TheRPGSite

Nope, sorry. I do NOT accept "adventure game" as a definition of the "kind of games I play".

You see, fucker, there's already a term that exists out there for the kind of games I'm playing; I'm the one playing ROLE-PLAYING GAMES.

You aren't. You're trying to take that word away from me, because you want ownership of it.

You want to go off, start your own thing and call it "story games"? That's perfectly fine by me, please go. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

But if you think as your parting shot you're going to get to claim that what I do is "just play little adventures", or that my games are just for "adventure make believe", not "STORY", not something as sophisticated as you. If you think, FUCKER, you're going to get to define away the fact that I ROLE-PLAY, and claim that what I do is somehow not that, you've got another thing coming to you.

There is one term, and one term only for the type of gaming I do: ROLE PLAYING GAMES.  Live with that. Its our term, not yours, you can't have it, and you can't take it away.

I don't want your denigrating "adventure games" title, thank you very much.

RPGPundit

That's the thing, though: people who like Adventure Games/RPGs overlap a lot with people who like Story Games, and both those groups overlap with folk who like LARPing of various varieties...

To say there's no connection, that the hobbies are mutually exclusive, doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence (especially since there are plenty of games that blend adventure gaming and story game elements). Is the over-arching meta-hobby that covers all those categories REALLY big enough that we can afford to excommunicate people whose play styles we don't like? Especially if some people - shock! - like both story games and adventure games?

Umm, context?  :confused:

Quote from: WarthurThat's the thing, though: people who like Adventure Games/RPGs overlap a lot with people who like Story Games, and both those groups overlap with folk who like LARPing of various varieties...

To say there's no connection, that the hobbies are mutually exclusive, doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence (especially since there are plenty of games that blend adventure gaming and story game elements). Is the over-arching meta-hobby that covers all those categories REALLY big enough that we can afford to excommunicate people whose play styles we don't like? Especially if some people - shock! - like both story games and adventure games?

Its not a question of mutual exclusivity, its a question of a battle over ownership of words.

I love backgammon. My love of backgammon is not exclusive with my love of D&D.  That in no way means I should try to re-define Backgammon as an "RPG", or suggest that neither Backgammon nor D&D are RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RedFoxUmm, context?  :confused:

Check out another thread in this very forum.  For some time now, the Theory gang have been trying to redefine "traditional" RPGs as "adventure games", occasionally redefining their own games as "story games"; in what I can only imagine is a kind of scorched earth policy of saying "If our games can't be RPGs then no one's can".

RPGPundit

I thought it was Settembrini who first came up with 'adventure games'.

Quote from: droogI thought it was Settembrini who first came up with 'adventure games'.

That's correct, Settembrini was the first person who started making the distinction between Adventure Games as a subset of RPGs.

So now Settembrini, too, is a "Swine" and a "Fucker".

One of us. One of us. One of us.

Yep. Settembrini. Even Pundit's strongest supporters aren't pure enough to fight for his side.

Now we're at the purges.  Soon there will be shootings.  Then cake and a nap.  Then more shootings.

Fast times at RPGsite!

Quote from: fonkaygarryNow we're at the purges.  Soon there will be shootings.  Then cake and a nap.  Then more shootings.

Hold on.

I have to wait through purges and shootings?

Dammit, I want my cake NOW.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHold on.

I have to wait through purges and shootings?

Dammit, I want my cake NOW.

This isn't Noblis, Fonk can say "No."

It's a joke people...just a joke...

Oh, c'mon, Fonk! Let them eat cake! :O

-clash

You can try to eat your cake. I won't stand in your way.

First you have to find the cake.  I hear they once made cake in a shadow earth. you could go there when you had more time...

... but, of course, you're not the only one in the family who has an interest in cake.  I'd employ a poison-tester, were I you.

Then I'll spin one up out of dream-thread and whimsy!

Quote from: droogI thought it was Settembrini who first came up with 'adventure games'.

After a chitchat with Ron Edwards.

And Settembrini is allowed to disagree with me. I happen to hold that his use of that term is highly unfortunate, as it was immediately glommed onto by the Swine in order to denigrate and marginalize mainstream games.

Again, in what sense is "Adventure Games" acceptable terminology?
It either implies that:
1. "story games" and "adventure games" are both RPGs. They are not.
2. "story games" and "adventure games" are equally qualified or unqualified for the title of "RPG". They are not.

Given that, and given that calling RPGs "adventure games" adds nothing to the body of knowledge, and only serves to confuse by creating the impression that "adventure games" and "RPGs" would be two different things, or that the former is just one part of the latter, when in fact it is the entirety of the latter.

The assumption that mainstream RPGs are just for "adventure" also implies less sophistication than "story games", which is also blatantly untrue. Mainstream RPGs can be every bit as profound and intelligent as Forge "story" games, only more pretentiousness-free.

So if someone really wants to defend this term, tell me why it should be accepted as Jargon; especially now that its clear the Swine have leaped on it as yet another effort to subvert mainstream RPGs as a hobby?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI happen to hold that his use of that term is highly unfortunate, as it was immediately glommed onto by the Swine in order to denigrate and marginalize mainstream games.

Huh? I haven't really noticed much use of the term outside of this site, and then mainly by people who are trying to draw a line, a cordon sanitaire if you will, against "swinish" attempts to colonize discussion.

For the record I don't really care much whether "story games" are considered a subset of RPGs or as something entirely different. I like the term "adventure games", but with caveats that I don't think would be carried forward from the current context. (As I've said, I like how "adventure" echoes the old computer game, "Adventure", and also the broad implication of explorative/experiential activity rather than narrative/storytelling.)

Locally, I think it's useful as a reminder, along with "virtual experience", that there's a cognitive distinction. It serves as a signpost to warn people from falling for the argument that all RPGs are about "collaborative storytelling", therefore game X is better than game Y because it's different (has better rules for collaborative storytelling), but not worse than game Y because it's really the same (is essentially about collaborative storytelling).

This is my idea of an Adventure game:

http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/8bitDungeon.pdf

The phrase

Quote8-bit dungeon has been revised to be less of a roleplaying game and more of an 'adventure game'.

does not bode well for the term.

Quote from: Elliot Wilendoes not bode well for the term.

*Shrug*

See, I wrote 8-Bit way before Settembrini started pushing "adventure game".

Much like Pokethulhu, which also calls itself an adventure game.

So...does this have anything to do with the original question? I guess you're not a fan of Sett's invention?

There is only one adventure game "The Adventure Game" (http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php/The_Adventure_Game) anything else is a poor imitation.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo...does this have anything to do with the original question? I guess you're not a fan of Sett's invention?

My point is / was, the term has been used before.  It meant something other than "RPG", frankly.

Using it to mean specific kinds of RPGs brings along connotations that suck.

Things that suck are bad.

With certain exceptions.

This, is an adventure game. (http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html)

If my RPGs ever start resembling shit like that Gabriel Knight puzzle, I will quit goddamn gaming.

Until then, I'm playing some RPGs.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMy point is / was, the term has been used before.  It meant something other than "RPG", frankly.

There have been a number of RPGs which called themselves adventure games.  That's why I said there was some momentum behind it.  Examples include:

"High Adventure Cliffhangers: The Buck Rogers Adventure Game" (1993)
"Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game" (1998)
"The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game" (2000)
"The Deryni Adventure Game" (2005)

as well as a host of smaller press titles ranging from "Hidden Kingdom" to "Panty Explosion".

Okay, the "real" Adventure games of that ilk, that I know at all, are Adventure, Zork, and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The Gabriel Knight puzzle seems like a sort of hypertrophy of the form. Sort of like one of those crosswords which can only be enjoyed by someone who already knows all the little idiosyncracies of crossword clues, it might be fun for the hardcore. There are puzzles that are almost like that in Hitchhiker, but I swear they were fun. On the other hand, the text itself was written by Doug Adams, and if you'd read the book (or seen/heard the radio show or TV series), you had a big advantage.

The connection between Adventure and RPGs is unclear--with Colossal Cave published "around 1975" according to Wikipedia, it postdates D&D. The connection I make to Sett's usage though is that the computer game is designed so that the player interfaces with an imaginary environment entirely through first-person character. The puzzles are a separate characteristic...something that also showed up in RPGs almost from the start, while D&D clearly influenced computer games such as rogue/hack and (partly through them) Temple of Apshai and Castle Wolfenstein. Some games emphasized puzzles, some combat, but the common factor in my mind is the character identification.

Quote from: jhkimThere have been a number of RPGs which called themselves adventure games.  That's why I said there was some momentum behind it.  Examples include:

"High Adventure Cliffhangers: The Buck Rogers Adventure Game" (1993)
"Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game" (1998)
"The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game" (2000)
"The Deryni Adventure Game" (2005)

as well as a host of smaller press titles ranging from "Hidden Kingdom" to "Panty Explosion".

Something to remember...using something in the title, is not quite the same thing as defining the thing--it is just a title. Just as Vampire: The Requiem, is not really a long mourning song. Or Dungeons & Dragons ONLY has Dungeons /and/ Dragons.

As too naming conventions are different from defining the core aspect of the thing. So too renaming "not role-playing games" to story games doesn't really make them about stories.

Once Upon a Time--is a card game, about stories. A REAL story game and yet, it doesn't need to claim a new description to do what it does well.

I still stand by my assertation that RPG's are like anime, and Indie games (or half the games I like which are different than D&D) are "hentai".  Similar things one derived from the other and narrowed down until it is a seperate and one-step removed fandom. (That doesn't mean that one is "bad" or the other is "good" per se, just that one has features that differ from the other and draws a small minority that doesn't necessarily overlap with the majority--some people may belong to both anime and hentai fandoms for example. Some belong to one but not the other.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenHuh? I haven't really noticed much use of the term outside of this site, and then mainly by people who are trying to draw a line, a cordon sanitaire if you will, against "swinish" attempts to colonize discussion.

For the record I don't really care much whether "story games" are considered a subset of RPGs or as something entirely different. I like the term "adventure games", but with caveats that I don't think would be carried forward from the current context. (As I've said, I like how "adventure" echoes the old computer game, "Adventure", and also the broad implication of explorative/experiential activity rather than narrative/storytelling.)

Locally, I think it's useful as a reminder, along with "virtual experience", that there's a cognitive distinction. It serves as a signpost to warn people from falling for the argument that all RPGs are about "collaborative storytelling", therefore game X is better than game Y because it's different (has better rules for collaborative storytelling), but not worse than game Y because it's really the same (is essentially about collaborative storytelling).

Yea, but I think that the second our side gives up on ownership of the term RPG, we've lost.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYea, but I think that the second our side gives up on ownership of the term RPG, we've lost.

Unfortunately, that would imply that your "side" has ownership in the first place. Erm, the English language doesn't work like that, and it is certainly far too late to slap a trademark on "RPG".

LARPs, CRPGs, MMORPGs have all staked their claim to the term, and in the case of the CRPGs and MMORPGs have reached far, far more people than traditional tabletop RPGs have. It seems somewhat strange to suddenly declare a whole bunch of games "not-RPGs" when the term has already been diluted significantly.

What's more, people are always going to come up with new ways to reimagine the tabletop roleplaying format, and to growl and snarl at them and demand that they stop calling their games RPGs - despite the fact that said games are designed by roleplayers, heavily influenced by the format and design of other RPGs, marketed to roleplayers, and whose audience is 99% roleplayers - seems a quixotic gesture at best.

Quote from: WarthurLARPs, CRPGs, MMORPGs have all staked their claim to the term...

Fuck them all. We were here first.

QuoteLARPs, CRPGs, MMORPGs have all staked their claim to the term, and in the case of the CRPGs and MMORPGs have reached far, far more people than traditional tabletop RPGs have. It seems somewhat strange to suddenly declare a whole bunch of games "not-RPGs" when the term has already been diluted significantly.

LARP = Live Action Roleplaying  (no problem, note the exclusion of 'Game')
CRPG = Computer Roleplaying Game (no problem)
MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (no problem)

Quote from: StuartLARP = Live Action Roleplaying  (no problem, note the exclusion of 'Game')
CRPG = Computer Roleplaying Game (no problem)
MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (no problem)

For clarification: are you saying that you have no problem with CRPGs and MMORPGs sharing the "RPG" term, or are you saying that "Roleplaying Game" and "RPG" are distinct terms?

I can only speak for myself... but I have no problem with "Roleplaying" being used if that is the primary activity, and "Game" being used if it is, in fact, a game.  You can have Roleplaying without Game and vice versa.

CRPGs and MMORPGs are furthermore attempts to replicate actual RPGs in a computer or massively multiplay online environment.

When RPG is not appropriate:

* When it's not a game, and just roleplaying.  Some LARPs, SCA, Cosplay, etc.
* When it's not roleplaying, and instead is storytelling.  Some Forge Games, Once Upon A Story, etc.

Quote from: jhkimThere have been a number of RPGs which called themselves adventure games.  That's why I said there was some momentum behind it.  Examples include:

"High Adventure Cliffhangers: The Buck Rogers Adventure Game" (1993)
"Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game" (1998)
"The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game" (2000)
"The Deryni Adventure Game" (2005)

as well as a host of smaller press titles ranging from "Hidden Kingdom" to "Panty Explosion".

...Huh.

I never caught the "Adventure Game" bit on D&D.

Quote from: WarthurWhat's more, people are always going to come up with new ways to reimagine the tabletop roleplaying format, and to growl and snarl at them and demand that they stop calling their games RPGs - despite the fact that said games are designed by roleplayers, heavily influenced by the format and design of other RPGs, marketed to roleplayers, and whose audience is 99% roleplayers - seems a quixotic gesture at best.

Even if it really was quixotic, and I don't think it is:

Bill:My father gave his life, making this country what it is. Murdered by the British with all of his men on the twenty fifth of July, Anno Domini, 1814. Do you think I'm going to help you befoul his legacy, by giving this country over to them, what's had no hand in the fighting for it? Why, because they come off a boat crawling with lice and begging you for soup.
Boss Tweed: You're a good one for the fighting, Bill. But you can't fight forever.
Bill: I can go down doing it.
Boss Tweed: And you will!
Bill: What did you say?
Boss Tweed: I said, you're turning your back on the future.
Bill: Not our future.

If Sorcerer and DiTV are not to be the "future" of roleplaying, then its a fight that must be had. And should they or their kin end up being the future of roleplaying, then I'd rather go down fighting and not be there to see the grizzly end of it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo if someone really wants to defend this term, tell me why it should be accepted as Jargon; especially now that its clear the Swine have leaped on it as yet another effort to subvert mainstream RPGs as a hobby?

I dunno – I think it's a dumbarse term myself. I don't care what you call them.

Taking into account that the WotC started labelling D&D as an adventure game well before Settembrini drank the Forge Kool Aid and was absorbed by the Borg, I think again that Mike Mearls, always by the definitions of the Pundit is a Swine.

But of course, the Pundit is a big time Swine according to his own definition.

Like someone said here, a title for a book is one thing; the title for a movement is another.

I mean hell, Vampire and co. call themselves "storytelling games", but they aren't.

Dogs in the vinyard calls itself a Roleplaying Game, but it isn't.

There was ONE product called the D&D adventure game; it doesn't mean, however much you might wish it, that D&D has given up the claim to being an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditEven if it really was quixotic, and I don't think it is:

Bill:My father gave his life, making this country what it is. Murdered by the British with all of his men on the twenty fifth of July, Anno Domini, 1814. Do you think I'm going to help you befoul his legacy, by giving this country over to them, what's had no hand in the fighting for it? Why, because they come off a boat crawling with lice and begging you for soup.
Boss Tweed: You're a good one for the fighting, Bill. But you can't fight forever.
Bill: I can go down doing it.
Boss Tweed: And you will!
Bill: What did you say?
Boss Tweed: I said, you're turning your back on the future.
Bill: Not our future.

If Sorcerer and DiTV are not to be the "future" of roleplaying, then its a fight that must be had. And should they or their kin end up being the future of roleplaying, then I'd rather go down fighting and not be there to see the grizzly end of it.

:11zblink: Hooooooo shit. You're a special kind of crazy, huh?

Man, I can't wait until one of these games becomes popular enough it gets mentioned in the same breath as GURPS, and Pundit starts posting from an underground bunker coated in graph paper, feverishly rolling d20s in the palm of his hand and muttering that they'll never get him to play their damn games. They can make d20s illegal, they can confiscate all the world's character sheets, they can hang the WotC design team from the outstretched arm of a 40-foot marble and gold statue of Ron Edwards and make possession of a GM's screen a capital crime, but by god, Pundit will continue to soldier on for the brave cause of how games were played in 1980!

Quote from: Christmas Ape:11zblink: Hooooooo shit. You're a special kind of crazy, huh?

Man, I can't wait until one of these games becomes popular enough it gets mentioned in the same breath as GURPS, and Pundit starts posting from an underground bunker coated in graph paper, feverishly rolling d20s in the palm of his hand and muttering that they'll never get him to play their damn games. They can make d20s illegal, they can confiscate all the world's character sheets, they can hang the WotC design team from the outstretched arm of a 40-foot marble and gold statue of Ron Edwards and make possession of a GM's screen a capital crime, but by god, Pundit will continue to soldier on for the brave cause of how games were played in 1980!

When I read his deliriums about how Dancey is right in saying that D20 is a huge influence in D20, o how D20 make popular the unified resolution systems, and so on, I feel that he has lived in a nuclear bunker, like Brendan Fraser in that shitty movie, and has missed everything from 1989 to the 2000.

QuoteAfter a chitchat with Ron Edwards.

No my dear paranoid friend.
That´s totally revisionist history. it was me, who came up with the distinction, long before ever meeting with Ron. And it was me, who on your very blog, convinced several people of it´s  (Adventure Roleplaying Game, as in Roleplaying Games that share stuff with all other Adventure Games, except the main method used.) merits.

And it was fucking me, who went and convinced Ron, Eoru, Clinton R. Nixon and the german forgers of it´s existance and it´s use in online discussion.
Not that they really use it. But they understood and acknowledged that I use that term and not their terminology. It´s fucking only me and Jack who think this is really a good term. And Jack seems to have left town.

Really Pundit, revisionist history par excellence. And useless. It was on your very blog, where the first discussions happened. Way before your indicated "chitchat". It´s my fucking internet agenda to promote that term, and the term thematic roleplaying instead of misleading "forgie" or "indie".

Man, I hope this is a clever scheme to popularize my agenda.

If you are honest about what you are writing, your memory is lacking, or you are a blatant liar for whatever reasons.

But: You have always stated that only Adventure RPGs may claim the title of RPGs. I have clearly shown in the story;game thread, that the thing holding together RPGs is mainly a shared method. The fact that you equal RPGs with Adventure RPGs is a historic artifact. Nothing more nothing less. Your extreme position may have it´s merits, as you don´t want to give a single inch over to your enemies. So be it. But be honest about it. Don´t tell blatant lies, where youself have been around how it really went.

You might say: the adventure RPGs/thematic RPGs distinction is giving too much merit to the thematic games. You might even say that acknowledging Thematic games to be RPGs at all is dangerous in your crusade. But that doesn´t make the facts go away. And the fact is, that Thematic Games share a method with other RPGs: Negotiation as a technique for advancing a fictious situation. And the are used for leisure. So they are Games.
Like fucking Settlers is a boardgame and my beloved Dune is a boardgame. They are not the same ballpark, but they share methods. This is how much similarities exist, and this is where they end. Different for every game.

Once, in your online persona you could admit that you were wrong. In that you attribute this terminology to the forge.
It´s mine.
Mine mine mine.
You might hate it.
But it remains mine.
And nobody elses.
Label me a swine, tell me I´m a moron for even making the attempt.
But let other people out of it, as they had nothing to do with the term.
It´s mine.

I feel like I've drifted into the twilight zone here the past few days.  :(

This is the english language.  Words have commonly understood meanings.  Combining them creates compound meanings.

Game = a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.  - OR - an amusement or pastime  -- I prefer the first definition when trying to think about "game design"

Board game = A game involving a game board

Roleplaying Game = A game involving roleplaying

Storytelling Game = A game involving storytelling

Adventure Game = A game about adventure

Adventure Roleplaying Game = A roleplaying game about adventure

Adventure Storytelling Game = A storytelling game about adventure

Adventure Board Game = A board game about adventure

If you can take any of those parts out -- Game, Board, Roleplaying, Storytelling, Adventure -- then you could describe that activity without them.

Is Warhammer 40K a Roleplaying Game?  No.  I can play that game without any Roleplaying.

Is Once Upon a Time a Roleplaying Game?  No. I can also play that game without any Roleplaying.

Are all traditional Roleplaying Games actually Adventure Roleplaying Games?  No.  A Roleplaying game doesn't have to be about Adventure.

Are all Storytelling Games also Roleplaying Games?  No.  You can have a Storytelling game that requires no Roleplaying.

Are all Roleplaying activities Roleplaying Games?  No.  You can roleplay without having any competition, rules, goals, challenges, rewards, etc.

If I was the first one to produce a "Wuthering Heights Roleplaying Game" would I have invented that term?  No.  I might be the first person to use that term, and the first person to make that game, but it's a simple compound word with no special meaning beyond what's contained in the individual words.

So, to review:

If the activity requires Roleplaying... and it's a game... it's a Roleplaying Game.

If it doesn't require any roleplaying, or it's not actually a game... it's NOT a Roleplaying Game.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf Sorcerer and DiTV are not to be the "future" of roleplaying, then its a fight that must be had. And should they or their kin end up being the future of roleplaying, then I'd rather go down fighting and not be there to see the grizzly end of it.

Wow. Just wow.

You and Ron Edwards really are very much alike aside from your gaming tastes, do you realise that? (Ron got laughed at on the Forge when he wheeled out his paranoid war analogies too.)

You really, truly feel that D&D is threatened by tiny games with very small print runs put out by impassioned amateurs, games which almost certainly won't survive their original creators, don't you?

Exactly how can Sorcerer and DiTV have a hope in hell of toppling D&D?

Exactly.  The point of stuff like the forge isn't that it'll topple D&D, it's that its experimental stuff for people that want to try out something different.  I think such mechanics will find their way into mainstream games, but will be polished and revised and suited to fit within games of much larger scope (which will probably lead the fans of forge games to not like them much).

Much as he protests over 'swine', Pundit is the first to jump up to tell people how they're playing wrong.

Quote from: WarthurYou really, truly feel that D&D is threatened by tiny games with very small print runs put out by impassioned amateurs, games which almost certainly won't survive their original creators, don't you?

Hey, I'll go beyond dismissing that.  I don't even think that Sorceror is threatened by D&D.

Nothing that D&D does prevents anyone from playing Sorceror.  If people want to play Sorceror then they leave their D&D books at home, and it's very much as if D&D didn't even exist.

Yes, in many cases people asked "Do you want to play Sorceror?" will say "Nah ... we'd rather play D&D instead."  In some cases it may even go vice-versa.  That's not people being prevented from playing the game they want, it's people choosing the game they want from multiple good alternatives.

The poor guy who wanted to play Sorceror and can't find anyone who wants to play it with him?  Tough luck on him.  He's offering an alternative that isn't as good as the other things his friends can find to do.  He shouldn't get people to play with him.  It is right and proper for him not to have a group to play with.

The idea of a "war" between RPGs isn't merely ridiculous in practice.  It is ridiculous even in concept.

Quote from: WarthurWow. Just wow.

You and Ron Edwards really are very much alike aside from your gaming tastes, do you realise that? (Ron got laughed at on the Forge when he wheeled out his paranoid war analogies too.)

Funny how you never see the two together, isn't it?

Circles within circles . . . .

(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5511/481/1600/chart2.gif)

Oooh. A red 'x' contained in a box....within a box!

That's some edgy shit, jrients. :D

Quote from: Christmas ApeOooh. A red 'x' contained in a box....within a box!

That's some edgy shit, jrients. :D

Fuck!  It worked in the preview!  Just click on the link in my sig and you'll see it.

Ah, you're a big wimp, Jeff!  You made a vanishingly small point of intersection between the boders of the three categories, so that you don't have to take a stand on whether there is such a thing as Manly Man Hippy Forge LARPs or whether there isn't.  My eyes hurt from squinting now, and I blame you :p

Quote from: TonyLBAh, you're a big wimp, Jeff!  You made a vanishingly small point of intersection between the boders of the three categories, so that you don't have to take a stand on whether there is such a thing as Manly Man Hippy Forge LARPs or whether there isn't.  My eyes hurt from squinting now, and I blame you :p

A little ambiguity makes life interesting.  Or I slopped that chart together quickly and wasn't really paying attention.  Whichever works better for you.

Quote from: RPGPunditI happen to hold that his use of that term is highly unfortunate, as it was immediately glommed onto by the Swine in order to denigrate and marginalize mainstream games.

...and we must protect our precious bodily fluids!

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniYou might say: the adventure RPGs/thematic RPGs distinction is giving too much merit to the thematic games. You might even say that acknowledging Thematic games to be RPGs at all is dangerous in your crusade. But that doesn´t make the facts go away. And the fact is, that Thematic Games share a method with other RPGs: Negotiation as a technique for advancing a fictious situation. And the are used for leisure. So they are Games.
Like fucking Settlers is a boardgame and my beloved Dune is a boardgame. They are not the same ballpark, but they share methods. This is how much similarities exist, and this is where they end. Different for every game.

Once, in your online persona you could admit that you were wrong. In that you attribute this terminology to the forge.
It´s mine.
Mine mine mine.
You might hate it.
But it remains mine.
And nobody elses.
Label me a swine, tell me I´m a moron for even making the attempt.
But let other people out of it, as they had nothing to do with the term.
It´s mine.

Ok, that's hip, it was you and all you that invented the term "Adventure games".

Now you admit that it was a mistake to do so, because you just gave Ron Edwards and his ilk another tool by which to argue that mainstream RPGs aren't really "real RPGs" at all, and conceded ground that we have desperately fought to maintain in asserting that OUR games are RPGs, and theirs are not.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNow you admit that it was a mistake to do so, because you just gave Ron Edwards and his ilk another tool by which to argue that mainstream RPGs aren't really "real RPGs" at all, and conceded ground that we have desperately fought to maintain in asserting that OUR games are RPGs, and theirs are not.

Yeah!  Because you having fun with your games is completely dependent upon having told other people what to do and how to think!  You've got to win the war for words or else ... uh ...

Shit.  Wait.  Lost my train of thought.  What's the bad thing that happens to you if you don't fight this war?

Quote from: WarthurWow. Just wow.

You and Ron Edwards really are very much alike aside from your gaming tastes, do you realise that? (Ron got laughed at on the Forge when he wheeled out his paranoid war analogies too.)

You really, truly feel that D&D is threatened by tiny games with very small print runs put out by impassioned amateurs, games which almost certainly won't survive their original creators, don't you?

Exactly how can Sorcerer and DiTV have a hope in hell of toppling D&D?

Hey, here's the deal, you make up YOUR mind first. Either:

1. Forge games are the inevitable wave of the future and I'm a quixotic "idiot" for wanting to resist that wave.

or

2. Forge games are insignificant and I'm paranoid for thinking they could ever have any effect that would change our hobby whatsoever.

Have a vote or something. Once you've figured it out for yourself, exactly where you stand, then you can come and explain to me exactly which of the two I'm supposed to respond to. Ok?

Stupid fucker.

RPGPundit

I'll take C for the block, Alex.

C)  Forge games are new.  Some people embrace them because they're faddish.  Some people reject them because they're new and NEW IS SCARY.  The wargamers did the same thing with D&D and decades later I still know guys who play frickin' World in Flames and Europa.

Quote from: TonyLBShit.  Wait.  Lost my train of thought.  What's the bad thing that happens to you if you don't fight this war?

See the late nineties, when a tiny minority of ideologically-minded elitists managed through a combination of luck, circumstance, and forethought to get control of the entire creative-direction of RPGs, and ran them into the ground.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSee the late nineties, when a tiny minority of ideologically-minded elitists managed through a combination of luck, circumstance, and forethought to get control of the entire creative-direction of RPGs, and ran them into the ground.

Oh, right!  That's why nobody plays D&D any more.  White Wolf killed it dead.

Wait.  No.  That's not right either.

Quote from: jrientsI'll take C for the block, Alex.

C)  Forge games are new.  Some people embrace them because they're faddish.  Some people reject them because they're new and NEW IS SCARY.  The wargamers did the same thing with D&D and decades later I still know guys who play frickin' World in Flames and Europa.

I'm not "scared" of Forge games, I'm disgusted by them.

I understand them, and that is why I find them despicable.

And those who are part of the Forge that tell you that it would not be their fondest wish for "their" type of gaming to dominate the hobby are simply lying to you.  The only difference between me wanting them out and them wanting me out is that I'm not two-faced about it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBOh, right!  That's why nobody plays D&D any more.  White Wolf killed it dead.

Wait.  No.  That's not right either.

You're a real joker Tony.   Or did you really forget that part you'd so desperately long to forget, when D20 came along and kicked all of your asses?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're a real joker Tony.

Oh, I can't take all the credit.  You make it very easy to make jokes.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr did you really forget that part you'd so desperately long to forget, when D20 came along and kicked all of your asses?

Y'know, it's a funny thing:  I was playing Castle Falkenstein and Amber when D20 came out ... and I kept right on playing them.

I mean ... something clearly went wrong in the bureaucracy there.  If I'm to believe your take on the world then the popularity of D20 should have bodily prevented me from continuing to play those games.  Somebody probably just lost my paperwork.  That kind of thing happens in the chaos of war.

This just in: walmart is having a special on meaningless strawmen- they come with free matches!

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd those who are part of the Forge that tell you that it would not be their fondest wish for "their" type of gaming to dominate the hobby are simply lying to you.  The only difference between me wanting them out and them wanting me out is that I'm not two-faced about it.

Right.  And those Forge guys are dicks.  Does them being dicks really alter the games they play?  Gareth-Michael Skarka and Kevin Siembieda and Richard Tucholka still make RPGs.  Justin Achilli's work still qualifies as an rpg.  Being a full-on son of a bitch doesn't change the fact that I think all these guys make RPGs.

I appreciate you being honest about your position.  I really do.  It's one of the things I really dig about you.  But I think the term 'role-playing game' still has room for expansion.  We didn't kick Call of Cthulhu out of the club when it came out, despite being a radically different kind of game at the time.  RuneQuest wasn't kicked to the curb for the crime of lacking both classes and levels.  Toon and Ghostbusters we're waived past the red velvet rope, even though you can't even friggin' die in those games.  And Amber.  Jesus, do you not see that Amber was considered not-an-rpg by many deluded fools, including myself, when it first came out?  For the love of God, Montresor, Amber does not use dice!  How can it be a role-playing game?!?!?

QuoteNow you admit that it was a mistake to do so, because you just gave Ron Edwards and his ilk another tool by which to argue that mainstream RPGs aren't really "real RPGs" at all, and conceded ground that we have desperately fought to maintain in asserting that OUR games are RPGs, and theirs are not.

That´s your interpretation. I have never ever seen the term adventure roleplaying game being used in any negative way. Show me a link where the term is used to further "the forge/Swine" cause.
When I made my "but" comment, I just was trying to think like you.

Seems I was right:
You are not argueing about reality, but about how much word-power ground can be granted to your chosen enemies. This is another discussion than the one you  started.

Quote from: RPGPunditEither:

1. Forge games are the inevitable wave of the future and I'm a quixotic "idiot" for wanting to resist that wave.

or

2. Forge games are insignificant and I'm paranoid for thinking they could ever have any effect that would change our hobby whatsoever.

I would say that you're both things: the first (quixotic idiot), because change happens in all things. It has not to be an enormous change, but things change. As Jeff Rients wisely said, if every one had been a caveman as you are being, then your precious Amber never could have been considered and RPG (it hasn't dice, for God's sake!), and we'd never have had any other games other than barely tolkienesque fantasy games with levels, classes and stuff (What heretic shit is that Traveller? It has no orcs!). Fortunately, there is D&D (which is great) and there are other games (which is also great). And the new indie games just add more variety to the hobby, not less. I played Aquelarre yesterday, and you don't get much more traditional than that. And I had a blast of a game. Tonight, I'm playing Sorcerer with my girlfriend. And doing that does not prevent me from playing Cthulhu the next week, as soon I come back from London.

Your false point here is: you have to choose one side and if you play these games, you can't play the others. Which is bollocks.

On the other side, you manage to be the second (paranoid) as long as you claim that the hobby was subverted and controlled by the Swine, ignoring the blatant truth (and even your own affirmations!) about D&D being the most played game ever, in any time frame you wish to elect. I don't know how things were in your cave, but in the rest of the world people didn't stop playing D&D if they liked it. Vampire in its highest day was the second most played game. So, for all your pretended oppression of non-storytelling, non-traditional gamers, we find that the hobby was never controlled by anyone, and more on, that most of the Internet debate about gaming is not a warring battlefield about shit: it's people talking about their games, most commonly their D&D games. As has always been.

Your false point here is: my hobby was near destruction, because people stopped playing it. Which is also bollocks, as your favourite game never stopped being the most played, and your favourite gaming style was the most played around.

I'm sure that it must be gratifying to think that you're fighting for a good cause. That you're leading some stupid holy war. But the more I read you, the more I got the next conclussion: You really don't know a shit about what you're talking. You took your own negative experiences about the 90's and concluded that the whole hobby was under the same situation, when it was not true. And now, you go to some forums, see that some people uses Forge jargon, that some games that you don't like are discussed, and you conclude that the majority of the gaming discussion on Internet has been subverted, happily ignoring the fact that the biggest Internet boards out there are D&D boards (ENWorld, Wizards and the like), and the fact that in every other game board people can (and usually do) talk about traditional games as always. Yes, even in the Forge.

But I understand that is more gratifying being the fundamentalist Christian of the Swine Church, spit silly and unfounded conspiracy theories, and see how you have the most famous Uruguayan blog gaming in the world, which must give you a big hard on given how much you do like to gloat about it. Of course, I'm with jhkim on that: you must have RPG.net cock firmly stuck in your mouth given that, as they have more traffic than this site or your blog, they must be better (according to your twisted reasoning). And I'm also with J. Arcane on this other thing: all you and your soldiers on your Cocksmock Crusade are doing here, in Internet is fucking irrelevant. You don't affect a shit with your antics, apart from giving us laughing material.

You want to know why indie games have experienced such a growth? Because, apart from spurting shit on Internet boards, many of their authors go out and do things. They go to Gen Con and get people to try their games. They make people like Mike Mearls and Ryan Dancey try thir games, so after that Mike Mearls write good things on his blog for the people who check Internet. They go everywhere showing actual things that they do. And their games grow in sales, slowly but steadily. Simple as that. But the indie games propably won't surpass D&D and other games in sales numbers - at least not for the foreseeable future. The will simply add to the enormous and rich tapestry of options availabe for people who love games. And that's it.

So I have to congratulate you, because all of your achievements regarding mental illness and cocksmockery (and thanks, JimBob, for such an awesome swearword!), and by being something like the missing link: a rare archaelogical curiosity, from some weird dinosaurs lost world or something like that.

Fandom needs you, indeed. We need you and your army of deranged people who fight shadows as a living proof of what could happen to us if we don't go out to make cool things, and start believing that our limited experience is the sum of the hobby for everyone. Kudos to you, Admiral Cocksmock!

QuoteWe need you and your army of deranged people who fight shadows as a living proof of what could happen to us if we don't go out to make cool things, and start believing that our limited experience is the sum of the hobby for everyone.

So smarty-pants: Come to germany, where the Swine rule supreme. Then you will know what the hobby can become. You are totally right, in that the Pundit doesn´t need to wage this war for the North American Market. But for the anglophone Internet it´s needed. And in germany it is needed too.

Quote from: SettembriniSo smarty-pants: Come to germany, where the Swine rule supreme. Then you will know what the hobby can become. You are totally right, in that the Pundit doesn´t need to wage this war for the North American Market. But for the anglophone Internet it´s needed. And in germany it is needed too.

Set, I wouldn't discuss the state of the hobby in Germany, as I don't have such information. So in take your word for true, at least until some other German gamer add information that is in disagreement with your point of view.

On the anglophone Internet, though, I stand by my point.

First: the Internet discussion is irrelevant to the hobby. Irrelevant with a capital I.

Second: the biggest Internet boards are devoted to traditional games in general, and D&D in particular. ENWorld has 46,033 members as I write this, and you will find few Forge jargon over there. RPG.net has 32,930, with a significant part of them being non-gamers. And in the gamer part, discussion on traditional gaming is dominant. Each main mainstream publisher has its own forums, where the discussion is mainly mainstream.

So no, Internet debate is under no threat. Again, the Pundit takes his experience from the boards he has posted (and usually got banned from), and has concluded that the whole of the Internet discussion is like that. Wrong again.

About local situation: if you go to any Spanish con, most games are traditional games, with some people doing indie demos, a lot of boardgaming, a lot of CCGs, a lot of consoles, and a lot of girls. And as you can imagine, one thing doesn't exclude the other. The same people I was playing with in a fantastic Sorcerer demo I ran were playing a great WoW D20 game the next day. In both cases, they enjoyed the game inmensely. And when I talked to them about your war, they laughed their asses out. His answer was clear: 'conceptual wars on RPGs are for jackasses. People should go to cons and play like rabid hamsters.'

If you go to Spanish messageboards (as inforol.com, distrimagen.es, and the like), the situation is quite similar: mainly D&D and other big titles talk, with some people talking about other games. Some people will be interested in some new games, and some others will be happy with their regular ___ game. No biggie.

So, I could draw as a conclussion from the Spanish hobby that there is no other game than D&D, CoC, Vampire, and the like. Which would be false, as I know of a lot of groups that don't appear on your radar (as they don't use messageboards) that play indie games, trad games, and the like. Variety rules.

As I said before, I can't make an informed statement about the hobby in Germany. I take your word to be true. But even in that case, I'm pretty confident that there is a lot of people who doesn't show on Internet and from whom you don't know nothing, who play traditional (or 'adventure') games, that don't know about your war, and wh wouldn't give a shit if they knew about it.

The german gaming scene is a different can of worms-let´s open another thread for that one, okay?
@internet: On EnWorld, you can´t really discuss gaming in general. Which leaves the next biggest site. And that´s were it starts.

Quote from: ImperatorSecond: the biggest Internet boards are devoted to traditional games in general, and D&D in particular. ENWorld has 46,033 members as I write this, and you will find few Forge jargon over there. RPG.net has 32,930, with a significant part of them being non-gamers. And in the gamer part, discussion on traditional gaming is dominant. Each main mainstream publisher has its own forums, where the discussion is mainly mainstream.

So no, Internet debate is under no threat. Again, the Pundit takes his experience from the boards he has posted (and usually got banned from), and has concluded that the whole of the Internet discussion is like that. Wrong again.

Tell me where I can find a forum where people are discussing RPG design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussions.

There are lots of places to talk about whatever your favourite game might be... but there is *nowhere* that I've seen, that focuses on practical RPG design patterns without the Forge / GNS stuff.

Nowhere.

Ya know? I hear RPG.net has like, an ignore function. You don't even have to see posts about GNS more than once, and you're under no obligation to answer them.

It's pretty awesome.

You mean set posts by particular people in a thread to not display and make it so that you can only seeing bits and pieces of a conversation?  You actually use that feature?  :confused:

Quote from: Stuartthat focuses on practical RPG design patterns without the Forge / GNS stuff.

Nowhere.

This is gonna sound weird, from me...  But I'm cooking that up.

A forum for pure craft.

For real game theory? Probability curves and distributions and tipping points and shit?

I think the math behind the games is the most important, least worked-on part of all.

QuoteThis is gonna sound weird, from me... But I'm cooking that up.

A forum for pure craft.

I saw that on your blog... but how would it be any different from Story Games?

Quote from: Christmas ApeYa know? I hear RPG.net has like, an ignore function. You don't even have to see posts about GNS more than once, and you're under no obligation to answer them.

It's pretty awesome.

Trouble is, I found it got to a point where I was simply ignoring the entire board.

I really wish the damn mods hadn't been such idiots about having a theory forum.  Would've been better for the whole board in the long run.

Quote from: jrientsRight.  And those Forge guys are dicks.  Does them being dicks really alter the games they play?  Gareth-Michael Skarka and Kevin Siembieda and Richard Tucholka still make RPGs.  Justin Achilli's work still qualifies as an rpg.  Being a full-on son of a bitch doesn't change the fact that I think all these guys make RPGs.

I appreciate you being honest about your position.  I really do.  It's one of the things I really dig about you.  But I think the term 'role-playing game' still has room for expansion.  We didn't kick Call of Cthulhu out of the club when it came out, despite being a radically different kind of game at the time.  RuneQuest wasn't kicked to the curb for the crime of lacking both classes and levels.  Toon and Ghostbusters we're waived past the red velvet rope, even though you can't even friggin' die in those games.  And Amber.  Jesus, do you not see that Amber was considered not-an-rpg by many deluded fools, including myself, when it first came out?  For the love of God, Montresor, Amber does not use dice!  How can it be a role-playing game?!?!?

There are a lot of games, including games I do not like, that are still Roleplaying Games.

Hell, one of my issues with Vampire is that it IS a roleplaying game, despite Rein·Hagen's desperate efforts to paint it as something "different" from an RPG.  In no way shape or form does it deviate from being an RPG.

Real "story games"; however, are NOT RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s your interpretation. I have never ever seen the term adventure roleplaying game being used in any negative way. Show me a link where the term is used to further "the forge/Swine" cause.
When I made my "but" comment, I just was trying to think like you.

Seems I was right:
You are not argueing about reality, but about how much word-power ground can be granted to your chosen enemies. This is another discussion than the one you  started.

This thread was inspired by JH Kim's redefinition of the hobby into "Adventure Games" and "Story Games", trying to weasel Story Games into the hobby by implying that both are RPGs, and what we had previously called RPGs are really just one of two "branches" of RPGs henceforth to be referred to as "Adventure Games".  That's bullshit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartI saw that on your blog... but how would it be any different from Story Games?

Uh.  Because it won't actually be a discussion forum, exactly.  I doubt anyone will ever think of it as their 'main place to go'.

Rule one: You can only talk about your own experiences.  Period.

Rule two: Talk technique.  Talk how it succeeds and fails for you.

Rule three: If you can't describe the thing that you did as an actual, physical or verbal occurence, or series of same, don't bring it up.  No abstractions.

Quote from: ImperatorYour false point here is: you have to choose one side and if you play these games, you can't play the others. Which is bollocks.

That's funny, since that's not my point at all. I guess you missed the part above where I was talking about how I love playing Backgammon and I love playing RPGs, and my love of one doesn't preclude the other.
My point is that I don't claim that Backgammon is an RPG, and "story gamers" shouldn't claim that their games are RPGs either.

QuoteOn the other side, you manage to be the second (paranoid) as long as you claim that the hobby was subverted and controlled by the Swine, ignoring the blatant truth (and even your own affirmations!) about D&D being the most played game ever, in any time frame you wish to elect. I don't know how things were in your cave, but in the rest of the world people didn't stop playing D&D if they liked it. Vampire in its highest day was the second most played game. So, for all your pretended oppression of non-storytelling, non-traditional gamers, we find that the hobby was never controlled by anyone, and more on, that most of the Internet debate about gaming is not a warring battlefield about shit: it's people talking about their games, most commonly their D&D games. As has always been.

There was, apparently, a brief period in the peak of the 90s story-based gaming, where Vampire may have actually outsold AD&D, but that's not really germaine to the discussion.
What IS relevant is that at that same time AD&D had been turned into just another story-based game, filled with nonsense, crap settings, and almost-as-pretentious bullshit as the worst stuff WW was coming out with.  They never really quite got to the top sales position (not counting that very brief questionable period) but they were in ideological control of the hobby; because TSR had become intellectually bankrupt and a small group of story-based swine had convinced everyone that their style of play was the "superior" style and the "way of the future".  That was the same time that old-school gamers ended up leaving the hobby in droves.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ImperatorFirst: the Internet discussion is irrelevant to the hobby. Irrelevant with a capital I.

That's funny, given that its where we are arguing right now. I'd say that makes it pretty fucking relevant.  

QuoteSo, I could draw as a conclussion from the Spanish hobby that there is no other game than D&D, CoC, Vampire, and the like. Which would be false, as I know of a lot of groups that don't appear on your radar (as they don't use messageboards) that play indie games, trad games, and the like. Variety rules.

Using the "spanish hobby" as a landmark for the state of anything, much less internet discussion about the hobby, is pretty damn nonsensical.  I mean, thirty years ago you guys were still fascists.  The fact that you're years behind the times really doesn't make you good markers for what's going on in the vanguard of anything, much less a hobby that isn't based on your language.
Using ANY non-english gaming scene, other than possibly the German, is going to be pretty damn irrelevant because of how tiny a portion of that scene they consist of. And even the Germans are a world unto themselves, they're big enough to take note of what's going on, but what's happening in Germany will tell you FUCK ALL about what's going on in North America and Great Britain, which is what's relevant to the hobby as a whole.  What the rest of us are talking about is what's going on in the English-speaking gaming world.  You've got the tunnel vision of your local scene, and your local scene is detached from the bigger picture.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartTell me where I can find a forum where people are discussing RPG design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussions.

There are lots of places to talk about whatever your favourite game might be... but there is *nowhere* that I've seen, that focuses on practical RPG design patterns without the Forge / GNS stuff.

Nowhere.

Sadly, that's true. Even here, you've seen the Forge/Storygames swine swarm into our theory board and try to dominate the discussion. Here you have a fighting chance, because they can't hide behind the moderation, but unless I was prepared to outright Ban forge-centered discussion and terminology, its not going to go away, because they're on an evangelizing mission.  
That said, here you can push for that kind of discussion, and force threads you start to keep on-topic out of the Forge/Story-games Kool-aid.  
I'd like to see you do that!

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUh.  Because it won't actually be a discussion forum, exactly.  I doubt anyone will ever think of it as their 'main place to go'.

Rule one: You can only talk about your own experiences.  Period.

Rule two: Talk technique.  Talk how it succeeds and fails for you.

Rule three: If you can't describe the thing that you did as an actual, physical or verbal occurence, or series of same, don't bring it up.  No abstractions.

That sounds interesting... rpg-talk-no-bullshit...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPunditSadly, that's true. Even here, you've seen the Forge/Storygames swine swarm into our theory board and try to dominate the discussion. Here you have a fighting chance, because they can't hide behind the moderation, but unless I was prepared to outright Ban forge-centered discussion and terminology, its not going to go away, because they're on an evangelizing mission.  
That said, here you can push for that kind of discussion, and force threads you start to keep on-topic out of the Forge/Story-games Kool-aid.  
I'd like to see you do that!

RPGPundit

Absent moderation there's no need to ban anything: ideas that can't survive on their own die a natural death. Useful theory gets stronger... it is the way of the universe ;)

At a certain noise level you get Usenet and every conversation eventually disolves into arguing about Nazi's, but that edge condition is fairly easy to moderate for -- we've already seen that sort of work here.

I can't find much to care about in the Adventure Games / Story Games paradigm, except that neither of them seem to describe what I play.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, here's the deal, you make up YOUR mind first. Either:

1. Forge games are the inevitable wave of the future and I'm a quixotic "idiot" for wanting to resist that wave.

or

2. Forge games are insignificant and I'm paranoid for thinking they could ever have any effect that would change our hobby whatsoever.

I'll go with option 3:

3. Forge games are a niche-within-a-niche, catering to a small subset of the roleplaying community (which isn't exactly massive as it is). Considering that there is little-to-no evidence that D&D and other mainstream games are being horribly subverted by the techniques developed by the Forge, it's paranoid to claim that's the case.

At the same time, people have been experimenting with the roleplaying format since day 1, and the Forge are just a particularly visible form of this experimental spirit that's been with the hobby from the start. It is quixotic to think that by jumping up and down and shouting on the internet that you can stop people experimenting with games, just as it is paranoid to believe that just because someone is experimenting over there, you can't have fun in the way you always have over here.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm not "scared" of Forge games, I'm disgusted by them.

I understand them, and that is why I find them despicable.

For someone with avowedly liberal politics, you sure sound like a reactionary conservative.

I mean, take a look at what you are doing - you're allowing yourself to be so personally offended by games that other people are playing and enjoying that you've embarked on a personal crusade to destroy this menace by SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY until people stop doing things in the privacy of their own home that you don't approve of.

Quote from: StuartTell me where I can find a forum where people are discussing RPG design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussions.

There are lots of places to talk about whatever your favourite game might be... but there is *nowhere* that I've seen, that focuses on practical RPG design patterns without the Forge / GNS stuff.

Nowhere.

That's a consequence of the Forge popping up and, erm, doing innovative things with game design (and whether or not you actually think they're any good, you have to admit that the most famous Forge games - Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs In the Vineyard, My Life With Master and the like - are all highly experimental). Any recently-published collection of games with highly experimental designs are going to catch the eye of RPG design forums because, erm, people who like to talk about RPG design like to talk about the latest experiment which has caught their eye.

QuoteThat's a consequence of the Forge popping up and, erm, doing innovative things with game design (and whether or not you actually think they're any good, you have to admit that the most famous Forge games - Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs In the Vineyard, My Life With Master and the like - are all highly experimental). Any recently-published collection of games with highly experimental designs are going to catch the eye of RPG design forums because, erm, people who like to talk about RPG design like to talk about the latest experiment which has caught their eye.

Yes, they're like beat poets, or auteur filmmakers, or revolutionary free thinkers from the 60s.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: StuartYes, they're like beat poets, or auteur filmmakers, or revolutionary free thinkers from the 60s.  :rolleyes:

Tell you what, why don't whenever we have a conversation you just write my replies as well, seeing how you ignore whatever I say and turn it into what you'd prefer I said, hmm?

What the fuck is up with this place when a poster can't make an even vaguely positive comment about the Forge without being vilified as a dirty hippy Forge-loving scumbag? I wasn't making any pretentious claims as to the importance of the Forge, I was just saying that they experiment a lot with game design and that several of them have done genuinely innovative things with the RPG format, and so that it is perfectly natural that many people interested in RPG design at least keep an eye on what the Forge are up to, even if they end up rejecting 90% of what the Forge actually come up with.

I'm pretty sure this was our last conversation.

Quote from: WarthurThe implied challenge in most freeforms I've participated in boils down to diplomacy and talking to people: convincing others that they should support you, and not others, keeping secrets from your enemies, getting information to your friends, that kind of thing.

Quote from: StuartIn this way, those LARPs would be very much like the game Diplomacy. The players engaged in this activity would certainly be playing a game.

I neither ignored what you said, nor changed it.  I agreed with it.  You said your LARP had diplomacy in it.  I said that sounds a lot like the boardgame Diplomacy.

I asked "where I can find a forum where people are discussing RPG design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussions."

You claim that's just not possible, it's "a consequence of the Forge popping up and, erm, doing innovative things with game design" and that "people who like to talk about RPG design like to talk about the latest experiment which has caught their eye."

Which honestly makes me roll my eyes in disbelief.  You suggested it's not possible to discuss RPG design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussion, because that stuff is just so experimental?  

In that last week I've seen Forge people describe their work (games or talk about games) as being: experimental, "Hippy games", revolutionary, and being like beat poets or auteur filmmakers.

I couldn't find an icon for throwing up your hands in bewilderment and saying "Sure, whatever.  If it makes them happy to think that.  I mean, really, what difference does it make?  If they're making micro-niche games with little broad market appeal, do I care?  No, actually I don't.  I'll guess I'll just do my own thing then..."  So I used the little rolling eyes guy instead.

Anyway...

:mr-t: -- enough jibba jabba

Quote from: WarthurAt the same time, people have been experimenting with the roleplaying format since day 1, and the Forge are just a particularly visible form of this experimental spirit that's been with the hobby from the start. It is quixotic to think that by jumping up and down and shouting on the internet that you can stop people experimenting with games, just as it is paranoid to believe that just because someone is experimenting over there, you can't have fun in the way you always have over here.

Well, if you haven't noticed, there's a whole group of people over here who seem to have come here solely and exclusively to try to attack traditional RPGs and evangelize Forge-style game theory.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurFor someone with avowedly liberal politics, you sure sound like a reactionary conservative.

Only people with conservative politics think of my politics as "liberal". People with liberal politics invariably define my politics as "conservative".

QuoteI mean, take a look at what you are doing - you're allowing yourself to be so personally offended by games that other people are playing and enjoying that you've embarked on a personal crusade to destroy this menace by SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY until people stop doing things in the privacy of their own home that you don't approve of.

Nonsense. I'm not even trying to get people to stop doing things on the internet.  I'm just trying to get them to stop pushing their things all over the internet and the world at large, specifically in the places I hang out and roleplay.

You don't see me over at the Forge or Story Games attacking Forge theory.
Yet you see all kinds of people from the Forge or Story games in here trying to push Forge theory, and attack traditional play, or attack me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurWhat the fuck is up with this place when a poster can't make an even vaguely positive comment about the Forge without being vilified as a dirty hippy Forge-loving scumbag?

Given the mission statement of this place, and who runs this place, it might not be the best place for you to go around trying to promote the Forge.

Or at least, you shouldn't expect people to pat you on the back for doing so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou don't see me over at the Forge or Story Games attacking Forge theory.
Yet you see all kinds of people from the Forge or Story games in here trying to push Forge theory, and attack traditional play, or attack me.

Ban me then, if that's what you think (motherfucker).

I'm not 'from the Forge' or 'from Story Games', by the way. I'm a guy with a computer. I hang out here because there's some interesting people, and I liked RPG.net better before they got all heavy on us. As for you, sounds to me like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

I don't see why roleplaying has to stay forever only as what some guys in Lake Geneva imagined, any more than I think poetry always has to rhyme. If you guys want to kick me and whoever else out of your clubhouse, you can fucking well say so. I think you're stupid for it, but okay, whatever.

Quote from: droogBan me then, if that's what you think (motherfucker).

I'm not 'from the Forge' or 'from Story Games', by the way. I'm a guy with a computer. I hang out here because there's some interesting people, and I liked RPG.net better before they got all heavy on us. As for you, sounds to me like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

I don't see why roleplaying has to stay forever only as what some guys in Lake Geneva imagined, any more than I think poetry always has to rhyme. If you guys want to kick me and whoever else out of your clubhouse, you can fucking well say so. I think you're stupid for it, but okay, whatever.

Way to paint everyone who disagrees with you as a reactionary stick in the mud dude.

How very forge.

Quote from: StuartI neither ignored what you said, nor changed it.  I agreed with it.  You said your LARP had diplomacy in it.  I said that sounds a lot like the boardgame Diplomacy.

Yeah, the only difference was that this time I said something vaguely nice about the Forge ("Whether or not you think their games are any good, you have to admit they're at least innovative"), and you leaped down my throat and accused me of setting them up alongside Ginsberg and Burroughs.

So, I apologise. Your twisting of my words is selective, rather than a general thing.

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven the mission statement of this place, and who runs this place, it might not be the best place for you to go around trying to promote the Forge.

Or at least, you shouldn't expect people to pat you on the back for doing so.

You are conflating "saying something vaguely positive about the Forge" with "promoting them".

I've not pushed GNS here (I don't agree with it), I've consistently pointed out that Forge games are niche games with little-to-no hope of competing with the likes of D&D and Vampire, all I did was say that they are innovative. And they are. They do new things. Whether those new things are any good is another issue, but they do innovate.

Quote from: StuartWhich honestly makes me roll my eyes in disbelief.  You suggested it's not possible to discuss RPG design without it being dominated by Forge / GNS discussion, because that stuff is just so experimental?

I am going to restate my position because it's clear you didn't get what I am saying.

What I was saying that the set of "People who want to talk about RPG design" and "People who are interested in discussing highly experimental games, such as those the Forge produces" is going to be fairly high. (BE CAREFUL NOT TO MISINTERPET HERE! I am saying "People interested in discussing highly experimental games", not "People who LIKE AND ENJOY highly experimental games.") The reason for this is, er, fairly obvious to me: if you like designing games, you want to hear about interesting new techniques people have come up with, so if the Forge pops up and puts out lots of highly experimental games you are probably going to take a look to see if there's anything of merit there. Many of them might reject everything they see, but they're not going to bury their heads in the sand in case they do find something they like.

Given that the overlap is fairly high, it stands to reason that if you go on the internet and find a publicly accessible web forum which doesn't outright ban Forge discussion, you're going to find Forge discussion in your RPG design discussions. Because, erm, you're inviting everyone with an interest in RPG design to the discussion by posting it on the internet, and there's that huge overlap.

That's all that I was saying.

If I predominantly saw people saying things like: "the way the setting is presented in the Shab-al-Hiri Roach is..." or even "the Monarda Law in Nobilis recommends..." that would be totally cool.

Unfortunately what you *usually* see is "according to GNS..."  or "in Narrativist game design..." or "to prevent your game from being incoherent..."  which of course, is not so cool if you think GNS is bunk.

I genuinely hope you can see the difference.

QuoteUnfortunately what you *usually* see is "according to GNS..."  or "in Narrativist game design..." or "to prevent your game from being incoherent..."  which of course, is not so cool if you think GNS is bunk.

I genuinely hope you can see the difference.

I do, and I agree that is irritating (but is surely solvable by just saying when you start a thread "I don't accept GNS theory, and I'm not interested in discussing it right now, so please don't apply it to this discussion"?). It wasn't necessarily what you were specifying in your earlier posts, though.

Quote from: StuartIf I predominantly saw people saying things like: "the way the setting is presented in the Shab-al-Hiri Roach is..." or even "the Monarda Law in Nobilis recommends..." that would be totally cool.

Unfortunately what you *usually* see is "according to GNS..."  or "in Narrativist game design..." or "to prevent your game from being incoherent..."  which of course, is not so cool if you think GNS is bunk.

I genuinely hope you can see the difference.

QFT.

I'll say it again (without the example used in the zero-sum thread). Theory, right now, is heavily influenced by a belief that GNS is the foundation, particularly with those who are excited by it's applications.  If you want to talk about other theory (that is, theory that doesn't take GNS for granted as truth), it's more difficult.

This is frustrated by situations in which attempts to talk about non-GNS theory is sometimes interrupted with discussion that is founded on GNS.

And I don't happen to think that Pundit would ban people for talking about GNS here - in fact he seems to say that's fine.  The difference I find is that GNS is not considered the one-and-only foundation of theory - which to me, for people who want a diversity of thought and opinion about design, should be a great thing.

Quote from: droogBan me then, if that's what you think (motherfucker).

I'm not 'from the Forge' or 'from Story Games', by the way. I'm a guy with a computer. I hang out here because there's some interesting people, and I liked RPG.net better before they got all heavy on us. As for you, sounds to me like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

If I couldn't take it, I would be banning people left and right. However, I can.  I just appreciate those who write posts and start threads that have some subject other than promoting the ideologies of other sites, criticizing me, or responding aggresively to what I say.  And some of you have done way more of that than others.

QuoteI don't see why roleplaying has to stay forever only as what some guys in Lake Geneva imagined, any more than I think poetry always has to rhyme.

It doesn't, there's a wide range of definitions that fit under "RPG", both good or bad. But there are many that don't.
Just like there's a lot of things that qualify as poetry, both good and bad. But you can't take interpretive dance and try to claim that its a kind of poetry.

RPGPundit

Come on then, let's have it. Names, charges, evidence. No more beating about the bush. Who's acceptable and who's not? If I'm purged I want to know it.

What's going on? I'm so confused!
What are we talking about!?!
 
All I know is this WHOLE THREAD has gotten dumb. It hurt my brain reading the whole thing. I wish I hadn't gone through the trouble.
 
I can't wait to play Vampire on monday though!
 
Were going to have an adventure game!

I don't really see what the big deal is. They're all games...

Ironically, despite Nisarg's opinion of Nobilis, all this paranoid ranting about war and such would make for a really awesome game of Nobilis. You are the Noble of RPGs and must defend from nettles from the creation of games like Universalis.

Quote from: SethwickIronically, despite Nisarg's opinion of Nobilis, all this paranoid ranting about war and such would make for a really awesome game of Nobilis. You are the Noble of RPGs and must defend from nettles from the creation of games like Universalis.

Nettling that classic Bond, "The Sanctity of His Estate"? In the long run, there might possibly be more mileage in some tech-savvy Excrucian using online freeform play to corrupt the idea that games must have rules, though.

Quote from: GrimGentNettling that classic Bond, "The Sanctity of His Estate"? In the long run, there might possibly be more mileage in some tech-savvy Excrucian using online freeform play to corrupt the idea that games must have rules, though.

Indeed... There are lots of ways one could do it. I just thought it's funny that, as someone who usually has trouble thinking of Nobilis ideas, I suddenly flashed on one while reading, of all things, RPGPundit posts.

This RPG.NET thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=7017460#post7017460) is a veritable treasure trove of the semantical fuckery that brought us the "adventure game" term. I get the same vibe from it when some Americans trot out the old "it is a republic, not a democracy" horse, usually to make some bizarre point about democrats. Prime swine material.

Quote from: Andy KThat's correct, Settembrini was the first person who started making the distinction between Adventure Games as a subset of RPGs.

So now Settembrini, too, is a "Swine" and a "Fucker".

One of us. One of us. One of us.

 Actually  - maybe not.

 I heard the term "Adventure Game" used in that way back in the late 1980s. Maybe this stuff goes in cycles, maybe not.  But its not a recent phenomena.

- E.W.C.

I'm still churning through that thread, but....

E., if you're reading this, you're probably one of my three favorite posters on the internet. That was gold.

Quote from: SettembriniNo my dear paranoid friend.
That´s totally revisionist history. it was me, who came up with the distinction, long before ever meeting with Ron. And it was me, who on your very blog, convinced several people of it´s  (Adventure Roleplaying Game, as in Roleplaying Games that share stuff with all other Adventure Games, except the main method used.) merits.

And it was fucking me, who went and convinced Ron, Eoru, Clinton R. Nixon and the german forgers of it´s existance and it´s use in online discussion.
Not that they really use it. But they understood and acknowledged that I use that term and not their terminology. It´s fucking only me and Jack who think this is really a good term. And Jack seems to have left town.

Really Pundit, revisionist history par excellence. And useless. It was on your very blog, where the first discussions happened. Way before your indicated "chitchat". It´s my fucking internet agenda to promote that term, and the term thematic roleplaying instead of misleading "forgie" or "indie".

Man, I hope this is a clever scheme to popularize my agenda.

If you are honest about what you are writing, your memory is lacking, or you are a blatant liar for whatever reasons.

But: You have always stated that only Adventure RPGs may claim the title of RPGs. I have clearly shown in the story;game thread, that the thing holding together RPGs is mainly a shared method. The fact that you equal RPGs with Adventure RPGs is a historic artifact. Nothing more nothing less. Your extreme position may have it´s merits, as you don´t want to give a single inch over to your enemies. So be it. But be honest about it. Don´t tell blatant lies, where youself have been around how it really went.

You might say: the adventure RPGs/thematic RPGs distinction is giving too much merit to the thematic games. You might even say that acknowledging Thematic games to be RPGs at all is dangerous in your crusade. But that doesn´t make the facts go away. And the fact is, that Thematic Games share a method with other RPGs: Negotiation as a technique for advancing a fictious situation. And the are used for leisure. So they are Games.
Like fucking Settlers is a boardgame and my beloved Dune is a boardgame. They are not the same ballpark, but they share methods. This is how much similarities exist, and this is where they end. Different for every game.

Once, in your online persona you could admit that you were wrong. In that you attribute this terminology to the forge.
It´s mine.
Mine mine mine.
You might hate it.
But it remains mine.
And nobody elses.
Label me a swine, tell me I´m a moron for even making the attempt.
But let other people out of it, as they had nothing to do with the term.
It´s mine.

 Now wait a minute here ..
 There was a magazine in the mid 1980s called ADVENTURE GAMING  mnagazine. It was was published and edited by Tim Kask.  He had an editorial in the 1st or 2nd issue of the magazine defining use of the term  "Adventure Games".  Who is Tim Kask? He worked on or did some playtesting on D&D in the 1970s. Take a look at the credits inside the AD&D  player's handbook - his name is supposed to be there.

You might not be as original as you think you are.

- E.W.C.

A link to covers and descriptions of Adventure Gaming magazine : http://www.waynesbooks.com/RPGMagazines.html#agm

Tim Kask was, among other things, the original editor of Dragon magazine.

I don't know what to do about this site. Pundit spreads hate, and it's his site. We benefit him, raise his reputation, and possibly make him money by being here.

On the other hand, his rant starting off this thread was pretty funny. And there are a lot of people here, sometimes including Pundit, who can be entertaining to talk to about very many topics.

I don't see the "Hate".

 Tim Kask ? He used to live in this area when he was publishing ADVENTURE GAMING magazine . Thats why I met the guy when I was still a teenager. I remember him smoking pipes, him and Pundit have that in common.

 Cal, aren't you a Forge member or promoter ? You're one of the few names I recognized when I visited that site recently.

 I think that Pundit  in his own cussword-filled, sarcastic and curmudgeonly own way is juist trying to promote RPGs as FUN(!) or ways that they can be a blasting good time.

 I don't really see the "hate". There are a few posters on here that say hateful things sometimes....but I'm not thnking of Pundit as one of them . He did say a few things that pissed me off before I joined ...but thats only because he might have been mis-informed on a few things. Not a big deal really.

- E.W.C.

Koltar, considered merely by itself the term "adventure game" is nearly as empty as the term "fun." Both have been used ever since the Neanderthals invented role-playing. Whereas AFAIK Settembrini intends a specific meaning, borrowed from the genre of the "adventure novel" (aka Picaresque novel, I guess?). Claims to precedence etc. should be based on how closely those earlier definitions match up with his.

Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing about his, coz I'm not following at this point.

Quote from: KoltarCal, aren't you a Forge member or promoter ? You're one of the few names I recognized when I visited that site recently.

Calithena is not a Forge partisan.

Quote from: Calithenaand possibly make him money by being here.

I don't remember Pundit making any money with this website.

That quote is taken quite out of context.
Later in the same thread I go on to say that "Adventure Game" was even proposed by no one else than Dave Weseley himself.

And yes, all covers of old Dragon Mags say Aventure Game too.

My point in the quote was to refute Pundit´s claim that Adventure Game is a Forge terminology, or one that came up in discussion with forgers.

It´s not my invention (in english), but it´s well defined use  in current internet debate is my pet-peeve, and no one elses agenda.

That was the point. Of course I cannot claim to have created the term in a literal sense. It´s the history of the words that lead me to believe that it´s meritful to use it instead of

"trad"
"mainstream"
"conventional"

Because if you use those, it´s a win for the Swine-folks, who want to be different to feel better. By being "modern", "unorthodox" and "avantgarde".

Neither is Adventure Gaming in any way "old" or "conventional" nor are any Thematic or New Style or Forger games "modern" or "more advanced".

At least not per se, just by merit of belonging to any category.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo if someone really wants to defend this term, tell me why it should be accepted as Jargon; especially now that its clear the Swine have leaped on it as yet another effort to subvert mainstream RPGs as a hobby?

If "adventure games" and "story games" became the accepted norm terminology-wise, I could make a list of my hobbies without having to explain to anyone that it's not the kind of role playing where someone's been a naughty schoolgirl and teacher has to give her a spanking.
That's all I can come up with. :ponder:

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s not my invention (in english), but it´s well defined use  in current internet debate is my pet-peeve, and no one elses agenda.

So... what IS the definition for an adventure game?

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo... what IS the definition for an adventure game?

Well, in my day, and adventure game was something you played on a computer, punching in text comands like "KILL SNAKE" and "GET JAR".  

Then they got all fancy with the mice and the point and click and the pictures, and now they got 'em in 3d, and you can even go online with 'em.  

Dunno what that has to do with roleplaying games though.

Quote from: J ArcaneWell, in my day, and adventure game was something you played on a computer, punching in text comands like "KILL SNAKE" and "GET JAR".

To which the usual response was "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'SNAKE'."

I know, I know... I'm asking Mr. S. for his particular take here.

After further reflection, I've decided that the Pundit's being the center of an otherwise interesting RPG board is not a sufficient reason for me to abandon it. Truth to tell, I enjoy the Pundit's outrageous sense of humor when it's not directed towards my friends or used to bowdlerize interesting issues, and I also think that where many older games and certain aspects of traditional RPGing are concerned we have a certain solidarity of viewpoint. (It's just that I don't view it as an either/or thing.)

Not sure why any of you would care, but I felt compelled to follow up on my earlier ruminations.

Koltar, you keep on working to preserve ideological purity, you soldier of the truth you.

Okay I'm half-awake after a shift at the game store and I have to open the place in the morning ...not sure if I was complimented in that last post or not. (either way I'm okay with it)

 I LIKE the phrase "Soldier of Truth"  tho.
 Considering  my avatars in other places that I'm not using "here" on this forum, Soldier of Truth is not such  a bad nickname.

 

- E.W.C.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo which the usual response was "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'SNAKE'."

Yup. The parsers now used by TADS or Inform have come a long way from the simple designs that I used to tinker with on the old Speccy. Interactive fiction still has its aficionados, of course.

I agree adventure game is not acceptable jargon but either is story game.  From now on we will call these roleplaying games.  With all of this talk, I'm still unable to distinguish the two.  I look on my shelves and see books, roleplaying games,...(oh look Silent Death, I forgot I had that) board game.

Quote from: CalithenaTim Kask was, among other things, the original editor of Dragon magazine.

I don't know what to do about this site. Pundit spreads hate, and it's his site. We benefit him, raise his reputation, and possibly make him money by being here.

On the other hand, his rant starting off this thread was pretty funny. And there are a lot of people here, sometimes including Pundit, who can be entertaining to talk to about very many topics.

I don't make any money off theRPGsite. Unlike the people who own RPG.net, or the guys at the Forge.

RPGPundit