Quote from: GunslingerYour argument is that since once D&D defined RPGs anything that is not like D&D is not an RPG.  Your definition of RPG doesn't reflect how most gamers or industries use the term anymore.  RPG has become an umbrella term for a number of games.  Are computer RPGs in your definition of RPGs?  Your trying to take a general term and apply it to a specific type of game because at one time that was accurate.  I think most people seem to think that D&D was a starting point for a number of different types of RPGs that have been explored over the years.  Like a scientist who discovers a new species and then proceeds to define the subspecies.

You speak that your definition is the TRUTH.  Maybe you are just playing a role to encourage discourse but you come across as the evangelist at the front door saying there is only one true relegion and everything else is false relegion without taking into consideration that your definition of the TRUTH doesn't apply to the majority you're talking to.

Well, you can choose to look at it that way if you like; but what I'm saying really has little to do with D&D as a specific game. Rather, it has to do with certain conventions that have been with RPGs from the start, since D&D granted, but not specifically to do with D&D itself.  I'm not saying that to be an RPG you have to have hit points, or classes, or levels.
You do need to have, however, the conventions of RPG gaming: the GM, the PCs, the conventional roles these two plays, system, setting, campaigns, etc etc.

In my definition, at least, there's a metric shitload of stuff that qualifies as an RPG: games that are copies of D&D, games that aren't; games that I like, and games I don't; games that do all kinds of wild and innovative stuff, but still fall within these landmarks of what defines an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou do need to have, however, the conventions of RPG gaming: the GM, the PCs, the conventional roles these two plays, system, setting, campaigns, etc etc.

So your problem with what you refer to as "story" games calling themselves RPGs is largely based on the conventional roles of the GM and PCs being altered?  I own both types and I'm really having a hard time distinguishing the thin red line here.  For the most part, I think these have came about from conflicts resulting from conventional roles.  A GM ruining a player's character concept in game, a player not giving GM information regarding what their character wants to do, or even bouncing out of the rut of recurring themes in your games.  It seems to me these games set up meta-game moments during the game in order to focus the players and GM on what they "want" to do within the system.  I don't think it is to create a story anymore than talking to each other about what you'd like to see in your D&D game.  It might be that I'm thinking of different games than you're discussing though.  

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, you can choose to look at it that way if you like

My apologies if I was misconstruing what you had said earlier.

Quote from: GunslingerSo your problem with what you refer to as "story" games calling themselves RPGs is largely based on the conventional roles of the GM and PCs being altered?  

That and the difference in priorities between Storygames and RPGs.

The "Goal" in a wargame is to competitively simulate a historical or fictional battle; whereas the "goal" in an RPG is to play out particular characters in a fictional or emulated world.  Thus, RPGs and wargames are not the same game.

Likewise, in Storygames the "goal" is to create story.  This is not the same as the goal of RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, in Storygames the "goal" is to create story.  This is not the same as the goal of RPGs.

Oddly, this topic has cropped up recently in story-oriented circles.

Whether the process of play matters more than the end product, that is.

The consensus seems to favor process, even among folks that you sometimes slam as pointing the other way.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOddly, this topic has cropped up recently in story-oriented circles.

Whether the process of play matters more than the end product, that is.

The consensus seems to favor process, even among folks that you sometimes slam as pointing the other way.

Then why the hell are they intentionally trying to create games that go the other way?  That favour the story itself over the particular agendas of the players, the GM, or even the fucking rules themselves?

Unless by "the process" they mean "the process of creating a story", as opposed to "the process of playing a game/a character/etc".

That might be possible, but if that's the case my point still stands.  The goal is simply changed from "the goal is to create story" to "the goal is to play out the process of creating a story".  Which, to me, seems even MORE lame and uninteresting than my previous assumption of what you people are on about, but that's your deal, not mine. As long as you fuckers stay off my lawn.

RPGPundit

When you guys get this worked out, can you send me a memo?

Quote from: RPGPunditThen why the hell are they intentionally trying to create games that go the other way? That favour the story itself over the particular agendas of the players, the GM, or even the fucking rules themselves?

It really seems that the issue is the GM role in the game.  How much control over the game / story / rules do they have compared to the other players at the table?

If there is a single GM and they are not simply acting as an impartial referee of the rules, then they're actively "playing" a game -- just a different one from the other players.  Their game is about creating a story.  The other players' game is about roleplaying their characters and exploring the fictional world.

In "Forge style games" the other players at the table change their game-play to take on more of the GM-style game: creating a story.

This means the Forge-style games allow for less overall gameplay for just roleplaying and exploring the fictional world compared to games where the players are not also creating the story.  Players who do not want to play the GM-style game will not enjoy these games as much as "traditional" RPGs.  Traditional GM's (like RPGPundit) who prefer their game to be exclusively about creating a story, will also be unlikely to enjoy these games as much.

However, there are certainly people who would prefer that all the players directly guide the story as part of the gameplay, and prefer that no single person guides the story all the other players are roleplaying within and the fictional world they're exploring.  For these people, Forge-style games are a step in the right direction.

Ultimately they're games built from the same components -- the distribution between the players is just a bit different.