[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 (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.
Why? Why choose names that are not disrespectful? They have no respect for us, and they show that constantly.
By giving them an inch, they will take a mile. You are admitting that Mainstream RPGs are not RPGs by calling them "adventure games" and asking them pretty please to do the same for their games.
And they'll nod and pat you on the head and call you a good boy for admitting that your brain damaged inferior lowest common denominator unwashed masses game is really just an "adventure game", and go right on calling their shit Roleplaying Games.
Your entire argument is the rhetorical equivalent of the omega dog rolling over on his back and showing his anus.
Its an act of submission, for no good reason, that gains you nothing.
MY hobby is Roleplaying Games. Not "adventure games", that's some other thing.
And my hobby is not pretentious mental wankery in the faux guise of "Art" or "Academia". They are not RPGs, they never will be.
You're trying to solve something no one wants to solve in good graces but you.
Anyone else who tells you that they want co-existence, or to "live and let live", is lying to you. And using you.
RPGPundit
Paranoia?
That´s all? It´s not about describing reality, but about war strategy?
Mmm.
Why the Paranoia?
What makes you think, "they" would act like you insinuate?
And please no "because they always do!".
Elaborate on assumed reasons or provide links to signs of such behaviour, please.
Sorry, but they consistently have, and that's that. You have surely seen it, on RPG.net, in Forge lingo in general, when they say (in one environment) that they just want to do their thing and have nothing against traditional gamers, and then in another context talk about mainstream gamers as "unwashed masses" and D20 as the "lowest common denominator".
Hell, the Forge swine spent YEARS claiming that the Forge's GNS theory was not derogatory, and that Forgeites themselves didn't think that traditional play was bad per se, and then, Brain Damage.
And even after that you saw a wave of justifications, apologetics, and rounds of "pay no mind to the man behind the curtain"...
And fundamentally, your move is a semantic one, and the Forge-ites are all about manipulating semantics to dominate the discussion. You see it all the time on message boards, where they dive in and manipulate the discussion to use THEIR jargon in order to posit as "already in evidence" all of the ideological foundation that goes along with their Jargon (ie. as soon as you start talking about Narrativism, in any capacity other than to outright shoot it down, you're automatically taking as a given that everything Ron Edwards said about Narrativism is true).
To hand them the ready-made potentially-derogatory term like "adventure games" and at the same time distance OUR hobby from the title of "Roleplaying Game" is like giving a whetstone to an axe-wielding maniac. Its just encouraging him.
RPGPundit
You are now diluting the war effort, by bombing everything indiscrimensately.
You should differentiate:
Brain Damage means: Swine
It´s basically the same. You get brain damaged by playing Vampire. That´s the whole deal. So brain damage hits the right persons: pretentious railroaders.
Ron Edwards
Forge Gamewrights
and
Swine Masses
Right now, you are fighting against all, even though their aims, methods and goals are very different.
Ron Edwards: He is just a guy. And he´s a nice person. He´s also an alpha person, who talks a lot (like many people, and most GMs). He´s also an academic. He saw that internet debate is screwed, and he formed a community to his liking to change
1) debate
2) the games being written
Those goals are working against each other, especially as he is also trying to change
3) the way RPGs are marketed
There is conflicts in his aims. None of his aims is destroying mainstream RPGs.
He´s a guy with conflicting visions, and he works for them. He doesn´t work against anything else than sometimes against himself. And he has come a long way, I´d say That´s really nothing to be afraid of.
Forge Gamewrights: Some are okay, some are pretentious fuckwits, but they are few, and they sell not very much. The last thing to fear is cannibalizing sales from D&D. Those games generated their own demand. Again, nothing to be afraid of. They aren´t even posting a lot on forae.
Swine Masses: Their aim is lessening the tragedy of their miserable lives. They are unhappy, unhappy with gaming, with their life, with the weather. Oh yes, and the government. Therefore, they elevate themselves above the other people. By being pretentious. By furthering a conspicious consumption culture. by gaining Mod Status. By being passive aggressive. By theorizing without designing a game. By playing what the kool kids play, without getting the point. By trying to be intellectuals through imitation of their habits.
Forge gamewrights and Ron Edwards happen to be intellectuals. Some pretentious most not. Therefore, their level of reflection is relatively high. When they speak, they know how to speak intellectually fair (most of the time). Thusly, a lot of other reflecting people will drink their kool-aid, as it is the only real reflecting discussion going on. Look at Dr. Rotwang!, he surely is a prime example. He had to do a lot of thinking to come full circle and realize the ill workings of the Swine Masses behind the fog of reasoned discourse.
So in conclusion, if thematic games and adventure roleplaying games come to be known as seperate, then the swine masses will loose their current main weapon:
GNS-Trashtalk.
You yourself have said many a time, that the Swine will follow whoever gives them the feeling of being special.
Take that away from them, and they are a huge confused mess of ill-beings, caught between the high and mighty fortress of manly man adventure roleplaying games, and the no-bullshit-let´s-work on some hippy-navel-gazing-thematic-games crowd.
They will realize their loneliness and seek out whoever else is giving them fuzzy feelings.
The swine masses are the enemy, not the flavour of the season they use as an excuse.
Dude, what the fuck was going on off-screen in that fucking interview?? Did Ron Edwards suck your cock? Did he tie himself up with leather and let you spank him and call you Grandma?
I mean, shit, how the fuck do you end up so utterly ensorceled by this fuckers powers of charisma that you honestly end up trying to claim that the guy who WROTE the Brain Damage comment is somehow not the "real enemy" and that he's not responsible for, say, the Brain Damage comment?!
I mean FUCK's SAKE, the real question is why the fuck is Edwards' wasting his life being a biologist and running the Forge, when his power is so astounding that he could easily be running a complex in california teaching "kabalah" to millionaires and living a life of luxury?
Jesus shit.
Let me clear something up for you bucky, the fact that you've met Ron Edwards, and that he "seems nice enough" doesn't actually mean that you can magically shift the responsibility for the Forge over to anyone other than him.
First: There are no "Swine Masses". They are, by definition, an anti-masses group. They hate the "unwashed masses", the crowd. They like to think of themselves as the small "elite", run by an even smaller "elite". So the idea that Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, and co. are just hapless intellectuals who's benign ideas have been stolen and manipulated for evil instead of good by the filthy evil masses of hook-nosed villains is absurdity.
The guy who said GNS applies to ALL roleplaying games? Edwards.
The guy who said that most normal gamers are secretly miserable about their Gaming? Edwards.
The guy who said playing mainstream games makes you brain damaged? Edwards.
You can't shift the responsibility to some nonexistant invisible supermass. Are there some individual swine who take things even further, or say things that are even dumber than Edwards & co? Sure. But that doesn't preclude the fact that Edwards & Co. have led the Swine there in the first place; and it doesn't preclude the fact that Edwards and Co. have said some MONUMENTALLY stupid things all by their little selves.
To say "the Swine masses are the real enemy" is like saying that Jim Jones was just a humble god-fearing preacher man, and the real badguys were all the cult members who wanted him to lead them. It ignores the fact that he, in the end, led them to the jungle and fed them the kool aid. It doesn't absolve the cultmembers of their own responsibility, but your point of view tries to absolve Edwards of his.
Finally, Edwards & Co are NOT intellectuals. They are pseudo-intellectuals. There is a profound difference. Edwards might teach biology, but that's a little like the Creationist dude who claims he's qualified to talk about the age of the earth or the truth/lie of fossils because he's a trained and qualified anesthesiologist.
The fact is, they have all the hallmarks of pseudo-academics: obsessive and excessive use of jargon, theories born ab ovo without any grounding in REAL research, anecdotal evidence twisted around to fit one's theory, theories that try to account for everything and which they choose to defend blindly against all and sundry evidence to the contrary. In other words, looking and sounding intelligent is more important to them than actually making anything productive or being intellectually honest.
I have to say though, Edwards is a flim-flam man of the best kind, if just one meeting with him was enough to turn you into a gibbering fawning fanboy who can't see the forest from the trees about him, to the point that you're willing to twist around sanity and reason itself to try to make Dear Leader blameless for the website, theory, and movement he FUCKING CREATED.
RPGPundit
QuoteDid Ron Edwards suck your cock? Did he tie himself up with leather and let you spank him and call you Grandma?
Usually I´m being insulted as being up so high in your ass, so that only my feet show.
QuoteI mean, shit, how the fuck do you end up so utterly ensorceled by this fuckers powers of charisma that you honestly end up trying to claim that the guy who WROTE the Brain Damage comment is somehow not the "real enemy" and that he's not responsible for, say, the Brain Damage comment?!
He is responsible for the brain damage comment. And it´s basically the same as the term Swine. And if anything, I got to know a very nice person, whom I do respect
less as an authority on RPGs in general, but more as a human being.
QuoteI mean FUCK's SAKE, the real question is why the fuck is Edwards' wasting his life being a biologist and running the Forge
Do you really want to go that way? Do you really want to discuss private life decisions about people who spend a lot of their time online for RPGs? I can see only bad things coming out of this.
Everybody can check out Ron´s academic publication list and his gaming publication list and compare, but what´s the point? Do you really wanna engage in that kind of mud slinging? Again, especially you insulting someone for spending too much time online is a ballsy move indeed. See Pundit, we all like the emperor naked, in that we don´t question how everybody comes up with the time needed for online discussions, DMing three times a week, or writing RPG supplements.
QuoteThere are no "Swine Masses". They are, by definition, an anti-masses group. They hate the "unwashed masses", the crowd. They like to think of themselves as the small "elite", run by an even smaller "elite".
If they are many, if they are swine, they are swine masses. If they are few, we wouldn´t have to care about them.
QuoteThe guy who said GNS applies to ALL roleplaying games? Edwards.
The guy who said that most normal gamers are secretly miserable about their Gaming? Edwards.
The guy who said playing mainstream games makes you brain damaged? Edwards.
See, here we are at the heart of the matter. Those are things Ron actually did imply or say. And brain damage was diagnosed for Vampire players. And they are wrong. (which many Forgeites have acknowledged many a time)
The whole trick is, to get the basic message to be known far and wide:
GNS doesn´t apply to all RPGs.
That´s the point of it all. If it is consensus, barring what Ron wants or says, that Adventure RPGs don´t benefit and aren´t designed according to the big Model, than immeadeately even your hate against Ron will cease. His claim on the hobby as a whole is already threatened a lot.
You, Pundit have drunken more Kool aid, than I ever will. Because you accept Ron´s claim. If you want to do good, you have to be smarter than Ron, not louder or more funny.
The reality of fun (for some), successful Thematic Games is non-debatable.
So obviously Ron did a lot of stuff right, and the forge is indeed a functional thing. If looked at closely, it produces Thematic Games, and it furthers reflection upon these games.
Everybody can see, that games from the forge are all alike somehow, and are all different from what are RPGs that came before. So it´s basically a new branch of the hobby.
There is no single proof, where the Big Model was in any way applicable to the Adventure Gaming Hobby, or RPGs as you would say.
Although, once in a while a Forgeite, being a reflecting person who used to play Adventure RPGs, they might say a smart thing about them. This happens to Clinton R. Nixon quite often. But be reminded: his gaming background is totally different from Ron´s for example.
Intellectualism: Sure most Gamewrights and Ron himself are indeed intellectuals. But not many of them are authorities on textual analysis, sociology, psychology or media discourse.
And you are right, that that basically makes them laymen. But they are smart laymen.
Especially the brain damage comment is an excellent example of a reflecting laymans thinking:
Recently, I had to dig up some stuff on spatial cognition. The methods used therein, where a carbon copy (actually the original) for GNS thinking and the brain damage comment. In cognition research, you come up with a theory of how the cognitive process at hand could be divided into atomic functions. Those functions are then atrtributed to certain areas of the brain. The only way to find out, is by way of examining brain damaged patients, and compare there cognitive abilities to healthy, undamaged individuals.
So, when Ron the biologist sees a deficit in somebodys cognitive ability, his training and intellectual upbringing leads him to cognition sciences and their methods.
And that´s why I can´t buy the Big Model. RPGs and instances are texts which are received and formed in an interactive process, which need textual analysis, criticial literary discourse and the like. In short: methods from the humanities. The forge has nothing in that regard.
This is their main failure, and Ron´s main failure.
This is not an apology of the stupid brain damage thing. It´s an explanation nonetheless. We are all humans who see nails for our hammers, even when there might be different tools better suited.
That´s why you are way more correct with the term Swine: The reasons are reasons of socialisation and psychological motivation. Hunter was deep into political debate, and criticism of society. All with the methods of the humanities in their trivialized/popularized form of Journalism. Your hammer is a better fit than Ron´s for the discussion of gaming habits.
But again, it´s more valuable to see through this, than to get into a raving maniac, while the other side just shrugs and proceeds with intellectual discussions with the wrong methods at hand.
By being a raving maniac, you polarize. Which means you can never ever show the true failings of Ron or the Forge to themselves.
Quote from: SettembriniDo you really want to go that way? Do you really want to discuss private life decisions about people who spend a lot of their time online for RPGs? I can see only bad things coming out of this.
Everybody can check out Ron´s academic publication list and his gaming publication list and compare, but what´s the point? Do you really wanna engage in that kind of mud slinging? Again, especially you insulting someone for spending too much time online is a ballsy move indeed. See Pundit, we all like the emperor naked, in that we don´t question how everybody comes up with the time needed for online discussions, DMing three times a week, or writing RPG supplements.
What kind of mud slinging is this, how is it mudslinging? Are you talking about the "he ought to run a cult" business? That's just a statement of clear sense given that he's obviously got the astounding charisma for it.
I mean fuck, he was able to take you and turn you over from a hardcore mainstream gamer and enemy of the Forge and turn you around into a guy who starts using Jargon like "thematic games" and "Method of Roleplay" like you're one of them, and making up excuses for why Ron isn't really to blame for the Theory Swine, all in one afternoon.
Or are you talking about the fact that I posted his C.V. on my blog? Hey, if he didn't want people to know that he's a self-proclaimed expert on Rat Copulation and Bat Penises, and that this is what he was using as his justification for considering himself an "academic" of Roleplaying, he shouldn't have put up his C.V. in a public webpage in the first place.
I sure as fuck wouldn't.
QuoteSee, here we are at the heart of the matter. Those are things Ron actually did imply or say. And brain damage was diagnosed for Vampire players. And they are wrong. (which many Forgeites have acknowledged many a time)
The whole trick is, to get the basic message to be known far and wide:
GNS doesn´t apply to all RPGs.
But your own dude Ron claims they do. You can't argue that it doesn't and then claim that it does still apply to "some" RPGs. Ron knows that, which is why he's going for the all-or-nothing.
You see, if GNS is not a vast theory for dividing EXISTING RPGs into different criteria, then its entire origin is senseless, and its foundations are meaningless. In other words,
its not talking about Roleplaying Games at all, if you had to create a whole new hobby of games for it to make sense and fit to. And that's exactly what happened.
QuoteYou, Pundit have drunken more Kool aid, than I ever will. Because you accept Ron´s claim.
I don't accept his claim. You're the one accepting it halfway, opening the door for them to push it all the way in.
My position is that GNS is entirely and TOTALLY wrong as a theory of Roleplaying Games. If it applies to other kinds of games, a genre of game that was created after-the-fact in accordance with the theory, that's fine. But those games are BY FUCKING DEFINITION not RPGs.
QuoteThe reality of fun (for some), successful Thematic Games is non-debatable.
I disagree.
QuoteSo obviously Ron did a lot of stuff right, and the forge is indeed a functional thing. If looked at closely, it produces Thematic Games, and it furthers reflection upon these games.
And what the fuck are thematic games? Why should I care?
Except that there are fuckwits out there trying to imply that these things are somehow RPGs.
QuoteEverybody can see, that games from the forge are all alike somehow, and are all different from what are RPGs that came before. So it´s basically a new branch of the hobby.
No, its a new hobby, that branched out from the old. Saying that Storygames are a "kind of" RPG is like saying that RPGs are a "kind of miniature wargame".
QuoteThere is no single proof, where the Big Model was in any way applicable to the Adventure Gaming Hobby, or RPGs as you would say.
Although, once in a while a Forgeite, being a reflecting person who used to play Adventure RPGs, they might say a smart thing about them. This happens to Clinton R. Nixon quite often. But be reminded: his gaming background is totally different from Ron´s for example.
Your position is so intellectually confused it baffles reason. You admit that Ron was either wrong or lying in his claim that GNS is universal, yet you don't want to reject GNS. You recognize that what you call "thematic games" are not like RPGs, yet you want to still call them that. You recognize that the "big model" is a farce, but you want us to stop calling ourselves RPGs and hand them the white flag anyways...
I mean, what the fuck are you on??
QuoteBy being a raving maniac, you polarize. Which means you can never ever show the true failings of Ron or the Forge to themselves.
But my point is that I don't want to show them their failings. I want to show their failings to the Roleplaying Games Hobby. I couldn't give a flying fuck about their moral betterment; I just want them stopped.
RPGPundit
Quoteyet you don't want to reject GNS.
Huh? I reject it wholeheartedly. It does stuff I don´t care for and it doesn´t adress adventure roleplaying gaming.
QuoteWhat kind of mud slinging is this, how is it mudslinging?
Well, again: You question his private career success in relation to his investment into the hobby. I don´t think this leads anywhere good. But go ahead, I will not participate though. This oughta be about gaming and nothing more, at least if you ask me.
QuoteMy position is that GNS is entirely and TOTALLY wrong as a theory of Roleplaying Games. If it applies to other kinds of games, a genre of game that was created after-the-fact in accordance with the theory, that's fine. But those games are BY FUCKING DEFINITION not RPGs.
So it remains, we see the facts as the same, but argue about the definition of RPGs.
I say: Any leisure activity which uses the method of Roleplay can call itself rightfully RPG.
You say: Only D&D derivatives are RPGs
You have a gigantic paranoia, that not one inch can be conceded to the enemy, definition wise.
Sadly, as reality doesn´t concur with your definition, nobody buys your kool aid in that regard. People mock and scorn Thematic Games, but they still see them as RPGs. Because they are RPGs.
You can dislike them as much as you want, for all the good reasons that might exist. But RPGs they remain.
So your strategy of denying them RPG-hood is not working. Actually one could say it´s way too late for this to work. And so, strategies have to be adjusted to reality, not to wishful thinking. I can loathe and hate what DSA did to mindfuck the German gaming scene, but I cannot deny it´s existence or it´s RPGness.
The question is: Do you want to preserve your personal pride at all costs (as everybody seems to agree you never ever admit when you were wrong), or do you really want to make an impact on internet discourse?
See, when the ENNies guys showed up at the forge, I pointed out that those games didn´t belong there, as they are structurally different. And people backed that statement, forge people. If you had gone there, crying about how those games aren´t even RPGs, you would never have anyone adjusting to or sharing your view.
The oversimplification of denial is actually reinforcing the self delusions in the swinish masses. Being attacked with silly claims makes them feel stronger, and smarter. This is what they crave, feeling smarter than other people, although they actually aren´t.
Quote from: SettembriniWell, again: You question his private career success in relation to his investment into the hobby. I don´t think this leads anywhere good.
I don't question his "private career success", though. As I've said on my blog, I'm sure he's the best rodent-penis-guy who ever was.
QuoteI say: Any leisure activity which uses the method of Roleplay can call itself rightfully RPG.
You say: Only D&D derivatives are RPGs
The way you put it sounds almost derogatory of D&D...
Technically, its not untrue, since every RPG is by default a D&D derivative if only in the sense of "inspired by", and most go much closer than that.
But really what I say is that RPGs are games that follow certain hallmarks that put together define an RPG. That without those hallmarks, a game is NOT an RPG, its some other kind of game, or some other kind of roleplaying activity.
By your logic, we should let all the furries who go to online chats to masturbate at each other's fantasies into Gencon and give them a centre booth as a vital part of our hobby, since according to you what they're engaging in is a "Roleplaying Game".
QuoteSo your strategy of denying them RPG-hood is not working. Actually one could say it´s way too late for this to work. And so, strategies have to be adjusted to reality, not to wishful thinking. I can loathe and hate what DSA did to mindfuck the German gaming scene, but I cannot deny it´s existence or it´s RPGness.
And again, what the fuck is your "strategy" aside from bending over and taking it in the ass? Because that is what you're doing, or what it amounts to anyways.
QuoteThe question is: Do you want to preserve your personal pride at all costs (as everybody seems to agree you never ever admit when you were wrong), or do you really want to make an impact on internet discourse?
You mean by "getting to" the Forgites? Are you daft?
Do you know how many times in the history of the internet anyone actually ever managed to convince anyone else of changing their position?
Do you really think you will be able to magically convince them to stop being Swine, or to stop attacking mainstream RPGs, by saying "pretty please"?
That, my friend, is the fool's errand.
I would prefer to try to reach the reachable, the middle ground, especially people who may have been feeling subtly pissed off about what the swine were doing in RPGs and on internet fora for a long time and just hadn't been able to formulate it, or thought they were alone in their sentiments.
That's why my blog has been so successful, it latched on to a wave of discontent.
QuoteThe oversimplification of denial is actually reinforcing the self delusions in the swinish masses. Being attacked with silly claims makes them feel stronger, and smarter. This is what they crave, feeling smarter than other people, although they actually aren´t.
I don't think they look stronger or smarter when confronted with the truth. I think compromising that truth because its more comfortable is something that ends up making them much stronger, on the other hand.
RPGPundit
I daresay the discussion is over. It has been made obsolete by no lesser being than the RPGPundit himself, that is to say: you.
Why?
Let´s look at some recent things you wrote:
In your recent review of "Don´t Rest your head", you implicitly argue, that there are two different styles of
RPGs. mainstream traditional Roleplaying games
story Roleplaying Games
QuoteThis is why I say that Hicks is trying to create a compromise game. Rather than clearly stating that the players have the control, or that the GM does, he suggests that this game can go both ways, the great bisexual of the RPG world.
Even in the Punditverse, it´s acknowledged that both belong to the RPG World.
Sure, they are different. But RPGs they are.
If you want to keep on using the utterly convoluted:
mainstream traditional Roleplaying gameswhich means the exact same thing as Adventure Roleplaying Games, short Adventure Games, then go ahead.
It´s just a different word.
mainstream, traditional Those are terms that not only invite being looked down upon, it also feeds the swinish longing for being non-conformists and beat-poet-like.
Another instance of your use of words, and implied RPG-ness of the mentioned styles:
QuoteTo me, one of the main things that differentiates Mainstream RPGs from "storygames" is that Mainstream RPGs are usually designed to allow for very long campaigns, whereas storygames are almost always designed to be ideally played for only a few sessions at most, if not for one-shots.
If there is mainstream, there is avantgarde. If there is tradition, there is art-noveau, there is evolution, advancement and all the other shit the Swine want to claim for themselves.
By using these terms, you are helping them. You are playing their game of feeling smart, by reinforcing our alleged conservatism.
Thusly, my reduction on the stuff that is actually done with the different games is superiour.
But, if you still want to use
Mainstream and
Story, have fun. It is akin to walking into a trap the swinish masses have laid for you.
Thematic Games are neither an evolution, nor are their authors avantgarde. And story is also not what is created by most Thematic games. They create a thematic (navel gazing, if you want to stay disrespectful) experience.
This is definitely different, but not out of the bounds of the
RPG world, as you have put it so nicely.
I think my points have been made, and I see no use in discussing it further, as you are already acting, writing and thinking along the lines I have tried to give new names to. And this is because it describes reality, not because Settembrini is so smart.
Or do you see any remaining points of discussion?
If not, I am eager for your closing remarks.
Quote from: SettembriniI daresay the discussion is over. It has been made obsolete by no lesser being than the RPGPundit himself, that is to say: you.
Why?
Let´s look at some recent things you wrote:
In your recent review of "Don´t Rest your head", you implicitly argue, that there are two different styles of RPGs.
You take one line, where I'm making a joke at that, and miss the fact that in other parts of the review I repeatedly refer to Don't Rest Your Head as an "alleged" RPG, or as a "Game".
You also miss the conclusion to that same review, where I write:
But I think that any attempt by the author to try to bridge the gulf that divides story games from mainstream RPGs was ill-planned, and ultimately unsatisfying, as it only served to highlite just how different these two types of games are from each other.Don't rest your head
tries to be both a Storygame and an RPG, and instead ends up PROVING that the gap between those two things is just too wide.
Quote
mainstream, traditional
Those are terms that not only invite being looked down upon, it also feeds the swinish longing for being non-conformists and beat-poet-like.
Actually, you will note that I rarely use the term "Traditional" (unless I am literally referring to a "tradition" in roleplay or a very old-school game, but NEVER for a new mainstream game), for precisely that reason. We're not unchangeable dinosaurs. Mainstream RPGs evolve and change all the time, just within certain boundaries.
As for the term "Mainstream" itself, its an aberration born from the fact that these fuckers are trying to present their wierd shit as "RPGs" rather than have the guts to go and try to create their own hobby (because they know it would never ultimately reach the same popularity that even tabletop RPGs have). It isn't "mainstream" in the sense of "we are the mainstream, but those other games are still RPGs, just borderline ones"; its "mainstream" in the sense of "we are what most normal, good people consider RPGs, and other things are NOT".
QuoteIf there is mainstream, there is avantgarde. If there is tradition, there is art-noveau, there is evolution, advancement and all the other shit the Swine want to claim for themselves.
By using these terms, you are helping them. You are playing their game of feeling smart, by reinforcing our alleged conservatism.
Asked and answered, above. The mainstream need not be conservative. It just has to be definable as the hobby itself.
I agree that its a mistake for people to try to refer to RPGs in comparison with storygames as "Traditional RPGs"; that's why I don't use the term myself except when its appropriate.
Could there be better terms in general to be used than "mainstream" and "traditional"? Quite possibly, that would be something worth looking at.
Is your choice of surrendering to the Swine the answer? Obviously not.
QuoteThusly, my reduction on the stuff that is actually done with the different games is superiour.
But, if you still want to use Mainstream and Story, have fun. It is akin to walking into a trap the swinish masses have laid for you.
My truth can kick the shit out of their traps. Yes, my terms require me being capable of explaining and defending myself. I am confident I can do that, especially against their ilk.
But your terms? They're just APPEASEMENT. Please stop pretending that your terms are somehow a way of fighting the Swine. They're not. Not in any way, shape or form.
Instead, they are you opening up the front lines to them and saying, "we will be able to defeat you best by allowing you to march up and take what you want, surely after that, you will take no more". You're giving them the fucking sudetenland, convinced that somehow by doing so they will suddenly become "reasonable" people, and not ask for anything more.
You have, in other words, bought into the classic swine LIE that all they want is "a place to live", to have their little thing, and let us have ours, and not bother us anymore. But that's bullshit.
If that's what they wanted, they'd have had the intellectual honesty to try to create their own hobby in the first place. They didn't. Instead, they tried to subvert our hobby.
What your move does is just ask them "pretty please to stop subverting our hobby". Worse, its saying "promise you won't use RPGs as your term anymore if we promise to stop using it too?"
WHY THE FUCK should we have to stop using the term RPG for our game?! OUR GAMES ARE REAL RPGS! That's the part you seem to not be getting here, bucky.
At the end of the day, however inelegant my position might be, my position is TRUE, whereas yours is an invention intended to create compromise. But the only things you end up compromising are the truth, and your own alleged side's strength to fight.
RPGPundit
I think your hatred of the terms Adventure Gaming and Thematic Gaming is rooted in your misconception about their origins.
If you continue using "story-games" you play their game, lose initiative. Their is a "story-games" forum, you know? It also concedes the claim at story to them. Which in turn makes our games somehow "not-about-story" = less meaningful.
Have you ever seen a forum called "Thematic Games"?
I tell you why: because right now, they swim on the wave of Adventure Games. All their efforts of branching out to other demographics were total failures AFAIK. So they need to blur the lines to keep threadcrapping and threadpodcasting (Sons of Kryos, I´m looking at you!)
If the clear cut division is made, any threadcrap can be met with a reference to the "we have to stay outside" sign at the entrance.
If you keep saying mainstream, than there must be something not mainstream, a branch or oxbow, that is part of the whole. And this is playing their game.
So it remains: We are of the same opinion:
A clear division must be made.
We happen to disagree who´s terms are more helpful to the other side. I don´t think we will clear that one up. But I can at least say that in the german internet scene Adventure Roleplaying (ARS = Abenteuerrollenspiel) has made quite some impact, and is adopted by posters all over to support our cause. Dungeon Design articles, Encounter logistic blogging, DM advice, grand discussions even on the Fanpro boards, all under that new/old umbrella.
I will continue using it, and I´d urge you to adopt at least another term as "mainstream RPGs". Even your fundamentalist denial of the RPGness of Thematic Games at all was more helpful than yourself talking about "mainstream" and "traditional".
The division must be clear, don´t murk the waters.
Quote from: SettembriniI think your hatred of the terms Adventure Gaming and Thematic Gaming is rooted in your misconception about their origins.
If you continue using "story-games" you play their game, lose initiative. Their is a "story-games" forum, you know? It also concedes the claim at story to them. Which in turn makes our games somehow "not-about-story" = less meaningful.
I don't see how being about things beyond "story" is less meaningful.
"Storygames" seems to me to be a very good term to describe the hobby they're participating in. The games, from what I've seen of them, seem primarily obsessed with creating a story, and with everyone in the group collaborating to do that.
Its a perfectly understandable, if narrow, goal. One that RPGs are not well-designed to accomplish effectively, for reasons I've discussed many times before.
Meanwhile, RPGs are about plot, about characters and the actuation and simulation of character personas, about emulation of genre, about adventure and fun, and mainly about doing all of these things within the boundaries of a game (whereas with storygames, the "game" part is clearly subservient to the "story" part, which is why they try so very hard to create rules that will "create the story", and why ultimately the rules are strictly secondary to the creation of said story as a priority).
So the real issue I see is that "adventure games" is what devalues what we do, devalues RPGs. The other guys finally admitting that they're playing Storygames and not RPGs is a step in the right direction, even though far too many of them aren't on board with that train of thought yet.
QuoteSo they need to blur the lines to keep threadcrapping and threadpodcasting (Sons of Kryos, I´m looking at you!)
I agree, but you do not solve the siege by surrendering the city, and accepting the idea that we can't call ourselves RPGs anymore, or that they can call what they do RPGs.
Either you're saying that BOTH "adventure games" and "thematic games" are RPGs, or you're saying that NEITHER are.
If you're claiming that they BOTH are, you do nothing to stop the blurring of lines.
If you're claiming that NEITHER are, then you're surrendering our right to our own name.
QuoteWe happen to disagree who´s terms are more helpful to the other side. I don´t think we will clear that one up. But I can at least say that in the german internet scene Adventure Roleplaying (ARS = Abenteuerrollenspiel) has made quite some impact, and is adopted by posters all over to support our cause. Dungeon Design articles, Encounter logistic blogging, DM advice, grand discussions even on the Fanpro boards, all under that new/old umbrella.
In germany, given the situation as you have explained it, and the fact that essentially, the Swine have been dominant there since day 1, this kind of tactic might even be called for. But because it might be a necessary maneuvre in German doesn't mean we need to take it up in English; what could be a step forward for you there would be a tremendous step backwards for us here.
QuoteI will continue using it, and I´d urge you to adopt at least another term as "mainstream RPGs". Even your fundamentalist denial of the RPGness of Thematic Games at all was more helpful than yourself talking about "mainstream" and "traditional".
The division must be clear, don´t murk the waters.
Your point here might be valid, but the alternative you are proposing is no better than the terminology we are using now. In fact, it is far worse.
If you can think up a better term than Mainstream RPG, one that doesn't leave us ass-up with our back to the Swine, then feel free to suggest it.
RPGPundit
My points have all been made, and I don´t see any new arguments coming from you either.
I´m no fan of coming up with totally unrelated subjects just to reach the postcount.
So this will be my final post in this thread.
Thanks for your time, the positions have become very clear. Which is of value unto itself, besides being the issue at hand.
All the best,
Settembrini
Hehe, your rendition is accepted. :p
RPGPundit
Oh, and I'm now unstickying this thread, and opening it for anyone else who wants to post in it.
RPGPundit
RPG
n. Abbreviation for Role-Playing Game, in which a gamemaster creates a progressive storyline and other players control the characters within the story.
via the BGG Glossary (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Glossary)
Quote from: RPGPunditYour point here might be valid, but the alternative you are proposing is no better than the terminology we are using now. In fact, it is far worse.
If you can think up a better term than Mainstream RPG, one that doesn't leave us ass-up with our back to the Swine, then feel free to suggest it.
As far as I've seen, it's far more common for exclusive indie role-players to use the the term "mainstream RPGs" than to use "adventure RPGs". To use your terms for a moment, calling them mainstream helps them consider their own games to be unique and elite as opposed to the unwashed masses. So they approve of your term, at least.
Personally, I dislike the term "mainstream RPGs" because it doesn't say anything about what they are. It's like the "modern" movement in art, which some stupid people a hundred years ago thought would be cool to call "modern" and "modernist". When styles inevitably changed, the name just sounds stupid -- leading to the even more ridiculous term "post-modern" (though I suppose many of them were poking fun at modernists).
I prefer terms which actually say something about what they're talking about.
Quote from: jhkimAs far as I've seen, it's far more common for exclusive indie role-players to use the the term "mainstream RPGs" than to use "adventure RPGs". To use your terms for a moment, calling them mainstream helps them consider their own games to be unique and elite as opposed to the unwashed masses. So they approve of your term, at least.
Personally, I dislike the term "mainstream RPGs" because it doesn't say anything about what they are. It's like the "modern" movement in art, which some stupid people a hundred years ago thought would be cool to call "modern" and "modernist". When styles inevitably changed, the name just sounds stupid -- leading to the even more ridiculous term "post-modern" (though I suppose many of them were poking fun at modernists).
I prefer terms which actually say something about what they're talking about.
Yes, as do I. It would be nice if we could just call our games RPGs, and the storygamers out there called their games Storygames. I would have no issue with that.
As it is, the one thing Settembrini was making a good point about is the need for a better term than "Mainstream RPG", though I don't really buy the "You're only encouraging them" business (since they have shown to need no encouraging, so what exactly is lost by defining my RPGs as the ones that have widespread popular acceptance and recognition as actual RPGs, and their games as disconnected from that consensus?).
The better, more accurate terms would be "Real RPGs" and "games that are
not RPGs", but I actually started using Mainstream RPGs here as a way of being a little less confrontational. Perhaps I should revert to the more accurate form?
RPGPundit
QuotePerhaps I should revert to the more accurate form?
I´d prefer that to using the awful "mainstream".
If you are a fundamentalist, do it thoroughly.
And I can ysmpathize with explaining: Adventure RPGs are what others consider
real RPGs.
I've seen "traditional RPGs" vs. "indie RPGs" (where no matter what anyone says, 'indie' means 'alternative.').
I think that's ... 'pretty clear' (of course I also think Sorcerer is a pretty traditional RPG). In any event, while I don't subscribe to the idea that more-theme means less-adventure, I do think that having a useful language to talk about (erm) traditional RPGs apart from some of the more experimental stuff that can/does actually involve roleplaying and playing a game is useful.
So I tend to side more with Settembrini on this--and I doubt that someone calling DitV a roleplaying game is going to really hurt things any. When I played it, it seemed awfully like some games of GURPS I've played in terms of thematic content.
-Marco
Quote from: MarcoI doubt that someone calling DitV a roleplaying game is going to really hurt things any. When I played it, it seemed awfully like some games of GURPS I've played in terms of thematic content.
This just...well, it makes me laugh and cry at the same time. So much conflict, so little reason.
I mean, part of me thinks - gee, they went through all that trouble on the Forge to, what, come up with a game that plays like GURPS?
Another part of me says, it's a shame that all of the passion had to get in the way of evolving (not revolutionizing) RPGs.
The last part of me thinks the Victoria's Secret Fashion show was at it's best...during the commercials. My wife certainly thought so.
Quote from: MarcoI've seen "traditional RPGs" vs. "indie RPGs" (where no matter what anyone says, 'indie' means 'alternative.').
Indie should refer to the method of production / distribution, not the style of the game. I'm working on an "indie" RPG, but it won't be a Forge-style Indie RPG. ;)
Quote from: StuartIndie should refer to the method of production / distribution, not the style of the game. I'm working on an "indie" RPG, but it won't be a Forge-style Indie RPG. ;)
Well, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution. (That's the definition on the about page of the site.) The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.
It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.
QuoteWell, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution. (That's the definition on the about page of the site.) The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.
It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.
That´s why I think it´s smart to have a decent term for "forgey". "Indie" is still around as a term though, but can then be used intuitively for a method of publishing.
Quote from: jhkimWell, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution. (That's the definition on the about page of the site.) The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.
It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.
I once PM'd Ron a list of links of people who
on the Forge used "indie" to mean "alternative."
It's more than half there too. There's a whole lot of identity tied up in this stuff (same as with alternative music, I'd guess).
-Marco
Quote from: jhkimWell, at least, the official Forge definition of "indie" is about the method of production / distribution. (That's the definition on the about page of the site.) The same for the Indie RPG Awards, which have recognized games like Artesia and Perfect20.
It seems like it's at least half people outside the Forge who have taken up using "indie" to mean "has a style typical of authors who post on the Forge" rather than independently produced and distributed / creator-controlled.
Oh please, the Forge itself does this, all the time. The idea of the "Indie Press Revolution", the whole image, is to try to claim that Indie is not just what they offer as the textbook definition, but also a question of being rebels, of being cool, of being an elite.
Not to mention Edwards deciding that independent games he doesn't like are just "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and not true Indie games; and deciding that games he really loves that are obviously NOT indie by the textbook definition, like Heroquest, get to be "considered Indie" for no particular reason.
The average Forgite would bristle at the thought of having to consider RIFTS an "Indie" game, even though if you go by the textbook definition of it all, its clearly the current most successful Indie Game of all, easily King of the Indie Games. But let's face it, its so blatantly obvious that RIFTS is NOT what you guys are talking about, or the game you would like to hold up as the vanguard. That's because the Forge isn't about being a nice little place for independant publishers to hone their craft at all; its an ideological training camp for GNS-Theory and the promotion of subverting the RPG hobby with an aggressive Storygaming agenda.
RPGPundit
One more reason to lump them together under "Thematic Games".:cool:
Quote from: RPGPunditThe average Forgite would bristle at the thought of having to consider RIFTS an "Indie" game, even though if you go by the textbook definition of it all, its clearly the current most successful Indie Game of all, easily King of the Indie Games.
By "textbook" you mean "Forge", right?
Because in
every other industry, Indie means "not distributed by means of a standard three-tiered system."
Quote from: Levi KornelsenBy "textbook" you mean "Forge", right?
Because in every other industry, Indie means "not distributed by means of a standard three-tiered system."
This is where thinks get, well, hinkey.
In just about every industry, indie explicitly means, as you say, not distributed by means of a standard three-tiered system – literally short for independent. Problem is, in every other industry, it's also used, colloquially, as "alternative," "cool," and "rebellious." By using the term indie, the Forge not only gets the distribution definition, but all the others as well.
Whether or not this was intended is certainly only known by those that decided to use it. Whether or not both “textbook” and “colloquial” versions are now used interchangeably is barely debatable, if at all.
PS: Forgot "elite" and "quality." And to point out that all of these other terms are wrapped up in the term independent due to the historical nature of the content that ends up being made/distributed independently. It was stuff that traditional distributors wouldn't touch for lack of profitability.
James;
Exactly.
I've seen loads of people that say they're using the Forge definition or some special one, when they're actually using the music business one - differently distributed, alternative, with overtones of rebellion, coolness, edginess, and so on.
And they associate that with a specific crowd of people, who are producing differently distributed, alternative games. Which is where identity politics creep in, as was noted already.
So we all should start calling them Thematic Games. Because they are special, but not better or more elite.
If Ron´s essays have only one thing that is a fruitfull thought:
All playstyles are equally worhtwhile.
"Thematic Games" would be any game with a strong theme.
This would be similar to:
Ameritrash
n. A catchphrase for "American style boardgames". In general, this means games that emphasize a highly developed theme, player to player conflict, and usually feature a moderate to high level of luck. Examples of classic Ameritrash games include Axis and Allies, Dune, Cosmic Encounter, Talisman, and Twilight Imperium.
theme
n. 1. The topic or subject matter of a game. adj –atic. 2. Having rules and mechanics based on assumptions regarding the subject matter of the game. Often considered the opposite of abstract.
"Thematic Games" is not a good name for the types of games developed by Forge theorists et al.
Well with boardgames, "theme" has a totally different meaning.
But I´m all ears for other words.
BTW, the BGG Definition sucks donkey balls, because if any US game is "Euro" in it´s rules, it´s Cosmic Encounter/Dune.
CE is in no way Ameritrash, and it´s theme is very scant.
QuoteWell with boardgames, "theme" has a totally different meaning.
A totally different meaning than the one you're suggesting. :D
I'm just saying -- "Thematic Games" isn't a very good term to describe what's going on in games like Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, etc.
The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG is more "Thematic" than a lot of Forge games.
Quote from: RPGPunditOh please, the Forge itself does this, all the time. The idea of the "Indie Press Revolution", the whole image, is to try to claim that Indie is not just what they offer as the textbook definition, but also a question of being rebels, of being cool, of being an elite.
Not to mention Edwards deciding that independent games he doesn't like are just "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and not true Indie games; and deciding that games he really loves that are obviously NOT indie by the textbook definition, like Heroquest, get to be "considered Indie" for no particular reason.
Eh? Indie Press Revolution includes many D20 products, including manager Brennan Taylor's own D20 sci-fi game Bulldogs (from
Galileo Games (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/products.php?publisherLink=galileo)) along with many others like "Tell It To My Axe!" and "Poisoncraft: The Dark Art" and more from
Blue Devil Games (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/products.php?publisherLink=blueDevil), the World of Whitethorn adventures from
Open World Press (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/products.php?publisherLink=openWorld), the Heroes of High Favor series from
Bad Axe Games (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/products.php?publisherLink=badAxe), and plenty of others. They also have plenty of other traditional RPGs, like Jonathan Ridd's
Dog Town (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/products.php?publisherLink=coldBlooded), or Mark Smylie's
Artesia (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/products.php?publisherLink=archaia), and so forth.
Also, while Ron certainly isn't doing any favors to the games he calls "Fantasy Heartbreakers", he stands by them as indie games. The conclusion of his essay,
Fantasy Heartbreakers (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/), is as follows:
QuoteThese are indie role-playing games. Their authors are part of the Forge community, in all the ways that matter. They designed their games through enjoyment of actual play, and they published them through hopes of reaching like-minded practitioners. It is not fair to dismiss the games as "sucky" - they deserve better than that, and no one is going to give them fair play and critical attention unless we do it.
Now, it's true that there are a number of people on the Forge who don't follow this usage -- they tend to call things "indie" only if they follow a certain style or are the sorts of games they like or whatever. But, as I said, the usage also comes from people from elsewhere. There is at least a core of people (on the Forge and elsewhere) who disagree with this and think "indie" means independently published regardless of style or content.
Ok, fair point.
RPGPundit
D&D is the most recognized brand name of RPGs. It's similar to how all copiers used to be called Xerox macines. If D&D defined RPG-dom at one time, it was because it was the only one or at least the most accesible one. If the product delivers the same experience to the user, it's most likely an RPG. I could care less if a Xerox and a IKON copying machine have different mechanics. Your argument is almost like saying copying machines can only be Xerox because of tradition and their market ability and all other copying machines are actually just "replication devices".
Quote from: RPGPunditOk, fair point.
RPGPundit
Wait a minute. :confused:
Who are you and what have you done to RPGPundit, you imposter!!
:D
Quote from: GunslingerD&D is the most recognized brand name of RPGs. It's similar to how all copiers used to be called Xerox macines. If D&D defined RPG-dom at one time, it was because it was the only one or at least the most accesible one. If the product delivers the same experience to the user, it's most likely an RPG. I could care less if a Xerox and a IKON copying machine have different mechanics. Your argument is almost like saying copying machines can only be Xerox because of tradition and their market ability and all other copying machines are actually just "replication devices".
No, the opposite argument is a bit like saying that just because RPGs are "innovative" it doesn't mean they aren't wargames, and not all wargames need to be like "Squad Leader". In other words, its nonsense.
There's some very typical things that define a wargame, and RPGs are sufficiently apart from those that means they're recognizeably a different (if related) hobby.
Likewise, there's enough differences in Storygames to recognize them as a seperate hobby.
RPGpundit
Quote from: jhkimWait a minute. :confused:
Who are you and what have you done to RPGPundit, you imposter!!
:D
If you're willing to recognize that there's a sizeable group of people, including on the Forge, who try to promote the term "indie RPG" as some kind of a culture statement beyond just meaning "independantly published RPGs", I'm willing to accept that there's also a stated position by key people on the Forge stating that Fantasy Heartbreakers ARE indie games (even if they're not particularly beloved games by those on the Forge), and that there's at least some push on the Forge to try to keep the definition of "Indie" as something referring to publishing and not to culture.
However, I would note that some of the selfsame people who have defended the "publishing" definition also, paradoxically, enjoy and push forward the "culture" aspect of Indie on other occasions, when it suits their agenda.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditIf you're willing to recognize that there's a sizeable group of people, including on the Forge, who try to promote the term "indie RPG" as some kind of a culture statement beyond just meaning "independantly published RPGs", I'm willing to accept that there's also a stated position by key people on the Forge stating that Fantasy Heartbreakers ARE indie games (even if they're not particularly beloved games by those on the Forge), and that there's at least some push on the Forge to try to keep the definition of "Indie" as something referring to publishing and not to culture.
However, I would note that some of the selfsame people who have defended the "publishing" definition also, paradoxically, enjoy and push forward the "culture" aspect of Indie on other occasions, when it suits their agenda.
No, I'm still not buying it. This is too even-handed for you to be the Pundit. :p
But if you insist on pretending... Yes, I've already said that there are people on the Forge and elsewhere who are using the term "Indie" to mean a cultural thing about the style or content of the game. I've had a few rants against this on my LJ and elsewhere, because I think it's unclear as well as contradictory to the Forge mission statement, the Indie RPG Awards, and so forth. (it seems particularly backwards to call only Forge-related games "indie", when the Forge site itself defines "indie" differently.)
And I'm sure there's also a subset of people who are inconsistent in their usage as well, including Forge posters, anti-Forgers, and others. Such is the internet.
Quote from: jhkimAnd I'm sure there's also a subset of people who are inconsistent in their usage as well, including Forge posters, anti-Forgers, and others. Such is the internet.
*Raises hand*
I'm
totally inconsistent in my usage.
Such is me.
Quote from: RPGPunditIf you're willing to recognize that there's a sizeable group of people, including on the Forge, who try to promote the term "indie RPG" as some kind of a culture statement beyond just meaning "independantly published RPGs", I'm willing to accept that there's also a stated position by key people on the Forge stating that Fantasy Heartbreakers ARE indie games (even if they're not particularly beloved games by those on the Forge), and that there's at least some push on the Forge to try to keep the definition of "Indie" as something referring to publishing and not to culture.
Heck, there's enough push that the Heroquest forum was closed because Greg Stafford has delegated publication of Heroquest to Moon Design Publications, so the game no longer fits their definition of "indie". (They had to stretch it to make it fit in the first place, of course.)
Quote from: RPGPunditThere's some very typical things that define a wargame, and RPGs are sufficiently apart from those that means they're recognizeably a different (if related) hobby.
Your 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.
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.