[note: this is a "pistols at dawn" thread; until we reach 50 posts, no one is allowed to post on this thread except myself and Settembrini; any post before then by someone other than us would be deleted- the Admin]

Let´s begin.
Clearly, the notion of different categories of Roleplaying Games annoys the crap out of you. Be they lame copies of my epoch-making and mind boggling division of the hobby into Adventure RPGs, Thematic RPGs and a whole lot of rest like John Kim´s rip-off or Levi´s renamed version, or the aforementioned real thing.
You hate it.
More so, you try to denounce all efforts like these as being part of a hidden and grand agenda of the Swine.

The basic question underlying all this, is the following:

What is a roleplaying game?
You say, games like Polaris or Shab al Hiri Roach are not RPGs.
I say they are.
And I think your effort to denounce their RPGness is:

1) a fight against the wrong enemy
2) absolutely ridiculous
and by merit of those two points
3) hindering the culture-war effort

So:

If they are not RPGs, what are those games?
What category/ies do they belong to, and why?

Quote from: SettembriniLet´s begin.
Clearly, the notion of different categories of Roleplaying Games annoys the crap out of you. Be they lame copies of my epoch-making and mind boggling division of the hobby into Adventure RPGs, Thematic RPGs and a whole lot of rest like John Kim´s rip-off or Levi´s renamed version, or the aforementioned real thing.
You hate it.
More so, you try to denounce all efforts like these as being part of a hidden and grand agenda of the Swine.

The real question is what are you trying to gain from making these categorizations?

QuoteThe basic question underlying all this, is the following:

What is a roleplaying game?
You say, games like Polaris or Shab al Hiri Roach are not RPGs.
I say they are.

By what basis would you say they are?

QuoteAnd I think your effort to denounce their RPGness is:

1) a fight against the wrong enemy
2) absolutely ridiculous
and by merit of those two points
3) hindering the culture-war effort

Again, to rephrase my first question, what then would you consider the "culture war effort" and how would you win it? And by association, how is your division of "adventure games" vs "story games" something that helps in the "culture war effort"?
Or, in other words, who is the "right enemy"?

QuoteSo:

If they are not RPGs, what are those games?
What category/ies do they belong to, and why?

They're story games. They're games made with the goal of creating story, as something more important than "playing game" or even "roleplaying a character".

RPGPundit

Why these categorizations:

To end the totally inane efforts of talking about the two as if they were one. To talk about RPGs in general is totally pointless, as obvioulsy Thematic Games have a different goal and different set of methods for achieving that, than Adventure RPGs. GNS for example, is only poisoning the debate, as long as it constantly is brought up in Adventure Gaming context. The Big Model, the Process Model etc. are only useful toolboxes for the design and discourse of Thematic RPGs.
If that is established, then peace can ensue, and the real shitheads are bereft of their rhetoric shield.

BTW, I´m totally against the term story-games, because nobody can agree on what story means. Also, many a Thematic RPG isn´t about the story. It´s about exploring the human condition in a very specific way. It´s about themes and their clash. Sure, Adventure RPGs have themes too. And deal with the human condition. But they are not focused on that. I myself am totally satisfied by the way themes and decisions about them are represented in Adventure RPGs. I would even go so far and argue that Adventure Gaming can provide the superiour experience. But that does not take away the fact, that there are dedicated games for theme-exploration. You might not like them, but they exist.
I´m sick of Basketball fans coming to my Ballgame and claiming that I should put away my Louisville Slugger, or that my games moves too slow. Different sports, different names. Like in the Ballgame example, the most popular, most influential game claims the whole term. But to argue that basketball is not a ballgame is ridiculous.

2) They are RPGs by virtue of using negotiation as a means to extrapolate a fictious situation.

"Roleplaying" is in fact a method used long before Adventure RPGs came about, used for education, training, psychology. Thereby the term RPG is a badly chosen one. David Weseley is also of that opinion:

http://www.acaeum.com/forum/about3888.html

QuoteBy the way, I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared,  
 as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing,
 already existed: The term was already being used for (1) a tool used to  
 train actors for improvisation (an example being the Cheese Shop Game
 since imortalized by Monty Python) and (2) a tool used for group therapy  
 and psychiatric analysis ("Pretend you are an animal.  What kind of an  
 animal do you want to be? How does your aniimal feel about Janet?")
 And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty.
 I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a
 replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck  
 with "RPG".  

Your whole argument is like saying:
"There is only one Ballgame, and that is Baseball. All others aren´t ballgames!"

It´s definitely a historical artifact, that ballgame has gotten the meaning "baseball". For thinking men like you, it should beobvious that other games are played with a ball too.

Quote from: SettembriniWhy these categorizations:

To end the totally inane efforts of talking about the two as if they were one.

And how does this accomplish that? The would-be subversives will just say "adventure games and thematic/storygames are both RPGs, otherwise one would be called RPG and the other wouldn't".

QuoteTo talk about RPGs in general is totally pointless, as obvioulsy Thematic Games have a different goal and different set of methods for achieving that, than Adventure RPGs. GNS for example, is only poisoning the debate, as long as it constantly is brought up in Adventure Gaming context. The Big Model, the Process Model etc. are only useful toolboxes for the design and discourse of Thematic RPGs.

I'm still not accepting that there is such a thing as "story RPGs". There may be something called "thematic" RPGs, but I don't think that would be what I think you mean.
In any case, I agree about GNS and the Big Model.

QuoteBTW, I´m totally against the term story-games, because nobody can agree on what story means.

See, I really don't give a flying fuck about their semantic conundrums, as long as its their hobby, over there, away from mine. So if that gang of snakeoil salesmen want to kill each other over what exactly a "story game" is, I couldn't care less, they're welcome to do so, as long as we're clear that they aren't Roleplaying Games.

QuoteAlso, many a Thematic RPG isn´t about the story. It´s about exploring the human condition in a very specific way. It´s about themes and their clash. Sure, Adventure RPGs have themes too. And deal with the human condition.

Ok, now you're the one who's muddying the semantic waters. What exactly do you mean by a "thematic" game then?? I mean, most Forge-type "story games" I've seen are mainly about stories with themes; whereas most real RPGs are playing adventures in an emulated genre, that often involve themes.

So I mean, fuck, would Call of Cthulhu be a "Thematic Game" to you? Would Amber? Would The Mountain Witch?
Because the former two would be Roleplaying Games to me, and the latter most definitely would not.

QuoteI´m sick of Basketball fans coming to my Ballgame and claiming that I should put away my Louisville Slugger, or that my games moves too slow. Different sports, different names. Like in the Ballgame example, the most popular, most influential game claims the whole term. But to argue that basketball is not a ballgame is ridiculous.

Sure, and to argue that Universalis is not a "game" is ridiculous. But to call it a Roleplaying Game would be just as ridiculous as mistaking Basketball for Baseball.

Quote2) They are RPGs by virtue of using negotiation as a means to extrapolate a fictious situation.

Sorry, that's not an RPG to me. There's lots of stuff that does that.  There's lots of things that use Roleplaying, but aren't Roleplaying Games. And most Stroy Games don't even use that much Roleplaying, or put "Roleplaying" as a strictly secondary goal to "story-creating".

Quote"Roleplaying" is in fact a method used long before Adventure RPGs came about, used for education, training, psychology. Thereby the term RPG is a badly chosen one. David Weseley is also of that opinion:

No, the term Role Playing GAME is perfectly chosen.
And whether you or Mr. Weaseley or Ron Edwards or anyone else would have either wished that we hadn't used those terms, or that the terms meant something else, tough shit.  
This is what they mean. No one is taking that from us.

QuoteYour whole argument is like saying:
"There is only one Ballgame, and that is Baseball. All others aren´t ballgames!"

Wrong. My argument is like saying "there's only one "Base Ball Game", and other things might be games, they might have baseballs, but if you don't actually fit all the categories required to be defined as a Baseball Game, you aren't one, sorry. Oh, and Fuck You for trying to steal the term from us".

QuoteIt´s definitely a historical artifact, that ballgame has gotten the meaning "baseball". For thinking men like you, it should beobvious that other games are played with a ball too.

Right, but lets say that the Jai Alai association wanted to try to make some quick profit off the MUCH more popular Baseball, so they started doing a bunch of ads about "take me out to The Ballgame"; and advertising themselves not as Jai Alai but as "The Ballgame", writing flyers giving people the wrong directions to the "The Ballgame"; renaming their association the "Major League Baseball Association", calling their finals the "World Series"... at that point, you would say that these Jai Alai fuckers are a gang of black-bellied parasites who are just trying to steal away people from a much more popular game, rather than doing their own thing and living or dying by their real virtues.

That's what the Forge Games crowd is up to.  They can't win on the basis of their crap product, so they're trying to redefine the field in the hopes of cheating and tricking people.

However much the Jai Alai association might wish it, they aren't fucking Baseball.  For them (or you) to then turn around and say "well, ok, neither of you are "The Ballgame" now, baseball fans either have to share the "Take me Out to The Ballgame" song, or neither of you can have it", that just makes me want to take a spiked bat to something.  Its a cowardly appeasement to the other side masking as "being reasonable" when its really just caving into their utterly unreasonable ambitions.

RPGPundit

QuoteRight, but lets say that the Jai Alai association wanted to try to make some quick profit off the MUCH more popular Baseball, so they started doing a bunch of ads about "take me out to The Ballgame"; and advertising themselves not as Jai Alai but as "The Ballgame", writing flyers giving people the wrong directions to the "The Ballgame"; renaming their association the "Major League Baseball Association", calling their finals the "World Series"... at that point, you would say that these Jai Alai fuckers are a gang of black-bellied parasites who are just trying to steal away people from a much more popular game, rather than doing their own thing and living or dying by their real virtues.

Yes. And by naming them basque-tards Jai Alai players, all is clear. Like them Basketballers, or Footballers, they´ve got their own names, their own league.

That´s why calling Thematic Games Thematic Games is such an improvement. Right now, all is unclear and muddy, unlest one goes the Pundit route and denounces their RPGness alltogther. But the Pundit route has the disadvantage of not making the other games go away.

So: They get their own name, they get their own niche, for everybody to see. "Story Game" is misleading. There are enough D&D players who call their hobby story gaming.

If they have their own rules, standards niche etc., it will be much easier to keep things seperate. Half of all recent threads could be closed. And whence it becomes known wide and far, that  the Big Model is a toolbox for Thematic Games only, then reasonable discourse can begin again. Because you don´t have to discuss "never say no" or "player empowerment". Because these questions have all been solved for Adventure RPGs, and therfore you don´t need a discussion of the basics.
It is the application of ideas stemming from different sets of goals, that causes much of the discourse fuckup.

And this fuckup does not help in any way the fight against the real enemy. They revel in that fuckup, because it gives them screen presence, it gives them meaning. If RPG-Net would have been run by me at the time, I would have ruled all discussion about  T-RPGs into a seperate subforum, just like LARP. Never ever would the online culture wars have started. Look at the LARPERS: thexy just coexist. Some people are Adventure Gamers, some are LARPers too, but no LARP-theory is bulldreked into RPG discussions. Because they are different, and got their own niche. Let the LARPers have all the "RP" in their name  they ever could want! And likewise let the  Thematicians  be Roleplaying Gamers  too, because in reality they are.

And for denouncing Weseley, you sure know who he is? He´s not your random internet nabob of knowledge. He invented RPGs.

So easy, yet so difficult.

Quote from: SettembriniYes. And by naming them basque-tards Jai Alai players, all is clear. Like them Basketballers, or Footballers, they´ve got their own names, their own league.

That´s why calling Thematic Games Thematic Games is such an improvement. Right now, all is unclear and muddy, unlest one goes the Pundit route and denounces their RPGness alltogther. But the Pundit route has the disadvantage of not making the other games go away.

So: They get their own name, they get their own niche, for everybody to see. "Story Game" is misleading. There are enough D&D players who call their hobby story gaming.

Renaming THEM, be it "thematic games" or "story games" or whatever you want to call them, is just fine.

Its renaming US I have the problem with, because that only benefits them.

QuoteIf they have their own rules, standards niche etc., it will be much easier to keep things seperate. Half of all recent threads could be closed. And whence it becomes known wide and far, that  the Big Model is a toolbox for Thematic Games only, then reasonable discourse can begin again.

Your premise is based on a "compromise" that will never come to pass.
Your whole compromise is based on saying "ok, we agree to stop calling ourselves RPGs, call ourselves "adventure games" instead, and in exchange you guys also don't call yourselves RPGs, and stop trying to imply that your wacky theories apply to what we do".
But that will only lead to the savage parasites on the other side saying "yeah, ok sure.. you guys stop calling yourselves RPGs, you're "adventure games" now", and they continue to refer to themselves as RPGs, thereby winning the semantic battle.  And guess what? No matter how much you try to argue it, they will CONTINUE to insist that GNS applies as much to our games as to theirs.   You will get nowhere by this kind of consorting with the enemy. You're just agreeing to give the pyromaniacs matches on condition that they don't set anything on fire.

I'm not even entirely convinced that GNS theory even applies to THEIR games, in fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't; but I really don't give a shit about that.  MY concern, over here, is that they don't get to subvert our games.

QuoteBecause you don´t have to discuss "never say no" or "player empowerment". Because these questions have all been solved for Adventure RPGs, and therfore you don´t need a discussion of the basics.

How does this differ from saying "all these questions have been solved for RPGs, therefore anyone claiming that their games meant to address these non-existant problems for RPGs is actually talking about something that is obviously not an RPG?".

By calling it "adventure games" all you're doing is conceding ground.

QuoteAnd this fuckup does not help in any way the fight against the real enemy. They revel in that fuckup, because it gives them screen presence, it gives them meaning. If RPG-Net would have been run by me at the time, I would have ruled all discussion about  T-RPGs into a seperate subforum, just like LARP. Never ever would the online culture wars have started. Look at the LARPERS: thexy just coexist. Some people are Adventure Gamers, some are LARPers too, but no LARP-theory is bulldreked into RPG discussions. Because they are different, and got their own niche. Let the LARPers have all the "RP" in their name  they ever could want! And likewise let the  Thematicians  be Roleplaying Gamers  too, because in reality they are.

LARPers don't claim they're playing tabletop RPGs, or that their theories apply to tabletop RPGs.  Unless you can somehow magically engineer a peace treaty by which the storygamer crowd would do the same, your decision to surrender the term RPG to them will do nothing to change things.

I have no problem with Weasley but he didn't invent RPGs, Gygax and Arneson did.

RPGPundit

QuoteHow does this differ from saying "all these questions have been solved for RPGs, therefore anyone claiming that their games meant to address these non-existant problems for RPGs is actually talking about something that is obviously not an RPG?".

It differs in the admission of the other games being RPGs. Because if they aren´t, you are in big argumentative trouble: What is then left to be an RPG? Is The Shadow of Yesterday a RPG? Is Maddman´s buff-emulation still an RPG? Is any Superheroe Game still an RPG? This conundrum is not to be solved. if you exclude thematics, you have to draw a clear line. This line doesn´t exist. Even my favorite Boardgames, Dune and Cosmic Encounter can cross the line into RPG territory. Not even you can define RPGs satisfactorily. Only if you admit all games in, that happen to use the Method of Roleplay, then you are on the intellectual sure side.

QuoteBy calling it "adventure games" all you're doing is conceding ground.

Is that so? What ground? BTW, it´s Adventure Roleplaying Games. Only if the Roleplaying context is clear, it´s safe to talk about adventure games as a shorthand.

Quote from: SettembriniIt differs in the admission of the other games being RPGs. Because if they aren´t, you are in big argumentative trouble: What is then left to be an RPG? Is The Shadow of Yesterday a RPG? Is Maddman´s buff-emulation still an RPG? Is any Superheroe Game still an RPG? This conundrum is not to be solved. if you exclude thematics, you have to draw a clear line. This line doesn´t exist. Even my favorite Boardgames, Dune and Cosmic Encounter can cross the line into RPG territory. Not even you can define RPGs satisfactorily. Only if you admit all games in, that happen to use the Method of Roleplay, then you are on the intellectual sure side.

You can define RPGs pretty simply:
An RPG is any game that, by design, involves a player-GM paradigm, with players each playing their Player Character (occasionally player characters) and the GM controlling the setting and all NPCs.  It is created to emulate historical periods, genres, or licensed settings.  It is also a Game, whereby the concept of "playing a game" has to be the most significant factor, that trumps all others. Ie. any game that puts "creating a story" as a higher priority to the point that the gameplay would lose in a conflict between "creating story" and "playing a game", is by definition NOT a Roleplaying Game.

QuoteIs that so? What ground? BTW, it´s Adventure Roleplaying Games. Only if the Roleplaying context is clear, it´s safe to talk about adventure games as a shorthand.

You hadn't specified that before, but it doesn't really change much.  The supposedly "moderate" Forgers will simply latch onto the concept that both "thematic games" and "adventure games" are RPGs, and will claim that their theories apply to both types of games and gamers who play both; whereas the more extreme Forgers will ignore the "RPG" part of "adventure games" and use the title as a way to put mainstream RPGs into an intellectual ghetto.  Even the division of titles implies that somehow, mainstream RPGs are less intelligent and cannot be used for serious play, whereas their games are always more deep and meaningful. Which is bullshit on both counts.

RPGPundit

QuoteAn RPG is any game that, by design, involves a player-GM paradigm, with players each playing their Player Character (occasionally player characters) and the GM controlling the setting and all NPCs. It is created to emulate historical periods, genres, or licensed settings. It is also a Game, whereby the concept of "playing a game" has to be the most significant factor, that trumps all others. Ie. any game that puts "creating a story" as a higher priority to the point that the gameplay would lose in a conflict between "creating story" and "playing a game", is by definition NOT a Roleplaying Game.

This is not a valid definition.
Why?
Because it´s revisionist history.
You are defining them neither by:

1) historical use of the term = inductive reasoning
nor by
2) generalization of basic principles = deductive reasoning.

Your definition only is a statement of RPGs you like are right now (in the majority).

Therefore, your definition is of no intellectual value. It´s only value is in it´s  support of your reasoning. Your definition sums up to:

"XXX is not an RPG. Because RPGs do not XXX."

This is a rhetorical move, not an actual argument.

"Story" is a valid goal for games using roleplay as a method." That´s my statement.
Disprove this in some other way than repeating your definition.

How is it not the "historical use of the term"??

1. Has a GM, has players.
2. Players control their characters, GM controls everything else.
3. its based on imitating history, or fantasy literature of some kind.
4. Its a game, where playing the game is more important than any other concern ie. "creating story" or "addressing theme" or "staying on the narrative"; whatever...

That pretty well describes the original D&D.  You can't get more historic than that.

RPGPundit

Following your definition´s  number (4), AD&D 2nd Edition DMG, and the whole World of Darkness and basically any Superheroes game wouldn´t be RPGs.
The moment a DM in a D&D game started to value story above all else, he wouldn´t be playing RPGs anymore.
How can such a "definition" be of any value in discourse? You violate your own definition all the time, because you talk about bad RPGs violating (1-4) all the time. Why so? Because even in your eyes they are RPGs, just bad ones.

Clearly, you can say "story" as a goal leads to bad RPG experience. But to say that the experience is not an RPG at all, well is contradicting your own statements. You said yourselves that you played Vampire, where the context was RPG.
Therefore Vampire is a RPG, in your own eyes.
Following your definition Vampire is not a RPG.

Clearly, your definition is not one to describe reality.
It describes what the RPGPundit character thinks of as good RPG.

No, see, the thing is that Vampire, in its structure, is an RPG.  It claims to be about "story", but is only that if the GM ("storyteller") ends up blatantly ignoring the rules and doing a whole bunch of things on the GM-level regarding fiat to essentially create a story. So its kind of a questionable case, because the book itself seems to suggest the GM should do that, but in terms of its structure and rules its utterly and completely an RPG; its just an RPG with pretentions of being a "story game".

A REAL story game is one where the mechanics themselves are created in such a way that "making story" is more important than "playing a game":  The exercise is not for players to play their character and have fun engaging in the session, but rather that the players and GM and everyone involved is consciously trying to create some kind of a story, and this story takes precedence over the wellbeing of their individual characters, the nature of the game itself, etc.

So yes, Vampire is an RPG, as was AD&D 2e in the worst of its Story-based swinish moments, as were all the other so-called "Story-based RPGs".  They were on a fool's errand, and modern "Story games"  may have been born out of them, but they were still RPGs. Whereas modern Story-games are not.

That's why there's two major groups of Swine in the hobby: the White-wolf Story-based Swine (the guys who were in power in the 90s, and are today a rapidly diminishing minority), and the Forge-type Theory Swine. The former were responsible for things like Vampire. The latter for modern Story Games.  The two groups hate each other almost as much if not more than they hate mainstream gamers.

RPGPundit

edited to add: I'm on vacation for a week; it may take that long for me to answer the next post.

I wish you well on your vacation!

I plan on making a more lengthy post for when you come back. Still, if you are still around:

What you say about the Swine is all well and you don´t have to convince me of the double nature of swinedom. But you didn´t convince me at all with your above post. Why?
Because you aren´t adressing the issue at the table!

They might be swine, but they still play RPGs. Like it or not, they do. And your denial of their RPGness is not backed up by reasoning. They might be the worst kind of human beings, having shitty games left and right. But they play RPGs.
And when you say, the "structure" of Vampire is a "real" RPG, but the GM advice and supplement are not, what is this structure? The golden rule overides all other rules, doesn´t it?
Add to that: You are only adressing the written text in your definition. The actual activity, the stuff that people do after sitting down, that is all left out. And when you look with an open mind, you´ll see that even them hated forganistas are "talking to advance a make believe situation". And really, that´s the method of roleplay.

"talking to advance a make believe situation" is the "method of roleplay" but it isn't all that a Roleplaying Game consists of. At the very least, there is also the "game" aspect; I mean, by your position two people having cybersex in a chatroom are playing a "roleplaying game"; and while they're certainly roleplaying, its not the same as suggesting that those people would be participating in the "roleplaying game hobby" by virtue of pretend-fucking online.

But beyond that there are a series of conventions, landmarks, that define RPGs. One of these (one of the most important, IMO) is the traditional GM-player relationship definitions.

In every one of these landmarks, games like Vampire fit within the traditional mold of being a "roleplaying game"; whereas many if not most modern "storygames" do not.

RPGPundit

QuoteBut beyond that there are a series of conventions, landmarks, that define RPGs. One of these (one of the most important, IMO) is the traditional GM-player relationship definitions.

This is definitely very important element for a certain type of games. And those games go by the name RPG, out of historical reasons. The same historical reasons can be claimed by thematic games:

Fuckwit XYZ comes up with a thing using the MoR, it comes to be labelled as RPG
Fuckwit 123 comes up with a thing using MoR, and having played RPGs beforehand naturally it comes to be labelled as RPG too.

A claim by being there longer is of no use, as psychological RPGs have been there the longest (and the sexual RPG you have been talking about, really IS a valid RPG and way older than the Colonel`s little game we love so much).

So it´s fuckwit vs. fuckwit, nobody can solve that conundrum and remain intellectually fair.

Without being intellectually fair, you will never reach a lasting arrangement, settle any disputes, or even communicate clearly. So I take it as a given, that being intellectually fair is a neccessity.

With that established, it becomes clear why the truly reflecting mind must see beyond partisan issues and give new names to things.
And this I tried.
And I chose names, that are neither derisive, nor disrespectful.