Quote from: SettembriniLet's say, at least from what I've read, BW is a hybrid between the two theoretical extremes.

I think it's a mistaken categorization in the first place to assert that Forge-related games are the sole mutually-exclusive group from "traditional" tabletop RPGs -- or that there is a single extreme by which it differs.  This is sometimes promoted by Forge-related folk, and sometimes by others -- but I think this is largely ignorance of the larger picture.  

Role-playing games are diverse and varied, and I oppose the idea they have to follow tradition to be "RPGs" -- like rolling dice, or including fantasy or magic in the fiction, or violence, or having a game-master.  If you're sitting around a tabletop playing characters as part of a game, I think it's reasonable to call it a tabletop RPG.  

The definitions suggested here aren't exclusive or complete.  For example, Settembrini defines "adventure games" as following along the lines of adventure novels: "Go to exotic (non day to day life) places, and overcome obstacles through brains and brawns."  That describes fairly well The Mountain Witch -- a quest to a distant mountain with a group of heroes, overcoming obstacles.

That's why my categorization is superiour:

I look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

Quote from: SettembriniLet's say, at least from what I've read, BW is a hybrid between the two theoretical extremes.

I think it is more an application of the concepts (theory if you like) of collaborative gaming in creating a general purpose ('gamist' friendly if not bordering on centric) system.

The idea of a closer to peer relationship between GM and player is certainly nothing particularly new. What has happened is that the tools, meaning the rules, are refined to make that happen more smoothly. In the case of BW this results in returning to a much closer to the old wargame roots of two sides with the rules overall. I see BW as a step closer to closing that circle.

Burning Empires is a step even closer yet to wargames, with even more a peer relationship between GM and player. Incidentally I think the closing of the circle is linked to it's more focused setting and structed play.  I can't think of a particular wargame off the top of my head that isn't quite structured and limited in setting scope. Some more than others obviously.

Quote from: SettembriniThat's why my categorization is superiour:

I look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

I believe your catagorization is leading to unwarrented assumptions about the ability to use the concepts in a general purpose game.

Just because the ball you see is red doesn't mean that all balls must be red.  Especially when you are told about another ball that is blue and then assume this means that it is a 'hybird' or just something else entirely.  You seem to be viewing the evidence with a very strong prejudice that is creating a somewhat circular argument. Or maybe better put you are viewing the situation through a specific lens without realizing the lens is there.

Going sophistic again? Stop socio-babbling, say what you think. At least name that "lens".
and I'm not forcing anyone to use my categories. I find them neat for discussions and that is great.
Talking about lenses, Ron Edwards has one, he rarely notices:

Story. It's a value unto itself for him, which he rarely challenges.

Quote from: SettembriniI look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

Your categories, like all others, exclude the stuff in the middle.

There's quite a lot of it.

QuoteGoing sophistic again? Stop socio-babbling, say what you think. At least name that "lens".

Whoa now, just saying.  But fair enough, I'll describe the lens, which I think is related to the below.

Quote from: SettembriniTalking about lenses, Ron Edwards has one, he rarely notices:

Story. It's a value unto itself for him, which he rarely challenges.

Of the limited stuff I've read of his I think he has named 'story', as you likely mean it, as what he likes personally and as such a lot of what he talks about is going revolve around implementing that. That is his frame of reference. I believe he is largely aware of that, although momment to momment we sometimes forget about our lenses. We certainly aren't explicit every momment of them, even when we are aware of them.

The lens you seem to be using is that the techniques [edit]for[/edit] more collaborative play are only good for or are only ment for "story centric" games. They happen to be IMO very helpful for "story centric" gaming since without them you tend to have something more resembling a book, play, or movie instead of what we think of as a game. But they have more general applications too.

Quote from: SettembriniThat's why my categorization is superiour:

I look at what actually is there instead of looking where something comes from.

I don't follow what you're saying here at all.  What are you saying that your categorization is superior to, and what are you saying is "actually there"?

P.S.  I'm no particular fan of Ron Edwards BTW. I'm not going to get into why because it doesn't really serve any purpose, but don't take my comments as some sort of overall defense of Ron and his style.  Not unlike how in the past I have disagreed with some negative comment someone had about RPGPundit, but I still think he's off his rocker a good deal of the time.

In truth I am only here because I can tolerate RPGPundit, if not occationaly enjoy the entertainment value he provides.

I was only trying to your lens comment. But you yourselve have a lens:
In that you see me trying to do anything with forge games. I don't care for them, not for the good, nor for the bad.

And my categories don't have to be clear cut. No reason. Just like "German Game" is, upon closer scrutiny a stupid category if defined in a clear-cut way.  It helps me define what I talk about. And I'm concerned with adventure games, the rest is, well, the rest.

Several people are with me in viewing things like this. If you are not, so be it. I know I've got a functional distinction for my needs, I don't have the urge to prve or explain it to everybody further than by giving the definition at the start of this thread. I'm out as this is getting too much non-gamey and way too much semantic sophism. This is, in my eyes inappropriate for a broad and simple category. Broad and simple things surely always break up upon closer inspection, nevertheless they remain useful. And it's way more hate-less than the things of the past:

roll play vs. role play
traditional roleplaying
forge games
forge crap
story games
dungeon crawling
hack'n'slay

Most importantly, my point is a positive one: To underline that the games I like are not a challenge-fest between GM and players (or some other singled-out element), but games of "High Adventure" with romance, cleverness, intrigue, combat, defeat, suspense, immersion all in a joyous bundle of awesomeness.
I'm in love with adventure, to me it's a value unto itself.
This is my lens, this is my word, this is my game.
Don't tread on it.

Walk around it, to avoid it.

Quote from: Settembrinitraditional roleplaying

:confused:

In what way is this term hateful?

Quote from: BalbinusWhether we like a given game or like it's designer is a side issue though to what the game is.  I don't actually enjoy Dogs, nor do I enjoy anything with mecha, I think Kevin Siembiada is a creepy guy who is leeching off his fans in a way that comes close to fraudulent behaviour, that doesn't stop them being rpgs or him being an rpg designer.

(To both you and Levi.)

This business of fighting over the term "RPG" isn't something I can really take seriously--the fight has its merits and its limits and once you acknowledge both, I think you're done. This is why I put Settembrini's concepts in quotes--I don't find it useful to argue over the definitions as long as the ideas are understood. (BTW, Vincent has always been a gentleman in his dealings with me personally, although the way he runs his blog I have little interest in being his guest there.)

The aesthetic "problem" with Dogs from an "adventure gamer" perspective, is that it does all sorts of things to subvert the player's interest in discovering, interacting with, and manipulating the "little reality" inside the game. You can see this in the way the players need to decide for themselves what is a legitimate raise, what sorts of Fallout to take, and what The Faith means both allegorically and in its particulars. These get in the way of the player identifying with the character's desire to win out over obstacles. (I suppose it's a bit like a figure skating competition in which the participants judge themselves.) On top of this there's GM advice to tailor scenario-setups and in-scenario decisions to push psychological conflicts that have been established earlier. The player-character who doesn't have a problem with child-beating for example can expect (if he's read the rules) to encounter more and more severe challenges to that attitude, for example.

The "problem" that I alluded to as "colonizing" basically comes from responding to any criticism by denying that any of this is different from or inconsistent with what the critics already enjoy in their games. In fairness Vincent is far from the most extreme in this regard. Not even close. But it does come up among advocates of "thematic gaming". And aside from the outreach and handholding comments, my general sense of Dogs is that it's designed to perform a sort of RPG aikido: if you come in with traditional RPG impulses, it will rechannel their energy into thematic output. The GM advice alluded to above for example is presented in sort of conspiratorial tones, suggesting a sort of "Look what we're going to hit them with" attitude. Whereas a more straightforwardly-presented "thematic game" would be more upfront procedurally.

If anyone finds this post provocative, I'd urge some thought on Ron's comments where he describes a lot of Forge games (and I think he singles out Vincent's) as "prosthetics".

Quote:confused:

In what way is this term hateful?

Unto itself it isn't. The way it is used, implying old, abandoned, not hip, it is. Go to the respective places and look how it's used.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhereas a more straightforwardly-presented "thematic game" would be more upfront procedurally.

Boiled down, are you basically calling for truth-in-advertising?

Sure, but it carries an implied accusation that I wouldn't endorse.