Quote from: John MorrowFrankly, that sounds more like you are describing a board game than a role-playing game to me.  It would destroy every reason I have for preferring a role-playing game over a board game as a recreational activity to play with friends.  Reducing a role-playing session to two hours or even a whole campaign to four hours would be like reducing the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a one hour movie to me or the trilogy of books into a pamphlet.  All that "boring" character development, build up, and context matters if you want the players to develop an investment in what's happening in the game.  Anything less, to me, is just pushing pawns around a board because that's about  all they mean to me.

Whoa.  We saw exactly the opposite in his statement!  

I read it as saying the the mechanic should be secondary to character development and activity.  Something you don't have to worry about.  Yet, you saw only a focus on mechanic.  (A board game is, essentially, the ultimate mechanic without any character development.)  [EDIT: My experiences with D20 give me the impression of a glorified boardgame: lots of rules, very little room for player creativity.  YMMV.]

I read it as saying, "I don't want a lot of books and baggage so that I can roleplay character for two hours without flipping pages and arguing about what rule in what context."

It blows my mind that you saw a board-game (again, all mechanic, no roleplaying) in those comments.  I saw a nearly single-minded focus on roleplaying with a mechanic that services only to resolve conflicts while the roleplaying can commence.

Quote from: gleichmanFrankly I'm of the opinon that either we talk about Forge theory or we don't talk theory at all.

The real stuff is just... easy.

There are lots of types and levels of theories that might be useful to design that have nothing to with GNS.  pre-Pundit, this section of the board was more along the lines of practical design considerations that were above the level of a specific game.

Questions like are ability scores useful, when would you want to use a single die or multiple dice for a die mechanic, cinematic vs traditional play style, or how to have a skill system with good coverage that isn't overburdened by skills.  These are things that might actually help a someone designing a game or just adding their own houserules.

Quote from: VellorianIt blows my mind that you saw a board-game (again, all mechanic, no roleplaying) in those comments.  I saw a nearly single-minded focus on roleplaying with a mechanic that services only to resolve conflicts while the roleplaying can commence.

I saw the same things John did.

A good example of how great the divide is between styles.  As I recall I've even further away from you then John is.

How goes reading AoH btw, have you used it for starting fires yet?

Quote from: gleichmanHow goes reading AoH btw, have you used it for starting fires yet?

No fires yet.  

I printed it today and hope to dig into a bit, without the eyestrain at the monitor, tonight.  

It's interesting, but I've played games that would fit Stuart's description to a T - and all we were doing was "freeform roleplaying" while we were driving from one place to another for two hours.  No manuals. No books. No mechanics. No board. No pieces. No minis.  Just a raw, freeform roleplaying period.

QuoteWhat games do you find that fit these criteria? I ask because these are things I can identify with as important to me, as well. I'm currently playtesting a new set of rules that worked very well for me and my group. Since there are similarities in our thinking, perhaps you might enjoy playtesting the same rules/settings.

I think a few types of games fit some of the criteria, but I can't think of any that fit them all.  This is more or less the requirements I have for the game I'm working on.  I'm very pleased with where it's at now and I hope to playtest it this winter.  (I'm teaching a couple of classes this fall and there's a new baby about to arrive, so things will be busy for a while)

QuoteFrankly, that sounds more like you are describing a board game than a role-playing game to me. It would destroy every reason I have for preferring a role-playing game over a board game as a recreational activity to play with friends.

I'm very much thinking of a hybrid that combines the best qualities of a board game (fast setup and easy to learn) and a roleplaying game (great sense of being "in" the gameworld and controlling a "character").  I'm not saying this is the ultimate game concept for everyone, or the only type of game, or the future of gaming -- just a type of game that would appeal to me and hopefully some other people as well.

QuoteReducing a role-playing session to two hours or even a whole campaign to four hours would be like reducing the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a one hour movie to me or the trilogy of books into a pamphlet. All that "boring" character development, build up, and context matters if you want the players to develop an investment in what's happening in the game. Anything less, to me, is just pushing pawns around a board because that's about all they mean to me.

A few hours is more reasonable for a lot of people (eg. Parents of small children), even if they enjoyed marathon 8+ hour gaming sessions in their younger days. ;-)  I think a 2-3 hour roleplaying session is a very reasonable goal.  RPGMP3 sessions are 3 hours, so even D&D can be played like that (although that's just a session, not an entire game).  A lot of Forge games can be played in short sessions -- but they have a different focus from what I'd like to see.  Again, I don't want to be seen as evangelizing the "new way" of making RPGs -- rather I'm interesting in looking at more ways of gaming, and making it easier to bring more people into the hobby.

Quote from: VellorianIt's interesting, but I've played games that would fit Stuart's description to a T - and all we were doing was "freeform roleplaying" while we were driving from one place to another for two hours.  No manuals. No books. No mechanics. No board. No pieces. No minis.  Just a raw, freeform roleplaying period.

Same here. Those periods fill in gaps and provide context to the table top sessions.

To those like me, they never replace it.

Quote"Both Agon and Burning Empires were held up at work today as examples of the cool RPG stuff at GenCon."

Yes, I've heard good things about both and will check them out.

One of the things I'm not really crazy about with many indie/forge games is the way narrative control is handled.  On one hand I like the way sharing narrative control can speed up the story and reduce the prep time... but I also think it doesn't lend itself as well to these points:

* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative

Quote from: VellorianI read it as saying the the mechanic should be secondary to character development and activity.  Something you don't have to worry about.  Yet, you saw only a focus on mechanic.  (A board game is, essentially, the ultimate mechanic without any character development.)  [EDIT: My experiences with D20 give me the impression of a glorified boardgame: lots of rules, very little room for player creativity.  YMMV.]

The reason why I didn't see any character development was the 2-hour requirement.  Tightly edited movies that run for about two hours, even well done ones, usually have relatively shallow character development.  At best, they create the illusion of character development using a handful of scenes meant to illustrate the character's personality and, even then, they are only illustrating those aspects of the character that's needed for the story.  The character is ultimately as developed as the buildings on the movie set.  They look real good from the angle they are filmed at but if you walk around back, it hasn't been fully developed and doesn't look very good.

Quote from: VellorianI read it as saying, "I don't want a lot of books and baggage so that I can roleplay character for two hours without flipping pages and arguing about what rule in what context."

At that point, why use rules at all.  I have a pretty good idea of why I use rules and considered role-playing games an improvement over the ruleless imaginary play I was doing with toy cars and action figures as a child.  Why do the rules do for you?  Answer that question and you'll know what you can get rid of (and this goes back to the points some of us were making about the absence of detailed social interaction rules in games like the original D&D).

Quote from: VellorianIt blows my mind that you saw a board-game (again, all mechanic, no roleplaying) in those comments.  I saw a nearly single-minded focus on roleplaying with a mechanic that services only to resolve conflicts while the roleplaying can commence.

For the record, I can role-play in a board game.

That said, it's not the mechanics that made me say board games but the superficiality that the requirements would lead to, in my opinion.  Little or prep?  That means I'm coming to the table with little or no context before the game starts.  2-hour session time?  How much character development can you do in 2-hours?  Don't require extensive rulebooks to memorize?  Lots of board games have very simple rules that fit into a pamphlet.  So do CCGs.  A "goal" that is clear and understood by the players?  Any goals that can be defined by the rules and prepared with little or no prep time are going to be fairly broad or superficial.  Competition?  Board games do that well.  A focus on playing your own character is a tactical focus on your own position.  That's a norm for most board games.  Board games appeal to average people more than playing "make believe" and are considered more mainstream.

So, I'm sorry, but I see "boardgame".  And to be honest, a lot of Forge games look at way to me.  Reading descriptions of DitV conflict resolution, for example, looks like a game of Yahtzee to me.

Quote from: StuartI want to see RPGs that are:

* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)

These are the games I want to talk about.  Not just collaborative story-telling games (aka Forge games), or house rules for existing games (aka d20/D&D).

Stuart,

I try not to post here about either the Forge or my own games. It seems uncouth, and I post about what people here want to talk about, and everything's happy. But, man, I see your post, and my heart cries out, "Speak truth to this guy!"

"Forge games" aren't all collaborative story-telling games. Honestly, I hate that shit. If you give me "Once Upon A Time" or an RPG that derives itself from that sort of thing, I blanch. I want Characters, with a capital C, that Do Things and Are Awesome.

I'm not going to tell you to run and read my game, The Shadow of Yesterday (text for free here) - ok, I am. The sort of things I want in games are exactly what you're talking about. I want low prep, quick play, exciting moments, real characters who make decisions that matter, and non-subculture-play. By that last one, I mean that I want to play a game that isn't so immersed in its own ritual and tradition that it looks alien and bizarre to outsiders, which, honestly, most RPGs do. I also specifically enjoy games where players can send their characters up against each other, which you seem to enjoy as well.

I can recommend other games that do this better than mine, too, and can definitely point out games that go all fuzzy with the story-telling nonsense. If you're interested, let me know.

QuoteSo, I'm sorry, but I see "boardgame".

Boardgames in the hizzouse.

Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon"Forge games" aren't all collaborative story-telling games. Honestly, I hate that shit. If you give me "Once Upon A Time" or an RPG that derives itself from that sort of thing, I blanch. I want Characters, with a capital C, that Do Things and Are Awesome.

Clinton is absolutely correct, most (or many, I've never surveyed) Forge games are not collaborative story telling games, most of them have a GM and players.

I agree with everything else Clinton said too, but that merited underlining.

Thanks for the link Clintion -- The Shadow of Yesterday is a game I frequently see mentioned and I'll definitely check it out.

I like all sorts of games.  Boardgames, parlour games, classic RPGs, and I'm planning on trying some of the hippy/Forge games in the winter as well (DitV I think).  

What I haven't yet found in a "roleplaying game", are rules that let you *honestly* play equally, and competitively with all the other players at the table.  There's usually some unspoken rule about "not going too far" (see the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" thread here, or Ron Edwards thread about the problems with Stakes on Story Games for example).  I really though Jason Morningstar's Roach game might have fit the bill -- but I think it also relies on the unspoken rule "not to go too far" to keep the game on track.  I also like the idea of keeping the players focused more on exploring the narrative world rather than creating it.

Using a GM lets you step around those problems... but then one player isn't really playing the game, and might have a lot of prep work to do...

So I've been spending at least as much time looking at boardgames and wargames as I have RPGs and RPG theory.  What I end up with might not even be an RPG anymore... maybe it's a boardgame with some roleplaying in it... but I'm less concerned with that than with creating a game that I think is FUN and fits all of the criteria I'd be looking for in a game.

EDIT:  It should be obvious, but in case it's not: competitive play doesn't necessarily mean attacking the other player's characters.

Quote from: John MorrowFor the record, I can role-play in a board game.

I figured I'd provide some examples for those who think I'm insane.  While I was originally thinking of simple board sames like Dogfight and Broadsides and even card games like Mille Bournes (car noises, driver personality, etc.), board games like Car Wars and the old GDW game Asteroid provide a lot of opportunity for role-playing in a board game.

So, now I'm rethinking myself...

Does this mean I like games that are essentially "roleplayed boardgames?"

Or was I reading something into Mr. Stuart's comments?  When I read the "quick entry" and "two hour play," I wasn't thinking that those defined the whole of the game, but rather elements of the game.  

In other words, you have an ongoing campaign.  It only takes a few minutes to acclimate your players to the gameworld (quick entry) and occasionally you only have time for a couple hours of play at a time, but it's all part of a vast and ongoing campaign where the rules are only there to determine the results of a conflict or question of success (i.e. combat, magic, social encounters, etc.).

I guess what I read in was the "ongoing campaign" aspect, which changes the perception markedly.  

Apologies for the tangent.  (That's what I get for posting from work while trying to do a dozen things at once and peruse the board...)

I think you can find roleplaying in Monopoly (The Doggie says "woof, woof").  I used to game with two guys who did *A LOT* of roleplaying in Axis & Allies, that would threaten to turn into Live Action Roleplaying (with combat) if they got too excited / had too much to drink.