Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Things which any experienced player or GM will take as self-evident will be great revelations to people who don't game.

Of course, if you're gaming all the time then you might be too busy to come up with a game theory or write an rpg.

Could you repeat this a bit louder for the chuckleheads in the back, please?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Things which any experienced player or GM will take as self-evident will be great revelations to people who don't game.

Of course, if you're gaming all the time then you might be too busy to come up with a game theory or write an rpg.

There are definitely inexperienced people who try to make RPGs.

Conversely, though, people's real experiences in play can be extremely different. There are people who play the same game, but they will say very different things about what works and what doesn't. i.e. One person says "If you play RPG X, then blah is self-evident." -- while another person will say "If you play RPG X, then blah doesn't work at all." They both really do play the game, but they play it with different styles and assumptions.

Quote from: ffilz;1053680Because there are folks who are desperate to be popular who can't manage to actually get together with folks who play. So they try an design a game in a vacuum thinking they will create the next great thing and become instantly popular... Ok, maybe not quite so pathetic as that, but I think armchair designers are extraordinarily motivated by what they see wrong in whatever game play they have done.

Frank

I think it's probably simpler than that.

I suspect there aren't many people who design games who don't actually game at all - but probably there are a lot who don't actually game that much.  Certainly not enough for what they're trying to do.

Too design something well - you need a lot of input.  To play test a game it's not sufficient to play one campaign with a group of buddies you've been gaming with for twenties years and who you share a lot of unstated assumptions with.

Quote from: Panjumanju;1053431I find people in the hobby use the word "storygame" a lot like some people use the word "hipster". It's simultaneously a vague, sometimes contradictory, derogatory statement, and held up by some as a banner of newness, media-challenging, and progressive notions. It serves a social purpose and muddies, rather than clarifies, classification.

//Panjumanju

Exactly. That's what Tweet is doing here. He's not being accurate.

Quote from: ffilz;1053491Could you link to the specific definitions from there that you are using? I've participated on both the Forge and Story Games forums and have never felt like they had definitions that said an RPG is that, but our (story) games are this.

Read Ron Edwards' essays on narrativism.

Quote from: ffilz;1053492Does a narrow focus of the game make it a Story Game rather than an RPG?

No. In theory, you could set an RPG in a single town in 1965 North Carolina. It would be unusual but you could. It would be an RPG so long as the emphasis was on playing and immersing in living characters in that living world.

Likewise, a storygame could be set in a vast world, but that world would only be a backdrop for the creating of stories.

QuoteIs EPT less of an RPG than D&D because it has a specific setting?

Obviously not.

An actual game design discussion! How I've missed these.

Quote from: S'mon;1053577Sometimes having mechanics for something gets in the way of that thing.

Absolutely!

For example, Blades in the Dark makes planning and resource management impossible to even engage with because of how it abstracts them away with mechanics. So if that's the kind of fun you're after you're screwed.

Quote from: estar;1053587I stated my opinion of what each category meant, why the boundaries are blurred and that the definition is just a center.

You decided to encumber 'storygame' to mean games with limited scope instead of just talking about the concept of limited scope and how that affects games. What exactly does that get us?

Quote from: estar;1053587And why the exercise is worth

On the contrary, you demonstrated why it isn't.

Quote from: estar;1053587Books on chess, chess strategy, and running chess tournament is have little use for running a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

Yes. And?

Quote from: estar;1053587My contention that works on running a campaign where on collaboratively builds narrative or story are not as useful to running a campaign where players interact with a setting as their character with their actions with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

It's the difference between declaring the truth and discovering it. It's the most viable foundation for defining 'storygame' I've found, yet I still find it far more productive to discuss those concepts directly rather than muck about with the definition of 'storygame' yet again.

Quote from: estar;1053587You mean Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Dragonborn, Human, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Half-Elf, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Warlock, and Sorcerer versus Human, Sorcerer?

Again, you're taking things way too literally, and the limits you suggest do not exist.

Quote from: estar;1053587So the core rules support my choice for my character to become a pirate on the high seas and ignore all the demon summoning which is clearly a loser's game considering the cost to one's humanity?

Depends on exactly how your chosen game supports that choice. Because 7th Sea 2e was specifically designed for it, yet many feel it fails to meet that need.

Quote from: estar;1053587Of course the fore mention system of defining character through Stamina, Will, and Lore coupled with the dice pool system could be adapted to anything. But wait I could do that with six ability score and a d20 roll high system versus a target number as well?

The d20 glut demonstrated that adapting such a ruleset to everything was far more difficult than initially assumed.

Quote from: estar;1053587In tabletop roleplaying game the mechanics supposed to reflect the reality of the setting or genre the game targets. Since we are talking about entire worlds the designer has to pick and choose what elements to detail so there is that. One may opt to have detailed mechanics for social interaciton and abstract combat while another opts for the reverse. In either case it the mechanics need to reflect some elements of the genre or setting. With genre the setting is still there but in far more generic sense. Which make it a genre in the first place.

No argument there.

Quote from: estar;1053587You mean like rolling a dice pool and creatively interpreting what the degree of success means?

To a great extent, yes!

To bring it back to OTE, the resolution system tells you if something good or bad happens, but doesn't help you decide what that may be. In other words, it demands creativity without inspiring it. So if the situation itself isn't providing that inspiration you're being pulled out of the moment to try and figure out what makes sense just because the dice told you to.

Quote from: estar;1053587My criticism of Sorcerer is that it only used to present a setting where player play characters summoning demons.  A very narrow scenario, that demon invariably cost the character their humanity. That if one does something else to escape the referee is left with very little to go on and has some work to do.

Again you're missing the allegory. Demons are a source of power which presents dilemmas, and Sorcerers are the people dealing with said power.

Quote from: estar;1053587In contrast Call of Cthulu it opted to use Basic Roleplaying and kept all the other elements of that system even though it didn't directly relate to its primary focus on the Mythos. It is far less work for the referee to continue the campaign if the player decide his character doesn't want to bat shit crazy from all the weird and horrible things they been dealing with and return to a more straightforward life as a Chicago gangster or a G-Man.

Funny you mention that, as Sorcerer is also better at running Call of Cthulhu than BRP. Just define Humanity as Sanity, come up with a Kicker which gives you a reason to move forward, and off you go. And just as little gets in the way of your character returning to the life of a Chicago gangster or a G-Man.

Quote from: estar;1053587I got 15 years of running (5 in the 80s and 10 from 2008) of running the Majestic Wilderlands using AD&D and OD&D that says otherwise.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate how D&D is less limited than Sorcerer, which you still haven't done. Because adapting d20 to different genres required substantial changes to the system. Adapting Sorcerer on the other hand only required changing the names.

Quote from: ffilz;1053626I see over on Story Games there is an attempt to make a definition for Story Game that starts to sound less like an RPG that either Sorceror of Dogs in the Vinyard, I have no exposure to the games that may be claimed under that definition, so it's hard for me to make much comment.

I do have that exposure, and it's still hard for me to make much comment...

...not the least of which because I'm banned

Quote from: ffilz;1053627Vincent Baker actually talked some about the Fruitful Void. I wish he had expanded more on that concept, but the idea was that there were important bits of the game that were NOT directly covered by the mechanics, that there was something in between the mechanics. I think that concept might be relevant in understanding how D&D moved from a wargame to an RPG.

Important elements may not be covered by the mechanics, but they're always a consequence of them. For example there are no rules for bluffing in Poker, yet it's a natural outcome of following the rules as designed.

RPGs are all about the behavior they lead to at the table. So you can have rules which demand you act a certain way, or rules which inspire you to act a certain way, the latter of which is always preferable as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Itachi;1053602May I have this in my sig?

Um, sure.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Because most people coming up with rpg theory and writing games spend a lot of time thinking about games, and very little playing them.

What games exactly fall in this category (badly playtested/lacking actual play experience) in your experience, from the authors in question (Baker, Edwards, etc)?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755Again, you're taking things way too literally, and the limits you suggest do not exist.

I read the same book, it talks about sorcerers, demons, and elements of a narrow fantasy genre involving sorcerers dealing with demons in the modern era.

But I see where you are going with with the following replies

Quote from: robertsconleyYou mean like rolling a dice pool and creatively interpreting what the degree of success means?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755To a great extent, yes!

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755To bring it back to OTE, the resolution system tells you if something good or bad happens, but doesn't help you decide what that may be. In other words, it demands creativity without inspiring it. So if the situation itself isn't providing that inspiration you're being pulled out of the moment to try and figure out what makes sense just because the dice told you to.

Great so rolling a dice pool that generates degrees of successing (along with other specific nuances) resonates with how you think about how to adjudicate what characters do as their characters in a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

However the printed book in which this is contained only discusses using the above in the context of a setting that has sorcerers dealing with demons in the modern world.

Whereas OD&D touches on a variety of elements that encompass much of a fantasy medieval setting. Wilderness, dungeons, exploration, magical research, Mars, managing armies, handling people reactions, naval combat, aerial combat, fantasy races, different character types, monsters, etc.

Are you going to continue to tell me that Sorcerer as a RPG is somehow more expansive than OD&D?

Or rather you want to shift the argument over which set of mechanics is naturally more flexible in handling a variety of tabletop roleplaying campaigns? Which is not my original point but I can go there as well.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755You decided to encumber 'storygame' to mean games with limited scope instead of just talking about the concept of limited scope and how that affects games. What exactly does that get us?

That is apparently something that some game designers do as a technique. Since we like to talk about how games are designed it gets brought it. Which is why I started talking about it.

Whether it define storygames? I think use of metagame mechanics i.e. mechanics that you use as a player not as your character is far more popular and far more common than using a narrow scope.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755The d20 glut demonstrated that adapting such a ruleset to everything was far more difficult than initially assumed.

I guess you are right there was a lot of difficultly in adapting 5355 products to the limitations of rolling 1d20 roll high with six attribute.

https://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0

Odd that more than a few still persist today with significant groups of hobbyists still playing them given such a severe handicap.

Quote from: estar;1053789I guess you are right there was a lot of difficultly in adapting 5355 products to the limitations of rolling 1d20 roll high with six attribute.

https://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0

Odd that more than a few still persist today with significant groups of hobbyists still playing them given such a severe handicap.

Why are you even bothering to engage him/her/anongender?

Quote from: estar;1053789I guess you are right there was a lot of difficultly in adapting 5355 products to the limitations of rolling 1d20 roll high with six attribute.

https://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0

Odd that more than a few still persist today with significant groups of hobbyists still playing them given such a severe handicap.

I understand he meant adapting in a successful way, no? See Engel d20.

Quote from: Itachi;1053886I understand he meant adapting in a successful way, no? See Engel d20.

(shrug) Define success? Success as one likes it? Success as in a number of hobbyist played it? I define success as having a diverse range of works with more authors writing, along with increasing the number of hobbyists playing. Given that of course not everything is going to be one's tastes and there will be some clunkers, some wild successes, and most muddling along in the middle.

Success as in being recognized as a well designed game or adaptation, through word of mouth, awards or sheer number of people who play them.

 D&D5, RQ6/Mythras, Beyond the Wall, Blades in the Dark, etc. fall in this category and are all louded by their well done designs.

On the other hand, Engel d20, Paladium system, Synnabar, Fatal, etc. are notorious by their bad design.

This kind of success.