to "tell a story", to me. It's not like "salt in the soup". It's more like adding white vinegar to warm milk. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CGxPhW06Jvg#t=126s)
I hate (and am allergic to) mayonaisse. If there's any in my lunch I won't eat it. If I eat some by accident, I will be unwell. But I don't think that putting mayonaisse in my sandwich turns it into a non-sandwich.
Quote from: soviet;621147I hate (and am allergic to) mayonaisse. If there's any in my lunch I won't eat it. If I eat some by accident, I will be unwell. But I don't think that putting mayonaisse in my sandwich turns it into a non-sandwich.
Therefore your comparison actually doesn't work with how I feel about narrative mechanics at all, because I really do think that injecting narrative mechanics into a role playing game turns it into something else.
Quote from: Ladybird;621146It's the way that those terms have been used, and the attitudes of the people using them, that are the problem.
They have *always* been used in that way. Only the details changed.
Before the Forge redefined them, WoD was the 'story-game' bugbear that D&D players hated and made fun of. And they in turn made fun of the mindless D&D 'Dungeon Crawls'.
Why do you think hate was invented this decade? Are you really that naive?
And here's another hard fact for you. It will *never* go away either.
Quote from: gleichman;621150They have *always* been used in that way. Only the details changed.
Before the Forge redefined them, WoD was the 'story-game' bugbear that D&D players hated and made fun of. And they in turn made fun of the mindless D&D 'Dungeon Crawls'.
Why do you think hate was invented this decade? Are you really that naive?
And here's another hard fact for you. It will *never* go away either.
Once we all site down at the table, and play Second Edition, world peace will come.
Quote from: gleichman;621150They have *always* been used in that way. Only the details changed.
Doesn't mean that they are inherently insulting terms.
Just means the dickheads got there first; and for that, we should all be ashamed.
QuoteAnd here's another hard fact for you. It will *never* go away either.
Ain't that the hideous truth.
Quote from: 1989;621151Once we all site down at the table, and play Second Edition, world peace will come.
I prefer 1st, but I'm happy enough with 2nd ed. You mean WFRP, right?
Quote from: 1989;621151Once we all site down at the table, and play Second Edition, world peace will come.
Larry Elmore perfecto version or black bordered atrocity version?
Quote from: beejazz;621113High levels were just absurd. I don't know what they were thinking with some of their decisions on how things scale with level. But I don't wonder why 4e fans fetishize the particular math of 4e, especially if they started with 3x.
Start a new thread if you like... A lot of it is simply converted from 2E of course, with side effects from the greater codification of various things (like monsters now having ability scores). Save progressions are built with good/poor saves corresponding to progression of primary/secondary spell levels (a Good save is +1 per 2 levels because a wizard gets spells a level higher each 2 levels, putting the DC up 1) according to Dragon magazine - they just didn't factor in either resistance bonuses or level-based stat increases, or multiclassing. Lack of playtesting at higher levels isn't too unsurprising if you consider how long it took to get to name level in older D&D, either.
Quote from: gleichman;621109But in practical terms, with rare exception every strongly self-described Immersion Player I've countered online has shown all but identical traits. They are self-centered, self-righteous, convinced the Immersion justifies any and all of their behavior, closed-minded, rude and hateful of other styles.
Irony Alert.
QuoteEven more moderate Immersive Players feel justified in derailing campaigns because "it's what their character is feeling".
No, this is incorrect. We don't call that Immersion. We call that "being an asshole". It's one of my personal platitudes: "Playing your character is never an excuse to be an asshole to the other players".
QuoteNo idea if such people are naturally drawn to Immersive Play (but I think this likely), or if Immersive play reinforces such behavior. Or perhaps both.
I play Immersively at my home table and have done so for 30 years, largely with other Immersive players. We kick the kind of people you describe to the curb quickly, and in 30 years, I can count the number of those people I've personally encountered in a real actual game on one hand and have fingers to spare.
Most gamers I've met in real life, regardless of preferred playstyle, without the veneer of the internet, have been decent, easy going, polite, very cool people. This includes the hundreds if not thousands of people I've met at Cons over the years.
Overall, gamers are the best people I've ever met, hands down, no matter what games they play or how they play them.
Quote from: gleichman;621150Why do you think hate was invented this decade? Are you really that naive?
And here's another hard fact for you. It will *never* go away either.
Yet I never see fist fights breaking out over this at GenCON.
Online communication has always been hyperbolic, and has nothing to do with reality. It's expecting it to become more elevated all on it's own that's the naive bit. Most gamers don't even read or post to online Fora.
Quote from: danbuter;621013A lot of this stuff on the internet really just stays on the internet. I've known a terrible forum troll who was actually a lot of fun and very easygoing at the game store. He just trolled for fun. It was what he did instead of watching TV. Posters and rpg companies who take these guys too seriously are just falling into the trap.
While I don't troll (that always seemed pointless to me), I generally come to online forums to argue when I feel like arguing. It's one way I blow off steam and relieve stress. That means I'm usually in a bad mood when I show up, and so alot of things I write are
probably disporportionate to how I'd express them when feeling more reasonable.
However, on the flip side, when I feel like reasonable discussion instead of being argumentative, I also know better than to try to turn to a public forum on the internet to get it. I guess it's like you don't go to McDonald's and expect to find a gourmet meal. You go to McDonald's knowing exactly what to expect, and you're going to either embrace that and revel in it, or you're going to be very unhappy.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;621158Yet I never see fist fights breaking out over this at GenCON.
Because people are both cowards, and subject to legal action. In bygone eras, I'm sure duels would have been accepted and completed.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;621157No, this is incorrect. We don't call that Immersion. We call that "being an asshole". It's one of my personal platitudes: "Playing your character is never an excuse to be an asshole to the other players".
Any yet from my experience of your posting both in and not in threads I was a part of- you are a perfect example of what I was describing. In fact, you go on to admit as much in your reply to danbuster.
For my part, I'm going to believe your walk, not your talk.
Quote from: The Butcher;621134(might as well call trad RPGs "worldgames")
This might actually not be a bad idea
Quote from: gleichman;621150They have *always* been used in that way. Only the details changed.
Before the Forge redefined them, WoD was the 'story-game' bugbear that D&D players hated and made fun of. And they in turn made fun of the mindless D&D 'Dungeon Crawls'.
The story game of WoD is not the same as the story-game of Ron Edwards.
The conflict over World of Darkness was more about the old roleplayers vs gamers argument back in the early 80s. People who like to play in-character vs the guys that showed up to kill some critters and grab their stuff.
Rather than detailing key maps of locales, World of Darkness supplements for referees were invariably about a web of NPCs, their resources, and their plots and maybe some location details. For players the supplements are about kewl powers as lot of WoD players I knew were into the game to play monsters that kicked ass.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621132I think Ladybird described my feelings on it better than I did. I admit I came in with a bit too much venom (I have a 6 year old with a terrible flu who is currently napping who has drained me of all sense of measure right now.)
I hope your 6 year old gets better quickly, mate. I'll keep her (or is it him?) in my thoughts. For the record, we might not agree on where to put the lines and how, though we do agree on some things at least, and I feel like we actually had an exchange, instead of just a set of pointless attacks and parries. This is to your credit, man. Thank you.
Quote from: Benoist;621178I hope your 6 year old gets better quickly, mate. I'll keep her (or is it him?) in my thoughts. For the record, we might not agree on where to put the lines and how, though we do agree on some things at least, and I feel like we actually had an exchange, instead of just a set of pointless attacks and parries. This is to your credit, man. Thank you.
I try my best to by not crazy, aha. (son by the way. little dudes asleep again, so I'm a bit less harried at the moment)
Though an interesting thing to me is. What exactly defines something as a narrative mechanic. I'm not asking like as a baiting or anything, but I'm curious where people draw the lines.
Obviously, not all metagame mechanics are narrative. I mean, there are a lot of metagame mechanics in 4e D&D, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever describe them as narrative.
One way I could define it is if the rule attempts to enforce a narrative or story onto the game, but even then, that sounds like intent more than actual mechanics. Intent is weird though, because what could be intended to be used one way, someone else could pick up the game and use it another way.
So what specifically do you think defines a narrative mechanic outside of intent?
Quote from: soviet;621117So you buy games without doing the most basic of research, including reading reviews, looking at previews of the PDF, reading adverts and interviews with the designer, or hearing people talk about it on forums? You make your purchasing decisions based solely on whether you see the label RPG on the cover? Come on man. Are you seriously telling me that you have bought what looks like an RPG only to discover it was a storygame trap inside? If so, would you care to tell us the name of this deceptively advertised game so that we can warn other people?
First of all, there are these things called game shops and bookstores, and some of them actually carry product you can buy after reading the cover. All these narrative games in question take the time to put words, phrases and taglines on the front and back cover, but except in a few cases they never seem to actually reference any of the System that Matters.
One example is TechNoir: high tech, hard boiled roleplaying
Quote from: Technoir websitePlaying it safe isn't working anymore; you're not going to get out of this clean. You have illicit tech and the talent to use it. Time to go shake the city and see what falls out. You'll get hurt, sure, but what kind of pain will you deal out?
Technoir is a roleplaying game. You play protagonists like cyber-tweaked couriers, hard-nosed investigators, and drugged-out hackers making opportunities for themselves in a despairing world. Using a rules-light system with enough intricacies to spark new fires of hardboiled crime novels and cyberpunk science fiction, Technoir lets you coax, hack, fight, prowl, and shoot your way through a dark future. It features Transmissions--city guides brimming with plot nodes to inspire your high-tech adventures--that the GM uses to create tangled and compelling plot webs that expand and evolve as the players' characters engage it.
If I hadn't been dealing with the Forge semantic bullshit advertising for years now, I might be tricked into thinking this is something remotely resembling a traditional RPG.
You'll get hurt, sure, but what kind of pain will you deal out? - Code for telling stories about your character's interactions and consequences.
spark new fires of hardboiled crime novels and cyberpunk science fiction - Code for "this is a storytelling game, you're creating fiction"
create tangled and compelling plot webs - Code for abstracted story threads, this game doesn't have world in motion verisimilitude.
Basically the adcopy is telling Narrative gamers come and get it, but if you don't know the lingo, you might think "Cool a new game like Cyberpunk:2020, Shadowrun or Interface Zero." and you would be very wrong.
Quote from: soviet;621100Question for those who think storygames are not RPGs: which category would you put the following games into?
Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
Sorcerer
HeroQuest (the Robin Laws one, not the GW one)
D&D 4e
These are story games:
Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
Sorcerer
HeroQuest (the Robin Laws one, not the GW one)
This is a RPG:
D&D 4e
RPGs have 2 types of participants:
1. (Game Master) The person(s) running the world and its non-player inhabitants (Usually only one, but sometimes there are more than one if the game master has helpers)
2. (Player) The people interacting with the imagined world from the point of view( with the established limits of a being in that world) ) of an inhabitant of that world. (There are a variety of 1st person or 3rd person styles in the portrayal and interactions of their inhabitant. They can also run multiple beings from that world as long as they are always interacting with that world from the point of view of those inhabitants they control).
Most importantly incidents can occur that go against the desires of the participants and they must abide by the results. Players can and will make choices that go against the expectations of the game master. Events will occur that go against the desires of the players.
If you have at least one person in mode 1 and one person in mode 2 you have a RPG.
In story games you basically have one type of participant. That is the person that is narrating what is occurring (or has just occurred) in the imagined world. There are various set ups to how a given player gets a turn controlling the world and what aspects they may control. But is boils down to them each taking turns controlling what goes on in the imaginary world.
In actual play this feels and plays very differently from an RPG.
D&D 4E is a RPG by my definition.
The problem many have with D&D 4E is the manner that their inhabitant of the imaginary world goes about interacting with the imaginary world.
The powers and abilities of the inhabitant of the world and how and when they can use those abilities can be jarring to some people.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180I try my best to by not crazy, aha. (son by the way. little dudes asleep again, so I'm a bit less harried at the moment)
Though an interesting thing to me is. What exactly defines something as a narrative mechanic. I'm not asking like as a baiting or anything, but I'm curious where people draw the lines.
Obviously, not all metagame mechanics are narrative. I mean, there are a lot of metagame mechanics in 4e D&D, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever describe them as narrative.
One way I could define it is if the rule attempts to enforce a narrative or story onto the game, but even then, that sounds like intent more than actual mechanics. Intent is weird though, because what could be intended to be used one way, someone else could pick up the game and use it another way.
So what specifically do you think defines a narrative mechanic outside of intent?
A Narrative mechanic is a subtype of metagame. Metagame of course is making a decision from the point of view of the player, not the character. Choosing something that a character has no knowledge of or could not possibly make that choice.
4e is filled to the brim with metagame, but it is not driven by a desire for narrative control, it is driven by the balance and tactics of the miniature wargame that is 4e combat. Could they have made a game as tactically rich as 4e and still not made the decisions metagame? Yes, they could have, but IC thinking wasn't even on the design board from the looks of things.
A narrative mechanic is a metagame choice that you choose not for tactical advantage, but because it would be interesting, even if it is a bad consequence. An example that comes to mind is the Volley move in Dungeon World. If I roll a certain number range when firing a bow, I "hit with consequences". My options are:
1. Hit for normal damage, but in order to do so, I had to move someplace placing my character in danger (the GM can place me where ever).
2. Hit for normal damage, but in order to do so, I had to shoot a bunch of arrows, so my abstracted ammo count goes down by one.
3. Get a lousy hit and do less damage.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination a choice that my character can make, therefore it is by definition metagame. Why am I choosing one of the options? Well, you can argue that since two are full damage and one is less damage there may be tactics involved, but basically the mechanics are asking me to choose the background behind how that attack ends up working. I am exercising narrative control from an OOC standpoint. It's a narrative mechanic.
I literally
cannot fire a bow in Dungeon World without the mechanics pulling me OOC for the purposes of narrative control.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621075The constant DEMONIZATION of the people on the other side is the problem.
You could say that for any sort of public commentary, opinion or dialog, with the worst of the worst being that on the Internet.
Quote from: soviet;621108Wait a sec though. The people making these changes to existing games aren't infamous Forge posters are they?
Mechanics that allow players to edit the world are a strong and ongoing fad (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=620595&postcount=170) in game design.
Yes, it was pushed by the Forge, and adopted by others because of the GNS. Which was wrong, for so (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=619020&postcount=137) many (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=619060&postcount=138) reasons (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=619224&postcount=139).
Quote from: Ladybird;621146Nothing, inherently, about a "story game" makes it worse than a "role-playing game" It's just different, some people will like one, some will like the other. And that's fine. As long as everyone gets games they like, it's all good.
This, I completely agree with.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621185Could they have made a game as tactically rich as 4e and still not made the decisions metagame? Yes, they could have, but IC thinking wasn't even on the design board from the looks of things.
And the faddish GNS ruins things again (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=619224&postcount=139).
Quote from: estar;621176The story game of WoD is not the same as the story-game of Ron Edwards.
As I said, "before the Forge redefined story-game...".
The point is, different camps made war upon each other. Such is as it ever was, such is as it ever shall be.
@CRKrueger
How 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. Yes it creates something that didn't happen before, but I always just assume my character is better at adventuring than I am, and it just represents him doing something before the fight that I didn't think of at the time that would have made sense.
NOW, discussing the idea of intent I was discussing earlier. Even if you consider the above narrative, what if someone only used it in situations where he had gained info from the fight as it was occurring.
What if in the middle of a fight with say, a Doombot and it rolls a 1 on its attack. I spend a PP saying "He revealed something specific about the way he is programmed to fight by that move, giving me a tech resource" (resources are linked to skills). Does this mechanic suddenly become less narrative based on the intent and how it is used?
Also, once again, @Krueger, I'm not trying to bait, I actually understood the point you made with DW, and I find I can agree with you there. I'm just trying to identify exactly what people mean by the terms.
From the interview:
Quote from: Monte CookNumenera empowers players not by taking power from the GM and giving it to players, but by taking power from the game and giving it to players. In other words, players don't exert influence on the narrative by changing or creating things outside their characters, but by having more power over how their own character performs and what happens to him or her.
Assuming this is accurate, it's be interesting to see how it works out in play. I like the general thrust, at least.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621195Assuming this is accurate, it's be interesting to see how it works out in play. I like the general thrust, at least.
It's just another way of saying narrative control, i.e. overriding the listed skill ratings and the results of the dice.
Quote from: gleichman;621197It's just another way of saying narrative control, i.e. overriding the listed skill ratings and the results of the dice.
Hero points aren't necessarily Narrative mechanics, nor are they necessarily metagame mechanics.
(See the recent discussion in the "Aspects" thread.)
A hero point mechanic may be what he's doing, but even so a well-done one could be useful.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621198Hero points aren't necessarily Narrative mechanics, nor are they necessarily metagame mechanics.
They are as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: gleichman;621200They are as far as I'm concerned.
It's a good thing you can't control reality, because in this case you're simply mistaken.
(And probably trolling me. :D)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621202It's a good thing you can't control reality, because in this case you're simply mistaken.
(And probably trolling me. :D)
I'm trolling no one, and the opinion is an honest one. Hero Points was perhaps the very first 'story based' gaming mechanic, and that's how the first games to use them (like for example the James Bond role-playing game) presented them.
I still remember the James Bond example they used, something like:
Bond: "You expect me to talk?"
Gold Finger: "No Mister Bond, I expect you to die"
Bond: "Well, you're forgetting one thing. If I fail to report, 008 replaces me"
So yes, narrative control. Any other opinion is revisionism.
Quote from: gleichman;621204Hero Points was perhaps the very first 'story based' gaming mechanic, and that's how the first games to use them (like for example the James Bond role-playing game) presented them.
And because that's how they did it back in the '70's, that's how they must always be? I disagree.
ICONS argues differently. Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)
I proffer Resolve (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=611751&postcount=57) as another example. Characters have skills, but they can put extra effort towards specific situations, and do better. This is a limited resource, as it is in reality, but it's possible.
Hero points can approximate real phenomenon.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621205Hero points can approximate real phenomenon.
Weak excuses to justify using a narrative mechanic by another name. People don't decide to be brilliant on a whim in the real world- they only get to do that as authors of fiction.
Quote from: Ladybird;621146Nothing, inherently, about a "story game" makes it worse than a "role-playing game" It's just different, some people will like one, some will like the other. And that's fine. As long as everyone gets games they like, it's all good.
I COMPLETELY agree with this.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180I try my best to by not crazy, aha. (son by the way. little dudes asleep again, so I'm a bit less harried at the moment)
Though an interesting thing to me is. What exactly defines something as a narrative mechanic. I'm not asking like as a baiting or anything, but I'm curious where people draw the lines.
To me, it's a rule that basically requires you to constitute the game as some sort of fictional construct that is being composed, hence the misnomer of narrative, or story for that matter. Basically, it's a rule that requires you to look upon the verbal exchanges around the game table as building a 'story'. I.e. you are an author looking upon the fictional construct of the game world and your proxy, the character, instead of being your character in a game world which, through the suspension of disbelief and the process of role playing, is assumed to be real the time of the game.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180Obviously, not all metagame mechanics are narrative. I mean, there are a lot of metagame mechanics in 4e D&D, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever describe them as narrative.
Right. I'm fine with some amount of metagame mechanics. For instance, hero points in James Bond 007. What I am totally not okay with is narrative mechanics, that is, if say, suddenly hero points allowed you to rewind "scenes", or to pop up items and characters out of nowhere because 'this is all a story!' and so on.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180One way I could define it is if the rule attempts to enforce a narrative or story onto the game, but even then, that sounds like intent more than actual mechanics. Intent is weird though, because what could be intended to be used one way, someone else could pick up the game and use it another way.
Yes and no. Intent can be spelled out in the text and yet differ from the application of the rules. The example in uber-spades of that is the storytelling wanking of White Wolf versus the actually trad mechanics of WoD games and therefore, how actual, real gamers played them. And yet the intent in the rules themselves comes through nonetheless, and when there is a discrepency between what the rules do and what the players want out of their games, then the game just breaks down for them. See what I mean?
Quote from: gleichman;621206Weak excuses to justify using a narrative mechanic by another name. People don't decide to be brilliant on a whim in the real world- they only get to do that as authors of fiction.
:rolleyes: All mechanics are approximations. Hit points, levels, wounds, the dice themselves, whatever. They all only approximate reality, and then imprecisely (by deliberate design).
The rules of a game don't exactly model reality.I find it hard to believe there exists a gamer that doesn't know this, understand this, and accept this.
The medium can't do any differently, so disregarding any game mechanic because it doesn't exactly model, in every single detail, the real world is... well, it's not a tenable position.
Plus, the notion of "extra effort" is actually realistic. People
do choose to devote intense effort to some endeavors.
Seriously, you never had days (or hours, like after lunch) at work where you were just phoning it in? You gave 110% every single instant of the day, and could never chose, ever, to do it differently?
You never slacked off, or conversely tried to do better, by going the extra mile? Never? And furthermore claim no one ever could or has, ever?
I disbelieve. I think you're trying to win the argument, and are refusing to consider the real world.
Since you're wrong as to reality, and wrong as to how games model reality, your position is just wrong.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621210:rolleyes: All mechanics are approximations.
Granting one the ability to control or influence the results of their character's actions beyond the decision to make the attempt is not an approximation of anything but Narrative Control enjoyed by authors and writers.
Nothing could be clearer to a honest and well informed observer.
Quote from: gleichman;621212Granting one the ability to control or influence the results of their character's actions beyond the decision to make the attempt is not an approximation of anything but Narrative Control enjoyed by authors and writers.
People do make extra efforts sometimes. Coaches give speeches for this very purpose
all the time.
You're ignoring actual reality and the mechanics under discussion.
If that's the only way for you to try and win... your position is wrong. :D
D&D's Hit Points ARE Hero Points. In D&D high level characters have a measurable amount of plot immunity. I run GURPS and Rolemaster mostly so the distinction really stands out for me. I lose lots of major villains to one shot kills. To me this is acceptable. Anyone can die at any time is best emphasized by allowing horrible criticals to affect favored npcs or even my wife's character. I've actually had players beg me at the table to spare my wife's character. But if I was playing D&D at anything past first level characters this simply wouldn't be a problem due to a built in story game mechanism.
Therefore D&D is not a Roleplaying Game?
No, story games are Roleplaying Games. Roleplaying is something you do in a game. Games take many forms. I've seen people who could craft an immersive narrative while playing craps and I've seen people who can turn Fudge into a twinked out tactical exercise in rules lawyering.
The brilliance of D&D was that it managed to sit squarely in the center of things and could thus be most things to most people. If D&D had been a game I liked it would have flopped. Indeed most of the games I like have flopped repeatedly. It wouldn't have flopped because I liked it, it would have flopped because not enough other people liked it.
What does this have to do with hate. I'm an avowed, self confessed D&D hater. Clash accused me of waging a one man war against D&D at one point and he's right. I can't go very far without taking a cheap potshot against D&D.
So, I'm Monty Cook's badguy right? No, not really, because I've come to accept that D&D needs to be D&D to succeed. And if I want other games to flourish I either need a trillion dollars to flush down the toilet or I need D&D to succeed as the core entry point to the hobby.
It's all the people who are still off in their little corners screaming that if D&D would come over to their corner then it would become a mainstream hit and gamers would have to chase away potential lovers with a beaten up copy of GURPS.
The ugly thing is how much gaming's come to resemble politics...
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621213People do make extra efforts sometimes. Coaches give speeches for this very purpose all the time.
I'm all for another character (NPC or PC) granting bonuses from leadership skill or the like*.
But a player deciding to grant himself bonuses? Please. You're reaching so far in front of the reality that you've grabbed your own backside.
*Edit: Actually that isn't really true. I refuse to use such bonuses in my games for reason unrelated to narrative control. Leadership rolls are confined solely to affecting NPC Morale and do not give bonuses.
Quote from: David Johansen;621214D&D's Hit Points ARE Hero Points.
They are if anything worst than Hero Points, but their mechanical use is different for the player isn't invoking them at his whim.
Quote from: gleichman;621215But a player deciding to grant himself bonuses? Please.
So, just to be clear... you, as a person, are utterly incapable of deciding where to put your best effort. You can't, at all, decide what to concentrate on and ignore, what to put casual effort towards and what to devote every bit of energy and ingenuity towards.
You walk to the curb with the exact same intensity that you run a 100-yard dash, because you simply can't do any different. And you think everyone on the planet is exactly the same as you?
They're not.
The rest of us make decisions about what to focus on all the time. We make choices every single day about what to pay attention to and what to slide on and what to completely ignore.
Seriously. This actually, really happens.
That you don't think it does (assuming you're being sincere here) is really odd. I can't imagine what its like for you to have nothing important, nothing interesting, nothing compelling, nothing that's especially motivating, nothing you deeply desire.
That's a horrible way to live. Where comes the joy in life, if you don't have a goal you are deeply committed to striving for and eventually achieve?
Where the valiant struggle? Where the painful introspection? Where the motivation to better yourself? Christ, what a flat and dispiriting existence that must be.
Thank God real people aren't like that.
So GURPS All Out Attacks for +2 damage and +4 to hit are story game mechanics? Hero's aim maneuver? Just about every aim manuever in just about every game that has one?
But, the player is awarding themselves a bonus. They have to abide a trade off to do so but expending a benny in Savage Worlds is a trade off in with regards to when the character gets the re-roll or whatever.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621218Thank God real people aren't like that.
Just so you know Gleichman is probably the biggest ass on the site (and that takes some work on this site) and you'll get nothing but condescension and nonsense by talking to him.
Just a heads up :)
Quote from: soviet;621100Question for those who think storygames are not RPGs: which category would you put the following games into?
Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
Sorcerer
HeroQuest (the Robin Laws one, not the GW one)
D&D 4e
What I saw of
Burning Wheel I liked. It looked like an interesting game system with some real possibilities, but it needed a lot of work.
Dogs in the Vineyard is misery tourism designed as an RPG. I have seen too many campaigns for this where the players didn't have a decent chance to make enough "win" situations, right out of the gate.
Don't know about
Sorceror or
Heroquest.
I sat in on a gaming round of
4e at GenCon the year it was released (2008) and even rolled up a character. Found the play wonky, with even more of a focus on math and stat/condition tracking than 3e, so didn't take it any further. The
4e DMG was actually pretty good, really good for a noob GM, but a bit sparse on resources for experienced GM's, but maybe that was just my preferences for lots of random tables, and generators, to help speed play.
Quote from: Piestrio;621220Just so you know Gleichman is probably the biggest ass on the site (and that takes some work on this site) and you'll get nothing but condescension and nonsense by talking to him.
What?... I have never had that experience, and have known him since 2005 or so.
Quote from: David Johansen;621219So GURPS All Out Attacks for +2 damage and +4 to hit are story game mechanics? Hero's aim maneuver? Just about every aim manuever in just about every game that has one?
But, the player is awarding themselves a bonus.
Excellent point, reasoned well. The debater in me applauds.
Quote from: Piestrio;621220Just so you know Gleichman is probably the biggest ass on the site (and that takes some work on this site) and you'll get nothing but condescension and nonsense by talking to him.
Thanks for the info. I kinds felt liked I was being punk'd, but wasn't sure.
Quote from: GameDaddy;621224What?... I have never had that experience, and have known him since 2005 or so.
I'll keep an open mind.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621193@CRKrueger
How 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. Yes it creates something that didn't happen before, but I always just assume my character is better at adventuring than I am, and it just represents him doing something before the fight that I didn't think of at the time that would have made sense.
NOW, discussing the idea of intent I was discussing earlier. Even if you consider the above narrative, what if someone only used it in situations where he had gained info from the fight as it was occurring.
What if in the middle of a fight with say, a Doombot and it rolls a 1 on its attack. I spend a PP saying "He revealed something specific about the way he is programmed to fight by that move, giving me a tech resource" (resources are linked to skills). Does this mechanic suddenly become less narrative based on the intent and how it is used?
Also, once again, @Krueger, I'm not trying to bait, I actually understood the point you made with DW, and I find I can agree with you there. I'm just trying to identify exactly what people mean by the terms.
Old FGU games like Daredevils have skills called subcultures. You use these to get informaiton, find contacts and know how stuff works.
So you can roll on High Society subculture to find out when the next Black and White Ball is happening, who is the current president of the Poohbar club or to see if you have a friend who is a member of the Poohbar club.
The latter never felt to me like a narrative exploit or broke my immersion or anything but I just added a useful NPC to teh plot by using a skill check.....
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621205And because that's how they did it back in the '70's, that's how they must always be? I disagree.
ICONS argues differently. Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)
I proffer Resolve (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=611751&postcount=57) as another example. Characters have skills, but they can put extra effort towards specific situations, and do better. This is a limited resource, as it is in reality, but it's possible.
Hero points can approximate real phenomenon.
But that
was (refering back to Gleichman's post) how James Bond used Hero Points and they were great the game is great and its very much an RPG
Quote from: GameDaddy;621224What?... I have never had that experience, and have known him since 2005 or so.
Seriously?
He's implied that we're all stupid several times and that people who really like immersion suffer from a personality disorder.
Just in this thread.
Which is basically his game in EVERY thread. Before we ignore listed each other he flat out said I was a BAD PERSON, as in morally wrong, because I don't follow RAW in my games.
He's an ass extraordinaire.
Quote from: gleichman;621169Any yet from my experience of your posting both in and not in threads I was a part of- you are a perfect example of what I was describing.
Yet I've managed to have hundreds upon hundreds of highly successful and rewarding gaming sessions where everyone enjoyed themselves immensely with a very large variety of people, ranging from regular gaming groups to CON games to pick up games at the local RPG club.
Have you? Somehow, I doubt it. You seem too angry and bitter to have had many good gaming experiences.
I don't care how other people play RPGs; I never have trouble filling my table, and why should I care if someone storygames or plays totally by RAW or whatever? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs, to paraphrase Pres. Jefferson. So I'm perfectly fine with people who play White Wolf, even though I don't, people who play storygames, even though I don't, people who play D&D by the RAW even though I don't. I think people are entitled to do whatever they like with their own games
Do you? Somehow, I doubt it. Seems to me you're a better example of a rude, closed-minded, and hateful person, based just on the rude, closed-minded and hateful things you say. To everyone. In every. Single. Thread. You seem intolerant of others' playstyles. I'm not intolerant at all. I've never accused anyone of a moral failing because of how they play an RPG, like you do - regularly.
Heck... do you even PLAY RPGs? Or do you just sit in the dark and seethe about how "wrong" everyone else plays RPGs and how they should play like you, and the fact that they don't just drives you to come to TheRPGSite and go all attack dog on everyone because they don't play like you?
QuoteIn fact, you go on to admit as much in your reply to danbuster.
You seem to be confused about the distinctions I made in the post you're replying to about "Real Life" and "The Internet". Is it possible you're unable to comprehend the distinction between the two? Because I tried to make them clear by using the terms "real life" and "internet" to distinguish the two, figuring your second grade reading level would permit you to comprehend the difference. I overestimated you. My apologies. It won't happen again.
Please re-read what I wrote and see if you can pick up on these subtle context clues.
And yeah I may come here intent to argue, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in what I'm arguing for. Itchin' for a fight doesn't mean you don't have something worth fightin' for. Most people here have an axe to grind and come here to grind it, including (and especially) YOU. I'm just being honest about it.
QuoteFor my part, I'm going to believe your walk, not your talk.
Kind of like your complaining about hateful, rude, closed-minded people? Your walk is right down Hypocrisy Lane. Considering you seem to invite abuse at every opportunity as the masochist you are.
I've got your number and it's:
Gleichman
1 Hypocrisy Lane
Trollsville, Masochismchusettes
USA
Quote from: gleichman;621168Because people are both cowards, and subject to legal action. In bygone eras, I'm sure duels would have been accepted and completed.
Poppycock. No one with a modicum of self respect or a sense of porportion is going to
fight a duel over the proper way to pretend to be an elf. Arguing on the Internet is no more akin to fighting a duel than playing a game of Call of Duty is participating in a real war.
Quote from: Ladybird;621146I used "narrative" because of CKrueger, but "metagame" works for me too, to sum up the entire thing; the more of my time I'm having to devote to thinking about how to play the game, the less I'm getting to spend playing the game. Whether that's thinking about the story or thinking about the system, it's not as much fun for me as immersing into the character. I can do those things any time I want (And I get paid to think quite intently about systems), but I can't role play any time, and that's what I'm at a game session to do.
We're currently playing the Leverage game, and I am enjoying it, but it requires a different style of thinking to, say, Shadowrun - similar genre (Heist games), but completely different due to the management of assets, plot points and flashbacks, and having to continually think slightly outside my character. I'm not sure I'd be able to explain it in more detail than that, but it's certainly a conversation belonging on the OG board here; I'm finding it far metagamier than In A Wicked Age, for example.
Bullshit. Nothing, inherently, about a "story game" makes it worse than a "role-playing game" It's just different, some people will like one, some will like the other. And that's fine. As long as everyone gets games they like, it's all good.
And there's nothing wrong with saying "that's a story game" or whatever. If someone's looking for a particular type of game, using that sort of descriptor - and explaining why you used it - is being helpful.
It's the way that those terms have been used, and the attitudes of the people using them, that are the problem. They're being used as hostile terms, and they're being taken as hostile terms. Now, we could ask both sides who started it, and they'd both say "the other side, for sure", but that doesn't solve anything. Until we get rid of the dickheads on both sides, that don't share the other side's choices and don't see why the other side should get things they like, we're going to have this problem.
I think it's more of a spectrum though.
There are lots of trad RPGs with narative/metagame mechanics, stuff like finding the right sized uniform (James Bond), knowing the right guy (Daredevils), Finding the right clue (Gumshoe), or even thinking of the right thing to ask or look for (Idea rolls in CoC).
Now you might call them meta game or narative but they are doing the same basic thing they are altering the game world ourside of the direct control of the PC and the GM.
In James Bond if a PC said I want to sepnd a hero point to have the guy have heard of my ruthless reputation.. I allow that. I want to make a Criminal subculture roll to see if there is a rival gang in Detroit that is in competition with the Mareni family (daredevils) etc etc
Now how is that different from I use my History of Intimidation Aspect to make the guy afriad of me. Or I use my Create Useful Supporting character narative point to create the Mareni family...
It's a spectrum. I think its great for certain games to have a clear character. D&D should play like D&D and not change hats between editions, the same is true of Traveller, BRP, CoC whatever but to take a fractured and splintered hobby like RPGS and splinter it further into sub-niche micro categories is a bizaare thing to do.
Do it if it helps you to pitch your game to the right market segment but if it's just a way of building barriers then you may as well be arguing about the ills of the People Popular Front of Judea vs the Popular People Front or arguing about what colour hats in Listers fast food franchise in the One True Religion.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621248I think it's more of a spectrum though.
There are lots of trad RPGs with narative/metagame mechanics, stuff like finding the right sized uniform (James Bond), knowing the right guy (Daredevils), Findign the right clue (Gumshoe), or even thinking of the right thing to ask or look for (Idea rolls in CoC).
I don't think it's a spectrum. I don't think it's a question of the existence of a particular mechanic. I think it's a question of mechanical focus. If the mechanics are focused on enabling the player to portray a character in a fictional game world, with portrayal of that character as the goal and point of play, then it's an RPG
If, however, the mechanics focus on enabling the player to tell a story using the character as a device through which they can generate a narrative, with the narrative, not portrayal of the character, being the focus and point of play, then it's not an RPG.
The key thing about an RPG is playing the character is the point of play, it's what the mechanics are focusing on trying to accomplish. James Bond is an RPG because James Bond finding a fitting uniform is genre emulation. The player isn't using the mechanics to tell a story with the character as merely a narrative device, they're playing a Bondesque character and the mechanics exist to allow them to focus on Being James Bond (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) without any concerns for allowing the player to generate a narrative story which the character is ultimately subordinate to.
In a story game, the focus isn't really on the character except as a narrative device for the players to use to spin the story the player wants to see happen. The players are less
being James Bond and more
telling a story about James Bond. That's the significant difference between and RPG and a storygame in my eyes.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621233But that was (refering back to Gleichman's post) how James Bond used Hero Points and they were great the game is great and its very much an RPG
That doesn't really bear on his claim: Hero points are always, in every single case, a Storygame mechanic and any game that explains them in another way is doing violence to the concept of reality itself.
I described how they didn't have to be. He repeated his claim. I expanded with evidence and reason. He repeated his claim. etc.
The central point was this:
Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)
What
James Bond 007 did or didn't do is irrelevant to that point.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;621249The key thing about an RPG is playing the character is the point of play, it's what the mechanics are focusing on trying to accomplish. James Bond is an RPG because James Bond finding a fitting uniform is genre emulation. The player isn't using the mechanics to tell a story with the character as merely a narrative device,
Well put. Also has the virtue of being accurate.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;621249I don't think it's a spectrum. I don't think it's a question of the existence of a particular mechanic. I think it's a question of mechanical focus. If the mechanics are focused on enabling the player to portray a character in a fictional game world, with portrayal of that character as the goal and point of play, then it's an RPG
If, however, the mechanics focus on enabling the player to tell a story using the character as a device through which they can generate a narrative, with the narrative, not portrayal of the character, being the focus and point of play, then it's not an RPG.
The key thing about an RPG is playing the character is the point of play, it's what the mechanics are focusing on trying to accomplish. James Bond is an RPG because James Bond finding a fitting uniform is genre emulation. The player isn't using the mechanics to tell a story with the character as merely a narrative device, they're playing a Bondesque character and the mechanics exist to allow them to focus on Being James Bond (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) without any concerns for allowing the player to generate a narrative story which the character is ultimately subordinate to.
In a story game, the focus isn't really on the character except as a narrative device for the players to use to spin the story the player wants to see happen. The players are less being James Bond and more telling a story about James Bond. That's the significant difference between and RPG and a storygame in my eyes.
but the point at which they cross is the interesting point right?
Just skipped from the OP to the end of this already big thread, but a comment:
In the last 12-24 months I've subjectively noticed a change towards negativity not only on RPG boards, but in the entire discussion space on the parts of the internet that I frequent. I'm talking major media organs, Facebook, mainstream blogs. The term "troll" has entered general parlance. Three years ago, believe it or not, most normal people didn't bandy the word "troll" about. Now they do, and people are aware of the unwonted toxicity of online discussion. It's impossible to prove or quantify, but I think there's been a cultural shift of some sort. There is more fierce trolling, and equally various forms of reaction from intense moderation to disengagement.
In other words, it's not just the D&D edition wars.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621218So, just to be clear... you, as a person, are utterly incapable of deciding where to put your best effort.
Traditional skills are more than capable of determining if your character made a poor, average or best effort- and they do so without putting that choice in the *players* hands. In short, that was what the dice were for. Hero Point in *any* form are used to override this simple fact to suit the desire of the player.
Originally people were honest, and called these things what they were. The passage of time from things like the James Bond RPG doesn't change the reality of what the mechanics do. No does you claiming otherwise.
I'm very sorry that you so hate story-games that you have to make up excuses for using story based mechanics. Such self-deception is a painful thing to see in another person although very common in gaming.
Gamers as whole are very stupid people, as this site so well shows.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621252That doesn't really bear on his claim: Hero points are always, in every single case, a Storygame mechanic and any game that explains them in another way is doing violence to the concept of reality itself.
I described how they didn't have to be. He repeated his claim. I expanded with evidence and reason. He repeated his claim. etc.
The central point was this: Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)
What James Bond 007 did or didn't do is irrelevant to that point.
Well put. Also has the virtue of being accurate.
Yeah but my point is Hero points were used in james bond to make narative alterations. James bond remained an RPG as Dr Jest points out you play the role of an agent narative stuff layers on top of that central premise.
However in Ars Magica you have troupe play, likewise with some of Clash's games. So here you are no longer playing a single role. still an RPG though.
So like I say you have numerous different takes on the balance between these different elements call then GNS or call them immersion, story and game I don't care but different games have a different fingerprint. Now I have no problem calling them all roleplaying games although I prefer immersive games with single characters a sprinkle of story mechanics and a games engine that mostly gets out of the way, that doesn't mean I want to exclude your games with complex combat rules like 4e and troupe play or his game with multiple players controling a troupe of PCs with no direct player to PC mapping and lots of narative.
the lines different people draw are different but that is taste and not really a precise definition
Quote from: jibbajibba;621297Yeah but my point is Hero points were used in james bond to make narative alterations.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying
you've got the wrong guy.
Your point about James Bond is pertinent to what someone else was saying, not me. Doctor Jest, I think, though I could be mistaken.
Sorry, not trying to argue. Just pointing out that you should be addressing your comments to other people.
Wow, complete disconnect to Cook's point quoted in the OP re: internet boards killing 'the hobby' ('to the point where only the a-holes remain').
He doesn't seem to have realized that being on RPG fora (contributing or lurking) and playing RPGs are two entirely different hobbies, and that mutual repercussions are A) evasive and B) not material, possibly C) non-existent. Sorry if claiming we're dealing with different hobbies borders on banailty (I'd agree it certainly does), but the immediate implications of that make Cook's grandiose future diagnosis risible.
I've never contributed or even read about the Forge, except maybe on Gleichman's blog (in that history entry of his), but it seems to me the prime exhibit to drive home how discussions on RPGs, especially at their most ideological, have not contributed widely to the state of the hobby, i.e. to which games get played or how much (of) RPGs get played; and how these discussions are anyway off most gamers' radar. I'd grant Cook one exception to this claim, which is that Open Playtests try to blend the two, but neither of these abounds in the characteristics Cook finds so pronounced (E.g. witness Joshua Frost kicking off harsh voices from TheGamingDen from the Paizo playtest threads to precisely prevent this from happening).
Like other posters I also get the sense that Cook has not been following this closely, or he'd have a different sense. My own, which is WAY more recent and thus uninformed than most others' here, is that internet discussion of RPGs has become a lot more tame (if also less interesting, with far less innovative points) in the past two years. The trenches are pretty much set, and most people don't even care about them anymore, except for a couple of guys (on here and elsewhere) who can still be bothered to re-draw battlelines at the flimsiest excuse of an 'opportunity' to do so.
Further, there are TONS of RPG-relevant material available online, freely, which DOES contribute to the playing of RPGs to those who can be bothered to google for them (and to all appearances, Cook ran a website of such a nature, if briefly and if also view-by-pay, Dungeon-a-Day). Any system you play, you'll find GMs who've put out custom material out there for free. Unsurprisingly, it's not to be found on discussion boards, which I would agree is a lot about scoring points in the aforementioned game over right ideology.
In summary, RPG fora are not the hobby, and they are not even the entirety (or most relevant thing) to RPG's internet presence.
Quote from: 1989;621021I like the part where he said that 3e basically made people play with miniatures, and 3.5/4e taking that and making it moreso.
3e killed RPGs.
2e was the last great D&D.
I agree with the effect stated, but.....
I don't blame the rules or the miniatures. I blame dm's and players.
I had lead minis back when I first played 1E dnd 30+ years ago. I drew maps to keep track of stuff.
Sure, 3X had more rules directly friendly to grids and minis, but it does not force anyone to use them.
I have run 4E with no maps and minis, and people think 4E requires a grid even more than peple think 3X does.
I am comfortable with or without minis and maps; I just don't get why anyone feels compelled to use them.
As I've stated I really like minis but try to keep them abstracted...I don't count squares, I use common sense. No "Oh sorry you're five feet too far back to do anything this round, you'll have to spend the entire round running up then get attacked then next round you can do something" or anything like that.
It's not Chainmail, it's D&D.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621297Yeah but my point is Hero points were used in james bond to make narrative alterations.
No, they are not used to make "narrative alterations", because the game isn't construed as a narrative to begin with. Hero Points in 007 are first and foremost used to change degrees of successes to emulate the occasional impossible feats Bond himself seems capable of at times. This is the basic use, which doesn't require GM approval.
With GM approval, however, you have a secondary use which is to basically modify the world so that your character, like Bond, finds just the right stuff to perform a feat at the right time. This IS a metagame mechanic modifying the world outside of the character, and as such it could be problematic for some people trying to immerse in the game, though the goal of the mechanic itself is not narrative, it is genre emulation, allowing you to act like Bond does, which might ease immersion for other people.
So Hero Points in James Bond are basically not problematic in their straightforward usage. It's when you use them to modify the environment so that the situation lines up "just so" to get you out of problematic situations or perform Bondesque feats of heroism that they become a clear metagame mechanic. At no point is there aim to "modify the narrative", because the game isn't about building a narrative in the first place. It's about genre emulation. It's about
being Bond.
Quote from: Bill;621314I am comfortable with or without minis and maps; I just don't get why anyone feels compelled to use them.
I have a list of requirements for anyone I'd invite to my games, or for any games that I'd consider going to. One of these is if the person uses maps or minis to resolve combat.
A "no" answer, or your "sometimes" tells me that we're effectively in a different hobby. As a result I won't game with the person.
To be honest, the use of a map and mini are so universal in my experience that this red line has never been triggered. The only reason I've even thought of asking the question is because of people online.
The most common ones I have to reject are D&D players who actually think the game is realistic (not just no, hell no), WoD players (or others who want to play evil or amoral characters), and Lite System fans.
Quote from: Benoist;621333It's about genre emulation. It's about being Bond.
Hero Points used as genre emulation means only one thing- the core rules were badly designed and are unable to emulate the genre themselves. Thus they are a patch for poor designer, used by bad players who can't tell the difference.
I should also note at this time, that IMO the only thing about a genre that Hero Points mirror are without exception the *bad* and stupid things about the genre. Those I can do without.
Quote from: Benoist;621333No, they are not used to make "narrative alterations", because the game isn't construed as a narrative to begin with. Hero Points in 007 are first and foremost used to change degrees of successes to emulate the occasional impossible feats Bond himself seems capable of at times. This is the basic use, which doesn't require GM approval.
With GM approval, however, you have a secondary use which is to basically modify the world so that your character, like Bond, finds just the right stuff to perform a feat at the right time. This IS a metagame mechanic modifying the world outside of the character, and as such it could be problematic for some people trying to immerse in the game, though the goal of the mechanic itself is not narrative, it is genre emulation, allowing you to act like Bond does, which might ease immersion for other people.
So Hero Points in James Bond are basically not problematic in their straightforward usage. It's when you use them to modify the environment so that the situation lines up "just so" to get you out of problematic situations or perform Bondesque feats of heroism that they become a clear metagame mechanic. At no point is there aim to "modify the narrative", because the game isn't about building a narrative in the first place. It's about genre emulation. It's about being Bond.
But you are focusing on the minutia of the argument rather than the main point.
There are games where 'hero point' like mechanics can have narative like effects. It doesn't matter if you call them meta-game (which I actually prefer to use for gamey stuff like having understand what feat 'A' does but no matter) or narative. the game doesn't have to be narativist for a rule to be a 'story' rule. The intent of the rule doesn't matter its the implementation that matters.
The point is that all games sit on a matrix of these elements. What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?
Quote from: jibbajibba;621350What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?
It determines who I should or should not game with. What rules I should or should not consider buying. And who's advice I should or should not pay addition to.
Quote from: gleichman;621346Hero Points used as genre emulation means only one thing- the core rules were badly designed and are unable to emulate the genre themselves. Thus they are a patch for poor designer, used by bad players who can't tell the difference.
I should also note at this time, that IMO the only thing about a genre that Hero Points mirror are without exception the *bad* and stupid things about the genre. Those I can do without.
Disagree with this.
Hero points , bennies etc etc are a fine mechanic that have exactly the specified intent. They enable a 'hero' to sit inside a realistic physics driven game engine and on occassion step out of that engine to do heroic 'unrealistic' things. Because they are exception driven they don't subvert the entire rules engine or require aditiona PC centric mechanics.
They also enable players to make narative changes that further the emulation of the specific genre by simulating the 'luck' or 'coincidence' prevelant in these genres. Now you might call that luck or coincidence bad writing but its present in the genres for sure.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621350But you are focusing on the minutia of the argument rather than the main point.
No. Enough with the evasion. Enough with the mixing up everything trying to wiggle your way out of you being fucking wrong. I addressed your main point, which is why I quoted EXACTLY and JUST what you said was your ACTUAL point, that hero points "were used in james bond to make narrative alterations." So shut the fuck up and listen: these mechanics are NOT making "narrative alterations" because there's no narrative to modify. 007 is not a narrative game.
It's a role playing game, and the goal of the mechanic is genre emulation. Period.
Got it? Stop evading the subject.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621350What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?
If I wanted to, I could play WFRP1 without Fate points or James Bond without Hero points, or Savage World without Bennies or Fate without Aspects. The core mechanics of task resolution can be completely non-metagame.
I cannot do that with, for example, Technoir or Dungeon World. The core mechanics are designed in such a way that I must engage the OOC systems. Remember, "System Matters" for these designers, their systems are specifically designed to deliver a metagame experience for the purposes of narrative control.
When the core mechanics of resolution force an OOC point of view, it's very hard to classify it in the same category as a game that allows the core mechanics to be engaged from an IC point of view.
Why do you need to classify it? Because for 30 years when I buy an RPG I can assume I get a game that allows me to roleplay IC. A new type of game that requires me to be OOC for reasons other then roleplaying should
at least be marketed as a different form of RPG.
Quote from: gleichman;621351It determines who I should or should not game with. What rules I should or should not consider buying. And who's advice I should or should not pay addition to.
But because those lines are at best formulaic at at worst arbitary they really don't tell us exactly what a game is like. A review of the game itself is far better.
Though I do see some merit to fingerprinting games.I just feel that focusing on one aspect of a game and eliminating other aspects so that it fits into a nicely labelled pigeonhole is counter productive to creating or indeed playing good games.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621355If I wanted to, I could play WFRP1 without Fate points or James Bond without Hero points, or Savage World without Bennies or Fate without Aspects. The core mechanics of task resolution can be completely non-metagame.
I cannot do that with, for example, Technoir or Dungeon World. The core mechanics are designed in such a way that I must engage the OOC systems. Remember, "System Matters" for these designers, their systems are specifically designed to deliver a metagame experience for the purposes of narrative control.
When the core mechanics of resolution force an OOC point of view, it's very hard to classify it in the same category as a game that allows the core mechanics to be engaged from an IC point of view.
Why do you need to classify it? Because for 30 years when I buy an RPG I can assume I get a game that allows me to roleplay IC. A new type of game that requires me to be OOC for reasons other then roleplaying should at least be marketed as a different form of RPG.
Like I say reading a review of the game is a better indicator than an arbitarty label though?
Quote from: jibbajibba;621350But you are focusing on the minutia of the argument rather than the main point.
There are games where 'hero point' like mechanics can have narative like effects. It doesn't matter if you call them meta-game (which I actually prefer to use for gamey stuff like having understand what feat 'A' does but no matter) or narative. the game doesn't have to be narativist for a rule to be a 'story' rule. The intent of the rule doesn't matter its the implementation that matters.
The point is that all games sit on a matrix of these elements. What is the real point of drawing rigid lines to separate the flavours of 'rpgs' what does it by for the wider hobby?
Because this idea that there's some spectrum between RPG and Storygame is really a red herring; as I've said before, there's a clear distinction between the two where what the mechanics enable and focus on as the primary activity of play is what matters. Everything else is just matters of quality (how well it enables that focus) and taste (how much I like how it enables that focus). But you can't have a game where the primary point is both to faithfully portray a character AND to tell a story, because they're uniquely distinct things. One of those things has primacy over the other, and therefore is the point of play.
That means that, regardless of mechanics used, games are either promising "Being James Bond" or "Telling a story about James Bond" but aren't doing both. Again, we can debate how WELL they deliver on that promise and if we LIKE how they deliver on that promise, but they're only delivering on one of them as the primary goal.
Any game that professes to do both will, in practice, come down hard on one side or the other, because you can't have two different focii of play that can come into opposition without some means to determine if they do come into opposition, which one will have primacy. If portraying the character has primacy over "the story", it's an RPG, and if telling a "good" story has primacy over "being the character", it's a story game.
This is a real distinction, like the one between RPGs and Wargames is a real distinction. Wargaming and roleplaying are distinct, albeit related, hobbies. Same with RPGs and Storygames.
The value of this distinction is so that when someone is looking for a gaming group to join, they will have a higher instance of successful games because they won't show up to play "RPGs" and have someone pull out Fiasco instead, when they were expecting something akin to D&D. Or vice-versa. It's a valuable distinction to make, and categorization does not imply judgment on quality or enjoyability of the game. It's just attempting to provide more accuracy and usefulness of definitions to facilitate everyone finding the game they enjoy most. Surely that's a good thing?
Quote from: jibbajibba;621357Like I say reading a review of the game is a better indicator than an arbitarty label though?
Why not eliminate categories across the board? Lets just put all music into one big bin, rather than sorting by genre. Same with novels. Why make a distinction between Science Fiction and, say, Romance? Have people just do independent research on each and every item without any system of classification whatsoever to help pre-sort items by type.
Wouldn't that be grand?
Quote from: jibbajibba;621352Hero points , bennies etc etc are a fine mechanic that have exactly the specified intent. They enable a 'hero' to sit inside a realistic physics driven game engine and on occassion step out of that engine to do heroic 'unrealistic' things.
No, they allow the *player* to pull the character out of whatever physics engine he's operating in to do whatever the *player* wishes when the *players* wants to.
A far better solution is to have a physics engine that already accounts for the hero without such meta-game excuses. That way the character is always true to himself and to his world.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621355If I wanted to, I could play WFRP1 without Fate points or James Bond without Hero points, or Savage World without Bennies or Fate without Aspects.
You could try, but the result would be a different game and likely in the long term a very unsuccessful one. Those mechanics are patches for failures of the core mechanics. So in time the campaign will simply break, or at best fail to model what they were originally designed to model.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621356But because those lines are at best formulaic at at worst arbitary they really don't tell us exactly what a game is like.
I beg to differ. They tell me exactly what the game is like. I know this from the personal experience and wasted time that comes from attempting a campaign while ignoring those very lines.
A game mechanic when used will always have the impact that such a mechanic has. Even if the person is willfully trying to blind themselves to that fact.
Game reviews on the other hand are so biased as to be worthless. The only value is in identifying the bias so that you can get some worthwhile information. For example, anything Pundit likes- I know I won't- so I can dismiss such a game.
Quote from: Benoist;621354No. Enough with the evasion. Enough with the mixing up everything trying to wiggle your way out of you being fucking wrong. I addressed your main point, which is why I quoted EXACTLY and JUST what you said was your ACTUAL point, that hero points "were used in james bond to make narrative alterations." So shut the fuck up and listen: these mechanics are NOT making "narrative alterations" because there's no narrative to modify. 007 is not a narrative game.
It's a role playing game, and the goal of the mechanic is genre emulation. Period.
Got it? Stop evading the subject.
So I played the Shit out of James Bond for about 5 years and we used Hero points to make narative changes all the FUCKING TIME.
So I am talking about a game I have played sixteen ways from Sunday. I am talking about my direct experience of the game.
My main point is that plenty of traditional RPGs have narative style mechanics. James Bond was merely the example that came up and one I am very familar with. So first off don't tell me what my argument is I know what it is and second off why don't you try to define a limit of the degree of narative mechanics that you will allow in a game before it becomes a story game, in your opinion? DR Who ? Ars Magica? Dungeon world? Marvel Heroic Roleplaying ? where is your line.... for me these are all RPGs some might be RPGs I don't fancy playing but meh that's my choice not a rule I need to apply to the whole world to fit it into my version of reality.
Quote from: gleichman;621366I beg to differ. They tell me exactly what the game is like. I know this from the personal experience and wasted time that comes from attempting a campaign while ignoring those very lines.
A game mechanic when used will always have the impact that such a mechanic has. Even if the person is willfully trying to blind themselves to that fact.
but those are lines drawn by you from direct experience. Not lines drawn by the OFFICIAL STORYGAME, ROLEPLAYING GAME OR BOARDGAME COMMITTEE.
so you need to decide for each game does this game fit my tastes? too much narative control? too many combat rules? not enough character options? Wrong genre?
Becuase you won't be the one to divide games into these categories you will find loads of corner cases that won't fit your opinion of where to draw the lines, so why draw the lines.
I played James Bond 007 without Hero Points and in a very gritty fashion. Other modifications were included, like skills related to seduction and the like being out, and this resulted in a game of Special Ops or commandos, if you will. It clearly was a different game, to me. I think that Hero Points participate to the genre emulation of James Bond.
Now, "physics engine" extremists, like Gleichman, will have a huge problem with that, obviously. Yet other people who are not narrativists, but on the contrary want to immerse in the world of James Bond, will find that metagame mechanic (because it is metagame, clearly) useful for that purpose, while others will have a problem with that. That's where different people find different mechanics useful or impeding their role playing process.
This is possibly why the mechanic requires GM approval to use (as opposed to the basic uses of Hero Points, again), and why the amount of Hero Points awarded is entirely up to GM adjudication, with spelled out guidelines and the clear notion that less or more HPs in the game can modify its feel dramatically. My experience mentioned above agrees with that notion.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting really tired of this debate. Distinctions are certainly useful things but the militancy on this subject is way beyond my taste.and I really think it is starting to do more harm than good.
If your actual intention was to market to people who liked the type of game you were selling, you would welcome classification and labeling to make sure people who were looking for your product could find it. Just like most products sold on the planet.
If however, your agenda is actually replacing the primary paradigm using a label with your paradigm because you think the primary paradigm is inferior and actually harmful, then you wouldn't want such classification, you would fight it as long and hard as possible.
Replacing the primary "simulationist" paradigm in RPGs with the "narrativist" paradigm was Edward's purpose in the Forge remember.
Now JKim can come on and tell me designer by designer who was a big supporter of Ron and who was not and that's fine, but whether you argued with Ron on the Forge or not, I don't see many narrative games attempting to market their products specifically to people that like them except through specific Forge lingo (like I pointed out with Technoir) that to non-Forgists could just as easily describe a traditional RPG if you don't know what to look for.
If it looks like a memetic war, acts like a memetic war, and had its start on a site defining a memetic war, is it a memetic war?
For some reason, only the people that don't mind narrative mechanics at all are the ones saying "No". Why is that?
Quote from: jibbajibba;621367So I played the Shit out of James Bond for about 5 years and we used Hero points to make narative changes all the FUCKING TIME.
Just because YOU construe the game as "a narrative" doesn't mean the game does, and doesn't mean that the zillions of other players who did play it, including me, would agree with that notion. Get the fuck over yourself.
Quote from: gleichman;621362No, they allow the *player* to pull the character out of whatever physics engine he's operating in to do whatever the *player* wishes when the *players* wants to.
A far better solution is to have a physics engine that already accounts for the hero without such meta-game excuses. That way the character is always true to himself and to his world.
again i disagree.
If the Hero has a separate rule subsystem the game becomes overly burdened and complex.
Also the genres themselves, james bond, supers, pulp, are in and of themselves inconsistent. The Hero can only do the exceptional thing at certain times not consistently, A hero point system mimics this ideally.
In the words of Roger Rabbit 'I could only do it when it was funny'.
Quote from: Benoist;621373Just because YOU construe the game as "a narrative" doesn't mean the game does, and doesn't mean that the zillions of other players who did play it, including me, would agree with that notion. Get the fuck over yourself.
DUDE... you are the one telling me I am havign badwrongfun. I and just telling you how I played a game for Years and years.
and again I don't care if its a story or a plot or just a narative that develops organically through play. The point is that these mechanics are used to do stuff that effects that introduce new NPCS, find a harpoon gun, etc etc.
I don't care about the why which is where you are fixated. I care about what actually happens at the game table.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621369but those are lines drawn by you from direct experience. Not lines drawn by the OFFICIAL STORYGAME, ROLEPLAYING GAME OR BOARDGAME COMMITTEE.
The line is draw by the presence or absence of specific types of mechanics. Nothing could be more objective or more clear.
Except we live in a world that denies object truth and subs in illusion and self-deception. But on the bright side, it's very easy to tell who's fallen for that trap. They call D&D HP realistic and meta-game patches for badly designed rules 'genre emulation'. They can be ignored as the waste of human thought they are.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621375DUDE... you are the one telling me I am havign badwrongfun.
Who's saying that? You played James Bond like a narrative game for 5 years and had a blast. AWESOME. Fantastic. It's great, and you should totally do that again if it's fun for you!
That does NOT change the fact that James Bond 007 is NOT a narrative game, that it doesn't construe the process of playing as "building a narrative", that the use of Hero Points to modify the environment is therefore NOT "an alteration of the narrative", and that its primary goal is genre emulation, immersion, the creation of a verisimilar world that is close to James Bond's.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621374again i disagree.
If the Hero has a separate rule subsystem the game becomes overly burdened and complex.
I didn't call for a separate rule subsystem for the Hero (although I should point out that's basically what Hero Points are in addition to their meta-game and narrative control qualities).
I called for a system able to model the Hero as part of its core mechanics.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621372If your actual intention was to market to people who liked the type of game you were selling, you would welcome classification and labeling to make sure people who were looking for your product could find it. Just like most products sold on the planet.
If however, your agenda is actually replacing the primary paradigm using a label with your paradigm because you think the primary paradigm is inferior and actually harmful, then you wouldn't want such classification, you would fight it as long and hard as possible.
Replacing the primary "simulationist" paradigm in RPGs with the "narrativist" paradigm was Edward's purpose in the Forge remember.
Now JKim can come on and tell me designer by designer who was a big supporter of Ron and who was not and that's fine, but whether you argued with Ron on the Forge or not, I don't see many narrative games attempting to market their products specifically to people that like them except through specific Forge lingo (like I pointed out with Technoir) that to non-Forgists could just as easily describe a traditional RPG if you don't know what to look for.
If it looks like a memetic war, acts like a memetic war, and had its start on a site defining a memetic war, is it a memetic war?
For some reason, only the people that don't mind narrative mechanics at all are the ones saying "No". Why is that?
but no one is forcing you to buy Technoir any more than they are forcing you to buy MHR or Runquest 6e or D&D Next. You can tell from reading a game review or mooching through the rule book in a shop or an online pdf whether you like it or not.
Quote from: gleichman;621379I didn't call for a separate rule subsystem for the Hero (although I should point out that's basically what Hero Points are in addition to their meta-game and narrative control qualities).
I called for a system able to model the Hero as part of its core mechanics.
I wil yeild some of the hero point being a separate mechanic although its so rules lite that it bearly adds to the complexity, and also in may games they apply to all 'heroic' charaters not just PCs.
The trouble with these genres as i said is that hero is not consistently lucky or tough or strong. Most of the time Indianna Jones is an archeology professor, he can be caught and tied up by a coupel of goons butat teh most dramatic moment he can jump out of an aeroplane with only a inflatable dingy and survive.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621372Replacing the primary "simulationist" paradigm in RPGs with the "narrativist" paradigm was Edward's purpose in the Forge remember.
I wonder if that was true, I don't think so.
At the time the "simulationist" paradigm had already fallen into disfavor and was basically on the way out as a major influence. The Trend was towards Lite Systems or more heavy and very game focused designs coupled with heavy handed GM story advice.
Most of the Simulationists were in fact anything but, as they attempted to re-brand their favorite games as Simulationist. We see that still going on today on this very board with some of the the OSR cult.
There were of course still real "Simulationists" around and they would naturally come into conflict with the Forge. But I doubt such was primary in the mind of the Forge. Rather they wanted to replace the heavy handed GM story advice with mechanical systems that would control and justify heavy handed story control. It was in the end, a simple goal.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621383The trouble with these genres as i said is that hero is not consistently lucky or tough or strong. Most of the time Indianna Jones is an archeology professor, he can be caught and tied up by a coupel of goons butat teh most dramatic moment he can jump out of an aeroplane with only a inflatable dingy and survive.
Two thoughts...
First, maybe that's simply bad writing. I groaned through that scene (the airplane dingy) in the theater and ended up disliking that Indiana Jones movie greatly. I wouldn't want it happening in a game I was running.
Second, again- such things can be handled in the core rules without the addition of Hero Points. It's not difficult.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;621371I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting really tired of this debate. Distinctions are certainly useful things but the militancy on this subject is way beyond my taste.and I really think it is starting to do more harm than good.
Same.
Everyone has been pushed into such ridiculous and extreme positions that Gleichman is starting to fit in.
And that's horrible.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;621371I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting really tired of this debate. Distinctions are certainly useful things but the militancy on this subject is way beyond my taste.and I really think it is starting to do more harm than good.
You could always not read the thread.
But really, a thread about Cook complaining that gamers hate each other not showing militancy? You should have double checked your expectations.
Quote from: Benoist;621377Who's saying that? You played James Bond like a narrative game for 5 years and had a blast. AWESOME. Fantastic. It's great, and you should totally do that again if it's fun for you!
That does NOT change the fact that James Bond 007 is NOT a narrative game, that it doesn't construe the process of playing as "building a narrative", that the use of Hero Points to modify the environment is therefore NOT "an alteration of the narrative", and that its primary goal is genre emulation, immersion, the creation of a verisimilar world that is close to James Bond's.
You still don't get it james bond if not a narativist game , its just a game with some narative modification rules so id Dungeon world just with more of em.
that is my point
You have a personal line after which a game becomes narativist and though you will still play it you won't call it a roleplaying game. Although you still sit round a table with your mates eating cheetos drinking beer and rollign dice to see if the elf shoots the goblin.
You must see that that line is maleable and different people will draw it in different places. So why pigeonhole. "Let a thousand flowers blossom and a thousand schools of thought contend" etc .
anyway got to leave you guys to it as tme for bed.
Quote from: Piestrio;621387Same.
Everyone has been pushed into such ridiculous and extreme positions that Gleichman is starting to fit in.
And that's horrible.
I'm dropping it. There's no conversation possible.
Quote from: Benoist;621390I'm dropping it. There's no conversation possible.
I've never seen it otherwise with you. Perhaps we can dare hope you'd drop posting completely now that you've had this epiphany?
Quote from: gleichman;621392I've never seen it otherwise with you. Perhaps we can dare hope you'd drop posting completely now that you've had this epiphany?
Take your miniatures and shove them up your ass.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621355If I wanted to, I could play WFRP1 without Fate points or James Bond without Hero points, or Savage World without Bennies or Fate without Aspects. The core mechanics of task resolution can be completely non-metagame.
I cannot do that with, for example, Technoir or Dungeon World. The core mechanics are designed in such a way that I must engage the OOC systems.
Maybe I have to take a look at Dungeon World. I thought it would be able to use the skill chances in a way similar to the OMNI/Talislanta table (7-9 mixed success, 10+ full success) without ever looking at the "pick 2 results out of 3" stuff. (That, plus the GM gets to roll dice as well.)
And back to the start of the thread:
Quote from: Cook in the interviewThe problem was that 3E was this new, very tactical system that practically begged you to put miniatures on a battlemat. As soon as you do that, for many players, that means "fight." In that way, I think 3E unintentionally changed the expected way the game was played. In many ways, at least for some people, it was the game system itself that railroaded the way adventures went. And then 3.5 and 4.0 embraced that tendency rather than eschewed it, and the modules all intentionally became just fight after fight (interesting fights, to be sure, but still combat was clearly the only focus).
Quote from: One Horse Town;621038It's a bit of a strange thing for him to say considering he was front and centre in designing it.
It's not really that strange.
It's the same that happened with
Magic The Gathering.
Garfield envisioned the game as a pick-up game for people who had to wait in qeues at conventions. "Have a pack of cards in your pocket? Duel!"
The synergies between card effects were not tested against the case that a particular card would be more often in a deck. Garfield didn't even think that every card would be known to all players - the element of surprise ("whoa, what does this card do?") was to be a part of the MTG experience.
The game was not meant to be bought in display cases.
But human nature is different. Within days of release lists were compiled and one customer of my store designed his first "theoretical" killer deck (using lots of proxies as
Black Lotus was not easy to come by...).
And the casual game became a pro-tournament game.
Quote from: gleichman;621341I have a list of requirements for anyone I'd invite to my games, or for any games that I'd consider going to. One of these is if the person uses maps or minis to resolve combat.
A "no" answer, or your "sometimes" tells me that we're effectively in a different hobby. As a result I won't game with the person.
To be honest, the use of a map and mini are so universal in my experience that this red line has never been triggered. The only reason I've even thought of asking the question is because of people online.
The most common ones I have to reject are D&D players who actually think the game is realistic (not just no, hell no), WoD players (or others who want to play evil or amoral characters), and Lite System fans.
I don't think we are in a different hobby. I enjoy games like advanced squad leader and starfleet battles. I also enjoy playing roleplaying games. I have used maps and minis with rpg's extensively for years. I have also played the same rpgs without maps and minis. Both work for me. If I were to join a game you were running, you would not have any idea I ran rpgs without them unless I mentioned it.
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.
Quote from: jedimastert;621182In story games you basically have one type of participant. That is the person that is narrating what is occurring (or has just occurred) in the imagined world. There are various set ups to how a given player gets a turn controlling the world and what aspects they may control. But is boils down to them each taking turns controlling what goes on in the imaginary world.
That just isn't my experience of these games. Maybe some of the more recent storygames stuff like Fiasco plays out like that, i don't know. But I've read Dogs, Sorcerer, and BW and none of them work like that. I've also played a lot of HeroQuest (and played a lot more of Other Worlds, which is a game I published that takes inspiration from several aspects of HQ), and none of them work like that either. In all of these games, you have some element of stake setting and the like, but that's done before the roll and the final narration is up to the GM. The GM in turn has a distinct role and each player has ownership over their character just as they do in any other RPG. The kind of play you're describing just isn't the one outlined in the books I've read or the one I see being played out at my table.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621181First of all, there are these things called game shops and bookstores, and some of them actually carry product you can buy after reading the cover. All these narrative games in question take the time to put words, phrases and taglines on the front and back cover, but except in a few cases they never seem to actually reference any of the System that Matters.
One example is TechNoir: high tech, hard boiled roleplaying
If I hadn't been dealing with the Forge semantic bullshit advertising for years now, I might be tricked into thinking this is something remotely resembling a traditional RPG.
You'll get hurt, sure, but what kind of pain will you deal out? - Code for telling stories about your character's interactions and consequences.
spark new fires of hardboiled crime novels and cyberpunk science fiction - Code for "this is a storytelling game, you're creating fiction"
create tangled and compelling plot webs - Code for abstracted story threads, this game doesn't have world in motion verisimilitude.
Basically the adcopy is telling Narrative gamers come and get it, but if you don't know the lingo, you might think "Cool a new game like Cyberpunk:2020, Shadowrun or Interface Zero." and you would be very wrong.
Well, I agree that that particular game's back cover blurb is pretty vague. Knowing nothing about technoir other than this blurb I would assume it to be either a storygame or something with storygame/cinematic leanings such as FATE or Feng Shui. But I'm not at all convinced that this is some deliberate attempt to deceive.
Quote from: jedimastert;621182RPGs have 2 types of participants:
1. (Game Master) The person(s) running the world and its non-player inhabitants (Usually only one, but sometimes there are more than one if the game master has helpers)
2. (Player) The people interacting with the imagined world from the point of view( with the established limits of a being in that world) ) of an inhabitant of that world. (There are a variety of 1st person or 3rd person styles in the portrayal and interactions of their inhabitant. They can also run multiple beings from that world as long as they are always interacting with that world from the point of view of those inhabitants they control).
Most importantly incidents can occur that go against the desires of the participants and they must abide by the results. Players can and will make choices that go against the expectations of the game master. Events will occur that go against the desires of the players.
If you have at least one person in mode 1 and one person in mode 2 you have a RPG.
I wanted to come back to this point. I ran a session of Other Worlds tonight. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the bolded sentence. But (possibly apart from that bit?) what you write here describes how my play goes.
The main sequence of tonight's game was the characters travelling through a forest that was infested with unseelie. Three chariots full of troglodytes being pulled by yeth hounds came bursting through the trees chasing down a spirit deer. The characters intervened and hopped on to the back of the last chariot, fought the troglodytes, and then chased after the rest. We had one PC take over the reins of a chariot, another try to rush ahead via magic and set up a tripwire at neck height, another try to throw a spear through a wheel, and another leap across into the next chariot and fight the troglodytes there. When the last chariot was dealt with we had a big stand-up melee.
If I'd run the melee using D&D each player would have described what their character was doing in the first person, rolled to hit and damage, and I'd have described the results. Running it under Other Worlds each player described what their character was doing, I clarified what kind of failure stakes might be appropriate (if you fail this he'll kill the prisoner, for example, or he'll shoot an arrow into you), the player rolled their character's relevant ability against a DC set by me, and I described the results. Is there a difference? Sure. But are the two methods completely different types of activity? No.
Haven't had the time to respond to these today, so this is gonna be a kitchen-sinker.
James Bond - James Bond is an RPG, but it is a specific type. It attempts not to emulate the world of James Bond, which is our world, or even the fiction of James Bond, but specifically emulate the James Bond movies. As a result, there is a definite "4th wall" aspect to JB Hero points that you would have to at the very least call metagame. For example, if my agent was caught and I spend a Hero point to force the bad guy to monologue and tell me his secret plan because I can't possibly escape, that's definitely a narrative mechanic.
WFRP1 - WFRP1 is an RPG, but it has one mechanic that allows me to cheat death, Fate points. I can spend a Fate point to say "No, I don't die." and then the GM figures out what happened to me. Definitely a narrative mechanic even though WFRP1 is not a storygame.
Jasyn v. Gleichman - Obviously people can expend more effort in certain things, that goes without saying, however, Gleichman has a point - a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points". Also generally speaking I don't know how Jasyn's work, any mechanic that gives such abilities to players only because they are "Heroes" is making a narrative decision based on dramatic importance. That's why I hate Mook Rules always, there is no way to classify them honestly without going to levels of protagonism/antagonism.
Emperor Norton - What actually happened? The bad guy missed, but because the GM rolled a 1, that creates an opening, so you can spend a Plot Point to explain and describe what that actually means, that when the bad guy missed, he missed so badly, it exposed a weakness that you can use as a bonus die via a tech resource. To me, this is the very definition of narrative gaming, the mechanics are allowing you to narrate what happened, in other words, you are spending the point to choose what's occurring and your character has absolutely no way to make that happen, it's completely metagame. That's why if you use MHR as written, it's a highly Narrative RPG that could also be called a Storygame. The only thing that might keep it in RPG territory is that the core resolution mechanics could be used without Plot Points or Doom Points (at least IIRC).
Traditional RPG vs. Narrative RPG - If the core mechanics of the game cannot be used from an IC viewpoint, it is not a Traditional RPG. If those mechanics are there for the purpose of granting narrative control, it's a Narrative RPG.
Wargame vs. RPG vs. Storygame - If the game has the majority of the mechanics used from an OOC viewpoint, it's not an RPG. If the reason for that is for tactical reasons it's a wargame, if for narrative control, it's a storygame. There can be wargames with rpg elements, storygames with roleplaying elements, just like there can be Narrative RPGs and Tactical RPGs(or Wargame RPGs).
@Benoist:
I think the shades of grey thing is really important honestly. I don't have a problem with categorizations of RPGs and Story Games, I just think that the idea that there are concrete lines that everyone is going to agree on is a thing.
I mean, when you look at something like Dogs in the Vineyard, I clearly see a Storygame. When I look at D&D (all flavors) I clearly see an RPG. Something like MHRP, I see falling onto the RPG side, but leaning towards storygame. Funny then that I see Leverage (which uses the same base system, but more narrative mechanics) as a storygame that leans towards RPG. With all the stuff in the middle though, I think that any hard line would be hard to place. And I could see the argument of MHRP being a storygame or Leverage being an RPG being a reasonable argument.
And I think that some people, not saying you, are attempting to put both a hard line AND putting a value judgment on it, which I think until that stops, people will continue to argue their game is one or the other, to avoid their game being called badwrongfun.
Personally, I don't give a shit if a game I like is a storygame and some people think storygames are the death of rpgs., I like Leverage, I think its really fun, but not everyone has the same level of "notgiveashit" that I do.
@CRKrueger
That is a fair assessment. And actually your categorization of Wargame vs RPG vs Storygame, and how games can lean different directions is perfectly in line with my way of thinking.
Like I would consider 4e D&D an RPG that leans Wargame.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Jasyn v. Gleichman - Obviously people can expend more effort in certain things, that goes without saying,
Apparently not, as my saying so was RAPING REALITY. If I'd have known I was talking with a stone cold fanatic, I might have approached the conversation differently.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580however, Gleichman has a point - a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".
Except that wasn't his point, at all. Even a little bit. If it's yours, I'm willing to discuss it calmly. (As you don't seem to be a stone cold fanatic.)
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Also generally speaking I don't know how Jasyn's work, any mechanic that gives such abilities to players only because they are "Heroes" is making a narrative decision based on dramatic importance.
Anyone can have Resolve, but great people, heroes and villains, have more: they're more determined, more driven than the norm.
Proof case: look at the lives of the greatly successful. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, for example. Such people are, almost to a man, far more driven than the general populace. In
Infinity terms, they have a higher Resolve.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580That's why I hate Mook Rules always, there is no way to classify them honestly without going to levels of protagonism/antagonism.
I would suggest Morale is a perfect IC "mook" rule. It isn't that getting shot drops them dead, it's that getting shot takes them out of combat, because they stop trying to fight.
Couple that with Wound penalties (more damage = less effectiveness) and lower skill levels (meaning, after Wounds, they're pretty ineffective even if they did get up to fight), and you have mooks: people who are defeated in one attack. "Crunch all you want, we'll make more" bad guys.
That seems pretty reasonable, to me.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621592Personally, I don't give a shit if a game I like is a storygame and some people think storygames are the death of rpgs.
I think there is a conflation (verging on correspondence) between Storygames and GNS theory.
This makes sense, because the main advocate of storygames had a burning hatred for roleplaying and RPG's, and he also created the GNS.
But, since his personal influence has waned, Storygames and GNS have split a bit and are (as of 2013) not congruent.
GNS theory is what wrecks RPG's, when adopted. Following it creates horrible RPG's, even if those RPG's have few or no Story-game elements.
I proffer 4e as an example. It's a wargame heavy RPG, with disassociated mechanics common to wargames or boardgames, precisely because GNS theory said it'd be incredibly successful in the marketplace. It wasn't.
The current war is presented as a fight-to-the-death between RPG's and Storygames. This is a mistake, I think. Truth in labeling would solve most of the problems people see with Storygames.
What must die, what needs to be warred against, is the GNS. It is an actual, real threat to RPG's
and Storygames. People who follow its tenets produce horrible examples of both.
Eradicate GNS. Detente with Storygamers. Truth in labeling.
That's what I'd like to see.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Emperor Norton - What actually happened? The bad guy missed, but because the GM rolled a 1, that creates an opening, so you can spend a Plot Point to explain and describe what that actually means, that when the bad guy missed, he missed so badly, it exposed a weakness that you can use as a bonus die via a tech resource. To me, this is the very definition of narrative gaming, the mechanics are allowing you to narrate what happened, in other words, you are spending the point to choose what's occurring and your character has absolutely no way to make that happen, it's completely metagame. That's why if you use MHR as written, it's a highly Narrative RPG that could also be called a Storygame. The only thing that might keep it in RPG territory is that the core resolution mechanics could be used without Plot Points or Doom Points (at least IIRC).
I guess spending the plot point is the [meta game] part of it, while getting to describe what this does is the [narrative] part.
I think the plot points are pretty well baked in. You could get rid of the narrative bit by saying "I spend the plot point" and having the GM describe the result, but stripping that away still leaves the player making decisions based on abstract mechanics, rather than the scene in front of them.
From what I recall, even stuff that your character could reasonably do in character is subject to metagame controls. For instance "I pick up an object to use as an improvised club" is something you can imagine a character doing quite easily, but that counts in game terms as creating a Resource and so will cost a plot point. A different sort of nastiness to narrative control, in that instead of just "not being your guy" for a bit, there's a bizarre incentive scheme which randomly favours or hinders your character's decisions.
For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!
FUCK
Quote from: Planet Algol;621604For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!
I have no problem with him, so I have no reason to do that.
Well in this way Bedrock Brendan can have a nice multi multi paragraph interview with Monte Cook and we can have a nice multi multi paragraph interview with gleichman and the universe can, I dunno, fuckin' balance out or something and the only price is our eyeballs.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;621605I have no problem with him, so I have no reason to do that.
Sorry, let me rephrase that.
Can you people that are getting in quote arguments with glechman PLEASE FUCKING IGNORE LIST HIM INSTEAD.
He's can beat your asses at chess... blindfolded; just accept his smug superiority.
Quote from: Planet Algol;621613Can you people that are getting in quote arguments with glechman PLEASE FUCKING IGNORE LIST HIM INSTEAD.
Already done.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621597Truth in labeling would solve most of the problems people see with Storygames.
It would solve my problems with Storygames.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;621592@Benoist:
I think the shades of grey thing is really important honestly. I don't have a problem with categorizations of RPGs and Story Games, I just think that the idea that there are concrete lines that everyone is going to agree on is a thing.
I mean, when you look at something like Dogs in the Vineyard, I clearly see a Storygame. When I look at D&D (all flavors) I clearly see an RPG. Something like MHRP, I see falling onto the RPG side, but leaning towards storygame. Funny then that I see Leverage (which uses the same base system, but more narrative mechanics) as a storygame that leans towards RPG. With all the stuff in the middle though, I think that any hard line would be hard to place. And I could see the argument of MHRP being a storygame or Leverage being an RPG being a reasonable argument.
And I think that some people, not saying you, are attempting to put both a hard line AND putting a value judgment on it, which I think until that stops, people will continue to argue their game is one or the other, to avoid their game being called badwrongfun.
Personally, I don't give a shit if a game I like is a storygame and some people think storygames are the death of rpgs., I like Leverage, I think its really fun, but not everyone has the same level of "notgiveashit" that I do.
@CRKrueger
That is a fair assessment. And actually your categorization of Wargame vs RPG vs Storygame, and how games can lean different directions is perfectly in line with my way of thinking.
Like I would consider 4e D&D an RPG that leans Wargame.
Agreed these games all sit on that Wargame/Roleplaygame/Storygame axis and the problem comes when someone wants to impose definitive divsions that everyone else has to adhere to.
To Soviet.
I am taking this from page 7 of the Other World Rules, under the title "Frame the Conflict":
" Each player describes what this particular conflict means to their character: what are they trying to do, how are they trying to do it, and what will happen if they lose."
The bold part is the type of thing that makes it go from RPG to Story Game.
The players in story games may have limits on what they are allowed to narrate on their turn, but they get to narrate things beyond the scope of their character.
In D&D a player does not get to say what occurs if their character fails at trying to do what they set out to do.
Quote from: Planet Algol;621604For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!
FUCK
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;621605I have no problem with him, so I have no reason to do that.
I personally love arguing with him.
I just assume he's got issues (don't we all?), that make him scream, "You don't play right! Now fuck off, and suck a BAG OF DICKS!"
I just shrug, assume he's from someplace like Boston or Detroit, where it's ok to say something like that to a friend.
We'd never play together, but I doubt he's a bad guy to have a beer with.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621617Agreed these games all sit on that Wargame/Roleplaygame/Storygame axis and the problem comes when someone wants to impose definitive divsions that everyone else has to adhere to.
Part of the core of GNS was proclaiming this: that storygames are RPG's, and there is no difference (except storygames are better).
People have a grudge against storygamers for this, and part of the fanatical demands for definitions come from a basic and understandable desire to definitively establish that Storygames and RPG's are not the exact same thing. (Because they're not (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=618200&postcount=116).)
Especially since the very person who claimed that RPG's and storygames are the exact same thing, also claimed that:
Storygames are inherently superior to the incoherent creative agenda of brain damaged roleplayers (who can't actually roleplay because no one can) and that no one ever has fun playing roleplaying games and you edit your own memories to be able to claim you did.Fine, the demand for clear lines may seem a bit fanatical. But it's an entirely understandable reaction to something far more fanatical and arrogant and ugly.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621593Except that wasn't his point, at all. Even a little bit. If it's yours, I'm willing to discuss it calmly. (As you don't seem to be a stone cold fanatic.)
I do think that point was in there, but I've learned to "read Gleichman". :D Anyway, that is my point.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621593Anyone can have Resolve, but great people, heroes and villains, have more: they're more determined, more driven than the norm. Proof case: look at the lives of the greatly successful. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, for example. Such people are, almost to a man, far more driven than the general populace. In Infinity terms, they have a higher Resolve.
Oh I have no problem with saying some people have more Resolve then others. In your game I assume Resolve allows for extra effort?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621593I would suggest Morale is a perfect IC "mook" rule. It isn't that getting shot drops them dead, it's that getting shot takes them out of combat, because they stop trying to fight.
Couple that with Wound penalties (more damage = less effectiveness) and lower skill levels (meaning, after Wounds, they're pretty ineffective even if they did get up to fight), and you have mooks: people who are defeated in one attack. "Crunch all you want, we'll make more" bad guys.
That seems pretty reasonable, to me.
Hmm, well I'm with you with regards to Morale, conscripted untrained peasants (Persian Front Line Fodder) tend to break easily, Elite Professional Soldiers (Spartans) not so much.
I would prefer to see this done through simple stat comparison ie. a peasant has a 10 Str and an Elite Warrior has an 18 str rather then the Elite Warrior has an "Awesome Pool" he can use. The most ridiculous Mook rules were 4e, with 1hp Ogres, and 7th Sea, where certain npcs were simply classed as Mooks, Extras, whatever because non-antatgonist. If Bruce Lee can walk into a bar and wipe the floor with 20 guys without any fear of being hurt then that game fails at anything other then being a beer and pretzels game.
Quote from: jedimastert;621619To Soviet.
I am taking this from page 7 of the Other World Rules, under the title "Frame the Conflict":
" Each player describes what this particular conflict means to their character: what are they trying to do, how are they trying to do it, and what will happen if they lose."
The bold part is the type of thing that makes it go from RPG to Story Game.
The players in story games may have limits on what they are allowed to narrate on their turn, but they get to narrate things beyond the scope of their character.
In D&D a player does not get to say what occurs if their character fails at trying to do what they set out to do.
Yeah this is "setting the stakes", a textbook Conflict Resolution mechanic that is one of the clear defining hallmarks of a Storygame.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621626Anyway, that is my point.
Then I'll touch on it. Your point was:
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".
I'm not sure what your proper mechanic is, or how they work. But Resolve (adapted from ICONS) is:
Characters can exert extra effort on a Challenge (Combat, Skill, or Characteristic). If they do so, they spend a point of Resolve and gain a +3 bonus to the check. If they have an applicable Distinction (something they're very good at) the bonus is +5.
You grit your teeth, focus your will, throw yourself into the act, whatever. Then you do better. But you can't do it all the time, so there's a limited amount.
That seems like a reasonable mechanic, and one perfectly IC (in character).
I'm not sure what a proper mechanic is, but that plausibly models reality as well as any abstract mechanic can.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621626I would prefer to see this done through simple stat comparison
Morale (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=593845&postcount=68) in
Infinity. No "awesome pool".
But low Morale soldiers
are mooks (in effect). The mechanic was written for a completely different reason, but it serves the same end.
(Just to be clear, I have no problems with a Mook rule. Like, say,
Savage Worlds. I just prefer anything like that to be built off a plausible base, not an arbitrary one.)
Quote from: CRKrueger;621626well I'm with you with regards to Morale,
Something about Wound penalties and low-Skill combatants, and how they interact, worries you?
It's certainly realistic, as far as it goes.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621597Truth in labeling would solve most of the problems people see with Storygames.
Truth in labeling would be very difficult to achieve, given how subjective opinions on what is or isn't a storygame can be even on this site. Short of getting Pundit to examine every single rpg before they're released and sticking a warning label on them I'm not sure how this is achievable. You have plenty of people in the industry who genuinely aren't aware of any supposed debate or distinction between trad rpgs or storygames, and thus would not be
able to consider their product "not an actual rpg."
And any definition of storygame I've seen is vague and nonspecific. There seems to be a gray area here where a game can have narrative mechanics yet not be a storygame, and the 'just right' amount of narrative stuff seems to vary wildly between individuals. There are plenty of games that I can look at and say "yes Pundit would probably consider this a storygame because it has lots of narrative mechanics and players can decide what happens to their characters in certain capacities..." but there are other times i.e. Tenra Bansho Zero and Apocalypse World where I find myself shrugging. :idunno:
Until there comes a time where it's possible to define something as a storygame or tradgame without having to intuit whether Pundit or whoever would also consider it a storygame or tradgame, the debate is largely frustrating and meaningless to me. There doesn't seem to be any universal line in the sand that says "this is too narrative."
Quote from: Paper Monkey;621635Truth in labeling would be very difficult to achieve, given how subjective opinions on what is or isn't a storygame can be even on this site. Short of getting Pundit to examine every single rpg before they're released and sticking a warning label on them I'm not sure how this is achievable. You have plenty of people in the industry who genuinely aren't aware of any supposed debate or distinction between trad rpgs or storygames, and thus would not be able to consider their product "not an actual rpg."
And any definition of storygame I've seen is vague and nonspecific.
and yet for some reason, on Storygames.com they have absolutely no problem referring people to storygames, games with "storygame sensibilities" or "narrative games". It's only on other sites that the whole thing becomes a mystery or a grognard witch hunt.
Basically, if you like narrative mechanics, and how much, they'll point you to the right game with laser-like precision. Remember, SYSTEM MATTERS and they design systems specifically to support narrative play styles. If you don't like narrative mechanics, however, all of a sudden, there's no difference.
Quote from: Paper Monkey;621635You have plenty of people in the industry who genuinely aren't aware of any supposed debate or distinction between trad rpgs or storygames, and thus would not be able to consider their product "not an actual rpg."
This is due to the victory of the GNS, and why the GNS needs to die. GNS said they were the same, they aren't.
People need to stop bitching about storygames, and start explaining why they're not utterly identical in every single way to RPG's.
Maybe it's not possible. Maybe the assumptions of GNS have become too embedded in the designer community to be completely dislodged. But they can still be countered with accurate information.
Even so, an effective counter-meme requires formulated and formalized knowledge, not just hate-filled rants against Edwards and storygames on a niche site.
Hate the GNS? Organize your thoughts, couple them with actual knowledge and practical applications of the same. Then understand why the GNS was adopted, what needs it fulfilled, and ensure your work fulfills some needs.
Use evinces utility. If you want your counter-theory to be used, ensure it's useful.
The Forge died. GNS lives on. Refocus your passion on today's enemy, not yesterday's. Change your tactics to suit today's enemy, not yesterday's.
The enemy is the theory, not the designers and players of Storygames.Truth.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621637and yet for some reason, on Storygames.com they have absolutely no problem referring people to storygames, games with "storygame sensibilities" or "narrative games". It's only on other sites that the whole thing becomes a mystery or a grognard witch hunt.
But I don't always agree with them, either! :(
I don't think story-games.com considers something a story-game is any more of a valid metric than 'Bob from down the street' thinks something is a story-game.
I'd say, going by the general consensus here, something like Fiasco is a story-game, and both story-games.com and Pundit agree! If I were to say FATE were a story-game, story-games.com would think so and Pundit would say that no, it's not a story-game because the narrative mechanics can be easily excised from play.
Quote from: gleichman;621096I don't know what hideaway Cook was hiding in 15 years ago, but serious disagreements about how RPGs should be designed and played have existed since the 70s.
That he didn't notice only indicates to me that he wasn't paying attention.
What's more amazing is you not paying attention to the article, where he acknowledges that yet explains why it got worse 15 years ago (the internet). Your laziness is not an excuse for your vapid bash.
Forums are cesspools.
This forum, for all its utter fucked-up-ness, is a paragon of civility and virtue compared to any random Yahoo article's comment section.
Quote from: David Johansen;621065So yeah, I basically Blame Monty and Ryan for most of the hostility in the gaming community.
I will always praise Ryan Dancey for the D20 license and damn him and the shortsighted idiots at WotC for the unlimited OGL.
As for Monte, I agree. He is in zero position to talk about any spirit of community among gamers.
Quote from: Endless Flight;621071If Wizards had decided years ago to support all editions of D&D, much of this could have been avoided.
Maybe.
Unfortunately, the post-TSR narrative was that TSR fell because they were supporting different settings and different editions (Basic vs. Advanced).
I am still suspicious of the veracity of this narrative, but the truth will never be known unless the TSR accounting ledgers are made public and an army of geek accountants can tear through the data.
Has there been any RPG company that continues edition support once the new edition is launched? None come to mind. And I don't mean CoC where they don't do editions, just reprints with micro-mods. I mean real editions (WoD to nWoD, 2e to 3e) where there are clear compatibility gaps.
Quote from: Ladybird;621129Internet communities, as a whole, have really got nastier over the past decade; I think it's due to a lot of them essentially collapsing into echo chambers, with the people inside getting more and more worked up about anything outside their community, or that isn't tailored exactly to THEIR desires.
I agree. You certainly see this in politics.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;621157Most gamers I've met in real life, regardless of preferred playstyle, without the veneer of the internet, have been decent, easy going, polite, very cool people. This includes the hundreds if not thousands of people I've met at Cons over the years.
I love con-folk. For each bad gamer I've met at a con, I have met a dozen of great gamers who I'd love to know better and a hundred of okay gamers who I'd game with again.
But I wonder if that goes for forum folk. There are plenty of people on this forum I will be happy to never meet after reading their "thoughts" on various topics.
Quote from: gleichman;621168Because people are both cowards, and subject to legal action. In bygone eras, I'm sure duels would have been accepted and completed.
GleichmanCon would so freaking awesome. I would be bathed in gore striding down hallways with a shotgun and a chainsaw delivering righteous revenge against gamers who disagreed with me on Ascending vs. Descending AC.
Wimpy GenCon may have a Dealer's Room, but mighty GleichmanCon has a Death Dealer's room!
Quote from: estar;621176For players the supplements are about kewl powers as lot of WoD players I knew were into the game to play monsters that kicked ass.
That's why I love Palladium's Nightbane. CJ Carella distilled the best of WoD and built a RPG that catered to people who wanted the kickass without the angst.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Jasyn v. Gleichman - Obviously people can expend more effort in certain things, that goes without saying, however, Gleichman has a point - a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".
Yes and no. Yes in that depending upon how they work, such rules may not be the metagame mechanic that Hero Points are. No, in that I still may not like them for other reasons.
Focus Points? Sounds like another number name for Hero Points but you seem to lump it in with Stamina so perhaps I'm not seeing what you are getting at.
Stamina or Fatigue rules are certainly not metagame when they are well done. But one needs to be careful of death spirals. Indeed due to death spirals and the extra book keeping I'd rather such rules be labeled optional or are by their nature seldom invoked.
As a side note, there are a whole class of rules that might seem simulationist to people that either a) aren't or b) might well be, but they produce bad play experiences. The devil is in the details and I'd have to see those before I sign off on a concept.
Quote from: Mistwell;621642What's more amazing is you not paying attention to the article, where he acknowledges that yet explains why it got worse 15 years ago (the internet). Your laziness is not an excuse for your vapid bash.
Just because he attempts to explain something doesn't mean he's right. Things were always this bad, all the Internet did was make it easier to find.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621626I do think that point was in there, but I've learned to "read Gleichman". :D Anyway, that is my point.
Reading between the lines, it seems that Daddy Warpig uses a Hero Point style mechanic to in his rule design.
Should have known. No wonder he went bat nuts crazy because someone doesn't like them. It's personal.
And to think, he likely included them out of failed sense of Simulation.
Quote from: Spinachcat;621666I agree. You certainly see this in politics.
Sigh. Again more lazy "today is different because I live in today" thinking.
Dude, politics has always be a devil's brew. And people *did* and *do* kill each other over them.
If you want high conflict politics I suggest you ask Alexander Hamilton about how tame things were back in the day. He might suggest that you're being a bit tunnel visioned.
Quote from: jedimastert;621619To Soviet.
I am taking this from page 7 of the Other World Rules, under the title "Frame the Conflict":
" Each player describes what this particular conflict means to their character: what are they trying to do, how are they trying to do it, and what will happen if they lose."
The bold part is the type of thing that makes it go from RPG to Story Game.
The players in story games may have limits on what they are allowed to narrate on their turn, but they get to narrate things beyond the scope of their character.
In D&D a player does not get to say what occurs if their character fails at trying to do what they set out to do.
I think the issue is perhaps a bit more nuanced than that.
The part of Other Worlds you quote is from the brief rules summary. It's just trying to give the flavour for how the game is run. In the actual conflict chapter I think it's made clearer that what the player describes is a suggestion that the GM can then modify or reject when they describe what happens after the dice roll.
Page 124 'Describe the Results' says that
'The GM describes the final outcome of the conflict and the effect it has on the developing story. She should take into account the margin of victory, the declared goals of the winner, the stakes of failure for the loser, and the types of abilities and circumstance modifiers that were used. Winning a dispute with Terror Tactics and Awesome Firepower will tend to produce very different results from using Diplomacy and Find a Compromise.
It can be fun to get the players involved in this process by asking them to suggest possible outcomes or even narrate the whole thing themselves occasionally. It's their story too!'Here's an example from my game last night. The PCs have commandeered an unseelie chariot and killed all the troglodytes on board. They're chasing down another chariot full of troglodytes and get right behind them. One of the PCs says that he wants to run across the yoke of his chariot and leap onto the back of the enemy's chariot so he can attack them. I say OK, what is your character risking here if he fails? He says, probably the biggest danger is that if he fails the jump he could land inbetween the two chariots and get run over by the one behind. I thought this would be cool and so agreed that would be the stakes. If he only got a partial failure, or he went all the way to a critical failure, I would modify my description of this event to make it better or worse for him (fall off the chariot but only get winged by the one behind, say, or not only fall off and get run over but also drop and break something valuable).
Now, OK, stating what your character is risking isn't necessarily an in character decision. To some extent it can be - for example, in the real world I know that when I'm pushy with someone to try to get my way, I risk upsetting them. I know when I run for the bus in icy conditions, I risk falling over. And so on. I think the right way to look at it is not that the character is somehow
choosing to slip over but that the character is conscious that this is a possible risk and by saying this out loud the player is agreeing with me that these are the likely consequences of a failure. Which is something that the character already knows.
I can totally get why plenty of people wouldn't like this kind of thing. But I think it is not quite the same as determining narration rights. The player is simply being given an opportunity to say what their expectations are in a way that puts the player and GM on broadly the same page. This statement is being made in advance, so it's a known part of the conflict before the roll and the GM gets to refuse anything he doesn't find plausible. Finally the GM himself is the one who narrates the outcome and can modify the declared stakes as he sees fit. That to me is very different from something like 'I win the roll, OK, I not only kill the troglodyte but the princess falls in love with me and I find Excalibur on the way home. A lovely rainbow appears in the sky above me. Your turn.'
I also want to say that in several different groups (going back many years) I've seen GMs of traditional games let players describe the outcome of their actions. 'Cool critical Bob, the orc's dead, why don't you describe how you did it?'. 'Whoa, bad fumble Bob, hey Paul, why don't you describe what happens to him?'. I've seen that in AD&D, I've seen it in Cybergeneration, I've seen it in Call of Cthulhu. I'm sure that this kind of occasional delegation is even suggested in the GM's guides of several trad games, various Dragon articles, etc. It's not a new thing. Now, clearly, conflict resolution style games pick up this ball and fucking run with it. I'm not saying that AD&D or Vampire does it to anywhere near the same extent as Other Worlds, for example. But I think it's a seed that has been around for a longer time than may be obvious. It's not something wholly alien to RPGs.
Quote from: gleichman;621756Focus Points? Sounds like another number name for Hero Points but you seem to lump it in with Stamina so perhaps I'm not seeing what you are getting at.
Stamina and Focus to differentiate between Physical and Mental effort/exhaustion. Just an example.
Quote from: gleichman;621464If you didn't conceal it, you wouldn't get into the game in the first place.
Not the kind of games I would want to get into, in the first place.
Quote from: Spinachcat;621666FAs for Monte, I agree. He is in zero position to talk about any spirit of community among gamers.
Well, remember he started with RoleMaster, and then went over to D&D right before the end of the TSR era. We was like the noob in the 2nd edition crowd.
Quote from: Spinachcat;621666GleichmanCon would so freaking awesome. I would be bathed in gore striding down hallways with a shotgun and a chainsaw delivering righteous revenge against gamers who disagreed with me on Ascending vs. Descending AC.
Wimpy GenCon may have a Dealer's Room, but mighty GleichmanCon has a Death Dealer's room!
...This, would probably be a better horror movie than more than 80% of what is currently available on Netflix.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622047Stamina and Focus to differentiate between Physical and Mental effort/exhaustion. Just an example.
Ah.
One would have to see the meahanics, but death spiral and gilding the lily would be my concerns.
Quote from: soviet;621108Wait a sec though. The people making these changes to existing games aren't infamous Forge posters are they? It's not Ron Edwards changing Warhammer to have cards, or Vincent Baker amping up the gamism of D&D for 4th edition. It's the existing owners of these properties that have decided to make these kinds of changes, it's not been pushed on them from outside. You're perfectly entitled to be unhappy about it, but to say that it's a result of lobbying from the forge/storygames community is pretty clearly wrong IMO.
Except of course that it was due to rampant and egregious proselytizing on the part of the Forge/Storygame Swine that they pushed to implement these changes, often by manipulating the owners of these properties, be it by making them think they'd be cool and avant garde and all the cool kids would buy their game if they just made it GNS-compliant, or by selling them on the notion that this was somehow a proven scientific formula for creating a successful RPG. Of course, you can say that it is still the fault of the property owners for falling for it, the way that its ultimately the fault of Ponzi scheme victims for falling for it, or scientology adherents for buying into the sect....
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;622447Except of course that it was due to rampant and egregious proselytizing on the part of the Forge
What lies did they push?
- Storygames are the same thing as RPG's. (Not true.)
- The GNS is a valid and accurate critical theory of roleplaying. (Not true.)
- By following the GNS, and making "coherent" games, you'd ensure success. (Not true.)
None of these three have been successfully countered, so far as the community of designers is concerned. Efforts to do so have, so far, been lacking.
But the Forgists' most subtle, and effective, maneuver was to make storygamey mechanics the hot new fad in game design.
They're new, they're different, they're intriguing. Geeks love the new, and are as prone to fads as anyone. (Probably more-so.)
Enabled by the first lie above, and driven by the allure of novelty, storygame mechanics are infiltrating RPG's everywhere (creating sim-RPG hybrids), to the detriment of most of these games.
Fads burn out. Marketplace failures will discredit the "coherency" theory (and the GNS as a whole).
But both would be helped along to the dustbin of history by... hell. Said it before. Will again.
People need to step up their game, if they intend to carry a memetic war into the camp of the current crop of game designers. I've proffered some ideas how to wage such a campaign. No need to repeat them.
But such a campaign would be a good idea.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622457What lies did they push?
- Storygames are the same thing as RPG's. (Not true.)
- The GNS is a valid and accurate critical theory of roleplaying. (Not true.)
- By following the GNS, and making "coherent" games, you'd ensure success. (Not true.)
I would add:
- Simulation (and therefore, immersion) isn't a real play style. Its claimed practitioners are people who have not yet realized they have a creative agenda in playing a game. When they do realize this, they become either Gamists, or Narrativists, the "real" play styles.
Right here, in this argument, you have the kryptonite of role playing games, to me.
Quote from: Benoist;622459Simulation (and therefore, immersion) isn't a real play style. Its claimed practitioners are people who have not yet realized they have a creative agenda in playing a game. When they do realize this, they become either Gamists, or Narrativists, the "real" play styles.
That is one of the lies they pushed, but I don't see anyone outside of the hardcore Forgists accepting or promulgating that.
As a valid idea, accepted by people, it's dead on the vine.
I listed three lies (and one accidental victory), not because they constitute the whole of Forgist foolishness, but because they are the most widely accepted and (in the case of the Narrativist mechanic fad) the most currently damaging.
Again, your observation is accurate, and were it commonly accepted it'd kill off roleplaying games for good.
The others are less starkly anti-roleplaying, and the more acceptable for it (among roleplayers). More subtle and more widely accepted, and therefore more threatening.
EDIT: Something that is pretty universally disregarded isn't much of a threat. Something widely accepted, is.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622462Again, your observation is accurate, and were it commonly accepted it'd kill off roleplaying games for good.
I think we can see the reflections of this argument in the way people even wonder what the hell immersion is, or joke about the word "verisimilitude", or any other types of variations where either arguments in favor of some form of simulation and immersion are discarded because it's "just a game" or there's no such thing as immersion, "not really anyway," that is in fact meaningfully different from having the creative agenda to create a story. Therefore, these pesky simulationists might as well "get on with the times" and realize they had a creative agenda all along.
Sounds familiar?
I see variations of that bandied about well, pretty much everywhere where we might discuss about such things, actually.
Quote from: Benoist;622463Sounds familiar?
Honestly? No. Not among most roleplayers.
The notions of "creative agenda" and the like are utterly foreign to most roleplayers. Only those promulgating GNS, and those opposing it, have been so unlucky as to have read those words.
Roleplayers understand that roleplaying involves playing a role, and they enjoy it. "Act in character" and "don't metagame" are, and have been for a long time, the advice players give
to each other.
I know no roleplayer who believes that roleplaying is impossible. Primarily because it's so damn insane to claim that. What the hell do actors do, if not play a role?
It's obvious that role players
can play roles. Even to non-roleplayers.
I don't think we need an extensive campaign to convince roleplayers that roleplaying is possible, and fun.
OTOH, the biggest threats to RPG's come from the narrativist mechanic fad and (to a lesser extent) the conflation of Storygames with RPG's. This is, in my opinion, undeniable.
We do need a campaign that alters the terms of that debate. We need to popularize the word "simming", and explain what it means. We need to explain the difference between storytelling and playing an RPG.
Most importantly, we need to somehow begin counteracting the influence of the GNS among designers. They are the ones pushing "Narrativist" mechanics, they are the ones pushing "Gamist" coherency, they are the ones who need to be convinced that Storygames are not RPG's.
I don't think we're going to settle this disagreement today. Just think on it.
Look at what games are being produced, what mechanics they have, and what they are being labeled as. I am confident that such a survey will confirm what I've said.
Once the battleground is clear, and the battle being waged is understood, then people can begin acting to affect it. Until then, were' acting blindly. We may do good, but sporadically, accidentally, and ineffectually. More precision and comprehension is needed, IMHO.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474Honestly? No. Not among most roleplayers.
Our experiences vary, then. I'm seeing avatars of this argument I spelled out quite a bit around us.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474Most importantly, we need to somehow begin counteracting the influence of the GNS among designers. They are the ones pushing "Narrativist" mechanics, they are the ones pushing "Gamist" coherency, they are the ones who need to be convinced that Storygames are not RPG's.
You'll find no disagreement on my part, here. One of the problems that plays into this is that viewing game design in those particular terms and endlessly blurring the lines thereof
benefits the designers themselves, who can then use whatever they design in the RPG field as a portfolio for the "next big thing", becoming a novel writer, a designer for Blizzard, whatever. So it fundamentally helps to say "hey I designed the storylines on RPG line XXX, so I'm your guy to build the storyline of your new video game, Microsoft!" or "I wrote the Forgotten Realms metaplot, then novels, and now I can write your new Avengers novels after the movie, guys!"
Quote from: Benoist;622475Our experiences vary, then. I'm seeing avatars of this argument I spelled out quite a bit around us.
On the Internet, among people who are not average roleplayers (and not even the majority of Internet posters). Most roleplayers never get near these discussions, and have no idea what the GNS is.
Therefore, they never even question what roleplaying is. It's playing a role, pretending to be a fictional person in a fictional world. The idea of "incoherent creative agenda" never affects them.
What does affect them is the crappy RPG's, RPG/sim hybrids, and "gamist" RPG's being pumped out. They don't know from "creative agenda", they just know that 4e didn't feel right.
The problems that affect most rolegamers, on the Internet and off, are the flawed approaches of game designers. That's where we need to focus our energy.
Educate. Persuade. Sway.
That's how you win a war of ideas.
I have definitely seen a lot of debates against immersion online (not here really but in other forums) And there is often a forge-like angle behind it. In real life I have only seen it once or twice (but that could just be because of who I game with).
I have gamed with Forge fans and a couple Forge game designers at conventions and never did any of them talk about non-immersion or immersion as a bad thing.
If anything, the storygamers I have known believe they are getting more immersed into the character and the setting via narrative RPGs and their "creative agenda" designs. I don't get it, but they certainly do.
Most of the "PC as game pawn" attitude I have seen is among 3e & Pathfinder players where the character was just a build and the adventure was just a grind for XP to increase their builds.
RPGs have one real problem: a lack of marketing. Everything else is beyond unimportant for the health of the hobby. Having Ron Edwards spend $10M in advertising would be far better for D&D and every other RPG compared to the current near zero advertising situation where WotC and Paizo just living off the corpse of the hobby.
Yeah, the idea that Warhammer 3rd was created based on influence from the Forge is so false its not funny.
Quote from: TristramEvans;622494Yeah, the idea that Warhammer 3rd was created based on influence from the Forge is so false its not funny.
Actually, the fact that the designer Jay Little is quite a believer in Edward's philosophies has been gone over here before both by me and Dan, who's dealt with the man. We can do this a third time if you really, really feel the need to...
As far as to what degree that influenced WFRP3, we've pretty much established not only do you not play it RAW, but you argue anything chopped out for the purposes of focusing on narrative structure from the standpoint of Oberoni Fallacy.
But then again, according to you, firing a bow, and then determining whether I...
1. Hit, but had to somehow move into danger.
2. Hit, but now used ammo.
3. Hit, but for less damage.
Is somehow a choice the character can make and it's not a metagame one.
Let me guess, because your GM actually keeps track of ammo that makes DW not a narrative game, right?
Quote from: CRKrueger;622502Actually, the fact that the designer Jay Little is quite a believer in Edward's philosophies has been gone over here before both by me and Dan, who's dealt with the man.
Yep.
To this day, he's the only industry pro I've dealt with who has mentioned GNS and Edwards by name.
Although i couldn't give a shit about the 40k game, it's also worth mentioning that the (past, i dunno whether he's still there) lead designer for the 40k line is a big fan of Maid. I recall, though have no link, that he and Andy K were joking about a 40k/Maid mash-up.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622502Actually, the fact that the designer Jay Little is quite a believer in Edward's philosophies has been gone over here before both by me and Dan, who's dealt with the man. We can do this a third time if you really, really feel the need to...
As far as to what degree that influenced WFRP3, we've pretty much established not only do you not play it RAW, but you argue anything chopped out for the purposes of focusing on narrative structure from the standpoint of Oberoni Fallacy.
But then again, according to you, firing a bow, and then determining whether I...
1. Hit, but had to somehow move into danger.
2. Hit, but now used ammo.
3. Hit, but for less damage.
Is somehow a choice the character can make and it's not a metagame one.
Let me guess, because your GM actually keeps track of ammo that makes DW not a narrative game, right?
Your post is so confused I don't even know where to start, to the point that you forget what game you're talking about by the end of it.
If what you were saying was 100% true Jasyn, we wouldn't have had the gross missteps of D&D4 or WFRP3 to begin with. Yes, the "Pure Edwards" part of the equation, namely that simulationism doesn't exist, isn't pushed by anyone actively except Edwards for a time. Instead, the memetic war does it for them.
If Hybrid games become indistinguishable from RPGs then people will consider Hybrids to be RPGs and non-hybrid RPGs can be replaced. "We've always been at war with Oceania." That's the power of intentional or unintentional memetic clash.
The RPG consumer needs to know 0% of this for it to happen. All that needs to happen is for the designers or the moneymen to buy in and it's done.
D&D4e is the D&D Edwards would have made. G/n/
What would have happened if the OGL and WotC incompetency hadn't allowed Pathfinder to kill 4e? Who knows? But I'm glad it did. The OGL allowed a true meme competition for D&D and while Spinach is right, a lot of 3ers and PFers don't even really RP, that's fine, because D&D has always been about the OPTION. The problem with OOC mechanics is that it forces one OOC.
Older style D&D through PF and the OSR won the meme clash at least against the meme as expressed in 4e. If someone was actually trying to wage a memetic war where would they go next? :hmm:
The OSR. Narrative games are "old school" because you talk instead of roll dice like 3e. Dungeon World has Dungeon in it, it's OSR. It's not that the OSR grew in popularity because it was a total backlash against the ForgeD&D, nah, it's all that crazy wargaming stuff 4e had. Basically the new evolution is to jettison extreme Gamism, jettison obviously Storygame frameworks and construct simple mechanics (ie "old school") that nonetheless are from the OOC viewpoint and thus not based in roleplaying. Again, a dishonest attempt at assimilation, not an open clash of ideas, except at places like here.
OSR is real popular so let's mimic the OSR style but keep the games narrative-based and sell it as the same thing.
Could there be lots of reasons having nothing to do with a conscious attempt at Idea War? Sure. However, just look at...
- The design movement that still today embraces "System Matters" makes no attempt to advertise System when marketing products.
- Key memetic words - immersion, role-playing, old-school, are constantly and consistently under attack. The language of the debate itself is trying to be re-framed.
- The logical flow of fronts, waves, movements, whatever you want to call them.
First - The largest licensed IPs, D&D, Warhammer, Middle Earth, Marvel, Star Wars.
Next - The non-narrative indie movement OSR.
[/LIST]
It looks, walks, quacks like a duck, someone needs to give me some shred of evidence it's an elephant, especially when the whole thing started with a duck (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php).
Quote from: TristramEvans;622509Your post is so confused I don't even know where to start, to the point that you forget what game you're talking about by the end of it.
Since the last part is based on a post a couple days ago, somehow I think you got it. Let me break it down though.
You said Dungeon World wasn't narrative at all, just like you said WFRP3 wasn't narrative or Forgie at all. As I posted and not a single person yet has even attempted to refute, I can't even fire a bow in DW without being forced OOC by the mechanics.
I suggested to you, since your GM says he hates Storygames, particularly AW, the father of DW, that maybe he's not running the game RAW (we know, from earlier threads, you guys don't run WFRP3 Raw either, which probably explains why you don't think that's very narrative either). If you ignore the narrative elements, and toss in your own roleplaying elements, kind of hard to judge the game on what's actually there, eh?
Since you're supposedly reading DW for yourself, maybe you just haven't gotten to the basic moves yet, if that's the case, then just let me know what you think of Volley when you get to it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;622507Yep.
To this day, he's the only industry pro I've dealt with who has mentioned GNS and Edwards by name.
That's one thing people forget, the true father of narrative gaming isn't Edwards. You'd have to give that distinction to Robin Laws. Robin is the mainstream guy that everyone talks about and says what their stuff is really about. Edwards, however, is the extremist on the fringe, who very few actually mention because they know he's not popular, but very few actually denounce, because while the brain damage stuff didn't go over too well with the public, coherence was very influential.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622521coherence was very influential.
Only in circles that were more concerned with what other people thought about their gaming.
Successful games, as we know, are capable of being played in many ways by people who are grown up enough to take what they want from a game and run with it.
Narrow focus = narrow gaming.
Quote from: jibbajibba;621380but no one is forcing you to buy Technoir any more than they are forcing you to buy MHR or Runquest 6e or D&D Next. You can tell from reading a game review or mooching through the rule book in a shop or an online pdf whether you like it or not.
And yet now we have storygamers trying to market many of their games as being part of the OSR, in spite of these games not being RPGs, much less having any mechanical resemblance to D&D or any other old-school game.
So they may not be "forcing" someone to buy their games but they're doing their absolute damn hardest to TRICK people into buying their games.
And in the process, they're engaging historical revisionism where they try to claim that the Forge has always loved old-school games and were responsible for the OSR's success (which is about on par in absurdity as if the Republican party tried to claim now that they had always been instrumental protagonists for gay rights). So again, they're not literally forcing people (only because they can't), but they're quite willing to LIE to people, trick them, and coerce them by changing language and co-opting existing games, which are all standard strategies employed by the storygames movement.
RPGPundit
Quote from: One Horse Town;622522Successful games, as we know, are capable of being played in many ways by people who are grown up enough to take what they want from a game and run with it.
I'd one up on that and just say I believe that's precisely what makes them successful in the first place. The most successful games provide some structures of play, a way to apprehend the game play itself through its core concepts (e.g. dungeon structure, wilderness structure, investigation structure, sandbox network structure, mission structure, etc.), but they don't close themselves on it exclusively so that pretty much all sorts of gamers can get what they want out of the game's premise and rules.
Also, Krueger's posts are stellar.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621580WFRP1 is an RPG, but it has one mechanic that allows me to cheat death, Fate points. I can spend a Fate point to say "No, I don't die." and then the GM figures out what happened to me. Definitely a narrative mechanic even though WFRP1 is not a storygame.
And preceded by many years by Fame and Fortune points in
Top Secret.
Interesting that these sorts of things make their earliest appearances in espionage games.
Quote from: Spinachcat;621666This forum, for all its utter fucked-up-ness, is a paragon of civility and virtue compared to any random Yahoo article's comment section.
Suck a bag of cocks, you fucking mangina.
:)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474I know no roleplayer who believes that roleplaying is impossible. Primarily because it's so damn insane to claim that.
I recently had a conversation with posters at Big Purple who insisted that 'roleplaying' doesn't apply to roleplaying as well as 'narration' does.
True story, bro.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622519If what you were saying was 100% true Jasyn, we wouldn't have had the gross missteps of D&D4 or WFRP3 to begin with.
? This sentence makes no sense to me.
What I'm saying: GNS had an influence. It can be seen (in part) in the current fad for Narrativist mechanics, designers who see no difference between storygames and RPG's, and attempts to produce coherent "Gamist" RPG's like 4e.
These three are currently the biggest threats to roleplaying.
That's what I said. How does it contradict your sentence at any point?
(I went on to say that most roleplayers aren't even aware of the GNS or Edwards, they're affected by the games that get produced. A wise proponent of classic roleplaying would start influencing the conversation with and between designers, to make the virtues of roleplaying clear, to popularize the word "simming", and to explain why classic roleplayers find narrative control mechanics intrusive and off-putting.)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622538I recently had a conversation with posters at Big Purple who insisted that 'roleplaying' doesn't apply to roleplaying as well as 'narration' does.
True story, bro.
You're contradicting something
I never said, by taking that single sentence out of context, ignoring what I said in the rest of that post, the post before, and the post after. So no, what you describe doesn't surprise me, because it exactly matches what I said.
Which was (following post):
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622477On the Internet, among people who are not average roleplayers (and not even the majority of Internet posters). Most roleplayers never get near these discussions, and have no idea what the GNS is.
Same post:
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622474Honestly? No. Not among most roleplayers.
The notions of "creative agenda" and the like are utterly foreign to most roleplayers. Only those promulgating GNS, and those opposing it, have been so unlucky as to have read those words.
Prior post:
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622462That is one of the lies they pushed, but I don't see anyone outside of the hardcore Forgists accepting or promulgating that.
You had to ignore what I said in
three subsequent posts to make your point.
You're contradicting something I never said.
@Jasyn
I keep seeing you use the word simming, and I can't catch the exact meaning you have from the context. Is there a post where you explain what you are defining and/or could you explain it for me.
Makes it hard to understand the point entirely when a term isn't popularized, and as you said, you want it popularized, so a definition would be cool if you don't mind.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;622558@Jasyn
I keep seeing you use the word simming, and I can't catch the exact meaning you have from the context. Is there a post where you explain what you are defining and/or could you explain it for me.
Makes it hard to understand the point entirely when a term isn't popularized, and as you said, you want it popularized, so a definition would be cool if you don't mind.
Simming is a new term that has come to refer to collaborative fiction writing in an online environment, originally in a play-by-post setting. You are a Narrator, sharing responsibility for an ongoing story with other Narrators, each of which contribute narration in turn.
Typically (though not always) it is either rules free or very light on rules. Obviously, it can involve each participant having ownership of their own character, but it doesn't have to.
Simming is thus the Storygame equivalent of "roleplaying". (Or rather, many Storygame processes are indistinguishable from simming.) Of course, there exist sim-RPG hybrids. In fact all Storygames could be considered simming/roleplaying hybrids, because of the introduction of rules to an essentially freeform activity.
Simming is a term used in the collaborative fiction community, but not in roleplaying circles because even people who view roleplaying as collaborative fiction writing approach it from a mechanical perspective, and aren't typically conversant with the very large simming community and their techniques (which exist largely in isolation from RPG's).
There's a vast potential for improving Storygames, were they to investigate and adapt the techniques of simmers. (RPG rules are not the best structures to build shared narrative creation around.)
Simming isn't roleplaying. It isn't better or worse than roleplaying, but it isn't the same thing.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622543? This sentence makes no sense to me.
What I'm saying: GNS had an influence. It can be seen in the current fad for Narrativist mechanics, designers who see no difference between storygames and RPG's, and attempts to produce coherent "Gamist" RPG's like 4e.
These three are currently the biggest threats to roleplaying.
That's what I said. How does it contradict your sentence at any point?
By thinking that the idea that "Simulationism doesn't exist."(the kryptonite of Roleplaying) is an idea no longer supported by anyone. It's not only present, it's embodied in the current version of D&D. You can't eliminate it as a threat because it is the most fundamental threat. I get the sense you're suggesting "Oh that's so over.", I'm suggesting it's not.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622543(I went on to say that most roleplayers aren't even aware of the GNS or Edwards, they're affected by the games that get produced. A wise proponent of classic roleplaying would start influencing the conversation with and between designers, to make the virtues of roleplaying clear, to popularize the word "simming", and to explain why classic roleplayers find narrative control mechanics intrusive and off-putting.)
Here we're on the same page. It seems a difficult undertaking when Monte Cook, Mr. 3.0 himself, who cut his teeth on Rolemaster and Champions for god's sake has bought into what he terms "player control" mechanics, and calls the discussion of the narrative/roleplaying difference "old school vs. storygame labeling nonsense."
Thanks for the definition!
It is something I'm familiar with (though, not something I ever bothered with myself, not my thing, not that there is anything wrong with it), just not by that name.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622567By thinking that the idea that "Simulationism doesn't exist."(the kryptonite of Roleplaying) is an idea no longer supported by anyone.
That's explicitly not what I said. Twice over.
First, I never discussed "simulationism". In the context of GNS, it's a nonsense jargon word, defined in a circular fashion by other nonsense jargon words. I prefer to use straightforward language.
Which I did, when I said (to rephrase):
Most everyday roleplayers believe roleplaying exists, love it, and engage in it regularly, without thinking about it. The exceptions are almost invariably found online, among Forge-influenced ideologues.Since this attitude is rare among the general population, if not as rare online, I judge it to be a lesser threat than the threats I identified previously. Which are:
- Narrativist mechanics fad.
- "RPG's and Storygames are the same thing."
- "Coherent 'gamist' approaches make for good RPG's."
This is a judgement call. If you believe Roleplaying Deniers are a bigger threat, then you do. I've no problem with that, save that I think you're mistaken.
In terms of influence among roleplayers and designers, these three errors are more prevalent, and cause more harm, than roleplaying denial.
You can disagree with me, as it's a judgement call, and that's okay. Please, though, disagree with what I actually said.
And "simulationism" and "no roleplayers ever think that" weren't it.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622545You're contradicting something I never said, by taking that single sentence out of context, ignoring what I said in the rest of that post, the post before, and the post after.
Christ, DW, ease the fuck off. These were exactly the sort of mutts you're writing about as 'pushing an agenda.'
I was agreeing with you, shitwit.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622572These were exactly the sort of mutts you're writing about as 'pushing an agenda.'
I was agreeing with you,
My apologies. I thought otherwise. (Maybe I was feeling a bit defensive.)
No malice intended. Forgive and forget?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622573Forgive and forget?
Of course.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;622575Of course.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
[The title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Call it a rhetorical flourish. Also, pt. 1 of a couple of post series.]
Let me sum up my last few posts. I think there's a real threat to classic roleplaying (a hobby I love). It originated in the Forge, but spread beyond it. Even with Edward's spectacular, black-hole-esque implosion, the false and fallacious ideas he promulgated have survived, even among people who know nothing of the GNS.
The "immersion is impossible" meme is undeniably real, but (I believe) only held by a small percentage of ideologues. Most players have never encountered the idea, and would reject it out of hand. It's patently foolish on its face.
On the other hand, many game designers have adopted Forge-inspired attitudes, and are continuing to design games in accordance with those attitudes. This leads to the three biggest present-day threats to RPG's:
- The current fad for Narrativist mechanics in RPG's.
- "RPG's and Storygames are the same thing."
- "A coherent 'gamist' approach makes for a good RPG's."
These are attitudes held by designers, and combatting them requires people to engage those designers.
I'm not saying Roleplaying Denial isn't a threat. It is. Feel free to keep combatting it.
I'm saying it's a lesser threat than those three fallacies.
(More, even were it a greater threat, you'd combat it by combatting those three.)
Fight those three. Influence, persuade, and educate designers as to why those three are wrong.
That's the problem I think classic roleplayers need to confront and solve.
Ummm, I'm not about to go to the mattresses with someone I mostly agree with about what's looking like tomato tomahto, but just to explain myself more clearly.
Ben said...
Quote from: Benoist;622459I would add:
- Simulation (and therefore, immersion) isn't a real play style. Its claimed practitioners are people who have not yet realized they have a creative agenda in playing a game. When they do realize this, they become either Gamists, or Narrativists, the "real" play styles.
Right here, in this argument, you have the kryptonite of role playing games, to me.
Then you said...
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622462That is one of the lies they pushed, but I don't see anyone outside of the hardcore Forgists accepting or promulgating that.
As a valid idea, accepted by people, it's dead on the vine.
Again, your observation is accurate, and were it commonly accepted it'd kill off roleplaying games for good.
The others are less starkly anti-roleplaying, and the more acceptable for it (among roleplayers). More subtle and more widely accepted, and therefore more threatening.
EDIT: Something that is pretty universally disregarded isn't much of a threat. Something widely accepted, is.
You and Ben are
right here discussing simulationism, wrt GNS. Maybe you didn't realize I was replying not to your initial three points, but your dismissal of Ben's addition. To me, what I was replying to, was rather obvious, since I was directly using his term "Roleplaying Kryptonite" Maybe I wasn't clear. Whatever.
In any case, now that hopefully you know I am about to talk not about your initial three points, but your dismissal of Ben's 4th, let me reiterate.
I don't disagree with your three points, but unless you mean GNS is "universally discredited"
today, meaning in light of the failure of 4e and WFRP3, then it's kind of difficult to accept your contention that Ben's point is not a threat, since 4e and WFRP3 are a direct result of the philosophy he is warning against.
Hopefully that is a little clearer.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622567It seems a difficult undertaking
It is. But starting the undertaking requires an accurate assessment of the problem, the venue for the fight, and use of effective strategies.
The Battlefield[pt. 2]
Let's get historical. Ever since the Age of Ideology began (with the French Revolution), people have been arguing politics. Modern politics is a war of ideas, a clash of different ideological beliefs.
The battlefield of such a war is the minds of people involved. You need to convince, educate, and motivate people. Belief and action is the key.
The pertinent battlefield for today are game designers. Many are enamored with Narrativist mechanics, many see no distinction between storygames and roleplaying games, and many are mislead by the claims of the GNS.
Here's the kicker: most of them
aren't the enemy. They're what you're fighting for, not who you're fighting against. (There are exceptions, as always.) This calls for a rescue mission, not a scorched Earth campaign.
The key, at this point in time, is to sway them to your beliefs. Succeed, and classic roleplaying can see a renaissance outside the OSR. Fail, and GNS-endorsed mechanics will thrive.
(For a while, at least. Everything changes.)
What's important here is this:
We have truth on our side. Roleplaying
is possible. Good roleplaying games don't have to be "coherent" (in the Forgist sense). And roleplaying is
not storytelling.
This things are actually, verifiably, and (in the case of the last) scientifically true. They're not opinions or wishes, they're not an agenda. They're simple facts.
With the right strategies, you can convince designers of the truth. Which is all we need to do.
[pt. 3]
The Strategy
We are engaged in a war of ideas. Many techniques have been devised to fight such conflicts.
The Pundit's approach to Edwards is one. It exemplifies the "Saul Alinsky" approach. Rule 11, Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it." Yup.
Search-and-destroy. It's not nice, but sometimes you have to do it. And Edwards deserved it. ("Brain damage", my plump, pale bottom.)
This is an especially effective strategy in politics, where people are fighting for control of the levers of power. Destroy or discredit an opponent, and you have the authority of the State on your side, which can pass laws and force people to do what you want.
We're not fighting for control of government. We're trying to convince a group of artisans that the tools they're using and the products they creating are flawed, and that other methods would be more productive.
This calls for a wholly different strategy. You have to persuade, convince, and educate.
You have to take the facts, spread them widely, and explain why they're true. Cut through lies, dissipate the fog of misunderstanding, and reach out to people who don't understand and don't agree.
It seems a bit kindergarten to say so, but what's needed is the art of gentle persuasion.
People have to want to agree with you. They have to voluntarily adopt your point of view. And you can't get there solely by using Alinskyite tactics.
[pt. 4]
TacticsStrategy is
what you want to accomplish. (Your ends or goal.) Tactics is
how you can best achieve it. (Your means.)
The following ideas have been culled from nearly two decades of studying persuasion, debates, and politics. They are effective, if not universally.
The core idea is this: We can't compel or coerce agreement. We have to earn it. And that's not an easy thing.
- Gentle persuasion. We need to convince people, not browbeat them. Some people, we just can't reach. Debate them, but don't descend to nasty tit-for-tat battles. Stay classy. Be bold, but be classy. People have to want to agree with us, and if they see us as being intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful, they will.
- Reach the audience. You don't talk to people, you'll never convince people. You need to find people to talk to. Go to where designers congregate. Company forums. Game design forums. Register and participate. Let people know how much you love the game, and how much the latest narrativist mechanic or gamist bent pains you and why. You love their games, let them know that for chrissakes. They're not the enemy, and neither are you. Men won't listen to the enemy, they might listen to a friend who has their best interests at heart.
- Know the material. "RPG's aren't storygames." Why? "Narrativist mechanics are offputting." How come? "GNS 'coherence' doesn't improve a game." Why not? You have to know the answers. You want to persuade people, you have to impress people. And nothing impresses like a well-educated man.
- Be flexible. Different people are convinced via different means. For some, it's an intellectual argument. For others, analogies, humor, or personal stories. If an audience isn't receptive, change your approach.
- Don't press the issue. People have to hear your ideas and accept them voluntarily. Browbeating someone never works. In fact, it can turn a potential ally into a devoted enemy. “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” Truth.
- The clothes make the man. Grammar. Punctuation. Clarity of expression. How you present yourself conveys an impression of who you are. On the Internet, no one can see you or hear you. You have only words. Make them the absolute best you can.
- Be the better man. Be humble. Be polite. Be forgiving. You can't make people listen, you can (at best) help them want to listen and give them something worth listening to. Do that, and you'll deserve to win.
- Lighten up. Gentle, good-hearted humor is friendly and approachable. It marks you as a person people want to listen to, even if they disagree. They have to trust in your intentions. Help them do so.
- Seek to motivate others. You can't do this alone. Help people understand the truth, and show them why it matters. Converting the undecided adds allies, who will carry the cause with them into arenas you never thought of.
- Be sincere. All these things may seem a little manipulative, but they're not intended to be. I advise going to the company forums of games you love, and expressing disappointment with narrative mechanics. But if you don't love the game, don't pretend that you do. Insincerity is often apparent, especially in the long run, and will lose you the respect you are trying so hard to garner.
- Have patience. You're going to have to say the same things again and again, combat the same fallacies in different forms, held by many different people. Accept it. This is a marathon, not a sprint. It will take time, it won't be easy, and victory — if it ever comes — will be impossible to determine until years after the fact. It just takes time to convince people. Give them the time to come around. In the meantime, be their friend (or, at least, a loyal fan).
You hate the GNS? Loathe "gamist" editions of RPG's? Want this storygame foolishness to recede (or at least engage in some "truth-in-labeling"?)
Do something about it. Take the initiative, spread some truth, and set an example.
Do something effective.
[pt. 5 of 5. (!) You people are a bad influence. I never used to post lengthy multi-parters. (Okay, that's totally a lie.)]
Why We Fight
I'll be honest: I shouldn't care. I have my own little RPG I intend to finish and run my own little settings with. What happens with 5e or WFRP 4 or CoC 7 doesn't matter to me, because I'll never play them.
I shouldn't care, but I do.
I love this hobby. This fractious, funky, geeky hobby. It's imaginative, colorful, exciting, and amazing. You people come up with the most incredible stuff, then develop it to an insane degree.
The sheer amount of creativity contained in the Shadowrun universe is astounding. Professional novelists don't do world design as well as you guys.
I love this hobby, and don't want to see it die. And shoddy product will kill it, far more effectively than B.A.D.D. could ever hope to accomplish.
GNS makes for shoddy games.
That's it. That's the problem. That's the problem we have to solve.
We have to convince designers that there's a better way. The only alternative is a long, slow slide into obsolescence as people defect to WoW and other CRPG's.
You don't have to listen to me. I'm just some guy, right?
But what I'm saying is true. And you should totally listen to it.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622590That's it. That's the problem. That's the problem we have to solve.
We have to convince designers that there's a better way. The only alternative is a long, slow slide into obsolescence as people defect to WoW and other CRPG's.
You don't have to listen to me. I'm just some guy, right?
But what I'm saying is true. And you should totally listen to it.
Yawn. This is so overblown.
The Swine Wars are over, the market is dominated almost completely by various flavors of D&D, and here on this board the OSR is the only god.
If the hobby does a "slow slide into obsolescence" to replaced CRPGs, it won't be GNS's fault- it's dead. It will be D&D and the OSR's fault.
I won't mourn it's passing. In it's current form, it' s useless to me.
Not sure you're going to convince anyone by writing an intellectual warfare guide on a public forum, Daddy Warpig.
It all seems too contrived and over the top when talking about games, you know. Like writing a Maoist manifesto about how wearing your pants down is fucking with our youth, or how to build reeducation camps for people who like anime. That's kind of how it comes off to me when I read it.
Quote from: Benoist;622629It all seems too contrived and over the top when talking about games,
That's why I explicitly said the title and metaphor were tongue-in-cheek.
The metaphor is deliberately over the top, but the ideas and methods are real and they work.
To convince designers:
1.) Talk to them.
2.) Don't be dicks.
3.) Share your opinions.
The series is an elaboration of those very simple ideas.
(Or do people want to tell me those three steps are always ineffectual?)
Quote from: Benoist;622629Not sure you're going to convince anyone by writing an intellectual warfare guide on a public forum, Daddy Warpig.
Convince who of what?
I'm opining on the problems I see in gaming, and encouraging those who agree to engage designers of their favorite games, share their opinions, and not to be dicks about it.
That's not a bad idea, even if its phrased in a somewhat over-the-top fashion.
(Secondary Idea: Engage with the unconvinced, especially on other fora. Same criteria.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622634To convince designers:
1.) Talk to them.
2.) Don't be dicks.
3.) Share your opinions.
The series is an elaboration of those very simple ideas.
See, you could have just written that and not derailed the thread into another one of your epic multi-part series which would work better as blog posts.
Quote from: Warthur;622639See, you could have just written that and not derailed the thread into another one of your epic multi-part series which would work better as blog posts.
I've said it before, and nobody paid attention.
Simple ideas are easily dismissed, even if they're true. The trick is to break past people's elide-o-matic.
Theatricality can help do that. It can catch people's attention. (I assume the persona of the Pundit, in as much as it diverges from his real-life attitudes, is a calculated exercise in such theatrics.)
By laying out the problem and explaining the solution (including detailed advice and historical context) in a theatrical manner, some people will TL;DR, some people will read and be confused or disagree, others can engage.
Even you and Benoist, by disagreeing with me have engaged the material. You listened, even if it was for but a moment. I have no control over your reactions or choices, but at least I earned a chance to be heard.
Which is, as I noted, far more than I've managed to accomplish before.
I'm not disagreeing with the end goal of having people realize we are talking about substantive differences between games and the way they affect our enjoyment of RPGs. I'm disagreeing with the form that makes it look like a manifesto, or some manual to engage in intellectual warfare. I just don't think that's the best way to convince anyone.
Quote from: Benoist;622646I'm not disagreeing with the substance. I'm disagreeing with the form that makes it look like a manifesto, or some manual to do engage in intellectual warfare, and I don't think that's the best way to convince anyone.
The manual itself won't convince people of the truths I'm espousing (roleplaying
does exist, etc.). I'm speaking to those who already agree on those points.
But the techniques can be used to convince others, especially in other fora. They are effective.
(I think. So far as I've seen.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622647The manual itself won't convince people
That's basically my point. What it does is give people ammunition on the other side of the debate to point to the hypocrisy of becoming a forgist to defeat a forgist. You realize you just posted this on a public forum and that it's going to be quoted on grognards.txt, right, if that's not already been done? So the form your manual takes is relevant to convince people themselves, or turn them off from listening altogether.
Quote from: Benoist;622648So the form your manual takes is relevant to convince people themselves, or turn them off from listening altogether.
Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe it was too over-the-top, or too grandiose. (Ironically grandiose and actually grandiose may be too close.)
Let me assume it was a mistake. How would you encapsulate the same ideas, in a way that breaks through people's mental inertia?
These are problems, people can do something. But no one seemed to know what. So I suggested something.
Engage, explain, be polite.I expressed it in a way I thought would grab people's attention. Even if I expressed it grandiosely (or pompously), it's a solid plan of action. Don't let the purposeful grandiosity undermine the ideas.
Quote from: Benoist;622648What it does is give people ammunition on the other side of the debate to point to the hypocrisy of becoming a forgist to defeat a forgist.
I would argue — accurately, but perhaps not convincingly — that what I argued for is for people to become anti-Forgists.
They dealt in contempt and abuse.
I'm arguing for engagement and comity (for lack of a better term).
The Forge was effective. It imploded, but its ideas became part of the assumed territory of RPG design.
An anti-Forge can work as well. It can succeed in countering those ideas.
Engage, explain, be polite.That's needed, I would say.
Quote from: Benoist;622648You realize you just posted this on a public forum and that it's going to be quoted on grognards.txt, right, if that's not already been done?
That's kind of cool though, right? :)
Maybe I should take that thought more seriously. Maybe they'll be able to harm me in some fashion I can't appreciate.
But I don't. Viciousness in pursuit of petty ambition is pitiable.
If their crusade is what gives their lives meaning, I feel sorry for them.
I think Ben was getting at if you're going to delineate the Rules of Engagement, keep it on the down-low like the Forgists do, so no one can prove your agenda except through circumstantial evidence and deduction. :D
However, when your Rules of Engagement are basically saying "Don't treat these like Rules of Engagement because we're not at war." then it might be useful as a public document.
Worrying about what awfulpurple is going to say though is kind of like the principal of a grade school wondering what the kids are saying behind his back.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622669However, when your Rules of Engagement are basically saying "Don't treat these like Rules of Engagement because we're not at war." then it might be useful as a public document.
That kind of is what I'm saying, isn't it?
"Don't take it too seriously", illustrated by taking it way too seriously.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622644I've said it before, and nobody paid attention.
Simple ideas are easily dismissed, even if they're true. The trick is to break past people's elide-o-matic.
Theatricality can help do that. It can catch people's attention. (I assume the persona of the Pundit, in as much as it diverges from his real-life attitudes, is a calculated exercise in such theatrics.)
Theatricality can also make you look immensely pretentious.
Say what you like about the Pundit, the man knows what's short and pithy enough for a forum post and what's long and involved enough to more properly be a blog post. And you don't have to read five of his posts in sequence to work out what he's on about.
Quote from: Warthur;622673And you don't have to read five of his posts in sequence to work out what he's on about.
Still, it worked. I've been saying this since I got on the site, just over a year ago, and nobody listened.
I said them today... and people listened. The format irritated people, but still they listened.
Quote from: Warthur;622673Theatricality can also make you look immensely pretentious.
But I'm not pretentious. (Though I played it on the radio.) I think people understand that, and if they don't, hey, worse things have happened.
Literally. I've had much worse things happen in my life. "Eat a frog in the morning", and all that. (Niven's addendum is especially pertinent.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622672That kind of is what I'm saying, isn't it?
"Don't take it too seriously", illustrated by taking it way too seriously.
I know that's what you were saying. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;622698I know that's what you were saying. :D
You got me.
Though don't let the satire detract from the message: the tips and techniques are actually useful, and I think old school players would see some movement in their direction if they were more approachable and reached out to designers.
If it took bombast to make the point, well, I guess it got made.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622579This leads to the three biggest present-day threats to RPG's:
- The current fad for Narrativist mechanics in RPG's.
- "RPG's and Storygames are the same thing."
- "A coherent 'gamist' approach makes for a good RPG's."
These are attitudes held by designers, and combatting them requires people to engage those designers.
I think the strategy is flawed, because it is predicated that you have to attack games you don't like in order to get games you like. I think that's pretty obviously stupid.
You are framing this as an attack narrativist mechanics, story games, and the gamist approach. I can't agree with you in this, because I like all of those things, and I also like traditional and/or old-school RPGs.
I am totally behind a positive approach that says that traditional games are fun. I argue this on Story Games all the time. However, by framing this as an attack on styles you don't like, you've lost me and anyone like me who thinks that there can be multiple different tastes in RPGs that are good and fun.
Quote from: jhkim;622725I think the strategy is flawed, because it is predicated that you have to attack games you don't like in order to get games you like.
I think you missed the subtext, JH. :D Just to be clear: I am not declaring war against Storygames or Storygamers.
(See the tips (pt 4 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=622589&postcount=238)) and Krueger's comment.)
There's a reason for the form, and declaring war wasn't it. (Though the tips are good behavior, all the way round.)
Quote from: jhkim;622725You are framing this as an attack [on] story games
Utterly untrue. Even in the bombastic parts, I never attacked Storygames themselves. Never have, in any thread on this site. Never will (intentionally).
Not my thing, but they're not bad.
But what is off-putting is Narrativist mechanics in RPG's. I don't like them. They destroy immersion. Nothing wrong with people who agree letting that be known (politely, of course).
What is simply wrong as a matter of bare fact is the claim that RPG's and Storygames are identical. They're not. Roleplaying isn't storytelling. The twain are different. (Though simmers apparently like them some RPG mechanics.)
And what is foolish, and bad design, are the "disassociated" mechanics of 4e and similar games. They wrecked 4e. They ruin immersion. This is a matter of taste, but there's nothing wrong with people who agree calmly letting designers and publishers know that.
I appreciate the bombast put you off, but look beyond the form for a sec and see the content. (Again, the form existed for a reason, and you weren't the target audience.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622675Still, it worked. I've been saying this since I got on the site, just over a year ago, and nobody listened.
I said them today... and people listened. The format irritated people, but still they listened.
Yeah, but to draw on your own advice from upthread, it's hitting the point where people are listening and coming away with conclusions you may not like. It was one thing when you were doing this in threads you started but monopolising a thread for your multi-post wafflespurts doesn't reflect well on ya. (Specifically, it makes you come across like someone with a Socrates complex who likes to talk a lot and loves the idea of people hanging on his every word.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622735I think you missed the subtext, JH. :D Just to be clear: I am not declaring war against Storygames or Storygamers.
(See the tips (pt 4 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=622589&postcount=238)) and Krueger's comment.)
I'm reading the tips, but it doesn't read the same to me. In the link you gave, you wrote:
You hate the GNS? Loathe "gamist" editions of RPG's? Want this storygame foolishness to recede (or at least engage in some "truth-in-labeling"?)The part in red is problematic to me. I don't loath gamist editions of RPGs - I love the tactical combat in Macho Women With Guns, say. I don't consider story games to be foolishness, and I don't want them to recede.
EDIT: The post above was expanded while I wrote my reply. I'll respond to the expanded part later.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;622735I
And what is foolish, and bad design, are the "disassociated" mechanics of 4e and similar games. They wrecked 4e. They ruin immersion. This is a matter of taste, but there's nothing wrong with people who agree calmly letting designers and publishers know that.
.)
I strongly dislike 4E and pretty much agree with the disassiciated criticism of its mechanics. But I dont think they are bad design. They are a bad fit for popular game like D&D IMO. However one thing 4E showed us is there is a section of gamers who want that stuff. So I see nothing wrong with someone making a 4E like rpg to satisfy that need. I think they ran into trouble by assuming those things would be seen as improvements by most players.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622520Since the last part is based on a post a couple days ago, somehow I think you got it. Let me break it down though.
You said Dungeon World wasn't narrative at all, just like you said WFRP3 wasn't narrative or Forgie at all. As I posted and not a single person yet has even attempted to refute, I can't even fire a bow in DW without being forced OOC by the mechanics.
I suggested to you, since your GM says he hates Storygames, particularly AW, the father of DW, that maybe he's not running the game RAW (we know, from earlier threads, you guys don't run WFRP3 Raw either, which probably explains why you don't think that's very narrative either). If you ignore the narrative elements, and toss in your own roleplaying elements, kind of hard to judge the game on what's actually there, eh?
Since you're supposedly reading DW for yourself, maybe you just haven't gotten to the basic moves yet, if that's the case, then just let me know what you think of Volley when you get to it.
I haven't finished reading through the rules to DW yet, as such I've resolved not to offer any opinions on the matter until I do.
However, I have read WH3rd edition extensively, both played it and ran it, and created my own hacks for other genres. Whether one of the authors is friends with or well-disposed to Ron Edwards doesn't bother me. I don't share Pundit's strong views on Swine and their Dastardly Plans to ruin other people's fun, but I can recognize when a game is hosrtile to my immersion or helps it. I'm starting to hesitate to use the word Storygame, as its been so misunderstood and misused, we now have people saying AD&D 2nd Edition was a storygame and Dr.Who is a storygame. The fact is our hobby has been using "story" metaphors for a very longtime, and the division between roleplayers and storygamers has suddenly made "story" a dirty word for people who make very simplistic evaluations of such things. But that said, the type of game Edwards and Co championed was one in which Immersion was utterly rejected in favour of a "shared narrative experience". Edwards and several others had a vested interest in making our hobby "more respectable", in other words to conflate it with art. And the difference between art and roleplaying is that art requires an authorial presence. This authorial presence is completely absent in traditional roleplaying styles, except among Thatcherian ("railroady") GMs. The players were not contributing to a story or evaluating their PCs in the terms of characters in a narrative, they were first pperson engaging the game from the PoV of the characters. As these two forms of play are diametrically opposed, then games designed to enforce one style of play are naturally anathemic to the other style. In the same way Rulings vs Rules style play is inherently seemingly incomprehensible to the 3rd/4th edition D&D rules glut advocates, though neither is a storygame.
WHFRP 3E, for whatever else can be said good or bad about it, is not a storygame. Moreover, its system is geared specifically towards Rulings vs Rules play, despite its crunch. Now, from the criticisms I've heard of the game on this site, I'm of the suspicion that most people have never played, let alone read it, and are merely regurgitating glib remarks made online such as "its a boardgame!" (it's not) or "Its an RPG combined with a CCG" (that would be Changeling: The Dreaming). There are certain abstract mechanics, yes, but to pick them apart individually is nonsensical unless one wants to claim D&D became a storygame the minute levels , classes, and XP were codified into the rules. The fact is, Warhammer provides a number of aids to immersion in a way no RPG before them has done, at least insofar as the basic die mechanic. Their new SW system , which I had high hopes for maybe a trimmed down system for, looks like its going to be a right mess, with Rules Glut once again removing the value of the system to me. But WHFRP3E, stripped of a few of the restrictions placed there for the sake of new players (just like the introduction of "core races" and "core classess" to basic D&D by the time of Mentzer/Moldvay editions was a restriction on the game invented to assist new players. Certainly anyone whose been playing RPGs for longer than a few years, especially if they make any claims whatsoever to being "old school", know how to take the parts needed for a game or their particular group and reject anything excessive. The difference between this and a Storygame is that you cant reject certain elements and play it as an Immersive game, because it is hardwired into the rules from the basic resolution system's intentions onwards. For example, see a game like Smallville. Smallville, is a game that is, as much as Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer (I'm guessing, havent read), a "Forge-inspired Storygame". It cannot be played as a traditional RPG without rewriting the entire system. The style of play is as different from that of classic RPGs as American and European "Football".
WHFRP3E simply doesn't fall into that class in any manner. Its a traditional RPG with some gimicks, nothing more.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;622748I strongly dislike 4E and pretty much agree with the disassiciated criticism of its mechanics. But I dont think they are bad design. They are a bad fit for popular game like D&D IMO. However one thing 4E showed us is there is a section of gamers who want that stuff. So I see nothing wrong with someone making a 4E like rpg to satisfy that need. I think they ran into trouble by assuming those things would be seen as improvements by most players.
I would agree with Brendan and JH.
I woudl go one step further than Brendan does her eand say that 4e wasn't a bad design for a
popular game like D&D but merely that it moved too far from D&D to be labelled D&D. No problem, have a core popular front and centre RPG that runs like 4e. I don't like 4e but so I don't like shreddies doesn't mean they should stop selling them as a breakfast cereal.
The direction this whole thread seems to have gone is that 'we the defenders of reall RPGS should create a bastion to defend the world about the dread incursion of narativist rules, or gamist over blown tactical combat in RPGS.
I would disagree. Like I said uppost 'Let 1000 flowers bloom and 1000 schools contend' . There is no harm with lots of ideas and different taks on RPGs some will stick and some will fade. The mongrel hybrid that emerges may well be more enduring than the parts that were added in.
This seems to have become another triade about "look at how my ideas are better then the other ideas that are out there, Think what I think, do what I do.' That seems to me to be more like the Forge than Gygax and Arneson making up rules to add roleplaying to their wargames.
Quote from: jhkim;622745You hate the GNS? Loathe "gamist" editions of RPG's? Want this storygame foolishness to recede (or at least engage in some "truth-in-labeling"?)
As far as I'm concerned I do not want "gamist" games to cease to exist or the "storygame foolishness to recede". I know people, friends, who like this stuff very much, and I don't want to steal their games away from them.
What I do believe is that all styles of games can live side by side, that we can recognize their differences AS SUCH, without pretending they're all the same thing, and that the storygame hobby can grow dramatically by stopping to suck on the role playing games' hobby's teats by leeching on its best known titles and changing them into something they aren't.
I think that if the storygame hobby does what the role playing game hobby did when it took off from the wargames hobby it'll be more prolific, with better games, and grow from there. The role playing games hobby will keep on existing, just like the wargames hobby still exists. That's what I would like to see happen.
Quote from: Benoist;622799As far as I'm concerned I do not want "gamist" games to cease to exist or the "storygame foolishness to recede". I know people, friends, who like this stuff very much, and I don't want to steal their games away from them.
What I do believe is that all styles of games can live side by side, that we can recognize their differences AS SUCH, without pretending they're all the same thing, and that the storygame hobby can grow dramatically by stopping to suck on the role playing games' hobby's teats by leeching on its best known titles and changing them into something they aren't.
I think that if the storygame hobby does what the role playing game hobby did when it took off from the wargames hobby it'll be more prolific, with better games, and grow from there. The role playing games hobby will keep on existing, just like the wargames hobby still exists. That's what I would like to see happen.
I'd agree with Brendan that D&D4 shouldn't have been published as the core rules of the new edition, though it would have been fine as a separate release. From my point of view, the main problem I see is the now-minority of story gamers who bad-mouth traditional RPGs in forums and such.
Other than that, though, I don't get what the fuck "sucking on the teat" means in practice. It doesn't make any sense. I can see how something like Dungeon World is a story game that capitalizes on the popularity of D&D, but there are plenty of people who enjoy playing Dungeon World. It isn't a bad thing to release a game that some people like playing. In much the same way, Steve Jackson's Melee was a wargame that capitalized on the success of D&D, and Dawn Patrol was an RPG that capitalized on the popularity of WWI aerial wargames.
Quote from: Planet Algol;621604For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!
FUCK
Done months ago.
Quote from: jhkim;622974Other than that, though, I don't get what the fuck "sucking on the teat" means in practice. It doesn't make any sense. I can see how something like Dungeon World is a story game that capitalizes on the popularity of D&D, but there are plenty of people who enjoy playing Dungeon World.
It rubs some people the wrong way when those with a chip in the storygame game reframe what they are doing as the natural replacement for RPG games.
I don't think people's enjoyment of story games has anything to do with it.
Quote from: jhkim;622974Other than that, though, I don't get what the fuck "sucking on the teat" means in practice. It doesn't make any sense. I can see how something like Dungeon World is a story game that capitalizes on the popularity of D&D, but there are plenty of people who enjoy playing Dungeon World. It isn't a bad thing to release a game that some people like playing. In much the same way, Steve Jackson's Melee was a wargame that capitalized on the success of D&D, and Dawn Patrol was an RPG that capitalized on the popularity of WWI aerial wargames.
In practice, "sucking on the teat" means that Dungeon World is marketed as an RPG, not Storytelling RPG, Narrative RPG, or anything at all to tell someone who isn't already somehow clued into the narrative community that this is what the game mechanics are like. Same with TechNoir, yadda yadda, pretty much everything except Mistborn and something sold by Bully Pulpit is marketed and sold as an RPG despite being loaded with narrative mechanics or being an outright storygame.
Quote from: TristramEvans;622765I haven't finished reading through the rules to DW yet, as such I've resolved not to offer any opinions on the matter until I do.
However, I have read WH3rd edition extensively, both played it and ran it, and created my own hacks for other genres. Whether one of the authors is friends with or well-disposed to Ron Edwards doesn't bother me. I don't share Pundit's strong views on Swine and their Dastardly Plans to ruin other people's fun, but I can recognize when a game is hosrtile to my immersion or helps it. I'm starting to hesitate to use the word Storygame, as its been so misunderstood and misused, we now have people saying AD&D 2nd Edition was a storygame and Dr.Who is a storygame. The fact is our hobby has been using "story" metaphors for a very longtime, and the division between roleplayers and storygamers has suddenly made "story" a dirty word for people who make very simplistic evaluations of such things. But that said, the type of game Edwards and Co championed was one in which Immersion was utterly rejected in favour of a "shared narrative experience". Edwards and several others had a vested interest in making our hobby "more respectable", in other words to conflate it with art. And the difference between art and roleplaying is that art requires an authorial presence. This authorial presence is completely absent in traditional roleplaying styles, except among Thatcherian ("railroady") GMs. The players were not contributing to a story or evaluating their PCs in the terms of characters in a narrative, they were first pperson engaging the game from the PoV of the characters. As these two forms of play are diametrically opposed, then games designed to enforce one style of play are naturally anathemic to the other style. In the same way Rulings vs Rules style play is inherently seemingly incomprehensible to the 3rd/4th edition D&D rules glut advocates, though neither is a storygame.
WHFRP 3E, for whatever else can be said good or bad about it, is not a storygame. Moreover, its system is geared specifically towards Rulings vs Rules play, despite its crunch. Now, from the criticisms I've heard of the game on this site, I'm of the suspicion that most people have never played, let alone read it, and are merely regurgitating glib remarks made online such as "its a boardgame!" (it's not) or "Its an RPG combined with a CCG" (that would be Changeling: The Dreaming). There are certain abstract mechanics, yes, but to pick them apart individually is nonsensical unless one wants to claim D&D became a storygame the minute levels , classes, and XP were codified into the rules. The fact is, Warhammer provides a number of aids to immersion in a way no RPG before them has done, at least insofar as the basic die mechanic. Their new SW system , which I had high hopes for maybe a trimmed down system for, looks like its going to be a right mess, with Rules Glut once again removing the value of the system to me. But WHFRP3E, stripped of a few of the restrictions placed there for the sake of new players (just like the introduction of "core races" and "core classess" to basic D&D by the time of Mentzer/Moldvay editions was a restriction on the game invented to assist new players. Certainly anyone whose been playing RPGs for longer than a few years, especially if they make any claims whatsoever to being "old school", know how to take the parts needed for a game or their particular group and reject anything excessive. The difference between this and a Storygame is that you cant reject certain elements and play it as an Immersive game, because it is hardwired into the rules from the basic resolution system's intentions onwards. For example, see a game like Smallville. Smallville, is a game that is, as much as Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer (I'm guessing, havent read), a "Forge-inspired Storygame". It cannot be played as a traditional RPG without rewriting the entire system. The style of play is as different from that of classic RPGs as American and European "Football".
WHFRP3E simply doesn't fall into that class in any manner. Its a traditional RPG with some gimicks, nothing more.
I think the usual argument vs. WHFR-3 is that its Forge (GNS) influenced by virtue of being strongly gamist rather than strongly narrativist (i.e. a storygame). Same deal with 4th ed. D&D.
Quote from: Lynn;622986It rubs some people the wrong way when those with a chip in the storygame game reframe what they are doing as the natural replacement for RPG games.
Moreso in the case of things like DW and other recent Storygamer Swine efforts where they try to claim that the OSR was somehow thanks to them and a product of their "genius" and "innovation".
RPGPundit
Quote from: CRKrueger;622999In practice, "sucking on the teat" means that Dungeon World is marketed as an RPG, not Storytelling RPG, Narrative RPG, or anything at all to tell someone who isn't already somehow clued into the narrative community that this is what the game mechanics are like. Same with TechNoir, yadda yadda, pretty much everything except Mistborn and something sold by Bully Pulpit is marketed and sold as an RPG despite being loaded with narrative mechanics or being an outright storygame.
Actually, there are an awful lot of story games that proclaim their narrative mechanics quite loudly.
http://smartplaygames.blogspot.com/#Do
Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple is a slapstick fantasy storytelling game inspired by Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Little Prince.http://d101games.com/books/wordplay/
A full Narrative roleplaying game by Graham Spearing with four mini-settings known as themes.http://johnwickpresents.com/blood-honor/
Blood & Honor includes:
170 Fully Illustrated Pages
Rules for Creating Both Clans and Characters
Task Resolution that allows Player NarrationNow, to be sure, this isn't universal. You're right that Dungeon World doesn't say specifically that it has narrative mechanics.
Perhaps in an ideal world, the marketing for a game would be like a good review that really describes the game - but in practice they don't. Most games don't actually describe their mechanics in their marketing. The marketing isn't about how the game works - it is about how fun the game supposedly is. That's the standard for games far more broadly than either traditional RPGs or story games.
Typically, people need to read reviews, talk to others, or try the game themselves to know what kind of mechanics is has.
Quote from: jhkim;623052Perhaps in an ideal world, the marketing for a game would be like a good review that really describes the game - but in practice they don't. Most games don't actually describe their mechanics in their marketing. The marketing isn't about how the game works - it is about how fun the game supposedly is. That's the standard for games far more broadly than either traditional RPGs or story games.
Typically, people need to read reviews, talk to others, or try the game themselves to know what kind of mechanics is has.
Bah, that's total, complete and utter horseshit.
Pick some other type of game, now tell me that's true. Boardgames, cardgames, wargames, cooperative boardgames, competitive boardgames, living cardgames vs. collectible card games. Christ boardgames advertise whether or not it's Eurostyle. Go to computer games. No one would even think of mixing FPS, 3PS, RTS, TBS, MMO, Racing, Sports, etc.
If all these narrative games had no text at all on the front or back cover that would be one thing...but they do. Someone decided
exactly what to put on the covers, and someone decided
exactly what text to put on the store page, and in most cases, they put plenty of text, but nothing to tell you what you're actually getting other then "RPG" unless you can decode the lingo, as I gave an example with TechNoir elsewhere.
To someone who prefers narrative games, and derives their fun from narrative mechanics, the lingo is all they need. For people unware of Forge Lingo, they think they're getting an RPG.
The System Matters™ people aren't advertising their systems, except to their existing audience through arcane jargon. What does that tell you?
@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 (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html).
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).
Blind tribalism is the bugbear of the 21st century.
Quote from: Ladybird;621129Internet communities, as a whole, have really got nastier over the past decade
Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;621257In the last 12-24 months I've subjectively noticed a change towards negativity not only on RPG boards, but in the entire discussion space on the parts of the internet that I frequent.
Quote from: David Johansen;621214The ugly thing is how much gaming's come to resemble politics.
I think it is ironic that widespread communication technology has possibly made us more tribal and insular as opposed to less. Everything has become politicized. Morality and belief have become inseparable. You can't support public health care without also being for gun control.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621078However, when you buy into the notion (which started with Uncle Ron) that the narrative style of play was objectively superior
Citation Required.
Quote from: CRKrueger;621083If my character cannot possibly make the decision, then that mechanic of the game, by definition, inhibits my roleplaying because it pulls me out the mental viewpoint of the character into the mental viewpoint of the player looking at the character as an avatar, a character in a story or a piece in a game.
What about decisions the
player cannot possibly make because they don't have the same knowledge or situational awareness as the character? How do you simulate
intuition and
instinct?
Quote from: CRKrueger;621083When you are creating a game that requires you to interface with the core mechanics in an OOC viewpoint, it's really hard to just call it an RPG without some form of qualifier.
Hate to break it to you, but every single RPG requires you to interface with the core mechanics from an OOC viewpoint. Even LARPs do.
Quote from: The Butcher;621134Ron Edwards and some of his associates said some really stupid and condescending things back when The Forge was at its height (I want to say 2004-2007 but I'm not sure) that smack not only of one-true-waysim and hipsterism, but of the sort of agenda that Monte Cook alludes to in the segment of the interview quoted in the OP.
You know how many Forge members called Ron out on his 'brain damage' comment? Pretty much
All of them, though of special note was one John Wick.
This is not a monoculture. Just thought I should mention that.
Quote from: jedimastert;621182These are story games:
...Sorcerer...
GOTCHA! :)
Please explain to me how Sorcerer is a Story Game, using your own criteria as reference.
Quote from: David Johansen;621214D&D's Hit Points ARE Hero Points.Quote from: gleichman;621216but their mechanical use is different for the player isn't invoking them at his whim.
This is actually a psychologically important distinction. Taking an action which
costs you is definitely more immersive than spending a point to
buy a result.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;621360Why not eliminate categories across the board?
Well, it certainly works for Board Game Night.
Quote from: Benoist;621377That does NOT change the fact that James Bond 007 is NOT a narrative game
Yet apparently it can be played as such using the RAW.
Quote from: Benoist;621377that it doesn't construe the process of playing as "building a narrative", that the use of Hero Points to modify the environment is therefore NOT "an alteration of the narrative", and that its primary goal is genre emulation, immersion, the creation of a verisimilar world that is close to James Bond's.
Arr, there be weasel words afoot in that thar paragraph. Unless I be misunderstandn ye, your saying that as long as I say me game is not building a narrative, and that using Hero Points to modify the environment is not an alteration of the narrative, then my game be a tried and true RPG.
Good to know (and why am I suddenly a pirate? 0_o).
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621597What must die, what needs to be warred against, is the GNS.
Yeaaaah, Ron and gang kinda moved on from GNS awhile ago after refining some of its concepts. The only places it gets discussed these days is here and on RPG.net. And ironically, the two folks I know who wage war against it the hardest (you and Omnifray BTW) are also the most wordy and 'Forgistic' posters as well, often trying to replace GNS with their own theory.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621638GNS said they were the same, they aren't.
Um, no. GNS gave us a way to show how they were
different.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621638The Forge died.
It was shut down after it achieved its objective. But keep telling yourself it was a victory if that makes you feel better.
Quote from: soviet;621967The player is simply being given an opportunity to say what their expectations are in a way that puts the player and GM on broadly the same page. This statement is being made in advance, so it's a known part of the conflict before the roll and the GM gets to refuse anything he doesn't find plausible. Finally the GM himself is the one who narrates the outcome and can modify the declared stakes as he sees fit.
If this is what makes a Story Game, then I am totally a dirty stinkin' Storygamer.
Quote from: RPGPundit;622447Except of course that it was due to rampant and egregious proselytizing on the part of the Forge/Storygame Swine that they pushed to implement these changes
No. it isn't. It's the market.
Sorry to say that these games have wider appeal. The problem is they're not reaching the audience because things like Pathfinder, D&D and WH40K are in the forefront. I've also spoken to numerous ex-gamers and most of them left for the same reasons. In fact, I've been very surprised at the number of people who
have tried RPGs sometime in their lifetime.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;622478I have definitely seen a lot of debates against immersion online (not here really but in other forums) And there is often a forge-like angle behind it.
Indeed, it's very much a pot/kettle/black kinda thing.
Quote from: CRKrueger;622521That's one thing people forget, the true father of narrative gaming isn't Edwards. You'd have to give that distinction to Robin Laws.
Aaaactually, it goes back to the authors of Theatrix.
Quote from: RPGPundit;622523And yet now we have storygamers trying to market many of their games as being part of the OSR
Yeah, that IS weird and counterproductive.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623095No one would even think of mixing FPS, 3PS, RTS, TBS, MMO, Racing, Sports, etc.
O (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xken7y_rage-to-combine-first-person-shooter-and-car-racing-genres_news) R (http://mmohuts.com/editorials/best-mmo-racing-games) L (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(video_game)) Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSPdINFddI)?
Thank god not everyone lacks your apparent imagination.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623095The System Matters™ people aren't advertising their systems, except to their existing audience through arcane jargon. What does that tell you?
It tells me we have insufficient language fidelity to discuss game systems. Also people evaluate based on BRANDS, not systems, and use the brand to describe the system. That's why all RPGs are D&D to many people.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;623153Yeaaaah, Ron and gang kinda moved on from GNS awhile ago after refining some of its concepts. The only places it gets discussed these days is here and on RPG.net. And ironically, the two folks I know who wage war against it the hardest (you and Omnifray BTW) are also the most wordy and 'Forgistic' posters as well, often trying to replace GNS with their own theory.
.
GNS still gets discussed elsewhere and still has its proponents. I certainly see them on enworld for example, where there are posters who push it (or some variation of it) pretty aggressively.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;623153Sorry to say that these games have wider appeal. The problem is they're not reaching the audience because things like Pathfinder, D&D and WH40K are in the forefront. I've also spoken to numerous ex-gamers and most of them left for the same reasons. In fact, I've been very surprised at the number of people who have tried RPGs sometime in their lifetime.
.
I think though that there is some truth the idea that most gamers tend to react negatively to a lot of the kinds of mechanics you see in story/forge-type games. I dont think there is anything inherently bad about such mechanics, but their lack of widespread popularity isn't, in my view, simply because they are obscured by the behemoths of D&D and Pathfinder. There are plenty of bigger RPGs out there employing these mechanics,but the closer you get to a storygame, the more I think you find there is division within the game group over mechanics. A lot of these kinds of games re more comfortable with out of character mechanics or mechanics that give descriptive powers to players usually reserved for the GM. Some people genuinely like that, but it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Where I think the more aggressive story game advocates start getting a negative reaction from rpgers who might not otherwise care about them, is when they suggest the hobby can (or must!) be saved by their approach, or that people need to be convinced they really like story mechanics (or there is no such thing as in character play, immersion,etc).
I remember a while back (maybe ten years even) there was a lot of talk of montages in games and the GM using montage techniques to set scenes or establish backgrounds (similar talk was there for flashbacks) While a few people jumped on board, most of us hard a real hard time understanding the appeal. I just found that approach jarring and not particularly enjoyable. It didn't become a huge thing because I think most people didn't like it, not because they never heard about it or because D&D was too big.
Now you still see people using this technique every once in a while. I hasnt gone away completely. But it just isnt something most people seem to want in an RPG.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;623153Blind tribalism is the bugbear of the 21st century.
Pot...kettle...black
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;623153Citation Required.
"More specific to your question, Vincent, I'll say this: that protagonism was so badly injured during the history of role-playing (1970-ish through the present, with the height of the effect being the early 1990s), that participants in that hobby are perhaps the very last people on earth who could be expected to produce *all* the components of a functional story. No, the most functional among them can only be counted on to seize protagonism in their stump-fingered hands and scream protectively"
-Ron Edwards.
"Now for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's mind is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am very familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage)."
-Ron Edwards
"All that is the foundation for my point: that the routine human capacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "storytelling role-playing" as promulgated through many role-playing games of a specific type. This type is only one game in terms of procedures, but it's represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years, peaking about ten years ago. Think of it as a "way" to role-play rather than any single title."
-Ron Edwards
I have to go off to work now. I will shovel up some more "gems" from the Forge compost pile later.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623151If 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 agree, that is effective. The OSR moved the center of gravity for the hobby towards traditional RPG's, and (it seems to me) had a huge effect on D&D Next.
OSR publication played a part. But so did the OSR community, the fans who never made a game, just talked about how much they loved that style of gaming.
Blog postings, forum participation, and other advocacy efforts (conscious or de-facto) have their place. And they're the primary way consumers who don't wish to be game designers, or don't have the time and resources to be game designers, can have an effect.
By all means, people should build games if that's something they want to do. (I am.) Set a good example of game design. But polite and persistent consumer feedback — which, stripped of bombast, is what I'm arguing for — is also effective.
(So are buying patterns. "Vote with your dollar" and such. Can be very effective. That seems to be what swayed D&D.)
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;623153It was shut down after it achieved its objective. But keep telling yourself it was a victory if that makes you feel better.
Absolutely hilarious.
As Jasyn pointed out, labeling doesn't have to be an MPAA tag. Descriptive text on the back, or in the case of FPS vs. 3PS a simple screenshot describes the difference, or adcopy on the site you purchase the game from, or the seller doesn't need to put his own label on it, because he's selling into a retail distribution chain that already has categories and they now how it will be sold.
How can I fix it? I can't. I'm not the one filling games with narrative mechanics that REQUIRE ooc viewpoints and simply putting RPG on my game and website. All I can do it call bullshit when I see it. Someone says X equals Y, I can attempt to show why X does not equal Y. I can't make them say X=X, and I can't (and in the end don't care) whether they actually think X=Y or are doing so to try and gain mindshare.
Monte Cook is right when he said that a lot of the discussion about RPGs has gone toxic in the same way that conversation about anything in the US or anyplace within reach of the internet has gone toxic. People simply want their way to win and so increasingly, no one is even pretending to be arguing in good faith. That's why there's little point in even looking at awful purple for example. This place, for the most part, is different, so I call it like I see it and try not to let the drive-by one-liners slide, because a one-liner slides enough uncontested, it becomes common wisdom. Then you get an echo chamber like TGD, where groups of those one-liners now becomes the foundation which frames all arguments.
Now I might do something like Jasyn is suggesting. Construct a calm, cool, and collected post, logically laying out why I think, for example, the Comrade system in Only War is a mechanic that defeats the process of IC roleplaying and is not something I'm looking for in an RPG, post it on FFG, and hope a designer sees it and keeps it rattling around somewhere in his head, when it comes time to design the next 40k game.
Edit: For the many people who caught me on the "Mixing" computer game genres, you're right, that happens a lot, I meant to say mislabeling. You buy a game that says Turn-based strategy, and it's real time, you're gonna be upset for example. But, if someone does mix the genres looking for something new, they sure as heck advertise it. :D
Hey, Anon Adderlan: I went back and reread the Brain Damage thread at the Forge, the one where John Wick and others tackled Ron about it.
You are correct that not everyone at the Forge went along with Ron.
You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him. Many enthusiastically defended the concept (though admittedly a lot of that defence involved pretending Ron didn't quite say what he actually said). In fact, it's ironic that you brought up John Wick in the discussion because in John's last post on that thread, he specifically takes time out to bemoan the fact that the Forge had become so "cultish" - his word, not mine - that a sizable chunk of the user base would actually defend Ron on this point.
The great irony of the brain damage controversy is that the Forge created a large number of fanboys who could only approach RPG theory and design from a GNS perspective, as though that were the only way you could possibly describe or analyse roleplaying games. That's not brain damage, but it is precisely the sort of "I have been trained to the point where I literally cannot recognise that there are other ways of thinking about this stuff" nonsense which Ron claimed to be decrying when he was in the midst of backpedalling on the whole brain damage thing.
Possibility 1. There is a global conspiracy of storygame fifth columnists out to destroy the RPG hobby by falsely and maliciously advertising their storygames as RPGs in order to corrupt young minds and leech off the sweet, sweet revenue stream that is tabletop roleplaying books sold on the internet.
Possibility 2. People simply don't agree with you that storygames are not RPGs.
Quote from: 1989;623174Absolutely hilarious.
The forge can't be an unholy global conspiracy that's destroying RPGs if only people would open their damn eyes
and a pathetic failure all at the same time. It has to be one or the other.
Or, well, neither.
Quote from: soviet;623188Possibility 2. People simply don't agree with you that storygames are not RPGs.
I know some fundamental Christians who insist that the Earth is only 6000 years old and I disagree with their belief. That does not mean that they are not fucked in the head wrong on the subject.
Within the broader market, story games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Polaris, Apocalypse World, and Fiasco are classified as RPGs - even though Polaris and Fiasco don't call themselves RPGs.
If I go to a game store and ask where to find Dogs in the Vineyard, they'll say to look in the RPG section. If I am at a game convention and go to the help desk asking where I can find Fiasco events in the program, they'll tell me to look under RPG listings. In all the other online forum except this one that I know of, such story games will be discussed in the same category as traditional RPGs.
So if a story game producer wants to sell to the general market rather than to some subset of people here on theRPGsite, it is quite reasonable for them to use the term "RPG" from a non-ideological marketing standpoint.
RPGPundit already declared his victory over Storygames. Why are you people talking about something already dead? You know how we know none of these recent games are Storygames? Because RPGPundit already declared them all dead, so they can't be Storygames unless they are somehow zombie Storygames. And really, those should be extra-easy to spot, what with the moaning and shuffling and decaying flesh and attempts to eat your brain and such.
Seriously though, this debate had value some years ago, but it sure looks meaningless now. Why care about the finer distinctions anymore?
Quote from: RPGPundit;623046Moreso in the case of things like DW and other recent Storygamer Swine efforts where they try to claim that the OSR was somehow thanks to them and a product of their "genius" and "innovation".
I haven't spent as much time as you have on observing this, so I don't have so many examples.
What I have been sensitized to so far are various essays, blog posts and forum posts that seem coordinated and purposeful for positioning a generation of products as the next evolution of RPG, and trying to coopt what's happening with OSR - with stealth marketing.
This is understandable, because OSR is riding so high today, as much for the crash and burn of 4E and failure of Hasbro to understand its market - Hasbro understands this now.
I just reposted my list of software industry deadly sins (http://www.lynnfredricks.com/2013/01/30/deadly-sins-of-software-executive-redux/) to my non-game blog, and it is striking how the top three exactly match what happened with 4E and Hasbro. With 5th edition, Hasbro is trying to appeal to the generation of gamers they lost with 4E ("Ignoring Your Customers and Their Real Needs"), which are a lot of the proponents of OSR and those who moved on to Pathfinder ("Underestimating Your Competition").
Quote from: jibbajibba;623138Well 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.
There's nothing wrong with that, it's commendable. But you seem to be making one mistake.
You're assuming a new group with a new branch of thought came in and said "Hey guys, let's all get along." and the evil masterminds Pundit and Benoist decided to start a Pogrom.
In fact, it was the opposite. The notion of battle, the aggressiveness of the clash, the toxicity of the debate was defined and initiated by the newcomers, not by the staus quo. We're not the ones who went with brain damage, and we're still not the ones who claim the other side is delusional with multiple personality disorder which you still see tossed up on awful purple or even here from time to time.
If you want to compare Edward's brain damage with Pundit's Swine, just think, how many people here not only don't agree with Pundit, but actually disparage him at every opportunity on his own site? How many people did that on the Forge? The Forge was much more in line with Edward's extremes then this place is with Pundit's.
We can go round and round, but what it comes down to is that you, JKim and others, simply do not think that
anyone on the narrativist side of things is actually treating this like a clash of ideas and memes and is using proven techniques of "idea warfare" which is usually present in the cultural, political and religious arenas to advance the narrativist memes of the Forge.
A while ago, some fellows in my regular gaming group put forth a line about how one is "supposed to" role-play that was sort of ironic since they themselves clearly did not follow it.
Somehow, such opinions get lodged in people's minds and repeated without much thought. On closer examination, they may (like my friends) see that such "one true way-ism" is rather silly.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623154GNS still gets discussed elsewhere and still has its proponents. I certainly see them on enworld for example, where there are posters who push it (or some variation of it) pretty aggressively.
Nah, doesn't happen, Brendan. Not on Enworld, not on awful purple, not on Storygames. People don't still use it, people don't aggressively push narrative terms and thought trying to expand them into roleplaying. Haven't you heard? It Does.Not.Happen. We've been told.
Me, you, Ben, Jasyn, anyone really who thinks so is not only wrong, we're going into tinfoil hat territory. Heck, we might even be delusional, or even...brain damaged.
Quote from: Phillip;623213A while ago, some fellows in my regular gaming group put forth a line about how one is "supposed to" role-play that was sort of ironic since they themselves clearly did not follow it.
Somehow, such opinions get lodged in people's minds and repeated without much thought. On closer examination, they may (like my friends) see that such "one true way-ism" is rather silly.
Defining a distinction between Yellow and Red is not even close to declaring a preference for one over the other and it's not even in the same universe as declaring only one should exist.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623214Nah, doesn't happen, Brendan. Not on Enworld, not on awful purple, not on Storygames. People don't still use it, people don't aggressively push narrative terms and thought trying to expand them into roleplaying. Haven't you heard? It Does.Not.Happen. We've been told.
Me, you, Ben, Jasyn, anyone really who thinks so is not only wrong, we're going into tinfoil hat territory. Heck, we might even be delusional, or even...brain damaged.
(http://blog.sironaconsulting.com/.a/6a00d8341c761a53ef013486995d50970c-320wi)
On another occasion, a player complimented a 4e D&D DM on a game with the excitement of the old days. Then, he seemed to realize that he was being "politically incorrect" and hastened to affirm that they were really the bad old days because of the very DM flexibility that had figured in making the session so much fun -- despite the supposed shackling that 4e was supposed to have accomplished!
Quote from: jhkim;623200Within the broader market, story games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Polaris, Apocalypse World, and Fiasco are classified as RPGs - even though Polaris and Fiasco don't call themselves RPGs.
If I go to a game store and ask where to find Dogs in the Vineyard, they'll say to look in the RPG section. If I am at a game convention and go to the help desk asking where I can find Fiasco events in the program, they'll tell me to look under RPG listings. In all the other online forum except this one that I know of, such story games will be discussed in the same category as traditional RPGs.
So if a story game producer wants to sell to the general market rather than to some subset of people here on theRPGsite, it is quite reasonable for them to use the term "RPG" from a non-ideological marketing standpoint.
Except being the people who specifically wrote that game from an ideological mechanics standpoint, remember System Matters, they know better then anyone what the differences are.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623118With 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.
Fair enough. I'm not entirely sure what this level of clarity is, since you do say that most of the games had less clear genre labeling than BL2. In any case, tabletop RPGs are a very different market. That sort of name recognition doesn't exist for anything except D&D, so smaller games try to both associate and distinguish themselves from D&D.
As far as I can tell, Dungeon World isn't trying to trick people into buying a game they wouldn't like. Rather, it is trying to market to a public who (1) would like its style of mechanics, but also (2) wouldn't understand relatively opaque labels like "story game" or "narrative mechanics", because those are only used in some Internet boards by hard-core gamers, not in the wider market.
Do you think there is a problem with Dungeon World's marketing - and if so, what would you prefer?
Quote from: jhkim;623220Do you think there is a problem with Dungeon World's marketing - and if so, what would you prefer?
Honesty would be a refreshing change of pace.
Way back when I experimented with something of the sort (unaware of any previous efforts), I thought it meet to distinguish my "dramatic" approach from the common conception of "RPG". When Greg Stafford called his Prince Valiant a "story telling game", I thought that seemed a fitting term.
Dungeons & Dragons was originally billed as "wargames rules for miniatures" -- but clearly it was blazing a trail into a new frontier of gaming that was not done justice by simply lumping it into the old category.
Quote from: jhkim;623220In any case, tabletop RPGs are a very different market.
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to get involved in either side of that particular exchange.
Video games came up, people said some things, I had some more accurate information, I posted it. Some of it supported Krueger's points, some Norton's.
I like accurate information, even when it cuts against points I have made, or may make in the future.
Quote from: jhkim;623220Do you think there is a problem with Dungeon World's marketing - and if so, what would you prefer?
I'm not an OSR person. I cut my teeth on redbox D&D and AD&D, but I've long since moved on to other gaming systems, primarily skill-based.
My favorite game is
Torg, followed by
Shadowrun and followed by 3e. That may indicate where my tastes lie.
But Dungeon World isn't OSR. It just... isn't. It's crazy to say so, IMHO.
OSR is all about TSR. Even blackbox
Traveller and
Tunnels and Trolls is left out of that one. I don't say this as a matter of ideological purity. It's purely descriptive.
Cats ain't got gills. People who say they do, insistently, against all available evidence are kind of odd. Crazy, even, if they're being honest. (If they're being disengenuous, well that'd explain some stuff.)
To the extent that people are claiming Dungeon World is OSR, they're just wrong.
I've read through
Apocalypse World and skimmed
Dungeon World. (The GM advice is, in many parts, pretty electrifying. "Vomit Forth apocalyptica." Gold. Fucking gold. I
will steal that and adapt it for my games.)
I'm not sure AW/DW are Storygames. But then, I don't have a personal, clear definition of that term. And they definitely have Narrativist mechanics.
Neither are OSR, any more than a cat is a fish.
(OTOH, I do have clear definitions of various mediums, and roleplaying is not "telling a story". I've posted why elsewhere.)
Quote from: jhkim;623220Do you think there is a problem with Dungeon World's marketing - and if so, what would you prefer?
I really haven't been following Dungeon World. But here is the back text the company uses on the RPGnow site:
QuoteCombining high-action dungeon crawling with cutting-edge rules, Dungeon World is a roleplaying game of fantasy adventure. You and your friends will explore a land of magic and danger in the roles of adventurers searching for fame, gold, and glory.
Dungeon World’s rules are easy to learn and always drive the action forward in unexpected ways. A missed roll is never a dead end—failure introduces new complexities and complications. Life as an adventurer is hard and dangerous but it’s never boring!
Designed to be ready for you to hack, remix, and build new content, Dungeon World includes systems for changing everything to suit your group including creating new races, classes, and monsters.
To play, you’ll need this rulebook, 3–5 players, some polyhedral dice, and 2–4 hours.
Explore fantasy adventure roleplaying in a whole new way with Dungeon World!
I don't know much about this game. But if it is trying to do old school setting mixed with story game rules, I do kind of get that sense from the text (no idea how they are marketing the game outside this page though). I bolded the parts that give me a sense of what the game is supposed to be. Now I haven't played it, haven't read it, and haven't really paid all that much attention to it. Based on this my guess would be it is probably supposed to be something of a fusion of old school rpg and storygame stuff. However, I may also just be more attuned to some of the buzzwords in there than regular customers (it may be that "cutting edge" is less meaningful to someone else in that context). As a customer, I would like some indication, just so I know what the game is going in, what kind of cutting edge mechanics I can expect. I think I am able to deduce it, but that could mean anything from Narrative Mechanics to board-gamey mechanics.
I think where the DW thing starts getting wierd for me, is people trying to give the forge and storygames credit for the OSR (or not seeing the difference between OSR and what DW seems to be offering). I don't see that happening on the quoted text above, but I have seen it online in discussions (not saying the designers of DW are doing that though).
(Since it's popped up...)
Is AW/DW a "Storygame"?
I'm gonna say no. But it isn't a traditional RPG. With the explicitly defined (and limited) moves, it's (at best) a heavily Gamist RPG.
Apocalypse World is a wargame. It's a wargame with a few Narrative control mechanics, and a bent towards roleplaying your "piece" (i.e. character), but it's still a heavily stylized, exactingly mechanically defined system.
It's not about natural language programming, which is the hallmark of RPG's. Nearly all RPG's share this approach, from OD&D through White Wolf, and on to the OSR.
"Natural language programming"?
You tell the GM what to do, he translates it into mechanics, rolls some dice or has you roll, then describes the result. Regular language to rules and then back again.
AW superficially resembles this, but in a far more structured, limited way. The sheer formalism embodied in the Move mechanics are wargamey. There's far less natural language "do anything you want", and far more "these are the six things you can do".
That is, far less roleplaying, far more wargaming.
This concept of encoded limits undergirds character descriptions and names (pick from this list), restrictions on the GM ("You must follow this advice") and on and on.
AW is exact pieces with exact movements and exact capabilities. It's abstract, you move pieces in a mentally defined space, not a tactical grid, but it's still a wargame.
After all, you don't need a physical board to play chess (the original wargame). Mental chess is still chess.
And AW resembles mental chess more than any RPG.
Hero Quest is a Storygame, IMHO, as is Technoir. But AW is a wargame.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623233But AW is a wargame.
With minatures that can shag each other.
Quote from: smiorgan;623234With minatures that can shag each other.
:D "Pieces", not miniatures. Still wargame-ist rules governing how you move your pieces.
Say "abstracted wargame" if the plain term is too confounding. You move pieces in a mentally defined space, not on a tactical grid.
EDIT
Re: Sex. It's even mechanically defined sex. You initiative the "have sex" move, fiddle with Hx and get some special game mechanical benefit.
The author translated sex into wargame terms. Yeah, folks, AW is a wargame.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623235You move pieces in a mentally defined space, not on a tactical grid.
Mostly we've been moving our pieces through Google+.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623226OSR is all about TSR. Even blackbox Traveller and Tunnels and Trolls is left out of that one. I don't say this as a matter of ideological purity. It's purely descriptive.
Yea. There is some overlap in interest, but the notion that old-TSR fandom constitutes THE old school -- that it's identical with whatever divisions may exist in other game fandoms -- is not tenable.
Fans of other games can speak for themselves and define their own "schools" without needing outsiders to dictate to them.
It's especially galling when people who were (maybe even still are) not real enthusiasts of the non-TSR game in question take the mantle. Someone who considers skill systems anathema, for instance, has no business defining a "school" of
RuneQuest!
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623233Apocalypse World is a wargame. It's a wargame with a few Narrative control mechanics, and a bent towards roleplaying your "piece" (i.e. character), but it's still a heavily stylized, exactingly mechanically defined system.
That puts me in mind of GDW's
En Garde (ca. 1975).
Quote from: Lynn;623205What I have been sensitized to so far are various essays, blog posts and forum posts that seem coordinated and purposeful for positioning a generation of products as the next evolution of RPG, and trying to coopt what's happening with OSR - with stealth marketing.
Obviously authorial intent can never be proved unless admitted, all you can do is look at the process and result. If I were going to coordinate and purposefully try to position a generation of products as the next evolution of RPGs (RPG 2.0 (http://www.story-games.com/forums/) if you will), and do it through stealth marketing and memetic conflict, how would I do it? What would it look like? It would look like exactly what we have coming from areas of the narrative movement.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, do I really need a full DNA scan to prove it's not an elephant? If the only people who say I do are the people who also say that it is an elephant, what does that tell you?
Quote from: jhkimDo you have a problem with Dungeon World's marketing - and if so, what would you prefer?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623226I'm not an OSR person. I cut my teeth on redbox D&D and AD&D, but I've long since moved on to other gaming systems, primarily skill-based.
My favorite game is Torg, followed by Shadowrun and followed by 3e. That may indicate where my tastes lie.
But Dungeon World isn't OSR. It just... isn't. It's crazy to say so, IMHO.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623230I think where the DW thing starts getting wierd for me, is people trying to give the forge and storygames credit for the OSR (or not seeing the difference between OSR and what DW seems to be offering). I don't see that happening on the quoted text above, but I have seen it online in discussions (not saying the designers of DW are doing that though).
I agree with Brendan here. I had been talking about the marketing of Dungeon World - by which I meant what the creators say about it. They don't claim to be OSR.
Crazy things that other people on the net say about it isn't marketing, though it is still a problem. Yes, there is a subset of story gamers who make ridiculous claims of various sorts. I argue with them, too.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623267Obviously authorial intent can never be proved unless admitted, all you can do is look at the process and result. If I were going to coordinate and purposefully try to position a generation of products as the next evolution of RPGs (RPG 2.0 (http://www.story-games.com/forums/) if you will), and do it through stealth marketing and memetic conflict, how would I do it? What would it look like? It would look like exactly what we have coming from areas of the narrative movement.
Calling yourself "the next evolution in RPGs" or "cutting edge" isn't stealth marketing, it's just plain marketing.
It's normal for new product marketing to claim to be the Next Big Thing, better than the existing stuff. That's just the nature of advertising, and doesn't indicate a sinister plan to destroy everything else.
Quote from: Phillip;623238Yea. There is some overlap in interest, but the notion that old-TSR fandom constitutes THE old school -- that it's identical with whatever divisions may exist in other game fandoms -- is not tenable.
Fans of other games can speak for themselves and define their own "schools" without needing outsiders to dictate to them.
It's especially galling when people who were (maybe even still are) not real enthusiasts of the non-TSR game in question take the mantle. Someone who considers skill systems anathema, for instance, has no business defining a "school" of RuneQuest!
Thing is,
Traveller fans coined the term grognard to describe
Classic Traveller affecianadoes long before the OSR was a thing. Funny thing is, you can see a similar pattern of acceptance and popularity between the
Traveller product line over history and the D&D product line over history.
Quote from: Phillip;623238Yea. There is some overlap in interest, but the notion that old-TSR fandom constitutes THE old school -- that it's identical with whatever divisions may exist in other game fandoms -- is not tenable.
Fans of other games can speak for themselves and define their own "schools" without needing outsiders to dictate to them.
It's especially galling when people who were (maybe even still are) not real enthusiasts of the non-TSR game in question take the mantle. Someone who considers skill systems anathema, for instance, has no business defining a "school" of RuneQuest!
I can't think of anybody in the OSR that is trying make it their business to define what is old school for other types of RPGs. It seems to me the plate is already full enough with older editions of D&D.
I do know many of us are active gamers of other older editions so have our own opinions on what is old school Traveller, Runequest, etc.
I know of someone who by his own admission looked down on T&T in the old days, yet saw fit to pontificate about its "old-schoolness" from his TSR-centric (and personal-ideology-centric) definition.
The game of "Is Game X Old School?" has been avidly played on every old-D&D fan site I've visited. Not, mind you, "What is the 'Old School' in C&S?" but simply whether it's to be counted part of 'THE' Old School.
The same or not, many such people remind me of the kids who in the late 1970s and 1980s were ragging on the then-"old school" D&Ders for not toeing (what was in the kids' eyes) the new true creed of AD&D, and turned up their noses at anything non-TSR. Some fellows who now rag on everything WotC-D&D abandoned old TSR-D&D and spent a lot on (or even earned a little from) 3e -- while others of us never tossed the old game on the rubbish heap in the first place.
Quote from: jhkim;623274Calling yourself "the next evolution in RPGs" or "cutting edge" isn't stealth marketing, it's just plain marketing.
It's normal for new product marketing to claim to be the Next Big Thing, better than the existing stuff. That's just the nature of advertising, and doesn't indicate a sinister plan to destroy everything else.
Good marketing takes the most palatable form for the target market.
For example, if you create a computer game title and you aren't a big development house or publisher, and you want to gather up small title buyers, then you emulate the expectations for buyers of indie games in how you market.
"But all artifice in art must be concealed,a picture obviously composed is badly composed" - this applies to marketing as well.
"What is old school?" and, "What do you think the OSR should do be/do next?"
Proof that there are indeed stupid questions.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623211There's nothing wrong with that, it's commendable. But you seem to be making one mistake.
You're assuming a new group with a new branch of thought came in and said "Hey guys, let's all get along." and the evil masterminds Pundit and Benoist decided to start a Pogrom.
In fact, it was the opposite. The notion of battle, the aggressiveness of the clash, the toxicity of the debate was defined and initiated by the newcomers, not by the staus quo. We're not the ones who went with brain damage, and we're still not the ones who claim the other side is delusional with multiple personality disorder which you still see tossed up on awful purple or even here from time to time.
If you want to compare Edward's brain damage with Pundit's Swine, just think, how many people here not only don't agree with Pundit, but actually disparage him at every opportunity on his own site? How many people did that on the Forge? The Forge was much more in line with Edward's extremes then this place is with Pundit's.
We can go round and round, but what it comes down to is that you, JKim and others, simply do not think that anyone on the narrativist side of things is actually treating this like a clash of ideas and memes and is using proven techniques of "idea warfare" which is usually present in the cultural, political and religious arenas to advance the narrativist memes of the Forge.
Dude I never sais Edwards wasn't a cock. But doesn't mean I have to act like one as well does it?
Maybe there are some evil storygame fifth columnists out to destroy RPGS , maybe .... but in the end the market will out. I doubt DintV will become the new D&D, I doubt that Dungeon World will inspire thousands of new players.
There are more people actively involved in Simming than there are RPG players. Quite a lot of folks don't mind narrative-ish mechanics to a point so its no suprise that major games play with a few ideas. I expect its more because 3 million kids write Harry Potter Fanfic than because someone with a pHD in bat penises once pointed out that RPG kids were all brain damaged.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623216Defining a distinction between Yellow and Red is not even close to declaring a preference for one over the other and it's not even in the same universe as declaring only one should exist.
See what you have there is a reasonable analogy except we exist in a place where 90% of stuff is a shade of orange
Quote from: Phillip;623292I know of someone who by his own admission looked down on T&T in the old days, yet saw fit to pontificate about its "old-schoolness" from his TSR-centric (and personal-ideology-centric) definition.
The game of "Is Game X Old School?" has been avidly played on every old-D&D fan site I've visited. Not, mind you, "What is the 'Old School' in C&S?" but simply whether it's to be counted part of 'THE' Old School.
How about some links rather than generalities so we can judge for ourselves whether your statements are accurate.
So far, I have to say "So what?". "What is Old School" is a highly subjective question to begin with. The reason why publishers like Goodman Games, myself, and others are able to use the term with any effectiveness is that we pay attention to gamers when we try to promote and design our products. A good publisher doesn't just say we made an "Old School" product. They explain why.
Goodman was very effective in explaining that the DCC is about his love of 70s era fantasy. I had some success in explaining that my Majestic Wilderland product is what I think are useful material is culled from 30 years of running the same setting. Likewise I had some success in explaining why I think the hexcrawl format is a nice compact way of presenting a lot of local detail for a setting.
There are not just two kinds of gamers, nor was there a Golden Age inhabited by but one kind.
Quote from: estar;623322How about some links rather than generalities so we can judge for ourselves whether your statements are accurate.
We all
can judge for ourselves; Mr. Magoo is of course free to trust his own eyes.
QuoteSo far, I have to say "So what?".
So, suit yourself. If you get a kick out of being the gaming equivalent of Archie Bunker, so be it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623319See what you have there is a reasonable analogy except we exist in a place where 90% of stuff is a shade of orange
The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it? If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?
Quote from: Phillip;623323There are not just two kinds of gamers, nor was there a Golden Age inhabited by but one kind.
Whew! It's a good thing no one is saying that huh? I do remember saying however, that older, original RPGs allowed many different types of playstyles at the same table all at once, something that a newer game constructed under the Forge concept of Coherence, like Dungeon World, does not.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623317I expect its more because 3 million kids write Harry Potter Fanfic than because someone with a pHD in bat penises once pointed out that RPG kids were all brain damaged.
I don't know that Jay Little, the guy who wrote WFRP3 was especially enamored of Harry Potter fanfic. I do know as a game designer, he was public in his support for Edwards and the Forge, so I guess I'd have to say in that case Ron had a little more impact then online fiction. ;)
Quote from: jhkim;623274Calling yourself "the next evolution in RPGs" or "cutting edge" isn't stealth marketing, it's just plain marketing.
It's normal for new product marketing to claim to be the Next Big Thing, better than the existing stuff. That's just the nature of advertising, and doesn't indicate a sinister plan to destroy everything else.
What about what they call themselves here (http://www.dungeon-world.com/)?
Quote from: Dungeon World.comDungeon World is a tabletop roleplaying game. It’s a set of rules that you use, along with your friends, to play out fantasy adventures. You’ll take on the roles of dwarves, elves, and humans in a world of magic. You’ll face dangerous enemies, sweeping plots, and treacherous locations. Are you ready?
BTW, you strike me as a scholar, John, what is your translation of
in tenebras arcem? Or anyone else who knows Latin.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623325The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it? If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?
Sure but you can do that in Dogs in the Vineyard, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic Role Playing and Sorceror right?.....
I am not saying there are no story games (shall we call them red to stretch the analogy to breaking point) merely that the majority of games sit on the spectrum.
QuoteI don't know that Jay Little, the guy who wrote WFRP3 was especially enamored of Harry Potter fanfic. I do know as a game designer, he was public in his support for Edwards and the Forge, so I guess I'd have to say in that case Ron had a little more impact then online fiction. ;)
I thought WFRP3 was more gamist than narrative (no direct experience sorry) being basically a bog standard RPG but with a few gimicks partly to make it harder to pirate and enable them to sell more bits.
Certainly though from a marketing perspective if there were 3 million kids that loved harry potter and writing fan fic about child wizards that to me would seem like a great target market for an RPG and from a comerical perspective a game with some narative control might well appeal right? Like I said though the vast majority of designers just put out stuff they want to play aor beleive in. It might be different in the handful of truly commercial game companies though. If Jay Little was an Edwards fan then you are right chances are that was an infuence on his work.
I happen to enjoy a lot of things called "old school", just as I enjoyed them in the 1970s.
What I don't enjoy is what used to be called, in Alarums & Excursions, "One True Wayism".
The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.
There was a lot of different FRPing going on back in the day, and there's a lot of different FRPing going on today. To expect everyone to be defined in terms of a conflict internal to the D&D community is overweening.
Philip's fucking right.
I hereby appoint myself as the guardian of old school.
Now, I'll need loyalty oaths from all of you, espeically guys like Philip and TDD, whom I deem premature old schoolers, and whose motives, I think we can all agree, are probably icky.
Quote from: Phillip;623333I happen to enjoy a lot of things called "old school", just as I enjoyed them in the 1970s.
What I don't enjoy is what used to be called, in Alarums & Excursions, "One True Wayism".
The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.
There was a lot of different FRPing going on back in the day, and there's a lot of different FRPing going on today. To expect everyone to be defined in terms of a conflict internal to the D&D community is overweening.
+ 1000
Quote from: jibbajibba;623330Sure but you can do that in Dogs in the Vineyard, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic Role Playing and Sorceror right?.....
Actually, no. Not most of the time. DitV, DW, and MHR (been forever since I read Sorceror) all have core mechanics that frequently require an OOC POV to make decisions - decisions a character cannot possibly make. To answer the inevitable follow-up of "which ones", just search this site where I go over the Volley move in DW. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to do a move-by-move analysis of DW. I may very well though, because I'm damn certain a lot of it's defenders here have, unlike me, never even glanced at the damn thing.
As far as the gamist view of WFRP3 goes, yeah to an extent, however, there's a whole narrative framework everything else is based around. If you do have it, see if you can tell me how a Priestess of Shallya by the rules heals when not in combat. You can search up the answer here, been over that one before.
As to the D&D line, I think problems came to a head partly as a consequence of pursuing too narrow a vision for the brand -- perhaps similar to the design mode advocated by Forge types.
Mike Mearls offered what sound to me like good proposals in his "D&D Next Goals, Part One" article:
QuoteTo start with, here are our two guiding principles. These ideas guide everything we do.
1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.
D&D's publication started out as a pretty simple framework mainly adapted to the needs of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns, but -- because of its simplicity -- easily 'hacked' to suit others. Supplements and magazine articles offered a considerable range of variations (as did spin-off games from TSR and others).
With AD&D, the compilation of a selection of this material -- originally drawn from disparate campaigns -- came to define a new 'standard' game in the minds of many players. Nonetheless, supplementary elaborations continued to appear ("official" ones in greater volume in the Second Edition era).
The WotC editions brought tighter game-mechanical integration among sub-systems, which (along with a greater emphasis on a particular kind of designed game balance) discouraged decoupling "standard" rules into "optional" components.
If there really is a return to a simple core, with the expectation and intent that different campaigns should use/add/drop/change material to suit the tastes of the participants, then it should be possible again to accommodate a variety of game styles.
By keeping elaborations 'modular', people can choose different approaches to various subjects.
Quote from: Phillip;623324We all can judge for ourselves; Mr. Magoo is of course free to trust his own eyes.
So no links then to back your generalities then?
Quote from: Phillip;623324So, suit yourself. If you get a kick out of being the gaming equivalent of Archie Bunker, so be it.
when you make this statement you are going off of what list of RPGs I have run or played?
Quote from: Phillip;623333The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.
Show a link where a provincial TSRians as appointed themselves as your guardian?
I will even help you
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/
Except wait! It is a community set up specifically to talk about AD&D and OD&D. I guess this makes the chess forums guilty of one true wayism as well.
It not the days of Dragon magazine or even early Alarums & Excursions where publishing was a major amount of work. In case you don't get it the Internet is about communication not just of general interest but that of specific interests as well.
Criticizing the existence and advocacy of narrow interests as "One true wayism" is well silly. It the point of the the group in the first place! You might as well criticize the chess game for ignoring the existence of Go.
And lets say you are right in all respects? What are the consequences?
Your posts read like you are getting pissy because a new generation are having moderate success publishing, promoting, and playing older editions of D&D.
There was a time in the days of mass media where fighting one true wayism was a good and nessecary thing. But those days are long gone for the things we are talking about. It simply doesn't matter what you say. The only thing that matters is what you do. This means writing useful material for other people to use or organizing games for people to play.
The OSR is what it is because of the collective action of those who do.
I think it's basically easier to complicate a simple game than to simplify a complex one.
Quote from: Phillip;623345If there really is a return to a simple core, with the expectation and intent that different campaigns should use/add/drop/change material to suit the tastes of the participants, then it should be possible again to accommodate a variety of game styles.
By keeping elaborations 'modular', people can choose different approaches to various subjects.
It already happened. Take your pick from a dozen D&D clones and their supplements. From reading actual play accounts on blogs and Google Plus most games seem to be mish mash of whatever D&D variant the referee liked.
Wizards is in a difficult position now in trying to regain leadership of D&D. The all options D&D base has been taken over by Pathfinder. The classic D&D base has dozens of options and now with the PDFs and reprints has the original rules to play with. The things Wizards has going for them is their presence in the brick and mortar world, ownership of all editions of D&D and control of the D&D trademark.
I do hope they do well as a healthy flagship D&D is a good thing for the industry and hobby. But they have a very difficult. I think at this point what going to matter is that the next edition look like D&D and not be a break like 4e was. Then they can start rebuilding the network and get people to buy new tabletop products from Wizards.
Quote from: Phillip;623333I happen to enjoy a lot of things called "old school", just as I enjoyed them in the 1970s.
What I don't enjoy is what used to be called, in Alarums & Excursions, "One True Wayism".
The seemingly perpetual self-aggrandizement of provincial TSRians irritates me as much today -- when they have appointed themselves as guardians of us dinosaurs -- as it did back when they were the newbs quoting the latest Word of Gary as holy writ.
There was a lot of different FRPing going on back in the day, and there's a lot of different FRPing going on today. To expect everyone to be defined in terms of a conflict internal to the D&D community is overweening.
I call bullshit. There is nothing whatsoever stopping you from creating a thread/blog talking about how Runequest or whatever game was played back in the day. Anybody who is interested in the discussion can damn well join you.
Quote from: estar;623346when you make this statement you are going off of what list of RPGs I have run or played?
No; I don't see how that should impede your freedom to suit yourself.
QuoteI will even help you
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/
Except wait! It is a community set up specifically to talk about AD&D and OD&D. I guess this makes the chess forums guilty of one true wayism as well.
The Alehouse, in my experience, has shown relatively little interest in the kind of
The Old Schooltm posturing that bugs me. "specifically...about AD&D and OD&D" is the key!
People there like what they like, and for some that includes T&T, Traveller, and/or RuneQuest (and other Chaosium games), Avalon Hill or SPI wargames, the rock groups Jethro Tull and Rush, etc..
QuoteCriticizing the existence and advocacy of narrow interests as "One true wayism" is well silly.
Indeed, and that is not what I am doing.
QuoteYou might as well criticize the chess game for ignoring the existence of Go.
No; I might as well criticize Chess players for complaining that Go is a "Contract Bridge school game" -- were they addle-headed enough so to imitate the posturing of RPG ideologues.
QuoteYour posts read like you are getting pissy because a new generation are having moderate success publishing, promoting, and playing older editions of D&D.
Where did you learn to read? That is most certainly nothing I wrote!
Quote from: CRKrueger;623328What about what they call themselves here (http://www.dungeon-world.com/)?
From Dungeon World.com
Dungeon World is a tabletop roleplaying game. It's a set of rules that you use, along with your friends, to play out fantasy adventures. You'll take on the roles of dwarves, elves, and humans in a world of magic. You'll face dangerous enemies, sweeping plots, and treacherous locations. Are you ready?
Right. I don't own Dungeon World, but I've played two one-shots games of it, and this description sounds accurate. I played an elf cleric and a thief of some race.
I would note that it sounds pitched at a newbie audience, which I think is fine and indeed approve of. It doesn't use terms like "d20" or "GM" or "NPC", but rather reads like text for, say, a 11-year-old or parent who maybe knows the genre from computer games and comics, and is interested in trying it.
By contrast, take the first few lines from the Labyrinth Lord page (http://goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html) -
The Labyrinth Lord fantasy role-playing game allows you to experience the game play of the retro-editions of the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game! The Labyrinth Lord core rules emulate the rules and game play experience of the 1981 edition of the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game. The 1981 version reorganized and clarified the rules from the very first version of the game released in 1974, so it is the best version to pick up and play with little prep time.
Nonetheless, a few character options changed from those two editions of the game, and for people who want the "original edition" game experience, we have Original Edition Characters, so you can play the original character options under the clearer Labyrinth Lord rules set.This version is much more accurate and descriptive of exactly what the mechanics are if you are in the know, but it is complete gobbledygook to anyone who isn't an experienced RPG player.
I don't have a problem with the Labyrinth Lord marketing, and it is indeed accurate and informative to me - but I like the Dungeon World marketing better, and I'd like it if more games pitched themselves that way.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623328BTW, you strike me as a scholar, John, what is your translation of in tenebras arcem? Or anyone else who knows Latin.
I studied Latin in high school but not since. I wouldn't have known "arcem", but the Internet tells me it means "castle" or "stronghold". So that's "into the dark castle".
Quote from: CRKrueger;623337Actually, no. Not most of the time. DitV, DW, and MHR (been forever since I read Sorceror) all have core mechanics that frequently require an OOC POV to make decisions - decisions a character cannot possibly make. To answer the inevitable follow-up of "which ones", just search this site where I go over the Volley move in DW. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to do a move-by-move analysis of DW. I may very well though, because I'm damn certain a lot of it's defenders here have, unlike me, never even glanced at the damn thing.
But you didn't say always puts you in the point of view of a protagonist you said ..
The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it? If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?And all of those games do allow you to roleplay from an IC pov for the majority of the time you are playing the game. Sure there are mechanics that break immersion or certainly make you step out of character but even D&D does that just less of the time or to do something gamist rather than something narativist.
So they are probably orange right?
Quote from: CRKrueger;623328BTW, you strike me as a scholar, John, what is your translation of in tenebras arcem? Or anyone else who knows Latin.
I'm not sure if there's a deeper point to this question, but the phrase is either fragmentary or ungrammatical. After refreshing my Latin with the help of Google translate, and looking at some DW-related banter on the web, I think the phrase is supposed to mean, "Into the dark dungeon." But "tenebras" is a form of "tenebrae," which doesn't mean "dark"; it means "darkness." (It's also a funny word because it's usually used in the plural; the singular would be "tenebra.")
Somebody fixed it to "in tenebrosam arcem," which uses the adjective derived from "tenebrae."
Quote from: jhkim;623363So that's "into the dark castle".
Point of curiosity:
Anyone know what "beyond dark castle" would be in Latin?
ultra arcem tenebrosam
(This time I'm using the more normal word order of noun-adjective; aside from style there's no difference between arcem tenebrosam and tenebrosam arcem.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;623365And all of those games do allow you to roleplay from an IC pov for the majority of the time you are playing the game. Sure there are mechanics that break immersion or certainly make you step out of character but even D&D does that just less of the time or to do something gamist rather than something narativist.
I'm not contradicting you. It seems you are able to step OOC, edit the world around you as an author, then flip back to IC.
It doesn't work that way for me. I found, when playing in a game with a lot, a lot, of simming elements that it ruined the whole game.
As a player in a simming heavy world, it felt like I was "living" in a plastic universe, where things changed without warning. The NPC's? Mine. The airship? Mine. Prominent features of that airship? Mine.
I could edit the world (more-or-less) freely, and that destroyed my investment in my character, the situation, my goals, and the drive to achieve them. I didn't like it.
Other people have different reactions, and that's fine. I, myself am not absolutely opposed to all metagame mechanics. I love
Torg, for Ghu's sake, and the Drama Deck is metagame with an exclamation point (!).
But simming was not my cup of tea. And even a few simming mechanics in an otherwise traditional RPG will undermine the entire game
for me.
It's not true for you. Which is cool. But it is for me.
Supporting links:
Chapter 1 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rPXWXLC4cYhEXyaFqOZ0lnd2Kh7okhAJXhn5zmnT1yA/edit)
Chapter 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L-Q3kVnc7l84ce1Tw1il3mtKtVPfTDbwOfnmuPDNLXU/edit)
Chapter 3 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x-6ASO27S82XFzX5K8WMLUQaKsSobMEUHrbEAzAj35A/edit)
Chapter 4 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VMyCqaoctNca1M-EGJrdpM7D00K3lV1V015LyV35oGI/edit)
Chapter 5 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4zIrwgdex1vxtVQzh-j1pufBMtclr4LUm2RSyAVj9I/edit)
Chapter 6 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PgHiB1xPRJKvdjIqbpMkUWrKnQCUOo2DnrpZ6jakQ-8/edit)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623379I'm not contradicting you. It seems you are able to step OOC, edit the world around you as an author, then flip back to IC.
It doesn't work that way for me. I found, when playing in a game with a lot, a lot, of simming elements that it ruined the whole game.
As a player in a simming heavy world, it felt like I was "living" in a plastic universe, where things changed without warning. The NPC's? Mine. The airship? Mine. Prominent features of that airship? Mine.
I could edit the world (more-or-less) freely, and that destroyed my investment in my character, the situation, my goals, and the drive to achieve them. I didn't like it.
Other people have different reactions, and that's fine. I, myself am not absolutely opposed to all metagame mechanics. I love Torg, for Ghu's sake, and the Drama Deck is metagame with an exclamation point (!).
But simming was not my cup of tea. And even a few simming mechanics in an otherwise traditional RPG will undermine the entire game for me.
It's not true for you. Which is cool. But it is for me.
Supporting links:
]
No I dislike heavy narrative elements to game anything beyond a heropoint/bennies sysyem is too far for me to be interested.
I am a hey-nonny immersive roleplayer. For example I hate troupe play even to the point where I dislike henchmen in D&D if the player gets to run them and use them as a backup PC, as it spoils my immersion.
However, my likes or dislikes are irrelvant to whether or not a game with these elements is an RPG or not. Like I said up post I don't like Shreddies but that doesn't mean that I think they should label them as 'Cardbaord flavoured crap' rather than breakfast cereal.
On a weird note that is slightly related.
Wouldn't a lot of narrative style mechanics be interesting for a game where the character was supposed to be able to have reality altering affects.
Like what if the characters actually WERE capable of editing the laws of reality around them in character...
I think it could make for an interesting game.
(It also brings up interesting moral quandaries about manipulating the thoughts, situations, and realities of others to further your own goals, too)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;623385On a weird note that is slightly related.
Wouldn't a lot of narrative style mechanics be interesting for a game where the character was supposed to be able to have reality altering affects.
Like what if the characters actually WERE capable of editing the laws of reality around them in character...
I think it could make for an interesting game.
(It also brings up interesting moral quandaries about manipulating the thoughts, situations, and realities of others to further your own goals, too)
One of the reasons I like the MMOs LotRO and Rift is because they take the standard MMOisms and reframe them to make them work within the setting itself.
I wish Jay Little had never touched Warhammer, but I was looking forward to The Coriolis Defect, a failed Kickstarter he was doing. The Coriolis Defect is a power certain people have to go back in their own lifetime and relive experiences, essentially rewinding time. Functionally, it seems no different from any narrative world-edit mechanic. Setting wise though, it's completely different because unlike every other narrative game out there, the one doing the world-editing is the character. It is the character's power, the character's decision.
Narrative mechanics used from an IC POV, I love it. I hope he gets this published some other way, I'd like to read it.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;623377ultra arcem tenebrosam
Thanks!
Quote from: jibbajibba;623384No I dislike heavy narrative elements to game anything beyond a heropoint/bennies sysyem is too far for me to be interested.
Reading your posts, I got the impression you were more into reality-editing. My mistake.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;623385On a weird note that is slightly related.
Wouldn't a lot of narrative style mechanics be interesting for a game where the character was supposed to be able to have reality altering affects.
Like what if the characters actually WERE capable of editing the laws of reality around them in character...
I think it could make for an interesting game.
(It also brings up interesting moral quandaries about manipulating the thoughts, situations, and realities of others to further your own goals, too)
Amber.
No. Seriously. This is why Amber is not a Story game: because the characters actually have themselves the ability to alter reality, and therefore, from a player standpoint, these decisions can be made in character. Hence, role playing.
When I'm the DM, y'all are saying that I'm not roleplaying whem I'm hamming it up as the slow but good-natured town drunk because I control the world?
Quote from: Old One Eye;623404When I'm the DM, y'all are saying that I'm not roleplaying whem I'm hamming it up as the slow but good-natured town drunk because I control the world?
The DM is not a standard player. He's the DM--he is
expected to play everyone else in the campaign world. You are roleplaying within the expected parameters of the DM or GM's duties.
If you're a regular
player, and start taking control of the actions of NPCs and the like, well, that's when we have a problem, from my viewpoint.
Melting the line between the player and DM is never a good thing, IMO. Shared narrative power and like might work for some, but it's nothing that's been success at gaming table I've been a part of, and it's not a style I particularly care for.
Quote from: Old One Eye;623404When I'm the DM, y'all are saying that I'm not roleplaying whem I'm hamming it up as the slow but good-natured town drunk because I control the world?
No. Talking about my own experience running games, when I am embodying this or that NPC I am doing just that: I am placing myself as the character in front of the players', and I role play him or her (that doesn't mean I'm Robert De Niro or whatnot, I have modest acting abilities like everybody else at the table, but I am placing myself in that position of immersion as well as a GM nonetheless). Ditto about the world at large: what I am doing is actually role playing the world. That is, from the basic situation the scenario proposes, I just role play the environment as it goes about its various events and people doing their stuff with their own motivations and plans and whatnot, and all these elements (i.e. the world, taken as a whole) react to what the players' characters do at the same time. Hence, I'm role playing the world.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623390Reading your posts, I got the impression you were more into reality-editing. My mistake.
I was thinking about this as i wondered round Hong Kong this evening and I realised there are a few other narative type things i don't mind.
i) I like being able to buy contacts & influence as part of character generation - so spend a background point to have a police contact or what not.
ii) Extending that I like the FGU subcultures skills that effectively give you contacts on the fly if you make a skill check - this is a bit like Ben's post re Amber in which its kind of not narative because its a skill the PC has but it kind of is becuase it creates a new NPC from nothing.
iii) I like positive statement of intent. So " I pick a wine bottle off the table and use it like a club" or "I grab a little kid out of the crowd to use as a meat shield". Now I never thought that was narativist until Pundit pulled me up on it once on the forum and told me that is was because I was editing the game world and at his table I would have to say "is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a club?" etc .... for me that is less immersive rather than more but it might be a little pedantic to pull it up here.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623423I was thinking about this as i wondered round Hong Kong this evening and I realised there are a few other narative type things i don't mind.
i) I like being able to buy contacts & influence as part of character generation - so spend a background point to have a police contact or what not.
How is this in any way a narrative mechanic?
Quoteii) Extending that I like the FGU subcultures skills that effectively give you contacts on the fly if you make a skill check - this is a bit like Ben's post re Amber in which its kind of not narative because its a skill the PC has but it kind of is becuase it creates a new NPC from nothing.
Well, er, not really, the way I see it is that the NPC was always there but we didn't bother detailing who they were and what their relationship was to the PC because it never became relevant. It might be news to us that your character has a contact in the police but it's not a new feature to the setting to posit that there is a thing called the "police" and some members of this organisation befriend people from outside the organisation, or that the player character has a range of contacts in different organisations whose specifics we're leaving undefined for the time being.
Quoteiii) I like positive statement of intent. So " I pick a wine bottle off the table and use it like a club" or "I grab a little kid out of the crowd to use as a meat shield". Now I never thought that was narativist until Pundit pulled me up on it once on the forum and told me that is was because I was editing the game world and at his table I would have to say "is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a club?" etc .... for me that is less immersive rather than more but it might be a little pedantic to pull it up here.
Personally I'd say it wouldn't be narrative if it were something you could legitimately expect to find in the location in question without too much trouble. If you're in a restaurant which serves wine and it's the right time of the evening you can grab a wine bottle without that much effort at all; if you're in a crowd at a funfair there's going to be small children around. As a GM, I'd say that if I've told you that your character is in a bar, then you don't need to ask me whether there's glassware to hand because dude, it's a bar, you're not inventing new details because the details in question are implicit in the situation I've already described.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;623153I think it is ironic that widespread communication technology has possibly made us more tribal and insular as opposed to less. Everything has become politicized. Morality and belief have become inseparable. You can't support public health care without also being for gun control.
Why I said the worst thing to happen to the RPG hobby was the internet.
We can't be happy that people are engaging in the hobby. No, that isn't good enough. We have to put labeled boxes on everything.
Whoa be to you if you are not in the correctly labeled box.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623390Thanks!
Note, the choice of vocabulary seems a little odd to me. I mean, "arx" does mean "castle, fort" in classical Latin, but you could use "castellum," too, and it was the idiomatic choice for what we would think of as a "castle" during the middle ages. (Although the grammar of "proper" Latin was more or less the same from Roman times, style and vocabulary evolved even in educated writing.)
So: in/ultra castellum tenebrosum are probably better for medievalesque game.
Quote from: Benoist;623401Amber.
No. Seriously. This is why Amber is not a Story game: because the characters actually have themselves the ability to alter reality, and therefore, from a player standpoint, these decisions can be made in character. Hence, role playing.
Amber is a storygame, with a feeble RPG sheen covering up that otherwise-obvious fact. The results of "RPG-reasons" and "Rules-reasons" are identical regardless of the reasoning, IE the players control story elements. If you enjoy a game where the players control story elements, regardless of the justification for it, then you enjoy storygames. In Amber, the GM is essentially just another player, as the GM's powers are essentially the same as the players powers, with some relatively superficial differences like "the GM plays more than one character".
I might believe that. Or I might just love tweaking Pundit. I might even like hearing him scream from all the way down there in South America, trying to shove his fist through the screen to choke me out.
I understand that "old school" has been commercialized as code for "like that game we've given up our legal right to name." I understand the competitive interests of vendors in defining the pseudo-trademark to their advantage.
However, by taking 'old' as the apparent descriptor, people who are really marketing a particular approach to D&D have accepted ambiguity. A lot of different approaches to FRP came into the hobby before the Dungeon Masters Guide; if they are not old enough, then neither is AD&D!
Will adoption of the "old school" label backfire on vendors whose wares don't meet the criteria of The Old Schooltm? Will the context-sensitive ambiguity instead prove fruitful for them? Time will tell.
WotC did not like the actual results of making D20 System an "industry standard architecture." If OSR publishers find the bed they've made uncomfortable, they will likewise have themselves to blame.
It might be less uncomfortable if they refrained from jabbing their bedmates.
Is there not a better lesson to learn from off-putting aspects of 4E promotion than how to imitate them?
Quote from: Benoist;623415Hence, I'm role playing the world.
Nicely put. Is it not then legitimate (not by the yardstick of your game preferences, but as a matter of reasonable discourse) for someone to say, "I'm role playing subset
x of the world, hence I am playing a role playing game?"
In other words, some such term as "story game" (which I agree is useful) might be a subset of RPG -- as opposed to
non-RPG.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623365But you didn't say always puts you in the point of view of a protagonist you said ..
The problem with your analogy is that if Yellow is "roleplaying from an IC pov" then something Orange would have to allow yellow wouldn't it? If something actually by definition through mechanics prevented yellow from being in the palette, you could hardly call it orange could you?
And all of those games do allow you to roleplay from an IC pov for the majority of the time you are playing the game. Sure there are mechanics that break immersion or certainly make you step out of character but even D&D does that just less of the time or to do something gamist rather than something narativist.
So they are probably orange right?
You tell me, if I can't actually fire a fucking bow without making an OOC decision, doesn't seem to me like there's gonna be too much yellow.
Quote from: Phillip;623516In other words, some such term as "story game" (which I agree is useful) might be a subset of RPG -- as opposed to non-RPG.
Group creation of narratives is not roleplaying. Just like writing a novel with a partner (Niven and Pournelle) isn't acting.
The effort to conflate two highly dissimilar enterprises, by attempting to redefine words so they have no meaning, is a flawed approach.
Or, prove that authoring a novel with a partner or group (Thieves' World) is the same as acting. (Without using linguistic tricks.)
Eliot, I was kind of making a joke. You're right, the Latin is preposition, noun, noun, which is weird.
As John said, "Into the Dark Castle" is probably what they were going for.
In a more idiomatic Latin typical of mottos however, "In Darkness, Defense" (or Protection) is closer to the mark. Which is ironic considering the motivations we've been discussing. :D
Quote from: Phillip;623516Nicely put. Is it not then legitimate (not by the yardstick of your game preferences, but as a matter of reasonable discourse) for someone to say, "I'm role playing subset x of the world, hence I am playing a role playing game?"
In other words, some such term as "story game" (which I agree is useful) might be a subset of RPG -- as opposed to non-RPG.
I like "Narrative RPG", or as Wil Wheaton described "Storytelling RPG", or maybe just "Story RPG"
The term Storygame however, can apply to some obviously non RPG games, like Flower for Mara.
Actually not sure Flower for Mara is even a game, maybe Dirty Secrets is a better example.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623233Hero Quest is a Storygame, IMHO
You mean in the sense of not being an RPG?
Because if so I've played a bunch of HeroQuest and I don't see it. Each player has a single character and describes their actions from that character's POV.
Apparently the author himself doesn't quite agree...
Quote from: Robin Laws, Heroquest Rule BookThinking in Story Terms
Although there’s no right or wrong way to play the game, a certain story-based logic does underlie the entire system. Where traditional roleplaying games simulate an imaginary reality, HeroQuest emulates the techniques of fictional storytelling.
Understanding this distinction will help you run the game in a natural, seamless manner. Although the game can be run in a more simulative style, you’ll find that it fights you a bit when certain edge cases crop up. One of this book’s objectives is to get under the hood of narrative technique and show you how it works. This will either help you run the game in its emulative style, or, if you prefer a simulative approach, to understand how you’ll need to modify it to suit your preferences. For example, let’s say that you’re running a game inspired by fast-paced, non-fantastic, martial arts movies in a contemporary setting. A PC is running along a bridge, pacing a hovercraft, piloted by the main bad guy. The player wants his character, Joey Chun, to jump onto the hovercraft and punch the villain’s lights out. You must decide how hard it is for him to do this. In a traditional, simulative game, you’d determine how hard this is based on the physical constraints you’ve described. In doing so, you come up with numbers and measurements. You’d work out the distance between bridge and hovercraft. Depending on the rules set, you might take into account the relative speeds of the hero and the vehicle. You determine the difficulty of the attempt based on these factors, and then use whatever resolution mechanic the rules provide you with to see if Joey succeeds or fails. If he blows it, you’ll probably consult the falling rules to see how badly he injures himself (if he lands poorly), or the drowning rules, if he ends up in the river.
In HeroQuest, you start not with the physical details, but with the proposed action’s position in the storyline. You consider a range of narrative factors, from how entertaining it would be for him to succeed, how much failure would slow the pacing of the current sequence, and how long it has been since Joey last scored a thrilling victory. If, after this, you need further reference points, you draw inspiration more from martial arts movies than the physics of real-life jumps from bridges onto moving hovercrafts. Having decided how difficult the task ought to be dramatically, you then supply the physical details as color, to justify your choice and lend it verisimilitude—the illusion of authenticity that makes us accept fictional incidents as credible on their own terms. If you want Joey to have a high chance of success, you describe the distance between bridge and vehicle as impressive (so it feels exciting if he makes it) but not insurmountable (so it seems believable if he makes it.)
In other words, HeroQuest starts with story considerations, deciding the difficulty and then working backward to describe physical details in accordance with them. This is the way that authors and screenwriters make decisions. If this were a movie, the writers and director would first of all decide whether the Joey succeeds or fails. This is a structural decision; it determines if the scene continues with a thrilling shipboard combat, or concludes with a frustrated hero sputtering in the polluted waters of the Hudson River. After making this choice, they then construct the sequence to be suitably sensational, however it comes out.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623528Apparently the author himself doesn't quite agree...
Yup. Just read that the other day. That's what I based my IMHO off of.
(Although, if Soviet got feisty, I'd go so far as simming-RPG hybrid.)
Quote from: CRKrueger;623528Apparently the author himself doesn't quite agree...
? Please expand. You're saying that because the GM advice in HeroQuest mentions story, Robin Laws doesn't think HeroQuest is a roleplaying game?
Edit: In fact, isn't the subtitle of HeroQuest 1e 'Roleplaying in Glorantha'?
My reading of that intro (based also on other things I have read by laws) is that he believes Hero Quest is a different category of RPG (but I think in his mind still an RPG) and he makes the distinction clear to the reader because its important to running it in his opinion. He is drawing a clear line between traditional RPGs and what he is offering, but also saying you can cross it easily with some tweaks. If I had to put words in his mouth CRK's 'narrative RPG' sounds like a label Laws wouldn't shy away from.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623519Group creation of narratives is not roleplaying.
Neither is tossing dice.
What of it? Neither is the subject at hand in what I wrote, or (I thought) in what Benoist wrote.
Quote from: soviet;623530You're saying that because the GM advice in HeroQuest mentions story
The quotes:
"HeroQuest emulates the techniques of fictional storytelling."
"this book's objectives is to get under the hood of narrative technique"
"you start not with the physical details, but with the proposed action's position in the storyline."
"You consider a range of narrative factors, from how entertaining it would be for him to succeed, how much failure would slow the pacing of the current sequence, and how long it has been since Joey last scored a thrilling victory."
Story. Story. Story. Story.
That's pretty clear, Sov.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623532My reading of that intro (based also on other things I have read by laws) is that he believes Hero Quest is a different category of RPG (but I think in his mind still an RPG) and he makes the distinction clear to the reader because its important to running it in his opinion. He is drawing a clear line between traditional RPGs and what he is offering, but also saying you can cross it easily with some tweaks. If I had to put words in his mouth CRK's 'narrative RPG' sounds like a label Laws wouldn't shy away from.
If that's what's being said about HeroQuest then I totally agree. I'm not arguing that HQ isn't a storygame RPG. I'm arguing that HQ isn't a storygame non-RPG (if that makes sense).
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623535The quotes:
"HeroQuest emulates the techniques of fictional storytelling."
"this book's objectives is to get under the hood of narrative technique"
"you start not with the physical details, but with the proposed action's position in the storyline."
"You consider a range of narrative factors, from how entertaining it would be for him to succeed, how much failure would slow the pacing of the current sequence, and how long it has been since Joey last scored a thrilling victory."
Story. Story. Story. Story.
That's pretty clear, Sov.
Yeah, I'm not saying HQ isn't about story. I'm asking how it's not a roleplaying game.
Quote from: Phillip;623533Neither is the subject at hand in what I wrote, or (I thought) in what Benoist wrote.
Then you're missing the point of the discussion.
The original quote (to which Ben was responding):
Quote from: Old One Eye;623404When I'm the DM, y'all are saying that I'm not roleplaying whem I'm hamming it up as the slow but good-natured town drunk because I control the world?
The discussion is about narrative control ("I control the world") and roleplaying ("hamming it up").
So...
Storygames = group creation of a narrative. (Simming, in other words.)
Roleplaying game = playing in character.
The part about "game"? That's where the dice comes in.
That's very simple and clear English.
Quote from: soviet;623538Yeah, I'm not saying HQ isn't about story. I'm asking how it's not a roleplaying game.
Because... simming isn't roleplaying.
Let's be more generous, and say that Laws is (in a very unclear way) enjoining what people around here (but not me) call "illusionism".
That is, GM's are responsible for managing the flow of events, so they make an enjoyable gaming experience. Fudge dice, change NPC motivations, whatever is needed to make the game flow. If a player character failed (by the dice), make it so they succeed, so the player can score a victory.
If that's what he's saying, and the mechanics are otherwise utterly lacking in PC narrative control elements, then it's a traditional RPG with illusionist GM advice.
Otherwise, at best its a hybrid storygame-RPG.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623541Because... simming isn't roleplaying.
Let's be more generous, and say that Laws is (in a very unclear way) enjoining what people around here (but not me) call "illusionism".
That is, GM's are responsible for managing the flow of events, so they make an enjoyable gaming experience. Fudge dice, change NPC motivations, whatever is needed to make the game flow. If a player character failed (by the dice), make it so they succeed, so the player can score a victory.
If that's what he's saying, and the mechanics are otherwise utterly lacking in PC narrative control elements, then it's a traditional RPG with illusionist GM advice.
Otherwise, at best its a hybrid storygame-RPG.
I'm not sure I follow. You seem to be saying that illusionism is roleplaying but non-illusionism isn't? I don't think that's what you mean so help me out here. The opposite of your definition of illusionism is no dice fudging and no arbitrary changing of NPC motivations - which is exactly how games like HQ work.
Please note that this part of the discussion is about whether storygames like HeroQuest are also roleplaying games. If you think that HQ and BW are storygame RPGs, rock on, we agree. If you think that HQ and BW are
not RPGs, then we don't.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623539Storygames = group creation of a narrative. (Simming, in other words.)...
That's very simple and clear English.
No: Your "other words" is a bit of jargon I have never before encountered. "Simming" suggests to me "simulating," which has zip to do with "group creation of a narrative" in the special sense I take you to mean.
Neither has that sense anything to do with the issues that concerned me when I sat down to create a game that turned out very much to resemble what
Hero Wars (prototype of
HeroQuest) looked like years later when I found it in a store.
The quotation from the HQ book lays out the matter plainly enough, I think, and with reference not to "the group" but to the GM. It is simply one of applying laws of drama rather than laws of physics.
If that alone makes a game not role-playing, then most purported RPGs (e.g., almost any sword-and-sorcery, space opera or superhero game) are not RPGs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623524I like "Narrative RPG", or as Wil Wheaton described "Storytelling RPG", or maybe just "Story RPG"
The term Storygame however, can apply to some obviously non RPG games, like Flower for Mara.
This is fine and is similar to some common usage. The Story Games community obviously has no problem with the label of "story game" or variants. There are plenty of games that have used such variants - like how "Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple" identifies itself as a "cooperative storytelling game".
The problem with this is that "story" has already been widely used within relatively traditional RPGs. The most obvious example is White Wolf's "Storyteller System" - but lots of other games use similar language. Given this, I think many games rightly ignore nuanced labels and try to use description that people who don't know anything can understand.
Given the fuzzy borders and long history of inconsistent usage, I think these labels will continue to be used, but for the foreseeable future, usage will be inconsistent and there won't be any sharp line of division.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623539The discussion is about narrative control ("I control the world") and roleplaying ("hamming it up").
So...
Storygames = group creation of a narrative. (Simming, in other words.)
Roleplaying game = playing in character.
The part about "game"? That's where the dice comes in.
That's very simple and clear English.
I disagree that it is very clear, because in-character action is a part of narrative. Indeed, you can have narratives that consist solely of in-character action. For example, as I recall, most of what happens in A Flower For Mara is just characters talking - which is in-character action. However, I think it is reasonably called a story game.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623539Storygames = group creation of a narrative. (Simming, in other words.)
Roleplaying game = playing in character.
See, this is too vague. What does group creation of a narrative mean? What does it look like at the table? and what does playing in character mean? Does it have to be all the time? Does it have to be method acting? Can you play in character and think about the story or game tactics at the same time?
Here's a typical D&D situation. My elven ranger walks into town. The GM describes how two thugs appear from an alleyway and then speaks in character to threaten me with harm. I speak in character to give them the brush off and then describe some cool trick shot I'm going to try with my bow. We roll initiative, then trade attack rolls and damage rolls with the GM describing what happens as we go.
Here's how the same situation plays out in HeroQuest. My elven ranger walks into town. The GM describes how two thugs appear from an alleyway and then speaks in character to threaten me with harm. I speak in character to give them the brush off and then describe some cool trick shot I'm going to try with my bow. We talk about what the stakes of success and failure might look like. We roll against our chosen abilities and the GM describes what happens as we go.
Seriously, these two activities are not poles apart.
Quote from: Phillip;623547No: Your "other words" is a bit of jargon I have never before encountered. "Simming" suggests to me "simulating," which has zip to do with "group creation of a narrative" in the special sense I take you to mean.
Phillip - maybe you aren't aware, but "simming" is jargon for online play-by-post role-playing games, where players take turns writing short sections of an ongoing story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play-by-post_role-playing_game
Quote from: soviet;623538Yeah, I'm not saying HQ isn't about story. I'm asking how it's not a roleplaying game.
Bingo, and ditto!
Quote from: Phillip;623516Nicely put. Is it not then legitimate (not by the yardstick of your game preferences, but as a matter of reasonable discourse) for someone to say, "I'm role playing subset x of the world, hence I am playing a role playing game?"
It's kind of a backhanded way of saying I'm not being reasonable when I'm making a distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand (role playing games) and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand (story games). I can't agree this is being unreasonable.
Quote from: Phillip;623516In other words, some such term as "story game" (which I agree is useful) might be a subset of RPG -- as opposed to non-RPG.
Narrative and/or story-telling game works fine for me, because it actually means what it says: you collaborate to a narrative building exercise, and the aim of the game is to build a nice story. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.
A role-playing game, to me, implies the act of playing a role, and thereby, the act of immersing yourself into a world and seeing it through the eyes of your character.
Now as we've discussed it billions of times now, these are to me two different categories of games, like role playing games are distinct from wargames, but there are, just like in the case of wargames and RPGs, games which mix role playing with a little narrative building and vice versa. The problem for guys like me is that at some point, the presence of the underlying logic of narrative building and the use of narrative-oriented rules will just impede on my ability to immerse myself in the world and role play my character effectively, because I will be pulled constantly by the game's rules into the position of a guy building a story as an author instead of being that character in the game. That's where it ceases to be a role playing game, as far as I'm concerned.
Now that process I just explained to you is not "unreasonable," and it's not just a function of "game preferences" - I can play games that have narrative mechanics, including story games, if I am so inclined. Less often than traditional role playing games, perhaps, but I don't have a thing against the concept of a game where you'd build a story. Once Upon A Time is a great game, after all. It's a matter of a factual change in my stance as a player when I am playing these games, and since my practical experience of what's going on around the table changes, I consider them two distinct types of games.
Quote from: soviet;623538Yeah, I'm not saying HQ isn't about story. I'm asking how it's not a roleplaying game.
Are the actions of the players as their characters adjudicated by the referee?
Can the players only effect the setting as their characters?
If the answer is yes to both then it is a roleplaying game. If it is no to either then it is a hybrid. If it is no to both then it is something else.
Quote from: estar;623564Are the actions of the players as their characters adjudicated by the referee?
As I understand you, yes. But you might want to expand on that a little to make sure we're on the same page here.
Quote from: jhkim;623558Phillip - maybe you aren't aware, but "simming" is jargon for online play-by-post role-playing games, where players take turns writing short sections of an ongoing story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play-by-post_role-playing_game
I was not aware!
I guess a transcript of such an affair would make better reading for a non-participant than the play-by-post D&D / EPT / etc. games in which I've played.
I can also see how the medium would lend itself to a truly collaborative "authorial role" game, similar to the games my childhood friends and I played on long trips.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623535The quotes:
"HeroQuest emulates the techniques of fictional storytelling."
"this book’s objectives is to get under the hood of narrative technique"
"you start not with the physical details, but with the proposed action’s position in the storyline."
"You consider a range of narrative factors, from how entertaining it would be for him to succeed, how much failure would slow the pacing of the current sequence, and how long it has been since Joey last scored a thrilling victory."
Story. Story. Story. Story.
That's pretty clear, Sov.
Yeah, White Wolf said much the same thing. they haven't managed to make a storygame yet.
The system stands on its own regardless of what pretentious wankery the author writes about it.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623541Otherwise, at best its a hybrid storygame-RPG.
I don't believe in hybrids. Its either agame that allows you to play in-character or not. All other distinctions are meaningless.
Quote from: TristramEvans;623572Yeah, White Wolf said much the same thing. they haven't managed to make a storygame yet.
The system stands on its own regardless of what pretentious wankery the author writes about it.
As story-telling games, WoD games fail. Hard. Which is why Ron Edwards had an axe to grind against such "incoherent" designs pretending to be story-telling games, in the first place. As traditional role playing games, most of them are great, of course.
Quote from: Benoist;623561It's kind of a backhanded way of saying I'm not being reasonable when I'm making a distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand (role playing games) and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand (story games).
In fact, no. It is just what it is.
Quote from: estar;623564Are the actions of the players as their characters adjudicated by the referee?
Can the players only effect the setting as their characters?
If the answer is yes to both then it is a roleplaying game. If it is no to either then it is a hybrid. If it is no to both then it is something else.
That looks about right to me.
Quote from: Phillip;623579In fact, no. It is just what it is.
And what it is, is a reasonable distinction. I agree.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623539Storygames = group creation of a narrative. (Simming, in other words.)
"Simming"? Where are you getting that word from? That term is way to close to Simulationism, which is pretty much the opposite of storygaming.
QuoteRoleplaying game = playing in character.
I agree with that, certainly
QuoteThe part about "game"? That's where the dice comes in.
Well, not dice specifically. Freeform roleplaying is as much an RPG as anything. The difference between "roleplaying" , which covers everything from "cowboys and Indians" pretend games played as a kid to psychiatric techniques, and a "roleplaying game" I would say is simply that there are rules. Even in a freeform game these rules are there, even if unstated, to prevent one person's imagination hijaking anyone else's in the shared imaginary world.
Quote from: jhkim;623558Phillip - maybe you aren't aware, but "simming" is jargon for online play-by-post role-playing games, where players take turns writing short sections of an ongoing story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play-by-post_role-playing_game
Ahh. I don't think thats a good term to transpose to referring to our hobby though, because of the aforementioned confusion with Simulationism, which is already a mess.
Quote from: Benoist;623581And what it is, is a reasonable distinction. I agree.
But it has nothing to do with the question I posed!
Quote from: Phillip;623585But it has nothing to do with the question I posed!
You haven't answered more than half my post in which I actually explained the distinction in a reasonable way either, you know? So. Is it a reasonable distinction to you, or not?
Quote from: Benoist;623577As story-telling games, WoD games fail. Hard. Which is why Ron Edwards had an axe to grind against such "incoherent" designs pretending to be story-telling games, in the first place. As traditional role playing games, most of them are great, of course.
Yeah, totally agree.
Quote from: Benoist;623586You haven't answered more than half my post in which I actually explained the distinction in a reasonable way either, you know? So. Is it a reasonable distinction to you, or not?
Did you not just post, "I agree"?
With whom? I assumed you meant with me.
We are in agreement -- unless you really mean something other than what you have typed!
Quote from: Phillip;623592Did you not just post, "I agree"?
With whom? I assumed you meant with me.
I assumed as well. Now I want to make sure. Do you agree my distinction is reasonable?
Quote from: Phillip;623585But it has nothing to do with the question I posed!
Personally, I think Hq is a great system, insofar as I think Mythic Russia is the best culture game published since the turn of the century.
Quote from: Benoist;623594I assumed as well. Now I want to make sure. Do you agree my distinction is reasonable?
Again? Yes, I agree that there is a useful distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand.
In other words, am I playing the role of Hawkeye, or the role of James Fenimore Cooper?
EDIT: Tired. Getting snippy. Gonna respond after a night's sleep.
Quote from: Phillip;623598Again? Yes, I agree that there is a useful distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand.
In other words, am I playing the role of Hawkeye, or the role of James Fenimore Cooper?
Alright.
Quote from: Phillip;623516Is it not then legitimate (...) for someone to say, "I'm role playing subset x of the world, hence I am playing a role playing game?"
I think it is possible to play a game where you would effectively and actually "
role play a subset of the world", as opposed to managing a device or set of devices in a story-as-it-is-being-built as an author. How exactly this type of game would be different from an actual wargame with a referee, where you take charge of a part of the world (an army or faction(s) on the battle field) and have one particular player adjudicate edge cases (the referee) would be interesting to consider. I guess that playing a role playing game like D&D and managing several characters at once, like one or two main player characters plus the retinue, henchmen, hirelings, bearer all at the same time in the dungeon might qualify in that sense. You can immerse in one character at a time and switch between them just like a GM would do with NPCs. In that sense, there would be immersion and role playing, yes.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623600He asked about dice, and how they were related to roleplaying games. (Suggesting they weren't. At all.)
I was answering that specific (kind of silly) question... which is why I mentioned dice, and only dice.
"Where do dice come in?"
"They're part of the 'game'."
See?
Check that question before you disagree with my answer.
Fair enough, I didnt follow the plot of the thread that far back.
QuoteLike "assault rifles", "improv", and "hacking", the terms arose in other communities, and exist no matter what RPG'ers think. There's a lot of confusing terminology other subcultures/endeavors use.
You use the jargon, or you sound ignorant.
I don't think thats necessarily true, when it comes to transposing the jargon from one hobby/online community to another though.
Quote from: TristramEvans;623605Fair enough
Apparently my edit arrived too late.
I erased the original answer, and was going to respond when I could act like a human being, and not a snark- and irritation-driven robot.
Can we take it as read I would have given a much more pleasant answer tomorrow? Similar in substance, but not so short-tempered.
Anyway, that's what I meant to do.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623607Apparently my edit arrived too late.
I erased the original answer, and was going to respond when I could act like a human being, and not a snark- and irritation-driven robot.
Can we take it as read I would have given a much more pleasant answer tomorrow? Similar in substance, but not so short-tempered.
Anyway, that's what I meant to do.
No worries man. I just accept snark as the standard mode of address here on the RPGsite, to the point I'm sure my posts often come across as way more hostile than necessary, but I don't hold it against anyone here. Its the adult swim ;)
I'll try and put in 2c though I admit to having no familiarity with HeroQuest. Judging just from the example, I'm not seeing the player having much or any input into the 'story' - although what Soviet says a bit later about 'negotiating stakes' with his ranger raises some red (orange? :) ) flags.
If that's the case the player isn't being forced into an OOC perspective in a non-immersive way - although I doubt the game would 'feel' very real to me, with everything being structured around plot events, and if characters can't judge difficulties in advance without knowing what the plot expects of them...?
It looks like in effect the game is a railroading tool where the GM has carte blanche to reset task difficulties to whatever suits his plans, without having to worry about plot derailment due to task difficulty being unexpectedly high/low or other rules getting in the way.
I'm not sure it would properly be called illusionism - that would be where the players don't know what's going on.
Actually, in Law's and Soviet's defense, I said "don't quite agree." It's very clear that the GM is NOT Roleplaying the world. The GM is constructing narrative with a specific eye towards RPGs as a form of literary medium. He's creating an artifice for the entertainment of the players just like Shawn Ryan makes TV shows for the entertainment of the audience.
However, Robin also gives advice on how to not run it that way, but tells you, you're basically gonna have to rewrite some rules.
Also, whether or not the GM is creating narrative or not, doesn't speak directly as to whether the player is or not. It's pretty clear I think from examples from the Heroquest book that there's a lot more then just IC decisions going on there, especially in the "Resolution Point" system that allows for extended narrative-based social combat in a conflict-resolution style. However, I won't argue the particulars of HQ for the players here, I'll do that in another thread.
Quote from: estar;623564Are the actions of the players as their characters adjudicated by the referee?
Quote from: soviet;623566As I understand you, yes. But you might want to expand on that a little to make sure we're on the same page here.
1) Do the players of the game play individual characters?
2) Is there one person designated as the referee?
3) Does the referee describe what the players see?
4) Do the players tell said referee what their characters do?
5) Does the referee adjudicate the results of their actions?
6) Jump to #3 and repeat.
It really not that complicated.
Hehehehe, I am imagining playing a mercenary in Dangerous Journeys. Now I am pretty damn sure it is a roleplaying game, because the dude that created D&D also created DJ and he calls it a roleplaying game.
There my mercenary is, all beat up and bleeding fleeing from some Necropolis nasties. As a player, I know my dude is going to be gacked. But hey, I spend a Joss and my faithful steed just happens to be in the next gully and my mercenary can escape to freedom.
Everyone at the table stares at me in aghast. "We are supposed to be roleplaying! What the hell are you doing?!!!! NARRATIVE!!!!!!"
:p
Quote from: estar;6236471) Do the players of the game play individual characters?
2) Is there one person designated as the referee?
3) Does the referee describe what the players see?
4) Do the players tell said referee what their characters do?
5) Does the referee adjudicate the results of their actions?
6) Jump to #3 and repeat.
It really not that complicated.
Yes to all, not only for HeroQuest but also for other storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel and Other Worlds.
Quote from: soviet;623650Yes to all, not only for HeroQuest but also for other storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel and Other Worlds.
Note second proviso of my OP about player ONLY able to actions that their character could do. Spending plot points, etc, is not emulation but a meta-game mechanic.
The deal is that games can and are hybrids. RPGs came out of wargames and still share many elements with that category of games. From the 70s onwards there were a lot of hybrid wargames-rpgs. The same thing has happened with storygame-RPG hybrids.
The more meta-game mechanics the game has the less of a tabletop RPG it is. Meta game mechanics that have nothing to do with emulation of a character. One type of meta-game mechanics turns the game to into a wargame another into a storygame depending on their focus.
Quote from: estar;623655Note second proviso of my OP about player ONLY able to actions that their character could do. Spending plot points, etc, is not emulation but a meta-game mechanic.
The deal is that games can and are hybrids. RPGs came out of wargames and still share many elements with that category of games. From the 70s onwards there were a lot of hybrid wargames-rpgs. The same thing has happened with storygame-RPG hybrids.
The more meta-game mechanics the game has the less of a tabletop RPG it is. Meta game mechanics that have nothing to do with emulation of a character. One type of meta-game mechanics turns the game to into a wargame another into a storygame depending on their focus.
So WFRP 1e and D&D 4e are hybrids, one with storygaming and one with wargaming I guess? (I'm thinking here action points, dailies, etc). Are Vampire (willpower) and Cyberpunk 2020 (luck) also hybrids? What about barbarian rages in 3e? Or taking ten?
I'm not trying to catch you out here. But it seems to me that metagame mechanics are pretty widespread even among what we would call traditional RPGs. To the extent that I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against. For some people, sure, that's the best kind of RPG. But not definitionally, not for everyone. Otherwise logically D&D itself is less of a pure RPG than freeform is (due to the faint metagame effects of
any kind of mechanics, even in-character POV ones).
Joss in Mythus is absolutely a metagame mechanic. In the examples described in the book, it runs the gamut from "get a better roll" luck, to full-blown narrative style world-editing.
The reason Mythus isn't a Storygame however, is that if I remove Joss entirely from the game, the core constructs and rules structures are not metagame, are completely associated, and are totally unaffected by the removal of Joss.
Dungeon World could be a Roleplaying game with 100% associated mechanics. All you would need to do is write the moves with that focus and introduce randomness for the "succeed with consequences" range, so the player isn't choosing consequences the character could not possibly be aware of, let alone choose.
Quote from: soviet;623664So WFRP 1e and D&D 4e are hybrids, one with storygaming and one with wargaming I guess? (I'm thinking here action points, dailies, etc). Are Vampire (willpower) and Cyberpunk 2020 (luck) also hybrids? What about barbarian rages in 3e? Or taking ten?
I'm not trying to catch you out here. But it seems to me that metagame mechanics are pretty widespread even among what we would call traditional RPGs. To the extent that I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against. For some people, sure, that's the best kind of RPG. But not definitionally, not for everyone. Otherwise logically D&D itself is less of a pure RPG than freeform is (due to the faint metagame effects of any kind of mechanics, even in-character POV ones).
One single non core mechanic out of hundreds does not a hybrid make. WFRP1 had one metagame narrative mechanic Fate Points, again something you can cut and the other 99.99% of the game runs exactly the same and is not metagame. 4e was dissociated tactical metagame for a significant portion, if not the majority of the rules, a definite wargame hybrid.
A) Player can change the game world via desire.
B) Character can change the game world via abilities.
There is an A.5 however.
Talking more broadly, for the record, if there was a clear labeling of narrative games versus tactical skirmish games versus traditional simulation/immersive games versus whatever else, I would be very happy. I would be even more happy if people stopped trying to change traditional classic role playing games and re-make them into something else. If those two things happened, I'd be cool with that.
Seems to me, as far as I'm following things, the discussion is far more productive in terms of roleplaying mechanics and storytelling mechanics than in terms of roleplaying games and storytelling games.
Things appear to get even muddier when no mechanics are even required to add storytelling elements to a roleplaying game.
Player "Hey DM, it would be cool if there was a lizardman village in the next hex. I could use that potion of reptile control my dude's been carrying around."
DM "You see a wild-eyed shepherd coming up the road screaming that the lizards got his herd."
Quote from: Benoist;623672I would be even more happy if people stopped trying to change traditional classic role playing games and re-make them into something else. If those two things happened, I'd be cool with that.
Wait, what? There's folks going around breaking into houses and scribbling up their books?
Scribble all you want in the 2nd edition AD&D, but leave me 1st edition hardcovers alone!
Quote from: Old One Eye;623676Wait, what? There's folks going around breaking into houses and scribbling up their books?
No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.
Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.
Damn 3 point shot! :mad: And the bastards are still calling it basketball.
Yeah, I know where you are coming from and agree with you to a significant extent. I'm just being stupid trying to get my mind off the fact that my wife is late getting home, doesn't have her cell with her so I can't call, waiting, waiting, waiting.
Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.
The way the Prisoner "re-imagining" stamps on the heart of the original by replacing Patrick McGoohan's struggle against authority with Jim Caviezel stalking moodily through a desert and occasionally falling down a hole?
Quote from: Old One Eye;623648Hehehehe, I am imagining playing a mercenary in Dangerous Journeys. Now I am pretty damn sure it is a roleplaying game, because the dude that created D&D also created DJ and he calls it a roleplaying game.
There my mercenary is, all beat up and bleeding fleeing from some Necropolis nasties. As a player, I know my dude is going to be gacked. But hey, I spend a Joss and my faithful steed just happens to be in the next gully and my mercenary can escape to freedom.
Everyone at the table stares at me in aghast. "We are supposed to be roleplaying! What the hell are you doing?!!!! NARRATIVE!!!!!!"
:p
Narrative? Or just strategy? Where's the bat-penis expert when we really need him?
If we were "pure role-players" . . . we'd be LARPers or something, I guess.
It sure ain't
role-playing you're doing when you spend hours generating the game data for your DJ Heroic Persona, is it? Who in real life gets to know -- much less
choose -- all those details?
It was different in Gygax's original D&D books. Roll up your character? HA! The referee did that for you. Keep your grubby hands off the dice, even before the imaginary cameras start rolling.
All the world's indeed a stage
And we are merely players
Performers and portrayers
Each another's audience
Outside the gilded cage
Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about, probably don't know squat about the history of the game, or not enough to make an informed decision and know what to expect... THAT is what I mean.
To some extent, I felt that this has always been true, and is a strength of the game. D&D games vary hugely in what the game play is like - with one group's game being basically a wargame of moving your miniatures around on his fancy dungeon map; while another group's game is all talking and intrigue with nobles in a fantasy kingdom; while another group's game is gonzo comedy with lasers and mutants. Besides the content, in my experience groups would vary the rules an enormous amount.
Going back to 4e, what if instead of calling it "4th edition" - WotC had developed exactly the same game design but released it with a slightly different title? For example, maybe they call it "Dungeon Wars", but otherwise the marketing is pretty much the same. Would you still consider it an invalid change to the game?
Quote from: jhkim;623728To some extent, I felt that this has always been true, and is a strength of the game. D&D games vary hugely in what the game play is like - with one group's game being basically a wargame of moving your miniatures around on his fancy dungeon map; while another group's game is all talking and intrigue with nobles in a fantasy kingdom; while another group's game is gonzo comedy with lasers and mutants. Besides the content, in my experience groups would vary the rules an enormous amount.
Going back to 4e, what if instead of calling it "4th edition" - WotC had developed exactly the same game design but released it with a slightly different title? For example, maybe they call it "Dungeon Wars", but otherwise the marketing is pretty much the same. Would you still consider it an invalid change to the game?
Well, the marketing couldn't have been the same, since the marketing was telling us that "zee game remains zee same" at the same time as telling us that every version up to now was total shit and this will be better.
If you mean "what would happen if they released as "D&D Battles" or something, a different game using the same IP just like Wrath of Ashardalon is...they'd probably still be selling it and 3.5e and Paizo would have folded years ago.
D&D is not a "Coherent" system, never has been. Any version that attempts it is going to split the clans, not unite them.
Just like if FFG had kept expanding WFRP2, and then released "Warhammer Stories" or something, a different game in a different timeline, where the whole point was playing the lead up the Storm of Chaos, then ending, they'd still be selling both.
Quote from: Benoist;623685No, you're not getting me. I'm talking about D&D 4e, Warhammer FRP 3e, and the like. Where you change the core game play of the classic game to such an extent that you get to play with people and nobody knows what to expect when you say "hey, come to my house, we're going to play D&D", and people have no fucking idea what version you're talking about...
At any moment, Benoist is likely to break out funky dice
(http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/wfrp/wfrp-description-page/dice-pool.png)
or power cards
(http://educatedgamer.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/powercards-sample1.jpg)
and nobody has any warning?
Quote from: Phillip;623733At any moment, Benoist is likely to break out funky dice
(http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/wfrp/wfrp-description-page/dice-pool.png)
or power cards
(http://educatedgamer.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/powercards-sample1.jpg)
and nobody has any warning?
Holy crap.
For a second there, I had to wonder what those cards were.
Then it dawned on me. That's D&D.
Truly D&D 4e was D&D: The Gathering.
What a pile of shit.
Quote from: Warthur;623427How is this in any way a narrative mechanic?
Well, er, not really, the way I see it is that the NPC was always there but we didn't bother detailing who they were and what their relationship was to the PC because it never became relevant. It might be news to us that your character has a contact in the police but it's not a new feature to the setting to posit that there is a thing called the "police" and some members of this organisation befriend people from outside the organisation, or that the player character has a range of contacts in different organisations whose specifics we're leaving undefined for the time being.
Personally I'd say it wouldn't be narrative if it were something you could legitimately expect to find in the location in question without too much trouble. If you're in a restaurant which serves wine and it's the right time of the evening you can grab a wine bottle without that much effort at all; if you're in a crowd at a funfair there's going to be small children around. As a GM, I'd say that if I've told you that your character is in a bar, then you don't need to ask me whether there's glassware to hand because dude, it's a bar, you're not inventing new details because the details in question are implicit in the situation I've already described.
I will leave 3 because I agree with you but was told that is was on teh edge of narativist.
points 1 and 2 both create NPCs. The fact that the NPC was always there but we didn't detail them is exactly the same thing story games say when you spend a plot point to create a contact that knows the big bad or to find a notepad left by the evil henchman that has a clue tot eh location of the secret base. Both examples assume that the thing was always there just not previously detailed referenced.
Quote from: estar;623564Are the actions of the players as their characters adjudicated by the referee?
Can the players only effect the setting as their characters?
If the answer is yes to both then it is a roleplaying game. If it is no to either then it is a hybrid. If it is no to both then it is something else.
The trouble is though that the set of pure RPGs by your definition would be tiny.
If I can spend a background point to add a contact or a henchmen or a pet or vast wealth I am changing the game world outside my character.
Even if you were adding a caveat that said 'outside of the character creation process' (which weakens the clarity of your defintion) then all games with heropoint style mechanics or games that allow you to set stakes etc are hybrids.
What I have been saying from the start is that 90% of RPGs are hybrids so the distinction is moot.
Quote from: Benoist;623561It's kind of a backhanded way of saying I'm not being reasonable when I'm making a distinction between games that are meant for role playing and immersion on one hand (role playing games) and games which are meant as means of story building and authorial collaboration on the other hand (story games). I can't agree this is being unreasonable.
Narrative and/or story-telling game works fine for me, because it actually means what it says: you collaborate to a narrative building exercise, and the aim of the game is to build a nice story. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.
A role-playing game, to me, implies the act of playing a role, and thereby, the act of immersing yourself into a world and seeing it through the eyes of your character.
Now as we've discussed it billions of times now, these are to me two different categories of games, like role playing games are distinct from wargames, but there are, just like in the case of wargames and RPGs, games which mix role playing with a little narrative building and vice versa. The problem for guys like me is that at some point, the presence of the underlying logic of narrative building and the use of narrative-oriented rules will just impede on my ability to immerse myself in the world and role play my character effectively, because I will be pulled constantly by the game's rules into the position of a guy building a story as an author instead of being that character in the game. That's where it ceases to be a role playing game, as far as I'm concerned.
Now that process I just explained to you is not "unreasonable," and it's not just a function of "game preferences" - I can play games that have narrative mechanics, including story games, if I am so inclined. Less often than traditional role playing games, perhaps, but I don't have a thing against the concept of a game where you'd build a story. Once Upon A Time is a great game, after all. It's a matter of a factual change in my stance as a player when I am playing these games, and since my practical experience of what's going on around the table changes, I consider them two distinct types of games.
See Ben your view is totally fine but the point is its your point of view.
I don't like Troupe play. I don't want to be incontrol of multiple characters if I am a player at the table. Its a bit of a game breaker for me and one of the reasons we stopped using hirelings very early. To me I know what I know if I have a loyal henchmen the DM should play him because only then is our relationship valid to me as a player. If I control the henchmen entirely I will know to much about their motivation, loyalties, true intent etc.
Now that is no issue for lots and lots of players. So I would never insist that we set up a special category called 'Troupe' RPGs and put Ars Magica firmly there and then start arguing that D&D should expunge all of its troupe type rules round henchmen or rename itslef a Troupe RPG. That woudl be ludicrous in the extreme.
The same thing applies to narative mechanics.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623729If you mean "what would happen if they released as "D&D Battles" or something, a different game using the same IP just like Wrath of Ashardalon is...they'd probably still be selling it and 3.5e and Paizo would have folded years ago.
Right. "D&D Battles" or "Dungeon Wars" - but it isn't a board game - it is exactly the same game as D&D4 released. I take it you would have been fine with this.
Out of curiosity, what if WotC created "D&D Battles" - and also stopped supporting D&D3.5e themselves and instead negotiated a deal with Paizo for Paizo to handle the line? So this would be almost exactly the same situation we have now, except that WotC would be getting a share of the Pathfinder/D&D3.75e profits.
Would that also be fine?
Quote from: 1989;623734Holy crap.
For a second there, I had to wonder what those cards were.
Then it dawned on me. That's D&D.
Truly D&D 4e was D&D: The Gathering.
What a pile of shit.
Hehehe its only on a card.
Its the same rule as in the rule book just in a different format.
If the rule book in on a ipad in PDF format doesn't make it a computer game.
It's just a way to make mugs buy more of your crap.
Quote from: jhkim;623743Right. "D&D Battles" or "Dungeon Wars" - but it isn't a board game - it is exactly the same game as D&D4 released. I take it you would have been fine with this.
Out of curiosity, what if WotC created "D&D Battles" - and also stopped supporting D&D3.5e themselves and instead negotiated a deal with Paizo for Paizo to handle the line? So this would be almost exactly the same situation we have now, except that WotC would be getting a share of the Pathfinder/D&D3.75e profits.
Would that also be fine?
You seem to be making the mistake that I give two shits about the name D&D or the brand owned by anyone.
Let me spell it out.
1. Roleplaying is an act done from an IC POV. To claim otherwise is redefining the term.
2. I don't give a fuck what goes through your mind when you do whatever it is you, Jib, or Chaos call Roleplaying. Chaos I know is not the same as me, you may be the same, but I don't care, because if we play a game that hasn't been hyper focused, we can both do our thing at the same time.
3. I want a game that calls itself an RPG to actually allow me to play the game from an IC POV. Not force, not exclusively require, but simply ALLOW.
4. If the game cannot do that, then it's not an RPG, because it has sacrificed the IC POV for something, which experience and history tells me is for wargame reasons or Storygame reasons, in which case the game should advertise that fact before I purchase it.
5. Dungeon World does not allow me to exercise all, or even most core mechanical decisions from an IC POV, neither does 4e. Therefore they are hybrids and would be better off as an adjunct to RPGs instead of (as 4e was) meant to be a replacement for a game that for 20 years allowed IC POV.
We good now? I don't care if Donald Trump owns the fucking brand, as long as he puts out an RPG that actually allows me to play a role. And Yes, if an IP for 20 years has put out incoherent RPGs that allow it to be played IC as well as any other damn way, leave it the fuck alone and do your hybrid game that prevents IC as a second game under the IP umbrella.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623739I will leave 3 because I agree with you but was told that is was on teh edge of narativist.
points 1 and 2 both create NPCs. The fact that the NPC was always there but we didn't detail them is exactly the same thing story games say when you spend a plot point to create a contact that knows the big bad or to find a notepad left by the evil henchman that has a clue tot eh location of the secret base. Both examples assume that the thing was always there just not previously detailed referenced.
Points 1 and 2 create relationships with the NPCs but there's no reason why they necessarily create the NPCs themselves.
In both cases, the GM might have dreamed up (to take the example of contacts in the police) some police officer NPCs and think "aha, this player using that skill/paying those background points gives me an opportunity to use this NPC". If the GM hasn't dreamed up any police NPCs, then sure, discovering that the PCs have a police NPC contact requires the GM to dream up a police NPC, but guess what?
So does having the PCs walk into a police station. If you're running a modern day game it's a given that the police exist and there are people who work in the police, so you're not "creating" any NPCs when you say "By the way, my character knows a policeman", you are at most creating a relationship with this NPC whose existence wasn't spelled out but could happily be assumed in any modern-day game.
Also, if players aren't allowed to make decisions when generating their character background which imply the existence of NPCs the GM needs to create (or have the players create for them), then you can say goodbye to PCs having, say, a functional interaction with their parents where they visit them every once in a while or a spouse or a job or a place in society at all when they are first created, because all of those are things which imply the existence of NPCs and oooooh, we're not allowed to do that, it's NARRATIVE!. The implication here is that in a traditional non-narrative RPG PCs essentially begin the game as social blank slates with no meaningful connections to anyone with the possible exception of other PCs. In some genres, that might even work, but in anything vaguely realistic it's nutty.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623741If I can spend a background point to add a contact or a henchmen or a pet or vast wealth I am changing the game world outside my character.
Well, let's split the hair. (Because I had to when implementing a similar mechanic in my own little omni-genre action-movie RPG.)
If the
player can create an actual NPC — description, personality, history and all — then it's narrativistic. If the GM has little influence (or veto), it's very narrativistic. If there is no GM, it's probably a storygame.
If the player can (in my game and, for example,
Torg) play a Contact card and the GM can say "none available here, sorry", or creates the contact himself (using someone he already had in mind or winging it), it's an RPG.
The question is: who is running the world? A GM who is the NPC-maker and -herder? Or are the players running the world, altering it to suit?
The first is an RPG, the second simming.
That's a meaningful distinction, applied in a very narrow situation.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623741What I have been saying from the start is that 90% of RPGs are hybrids so the distinction is moot.
This I disagree with, for previously stated reasons.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623742I don't like Troupe play. I don't want to be incontrol of multiple characters if I am a player at the table.
I agree, I don't like it either. I'm an inveterate power-gamer, but even so controlling an NPC takes time away from me playing my character.
I am a huge proponent of in character RP, but I really dont think you can reduce or limit RPGs to that. This is starting to get into roll play versus role play in way. While I do think the most rewarding way to play and rpg is first person immerssion, I dont think it ceases to be an RPG when people use out of character mechanics, take a sightly 3rd person perspective or do something like control a few NPCs. Clearly there is a difference between Fiasco and D&D (at a certain point you are playing something else), but I think the way the distinction is being drawn here excises a lot of rpgs from the hobby (and doesn't allow for stuff like genre emulation within it).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623775I am a huge proponent of in character RP, but I really dont think you can reduce or limit RPGs to that.
Yeah, demanding that RPG designs be DOCTRINALLY CORRECT, which is where I see Warpig's position going, is basically veering away from a Big Tent philosophy in
precisely the same way that the Forge did. That, in fact, is the basic problem with D&D 4E: it turned D&D from a Big Tent game where you could run it in a range of different ways (from CharOp heavy grid combat tactical RPG to a very AD&Dish mode) and made it a narrowly focused game where if you weren't interested in the tactical grid combat aspects of the game, you were shit out of luck.
I am somewhat more sympathetic to CRKrueger's position that a good game should be able to be happily played in multiple different ways, even if I don't agree with his personal definition of pure RPGs. I think I could happily run a game with Fate Points involved, for instance, and include Krueger as one of the players because in most such games you don't have to use the Fate Point mechanic yourself if you prefer decision-making from a purely IC stance, and as I understand his argument Krueger doesn't mind how the other people around the table choose to play the game so long as they're happy to let him play the game his way. The idea that you should ideally be able to play an RPG the way you want to play it without doing a root-and-branch rework of the rules, to my mind, is basically a restatement of the Big Tent philosophy.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623773I agree, I don't like it either. I'm an inveterate power-gamer, but even so controlling an NPC takes time away from me playing my character.
What about Ars Magica where a single player may have multiple PCs (a wizard, a companion, and one or more grogs)?
[disclaimer]This post is entirely meant to be humorous, though I find the setting idea intriguing, its not meant to be an argument in any direction, so much as a funny demented look at some of the more extreme ideas going on in the thread[/disclaimer]
Ok, so here is the setting: You have sprung from nothing, you currently have no stats but a pool of points. You know enough about the world to not get lost, but not much beyond that.
Luckily, you have an ability to help you survive your newfound existence: a limited and controlled way of warping reality. As you attempt tasks, you can use your pool of points to imprint abilities onto yourself as needed. You can choose later to let some abilities fade, but they fade slowly and you don't get the points back until they do.
Your goal is to try and find out what you are, but you also have a bizarre urge to seek out adventure, cause drama, and experience the full gamut of human emotion.
Set the whole thing up with narrative mechanics to emulate reality warping. Hey, that guy is my old friend so and so, make your bid/roll/whatever, and boom, that is exactly who it is. What happened to his old life? Who knows.
I have now created the most pure RPG possible: You can not make any decision out of character. You can't even create NPCs or situations in your backstory, as you have none. Every narrative mechanic you use emulates your reality warping powers and/or your urge to cause drama and/or experience emotion.
Quote from: Warthur;623778I am somewhat more sympathetic to CRKrueger's position that a good game should be able to be happily played in multiple different ways, even if I don't agree with his personal definition of pure RPGs. .
And just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with CRKrueger's call for truth in marketing or having helpful labels and distinctions (my point was more about duviding too sharply between rpgs and non-rpgs on the issue of in-character versus out-of-character). Personally I do think its helpful for games that are ore narratively oriented to be clear about their intentions because a lot of players dislike that stuff (for example the Hero Quest intro by laws is exactly what a game should do, because anyone going into that expecting a traditional approach is going to be frustrated, and anyone open to Law's way of doing things is possibly going to miss what he is aiming for and play it in another way, unless he is explicit). I think terms like narrative mechanics and narrative rpgs are useful here because they do indicate something important about a game.
Inalso get where people who are trying to make a concrete distinction around icpov are coming from because I have encountered folks who adamantly oppose it and will argue that immersion, first person rp, etc are illussionary, which is enormously frustrating and does make you feel a bit under siege.
But a lot of out of character mehanics are not narrative at all. Some are more about simulating genre physics than creating a story (and that itself is an importnt distinction). While I don't want or expect cinematic mechanics in an immerssive fantasy rpg like D&D, if I am playing something like James Bond, a mechanic like a luck point or mook npcs help simulate the James Bond physics, and I am open to playing that. But even though that mght appeal to me, I would quickly lose interest if there were mechanics in there that suddenly had me narrating backstory, or narrating sections of the game. And just because cinematic mechanics might work in james bond, that doesn't mean they will work in every other game (i see a lot of people trying to cram genre emulation in non-or multi-genre games-for example).
Quote from: Warthur;623779What about Ars Magica where a single player may have multiple PCs (a wizard, a companion, and one or more grogs)?
In the older edition of Ars Magica I have, it is explained that in troupe play you pick a character for that you play for that session. Not as you play multiple character at once. Sometime it can be just for an encounter.
It comes off as an elaborate version of the role of henchmen and hirelings from D&D. At least in the first edition book I have.
Quote from: Warthur;623778Yeah, demanding that RPG designs be DOCTRINALLY CORRECT, which is where I see Warpig's position going
It's not. He asked (in essence) where the line between roleplaying and simming was, and that's the question I was answering.
I have said, and continue to say, and will continue to say, that there are RPG-sim hybrids, and that such are counted as RPG's. (I said it in this very thread, several times.)
If clearly defining the difference between narrativist and roleplaying mechanics counts as exiling hybrids from the hobby altogether... well, if you believe that, then so be it. I disagree.
Quote from: Warthur;623778I am somewhat more sympathetic to CRKrueger's position that a good game should be able to be happily played in multiple different ways,
I happen to agree with that as well.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623788It's not. He asked (in essence) where the line between roleplaying and simming was, and that's the question I was answering.
I have said, and continue to say, and will continue to say, that there are RPG-sim hybrids, and that such are counted as RPG's.
If defining such mechanics counts as exiling hybrids from the hobby altogether... well, if you believe that, then so be it. I disagree.
I think the two activities
as you have defined them are so deeply intertwined, and that intertwining is so pervasive, that you'll genuinely struggle to find pure games of either type.
On top of that, the "simming" subculture is, as far as I can tell, utterly disinterested in game mechanics of any sort in the first place so invoking simming to describe story games, narrative mechanics, and Fate Points seems to me to be spectacularly missing the point both of the game mechanics you're describing and the nature of the simming hobby itself.
Quote from: Warthur;623790I think the two activities as you have defined them are so deeply intertwined, and that intertwining is so pervasive, that you'll genuinely struggle to find pure games of either type.
I wasn't defining games, I was defining one individual mechanic.
As you yourself did.So why is it acceptable when
you do it, but when
I do it I'm on a crusade for doctrinal purity, hell-bent on banishing entire systems from the hobby to a far hinterland, where they shall never be played again?
That seems like a less than reasonable position.
Can someone give me some background here on "Simming". This is a new use of the term to me and I think I am a little unsure of what people mean by it here.
Quote from: Warthur;623779What about Ars Magica where a single player may have multiple PCs (a wizard, a companion, and one or more grogs)?
1.) Just to be clear, I was stating my own preferences, what I like in a game, not attempting an RPG Inquisition to burn all game books which contain Henchmen-like mechanics. (This seems to be a point of confusion, so clarity is obviously required.)
2.) For my personal preferences, I like playing one character at a time, and not switching. If
Ars is played like Estar describes (and the edition of
Ars I own says the same thing, IIRC) then I'd be cool with it. (I liked
Dark Sun's character tree, for instance.) If it involves playing three or more characters simultaneously, I wouldn't enjoy it.
Why? because I like to have some characterization with my characters, and as a player I'm concentrating on the character I'm interested in. The characterization of the Henchmen would fall by the wayside, reducing them to (in essence) a piece of gear. I don't like that, it seems powergamey.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623793Can someone give me some background here on "Simming". This is a new use of the term to me and I think I am a little unsure of what people mean by it here.
Simming is a new term that has come to refer to collaborative fiction writing in an online environment, originally in a play-by-post setting. You are a Narrator, sharing responsibility for an ongoing story with other Narrators, each of which contribute narration in turn.
Typically (though not always) it is either rules free or very light on rules. Obviously, it can involve each participant having ownership of their own character, but it doesn't have to.
Simming is thus the Storygame equivalent of "roleplaying". (Or rather, many Storygame processes are indistinguishable from simming.) Of course, there exist sim-RPG hybrids. In fact all Storygames could be considered simming/roleplaying hybrids, because of the introduction of rules to an essentially freeform activity.
Simming is a term used in the collaborative fiction community, but not in roleplaying circles because even people who view roleplaying as collaborative fiction writing approach it from a mechanical perspective, and aren't typically conversant with the very large simming community and their techniques (which exist largely in isolation from RPG's).
There's a vast potential for improving Storygames, were they to investigate and adapt the techniques of simmers. (RPG rules are not the best structures to build shared narrative creation around.)
Simming isn't roleplaying. It isn't better or worse than roleplaying, but it isn't the same thing.
Quote from: soviet;623664So WFRP 1e and D&D 4e are hybrids, one with storygaming and one with wargaming I guess? (I'm thinking here action points, dailies, etc). Are Vampire (willpower) and Cyberpunk 2020 (luck) also hybrids? What about barbarian rages in 3e? Or taking ten?
Don't know about WFRP 1e but yes D&D 4e mechanics make it a hybrid wargame/roleplaying. One that more toward the roleplaying side than say SPI's Freedom in the Galaxy or Swords & Sorcery.
I will limit myself to what I know which is Cyberpunk 2020 luck and barbarian rages. Luck mechanics are more emulation than meta-game. The idea of that luck is a quality with a specific quantity or level is present in many types of genres and subgenres. So like supernatural or superpowers it sometime that can be emulated. The same with Barbarian rages, it emulates the berserker aspect of the barbarian legend.
It not the design of the mechanic that makes it meta-game mechanic. It is whether it can be tied back to something concrete about the setting or character. Reality altering mechanics work great for emulating Amber, but emulate nothing in Harn. Or to make it even more fine tune, reality altering mechanics do emulate stuff at the Immortal levels of BECMI D&D but nothing at the Basic and Expert level.
You could have high fantasy like Exalted where heroic characters have some type of inner power capable of shaping circumstances.
For me the test is simple does it tie back into something about the character or setting? Either in detail or in the abstract.
And it is fuzzy with no clear cut line. The situation is that the more you have to more the game becomes something else and not a RPG. D&D 4e has a lot of wargame aspects but what really sunk it was not the core rules but the presentation of the adventures, supplements and product line.
Quote from: soviet;623664I'm not trying to catch you out here. But it seems to me that metagame mechanics are pretty widespread even among what we would call traditional RPGs. To the extent that I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against. For some people, sure, that's the best kind of RPG. But not definitionally, not for everyone. Otherwise logically D&D itself is less of a pure RPG than freeform is (due to the faint metagame effects of any kind of mechanics, even in-character POV ones).
Yes metagame mechanics are fairly widespread which is why if you were able make a plot with each dot representing a specific game the view would look like a fuzzy cloud blending into other forms of games at the edges. "Progress"
in game design means there are more options to pick from. Which means the number of "hybrids" goes.
But there a set of traits that wargames, boardgames, storygames, and tabletop roleplaying games each revolve around. For tabletop roleplaying it is a game where players play individual characters interacting with a setting and whose actions are adjudicated by a human referee.
I admit it is a simplistic definition that relies on common sense. For example, I assume that playing a character means the same thing as a piece in a board game. That you are limited in what you can do based on the rules. That you can't just change or add to the circumstances on a whim. I feel that is a valid assumption because we are talking a game one that evolved out of another type of game, wargaming. Not something that came out collaborative fiction or improvised theater.
What people hate in general that most definitions of rpgs really boil down to variation of this
"Games like the one Gygax and Arneson were playing in 1974".
This is because more than few RPGs are defined by how they are NOT D&D. Or how "advanced" they are over D&D. My viewpoint that is understandable but seriously they should get over it.
In the end if folk figure out a new type of game or hybrid, I feel they are best served by making it its own thing.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623796Simming is a term used in the collaborative fiction community, but not in roleplaying circles because even people who view roleplaying as collaborative fiction writing approach it from a mechanical perspective, and aren't typically conversant with the very large simming community and their techniques (which exist largely in isolation from RPG's
My understanding that is a far larger than roleplaying and indeed one of the largest forms of collaborative activity on the internet. A lot of people mock it as fan-fiction, but the communities that put serious time into this are HUGE.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623741The trouble is though that the set of pure RPGs by your definition would be tiny.
The key element of RPGs isn't mechanics but a group of players playing individual characters and a referee. That was Gygax and Arneson key innovation. That the focus of a tabletop RPG. Everything else is preference, a useful aid for consistency or for easing communication. This makes RPGs a broad cloud of games not a tight cluster. This also means that "cloud" overlaps other game forms.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623741If I can spend a background point to add a contact or a henchmen or a pet or vast wealth I am changing the game world outside my character.
That not necessarily a meta-game mechanics. In many games it is an abstract emulation of what goes on between session, in some it reflects what you focused on during the session. For example in by the book GURPS if you gain a new ally group, which is an advantage, you are supposed to pay for it with your experience points. When applied to skills a point represents 200 or so hours of training.
But if the rules allow you to spend that group in the middle of session to just magically say "BTW the character has a new ally group" then it is a meta-game action.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623741Even if you were adding a caveat that said 'outside of the character creation process' (which weakens the clarity of your defintion) then all games with heropoint style mechanics or games that allow you to set stakes etc are hybrids.
Yes they are. Because if you were really in the setting of those game as that character you would have no concept of "heropoints" or any idea of how to spend them. The same with the "mark" mechanic of D&D 4e. It was rightly pointed out as a wargame mechanic imported from MMORPGs because it could not be reasonably translated into anything concrete that a character could do.
Quote from: jibbajibba;623741What I have been saying from the start is that 90% of RPGs are hybrids so the distinction is moot.
The family of games that are tabletop roleplaying have a common center they revolve around. Which why they are different than miniature games, europgames, CRPGs, MMORPGS, and yes storygames.
Even OD&D was a hybrid of Diplomacy campaigns, Miniature Wargames, and other games. What made OD&D unlike it predecessors was what it focused on. Every mechanic that Dave Arneson used were found in predecessor games including the human referee. But when Arneson shifted the focus to the playing of individual characters within a campaign featuring advancement and continuity he invented the tabletop roleplaying game. Then with Gygax, the two refined, mostly Gygax, the original Blackmoor campaign into a form that was usable by others. I.e. OD&D.
As a general point, I really recommend reading Peterson Playing at the World (http://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359731173&sr=8-1&keywords=playing+at+the+world). It is a well documented history of the evolution of tabletop roleplaying games, wargames in general, and even has a short section on computer roleplaying games.
What you will get is a sense of what distinguished D&D from the rest of what was going on. Which will help you understand what makes tabletop roleplaying games different from the new forms of gaming that have developed over the past decades.
You may not agree with all of the author assertions but he provides the documentation so you can decide for yourself and not just rely on him saying it was so.
Quote from: estar;623801My understanding that is a far larger than roleplaying and indeed one of the largest forms of collaborative activity on the internet. A lot of people mock it as fan-fiction, but the communities that put serious time into this are HUGE.
That's my sense of it, too.
Also, I pretty much agree with the rest of the stuff you just posted. Overlapping genres of games, and all that.
I did quite a bit of simming around the years 1999-2001, and yeah, there are a lot of aficionados. I was doing it on Ancient Sites, which was a huge ancient history type site where you could create an alternate identity that was Roman, Egyptian, Celt, Babylonian etc and build your own page/'house' and so on.
There were a variety of groups in this community, some with strict scholarly interests like archaeology, others more web oriented like Arachne, others yet into the arts like graphic stuff, ancient poetry forms and the like, and then there were a buttload of simming groups with their own stories you could take a part on via the forums each group had.
I played in stories about Celtic Ireland, the Table Round and Tombstone, for instance. The quality of the writing and the amount of dedication of the writers was generally pretty good, actually. It was pretty fun to play, and I made quite a few friends that way.
Just to say that the simming community isn't all about the sexual adventures of Harry Potter and whatnot. There's a broad range of interests and people participating in those kinds of activities, that's for sure.
Yeah, it's about the sexual adventures of Hermione. Ok, moving on. :D
Any mechanic designed for genre convention is metagame by its very nature. Fate Points, Hero Points, James Bond Points, whatever you want to call them. Unless your character is literally living inside a book and can, like Bruce Willis in Moonlighting, turn towards the screen 4th wall style, then it's OOC. It has to be, simple definition, it's axiomatic. Conan does not know his world is S&S, sorry.
One metagame mechanic, however, that can be easily jettisioned leaving the entire rest of the game structures intact does not make a hybrid game.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623519Group creation of narratives is not roleplaying. Just like writing a novel with a partner (Niven and Pournelle) isn't acting.
The effort to conflate two highly dissimilar enterprises, by attempting to redefine words so they have no meaning, is a flawed approach.
I see what you mean but I don't think our two activities are that far apart (as acting and writing a novel).
It's more like different strains of board games - highly competitive mind benders
(ASL), cooperative games (Knizia's
The Lord of the Rings), party games
(Pictionary, Taboo), casual family games
(Carcassonne, Monopoly), auction games
(Modern Art). They are still all board games (even though most of my examples don't even have a proper board).
Hardcore game fans do make distinctions between them and have dislikes of certain types of games.
To outsiders, comic books, manga and bandes dessinées are all the same -- comics. Only fans make that distinction, or divide the field even further with
école Marcinelle, ligne claire, golden age super hero, silver age super hero, newspaper strip, and then there are those who need a term such as
graphic novels ("no, I would never read a comic book, I prefer graphic novels!").
I have no problem with the big tent "role playing game" including everything from old school wargame type campaigns to storygames and beyond.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623823One metagame mechanic, however, that can be easily jettisioned leaving the entire rest of the game structures intact does not make a hybrid game.
It might make a 'hybrid'
book, but a huge variety of different
games -- actual instances of play -- have been inspired by the same little brown books.
To point out that this or that mechanism departs from role-playing seems a lot more fruitful than pointing to
Rules & Raconteurs Vol. IV and labeling all R&R games as "not role-playing".
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;623824I see what you mean but I don't think our two activities are that far apart (as acting and writing a novel).
That's fine. My primary point isn't how far apart the two different activities are, but that they are different. And, for many RPG'ers, intrusive.
I prefer narrativist mechanics, if present in an ostensible RPG, be easily ignorable without having to rewrite the game. My preference, mind. Not a categorical moral imperative.
If you have a case in which one is not allowed to play from the character's perspective, but is required to act out of character, then that's going to be a problem for many people.
Designing/running a game that has stuff like that tightly integrated, one should not be bashful about it. Tricking people into playing something they won't like is very bad form.
Is anyone really interested in doing that? I doubt there are many.
Are we likely to see the RPG term used only in purist fashion any time soon? I really, really doubt it, considering how broadly the older "wargame" term has been applied.
I expect rather that we'll continue to see distinguishing terms added to the RPG billing.
Quote from: TristramEvans;623608Its the adult swim ;)
Damn straight.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623834That's fine. My primary point isn't how far apart the two different activities are, but that they are different. And, for many RPG'ers, intrusive.
ve.
I think this is the really important thing. These kinds of mechanics are intrusive when you really just want to have the experience of being in the setting, playing in a living world. We dont see it here so much because sonmany of us are on the same page in terms of playstyle (even if there are some disagreements on peipheral details and categories) but in other forums you run into a clash of expectations between players who care about story (things being dramatically appropriate or significant, issues of theme, story structures and devices, as well as emulating the feel of story mediums) versus payers who care about the feling of being there, of in character immersion. The problem I see is a lot of folks dont seem to get that there is a split around this and that a game tailored toward story (in the sense I just used) creates problems if you are in the other group. So you will see a lot of discusions about next where folks just assume good design means D&D can emulate the experience of reading or writing a conan story. But for some of us that path not only makes the game unenjoyable, it makes it incomprehensible. It just isnt what we are after. And these are also often the kinds of discussions where you see people dismising or defining away things like immersion.
I don't think classifying these as two different hobbies is all that helpful (and I don't feel any need to define rpgs to keep them out of it----because i think there is a huge danger pf throwing out the baby with the bath water). But i think distinctions like narrative mechanics, story rpgs, inncharacter point of view and out of character point of view, are all enormously helpful toward navigating this. What I am affraid of though is creating our own forge-like doctrine and vocabularly where arguments often become a battle over terms rather than the ideas behind them.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623823. ...Unless your character is literally living inside a book and can, like Bruce Willis in Moonlighting, turn towards the screen 4th wall style, then it's OOC...
Was this really the plot of moonlighting? I only have vague memories of the show from when I was young, but I had no idea he was supposed to be a character in a book.
Quote from: Phillip;623839I expect rather that we'll continue to see distinguishing terms added to the RPG billing.
And there already alternative forms of roleplaying games with such modifiers
Computer Roleplaying Games
Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games
Live Action Roleplaying Games.
All of which developed out of Gygax original tabletop roleplaying game and differ by changing one or more elements. For examples CRPGs substitute the computer for the human referee. LARPS feature live-action where the players act as their character in person. And so on.
The changed elements have consequences which imposes advantages and limitations on the variant. Enough so that they become their thing.
The same with storygames and narrative mechanics. It neither good or bad but the consequence of the narrative mechanics wind up making the game its own thing related but different from tabletop roleplaying games.
Quote from: estar;623803The key element of RPGs isn't mechanics but a group of players playing individual characters and a referee. That was Gygax and Arneson key innovation. That the focus of a tabletop RPG. Everything else is preference, a useful aid for consistency or for easing communication. This makes RPGs a broad cloud of games not a tight cluster. This also means that "cloud" overlaps other game forms.
In the first issue of Gygax Magazine there's an article that discusses just that. It's "The cosmology of role-playing games" by James Carpio. It's an interesting take on the evolution of the hobby. It includes a sort of galaxy map that represents the evolution of role playing games from the center of the "galaxy", Dungeons & Dragons, outward, with clusters of different planets/games and different concentric circles representing the different "waves" of changes over the years. You find all sorts of games on this map Pathfinder, Grimm, Fudge to Apocalypse World, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire to Delta Green, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Twilight 2000, Mouseguard, OSRIC, AS&SH and many others. It's pretty cool.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623834That's fine. My primary point isn't how far apart the two different activities are, but that they are different. And, for many RPG'ers, intrusive.
I prefer narrativist mechanics, if present in an ostensible RPG, be easily ignorable without having to rewrite the game. My preference, mind. Not a categorical moral imperative.
Of course they are different. To a comic afficionado there's a huge difference between goody two shoes super heroics of the sixties and the grim n gritty nineties, to a science fiction fan there is a difference between Star Wars and Cyberpunk (or even between Star Wars and Star Trek, or even ST: TOS and ST: DS9).
I am a board game fan but there are types of games I have no interest for, and that I will never play.
But that's as far as I go. I don't want them to not be labeled board games anymore, and I still feel a kind of kinship with players of those games.
And in RPGs I will gladly ignore and houserule narrative mechanics. As I said, Dungeon World I would probably play like the success table from OMNI/Talislanta:
1-7 miss
8-9 half/mixed success
10+ full success.
(But I will also look at most of those games in case they do something in a way that might enrich a trad game.)
Quote from: Benoist;623859In the first issue of Gygax Magazine there's an article that discusses just that. It's "The cosmology of role-playing games" by James Carpio. It's an interesting take on the evolution of the hobby. It includes a sort of galaxy map that represents the evolution of role playing games from the center of the "galaxy", Dungeons & Dragons, outward, with clusters of different planets/games and different concentric circles representing the different "waves" of changes over the years. You find all sorts of games on this map Pathfinder, Grimm, Fudge to Apocalypse World, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire to Delta Green, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Twilight 2000, Mouseguard, OSRIC, AS&SH and many others. It's pretty cool.
Still waiting for my issue, but this article definitely looks interesting.
You take my life, but I'll take yours, too!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623868Still waiting for my issue, but this article definitely looks interesting.
You take my life, but I'll take yours, too!
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;623864Of course they are different.
I'm not sure it's an "of course", because every time I point out that RPG's are not Storytelling (http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rpgs-are-not-storytelling/), I get a lot of static and contradiction. Not sure why, but the assertion that those two endeavors are exactly identical is common, and wrong.
Hence my desire to point it out, especially when I see people claiming the opposite is true.
Quote from: Sommerjon;623438Why I said the worst thing to happen to the RPG hobby was the internet.
We can't be happy that people are engaging in the hobby. No, that isn't good enough. We have to put labeled boxes on everything.
Whoa be to you if you are not in the correctly labeled box.
Keep clutching those pearls, Sj. That's what you do best.
Quote from: 1989;623878You take my life, but I'll take yours, too!
This Avatar has been getting quite the reaction.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623879I'm not sure it's an "of course", because every time I point out that RPG's are not Storytelling (http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rpgs-are-not-storytelling/), I get a lot of static and contradiction. Not sure why, but the assertion that those two endeavors are exactly identical is common, and wrong.
This isn't the same phrasing as you used before, and which the "of course" was applied. Two different statements:
1) "Traditional RPGs are not the same as more recent RPGs with narrative mechanics."
2) "RPGs are not storytelling"
I would agree with #1, but disagree with #2. Many games identify both as RPGs and storytelling - including more traditional games like Vampire: The Masquerade as well as more recent games like Tremulus.
Quote from: Phillip;623830To point out that this or that mechanism departs from role-playing seems a lot more fruitful than pointing to Rules & Raconteurs Vol. IV and labeling all R&R games as "not role-playing".
Not sure exactly what you're referring to, sounds strawmanish, who said something similar to what you're referring to?
Quote from: jhkim;623907Many games identify both as RPGs and storytelling
Then they're wrong. Wrong mediums, wrong endeavor.
And that blog post (which also was posted here, in a couple of places) explains why.
RPG's are not storytelling.
Quote from: jhkim;623907This isn't the same phrasing as you used before, and which the "of course" was applied. Two different statements:
1) "Traditional RPGs are not the same as more recent RPGs with narrative mechanics."
2) "RPGs are not storytelling"
I would agree with #1, but disagree with #2. Many games identify both as RPGs and storytelling - including more traditional games like Vampire: The Masquerade as well as more recent games like Tremulus.
"RPGs are not storytelling" is correct.
"RPGs cannot contain storytelling" is incorrect.
However, it's also immaterial.
When I am storytelling I am, by definition, thinking of my character's actions in a larger context then IC. In other words, the act of narrative creation is not the act of Roleplaying. Standing and fighting despite assured death to let other's escape is IC Roleplaying. Choosing to do it because my character wants to go to Valhalla and have his legend live forever is IC Roleplaying. Choosing to do it because I'm picturing 13th warrior with my character as Buliwyf is Storytelling and not Roleplaying.
Quote from: Warthur;623778I am somewhat more sympathetic to CRKrueger's position that a good game should be able to be happily played in multiple different ways, even if I don't agree with his personal definition of pure RPGs. I think I could happily run a game with Fate Points involved, for instance, and include Krueger as one of the players because in most such games you don't have to use the Fate Point mechanic yourself if you prefer decision-making from a purely IC stance, and as I understand his argument Krueger doesn't mind how the other people around the table choose to play the game so long as they're happy to let him play the game his way. The idea that you should ideally be able to play an RPG the way you want to play it without doing a root-and-branch rework of the rules, to my mind, is basically a restatement of the Big Tent philosophy.
When I identify a mechanic as metagame, and whether it is optional or not doesn't mean I think the existence of a mechanic invalidates an entire game as an RPG. Sometimes I use Fate Points sometimes I don't. If you play for hours and once or twice you use a metagame mechanic, it's easy to just skim over. When you're constantly using metagame mechanics just to accomplish core tasks, it gets hard to buy that you're Roleplaying.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623792I wasn't defining games, I was defining one individual mechanic. As you yourself did.
When'd I do that, bub?
You're the one who is framing the whole discussion as a contrast between roleplaying and your (personal, idiosyncratic) definition of "simming".
Here's an idea: you don't like it when storygamers link what they do with traditional RPGs. Why is it OK for you to link storygames with simmers when the two pursuits actually have multiple points of difference?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;6237951.) Just to be clear, I was stating my own preferences, what I like in a game, not attempting an RPG Inquisition to burn all game books which contain Henchmen-like mechanics. (This seems to be a point of confusion, so clarity is obviously required.)
How could I possibly be so stupid to imagine that someone who writes little manifestos about the best tactics to use against the storygamers in the War Of Ideas might be getting pretentiously militant?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623796Simming is thus the Storygame equivalent of "roleplaying". (Or rather, many Storygame processes are indistinguishable from simming.) Of course, there exist sim-RPG hybrids. In fact all Storygames could be considered simming/roleplaying hybrids, because of the introduction of rules to an essentially freeform activity.
Howboutcha actually cite some sims which actually use storygame-esque mechanics? I have never seen any.
Quote from: Warthur;623922When'd I do that, bub?
When did you define a mechanic as narrative or not? In this post right here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=623762&postcount=437)
In a response to the exact same question I was answering.
Quote from: Warthur;623924How could I possibly be so stupid to imagine that someone who writes little manifestos about the best tactics to use against the storygamers in the War Of Ideas might be getting pretentiously militant?
Which is to say "Yes, Jasyn, you never said anything like that. I was mistaken."
I think this conversation has ceased to be fruitful. So I'm not going to continue it.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623879I'm not sure it's an "of course", because every time I point out that RPG's are not Storytelling (http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rpgs-are-not-storytelling/), I get a lot of static and contradiction. Not sure why, but the assertion that those two endeavors are exactly identical is common, and wrong.
Hence my desire to point it out, especially when I see people claiming the opposite is true.
Are they claiming the opposite is true, is it more complicated than that?
You're saying that storytelling is not the full and only purpose of RPGs. Some people are telling you that they like the story angle of RPGs, whether that's a White Wolfy GM-predefined plot or a traditional "this is what happened in retrospect, oh look, it makes an interesting narrative" sort of story. There is room for both parties to be right if you look.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623939When did you define a mechanic as narrative or not? In this post right here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=623762&postcount=437)
In a response to the exact same question I was answering.
Ok, I follow you now. I fail to see how it undermines my wider point.
QuoteWhich is to say "Yes, Jasyn, you never said anything like that. I was mistaken."
I think this conversation has ceased to be fruitful. So I'm not going to continue it.
Oh dear, is Socrates sad that the dialogue isn't going as planned?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623915Then they're wrong. Wrong mediums, wrong endeavor.
And that blog post (which also was posted here, in a couple of places) explains why.
RPG's are not storytelling.
If it's the wrong medium and wrong endeavour then plenty of people of my acquaintance who are tickled pink by the stories they have told in their traditional RPG campaigns must be mistaken. They can't have possibly succeeded to the extent to which they claim to have succeeded, because they were using the wrong tool the for job to begin with.
Maybe they're lying. Maybe they're delusional.
Maybe they're brain damaged.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623916"RPGs are not storytelling" is correct.
"RPGs cannot contain storytelling" is incorrect.
Well, Daddy Warpig's blog post (http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/rpgs-are-not-storytelling/) concludes,
You don't roleplay in a storygame. And you don't "tell stories" by playing an RPG. It's that simple. That sounds more like the latter to me.
Purely as a matter of vocabulary, there is a long history of established usage of RPG games saying that they tell stories, including D&D.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623916When I am storytelling I am, by definition, thinking of my character's actions in a larger context then IC. In other words, the act of narrative creation is not the act of Roleplaying. Standing and fighting despite assured death to let other's escape is IC Roleplaying. Choosing to do it because my character wants to go to Valhalla and have his legend live forever is IC Roleplaying. Choosing to do it because I'm picturing 13th warrior with my character as Buliwyf is Storytelling and not Roleplaying.
I think there's probably some interesting stuff to delve into here about player motivations. But what you're saying is that when a player says "I fight to the death" - that might be roleplaying or might be a completely different activity, depending on exactly what the player was thinking.
I would say that if there is no external test to distinguish, then it's a big can of worms to say that these are totally different activities.
Quote from: jhkim;623950It’s that simple. That sounds more like the latter to me.
EDIT: Right, let's clarify.
The purpose of a narrative mechanic is to implement the narrative stance. Not all metagame mechanics are narrative, but all narrative mechanics are metagame. The mechanic implements narrating as an author would, not playing in character.
As a player, narrating as an author is not roleplaying. Period.
The purpose of a narrative game system, a system mostly or entirely of such mechanics, is the same. Therefore, that system doesn't implement or intend playing in character.
Can people RP in narrative systems? Sure. As they can in Risk or other board games. But that's not what the game is about and, when describing and defining mechanics, is useless.
Can people "narrate" as a player in a traditional RPG? Sure, it's called "3rd person" description. The critical point is, they are limited. They can't edit the world freely, by definition. The GM has final say.
They are narrating in a roleplaying environment. More power to them, but that doesn't make the RPG or the mechanics thereof a narrative system.
By intent and design, you don't roleplay in a narrative system and you don't tell stories in an RPG.
That's what I meant, and I stand by it.
This is descriptive. It doesn't matter to me if you RP in a narrative system or narrate your character in an RPG. I agree with Krueger's general "don't care what happens in other people's minds" statement.
Also, you should be applauded for taking the time to read my blog post. That was beyond any reasonable expectation.
Quote from: jhkim;623950Purely as a matter of vocabulary, there is a long history of established usage of RPG games saying that they tell stories, including D&D.
They're wrong. Roleplaying games do not "tell stories". Not in any exact sense. Here are three possible definitions of "telling a story":
1.) A sequence of events, related to another person after the fact. (As in telling your friend about how your day went).
2.) A piece of fiction, written according to dramatic structures.
3.) Campfire storytelling, or similar activities going back centuries.
The second is right out, as roleplaying isn't authoring a story. At best, as a player you're describing the actions of your character. (Whatever your state of mind is.)
An author controls every character. They decide their appearance (carefully crafted to evoke an emotional response in the reader). They decide what the character will do, in such a way as to create a plot.
Neither GM's nor players control very single character wholly, in an RPG. (To attempt to do so is "railroading.")
Writing a novel (for example) also means dealing with point of view, vivid description through prose, three-act plot structure, character motivations, action blocking, the sudden-yet-inevitable betrayals, evocative character descriptions, scene pacing, novel pacing, chapter shaping, and all the rest. These aren't processes of RPG gameplay.
All of those are done with the reader in mind. You are trying to evoke images and emotions. You write and rewrite passages, trying to hone a paragraph so it achieves its intended goal. Then you let beta readers, agents, line editors, and editors have their whack at your prose.
Roleplaying is about the gameplay. Writing fiction is about carefully crafting prose to achieve a specific result.
It's a wholly different process and goal, and only people who are overlooking what novel or short story writing is could claim they're the same.
The other two definitions can be discarded, on similar but different objections.
The act of playing a roleplaying game isn't any of those three. It has similarities to all of them, but isn't identical. Since it isn't identical, it isn't the same.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;6239761.) A sequence of events, related to another person after the fact. (As in telling your friend about how your day went).
2.) A piece of fiction, written according to dramatic structures.
3.) Campfire storytelling, or similar activities going back centuries.
So improv theatre can't tell a story? Simming can't result in stories? Storygames can't result in stories?
"Storytelling is the conveying of events in words, images, and sounds, often by improvisation or embellishment...Crucial elements of stories and storytelling include plot, characters, and narrative point of view."
Quote from: Mistwell;623978"Storytelling is the conveying of events in words, images, and sounds, often by improvisation or embellishment...Crucial elements of stories and storytelling include plot, characters, and narrative point of view."
A much better definition, and one a lot of tabletop RPGs can potentially fit. (It doesn't say
everyone needs to have a narrative point of view...)
Quote from: CRKrueger;623912Not sure exactly what you're referring to, sounds strawmanish, who said something similar to what you're referring to?
I think I'm agreeing with a statement you made; at any rate, several others have said things along the lines of
one optional metagame mechanic does not make a game not an RPGand
the discussion seems more productive in identifying mechanics than in labeling games
Quote from: jhkim;623950I would say that if there is no external test to distinguish, then it's a big can of worms to say that these are totally different activities.
If I tell you something that later turns out to be incorrect, was I mistaken or was I telling a lie? Will you ever be sure? It's internal, you really can't.
No one is going to know exactly why I said what I said and why my character did what I did. Twofish and I can sit down at the table and play D&D, have an entirely different mental process going on, yet not look that different.
Compare with DW, where again, we all look like we're doing the same thing, the only difference is now Twofish, Anon, etc have specific mechanics to enforce their preferred mental gaming process, mechanics which actively impede or outright render mine impossible.
Those are not the same things.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim System Matters and design according to that philosophy and then say System Doesn't Matter we all do the same thing.
Quote from: Phillip;623993I think I'm agreeing with a statement you made; at any rate, several others have said things along the lines of
one optional metagame mechanic does not make a game not an RPG
and
the discussion seems more productive in identifying mechanics than in labeling games
Yeah, I can see that, I'm not looking for the MPAA or RIAA here, it's just that it seems a little...odd that a lot of narrative games, which specifically include narrative systems to better enable narrative play, because, after all, System Matters, aren't marketing the strengths of their systems, ie. narrative play.
Quote from: Warthur;623979A much better definition, and one a lot of tabletop RPGs can potentially fit. (It doesn't say everyone needs to have a narrative point of view...)
That's a definition of storytelling, not story games.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623915Then they're wrong. Wrong mediums, wrong endeavor.
And that blog post (which also was posted here, in a couple of places) explains why.
RPG's are not storytelling.
I agree. Having story-like, or storytelling-like qualities doesn't make rpgs storytelling, any more than a Tanuki is a raccoon or a dog (http://d20art.com/role-playing-games-arent-story-telling/).
Quote from: Lynn;624027I agree. Having story-like, or storytelling-like qualities doesn't make rpgs storytelling, any more than a Tanuki is a raccoon or a dog (http://d20art.com/role-playing-games-arent-story-telling/).
Exactly my point.
Caveats:
1.) I'm giving a technical description of the medium, not a conversational one.
2.) When dealing with people who have no idea what roleplaying really is, it can be helpful to say "Roleplaying is communal storytelling". You're teaching by analogy, trying to convey that roleplaying:
A.) Deals with fictional worlds.
B.) Takes place in your imagination.
C.) Involves people describing situations and activities.
And so forth. These
are aspects of the "campfire" kind of storytelling, but which also hold for RPG's. Evoking "storytelling" is a compact way of conveying that information.
A game, in its introductory "What is Roleplaying" section can say "this game is about storytelling", because it's a conversational definition meant to help educate the uninitiated.
But when you're talking about defining what roleplaying games actually are, and what characteristics they share with other media, and where they differ from other media, that definition is inadequate. (And wrong.)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623976EDIT: Right, let's clarify.
The purpose of a narrative mechanic is to implement the narrative stance. Not all metagame mechanics are narrative, but all narrative mechanics are metagame. The mechanic implements narrating as an author would, not playing in character.
As a player, narrating as an author is not roleplaying. Period.
The purpose of a narrative game system, a system mostly or entirely of such mechanics, is the same. Therefore, that system doesn't implement or intend playing in character.
Can people RP in narrative systems? Sure. As they can in Risk or other board games. But that's not what the game is about and, when describing and defining mechanics, is useless.
Can people "narrate" as a player in a traditional RPG? Sure, it's called "3rd person" description. The critical point is, they are limited. They can't edit the world freely, by definition. The GM has final say.
They are narrating in a roleplaying environment. More power to them, but that doesn't make the RPG or the mechanics thereof a narrative system.
By intent and design, you don't roleplay in a narrative system and you don't tell stories in an RPG.
That's what I meant, and I stand by it.
This is where the vagueness of the whole 'story games' thing is a barrier to communication. You're talking in generalities, and those generalities don't match my experiences with such games at all. Including the storygame that I wrote and play regularly (played it last night, in fact).
Which specific games do you think work as you describe above?
Earlier in the thread I posted an example of how these games work at the table.
Quote from: SovietHere's a typical D&D situation. My elven ranger walks into town. The GM describes how two thugs appear from an alleyway and then speaks in character to threaten me with harm. I speak in character to give them the brush off and then describe some cool trick shot I'm going to try with my bow. We roll initiative, then trade attack rolls and damage rolls with the GM describing what happens as we go.
Here's how the same situation plays out in HeroQuest. My elven ranger walks into town. The GM describes how two thugs appear from an alleyway and then speaks in character to threaten me with harm. I speak in character to give them the brush off and then describe some cool trick shot I'm going to try with my bow. We talk about what the stakes of success and failure might look like. We roll against our chosen abilities and the GM describes what happens as we go.
Seriously, the difference between storygame RPGs and non-storygame RPGs is not as big as you seem to imagine.
Quote from: soviet;624080Earlier in the thread I posted an example of how these games work at the table.
I have no doubt that's the way you play. You're roleplaying within the narrative mechanical context. Which is, I noted, possible.
You can carry all sorts of habits and assumptions into games, playing in styles the rules themselves don't support. 3e, for example, doesn't implement the same dungeon crawling rules as OD&D, yet you can run a classic dungeon crawl campaign with them.
One critical question is: does the player have the right to "narrate" the world, creating and detailing new NPC's as he sees fit, without regards to the GM's say-so? Even if he doesn't exercise that authority, the fact it exists in the mechanics at all is narrativistic in the extreme. People can roleplay around it, but the rule is what it is.
Again, your play style is as described. But the rules are what they are, no matter what style you're using.
Quote from: soviet;624080Seriously, the difference between storygame RPGs and non-storygame RPGs is not as big as you seem to imagine.
But there is a distinction, which is my point. The mechanics are not identical.
(Also note: I'm not saying your game is bad, your playstyle is bad, or that you're a bad person. I'm not positing that you're part of a conspiracy to destroy the hobby from within. I don't believe that; I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out technical differences in mechanics. That's all.)
Soviet, this is something I was referring two with JKim, but small perceived difference can be huge actual difference.
Let's say you're crossing a street and a car narrowly misses you. To someone observing there would be very little difference in what they saw between...
1. a random event, an accident narrowly avoided.
2. The driver, a guy you embarrassed in a bar 10 minutes ago, trying to kill you with his car and missing.
To you two however, BIG fucking difference.
That paragraph about the ranger has two things happening almost exactly the same way. However, you add in HQ that small sentence about discussing stakes and outcomes before resolution.
Since what we are experiencing is internal, I don't think you and I are really talking about the same experience when we say immerse or roleplay. Why do I think that? Because it's obvious that you don't realize that the "setting stakes and outcomes" section is, to me a STAGGERINGLY LARGE difference. Large enough to be a completely different mental process. Like the difference between being simply mistaken and actually lying. No one but me can tell the difference, but two wildly different thought processes.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083I have no doubt that's the way you play. You're roleplaying within the narrative mechanical context. Which is, I noted, possible.
One critical question is: does the player have the right to "narrate" the world, creating and detailing new NPC's as he sees fit, without regards to the GM's say-so? Even if he doesn't exercise that authority, the fact it exists in the mechanics at all is narrativistic in the extreme. People can roleplay around it, but the rule is what it is.
In HeroQuest players can't make up NPCs. In Other Worlds you can, if you spend some points, but the GM does have some veto/modification power. To some extent it's a trust system, like all RPGs. 'I know a guy who lives in the next village that might be able to help us out if we persuade him' is different from 'A guy springs up from out of nowhere, heals all of our injuries, and gives us a thousand GPs'.
But note again that games like Vampire have player-generated contacts and allies.
And even where these things aren't mechanically supported, lots of traditional RPGs encourage players to write detailed backstories that contain lists of friends and enemies, as well as allowing similar additions in play with the permission of the GM. Are you really saying that if you were running AD&D or RuneQuest and a player said to you 'Hey, GM, I think my brother might live in this town, maybe I could bump into him or something' you would just say 'Fuck off, I'm the GM'?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083You can carry all sorts of habits and assumptions into games, playing in styles the rules themselves don't support. 3e, for example, doesn't implement the same dungeon crawling rules as OD&D, yet you can run a classic dungeon crawl campaign with them.
Again, your play style is as described. But the rules are what they are, no matter what style you're using.
Well, hang on, my playstyle is the playstyle indicated in the text. I haven't approached storygames in some non-storygame way, this is how they actually run at the table. In fact the storygame I normally play is one I wrote, so I'd like to think I have an insight into the author's intentions :).
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083But there is a distinction, which is my point. The mechanics are not identical.
Well I agree that there is a distinction. Otherwise why even have different games at all? What I don't agree with is the idea that this difference is so vast that it makes storygames non-RPGs. Is the difference between HeroQuest and Vampire really bigger than the difference between Ghostbusters and D&D 4e, for example? How are Phoenix Command, FATAL, Feng Shui, and TWERPS all in the same hobby but Burning Wheel is something else entirely?
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083(Also note: I'm not saying your game is bad, your playstyle is bad, or that you're a bad person. I'm not positing that you're part of a conspiracy. I don't believe that; I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out technical differences in mechanics. That's all.)
Cool, thanks for that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624085That paragraph about the ranger has two things happening almost exactly the same way. However, you add in HQ that small sentence about discussing stakes and outcomes before resolution.
Since what we are experiencing is internal, I don't think you and I are really talking about the same experience when we say immerse or roleplay. Why do I think that? Because it's obvious that you don't realize that the "setting stakes and outcomes" section is, to me a STAGGERINGLY LARGE difference. Large enough to be a completely different mental process. Like the difference between being simply mistaken and actually lying. No one but me can tell the difference, but two wildly different thought processes.
I agree with everything you say, and that even a small amount of stakes setting would be a huge deal to someone roleplaying from a very heavy in-character/immersionist point of view.
But I don't think that this is the only way to roleplay, or even the most common way to roleplay. I play storygames but I also play other RPGs, and I've been in the hobby since 1991. I've played a bunch of games and with a bunch of groups. I think that when most people play they do so from the primary perspective of their character but also with an eye on other, external factors. A touch of metagaming, in other words. Sometimes this is 'wow, that'll make for a good story'. Sometimes it's 'wow, that'll be an exciting thing to do'. Sometimes it's 'I need to go home soon, let's wrap this up'. Sometimes it's 'as per the rules on facing, I need to flank him when I fire off my death touch spell to make sure it hits'. Sometimes it's just 'I'm better at bluff than diplomacy, I'll try to trick them instead'.
This is how IME storygames work. The primary mode of play is first person perspective character driven, but occasionally people step out of that for a moment to think about what might happen if they fail a particular roll. But I don't see this as being any different from stepping out of first person POV to think about game mechanics, or battle tactics. People can have two things going on in their head at the same time. 'All immersion all the time' is one way to play RPGs but not I think the only way.
Quote from: Lynn;624014That's a definition of storytelling, not story games.
But the point is that a form of storytelling can happen in RPGs.
Is it the sole point of RPGs? No. Do you have to do it in an RPG? No. Can you do it and get good results in an RPG? Unless many people are lying to me, yes.
Soviet, you're right in that some people don't do "all immersion all the time". In fact, I'll go you one better and say even the people who vastly prefer "all immersion all the time" hardly ever get there.
But here's the thing...
In a traditional RPG, with standard simulationist rules, who decides how I am thinking? Who decides whether I make any given choice from an IC, tactical metagame, narrative metagame, or even purely social perspective?
Me.
In a game where some rules are designed to force choice from a OOC tactical metagame perspective (the dreaded 4e dissociation), or the rules are designed to force choice from an OOC narrative metagame perspective, who is deciding how I have to make that choice?
Not me. The designer.
Remember "System Matters".
If the rules allow for an open decision structure that supports multiple play styles, it doesn't mechanically enforce any particular one of them, but it allows all of them.
If, however, the rules mechanically support and enforce a particular decision structure, it can end up preventing or inhibiting the other play styles.
An open game structure, I can get my serious roleplay on, or I can not, depending.
A closed or more limited game structure, I may not be able to get IC, especially when the core mechanic includes something like "stakes negotiation" or "succeed with complications" which are inherently metagame in form.
It's never been about always doing it one way, it's about being able to use the core structures of the game to do it that way at all.
Soviet, you're right in that some people don't do "all immersion all the time". In fact, I'll go you one better and say even the people who vastly prefer "all immersion all the time" hardly ever get here.
But here's the thing...
In a traditional RPG, with standard simulationist rules, who decides how I am thinking? Who decides whether I make any given choice from an IC, tactical metagame, narrative metagame, or even purely social perspective?
Me.
In a game where some rules are designed to force choice from a OOC tactical metagame perspective (the dreaded 4e dissociation), or the rules are designed to force choice from an OOC narrative metagame perspective, who is deciding how I have to make that choice?
Not me. The designer.
Remember "System Matters".
If the rules allow for an open decision structure that supports multiple play styles, it doesn't mechanically enforce any particular one of them, but it allows all of them.
If, however, the rules mechanically support and enforce a particular decision structure, it can end up preventing or inhibiting the other play styles.
An open game structure, I can get my serious roleplay on, or I can not, depending.
A closed or more limited game structure, I may not be able to get IC, especially when the core mechanic includes something like "stakes negotiation" or "succeed with complications" which are inherently metagame in form.
It's never been about always doing it one way, it's about being able to use the core structures of the game to do it that way at all or do it whenever I feel like.
Quote from: Warthur;624089But the point is that a form of storytelling can happen in RPGs.
Is it the sole point of RPGs? No. Do you have to do it in an RPG? No. Can you do it and get good results in an RPG? Unless many people are lying to me, yes.
Others say the point is that RPGs can have story-like and storytelling-like elements in them, but they aren't stories, and playing an rpg isn't storytelling.
Being similar to something doesn't mean it is the same thing. Just like my example of a tanuki not being a raccoon or a dog - a tanuki is a tanuki. People refer to them as a raccoon dog because that refers to things that share similaries that people already know.
A transvestite may look and act like a woman but that doesn't mean they have the same biology.
Quote from: Lynn;624135Being similar to something doesn't mean it is the same thing.
Correct. And, calling a dog a duck doesn't make it so. It just makes you wrong.
Saying that roleplaying is "telling a story" is factually incorrect. It's just wrong.
Wrong medium. Wrong endeavor.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624119Soviet, you're right in that some people don't do "all immersion all the time". In fact, I'll go you one better and say even the people who vastly prefer "all immersion all the time" hardly ever get there.
But here's the thing...
In a traditional RPG, with standard simulationist rules, who decides how I am thinking? Who decides whether I make any given choice from an IC, tactical metagame, narrative metagame, or even purely social perspective?
Me.
In a game where some rules are designed to force choice from a OOC tactical metagame perspective (the dreaded 4e dissociation), or the rules are designed to force choice from an OOC narrative metagame perspective, who is deciding how I have to make that choice?
Not me. The designer.
Remember "System Matters".
If the rules allow for an open decision structure that supports multiple play styles, it doesn't mechanically enforce any particular one of them, but it allows all of them.
If, however, the rules mechanically support and enforce a particular decision structure, it can end up preventing or inhibiting the other play styles.
An open game structure, I can get my serious roleplay on, or I can not, depending.
A closed or more limited game structure, I may not be able to get IC, especially when the core mechanic includes something like "stakes negotiation" or "succeed with complications" which are inherently metagame in form.
It's never been about always doing it one way, it's about being able to use the core structures of the game to do it that way at all.
I'm not sure you do decide how you are thinking to the extent that you say. Or at least, I don't think that most people do. It's a pretty herculean feat of immersion or whatever to totally ignore the 300 page rulebook in front of you and make your decisions entirely from an in-character, rules-agnostic point of view. All those rules and procedures can't help but make a difference. And again, I want to reiterate that it's perfectly possible (and common) to have two separate thought processes in your brain at the same time. Thinking about system-based tactics doesn't mean you aren't also thinking about what your character wants to do.
It's interesting that you bring up 4e and dissociation because I play and enjoy 4e (albeit it's not my favourite edition). I don't find that the combat system drives me out of an in-character perspective any more or less than other combat systems do. I can see why it would have that effect for other people, but for me it doesn't. Maybe my brain is more easily able to rationalise the decision to use Come and Get It or trip an ooze in an in-character way, but for me personally those things are not jarring. Just like some people can think about game tactics without it breaking them out of a primarily IC POV, I can think about failure stakes or power descriptions and still keep roleplaying.
For someone who can't do that, or doesn't want to, those things are jarring as fuck. But for some of us they're not. I don't reject your experiences but I don't share them either, so I don't think they should be treated as an objective measure of whether something is or isn't an RPG. If I can roleplay happily in HeroQuest but you can't, is it really correct to say that HQ isn't an RPG?
Quote from: soviet;624086Cool, thanks for that.
You're welcome. Given the hostility towards storygames (or story-ish games) on this site, a little clarity was needed as to where I stood.
When I've read your posts in the past you've come across as a level headed, patient guy, and despite our disagreements nothing you've said has contradicted that impression. You deserve some respect for that.
Quote from: soviet;624086In HeroQuest players can't make up NPCs.
That's fine. The NPC thing is just one specific example of a narrative or simming mechanic.
The larger issue is: who controls the world outside the PC's? The more control players have of the world outside themselves, and the more often they can exercise that control, the more narrative the game mechanics are.
Like I said, Hero Quest could very well be a simming-heavy RPG. (I could have been wrong, in other words.) It doesn't really matter if that's the case.
I'm not interested in binning games into story/not story. I'm more interested in examining the RPG medium from a technical standpoint. And that has to begin by acknowledging what it is and isn't.
And roleplaying (for the player) doesn't involve narrative control of the world outside the character, and vice versa.
Quote from: soviet;624086but the GM does have some veto/modification power.
That's the critical difference I'm using for
Infinity. The GM has final say, they can exercise that authority however they like. If they want the player to be able to create whole NPC's, they can.
Quote from: soviet;624086And even where these things aren't mechanically supported, lots of traditional RPGs encourage players to write detailed backstories that contain lists of friends and enemies,
Character creation is a separate issue, because you're not playing in character, you're creating the character. (In general, where allowed by state laws, see our website for details. Erections lasting longer than 4 hours...)
Quote from: soviet;624086Are you really saying that if you were running AD&D or RuneQuest and a player said to you 'Hey, GM, I think my brother might live in this town, maybe I could bump into him or something' you would just say 'Fuck off, I'm the GM'?
"Fuck off?" No. "Not this session." Maybe. It depends on what's going on.
You got to realize, my main game is
Torg. And
Torg has a Drama Deck, a wholly metagame mechanic. And in that deck is the Connection card, which players can play. It allows them to have a contact in the area.
And I'm cool with that. Because it doesn't involve them editing the reality of the world. The GM has the final say on if it can happen for that character, and if so what the NPC is.
(They can exercise that authority however they see fit, up to and including allowing the player to detail the NPC. However, creating that NPC isn't roleplaying, for the same reason that creating a PC isn't.)
Quote from: soviet;624086What I don't agree with is the idea that this difference is so vast that it makes storygames non-RPGs.
Narrating the world, as a player, is different from roleplaying. (Conceded by just about everyone in this thread.) A narrative mechanic is different from a roleplaying mechanic. (Again, just about everyone concedes that.)
A system made entirely out of narrative mechanics, without any roleplaying mechanics, isn't a roleplaying system; the system doesn't support roleplaying.
This is an ineluctable deduction from the adduced principles. Some games are not roleplaying games. And those games can include wholly narrative games.
QED.
This holds even if people can roleplay during the game, the system is what it is. That you can roleplay while playing it, doesn't make the system an RPG system.
(Again, not interested in binning specific games. Other than AW, because it was amusing.)
Quote from: Phillip;623733At any moment, Benoist is likely to break out funky dice
(http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/wfrp/wfrp-description-page/dice-pool.png)
Love those dice. Greatest innovation in dicepool design since Ghostbusters.
Quote from: TristramEvans;624159Love those dice. Greatest innovation in dicepool design since Ghostbusters.
What are they from?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;624160What are they from?
Warhammer 3e.
Quote from: soviet;624150I'm not sure you do decide how you are thinking to the extent that you say. Or at least, I don't think that most people do. It's a pretty herculean feat of immersion or whatever to totally ignore the 300 page rulebook in front of you and make your decisions entirely from an in-character, rules-agnostic point of view. All those rules and procedures can't help but make a difference. And again, I want to reiterate that it's perfectly possible (and common) to have two separate thought processes in your brain at the same time. Thinking about system-based tactics doesn't mean you aren't also thinking about what your character wants to do.
It's interesting that you bring up 4e and dissociation because I play and enjoy 4e (albeit it's not my favourite edition). I don't find that the combat system drives me out of an in-character perspective any more or less than other combat systems do. I can see why it would have that effect for other people, but for me it doesn't. Maybe my brain is more easily able to rationalise the decision to use Come and Get It or trip an ooze in an in-character way, but for me personally those things are not jarring. Just like some people can think about game tactics without it breaking them out of a primarily IC POV, I can think about failure stakes or power descriptions and still keep roleplaying.
For someone who can't do that, or doesn't want to, those things are jarring as fuck. But for some of us they're not. I don't reject your experiences but I don't share them either, so I don't think they should be treated as an objective measure of whether something is or isn't an RPG. If I can roleplay happily in HeroQuest but you can't, is it really correct to say that HQ isn't an RPG?
I am impressed by your persiverence, but saddened by it as well. I'm sure you have better things to do than read cliched, repititious and inappropriate references to child molestation all day.
Quote from: Warthur;623924the War Of Ideas
Ah that might fit, I've been trying to come up with a title to describe the simmering conflict ongoing between Neo Nigeria and the NAfricaPact nations, and that would do nicely. About the only useful thing to come out of the shared narrative gang in this thread.
Quote from: estar;623803Yes they are. Because if you were really in the setting of those game as that character you would have no concept of "heropoints" or any idea of how to spend them.
Which means that XP is also a storygame mechanic. So D&D is a hybrid. So the term is meaningless.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;624160What are they from?
Warhammer.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;624160What are they from?
Warhammer 3rd. They do exactly what I've been attempting to do for a while: keep the dice rolling and funky dice but reducing the numbers. I adapted them to FASERIP (as the scale used by both games is essentially 1-10), and would love to see FFG do a game using just this mechanic without the trappings. Unfortunately, based on what I've seen of their Star Wars RPG, instead of simplifying they've gone the route of rules glut.
Quote from: TristramEvans;624171Which means that XP is also a storygame mechanic. So D&D is a hybrid. So the term is meaningless.
XP represents abstractly the development of the characters. It very much tied to the emulation of the setting. The XP rewards reflect what actions D&D authors feel would allow the characters to develop further. Which in the case of D&D boiled down to killing things and taking their stuff.
Quote from: estar;624177XP represents abstractly the development of the characters. It very much tied to the emulation of the setting.
Just as Hero points/karma pointsForce points represent abstractions of how a characters motivation/determination./spirituality exerts an influence on their physical actions in certain genres, and is essentially "spendable XP".
Quote from: soviet;624150If I can roleplay happily in HeroQuest but you can't, is it really correct to say that HQ isn't an RPG?
Well, again, here's the thing.
You admit yourself that what you're doing in a session of what you call roleplaying consists of lots of stuff - many different thought processes. In other words, even though it's a "Roleplaying Game" and we're talking about "Roleplaying", in actuality we are doing a lot of things that can be boiled down to...
1. Roleplaying
2. Non-Roleplaying
and we switch back and forth between them as we "roleplay".
Here's the TL;DR version of what's to follow:
You can accept a much smaller percentage of actions that are roleplaying and still call the overall activity roleplaying then I can.
What it comes down to is I'm talking about specific processes, you're talking about the combination of a lot of processes.
Let's look at the smallest possible definition for a second, just define the verb. If you have to go to OED or Webster to come up with an alternate definition grossly different from this, well that explains it all, we're done right there, but I think anyone who actually calls what they do roleplaying shouldn't have too much problem with this.
Roleplaying = playing a role, ie. pretending you are someone who is not you.Now you and I are sitting at the table, we're playing Shadowrun. If you and I are talking about whether the 49ers or Ravens are going to win the Superbowl, that's obviously an OOC discussion. So even though someone asked me later "What did you do Saturday?" I would answer "Roleplaying":
during that conversation about the Superbowl, we are not roleplaying. Period. It is not something that is a blend of yes and no, there's not a complex mix of motivations.
It's really damn simple.
There is no way our characters could be having a conversation about who is going to win the Superbowl tomorrow because:
In the game world, it's March 7th, 2050, a Monday.
Baltimore Ravens aren't an NFL team in the world of Shadowrun.
It is quite literally impossible to be having that conversation IC.
So we could be roleplaying with a very high percentage of "table talk" or not. However, when we are actually "tabletalking" we are not roleplaying our characters.
***You cannot roleplay from an OOC POV. Period.Full.Stop.If you disagree with that last sentence then there is no point going further and it makes sense why you say all this stuff is actually roleplaying, because for you roleplaying is anything you want to shove under the umbrella of time where you've said "now I'm roleplaying".
Assuming you're still with me, then now lets take what we just did with the conversation and apply it to game structures and decisions. In a classic RPG, the action flow is as follows:
1. The player declares what the character is going to attempt.
2. The rules as interpreted by the GM dictate the probability chance of the attempt succeeding or failing.
3. The player uses a randomizer to resolve that probability.
4. The results determine success, failure and degree according to the rules of the system.
So lets break it down:
1. Now in a classic RPG am I roleplaying when I am declaring intent? This could be yes or no. My choice as to whether to fire or what I am firing at could be due to a lot of things. For example, my friend's kid might be playing with us for the first time, and even though my character would probably attack a different orc, I'm gonna fire at the one charging the kid's character because I don't want him to die yet. A completely 100% OOC decision that no one but me can identify as such. Choosing to fire at that particular Orc was not roleplaying. IC POV had nothing to do with that decision.
2, 3, 4. Since no one has a Supercomputer with all the laws of physics including chaos theory programmed into it to just figure out whether I hit or not, the rules determine probability. I've decided to do A, let's see if A happens. I may have initiated the task resolution process from an IC POV or not, but once the task resolution has started, there is no further input from character into the process, just like an olympic archer uses all their training to line up the perfect shot, but once they release, it's the Laws of Physics that determine success or failure. Rules are the Laws of Physics in an RPG.
Now some games might add in metagame elements representing luck, narrative control, what have you, but whenever the rules are anything other then raw laws of physics, there is metagame involved. If there is a choice to further affect the outcome of the action, where does the choice come from?
If the character within the world has some further way to affect the outcome, like invoking a magical charm, then that is an IC way to aid the shot.
If the character does not have some way to affect the outcome, but the player does, through Luck, Bennies, whatever, then that is an OOC way to aid the shot.
Just like the conversation about the superbowl,
when I am deciding whether or not to use a Hero Point, I am not roleplaying at that time.Now lets assume we have a game where there the rules, no matter how well they succeed, attempt merely to provide the laws of physics necessary to determine outcomes. That game doesn't have to be played from a 100% IC POV, but you could. Sure there could be lots of tabletalking, but when the game engine is engaged, when we are determining outcomes of characters we can do it from 100% IC POV.
A game like Dungeon World, I simply cannot. The rules
actively prevent me from being 100% IC when I fire a bow. It's really really hard to call such a game a "Roleplaying Game" without qualifier, because the rules
have been specifically designed to not be just a Laws of Physics engine, but to provide an additional level of narrative control my character does not have. It's not a Hero Point system I could use or not, it's baked into the rules for firing a bow.
A book is not a book on tape. Amazon quite clearly delineates them because listening is not reading. Period. Now if someone asked me "Have you read Game of Thrones?", I might say "Yes" even though I didn't read it, but listened to it. The exact form probably doesn't pertain to the reason they asked the question, just like instead of "Well I engaged in an activity consisting of both IC roleplaying and OOC social interation", I simply say "I roleplayed last night".
When you start adding up all the individual, binary decisions and actions that are either IC or OOC and you end up with a rules system that really doesn't allow you to be IC for a lot of them, then is saying "I was roleplaying" really what you were doing? If I bought such a game expecting to be able to sit at the table and be IC whenever I wanted and found out I couldn't would I be upset to the same degree I would if I ordered a book and got a book on tape?
If playing the game I find myself, because of limitations in the rules, not being IC, is it a roleplaying game?
Quote from: TristramEvans;624179Just as Hero points/karma pointsForce points represent abstractions of how a characters motivation/determination./spirituality exerts an influence on their physical actions in certain genres, and is essentially "spendable XP".
What is your Strength in a game system if you were making you in the rules? Well you know roughly what it is, see how much you can lift, look in the rules to see what Strength that gives you and then assign the number.
What is your skill in whatever you do for a living? Well compare that loosely to the different skill levels in the game and you'll be in the ballpark.
Is it exact? No. Is it abstract? Yes. Is it metagame? No. It's purpose is to model something inside the setting.
Now if you're a Jedi, the Force exists in the setting. You have a connection to it, calling on the Force requires effort, stamina, focus, and as you do it, you get tired and exhaust your ability to keep using it. Abstract measurement of a spiritual experience, but not metagame, completely in setting.
If I have James Bond Points to represent the ability of James Bond to do things in the movies, then some here would argue that's the same thing as Force Points. I disagree. There's a difference between playing in the world of James Bond, which is our world, and the movies of James Bond in which he can do James Bond stuff no one else can. James Bond Points are metagame.
It's a case by base basis.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624184If I have James Bond Points to represent the ability of James Bond to do things in the movies, then some here would argue that's the same thing as Force Points. I disagree. There's a difference between playing in the world of James Bond, which is our world, and the movies of James Bond in which he can do James Bond stuff no one else can. James Bond Points are metagame.
It's a case by base basis.
Isn't playing in the movie world of James Bond a viable option for an RPg though? I mean, it is a distinction between genres but I don't think a rule used to emulate a genre convention vs a real-life convention is necessarily a metagame mechanic. Especially in a case like FASERIP, where thesystem is basically a resource allocation game where the stats merely provide a bonus to this, rather than the other way around. Would any resource based game vs a randomizer mechanic then inherently be a metagame? What about a game like Amber or Marvel Universe (the "Stones" game)?
Quote from: TristramEvans;624171Which means that XP is also a storygame mechanic. So D&D is a hybrid. So the term is meaningless.
XP (in the original D&D context) is a
strategy game thing: role-playing / war-game hybrid.
That's one reason I like 1 gold piece = 1 x.p.; freebooters are certainly aware of gold!
The conversion into improved abilities is at a higher level of abstraction than, for instance, buying training in RuneQuest. A lot of things are more abstract in D&D than in RQ!
In a context raised (IIRC) in the 2nd Ed. AD&D books, x.p. awards can in theory motivate players along a DM's plot line. In my experience, though, players usually don't get enough advance information for that to work very effectively; it's more a matter of finding out after the fact how the DM scored things. YMMV, of course.
Quote from: TristramEvans;624186Isn't playing in the movie world of James Bond a viable option for an RPg though? I mean, it is a distinction between genres but I don't think a rule used to emulate a genre convention vs a real-life convention is necessarily a metagame mechanic. Especially in a case like FASERIP, where thesystem is basically a resource allocation game where the stats merely provide a bonus to this, rather than the other way around. Would any resource based game vs a randomizer mechanic then inherently be a metagame? What about a game like Amber or Marvel Universe (the "Stones" game)?
I'll admit 100% it's a fine line and a lot of people disagree with me on this one. For me though, genre emulation is a 4th wall kinda thing. Conan doesn't know he's in a Sword and Sorcery tale, but we the readers do, so we kinda know within the ballpark what's gonna happen.
Same with James Bond. We know he's not gonna die, we know the bad guy's gonna capture him at some point, we know at the lowest point he's gonna bust out some crazy tech or skill to save the day. We know that,
but supposedly he doesn't. If he did, then it would be like Moonlighting, where Bruce Willis talks to the audience sometimes.
Genre emulation is self-aware. Presumably, the actual character in the game we're playing isn't aware of the genre, so a mechanic to emulate the genre is by definition metagame because the character has no knowledge of it.
Playing in the world of James Bond means trying to play as an MI:6 agent in our world without being self-aware.
Playing in the books or movies of James Bond means being self-aware of genre conventions and knowing that I'm gonna be doing stuff that probably wouldn't be possible for an MI:6 agent in our world, but this isn't our world, it's James Bond ™.
Now can you roleplay within that genre awareness? Of course you can, but you know me, if someone asked me if James Bond was a RPG, I would say it's an RPG
with genre emulation rules. They'd say what do you mean? I'd explain, and they'd have a better sense of whether or not it was their thing.
As far as resource vs. randomizer, for me that would be case-by-case I guess. If the resource is something the character has knowledge of, or is just an abstraction representing a complicated system then it doesn't have to be metagame.
Again, not that there's anything wrong with metagame in an RPG. Almost every RPG has had metagame to some extent, even if just a single mechanic. It's just at some point, when the metagame becomes very prevalent and unable to avoid in simple task resolution, I'm needing additional words then RPG to adequately describe it.
Quote from: TristramEvans;624179Just as Hero points/karma pointsForce points represent abstractions of how a characters motivation/determination./spirituality exerts an influence on their physical actions in certain genres, and is essentially "spendable XP".
I think the issue is what you can buy.
D&D hit points are pretty abstract. However, since part of what they represent is a fighter's skill and energy, there's a rationale for -- as a game variant -- player choice either to spend them or to take some ghastly injury. (Of course the PC doesn't know the numbers, but that's true of a lot of other numbers in the game as well.)
If you've got a rationale for how Jimmy Joe is able to choose that event x happens, then you're still in role-playing mode.
If the player is controlling something over which J.J. has no control, then something else is going on.
"Story telling" might not be any more accurate than in the case of a wargamer acting as general of the division, brigadier
and colonel -- but that does seem to reflect a common aim these days.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624191I'll admit 100% it's a fine line and a lot of people disagree with me on this one. For me though, genre emulation is a 4th wall kinda thing. Conan doesn't know he's in a Sword and Sorcery tale, but we the readers do, so we kinda know within the ballpark what's gonna happen.
Same with James Bond. We know he's not gonna die, we know the bad guy's gonna capture him at some point, we know at the lowest point he's gonna bust out some crazy tech or skill to save the day. We know that, but supposedly he doesn't. If he did, then it would be like Moonlighting, where Bruce Willis talks to the audience sometimes.
Genre emulation is self-aware. Presumably, the actual character in the game we're playing isn't aware of the genre, so a mechanic to emulate the genre is by definition metagame because the character has no knowledge of it.
Playing in the world of James Bond means trying to play as an MI:6 agent in our world without being self-aware.
Playing in the books or movies of James Bond means being self-aware of genre conventions and knowing that I'm gonna be doing stuff that probably wouldn't be possible for an MI:6 agent in our world, but this isn't our world, it's James Bond ™.
Now can you roleplay within that genre awareness? Of course you can, but you know me, if someone asked me if James Bond was a RPG, I would say it's an RPG with genre emulation rules. They'd say what do you mean? I'd explain, and they'd have a better sense of whether or not it was their thing.
Fair point. I guess it comes down to that I'll (personally) accept a metagame mechanic as long as its something I can correlate to the setting/genre in some way, whereas what I tend to rail against are mechanics that exist only because its a game (such as restrictions based on maintaining "game balance").
Just as I'm also much more open to metagame mechanics in combat than I am any other part of the game.
Quote from: Phillip;624192D&D hit points are pretty abstract. However, since part of what they represent is a fighter's skill and energy, there's a rationale for -- as a game variant -- player choice either to spend them or to take some ghastly injury. (Of course the PC doesn't know the numbers, but that's true of a lot of other numbers in the game as well.).
A point of interest. The reason for hit points you gave is what was developed years after the release of OD&D. What hit points represented was simply how tough the fighter was in relation to the ordinary fighter. In Chainmail, a hero took 4 hits to kill, a super hero 8 hits. In OD&D hits to kill was expanded into hit dice from which you rolled your hit points. A hero was. 4th level fighter and a superhero a 8th level fighter. The hit point abstracting the difference in toughness.
Quote from: estar;624197The hit point abstracting the difference in toughness.
This is just trivia, but since you bring it up:
I take it you hold to the
Hackmaster / Bruce Willis in
Die Hard theory of "toughness." Wherever you got that, it is not laid out in the OD&D booklets.
The explanation presented in the
Dungeon Masters Guide came from the designer himself.
Quote from: Phillip;624203This is just trivia, but since you bring it up:
I take it you hold to the Hackmaster / Bruce Willis in Die Hard theory of "toughness." Wherever you got that, it is not laid out in the OD&D booklets.
The explanation presented in the Dungeon Masters Guide came from the designer himself.
Read Chainmail and read OD&D and not the book Gygax wrote five years later.
Again in Chainmail a Hero took four hits to kill, a superhero 8. In OD&D a hero is 4th level and a superhero is 8th level. The assumption is that a hero is worth four warriors and a superhero worth eight warriors. You can see that in OD&D with the Fighting Equivalency column of the level tables. It not guess work or supposition. It laid out in the original rules.
Quote from: estar;624209It laid out in the original rules.
Your view that the relative combat strength has nothing to do with skill and energy is
not laid out there, I think.
If memory serves, no "theory" of
any sort appears therein.
I've been using those booklets off and on since the 1970s, and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624182Now in a classic RPG am I roleplaying when I am declaring intent? This could be yes or no. My choice as to whether to fire or what I am firing at could be due to a lot of things. For example, my friend's kid might be playing with us for the first time, and even though my character would probably attack a different orc, I'm gonna fire at the one charging the kid's character because I don't want him to die yet. A completely 100% OOC decision that no one but me can identify as such. Choosing to fire at that particular Orc was not roleplaying. IC POV had nothing to do with that decision.
OK, let me take a not-very-hypothetical example.
Suppose I'm playing Vampire: The Masquerade with some friends. It follows roughly the same external procedure as D&D. However, whenever we declare intent for our character, our decision is based on "What will make for the best story?" This is in line with what the game book itself says. Our characters still take similar actions to if we were immersed in-character, because a good story has characters who act according to a distinct personality and in their own interests.
Now, I absolutely agree that this is different than purely in-character play - it's the difference of Threefold Simulationist and Threefold Dramatist. But if we define this as not role-playing, then I think only a very small percentage of typical tabletop RPG play is actually roleplaying.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624182A game like Dungeon World, I simply cannot. The rules actively prevent me from being 100% IC when I fire a bow. It's really really hard to call such a game a "Roleplaying Game" without qualifier, because the rules have been specifically designed to not be just a Laws of Physics engine, but to provide an additional level of narrative control my character does not have. It's not a Hero Point system I could use or not, it's baked into the rules for firing a bow.
...
If playing the game I find myself, because of limitations in the rules, not being IC, is it a roleplaying game?
I would say yes, because role-playing games don't have to be 100% in-character. As I understand it, you already agree that most players are not 100% in-character anyway. In my experience,
1) It's true that in the Dungeon World games I played, sometimes the rules forced me to make an out-of-character decision.
2) Despite this, I felt that the overall percentage of the players being in-character was roughly the same as traditional RPGs such as Pathfinder or Vampire: The Masquerade.
I would say that we should label games based on what typical play is like, not based on the theoretical ideal of what play by the rare case of an extreme simulationist who is trying for 100% in-character play.
If a typical Pathfinder game has, say, 50% pure in-character play - and a typical Dungeon World game has, say, 50% pure in-character play, then these two should have the same label.
Quote from: Phillip;624210Your view that the relative combat strength has nothing to do with skill and energy is not laid out there, I think.
If memory serves, no "theory" of any sort appears therein.
I've been using those booklets off and on since the 1970s, and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.
Sure has to do with skill which is represented by the improved ability to hit. I was talking about hit points. On page 30 of Chainmail it says this
QuoteThey have the fighting ability of four figures
Later it says
Quotefour simultaneous kills must be scored against Heroes (or Anti-Heroes) to eliminate them.
On page 6 of Men & Magic it says
QuoteIn addition, they gain more "hit dice" (the score of which determines how points of damage can be taken before a character is killed)
Finally on page 17 we see that the Hero is pegged at level four with 4d6 for the total number of hit points they possess.
You are right that is nothing about "theory". It just a simple expansion of chainmail's declaration that a Hero is worth four figures.
By 1979 the roleplaying hobby has grown sophisticated enough that Gygax felt an explanation was needed especially in light of the criticisms in Alarum & Excursions and other fanzines at the time. So hence the DMG explanation.
I use toughness not because I believe that it represent somebody like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. I use it because it a literal fact. The fourth level fighter is tougher than a 1st level figure by having 3 more dice to roll for hit points.
Also a point of interest this path of development from chainmail is also the reason why AD&D fighters can take one attack for ever level they have against creatures with 1-1 HD or lower. This is a holdover from Chainmail's rule that a hero acts as four figure in combat.
Quote from: soviet;624086But note again that games like Vampire have player-generated contacts and allies.
3e D&D, Leadership feat. A feat, btw, which Monte Cook once said was one of the most popular feats taken by players in his home games.
Quote from: estar;624212I was talking about hit points. On page 30 of Chainmail it says this...
I've used the booklets! They
neither confirm
nor deny that a Lord 25th can survive literally having, e.g., his thorax and head driven over by a steam roller.
That's simply not what the rules treat, which is outcomes emerging from the fog of war -- a sum of many factors not made explicit but rather subsumed. Who is among the quick, and who among the dead, as of this round? That is the question the toss of dice answers!
The idea that a high-level figure can literally take on the chin a cannon ball that ought to have blown many ranks of men to bits, then stand up (and fight as well as ever!), may mesh better in some minds with the additional survival factor of a saving roll for half damage than does the rationale that hit dice/points themselves represent in part ability to avoid getting the full force.
So, I reckon that playing it either way is about as much "by the books" (of Chainmail and OD&D), even before we get to the final word in the wood-grain box: Do it your way!
Quote from: jhkim;624211But if we define this as not role-playing, then I think only a very small percentage of typical tabletop RPG play is actually roleplaying....
...role-playing games don't have to be 100% in-character.
If they do, then Arneson, Gygax and friends were not playing an RPG.
Medium Rary, Drawmij, and other wordplay figures survived a world of perils and puzzles with pop-culture referents partly because their
players understood those (as well as minutia of the rulesbooks to which their characters presumably had no access).
"But we give special pleading for Gygax" was basically my friends' answer when this subject came up a few weeks ago. Note, however, that they would admit that the one's PC acted pretty much as if he knew he were a D&D game piece, while the other was an outrageous caricature of a woman.
Quote from: Mistwell;6242153e D&D, Leadership feat. A feat, btw, which Monte Cook once said was one of the most popular feats taken by players in his home games.
I've taken it in every game I've ever played...
Here's the thing: nobody ever said you have to be 100% in character the whole time. It's just not what people are talking about when they're talking about immersion. They are talking about the act of actually listening the GM's words, imagining yourself in the situation as your character, deciding on your actions as though you were your character, speaking as your character during moments of actual role play, and so on.
The "100%" thing is basically a huge strawman argument.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624182Here's the TL;DR version of what's to follow:
You can accept a much smaller percentage of actions that are roleplaying and still call the overall activity roleplaying then I can.
Yes. I'd say a bit smaller rather than
much smaller, but yes. I think the difference is probably only about 10% or so though. 'Describing what your character does and acting/speaking from his POV' still represents the vast majority of activity in both sorts of game.
Quote from: Benoist;624273Here's the thing: nobody ever said you have to be 100% in character the whole time. It's just not what people are talking about when they're talking about immersion. They are talking about the act of actually listening the GM's words, imagining yourself in the situation as your character, deciding on your actions as though you were your character, speaking as your character during moments of actual role play, and so on.
The "100%" thing is basically a huge strawman argument.
Well, that's fine, but what you write above describes how I play storygames. I dip out of that occasionally to talk about potential failure stakes or whatever but the vast majority of the time I'm doing what you said.
Quote from: soviet;624279Well, that's fine, but what you write above describes how I play storygames.
For someone who thinks there's little distinction, you still
use the distinction.
Nothing wrong with that and i applaud you for it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;624280For someone who thinks there's little distinction, you still use the distinction.
Nothing wrong with that and i applaud you for it.
Thanks. I absolutely accept that storygame RPGs are different from non storygame RPGs. It's a spectrum rather than an absolute, but I still think it's a useful label. Where I disagree with people here is on the notion that storygames aren't also a kind of RPG.
Quote from: Benoist;624273Here's the thing: nobody ever said you have to be 100% in character the whole time. It's just not what people are talking about when they're talking about immersion. They are talking about the act of actually listening the GM's words, imagining yourself in the situation as your character, deciding on your actions as though you were your character, speaking as your character during moments of actual role play, and so on.
The "100%" thing is basically a huge strawman argument.
Sure, but as stated, what you outlined is what many do with known storygames as well, most of the time. Now we're down to asking "what percentage makes it a story game". If being ooc is a crucial element to determining what is or is not a story game, and we know 99% in character is an RPG, and 1% ooc is a storygame, then what is the approximate percentage that is the flipping point between the two, or a reasonable range if precision cannot be had?
If we cannot even come up with some reasonable range, then it's possible the distinction isn't that meaningful to begin with. If it's so amorphous, so vague, so dependent on too many variables, and sometimes how things "feel", then you're probably focusing on the wrong thing.
Quote from: jhkim;624211OK, let me take a not-very-hypothetical example.
Suppose I'm playing Vampire: The Masquerade with some friends. It follows roughly the same external procedure as D&D.
Right, the "Storyteller System" is all about playing a game that mechanically is NO different from D&D, but doing it in a way to scratch the storytelling itch. It gives you zero narrative control mechanics, simply says "Here's how you can think about things from a Storytelling position".
In other words, if I wanted to toss out all the Dramatist stuff and just do sunglasses and katanas, I could, and according to Achili when he gets pissed that's what most people still do.
In other words it's not that Storyteller is a RPG because you roleplay 100% of the time.
Storyteller System is an RPG because it has 0% mechanics that prevent an IC POV.That's kinda what got Ron fired up to begin with, right? Rules not matching intent, coherence, System Matters, etc.
Quote from: jhkim;6242111) It's true that in the Dungeon World games I played, sometimes the rules forced me to make an out-of-character decision.
2) Despite this, I felt that the overall percentage of the players being in-character was roughly the same as traditional RPGs such as Pathfinder or Vampire: The Masquerade.
I would say that we should label games based on what typical play is like, not based on the theoretical ideal of what play by the rare case of an extreme simulationist who is trying for 100% in-character play.
If a typical Pathfinder game has, say, 50% pure in-character play - and a typical Dungeon World game has, say, 50% pure in-character play, then these two should have the same label.
Personally I think there is a big difference between these two. Why? Maybe I don't like AC, HP, Classes, Levels, Feats, and I think PF, like all D&D is a piss-poor Laws of Physics engine that abstracts way too much. Ok, but when I sit down to play it, nothing in there is non-roleplaying.
Percentages to follow just an example...In other words when I sit down for a session of Pathfinder and I end up doing 50% roleplaying, the non 50% roleplaying was my choice and had nothing to do with the rules.
When I sit down for a session of Dungeon World and I end up doing 50% roleplaying, a large amount of the non-roleplaying was not my choice and had everything to do with specific metagame mechanics.
So, if my Standard Operating Procedure for roleplaying is 50% table talking and 50% roleplaying, then when I play PF the end result is...
50% tabletalking, 50% roleplaying IC.
When I play DW, it's gonna end up 50% tabletalking (because I always do that), 25% OOC rules interaction (because DW forces you OOC at times) and 25% roleplaying.
I'd call that a fairly different game. Now how different? Well that's the rub, isn't it.
Now we get down to definitions. As I believe it was Lynn had mentioned over on his Blog, from a macro level we define things by what they are. At a micro level we label things just as much if not more by what they are not. Describing a Tanuki, I can use the term Raccoon Dog because to compare it against every other animal out there, Raccoon Dog gets the job done. However, if I want to get any closer, the term Raccoon Dog is useless because the Tanuki is neither a Raccoon or a Dog.
So now my question
You admit there are mechanics in DW that force you out of IC POV (thanks, btw, that was refreshing to hear). What percentage of mechanics that force you out of IC POV must a game have before you...
a.) Would consider a label like Narrative RPG, Story RPG, Wargame RPG, Tactical RPG whatever?
b.) Would consider saying "This is not an RPG?"
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624149Correct. And, calling a dog a duck doesn't make it so. It just makes you wrong.
But saying dogs and ducks both contain blood would be true. They have commonalities. Saying that dogs and ducks are black would be true of some dogs and ducks but not true of all dogs and ducks. "Black" is a thing they all have some capacity to be but not all of them do.
A movie is not a book is not a tabletop RPG is not a videogame is not a poem. But you can find stories in all of those things.
But not all movies tell stories. Koyaanisqatsi doesn't.
Not all books tell stories. The phone book doesn't.
Not all videogames tell stories. Tetris doesn't.
Not all poems tell stories. Many love poems don't evoke any particular narrative and instead just exalt how lovely the beloved is.
Storytelling is not an integral feature of a medium, but more or less any medium can include storytelling.
Any medium capable of communicating information can tell a story. Correct or not correct?
Quote from: CRKrueger;624289When I sit down for a session of Dungeon World and I end up doing 50% roleplaying, a large amount of the non-roleplaying was not my choice and had everything to do with specific metagame mechanics.
Can you point me to a brief on some of those mechanics, so I can get a sense of the thing?
Quote from: Warthur;624292Any medium capable of communicating information can tell a story. Correct or not correct?
I can think of several mediums that can communicate information, but not at the level of complexity required to tell a story.
Quote from: jeff37923;624296I can think of several mediums that can communicate information, but not at the level of complexity required to tell a story.
Such as?
Quote from: Warthur;624297Such as?
Semaphore. Binary. Pheromones. Morse code.
You can say that they can communicate a story, but it would have to be a story so reduced in capability that it would be unrecognizable as such.
Quote from: Phillip;624295Can you point me to a brief on some of those mechanics, so I can get a sense of the thing?
Oy, search here posts by me concerning the Volley move. That's the move you use when you fire a bow. Analysis on other moves will come at some point maybe, but that's an example of the "force an ooc decision" me and John are referring to.
Okay, I found this in a thread on Dungeon World:
Quote from: CRKruegerFor example, the Volley action(shooting stuff) on a complications roll I can choose to do less damage, do full damage but have to move out of position into danger to do so, so the GM puts me where he wants me, or do full damage and reduce ammo. (Yes that's right, I keep firing arrows until I choose to run out or the GM hits me with that if I fail big).
I'm guessing that the perhaps
unrealistic degree of competence here might be the issue, but maybe I'm missing something more radical?
Quote from: jeff37923;624305Semaphore. Binary. Pheromones. Morse code.
You can say that they can communicate a story, but it would have to be a story so reduced in capability that it would be unrecognizable as such.
they just recorded the complete works of Shakespeare onto DNA using anino acid strings for each letter. so ... meh.
You can send an entire story in binary or semaphone, sure you don't use it as a medium for interactive storytelling but you can use it as way to record and store data , must work cos my computer can do it.....
Been an interesting thread and I think there hasn't been as much vitriol as you might expect coming from that initial OP.
No one is changing their mind any time soon though so are we aiming for another 2000 post thread ?
I think there are a bunch of things we can all agree on
i) There are various types of mechanics - some are gamist - roll to hit, make a skill check; some are roleplay - I check that the bridge takes my weight and gingerly start to cross the chasm (roleplay goes all the way up to "greetings my lady I honour your father's memory by making you a gift of this orge's head") ; some are narative - I spend a hero point to find a guard's uniform that fits me in the locker. Some mechanics blend different types - I make a subculture skill check to see if I know a cop working the De Franco case.
ii) Most games are made up of a blend of these types of mechanics (and IMHO that was where GNS and Forge really screwed up because its the blend that works best not a mono-focus).
iii) Some people don't like certain types of mechanics.
There are some more controvertial ideas round RPGs specifically but on this site you would probably get close to 100% agreement
iv) A tabletop RPG needs a referee
v) An RPG needs to have you playing from the POV of a character (We can't agree on what % of the time that needs to be and would argue over multiple characters in play at once etc etc)
Everything elese we have to agree to disagree on I think.
i) Can you definitively demarcate and RPG with a few narative mechanics from a Story game with Roleplay focus? Or indeed a wargame with narative mechanics from one with a roleplay focus?
ii) Is there a benefit to such a demarcation?
iii) etc
iv) etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;624326stuff
That was a damn fine summary my man. Damn fine.
Quote from: soviet;624281Thanks. I absolutely accept that storygame RPGs are different from non storygame RPGs. It's a spectrum rather than an absolute, but I still think it's a useful label.
Change "storygame role playing games" which, really, is a silly appellation, to simply "storygames", and I agree.
Quote from: jibbajibba;624324they just recorded the complete works of Shakespeare onto DNA using anino acid strings for each letter.
Could you provide a link to the source of this?
Quote from: Phillip;624318Okay, I found this in a thread on Dungeon World:
I'm guessing that the perhaps unrealistic degree of competence here might be the issue, but maybe I'm missing something more radical?
So when I use the Volley move there are a number of results depending on what I roll.
[Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]VolleyWhen you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex.
✴On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage.
✴On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
• You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
• You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
• You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one
[/Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]So if I get a 7-9, something other then a successful shot happens, I get a "success with complications". I then choose after the roll what the roll represents.
I can still hit, but to do so, I have to move "into danger" (more on in danger in a minute).
I can still hit, but the hit is going to be weak, but no complication other then less damage.
I still hit, but in order to do so, I had to fire off more then one arrow, so now I mark off my abstracted Ammo number by one.
These are decisions made either
1. In retrospect, I'm kind of rewinding and changing what happens
2. From the POV of conflict resolution, where we're contending to see whether what I wanted to have happen happens, or if the GM makes it happen some other way.
In either case, this is not a decision my character can make, it's OOC.
The rough equivalent of this in life would be if an Olympic Archer missed the bullseye, but then could decide to leave the shot the way it was, or actually hit the bullseye perfectly, but break a bowstring, which means going to the backup bow for the rest of the round of shooting. Olympic Archers cannot make this choice, and my character can't make the choices given by the Volley text.
So now on to "in danger"
[Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]On a 7–9, read “danger” broadly. It can be bad footing or ending in the path of a sword or maybe just giving up your sweet sniper nest to your enemies. Whatever it is, it’s impending and it’s always something that causes the GM to say “What do you do?” Quite often, the danger will be something that will then require you to dedicate yourself to avoiding it or force you to defy danger.
[/Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]In the GM section this is explained as an "in danger" result means now the GM gets to make a move, probably the move "Give the player a choice". Now the GM is going to say something like, you get off your shot and hit the orc, but now another orc sees you and charges, you can keep your elevated position in which case the orc may damage you when he charges, or you can abandon it, and drop down into the general melee (losing any mechanical protection from enemy archers his elevated position gave him). Now there's nothing OOC about this second choice, in fact, to it's credit, Dungeon World stresses that when coming up with choices, the GM use choices "rooted in the fiction".
However, and I don't mean to beat this to death, I'm choosing to be presented with a choice. I'm saying "Yeah I choose to hit for normal damage, give me the second complication choice." It's not my character doing this.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624344So when I use the Volley move there are a number of results depending on what I roll.
[Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]
Volley
When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex.
✴On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage.
✴On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
• You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
• You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
• You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one
[/Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]
Hang on. I haven't read or played Dungeon World, so I may be missing something, but how are these not in character decisions? Your archer is trying to shoot at the orc. You haven't got a very clear line of sight to him. You can either move closer in to improve your LOS, just take a punt and see what happens, or pepper the area with multiple arrows to improve your chances. Isn't that exactly the kind of decision a real life archer might face?
Quote from: soviet;624351Hang on. I haven't read or played Dungeon World, so I may be missing something, but how are these not in character decisions? Your archer is trying to shoot at the orc. You haven't got a very clear line of sight to him. You can either move closer in to improve your LOS, just take a punt and see what happens, or pepper the area with multiple arrows to improve your chances. Isn't that exactly the kind of decision a real life archer might face?
Yes, they are, but a real archer would make that decision first, and that would effect the probabilities of the shot. Task resolution. Also if I had to fire three times to actually hit, then it would take the amount of time it took to fire three arrows, or it would take the amount of time to maneuver into a better position.
Real Archer, presented with decision affecting difficulty, chooses the difficulty before the shot, and it may not take one action to resolve, but several.
DW Archer, shoots, then is presented with a decision determining how he retroactively is going to surpass the difficulty, somehow able to get more movement or more attacks out of a span of time if necessary. Conflict Resolution, except I'm not setting the stakes and outcomes first, I'm doing them second, after I roll. The OOC negotiation is still taking place, it's just less freeform and subject to mechanics.
As presented in DW, this is not an IC choice.
Remember, the goal of the XWorld system is genre emulation. The whole purpose of the playbooks is to constrain choice so as to make meaningful decisions that end up feeling like proper emulation of the genre, whether that genre is Post-Apocalyptic adventure, or Dungeon Crawling. However, the genre emulation rules function as a layer between the setting and the character, it's a type of 4th wall middleware, self-aware of the genre it's emulating, to go back to the discussion Tristam and I were having.
QuoteThese are decisions made either
1. In retrospect, I'm kind of rewinding and changing what happens
2. From the POV of conflict resolution, where we're contending to see whether what I wanted to have happen happens, or if the GM makes it happen some other way.
In either case, this is not a decision my character can make, it's OOC.
It looks to me as if the decisions are entirely in character -- they're just not at the level of detail you want.
Lots of people found the abstraction of combat in the original D&D game unsatisfying, and produced more "realistic simulations." Then many people found those too lacking.
Eventually, we got things such as the Tri Tac hit locations charts and the Phoenix Command system. (Either might have more appeal with a computer doing the drudgery.)
This seems to me a very unhelpful basis for defining 'RPG'.
HQ: Archer Delta, status?
AD: No clean kill. Redeployment route to optimum position interdicted. Permission for rapid fire?
HQ: Archer Delta, negative; take the shot now.
The potential problem I see is that the particular situation might come up too often. That's a constraint on the game world, though, not on role-playing.
If there's not much more variety in the default, then I expect that many people will end up hacking it!
Quote from: Phillip;624356It looks to me as if the decisions are entirely in character -- they're just not at the level of detail you want.
Actually that's incorrect, it's got nothing to do with detail of the action, in fact there a lot more detail then just "roll to hit you need a 13. you hit, roll damage".
It's the fact that the possibilities are presented in a Conflict Resolution framework that does not reflect how I would be doing it IC. It has detail, it's just that the detail specifically moves away from the normal way such decisions would be made IC. Which, btw, is something I would expect from a game focused on specific metagame to reflect genre emulation.
It's not the lack of detail, I don't need Phoenix Command: The Archery Expansion. But Dungeon World specifically increases and adds detail, but detail in choosing complications (a form of setting stakes) and narrating the outcome.
It has much more detail than OD&D or BD&D when it comes to bow firing, but that detail has nothing to do with the IC process of firing a bow,
not as specifically presented.Quote from: Phillip;624356This seems to me a very unhelpful basis for defining 'RPG'.
If there is a core definition to be found in a RPG, whether or not I can engage the core resolution systems while IC or the systems force me OOC for some other purpose then roleplaying seems practically a required element of a definition, doesn't it?
What could you possibly base the proper use of the term roleplaying on other then the ability to actually roleplay?
Quote from: Phillip;624361HQ: Archer Delta, status?
AD: No clean kill. Redeployment route to optimum position interdicted. Permission for rapid fire?
HQ: Archer Delta, negative; take the shot now.
The potential problem I see is that the particular situation might come up too often. That's a constraint on the game world, though, not on role-playing.
If there's not much more variety in the default, then I expect that many people will end up hacking it!
And how many seconds did that take? In DW it takes no longer then just firing once. In DW it also plays out exactly like you just did, with a negotiation/narration going on between GM and PC.
Actually you're spot on about coming up too often and the playbook being too limited. That's a common complaint I've seen from people who otherwise like the game - after all the available moves are used once or twice, the game becomes less interesting, one quote was "the game practically runs itself after a while".
Quote from: CRKrueger;624363Actually that's incorrect, it's got nothing to do with detail of the action...
I regret that, based on the information provided so far, I cannot see that.
The matter puts me in mind of GDW's
En Garde!.
That did not stand out as so novel in 1975, when the whole RPG field was one experiment after another. In the decades since, however, it has become thoroughly normative to treat just about everything on a minute-by-minute (if not second-by-second) scale, with a rules set similar to that of a close-tactical wargame.
That does not strike me as inherently implied in the concept of "role-playing," any more than it is in the concept of "wargaming." It looks like a case of a narrow subset of the broader genre becoming identified with the whole -- as if
Rise and Decline of the Third Reich were considered illegitimate because it so little resembles
Sniper.
Quote from: Phillip;624367I regret that, based on the information provided so far, I cannot see that.
Hmm. Ok, what's the genre being emulated here? Old school Dungeon Crawling. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D1 the oldest probably.
People still play these games, there are people out there who are just fine with a "low-sim" environment. DW is not meant to emulate Harnmaster, Hackmaster, Rolemaster, GURPS, HERO, Chivalry and Sorcery or any FGU game.
It's emulating the genre of the old school games, so why would I be looking for Advanced Squad Leader level of rules? That does not compute.
However, even going back to the earliest games, there were certain things you could do in a round, however long that round was. You couldn't do one action in one round and 4 actions in the next without some significant, IC, reason (like a haste spell or something).
It's not that DW isn't Harnmaster 4 which is discordant, it's that they specifically increased (not decreased) the rules detail above an old Dungeon Crawler, and did it specifically to provide for a measure of narrative control of the fiction (and yeah pretty sure it does say that in there, have to find it).
I understand some people have difficulty seeing the difference between a fuzzy, abstract IC rule and an OOC one, but I identified that difference WRT D&D4e within 10 minutes of cracking the cover, and have been keeping that position for 5 years now. I'm not mistaking one for the other.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624368It's emulating the genre of the old school games, so why would I be looking for Advanced Squad Leader level of rules?
That's not what I mean by level of detail in this context.
QuoteHowever, even going back to the earliest games, there were certain things you could do in a round, however long that round was. You couldn't do one action in one round and 4 actions in the next without some significant, IC, reason (like a haste spell or something).
That is a different level of detail than has become fashionable. It is very far from a new thing in RPGs, or the wargames from which they spun off.
Not exactly the same, but reflecting the broader point: In the original D&D game at a given real time, one player-character might have game-weekly moves (in town), another daily or so (in the wilderness), a third by the minute or ten minutes (in the dungeons).
I just wrote a new generator for GM's running Traveller today. What's going on with the starship you just picked up on scan....
Sample Output
Generation Genics Corp - Searching for Raw Materials
The Imperial Survey Service - Resupplying a Storage Facility
Cold Defenders Mercenary Vanguard - Conducting Repairs
Refuge News Service - Relaying
Roboworld Club - Landing
Bluestar Trade - Decelerating Towards You
19th High Mercenary Cohort - Looting a Captured Vessel
Underworld Guild - at Anchor
University of Bishel Foundation - Servicing another vessel
Mile News Service - Investigating
Great Dragons Mercenary Combat Command - Conducting Gunnery Practice
Uralta Corsairs - at Anchor
University of Chi'kara Foundation - Accelerating Towards a Starport
Local Marines - Docking
The Society of Spindrift - Trade Organization - Accelerating Towards You
Mines Fund - Decelerating Towards another Vessel
Splendid Swift Tigers Mercenary Division - Receiving tools
Imperial Diplomatic Corps - Drafting
The Imperial Space Patrol - Requesting Docking Permission
23rd Mercenary Battalion - Servicing another vessel
977 Mercenary Army - Docking
The Imperial Space Patrol - Requesting Docking Permission
Exetel Foundation - Trade Organization - Inspecting Personnel
The Foundation of Trade - Inspecting Planet
Quote from: jhkim;624211I would say yes, because role-playing games don't have to be 100% in-character. As I understand it, you already agree that most players are not 100% in-character anyway. In my experience,
1) It's true that in the Dungeon World games I played, sometimes the rules forced me to make an out-of-character decision.
2) Despite this, I felt that the overall percentage of the players being in-character was roughly the same as traditional RPGs such as Pathfinder or Vampire: The Masquerade.
I would say that we should label games based on what typical play is like, not based on the theoretical ideal of what play by the rare case of an extreme simulationist who is trying for 100% in-character play.
If a typical Pathfinder game has, say, 50% pure in-character play - and a typical Dungeon World game has, say, 50% pure in-character play, then these two should have the same label.
Only a certain percentage of playing time is going to be pure roleplaying, of course.
What I think the question is (and where I think Phillip is driving at with Phoenix Command?) is where the 'game' part of the RPG sits with respect to immersion - rules, dice rolls and so on.
From one standpoint certainly any time the player is checking charts or rolling dice, they're not 'in character' so from a certain perspective, its not role playing time. I would argue however that in a traditional RPG, rules are meant to support the roleplaying aspect - the rules provide a framework for character decisions (and appropriate rewards/penalties) so that a character will act in-character better.For instance characters will take cover more often if firearm damage is potentially lethal and bullets can't be dodged - a realistic behaviour - so the rules are helping players connect to their characters.
Any mechanics that match up with 'realism' help characters act believably.
Quote from: jeff37923;624342Could you provide a link to the source of this?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/24/tech-dna-data-encoding-shakespeare.html
Quote from: CRKrueger;624364And how many seconds did that take? In DW it takes no longer then just firing once. In DW it also plays out exactly like you just did, with a negotiation/narration going on between GM and PC.
Actually you're spot on about coming up too often and the playbook being too limited. That's a common complaint I've seen from people who otherwise like the game - after all the available moves are used once or twice, the game becomes less interesting, one quote was "the game practically runs itself after a while".
D&D abstracted 1 minute combat rounds in which you don't just trade blows and yout hits don't do actual physical damage rather you jocky for position taking opportinities where they present themselves in that one minute round. And you string those together slowly wearing away you opponent's luck, skill and stamina until you can line him up for the final coup de grace?
Quote from: jeff37923;624305Semaphore. Binary. Pheromones. Morse code.
You can say that they can communicate a story, but it would have to be a story so reduced in capability that it would be unrecognizable as such.
In the case of pheromones it would be a mild stretch to call that a medium of communication but, fair enough, you can't tell stories if you only communicate with pheromones. This is interesting but not germane to the discussion unless someone has actually written a fart-based RPG out there.
In the other mediums you cite literally the only problem is the speed at which communication takes place. Morse and semaphore are slow, but you can still communicate a story with them - it'd just take a long time. Binary can be fast - damn fast. In fact, on a certain level we're communicating in binary through these handy-dandy electronic decoder machines
right now.
I will refine my point to "any medium of communication sufficiently nuanced to convey language can be used to tell a story", but would also point out that a) language is critical to the tabletop RPG format and b) almost all communication mediums fall under that category aside from stuff like pheromones which are so limited that you couldn't run an RPG with them anyway.
Quote from: jibbajibba;624391D&D abstracted 1 minute combat rounds in which you don't just trade blows and yout hits don't do actual physical damage rather you jocky for position taking opportinities where they present themselves in that one minute round. And you string those together slowly wearing away you opponent's luck, skill and stamina until you can line him up for the final coup de grace?
Slow down there cool breeze, context. Before you seize this opportunity to deny distinction...
1. My actions in the D&D round don't go from 1 to 3 or 4 depending what option I choose to narrate how I "hit with complications".
2. So far the argument that Volley is IC choice is based on there being no difference between firing a bow, and contacting HQ and receiving options and orders to fire a bow, when there is no HQ and no IC communication. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;624520Slow down there cool breeze, context. Before you seize this opportunity to deny distinction...
1. My actions in the D&D round don't go from 1 to 3 or 4 depending what option I choose to narrate how I "hit with complications".
2. So far the argument that Volley is IC choice is based on there being no difference between firing a bow, and contacting HQ and receiving options and orders to fire a bow, when there is no HQ and no IC communication. :D
Not saying no distinction and I can see your argument but D&D has an abstracted combat system as well. Just differently abstracted.
As for number of actions ... hmm... well take fighters attacking creatures with less than 1HD (a rule I hate by the by) if a 10th level fighter fights orcs they fient and jockey for position etc etc ... if he fights goblins he mows through them like threshing wheat, getting twice the number of attacks per round) basically as a way to emulate heroic stories where the hero can mow through the ranks of oponets before toe to toeing it with the Evil Champion.
Take Bow combat... why can't my fighter just say well rather than 2 aimed shots this round I am going to fire a 12 arrow volley. If he could so the numbers of arrows I shot depended on a rules call would that be a problme or okay becuase it was an IC decision to shoot more arrows?
Quote from: jibbajibba;624603If he could so the numbers of arrows I shot depended on a rules call would that be a problme or okay becuase it was an IC decision to shoot more arrows?
Again, you're failing to see that there is no "problem" so not sure why you feel the need to defend against distinction. People seeking definitions aren't Pogromers. Asking for truth in advertising is not stitching a yellow star on storygame covers.
If it's an IC choice, the choice is IC isn't it?
If it's an OOC choice, the choice isn't IC is it?
Do you really need me to explain that definition for you?
So now it's just a matter of deciding if something should be called a RPG instead of a Storygame RPG or whatever if 75% of the choices made are actually OOC. Or is 51% IC choices, the simple majority of decisions enough to just say it's an RPG without any other descriptions?
Quote from: jibbajibba;624603Not saying no distinction and I can see your argument but D&D has an abstracted combat system as well. Just differently abstracted.
As for number of actions ... hmm... well take fighters attacking creatures with less than 1HD (a rule I hate by the by) if a 10th level fighter fights orcs they fient and jockey for position etc etc ... if he fights goblins he mows through them like threshing wheat, getting twice the number of attacks per round) basically as a way to emulate heroic stories where the hero can mow through the ranks of oponets before toe to toeing it with the Evil Champion.
Take Bow combat... why can't my fighter just say well rather than 2 aimed shots this round I am going to fire a 12 arrow volley. If he could so the numbers of arrows I shot depended on a rules call would that be a problme or okay becuase it was an IC decision to shoot more arrows?
(Is it time to do the difference between 'abstraction' and 'dissociation' again already?... )
I think you're arguing here that absence of mechanical consequences for a decision in-character here (lack of a Volley action in D&D) is equivalent to having to make an out-of-character decision to use an action (using Volley in Dungeon World) ?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624619(Is it time to do the difference between 'abstraction' and 'dissociation' again already?... )
Oh, you knew it was coming.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624619I think you're arguing here that absence of mechanical consequences for a decision in-character here (lack of a Volley action in D&D) is equivalent to having to make an out-of-character decision to use an action (using Volley in Dungeon World) ?
Pretty much yeah, but the argument really is "I don't want to apply a label or description that accurately describes something because then we're being mean and the hobby will end" or something close, I haven't been able to figure out exactly what it is, maybe just Chaotic alignment, Zen, whatever.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624619(Is it time to do the difference between 'abstraction' and 'dissociation' again already?... )
I think you're arguing here that absence of mechanical consequences for a decision in-character here (lack of a Volley action in D&D) is equivalent to having to make an out-of-character decision to use an action (using Volley in Dungeon World) ?
but from the description of the action in DW its not dissasociated is an abstract associated mechanic. You get a sucess and then you describe how that sucess works. The description is still associated, you don't trip the untripable ooze, or throw sand in the skeleton's non existant eyes.
The difference is in D&D before I roll a dice I state what my character is doing whereas in DW after I roll the dice I state what my character did to get that level of effect. So yes its different but in each case I am making a statement about the actions of my character and they remain associated to the physics of the game world.
Now I am not saying they are not different merely that the difference is to the layman a difference in the nuance of syntax. In D&D the DM would often after a great roll describe the effect of the blow including elements of the lead up that he character never mentioned, and in Savage Worlds you are actively encouraged after a massive success to describe it. DW sems far closer to this than you guys are givign it credit for.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624623Oh, you knew it was coming.
Pretty much yeah, but the argument really is "I don't want to apply a label or description that accurately describes something because then we're being mean and the hobby will end" or something close, I haven't been able to figure out exactly what it is, maybe just Chaotic alignment, Zen, whatever.
I don't mind appling lables I just think that excluding swathes of games from the RPG hobby because they use slightly different mechanics to determine how much damage you did when your elf shot the goblin king is a bit daft.
So happy to say Dungeon World uses a number of narative mechanics. Less happy to say that because dungeon world uses a number of narative mechanics it is no longer an RPG and should be excluded from RPG forums and from RPG clubs, and carry a lable that says this is not a proper RPG etc etc
Jesus Christ.
We're not talking about rolling dice, hitting or missing, and then tarting it up to sound cool.
We're talking about rolling dice to hit or miss, then if we miss by not that much, then we can determine how I actually hit despite not hitting, by choosing to narrate what complication actually happened. It's negotiating stakes after the roll instead of before, baked into the moves themselves. That doesn't make it not an OOC narrative decision, it makes it a mandatory OOC narrative decision. You obviously are not going to believe such a thing can possibly exist if I say it.
Quote from: jhkim;624211It's true that in the Dungeon World games I played, sometimes the rules forced me to make an out-of-character decision.
Note John said the word forced.
Different time scales, present vs. past tense, IC vs. OOC, the two things are different on so many fundamental levels it's not funny. Yeah to someone who doesn't play much it doesn't seem like that fine a distinction, but it seemed to matter to the designers who specifically constructed that rule for a purpose, the purpose of giving players control over the fiction
as stated in the fucking book.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624605Again, you're failing to see that there is no "problem" so not sure why you feel the need to defend against distinction. People seeking definitions aren't Pogromers. Asking for truth in advertising is not stitching a yellow star on storygame covers.
If it's an IC choice, the choice is IC isn't it?
If it's an OOC choice, the choice isn't IC is it?
Do you really need me to explain that definition for you?
Hold on. I thought we were agreed that a potentially in-character choice is not necessarily made by in-character logic. i.e. If my character decides to sacrifice himself for another, it might be because it makes for a good story, or because I want to help out a newbie player, or because it's the best move for the team to achieve their goals.
In practice, I find that a large fraction of play time of many mechanically-traditional RPGs like Vampire: The Masquerade, Pathfinder, Paranoia, Ars Magica, and others isn't based on purely in-character logic. Players will chat out-of-character, not just about the snacks, but about how the game is going, what they should do next in the game, what's going on, what would be funny to do next, etc.
So, for example, suppose I'm part of a group who gets together to play Pathfinder. We occasionally go in-character, but most of the time we're just exploring dungeons and killing monsters and eating chips with no particular regard to character. I'll advise someone else to take a 5-foot step to get into flanking position, and no one will mistake this for in-character communication. The majority of our decisions in combat or other tactical situations aren't based on in-character logic, but game logic.
Now this same group plays Dungeon World. We do it in roughly the same style - exploring dungeons and killing monsters and eating chips. Sometimes the mechanics make us do an out-of-character choice - but most of those correspond to decisions we weren't making in-character anyway (like whether to take a 5-foot step, how to position for a Great Cleave, etc.).
To our group, it would be misleading advertising to say that Dungeon World is a totally different kind of game than Pathfinder - because to us the two play very similarly.
Quote from: jibbajibba;624641I don't mind appling lables I just think that excluding swathes of games from the RPG hobby because they use slightly different mechanics to determine how much damage you did when your elf shot the goblin king is a bit daft.
So happy to say Dungeon World uses a number of narative mechanics. Less happy to say that because dungeon world uses a number of narative mechanics it is no longer an RPG and should be excluded from RPG forums and from RPG clubs, and carry a lable that says this is not a proper RPG etc etc
Whether there is a distinction between styles, and whether we should judge people on their style, are separate questions. Its not logical to argue against believing the distinctions are there, just because you disapprove of judging others based off them.
Quote from: jibbajibba;624640but from the description of the action in DW its not dissasociated is an abstract associated mechanic. You get a sucess and then you describe how that sucess works. The description is still associated, you don't trip the untripable ooze, or throw sand in the skeleton's non existant eyes.
The difference is in D&D before I roll a dice I state what my character is doing whereas in DW after I roll the dice I state what my character did to get that level of effect.
So yes its different but in each case I am making a statement about the actions of my character and they remain associated to the physics of the game world.
Now I am not saying they are not different merely that the difference is to the layman a difference in the nuance of syntax. In D&D the DM would often after a great roll describe the effect of the blow including elements of the lead up that he character never mentioned, and in Savage Worlds you are actively encouraged after a massive success to describe it. DW sems far closer to this than you guys are givign it credit for.
A 'massive success' suggests the character is going to have more control over the situation (even in character) whereas DW adds narration for failures. If a target's defense is totally inadequate, its not really out of character for the PC to be able to pick whether they stab them through the heart or cut them in half, say.
In DW what you do is being determined by the die roll and there's a lot more 'lead up' hardcoded in. To the casual gamer these distinctions may not be very important, but giving them a game like that is I think limiting their ability to ever improve past a certain point.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624684
Whether there is a distinction between styles, and whether we should judge people on their style, are separate questions. Its not logical to argue against believing the distinctions are there, just because you disapprove of judging others based off them.
My point isn't about judgement though its just saying that there is no way to draw a line between a game with this many narative rules and a game with this many narative rules and say this is an RPG and this is a Story game because any such line is arbitary.
Quote
A 'massive success' suggests the character is going to have more control over the situation (even in character) whereas DW adds narration for failures. If a target's defense is totally inadequate, its not really out of character for the PC to be able to pick whether they stab them through the heart or cut them in half, say.
In DW what you do is being determined by the die roll and there's a lot more 'lead up' hardcoded in. To the casual gamer these distinctions may not be very important, but giving them a game like that is I think limiting their ability to ever improve past a certain point.
Not sure what you mean improve beyond a certain point? You saying that DW can't produce great role players because the rules limit their in character actions? or are you saying the PC can't improve past a certain point.
I suspect its the former which is of course rubbish :) since any good game as we have already said involves a mimimal amount of dice rolling and the majority of the roleplay bit is when the dice are firmly tucked away in their box where they belong. Now to me that usually makes up 80%-90% of play so I suspect that DW would play pretty much the same as D&D...
Quote from: jibbajibba;624707My point isn't about judgement though its just saying that there is no way to draw a line between a game with this many narative rules and a game with this many narative rules and say this is an RPG and this is a Story game because any such line is arbitary.
1.) It's a judgement call...
2.) That I don't really care about making, because it doesn't interest me.
3.) Gun to my head:
Nearly all RPG mechanics, virtually no narrative = RPG.
Some narrative mechanics = Narrative RPG (i.e. hybrid)
Mostly narrative mechanics = Storygame.
Other people draw the line in different places.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;6247121.) It's a judgement call...
2.) That I don't really care about making, because it doesn't interest me.
3.) Gun to my head:
Nearly all RPG mechanics, virtually no narrative = RPG.
Some narrative mechanics = Narrative RPG (i.e. hybrid)
Mostly narrative mechanics = Storygame.
Other people draw the line in different places.
sorry by judgement I meant in the contect BSJ used it which was to judge someone on their style of play rather than to make a judgment about the cateogry of a game.
I would agree with your split by the way I just thing that 90% of games fall into hybrid so dividing stuff up is a moot exercise.
Quote from: jibbajibba;624714sorry by judgement I meant in the contect BSJ used it which was to judge someone on their style of play rather than to make a judgment about the cateogry of a game.
I would agree with your split by the way I just thing that 90% of games fall into hybrid so dividing stuff up is a moot exercise.
I would classify them all as RPGs, with the differences being game mechanic vs. story. E.G., a story game is still an RPG.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624182Let's look at the smallest possible definition for a second, just define the verb. (...)
Roleplaying = playing a role, ie. pretending you are someone who is not you.
(...)
***You cannot roleplay from an OOC POV. Period.Full.Stop.
Is an actor playing a role? In a movie (short bits after another), or on a stage (a full evening)? Or even just as a puppeteer, pulling strings and talking in funny voices?
They try to get to the heart of the role they have to play, but at the same time they juggle stage directions, turn their heads and bodies where the audience/camera can see them, and are aware of their surroundings.
The definition of roleplaying is not "immersion". Immersion is immersion, and that's great, but since the dawn of our hobby there have been players who saw their characters as pawns.
"My guy does this and that...."
Also, let's see what Ken St Andre has to say about Storytelling:
Quoteobskures.de: Some people claim you said in 1970s about Dungeons & Dragons: "What a GREAT idea, and what a LOUSY execution!". What did you mean and what do you think about the game and whole hobby (industry) now?
Ken St Andre: Yes, I really said that back then, and I have repeated it many times since then. I now realize that Dungeons & Dragons evolved from Miniatures play, and makes perfect sense when thought of as a kind of variant of tactical miniature gaming. Tunnels and Trolls did not evolve from that. It came from by desire to play through heroic fantasy adventures in a storytelling fashion. I still think T & T is more about storytelling and less about tactical wargaming.
(Emphasis mine.) From a very recent interview on the German blog Obskures (http://obskures.de/2013/deluxe-tunnels-trolls-an-interview-with-ken-st-andre/).
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624712Nearly all RPG mechanics, virtually no narrative = RPG.
Some narrative mechanics = Narrative RPG (i.e. hybrid)
Mostly narrative mechanics = Storygame.
Other people draw the line in different places.
I'd agree that it's a judgment call about where to draw the line. The main issue that I have is prior usage.
There are tons of RPGs with wargame mechanics - often very involved ones drawn directly from wargames. However, only very few games are called hybrid wargame RPGs. For example, the original GURPS had combat mechanics often identical to the wargame Man To Man. However, we don't call it a hybrid wargame RPG - we just call it an RPG. Games called RPG hybrids are more like Steve Jackson's Melee, or Phoenix Command.
Likewise, there have been plenty of RPGs with significant metagame mechanics prior to 2000. James Bond 007 has hero points that can change reality as well as alter rolls; Ars Magica has Whimsy Cards and rotating GM position; Prince Valiant has players collect points that let them become a GM; Theatrix has diceless resolution and plot points. None of these were called hybrids.
Here's what I see as existing usage:
1) Games that involve significant in-character decisions or acting are called RPGs with no qualifier. Having some wargame mechanics doesn't make it a hybrid because it is normal for RPGs to have different kinds of mechanics.
2) "Story Game" refers to a significant number of traditional RPGs that are used for story-focused (i.e. dramatist) play, as well as newer-style games with narrative mechanics. Usage differs on how broad the term goes. NOTE:
"RPG" and "Story Game" are overlapping - not opposed.3) A number of games with narrative mechanics do not call themselves RPGs, but use other labels: "story game" or "storytelling game" or just "game" are the most common. However, the line between these and those that call themselves "RPGs" is inconsistent.
The edge of "RPG" is fuzzy, but in the larger sense, I don't think this matters that much because "RPG" is also used much more broadly for World of Warcraft and "simming" (i.e. online interactive fiction writing). So I would say we just need to accept that the term "RPG" by itself no longer means a game like D&D.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624605Again, you're failing to see that there is no "problem" so not sure why you feel the need to defend against distinction. People seeking definitions aren't Pogromers. Asking for truth in advertising is not stitching a yellow star on storygame covers.
For the record dude I haven't read it, but my impression of it from afar is that it's definitely a storygame RPG. All I'm saying is that based on the information you've provided so far, it's not a storygame RPG that continually forces people to make OOC decisions.
Quote from: jhkim;624664Hold on. I thought we were agreed that a potentially in-character choice is not necessarily made by in-character logic.
Right, potentially in-character. However, if I don't actually decide based on IC criteria, then the actual choice I did make is not IC, even though it may look that way and only I know the difference.
You can always choose not to roleplay, the rules can never force that upon you. However the rules can force you not to roleplay by removing IC choice and requiring OOC viewpoints.
Quote from: JohnKimTo our group, it would be misleading advertising to say that Dungeon World is a totally different kind of game than Pathfinder - because to us the two play very similarly.
Extreme example. I can own a Rifle and never kill anyone with it, the same way I can own a nerf football and never kill anyone with it. The actual use does not change definition. A rifle remains a lethal weapon, a nerf football does not.
If you choose not to roleplay much when you play Pathfinder, then yeah, it's not going to look much different from being prevented from Roleplaying by Dungeon World. If, however, I do roleplay a lot when playing Runequest, then actively being prevented from Roleplaying by DW mechanics, isn't just functionally different, it's fundamentally different.
@Dirk
Acting is an external performance art, it's not playing a role it's making someone think you are that role. Completely different. Various schools of acting based on Stanislavski's method and evolving from there incorporate immersion to different degrees, but very few actors go Full.Day-Lewis.
Roleplaying is an internal mental viewpoint. Whether a choice comes from IC or not is up to me. All the rules can do is allow me to Roleplay if I choose to, or prevent me from Roleplaying if I want to.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624814Extreme example. I can own a Rifle and never kill anyone with it, the same way I can own a nerf football and never kill anyone with it. The actual use does not change definition. A rifle remains a lethal weapon, a nerf football does not.
If you choose not to roleplay much when you play Pathfinder, then yeah, it's not going to look much different from being prevented from Roleplaying by Dungeon World. If, however, I do roleplay a lot when playing Runequest, then actively being prevented from Roleplaying by DW mechanics, isn't just functionally different, it's fundamentally different.
I disagree that my Pathfinder group example is extreme in the slightest. In fact, I think what I described is absolutely middle-of-the-road for Pathfinder play, and Pathfinder is probably the most popular tabletop RPG there is currently. There is role-playing especially in dialogue scenes, but decisions about what square to move to, or what spell to cast, or which attack sequence to use are not based on in-character logic.
I think your heavy-roleplaying Runequest is more of an edge-case example. I'm quite fond of RQ myself, but it isn't the norm for most RPG play.
Quote from: jibbajibba;624707Not sure what you mean improve beyond a certain point? You saying that DW can't produce great role players because the rules limit their in character actions?
Basically. I'm not precisely talking about just 'roleplaying' though. I'm meaning the level past that, where there's some degree of connection between the character and the player so the player can feel what the character feels/ is the character in a sense. Not just speaking in a funny voice. And not necessarily a level I have to any great extent here either - I can't hold a candle to, say John Morrow or Mary Kuhner - but something I think gamers should be aspiring to.
Quote from: jhkim;624803The edge of "RPG" is fuzzy, but in the larger sense, I don't think this matters that much because "RPG" is also used much more broadly for World of Warcraft and "simming" (i.e. online interactive fiction writing). So I would say we just need to accept that the term "RPG" by itself no longer means a game like D&D.
Well first of all, WoW isn't referred to as an RPG unless it's within the greater context of cRPG or MMO.
I ask you what the bestselling MMO is, you say WoW, I ask you what the bestselling RPG is you probably say D&D or Pathfinder (unless you don't play tabletop.)
As far as definition goes, here's how I see it.
The term automobile describes a car because it can move and it carries it's own engine.
Now the difference between a functional car in park and one without an engine is impossible to tell without inspection.
However, if I specifically constructed a car in all respects similar to others except for the fact that is did not and could not have an engine, would it still be an automobile? Basically, you guys are saying yes, I'm saying no.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624898Well first of all, WoW isn't referred to as an RPG unless it's within the greater context of cRPG or MMO.
I ask you what the bestselling MMO is, you say WoW, I ask you what the bestselling RPG is you probably say D&D or Pathfinder (unless you don't play tabletop.)
As far as definition goes, here's how I see it.
The term automobile describes a car because it can move and it carries it's own engine.
Now the difference between a functional car in park and one without an engine is impossible to tell without inspection.
However, if I specifically constructed a car in all respects similar to others except for the fact that is did not and could not have an engine, would it still be an automobile? Basically, you guys are saying yes, I'm saying no.
I think it's more like we're saying that for us the car drives perfectly well, it's just that the stereo doesn't always work.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624712Nearly all RPG mechanics, virtually no narrative = RPG.
Some narrative mechanics = Narrative RPG (i.e. hybrid)
Mostly narrative mechanics = Storygame.
Other people draw the line in different places.
Quote from: jhkim;624803I'd agree that it's a judgment call about where to draw the line. The main issue that I have is prior usage.
There are tons of RPGs with wargame mechanics - often very involved ones drawn directly from wargames. However, only very few games are called hybrid wargame RPGs.
Perhaps because wargames don't have a lot of fans claiming that wargames and RPG's are utterly identical. Nor did they have a personage of dubious sanity who created an incoherent theory of RPG classification and design, which (essentially) made the same claim, as well as many others, and which, despite being useless as a theory, nonetheless became the most prominent approach to RPG's during the last decade.
Context matters.
I'm sorry you, Sov, and others who like narrative mechanics got caught in the backlash. Blame Edwards for the whole mess. He's the arrogant twat who discredited something he wanted to advance.
Quote from: jhkim;624803Likewise, there have been plenty of RPGs with significant metagame mechanics prior to 2000.
Like I've said, several times, I play
Torg. I know whereof you speak.
Not all metagame mechanics are narrative mechanics. So metagame mechanics are irrelevant, unless they're specifically narrative. (And not, to cite a random example, for genre emulation.)
Quote from: jhkim;624803I don't think this matters that much
Like I said, I don't care about binning specific games. I do care about binning specific mechanics, and studying the medium.
Quote from: jhkim;624852I disagree that my Pathfinder group example is extreme in the slightest. In fact, I think what I described is absolutely middle-of-the-road for Pathfinder play, and Pathfinder is probably the most popular tabletop RPG there is currently. There is role-playing especially in dialogue scenes, but decisions about what square to move to, or what spell to cast, or which attack sequence to use are not based on in-character logic.
I think your heavy-roleplaying Runequest is more of an edge-case example. I'm quite fond of RQ myself, but it isn't the norm for most RPG play.
The rifle was the extreme example, not you.
However, now, you're edging into redefining nouns to make stuff fit the way you want it to. It doesn't matter if I tried to kill you if I fail? The end result is the same right?
You're saying it doesn't matter whether or not I have the ability to roleplay more then 50% because no one ever does. I hope you can see that's about as ludicrous a stance for a definition as exists.
Even if I bought into the "it doesn't matter if he shot at me, he missed" school of definitions, there's one thing you and Jibonster are overlooking.
With Pathfinder, I decide which 50% of the game I want to spend roleplaying in, with Dungeon World, the baked in rules of the game decide.
BTW, as I said before, these percentages are just examples. I would need to do a move by move analysis of DW to see, but at this point I'm beginning to think a 95% forced OOC/5% allowed IC would still be considered an RPG by some here for some reason having very little to do with the definitions of terms in a language. ;)
Quote from: soviet;624904I think it's more like we're saying that for us the car drives perfectly well, it's just that the stereo doesn't always work.
And that's because you're redefining the term "mobile" to mean something other then capability of movement. ;)
Take these examples...
- You're calling a game that forces you into third person camera view 50% of the time or more a First Person Shooter. Think that would go over well?
- You're calling a game that actually forces you into Real Time mode for 50% or more of the game a Turn-Based Strategy game. See that much?
- You'e calling a game that actively prevents roleplaying by forcing an OOC viewpoint for 50% or more of the game a roleplaying game.
- You're calling a woman who only cheats on you 50% of the time, faithful. Don't really see it.
Three of these most people would consider untenable positions, for some reason, one of these is somehow considered logical. :hmm:
In fact, not only is #3 above considered logical, but the definitions are moving to the point where apparently actually roleplaying more than 50% of the time when playing a roleplaying game is "heavy" and "atypical".
(http://mlkshk.com/r/5BJ)
We've always been at war with the English Language.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624936With Pathfinder, I decide which 50% of the game I want to spend roleplaying in, with Dungeon World, the baked in rules of the game decide.
BTW, as I said before, these percentages are just examples. I would need to do a move by move analysis of DW to see, but at this point I'm beginning to think a 95% forced OOC/5% allowed IC would still be considered an RPG by some here for some reason having very little to do with the definitions of terms in a language. ;)
Er, no. I'm fine with, say, Polaris and Fiasco being considered RPG hybrids at best. They don't call themselves RPGs within their texts. However, my experience of Dungeon World was that in practice, it had just about as much role-playing as my experience of Pathfinder.
Does this mean that there are zero differences between the two games? No.
However, if in common mode of play, there is the same amount of role-playing in each - then I don't think it makes sense to say that Dungeon World is a whole different type of activity than Pathfinder is.
Classifying games should be based on roughly how much roleplaying is involved
as it is typically played. Not how much roleplaying is theoretically possible.
Quote from: jhkim;624947Classifying games should be based on roughly how much roleplaying is involved as it is typically played. Not how much roleplaying is theoretically possible.
Which quite conveniently gives you the wiggle room you need to call anything an RPG, because under your logic we now freely ignore the actual text of the game, the only thing that can be confirmed, and instead use the Appeal to Majority Fallacy which of course cannot be confirmed.
Quote from: danbuter;621013A lot of this stuff on the internet really just stays on the internet. I've known a terrible forum troll who was actually a lot of fun and very easygoing at the game store. He just trolled for fun. It was what he did instead of watching TV. Posters and rpg companies who take these guys too seriously are just falling into the trap.
Should have just ended the thread at this post.
None of the other guys I play have even heard of RPGNet or the RPGsite, let alone follow the edition and playstyle wars played out on the forums. You can cheerfully play RPGs 5 days a week and remain completely oblivious to this toxic shit. Designers should ignore RPG forums.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624949Which quite conveniently gives you the wiggle room you need to call anything an RPG, because under your logic we now freely ignore the actual text of the game, the only thing that can be confirmed, and instead use the Appeal to Majority Fallacy which of course cannot be confirmed.
Sure, there's wiggle room because it's based on what the game is really like in play, but I'm not ignoring anything. The text definitely influences play - and the text should be read for how it shapes and directs play. In particular, a lot of popular games pre-2000 defined themselves around story and put story central to what the game is about - like Ars Magica, West End's Star Wars, most of White Wolf games, and numerous others. It seems like you're saying to ignore this text, and only consider the raw mechanics.
I'm not asking you to take my word for what typical play is, though. I would ask you - what do you think some of the more common modes of RPG play are like? For a typical a Pathfinder group, what do you think about how they would make combat decisions like what attack to take, where to 5-foot-step or move, etc.?
It doesn't seem like we're actually disagreeing that much, we're just putting different spins on similar experiences.
Quote from: jhkim;625003I'm not asking you to take my word for what typical play is, though. I would ask you - what do you think some of the more common modes of RPG play are like? For a typical a Pathfinder group, what do you think about how they would make combat decisions like what attack to take, where to 5-foot-step or move, etc.?
It doesn't seem like we're actually disagreeing that much, we're just putting different spins on similar experiences.
Answering your question with a question (not that it was directed to me, anyway) - what do you think distinguishes Pathfinder play from 4th Edition D&D play? Why have a majority of groups (by your estimation above) chosen PF over 4E, and would any of those factors also contribute to a rejection of Dungeon World?
I would have to rely on my knowledge of 3.5 and assume PF didn't radically change all the feats and combat mechanics, but...
How far I can move in combat...
How many times I can attack in a round...
Whether I can move past someone freely without them getting a chance to stop me...
All these mechanics and other mechanics like it are meant to represent choices and tactics that my character is concerned with.
Now I won't disagree with you that a lot of people play 3e more like a boardgame or wargame. However I think you're overlooking the very minute detail that the game is not forcing you to play it like a wargame, that is your choice, and YES having a choice and not having one kind of matters.
To answer BSJ's question, that is the difference between 3.x and 4e right there.
3e = tactical complexity that could be engaged with IC or OOC, in other words suspension of disbelief is not necessarily broken. IC = up to the player.
4e = tactical complexity that usually cannot be engaged with IC due to the dissociation of the rules, which since weren't even written with an eye to suspending disbelief in the first place, understandably led to all the cries of "not a rpg", "this is a boardgame" etc... OOC = forced onto the player.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;625028Answering your question with a question (not that it was directed to me, anyway) - what do you think distinguishes Pathfinder play from 4th Edition D&D play? Why have a majority of groups (by your estimation above) chosen PF over 4E, and would any of those factors also contribute to a rejection of Dungeon World?
There are innumerable differences that distinguish Pathfinder play from 4e play. I've only played each a handful of times, though, and I'm not connected into larger patterns of play - so I'm not prepared to say why most people do so. It's quite possible that the dissociated nature of non-magical powers in 4e is important, but I couldn't say for sure.
Quote from: CRKrueger;625045Now I won't disagree with you that a lot of people play 3e more like a boardgame or wargame. However I think you're overlooking the very minute detail that the game is not forcing you to play it like a wargame, that is your choice, and YES having a choice and not having one kind of matters.
To answer BSJ's question, that is the difference between 3.x and 4e right there.
OK, I don't see anything I disagree about this. This is obviously a difference that matters to a lot of players. I agree completely about that. Just because there is a difference, though, doesn't necessarily mean that either:
a) 4e is objectively bad, and the people who like it are mistaken or perhaps brain-damaged.
or
b) 4e is not a role-playing game.
I don't personally like 4e based on the few games I've played of it, but that doesn't mean that it is an insidious evil to be destroyed and it's fans attacked in an ideological war.
Quote from: jhkim;625159There are innumerable differences that distinguish Pathfinder play from 4e play. I've only played each a handful of times, though, and I'm not connected into larger patterns of play - so I'm not prepared to say why most people do so. It's quite possible that the dissociated nature of non-magical powers in 4e is important, but I couldn't say for sure.
Fair enough.
QuoteOK, I don't see anything I disagree about this. This is obviously a difference that matters to a lot of players. I agree completely about that. Just because there is a difference, though, doesn't necessarily mean that either:
a) 4e is objectively bad, and the people who like it are mistaken or perhaps brain-damaged.
or
b) 4e is not a role-playing game.
I don't personally like 4e based on the few games I've played of it, but that doesn't mean that it is an insidious evil to be destroyed and it's fans attacked in an ideological war.
This post gets touchie-feelier that I really want to go, but saying
your game sucks and saying
you suck aren't the same. I have friends IRL who play 4E (I remain hopeful that re-education is possible); one of them is quite irked that I like Rifts and nonetheless have the gall to rip on 4E. I can see how it could hurtful, but 'that game you like isn't an RPG in my opinion' isn't really an attack on
you its an attack on
your game.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;625326Fair enough.
This post gets touchie-feelier that I really want to go, but saying your game sucks and saying you suck aren't the same. I have friends IRL who play 4E (I remain hopeful that re-education is possible); one of them is quite irked that I like Rifts and nonetheless have the gall to rip on 4E. I can see how it could hurtful, but 'that game you like isn't an RPG in my opinion' isn't really an attack on you its an attack on your game.
You should just play what you like and not worry about it. I mean, if you are a guy who just thinks hats look good on men, and your pals refuse to wear hats, is it something you'll mention a lot and post about for years on end? No, of course not. At some point, it IS about attacking the person, because not liking a game just isn't a good justification for going on about it for years.
As much as I don't like 4E I still think its an rpg. It definitely has some board game elements and I do believe they were drawing on wow for a lot of their ideas, but it still is firmly rooted in the hobby as far as I am concerned (though I share CRK's irritation with some of its out of character mechanics----currently involved in a flamewar about come and get it actually!).
Quote from: jhkim;625159b) 4e is not a role-playing game.
Pretty sure I'm on record about 50 times on this site saying 4e is a Tactical RPG.
Quote from: jhkim;625159I don't personally like 4e based on the few games I've played of it, but that doesn't mean that it is an insidious evil to be destroyed and it's fans attacked in an ideological war.
Well, like the narrativists, the 4vengers really started that ideological war, and got plenty of help from WotC themselves.
Quote from: CRKrueger;625364Pretty sure I'm on record about 50 times on this site saying 4e is a Tactical RPG.
Well, like the narrativists, the 4vengers really started that ideological war, and got plenty of help from WotC themselves.
I agree 4e is designed as a tactical wargame. Looks like it to me anyway.
However, I ran a campaign with 4e for two years, and it was definately an rpg.
Quote from: Warthur;623183Hey, Anon Adderlan: I went back and reread the Brain Damage thread at the Forge, the one where John Wick and others tackled Ron about it.
You are correct that not everyone at the Forge went along with Ron.
You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him. Many enthusiastically defended the concept (though admittedly a lot of that defence involved pretending Ron didn't quite say what he actually said). In fact, it's ironic that you brought up John Wick in the discussion because in John's last post on that thread, he specifically takes time out to bemoan the fact that the Forge had become so "cultish" - his word, not mine - that a sizable chunk of the user base would actually defend Ron on this point.
Yeah, its total revisionist history to suggest that the majority of the Forge didn't get onto the Brain Damage bandwagon. Wick's comment was dead on, and he was unusual BECAUSE he openly condemned Edwards' statement. Anyone who was actually there (and isn't intentionally lying) would remember how Forge Swine were figuratively stumbling over themselves in the rush to agree with Edwards and thank him profusely for explaining to them how they're like fucked-up child-abuse-victims.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Mistwell;623203RPGPundit already declared his victory over Storygames. Why are you people talking about something already dead?
I declared victory over the Forge, which has indeed ceased to be. Storygames continue to be made, of course, however reduced their mainstream influence might be in the advent of 4e's disastrous collapse and the OSR's rise.
RPGPundit
Quote from: WarthurYou are correct that not everyone at the Forge went along with Ron.
You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him. Many enthusiastically defended the concept (though admittedly a lot of that defence involved pretending Ron didn't quite say what he actually said). In fact, it's ironic that you brought up John Wick in the discussion because in John's last post on that thread, he specifically takes time out to bemoan the fact that the Forge had become so "cultish" - his word, not mine - that a sizable chunk of the user base would actually defend Ron on this point.
Quote from: RPGPundit;625577Yeah, its total revisionist history to suggest that the majority of the Forge didn't get onto the Brain Damage bandwagon. Wick's comment was dead on, and he was unusual BECAUSE he openly condemned Edwards' statement. Anyone who was actually there (and isn't intentionally lying) would remember how Forge Swine were figuratively stumbling over themselves in the rush to agree with Edwards and thank him profusely for explaining to them how they're like fucked-up child-abuse-victims.
I note that the shift from Warthur's "many people defended Ron (often by denying what he said)" to Pundit's "the majority enthusiastically agreed with him". I was going to try to dispute the "majority" part - but really I don't know.
In any case, looking back over those threads, it's pointless. There were indeed many people who stepped up to defend him, and that was just plain stupid regardless of whether they were the majority or not. I'm not going to defend that.
I do think that things have improved within the story games community since 2006. This is actually quite visible in the Story Games thread on the subject - which was resurrected in 2012.
Quote from: CRKrueger;625364Well, like the narrativists, the 4vengers really started that ideological war, and got plenty of help from WotC themselves.
I'm prepared to grant this. I've certainly had plenty of criticism for narrativists.
However, "he started it" isn't a good excuse for bad behavior, even on the playground.
Quote from: CRKrueger;625364Pretty sure I'm on record about 50 times on this site saying 4e is a Tactical RPG.
You know, I'd disagree with that.
A tactical RPG IMO should have some simulation value- and no version of D&D does. I' think a better label would be Boardgame RPG.
But whatever one calls it, it's only that when the rules are actually in use. One must be careful to not carry the description of the combat rules over into the rest of the campaign where they do not apply.
Quote from: Mistwell;623508I might believe that. Or I might just love tweaking Pundit. I might even like hearing him scream from all the way down there in South America, trying to shove his fist through the screen to choke me out.
I really don't freak out that much when someone's obviously trolling.
RPGPundit
You know, this has been a
lot less mean spirited than I thought it would be. It's no longer about Monte Cook's version of Wil Wheaton's law, but hell, I've been inspired, and will try and take it to heart.
Quote from: jedimastert;623156"All that is the foundation for my point: that the routine human capacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "storytelling role-playing" as promulgated through many role-playing games of a specific type. This type is only one game in terms of procedures, but it's represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years, peaking about ten years ago. Think of it as a "way" to role-play rather than any single title."
-Ron Edwards
I especially like this one because it's essentially Ron Edwards complaining about RPGs which claim to be Storygames :P
As for that citation... (http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/1300#Comment_1300)
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI do not, and have never, advocated any One True Way of role-playing.
Levi, I have no idea where you have acquired this judgment of my writings and postings. I am the person who did not originate, but has introduced and supported the entire idea of valid different ways to play to the role-playing community.
That's what Creative Agenda is about. That's what the Big Model is about. That's what Forge-supported design is about - writing your game, publishing it, and if you'd like, profiting from it. Not someone else's.
One more time: associating me with the concept of "One True Way" is in error. One more time: my track record in this regard exceeds anyone's currently active in role-playing.
Oh, and how is Sorcerer a Storygame again? :)
Quote from: Warthur;623183You are not correct in saying that they all condemned him.
I didn't say they all did, I said they
pretty much all did.
I confess, I was using hyperbolic language to try and fit in here. It was a dirty trick and I shouldn't have done it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623214Nah, doesn't happen, Brendan. Not on Enworld, not on awful purple, not on Storygames. People don't still use it, people don't aggressively push narrative terms and thought trying to expand them into roleplaying. Haven't you heard? It Does.Not.Happen. We've been told.
Well, here's the number of Google results for the search term "GNS"...
17,000 (indie-rpgs.com) (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aindie-rpgs.com+GNS)
16,700 (rpg.net) (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arpg.net+GNS)
3,680 (therpgsite.com) (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atherpgsite.com+GNS)
2,550 (story-games.com) (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Astory-games.com+GNS)
1,530 (enworld.org) (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aenworld.org+GNS)
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623233Apocalypse World is a wargame.
"Address yourself to the characters, not the players."
Yeah, sounds like a wargame to me (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes008.gif)
Quote from: jibbajibba;623423I like positive statement of intent. So " I pick a wine bottle off the table and use it like a club" or "I grab a little kid out of the crowd to use as a meat shield". Now I never thought that was narativist until Pundit pulled me up on it once on the forum and told me that is was because I was editing the game world and at his table I would have to say "is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a club?" etc .... for me that is less immersive rather than more but it might be a little pedantic to pull it up here.
Quote from: Warthur;623427Personally I'd say it wouldn't be narrative if it were something you could legitimately expect to find in the location in question without too much trouble. If you're in a restaurant which serves wine and it's the right time of the evening you can grab a wine bottle without that much effort at all; if you're in a crowd at a funfair there's going to be small children around. As a GM, I'd say that if I've told you that your character is in a bar, then you don't need to ask me whether there's glassware to hand because dude, it's a bar, you're not inventing new details because the details in question are implicit in the situation I've already described.
Oh no, not again.
Quote from: TristramEvans;623575I don't believe in hybrids. Its either a game that allows you to play in-character or not. All other distinctions are meaningless.
Sorry to hear that, as they're
all 'hybrids'.
Quote from: TristramEvans;623582"Simming"? Where are you getting that word from? That term is way to close to Simulationism, which is pretty much the opposite of storygaming.
Quote from: TristramEvans;623584I don't think thats a good term to transpose to referring to our hobby though, because of the aforementioned confusion with Simulationism, which is already a mess.
So we shouldn't discuss 'simming' here because its moniker is too close to a word we already have? The hell... Seriously, think about what you just said here.
Quote from: soviet;623664I'm not sure that pure immersion (or pure in-character POV) could necessarily be used as the platonic ideal of RPGs, that other games are measured against.
Well, for me it isn't, and I'm willing to sacrifice a little immersion for some communication and coherency.
Quote from: Phillip;623725If we were "pure role-players" . . . we'd be LARPers or something, I guess.
The thing people seem to overlook is that LARPs require every player to essentially run the system in their head. There are no GMs, and calling out damage or spending points from a skill pool is very much immersion breaking.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623841I don't think classifying these as two different hobbies is all that helpful
I agree. Look at board games and LARPs. The only thing that unifies board games is that they're played on a table, and the only thing that unifies LARPs is that they're played through live action. Beyond that, the spectrum of differences within each category are much broader than in Tabletop RPGs.
Yet they do alright, though I will admit that board game players seem to be willing to play a greater variety of games in their category than LARPers.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624344[Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]
Volley
When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex.
✴On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage.
✴On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
• You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
• You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
• You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one
[/Quoted FairUse of DungeonWorld]
Quote from: CRKrueger;624355Real Archer, presented with decision affecting difficulty, chooses the difficulty before the shot, and it may not take one action to resolve, but several.
DW Archer, shoots, then is presented with a decision determining how he retroactively is going to surpass the difficulty, somehow able to get more movement or more attacks out of a span of time if necessary.
I find it helpful to think of DW as essentially being a
diceless game, where dice rolls determine
opportunity as opposed to
success or
taking action (so your
intent is to shoot, and the result is what you must do to make it happen). Also all AW based games have a little loss of character control inherent in them (for example I don't get to choose what turns my Monsterheart character on), but I find that only enhances my immersion and allows the character to surprise me.
Regardless, I do understand where you're coming from.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625685Sorry to hear that, as they're all 'hybrids'.
And as such, the distinction has no practical value.
QuoteSo we shouldn't discuss 'simming' here because its moniker is too close to a word we already have? The hell... Seriously, think about what you just said here.
I have. Game theory has gone to shit since the emergence of online gaming culture as we have a morass of terms that are of absolutely no use in a conversation because they are now tied to a bunch of partisan emotional baggage. To port in a word from
another hobby that is basically a capsulized form of a word already used in GNS theory that is widely misunderstood by most people who use it doesn't help clarity or establishing communication, which was originally the point.
Quote from: RPGPundit;625644I really don't freak out that much when someone's obviously trolling.
RPGPundit
You sir, are no fun. :p
Quote from: jhkim;625597I do think that things have improved within the story games community since 2006. This is actually quite visible in the Story Games thread on the subject - which was resurrected in 2012.
That's probably true, you know, if only by virtue of Edwards no longer being the epicenter of the storygamer universe and everyone thinking the sun shines out of his every turd.
Of course, on the other hand its not like they really had anywhere to go but up, and its not like they've been in any great rush to face their other great Mt.Everest of group-identity shame: to finally admit that they're a different hobby from RPGs, and stop trying to parastically thrive off of RPGs' periphery.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;625578I declared victory over the Forge, which has indeed ceased to be. Storygames continue to be made, of course, however reduced their mainstream influence might be in the advent of 4e's disastrous collapse and the OSR's rise.
RPGPundit
Victory? Not yet. I'm getting new posts on G+ this last week linked back to the Forge Manifest of 2004. The battleground has simply shifted, and your foe has gone to a new territory.
There is actually a story games community with almost 800 members, and Ron Edwards just raised 25g on Kickstarter for a Sorceror Upgrade.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/105298743270221910970/stream/94381a17-2098-486e-96b6-acbb0e2dde5b?tab=mX
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/847190685/sorcerer-upgrade
Quote from: GameDaddy;625740Victory? Not yet. I'm getting new posts on G+ this last week linked back to the Forge Manifest of 2004. The battleground has simply shifted, and your foe has gone to a new territory.
There is actually a story games community with almost 800 members, and Ron Edwards just raised 25g on Kickstarter for a Sorceror Upgrade.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/105298743270221910970/stream/94381a17-2098-486e-96b6-acbb0e2dde5b?tab=mX
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/847190685/sorcerer-upgrade
I'm not saying these guys aren't still dangerous; but they've suffered the obvious death-blow of seeing every attempt to apply their ideas to the mainstream hobby end in unmitigated disaster. This has taken the wind out of their sails considerably. They'll continue to be of some influence in the hobby (however diminished) until the next big Swine Idea comes along, and then the remnants of the Theory-Swine/Storygamers will end up looking as healthy and influential as those last couple of White-Wolf Swine out there look today.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626107I'm not saying these guys aren't still dangerous; but they've suffered the obvious death-blow of seeing every attempt to apply their ideas to the mainstream hobby end in unmitigated disaster. This has taken the wind out of their sails considerably. They'll continue to be of some influence in the hobby (however diminished) until the next big Swine Idea comes along, and then the remnants of the Theory-Swine/Storygamers will end up looking as healthy and influential as those last couple of White-Wolf Swine out there look today.
Huh. As a regular story game player, it seems like my post-death-blow time is pretty great.
There are still lots of story games coming out, as well as a number of more mainstream games with narrative mechanics like Dresden Files, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Smallville, Leverage, Dungeon World, and others. The Kickstarter campaigns have often been incredibly successful (Fate Core, Dungeon World, Hillfolk). The story games "games-on-demand" event at the last Gen Con Indy was extremely well-attended, and there are lots of story games at other conventions and gatherings. Outside of this forum, no one classifies story games like Sorcerer or Apocalypse World as different than RPGs (i.e Every game store, web store, and convention I have been to).
If you consider D&D4 as part of the story games movement, then we suddenly were on top of the world in late 2008, and now are being cut down to size. Personally, I have essentially zero interest in D&D4, and when I ignore that, story games seem to be a slowly but steadily growing niche within the slowly but steadily shrinking niche of RPGs.
Quote from: RPGPundit;626107I'm not saying these guys aren't still dangerous; but they've suffered the obvious death-blow of seeing every attempt to apply their ideas to the mainstream hobby end in unmitigated disaster. This has taken the wind out of their sails considerably.
You're talking about 4e and WFRP3, right? If so I'm not sure I follow your logic. Neither of these games was written by known forge or SG posters, and neither of these games was significantly discussed or played by those posters either (4e saw some discussion and maybe a bit of play, but that's all pretty much died out now). I don't think the people you are talking about would recognise 4e or WFRP3 as 'their' games and I don't think the success or failure of these games in the marketplace has affected them one iota.
I think to be honest this whole taking over the marketplace thing is silly. It's in the nature of most storygames that they are a niche within a niche, and the very focus that makes them good at what they're trying to do also dooms them to a much smaller market share overall. I think most indie/storygame publishers know that going in, and aren't really trying to become the new D&D or whatever. Most SG people seem content to just sit in their little corner doing their own thing.
Quote from: soviet;626139You're talking about 4e and WFRP3, right? If so I'm not sure I follow your logic. Neither of these games was written by known forge or SG posters, and neither of these games was significantly discussed or played by those posters either (4e saw some discussion and maybe a bit of play, but that's all pretty much died out now). I don't think the people you are talking about would recognise 4e or WFRP3 as 'their' games and I don't think the success or failure of these games in the marketplace has affected them one iota.
I think to be honest this whole taking over the marketplace thing is silly. It's in the nature of most storygames that they are a niche within a niche, and the very focus that makes them good at what they're trying to do also dooms them to a much smaller market share overall. I think most indie/storygame publishers know that going in, and aren't really trying to become the new D&D or whatever. Most SG people seem content to just sit in their little corner doing their own thing.
I dont know how directly itmay have influenced D&D, but there are a lot of 4E advocates on En World who promote 4E as the narrative edition of D&D and express an interest in seing story mechanics in Next. Personally always found 4E to be the gamey edition, but aparently lots of people see it as having story game use.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;626141I dont know how directly itmay have influenced D&D, but there are a lot of 4E advocates on En World who promote 4E as the narrative edition of D&D and express an interest in seing story mechanics in Next. Personally always found 4E to be the gamey edition, but aparently lots of people see it as having story game use.
Hmm. I must say we found skill challenges fairly easy to get into because of our experience with similar (superior) mechanics in storygames, but I don't really see the storygame influence in 4e. For instance, 4e has pretty much nothing to say about character's personalities, goals, relationships, and flaws - all pretty key storygame characteristics IMO. I think there are narrative mechanics in 4e (refluffing powers, etc) but that's not the same as narrativist.
I like storygames and I like D&D but I think they need to stay separate.
Quote from: soviet;626143Hmm. I must say we found skill challenges fairly easy to get into because of our experience with similar (superior) mechanics in storygames, but I don't really see the storygame influence in 4e. For instance, 4e has pretty much nothing to say about character's personalities, goals, relationships, and flaws - all pretty key storygame characteristics IMO. I think there are narrative mechanics in 4e (refluffing powers, etc) but that's not the same as narrativist.
I like storygames and I like D&D but I think they need to stay separate.
I am not a 4E proponent, or a story game proponent, so not well equiped to make their argument. I certainly see 4E as more gamey, but I have seen many posters arguing that it wirks for narrative play (and they seem to know both 4E and storygames well). I dont know if they think it was consciously designed that way or just capable that kind as a story game. I fact most of the people i see defening 4E lately are doing so on story grounds. Could just be asmall group of vocal posters and possible I am misunderstanding their position.
0h Christ people he's not talking about D&D 4e!
http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/769747851/item/
Quote from: Mistwell;6261480h Christ people he's not talking about D&D 4e!
I roll to disbelieve!
Quote from: soviet;626139indie/storygame publishers know that going in, and aren't really trying to become the new D&D or whatever. Most SG people seem content to just sit in their little corner doing their own thing.
A lie they've been repeating since the very start. Meanwhile they subverted D&D, and now they're trying to subvert the OSR. That's not "staying in your little corner".
If your statement were true, the Storygaming hobby wouldn't be afraid to stop calling misrepresenting itself as RPGs, much less misrepresenting its fake-RPGs as OSR games and the like.
RPGPundit
Quote from: soviet;626143Hmm. I must say we found skill challenges fairly easy to get into because of our experience with similar (superior) mechanics in storygames, but I don't really see the storygame influence in 4e. For instance, 4e has pretty much nothing to say about character's personalities, goals, relationships, and flaws - all pretty key storygame characteristics IMO. I think there are narrative mechanics in 4e (refluffing powers, etc) but that's not the same as narrativist.
That's because 4e isn't narrativist. The influence was in the sense of Ron Edwards spending years claiming that D&D was "incoherent" because it tried to be more than just Gamist; and that all it was good for was to be a kind of tactical skirmish game, and then the morons at WoTC listening to his lies and thinking what a great idea it would be to make them truths.
Of course, its because they'd drunk the kool-aid: Edwards had promised that a game that tried to be JUST G, N, or S would be a much bigger success than a game that tried to be many things to many people and was full of what he saw as "incoherent".
This theory had already been proven wrong by the fact that no Forge game had made any really significant commercial success; but the Forge Swine were always be able to claim that this was because their games were edgy and hip and didn't care about profit, but that if a big game like D&D applied GNS theory on a massive scale it would be tremendous.
So WoTC did it; and it went just as I predicted (not that this makes me a genius, any idiot could see how obvious it is): by becoming 1/3rd the game it once was it lost 2/3rds of its customers.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626333Of course, its because they'd drunk the kool-aid: Edwards had promised that a game that tried to be JUST G, N, or S would be a much bigger success than a game that tried to be many things to many people and was full of what he saw as "incoherent".
This theory had already been proven wrong by the fact that no Forge game had made any really significant commercial success; but the Forge Swine were always be able to claim that this was because their games were edgy and hip and didn't care about profit, but that if a big game like D&D applied GNS theory on a massive scale it would be tremendous.
So WoTC did it; and it went just as I predicted (not that this makes me a genius, any idiot could see how obvious it is): by becoming 1/3rd the game it once was it lost 2/3rds of its customers.
I would agree that Edwards made this claim in his GNS essays, and I'd agree that it is wrong (although I don't think sales of self-produced games over a few years is proof). However,
1) I am doubtful that WotC's choice was based to any significant degree on listening to Ron Edwards.
2) If they did do so, then the blame for this is not on Edwards.
It is the god-given right of gamers to spout off ill-informed opinions about what RPGs should be like. Everyone does it - or at least a very large number do. I'll argue with them about it, but I don't think it is bad or unethical behavior. Ron Edwards is hardly uniquely culpable for spouting off like this. If WotC really did follow their 4E strategy because he said so, then they were fucking stupid and the blame is entirely on them, IMO.
By parallel, I might argue with Gleichman regularly - but if WotC were to publish a new D&D that followed along with his ideas of what RPGs should be, I wouldn't blame him. I would blame WotC.
Quote from: jhkim;626381By parallel, I might argue with Gleichman regularly - but if WotC were to publish a new D&D that followed along with his ideas of what RPGs should be, I wouldn't blame him. I would blame WotC.
HERO Games did that back in the 80s (not that I had anything to do with it mind).
And if the Forge did influence 4E, it sadly did so with the add of a preverse view of some my materials. No idea how true that concept is, but I recall Mearl being on record as stating that he believed in at least the core concepts behind GNS.
Quote from: gleichman;626386And if the Forge did influence 4E, it sadly did so with the add of a preverse view of some my materials. No idea how true that concept is, but I recall Mearl being on record as stating that he believed in at least the core concepts behind GNS.
One thing I will say about mearls though, early on he seemed to be the one person at wotc who understand where many of us who didn't like 4E were coming from. I don't know if he buys into, bought into or rejected GNS but when I have read interviews with him, it looks to me like he does know how to listen to criticism and I feel like he must sense that sort of over focused design just can't make a successful edition of D&D.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;626399...and I feel like he must sense that sort of over focused design just can't make a successful edition of D&D.
One of the interesting things to me is just how wrong people like you are when you say that 4E was 'over focused', and really just it's as foolish and bad of a error as that the Forge made in 'System Matters'. In fact, it's the same freakin' error.
Someday I hope people step back and actually look at what they're saying. But I doubt such self-awareness is possible.
Quote from: gleichman;626405One of the interesting things to me is just how wrong people like you are when you say that 4E was 'over focused', and really just it's as foolish and bad of a error as that the Forge made in 'System Matters'. In fact, it's the same freakin' error.
Someday I hope people step back and actually look at what they're saying. But I doubt such self-awareness is possible.
It must be torture being you.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;626416It must be torture being you.
Not at all, I enjoy it a great deal in fact.
Quote from: RPGPundit;626333Of course, its because they'd drunk the kool-aid: Edwards had promised that a game that tried to be JUST G, N, or S would be a much bigger success than a game that tried to be many things to many people and was full of what he saw as "incoherent".
My view the result are RPGs with a spectacularly narrow focus. So narrow that player quickly exhaust the possibilities and grow bored with the game. Which is the opposite of a general purpose "incoherent" RPG which try to emulate an entire genre or setting with its limitless possibilities.
The tragedy that the basic characteristics of an RPG naturally lend it itself to emulation due to the focus on individual characters. As a designer you have to put in a lot of effort to hobble that.
Quote from: estar;626462The tragedy that the basic characteristics of an RPG naturally lend it itself to emulation due to the focus on individual characters. As a designer you have to put in a lot of effort to hobble that.
My god do they try.
Quote from: CRKrueger;626466My god do they try.
I would go as far to say that some of the Forge RPGs read like some special adventure module rather than a full blown RPG as they are tied so solidly to a specific type of character or situation.
D&D 4e in some way read like an elaborate form of Metagaming's Melee. A wargame featureing individual characters and progression. But to be fair ultimately that is the result of presentation of the product line than the rules themselves.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625685As for that citation... (http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/1300#Comment_1300)
I see Ron claiming that he never partook of One True Wayism there, but the claim isn't backed up by stuff he said elsewhere. The whole Brain Damage thing seems to stem from his personal bugbear that there is only One True Way to accomplish something resembling satisfying storytelling in RPGs, and that's his Story Now deal, and anyone who tries to accomplish it with Story Before or Story After is literally fucked in the head.
Insisting on a narrow focus is the problem on both sides here.
The original D&D set made no mention of "role playing." Neither did Supplement I, II or III. It was not defined; people playing the game that actually
was described generally came to accept the term as descriptive.
The booklets made no attempt to define "the right way" to play: "The best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"
That view was echoed half a decade later in the 5th edition of
Tunnels & Trolls:
QuoteAlthough there are many "rules" in the book that follows, please remember this: they are largely intended as guidelines to save you the effort of re-creating everything yourself from scratch. If you find something you would like to change to make the game more to your liking, then go ahead and change it. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play, only suggestions.
The Supplements and magazine articles offered a smorgasbord of variants drawn from different campaigns. I would much rather see that continue indefinitely, than see one thoroughly incompatible "new edition" after another.
The original vision was somewhat obscured in the first edition of AD&D. That's when I recall encountering a new type of FRPer with a fetish for standardized rules sets: metaphorically, D&D as Contract Bridge. In the second edition, it was stated plainly (with considerable discussion of the different results that different approaches were likely to produce).
With 3E, there were certainly a lot of options. However, the "core rules" tightly integrated too much stuff for some tastes (including mine). Whatever happened to the simple framework?
Moreover, some of the new "defaults" seemed (to some people) to create at least as many problems as they solved. The original D&D rules were designed to suit a kind of game few people are playing today (or were even in the 1980s, for that matter). Sometimes, that means they are unsatisfying in different contexts. However, careless "fixes" can make matters worse!
D&D 4E was very far from careless in that regard. Trouble was, it fixed things many people didn't think needed fixing, in ways they found interfered with their ability to play the kind of game they liked, and presented a
thoroughly unfamiliar tightly integrated system laden with strange jargon.
If such a novel elaboration is an
option, alongside forms that have long been widely accepted, then I see no cause for complaint.
Not that
anything anyone else may do with the brand detracts one iota from my gang's enjoyment of our personal style of D&D. It would be nice, though, if D&D fans were not being so pitted against each other.
If Benoist (or anyone else) insists on a particular subset, then he and his associates can easily define it! That was not too hard for the organizers of a Gen Con tournament back in the day -- and they did
not need to make their choices "the right way to play" for all D&Ders in order to do it.
Quote from: jhkim;626381I would agree that Edwards made this claim in his GNS essays, and I'd agree that it is wrong (although I don't think sales of self-produced games over a few years is proof). However,
1) I am doubtful that WotC's choice was based to any significant degree on listening to Ron Edwards.
2) If they did do so, then the blame for this is not on Edwards.
It is the god-given right of gamers to spout off ill-informed opinions about what RPGs should be like. Everyone does it - or at least a very large number do. I'll argue with them about it, but I don't think it is bad or unethical behavior. Ron Edwards is hardly uniquely culpable for spouting off like this. If WotC really did follow their 4E strategy because he said so, then they were fucking stupid and the blame is entirely on them, IMO.
By parallel, I might argue with Gleichman regularly - but if WotC were to publish a new D&D that followed along with his ideas of what RPGs should be, I wouldn't blame him. I would blame WotC.
In answer to your points:
1) Yes, they most certainly were influenced heavily by Edwards' theory. There were several people involved in 4e who had bought into this whole idea of being all "(pseudo)-intellectual" about RPG-design. The idea of "theory" and that it was really serious and professional, almost scientific, business to design an RPG, that only really trained and studious people who understand "theory" can do well, had ENORMOUS appeal to them for obvious reasons.
and
2) If some guy is promoting a fake "miraculous therapy" for cancer that uses crystal healing energy or whatever, and talks about how western medicine is "incoherent", and a pair of parents switch their sick kid to it and the kid dies, then certainly, the parents have an important part of the blame. But so does the shyster who was selling a fraudulent product, convincing the ignorant that his product will fix everything and that its based on sound science.
Ron Edwards is that shyster, and he is directly responsible for the snakeoil he's peddled; that this doesn't absolve the 4e designers of their own blame is irrelevant.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;6270712) If some guy is promoting a fake "miraculous therapy" for cancer that uses crystal healing energy or whatever, and talks about how western medicine is "incoherent", and a pair of parents switch their sick kid to it and the kid dies, then certainly, the parents have an important part of the blame. But so does the shyster who was selling a fraudulent product, convincing the ignorant that his product will fix everything and that its based on sound science.
Ron Edwards is that shyster, and he is directly responsible for the snakeoil he's peddled; that this doesn't absolve the 4e designers of their own blame is irrelevant.
There are two problems I have with this analogy:
First, whatever else I might think of Ron, I think he genuinely believes his ideas about incoherence, GNS, and even the brain damage. He attempts to practice these with his own games like Spione and It Was A Mutual Decision. I think he is wrong about most of these, but I see no evidence that he secretly believes something else about games, and that incoherence and the rest is just a show. So I don't think being a fraudulent shyster fits - he drinks his own Kool-Aid.
More importantly, I don't think that opinions about RPGs are
anything like medical advice ethically. As I said, I think that gamers have a god-given right to spout off their opinions about RPGs, regardless of how wrong they are.
Incidentally, the latter is one reason why I like theRPGsite. One of the big problems I had with Ron was that as moderator on The Forge, he kept shutting down threads that weren't going the way he liked. So - being obnoxious and self-aggrandizing fits. But that doesn't make him responsible.
Grandiose and wrong claims are different than fraudulent claims. If a tarot reader lies and says that the last ten people who took his readings each made a million dollars when they really didn't, that is fraud. If a tarot reader says (and genuinely believes) that tarot readings are the key to unlocking one's future, that is wrong but not fraudulent.
A parallel that fits better is a business CEO who goes down to the latter type of true-believer tarot reader, based on the tarot reader's aggressive advertising. The tarot reader gives his best reading, and the CEO goes and creates a business plan based on it. There is no fraud here - just a stupid CEO who should have known better.
Quote from: jhkim;627128There are two problems I have with this analogy:
First, whatever else I might think of Ron, I think he genuinely believes his ideas about incoherence, GNS, and even the brain damage.
This doesn't make it better. That on the conscious level he believes his own bullshit, in the same sense that a lot of the people who think vaccinations cause autism believe in their own bullshit, doesn't mean much when he's got a very powerful vested interest in continuing to believ in said bullshit (namely, being the head of a "movement", gaining influence and prestige among the pseudo-intellectual nerds, getting to mock people who don't treat RPGs as "intellectually" as he does, making money from publishing and even public appearances, etc).
I suppose that it moves him that one step from the criminally fraudulent to the (willfully) criminally negligent, but I don't see that as a vast improvement.
QuoteMore importantly, I don't think that opinions about RPGs are anything like medical advice ethically. As I said, I think that gamers have a god-given right to spout off their opinions about RPGs, regardless of how wrong they are.
I agree; and its the job of people like me to show how wrong they are.
QuoteIncidentally, the latter is one reason why I like theRPGsite. One of the big problems I had with Ron was that as moderator on The Forge, he kept shutting down threads that weren't going the way he liked. So - being obnoxious and self-aggrandizing fits. But that doesn't make him responsible.
It does hint to me that he lacks the full conviction of his beliefs, enough that he feels the need to try to silence debate (which is something the Theory Swine have tried to do in most other forums they infiltrate as well). That would hint to me that he suspects his ideas are on very flimsy ground (well that, and feeling the need to latch onto and subvert the existing RPG hobby as a more plausible option for "success" than trying to strike out on the strength of one's own proposition).
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;627156I agree; and its the job of people like me to show how wrong they are.
And you failed when it mattered.
Assuming that Ron was really the cause behind 4E that is.
Quote from: RPGPundit;627156I suppose that it moves him that one step from the criminally fraudulent to the (willfully) criminally negligent, but I don't see that as a vast improvement.
Heh. Well, I didn't say it was a vast improvement. Again, I have argued against GNS and related ideas all the time.
Quote from: jhkimMore importantly, I don't think that opinions about RPGs are anything like medical advice ethically. As I said, I think that gamers have a god-given right to spout off their opinions about RPGs, regardless of how wrong they are.
Quote from: RPGPundit;627156I agree; and its the job of people like me to show how wrong they are.
And I have no problem with that. I completely agree with "GNS and incoherence and brain damage is totally wrong". My problem is when you go farther to the conspiracy stuff and blanket statements about story games and story gamers.
Quote from: jhkim;627128More importantly, I don't think that opinions about RPGs are anything like medical advice ethically. As I said, I think that gamers have a god-given right to spout off their opinions about RPGs, regardless of how wrong they are.
A good point. The Brain Damage stuff is ethnically nauseating not because Ron was saying mean things about people who like games he doesn't like, but because he was making a completely scientifically unsubstantiated allegation about physical damage to the brain and waving around his credentials as a biologist (and not one who specialises in neurology, to my knowledge) to back that up.
Quote from: Warthur;627196A good point. The Brain Damage stuff is ethnically nauseating not because Ron was saying mean things about people who like games he doesn't like, but because he was making a completely scientifically unsubstantiated allegation about physical damage to the brain and waving around his credentials as a biologist (and not one who specialises in neurology, to my knowledge) to back that up.
Both of those come under a gamer's god given right (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8) to their opinion...
The absolute worst thing about Brain Damage was the notion that games are harmful, when the hobby has been accused of exactly that by external detractors--this coming from a sub-group that evangelises about gaming theory leading to better games.
But we can see it as hyperbole. Whether or not it affected D&D 4e hardly seems to matter if that game is a failed experiment.
Quote from: 1989;621395Take your miniatures and shove them up your ass.
+1 :rotfl:
Quote from: Warthur;627196A good point. The Brain Damage stuff is ethnically nauseating not because Ron was saying mean things about people who like games he doesn't like, but because he was making a completely scientifically unsubstantiated allegation about physical damage to the brain and waving around his credentials as a biologist (and not one who specialises in neurology, to my knowledge) to back that up.
I see what you did there.
RPGPundit
Quote from: gleichman;627157And you failed when it mattered.
Assuming that Ron was really the cause behind 4E that is.
If someone is fundamentally unwilling to listen to reason, there's not much that can be done... except of course waiting for them to come crawling to your very doorstep asking you for help when the shit has hit the fan in precisely the way you predicted.
RPGPundit