Quote from: RPGPundit;497689And do an internet-wide search, and I guarantee you that you'll find shitloads more about MLWM, DiTV, Grey Ranks, Poison'd and all the other misery-tourism "edgy" piece of shit storygames than your flavour-of-the-month robot game.

In fact:
"Poison'd" yields 431,000 results.

Umm... You might be an idiot. "Poison'd" is the name of a bestselling metal album.

Quote"happy birthday robot", a term far more likely to be in reference to something other than the storygame, btw, yields 289000 results.

Quick fact check:

1st page of results of "Poison'd": 2 links refer to the STG, 12 refer to other stuff.

1st page of results for "happy birthday robot": 9 links refer to the STG, 1 refers to something else

It's confirmed. You're an idiot.

If want to go a little bit deeper:

""Poison'd" "story game"" + ""Poison'd" "roleplaying game"" = 1,440 results + 9,260 results = 10,700 total results

""happy birthday robot" "story game"" + ""happy birthday robot" "roleplaying game"" = 4,190 results + 46,900 results = 51,090 results

I know facts are pesky when they contradict your pet peeves. But check 'em out. They're totally cool. All the rationalist kids are using them.

Quote from: JDCorley;498702Well, but the game isn't claiming it's a huge discovery, just some idiot on the Internet, right? Or does the game claim this is a big discovery? (I don't actually own AW, so I don't know.)

AW does not, but it's main influential work, Sorcerer, did claim that. Heck, Foul Ole Ron created 2 bloody theories to mandate his games that are out on Wikipedia. As I said - towel.

Sorcerer's only saving grace is that it gave a birth to indie genre, which produced Inspectres.

Quote from: Rincewind1;498688Come on. I've known that since I picked up my copy of Warhammer at the age of 12. Claiming this is "new" means that you either commit purposeful bias, or it's your first RPG.

Thinking of an RPG as explicitly being a "structured conversation" is actually a useful ideological concept, and it's not explicit in most RPGs.

With that being said, Traveller said literally the exact same thing in 1977. So it's not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination.

It's relatively important, however, to remember that everyone encounters these revelations in their own ways. There are people right now figuring out how awesome hexcrawls are. More power to 'em.

Quote from: JDCorley;498702Well, but the game isn't claiming it's a huge discovery, just some idiot on the Internet, right? Or does the game claim this is a big discovery? (I don't actually own AW, so I don't know.)

What the game actually says is:

"You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation."

It's literally presented as the exact opposite of a "revelation".

Quote from: Rincewind1;498707AW does not, but it's main influential work, Sorcerer, did claim that. Heck, Foul Ole Ron created 2 bloody theories to mandate his games that are out on Wikipedia. As I said - towel.

Sorcerer's only saving grace is that it gave a birth to indie genre, which produced Inspectres.

QFTW.

I ain't saying it's bad that they found this out in AW. But seeing this in context - someone mentions that snippet, and everyone in discussion goes "Oh yes, those games are indeed so edgy and new"...

Meh. Maybe I just hate pretense that much, even if it makes me a bit pretentious as a result.

I think I am way behind this conversation to participate, and I know nothing about the game poison'd. But searching "poison'd"+"RPG" yields me about 96,000 results. See one or two general RPG threads about poison, but most of the first several pages appear to be about the RPG in question. So it certainly looks like it has gotten some attention (but contrast that with "Pathfinder" + "RPG" which yields over 5 million results. I don't know what that means though in terms of how much the game is being played and where it fits in with the story game community.

Communication is a secondary activity in roleplaying, and roleplaying games - not the primary activity. The primary activity is decision-making. Results are produced through the interaction of our decisions and the rules. Conversation/Communication is a tool that gets used to convey decisions to other players, who then follow a rule procedure (either improvised or specified, depending on the game) to determine the outcome.

Communication may be part of roleplaying games, but not necessarily role-play, which can be done alone - and therefore has no requirement of 'communication', per se. "Roleplaying is a conversation" is insufficient as a definition.

Conversations often happen when you roleplay. That doesn't mean that conversations ARE roleplay.

Quote from: Rincewind1;498707AW does not, but it's main influential work, Sorcerer, did claim that. Heck, Foul Ole Ron created 2 bloody theories to mandate his games that are out on Wikipedia. As I said - towel.

But Sorcerer didn't include those theories? At least I don't remember it including those theories. Maybe in an appendix?  It's been a while since I looked at it.

Like, whatever Edwards wrote or didn't write about anything else, Sorcerer is a  completely normal RPG, with a GM and players and character sheets, and all that stuff.

QuoteSorcerer's only saving grace is that it gave a birth to indie genre, which produced Inspectres.

Well, I wouldn't even give it that.  Indie roleplaying games, by the definition of "indie" that Sorcerer advanced (creator-owned), have routinely existed in the hobby.  Even using the more generally-used "off the beaten path" definition, weird little RPGs have always existed.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;498740I think I am way behind this conversation to participate, and I know nothing about the game poison'd. But searching "poison'd"+"RPG" yields me about 96,000 results. See one or two general RPG threads about poison, but most of the first several pages appear to be about the RPG in question. So it certainly looks like it has gotten some attention (but contrast that with "Pathfinder" + "RPG" which yields over 5 million results. I don't know what that means though in terms of how much the game is being played and where it fits in with the story game community.

I go a lot more into detail in the thread in the Other Games forum as to what exactly is being played, thought about and discussed in the present day by people with an interest in story games. Spoiler alert: not Poison'd or Grey Ranks to any particularly significant degree. An order of magnitude more are in D&D games. (Not a huge surprise, most of the hobby plays D&D most of the time.)

Quote from: Kaldric;498758Communication may be part of roleplaying games, but not necessarily role-play, which can be done alone - and therefore has no requirement of 'communication', per se. "Roleplaying is a conversation" is insufficient as a definition.

How do you roleplay alone? Like, do you just imagine yourself to be someone else and....then what? Say something? To no one? Are you also then imagining who you are talking to?  Do you stand up and walk around like the character would if they were were you are?

Edit: Or are you talking about computer games and solo adventures? Aren't you in those situations responding to what a game designer is telling you?

Quote from: Rincewind1;498712I ain't saying it's bad that they found this out in AW. But seeing this in context - someone mentions that snippet, and everyone in discussion goes "Oh yes, those games are indeed so edgy and new"...

Meh. Maybe I just hate pretense that much, even if it makes me a bit pretentious as a result.

Yes, it's 100 percent you.

I really like when RPGs give really simple, straightforward descriptions of what an RPG is and how to roleplay in them.

Like, do you know what D&D3 says the job of a player and the job of a DM is?

You probably don't, (most people don't! I didn't until I'd been playing D&D3 for 4 years!) you probably never actually read it.  But it's right there on literally the very first page of text, in the introduction.  Reading it solves a shitload of problems that people have had with D&D3 and makes your D&D3 play better.

I always, always read "what is an RPG" sections. I often learn something from them!  At least I learn how the author approaches RPGs, which helps me figure out what their expectations were.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;498705Umm... You might be an idiot. "Poison'd" is the name of a bestselling metal album.

Now I'm trying to imagine a storygame based on the adventures of an 80's hair metal band.

JG

Quote from: JDCorley;498813Yes, it's 100 percent you.

I really like when RPGs give really simple, straightforward descriptions of what an RPG is and how to roleplay in them.

Like, do you know what D&D3 says the job of a player and the job of a DM is?

You probably don't, (most people don't! I didn't until I'd been playing D&D3 for 4 years!) you probably never actually read it.  But it's right there on literally the very first page of text, in the introduction.  Reading it solves a shitload of problems that people have had with D&D3 and makes your D&D3 play better.

I always, always read "what is an RPG" sections. I often learn something from them!  At least I learn how the author approaches RPGs, which helps me figure out what their expectations were.

LoL. Need to result to attack my competence as a reader already? Cheap tricks, mate, since I did read that. I read even a lot lot more then that. And Ron created not one, but two actual frigging psychologicallo - philosophical theories to explain his idea of RPGs.

See - the thing with Sorcerer, DitV and the AW is - I ain't saying they are bad games. But all that mechanical stuff they do? I do that in a "classical" RPG like Warhammer, without tossing odd terms like "Fallout", "Moves" and the like. It's called narration, player imput, player backstories and good GMing.

Quote from: Rincewind1;498897LoL. Need to result to attack my competence as a reader already? Cheap tricks, mate, since I did read that.

Did you miss the part where I said I didn't read it myself?  Or was it just more fun for you to pretend my post said something other than what it did?

My whole point was that even a ridiculously simple "here's what a GM does" section of a game is useful both for noobs and for veterans.  So AW's description of how roleplaying is done is not claiming to be some huge innovation, it's just talking about how you play the game.

QuoteI read even a lot lot more then that. And Ron created not one, but two actual frigging psychologicallo - philosophical theories to explain his idea of RPGs.

Sure, but not in the game.  See you're attacking Sorcerer because you say it falsely claims to be some big innovation in roleplaying. But I don't think it claims that at all.

QuoteSee - the thing with Sorcerer, DitV and the AW is - I ain't saying they are bad games. But all that mechanical stuff they do? I do that in a "classical" RPG like Warhammer, without tossing odd terms like "Fallout", "Moves" and the like. It's called narration, player imput, player backstories and good GMing.

Well, Fallout and Moves are specific game mechanics. They are not actually connected to any of the things you describe any more than "hit points" or "armor class".  You can't replace them with "good GMing", then the games won't work.  It's like replacing "armor class" with "good GMing".  I guess you could, but it's not the game.

Yes, I agree that those three games are pretty normal RPGs! It's what I've been saying all along!

Ah, then we're on the same page, sorry.

My point is - they are normal RPGs, but they are marketed as something brand new and tossing away the old school of RPG design.

You know, sort of like if you jump out of the bath, and start rambling on your new law of physics, and you are describing Archimedes.

Two options then present themselves to bystanders

A) Give you a towel, and a cup of warm cocoa.
B) Believe you.


Because from that assumption,  the one I posted on the top of my post, draws the later "Wow, so after 14 years of RPGs, I finally discovered this in one of those new, edgy RPGs...."

Quote from: Rincewind1;498924My point is - they are normal RPGs, but they are marketed as something brand new and tossing away the old school of RPG design.

So many games over so many years have claimed that to me that I've lost track, but I don't think any game that contains a bibliography/game-ography page as big as Dogs' is really claiming to be something that is brand new.

QuoteBecause from that assumption,  the one I posted on the top of my post, draws the later "Wow, so after 14 years of RPGs, I finally discovered this in one of those new, edgy RPGs...."

Maybe the person didn't read those kinds of sections before, or didn't play that way before, or they read those sections but it never got across to them before because of different ways of presenting it, or maybe they're stupid or drunk or trolling. But the game can hardly be faulted for that, especially when what the game actually says is "this isn't new, this is something everyone knows".