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".



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.