Quote from:  flyingmiceTrue, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

:rolleyes:

That's a pretty broad use of "railroading"... to mean "rules".  

Telling a player in baseball they have to leave their bat behind when running around the bases is technically removing a choice they would otherwise have (bat, or no bat?).  That's not a polite suggestion either.  It's totally against the rules and if you do it, you're breaking them.  Despite this rules straight-jacket against rounding third-base swinging your bat... I'd hardly think of Baseball as a "railroaded" game.  Then again I wouldn't call it "some game" with a bat and ball either, with rules to be determined by the players and Umpire at each seperate game.  I guess it really depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

Railroading Clearly defined rules has never been the sole domain of GMs - game designers have always included them as part of games, including RPGs from day one.

Quote from: Stuart:rolleyes:

That's a pretty broad use of "railroading"... to mean "rules".

You know I don't use coarse language unless I really mean it, but what the fuck ever. I refuse to argue with brick walls.

-clash

Yeah, this part was pretty inflexible:

QuoteThen again I wouldn't call it "some game" with a bat and ball either, with rules to be determined by the players and Umpire at each seperate game. I guess it really depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

Here I'm suggesting there's a difference between a specific game, with a standardized set of rules, and a game built from a set of game components.  Like the difference between a narrowly focused RPG, and an RPG that leaves figuring out what kind of game to make up to the players and GM.  

I also say that it depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

You're saying clearly defined rules are akin to Railroading, and hence Badwrong.  

Who's the brick wall?  :confused:

Quote from: flyingmiceTrue, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

-clash

Clash,
We see eye to eye on a lot of things and this seems to be no different. Let me give a try at explaining and you tell me where I get it wrong.

I think one of the primary disconnects here is that I mean dictating what I consider "style" to the GM and players. Rules are "Roll initiative, resolve combat and assess damage". You can argue that style is part of the rules but I see it as something that should be held separately. For instance, requiring your players to "Do the bidding of God" in a paladinic setting is one thing, to enforce the way they do it with the rules is another. Players (I am one of them) often have a different view on "The mission of God through His Paladins". I play the equivalent of Lawful Good paladins who rape and kill the enemies of God. It causes GMs no end of fits since I do it with the proper style of a fanatic doing the will of God. I interpret the signs and listen to the voice in my head. At one point, my dog (Godar) was telling my dwarf to perform all manner of atrocities. The GM was panicked and the players ended up killing Uwe since he was such a loose cannon. However, if the GM wanted to, he could have stripped all of Uwe's powers based on not doing the will of Awle as written in the rules. This is an example of style over rules.

So, in the end, yes, rules strictly enforced may cause the squashing of style or force a player or GM into a style choice not if their liking, but I do not think Clash and I prefer games or to design games of this nature.

Now, in an attempt, futile as it is, to head off the free form debate, no, I do not prefer absolutely no rules. As I have said in the past and will say again, rpgs are a strange lot. Comparing them to conventional games has limited utility. One of the primary attributes of an RPG is the ability to have many options in play. When you limit the style of play with rules you limit this aspect of rpgs. This is most prevalent in games where you have very focused character types expected to act in a certain way. Vampires need blood to survive. You could say, within the rules, that only blood from a living human will satisfy and no matter the amount of blood the human will die from a bite. Or, you can say there are many sources, animals as well as human, previously harvested blood is fine (blood banks) and a vampire can take a small amount from many donors. This is a very different feel and allows many options. You can still be a hardcore killer or you can be a repentant victim. Suddenly, style is freed up.

That is about as clear as I can make it.

Bill

Quote from: StuartTelling a player in baseball they have to leave their bat behind when running around the bases is [itechnically[/i] removing a choice they would otherwise have (bat, or no bat?).  That's not a polite suggestion either.  It's totally against the rules and if you do it, you're breaking them.  Despite this rules straight-jacket against rounding third-base swinging your bat... I'd hardly think of Baseball as a "railroaded" game.  Then again I wouldn't call it "some game" with a bat and ball either, with rules to be determined by the players and Umpire at each seperate game.  I guess it really depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

What a horrible analogy, Stuart.

There are a thousand ways, styles, to play baseball. The rule says if you catch a ball on the fly, the batter is out.  It does not tell you how to catch the ball.

See? We could do this all day.  I agree with Hinter - comparing typical games, board games, sports, etc., to RPGs is of limited utility. One of the things most difficult to explain to people when I first started playing in - God - something like 1978 - was when they asked "How do you win?"

If that simple question and the difference in the answer between that and sports/board games doesn't show that, I don't know what does.

I think of "Roleplaying Game" like I think of "Board Game" or "Card Game" -- a broad term that can include a wide variety of different games, genres, and play styles.  I absolutely agree that "when you limit the style of play with rules you limit their ability to have many options in play".  Sometimes the point of the game, the goal of play is for the players to be as creative as they possibly can -- and they should have as few limits on their creativity as possible.  In other games the goal of play is something else.  This is particularly important if the game relies on the players competing or interacting in a specific manner, or is tied to the genre somehow.

A statement like:  "I prefer RPGs that only include a small number of rules and lots of suggestions" is a perfectly valid one.

I think it's equally fair to say:  "I prefer RPGs that include clearly defined rules and limit the scope of options."

I also think that you can like both types of game depending on your mood or the people you're playing with.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat a horrible analogy, Stuart.

There are a thousand ways, styles, to play baseball. The rule says if you catch a ball on the fly, the batter is out. It does not tell you how to catch the ball.

It was an analogy of a non-suggested rule.  One that was completely non-optional.  If I wanted to make an analogy of how even games with clearly defined rules have lots of room for style, then yes, I'd use your analogy of the thousands of different ways to catch a ball.

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Games with clearly defined rules don't mean there isn't room for style.

And there's no reason you can't add a win-condition to an RPG.  Just because most don't, doesn't mean it's not possible.

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
We see eye to eye on a lot of things and this seems to be no different. Let me give a try at explaining and you tell me where I get it wrong.

Hi Bill - as usual, you nailed it.

Stuart:

In the most basic terms, RPGs are not baseball, nor are they card games, nor board games. They are themselves. Rules which tell you not just what to do, but how to do it, are the issue. I'm not setting myself up as arbiter of what is or isn't an RPG. That's the Pundit's job. I am, however, competent to know what I like. I don't like these sorts of rules. You may. That's your judgement.

Your may think your analogies about baseball are clever, but I think them silly and tiresome. They waste my time, and they don't answer Tony's question. They attempt to call into question my competence to know or state my own feelings, and as such, they are insulting. You are obviously playing some game of your own for rhetorical points. I refuse to play that game.

Enjoy.

-clash

Quote from: StuartIt was an analogy of a non-suggested rule.  One that was completely non-optional.  If I wanted to make an analogy of how even games with clearly defined rules have lots of room for style, then yes, I'd use your analogy of the thousands of different ways to catch a ball.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between these two analogies - between carrying a bat around the bases or how you catch a fly ball - speaks volumes.  Are you saying that carrying a bat around the bases is analgous to a style decision?

The point is, if a baseball player was suddenly faced with a rule on "how to catch the ball properly," he would feel railroaded.  Nobody feels railroaded by being told they can't carry the bat aournd the bases.

Quote from: StuartGames with clearly defined rules don't mean there isn't room for style.

I'm not sure who said this so I'm not sure why you're responding with it. If you took my statement to mean that, we have miscommunication.

Quote from: StuartAnd there's no reason you can't add a win-condition to an RPG.  Just because most don't, doesn't mean it's not possible.

I never said it was impossible. It was an example of how RPG's are, in general, different from Sports or Board Games and so the comparisons are not always of use.

Quote from: James J SkachThe fact that you can't tell the difference between these two analogies - between carrying a bat around the bases or how you catch a fly ball - speaks volumes.  Are you saying that carrying a bat around the bases is analgous to a style decision?

He seemed, to me, to be explicitly saying that he was not likening it to a style decision.

If something is explicitly stated in the rules, in a "This is how you do it" way, then it is not a point that's up for players to "stylize."  If they wanted to have a choice of styles on such a thing then they're probably better served by choosing a different game.

Quote from: James J SkachThe point is, if a baseball player was suddenly faced with a rule on "how to catch the ball properly," he would feel railroaded.  Nobody feels railroaded by being told they can't carry the bat aournd the bases.

Well, suppose a pitcher were told "You can't pitch overhand in this game.  Only underhand, though you can pitch as hard and as nasty as you want, underhand."

That could either be horrible railroading of baseball ... or it could be a perfectly legitimate game of softball (at least for some softball rulesets I've seen).

I'm not exactly sure where people are drawing the line and saying that some explicit, non-optional rules are "just the rules" and some are "railroading of player styles."  I suspect that, in reality, this is more about what type of things people want choice over, which is more an issue of personal preference than universal truth.  But hey, maybe somebody will show me where the line is sensibly drawn in the sand, and I'll understand the difference.

Quote from: flyingmiceTrue, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

Well, I wouldn't call it 'railroading' myself. But we need to get specific here.

Quote from: droogBut we need to get specific here.

I think so too.

For me this means, examples of games "that tell the player how to play" .

I see a lot of abstract discussions which does not really say anything. Perhaps with actual examples we could move beyond the theoretical - which seems to plague these kinds of discussions - and into a place which is actualy relevent to most gamers.

David R

Well, my ax is things like Vampire -

It's a game of personal horror!

No, it's a game of superheros with fangs!

No, it's a game of high school politics with fangs!

Truth is, it is all of the above, at least in practice. A game which chose one of these aspects and focused on it would not be as good.

Similarly, is Call of Cthulhu about crap people going mad or gangsters and G-men mowing down deep ones with Tommy Guns? Again, it is both, and a game which focused on one aspect would be a lesser game.

Also Dogs in the Vineyard - well, almost by definition no one can agree what it is about.

So, it seems to me that successful games concentrate more on situation and leave Theme and Style up to the players.

Quote from: Erik BoielleTruth is, it is all of the above, at least in practice. A game which chose one of these aspects and focused on it would not be as good.

Similarly, is Call of Cthulhu about crap people going mad or gangsters and G-men mowing down deep ones with Tommy Guns? Again, it is both, and a game which focused on one aspect would be a lesser game.

Hang on – you're asserting that a game that focuses on an aspect would not be as good. I have anecdotal evidence that directly contradicts that. Where does that leave us?

Quote from: David RI see a lot of abstract discussions which does not really say anything. Perhaps with actual examples we could move beyond the theoretical - which seems to plague these kinds of discussions - and into a place which is actualy relevent to most gamers.

For example: Dogs in the Vineyard appears to have been put forward (by two different people) both as a game that tells you what to do and a game that doesn't.