Quote from: technoextreme;456476Well it isn't really misguided opinions more than arguments that from the rules of logic have fundamental flaws in them to the point where your argument can default to just being wrong. Its ironic too because the opening post of this discussion by its very definition shows examples of some arguments that have fundamental flaws and don't even shy away from the fact.  One of the quotes is a textbook definition  of what is more commonly known as the false dilemma logical fallacy.  Invoking this fallacy means that ignore the middle areas and pretend that the extremes are the only known possible solutions.

Quote from: Darwinism;456481All you're saying is: "build an argument." What argument? Actually build an argument before hoping to be taken seriously. Without an actual argument, your blather amounts to a misguided opinion, at best. Pointless trolling, otherwise.

Here they come, the fruits of our failed educational system.

Quote from: Ian Warner;456273As I understand it is where story takes precidence over all else or when "God given" conventions of traditional games (presence of a GM, no PVP, not a compettition etc.) are challenged.

There are some games that in Pundy's definition fall in something of a middle ground and I have a feeling when he reads it he'll highlight Tough Justice as one of them.

For me it's a matter of realizing that the DM or the packaged scenario are so wedded to their storyline that it doesn't matter what my PC does. In fact, if it's already predetermined that x, y and z will happen no matter what, it doesn't matter if I show up to play at all-or if anyone else does either! The DM could just as easily carry on his storytelling wankfest by himself. Come to think of it, masturbation is usually best done by one's self -preferably with a Lane Bryant catalog.

For me, any form of role-playing beyond "My thief will stab the goblin with his dagger" is a cringe-inducing circlejerk. If I want shitty bush league playacting I'll watch a Keanu Reeves movie -at least that's over in two hours or less.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456501Here they come, the fruits of our failed educational system.

Ha ha I see how you subtly implied that we are children and that you are a mature, educated man!

Oh truly that is an original and witty response! I cannot heap praise highly enough upon you, good sir!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;456497+1

Stop feeding the trolls. From post #1 they demonstrated an ability to read the statement "A is true" to mean "A is totally not true". When you're dealing with that level of illiteracy there is simply nothing that communication can accomplish. It's like having a philosophical debate with your dog.

I just don't even understand this statement. A single quote was, you feel, misrepresented. So, logically, everyone on that particular message board is illiterate. I mean I understand that it's a paper-thin veneer for a personal attack so you can better assert how you are obviously the better nerd, but couldn't you have thought it through a bit more?

Quote from: Elfdart;456507For me it's a matter of realizing that the DM or the packaged scenario are so wedded to their storyline that it doesn't matter what my PC does. In fact, if it's already predetermined that x, y and z will happen no matter what, it doesn't matter if I show up to play at all-or if anyone else does either! The DM could just as easily carry on his storytelling wankfest by himself. Come to think of it, masturbation is usually best done by one's self -preferably with a Lane Bryant catalog.

For me, any form of role-playing beyond "My thief will stab the goblin with his dagger" is a cringe-inducing circlejerk. If I want shitty bush league playacting I'll watch a Keanu Reeves movie -at least that's over in two hours or less.

Fortunately actual "story-games" do away with the notion of a preconceived plot.  If you're playing a story-game, chances are no one has any idea what will happen.  Their design is a deliberate reaction to the type of gaming style you're talking about.

QuoteFortunately actual "story-games" do away with the notion of a preconceived plot. If you're playing a story-game, chances are no one has any idea what will happen. Their design is a deliberate reaction to the type of gaming style you're talking about.

This definition doesn't sound too off from what goes on in my D&D games.

Quote from: Peregrin;456511Fortunately actual "story-games" do away with the notion of a preconceived plot.  If you're playing a story-game, chances are no one has any idea what will happen.  Their design is a deliberate reaction to the type of gaming style you're talking about.

Give me specific examples of what you're talking about, mate.

Quote from: technoextreme;456512This definition doesn't sound too off from what goes on in my D&D games.

Outside of meta-mechanics or shared authority to shape the flow or direction of play, there's really not much of a difference in how the rest of it plays out (people roll dice, play characters, interact with the system and respond to its feedback, etc.).  There's also a trend to focus in on a particular premise rather than allowing a broader range of subject matter, but that trend is beginning to reverse a bit.

Most people have a problem with the meta-mechanics or the laser-like focus of some of the games.  Which is completely understandable if you've already worked out your own procedures or style of GMing that produces fun play.  Some people are just a little more vocal about their dislike.

Quote from: Benoist;456514Give me specific examples of what you're talking about, mate.

I'm assuming you mean techniques or actual play rather then specific games.  

If so, I can post about that a bit later.  Work just got a bit busy.

Essentially story-games are rooted more in improv and certain types of writing techniques (create interesting characters, put them in a situation that's ready to go off, and watch all hell break loose rather than creating a rough sketch of the plot beforehand).  The main thing that separates this kind of play from world-in-motion type play is that there is a much stronger focus on situation and conflict.  A lot of games have meta-mechanics or other mechanisms to help push play towards conflict.  I think this rubs people the wrong way because it can seem artificial if you're used to a world-in-motion.  But like world-in-motion play, once you've hit a conflict, it's up to player choice and fate as to what happens.

I'll try to come up with specific examples later.  Maybe something from my Burning Wheel game.

Quote from: Darwinism;456509Oh truly that is an original and witty response! I cannot heap praise highly enough upon you, good sir!

and why are you here exactly?  To talk about Role-playing games, support EM/FT in his obsessive Pundit fixation or did you just show up because SA was mentioned here?

Quote from: Peregrin;456516I think this rubs people the wrong way because it can seem artificial if you're used to a world-in-motion.  But like world-in-motion play, once you've hit a conflict, it's up to player choice and fate as to what happens.

I think what you're saying here is one of the key points that storygamers miss, which is why they argue so vehemently to be under the RPG umbrella.  In world-in-motion play, once you've hit a conflict it's up to character choice and fate as to what happens.

The inability to see storygames as essentially different from role-playing games is directly tied to the inability to see the difference between "player-choice" and "character-choice".  Yes, there is a difference.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456520I think what you're saying here is one of the key points that storygamers miss, which is why they argue so vehemently to be under the RPG umbrella.  In world-in-motion play, once you've hit a conflict it's up to character choice and fate as to what happens.

The inability to see storygames as essentially different from role-playing games is directly tied to the inability to see the difference between "player-choice" and "character-choice".  Yes, there is a difference.

That's not really what I meant.  It's nothing about player agency or character agency, just about whether or not there are meta-mechanics or procedures present to shift the flow of play towards drama.  The OSR's mantra of "challenge the player" doesn't gel with what you're saying, and Burning Wheel certainly does because the Beliefs are the character's.

Ultimately, in any tabletop game, the character has no choice -- it's just a construct created by the player to fulfill whatever desires the player has for the game.  A character has no will, no thoughts, no nothing that doesn't originate from the player.  You can certainly try to get into the game and see things from the char's POV, same as you would empathize with another human being, but ultimately all choices are the player's.

Quote from: Peregrin;456523You can certainly try to get into the game and see things from the char's POV, same as you would empathize with another human being, but ultimately all choices are the player's.

However, you can just as easily not "try to get into the game and see things from the char's POV", and make decisions based on desires and goals that exist solely outside the char's POV, like story.  When you do that, by definition, you're not roleplaying.

BTW, I consider Burning Wheel a role-playing game, albeit one with some narrative elements.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456529However, you can just as easily not "try to get into the game and see things from the char's POV", and make decisions based on desires and goals that exist solely outside the char's POV, like story.  When you do that, by definition, you're not roleplaying.

Right, but even the character's POV is yours.  I don't see anyone promoting playing a character inconsistently.  You create whatever POV you want to satisfy your desires for a given game.  There is never a point where the character's POV is separate from yours -- you modify it based on your own whims.  There's also nothing mandated in "story-games" that you play against your character.  

It's also pretty impractical to try to psychoanalyze players as to whether they're really "role-playing" in their games, because by your definition people could be "not role-playing" in a D&D game and no one would ever know.

Quote from: Peregrin;456538I don't see anyone promoting playing a character inconsistently.  You create whatever POV you want to satisfy your desires for a given game.  There is never a point where the character's POV is separate from yours -- you modify it based on your own whims.

Your desires for a given game may, if followed, mean you play your character inconsistently if you follow your whims and not play your character from his POV.  

One doesn't begin one session with your character as Eddard Stark and the next as Jaime Lannister because it's your whim that you change the story in a role-playing game.

Quote from: Peregrin;456538There's also nothing mandated in "story-games" that you play against your character.

There's nothing mandated in role-playing games that you play your character.  You're either role-playing or you're storygaming.  Your focus is the creation of the story, in which your character is a tool to that end, or your focus is the IC-POV of your character.  

Quote from: Peregrin;456538It's also pretty impractical to try to psychoanalyze players as to whether they're really "role-playing" in their games, because by your definition people could be "not role-playing" in a D&D game and no one would ever know.

True. So what?  A game in which the assumption that you are role-playing is a RPG.  If you don't role-play in it, that doesn't make it not a rpg, any more then role-playing chess means you're playing Harn.

There are many games out there which have base assumptions that you spend a significant deal of time out of IC-POV in order to narrate the story, whatever.  Those are Storygames, not Role-playing Games.  There are a lot of games that share a zone in the middle between the two, but there is a clear difference.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456551You're either role-playing or you're storygaming.  Your focus is the creation of the story, in which your character is a tool to that end, or your focus is the IC-POV of your character.

Why some people just cannot acknowledge the difference between these two ways of playing a game (and all shades in-between), I do not know. Is it sheer ignorance, that they've never experienced IC role playing, or is it that their gaming evolved in such a way that they've completely forgotten what it's like, or a rhetorically-motivated response, that if they ever acknowledge this distinction, then OMG that means that some people might actually be justified to have game preferences favoring one approach over the other? Or a combination of these things? I wonder.