Then I'll spin one up out of dream-thread and whimsy!

Quote from: droogI thought it was Settembrini who first came up with 'adventure games'.

After a chitchat with Ron Edwards.

And Settembrini is allowed to disagree with me. I happen to hold that his use of that term is highly unfortunate, as it was immediately glommed onto by the Swine in order to denigrate and marginalize mainstream games.

Again, in what sense is "Adventure Games" acceptable terminology?
It either implies that:
1. "story games" and "adventure games" are both RPGs. They are not.
2. "story games" and "adventure games" are equally qualified or unqualified for the title of "RPG". They are not.

Given that, and given that calling RPGs "adventure games" adds nothing to the body of knowledge, and only serves to confuse by creating the impression that "adventure games" and "RPGs" would be two different things, or that the former is just one part of the latter, when in fact it is the entirety of the latter.

The assumption that mainstream RPGs are just for "adventure" also implies less sophistication than "story games", which is also blatantly untrue. Mainstream RPGs can be every bit as profound and intelligent as Forge "story" games, only more pretentiousness-free.

So if someone really wants to defend this term, tell me why it should be accepted as Jargon; especially now that its clear the Swine have leaped on it as yet another effort to subvert mainstream RPGs as a hobby?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI happen to hold that his use of that term is highly unfortunate, as it was immediately glommed onto by the Swine in order to denigrate and marginalize mainstream games.

Huh? I haven't really noticed much use of the term outside of this site, and then mainly by people who are trying to draw a line, a cordon sanitaire if you will, against "swinish" attempts to colonize discussion.

For the record I don't really care much whether "story games" are considered a subset of RPGs or as something entirely different. I like the term "adventure games", but with caveats that I don't think would be carried forward from the current context. (As I've said, I like how "adventure" echoes the old computer game, "Adventure", and also the broad implication of explorative/experiential activity rather than narrative/storytelling.)

Locally, I think it's useful as a reminder, along with "virtual experience", that there's a cognitive distinction. It serves as a signpost to warn people from falling for the argument that all RPGs are about "collaborative storytelling", therefore game X is better than game Y because it's different (has better rules for collaborative storytelling), but not worse than game Y because it's really the same (is essentially about collaborative storytelling).

This is my idea of an Adventure game:

http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/8bitDungeon.pdf

The phrase

Quote8-bit dungeon has been revised to be less of a roleplaying game and more of an 'adventure game'.

does not bode well for the term.

Quote from: Elliot Wilendoes not bode well for the term.

*Shrug*

See, I wrote 8-Bit way before Settembrini started pushing "adventure game".

Much like Pokethulhu, which also calls itself an adventure game.

So...does this have anything to do with the original question? I guess you're not a fan of Sett's invention?

There is only one adventure game "The Adventure Game" anything else is a poor imitation.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo...does this have anything to do with the original question? I guess you're not a fan of Sett's invention?

My point is / was, the term has been used before.  It meant something other than "RPG", frankly.

Using it to mean specific kinds of RPGs brings along connotations that suck.

Things that suck are bad.

With certain exceptions.

This, is an adventure game.

If my RPGs ever start resembling shit like that Gabriel Knight puzzle, I will quit goddamn gaming.

Until then, I'm playing some RPGs.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMy point is / was, the term has been used before.  It meant something other than "RPG", frankly.

There have been a number of RPGs which called themselves adventure games.  That's why I said there was some momentum behind it.  Examples include:

"High Adventure Cliffhangers: The Buck Rogers Adventure Game" (1993)
"Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game" (1998)
"The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game" (2000)
"The Deryni Adventure Game" (2005)

as well as a host of smaller press titles ranging from "Hidden Kingdom" to "Panty Explosion".

Okay, the "real" Adventure games of that ilk, that I know at all, are Adventure, Zork, and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The Gabriel Knight puzzle seems like a sort of hypertrophy of the form. Sort of like one of those crosswords which can only be enjoyed by someone who already knows all the little idiosyncracies of crossword clues, it might be fun for the hardcore. There are puzzles that are almost like that in Hitchhiker, but I swear they were fun. On the other hand, the text itself was written by Doug Adams, and if you'd read the book (or seen/heard the radio show or TV series), you had a big advantage.

The connection between Adventure and RPGs is unclear--with Colossal Cave published "around 1975" according to Wikipedia, it postdates D&D. The connection I make to Sett's usage though is that the computer game is designed so that the player interfaces with an imaginary environment entirely through first-person character. The puzzles are a separate characteristic...something that also showed up in RPGs almost from the start, while D&D clearly influenced computer games such as rogue/hack and (partly through them) Temple of Apshai and Castle Wolfenstein. Some games emphasized puzzles, some combat, but the common factor in my mind is the character identification.

Quote from: jhkimThere have been a number of RPGs which called themselves adventure games.  That's why I said there was some momentum behind it.  Examples include:

"High Adventure Cliffhangers: The Buck Rogers Adventure Game" (1993)
"Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game" (1998)
"The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game" (2000)
"The Deryni Adventure Game" (2005)

as well as a host of smaller press titles ranging from "Hidden Kingdom" to "Panty Explosion".

Something to remember...using something in the title, is not quite the same thing as defining the thing--it is just a title. Just as Vampire: The Requiem, is not really a long mourning song. Or Dungeons & Dragons ONLY has Dungeons /and/ Dragons.

As too naming conventions are different from defining the core aspect of the thing. So too renaming "not role-playing games" to story games doesn't really make them about stories.

Once Upon a Time--is a card game, about stories. A REAL story game and yet, it doesn't need to claim a new description to do what it does well.

I still stand by my assertation that RPG's are like anime, and Indie games (or half the games I like which are different than D&D) are "hentai".  Similar things one derived from the other and narrowed down until it is a seperate and one-step removed fandom. (That doesn't mean that one is "bad" or the other is "good" per se, just that one has features that differ from the other and draws a small minority that doesn't necessarily overlap with the majority--some people may belong to both anime and hentai fandoms for example. Some belong to one but not the other.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenHuh? I haven't really noticed much use of the term outside of this site, and then mainly by people who are trying to draw a line, a cordon sanitaire if you will, against "swinish" attempts to colonize discussion.

For the record I don't really care much whether "story games" are considered a subset of RPGs or as something entirely different. I like the term "adventure games", but with caveats that I don't think would be carried forward from the current context. (As I've said, I like how "adventure" echoes the old computer game, "Adventure", and also the broad implication of explorative/experiential activity rather than narrative/storytelling.)

Locally, I think it's useful as a reminder, along with "virtual experience", that there's a cognitive distinction. It serves as a signpost to warn people from falling for the argument that all RPGs are about "collaborative storytelling", therefore game X is better than game Y because it's different (has better rules for collaborative storytelling), but not worse than game Y because it's really the same (is essentially about collaborative storytelling).

Yea, but I think that the second our side gives up on ownership of the term RPG, we've lost.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYea, but I think that the second our side gives up on ownership of the term RPG, we've lost.

Unfortunately, that would imply that your "side" has ownership in the first place. Erm, the English language doesn't work like that, and it is certainly far too late to slap a trademark on "RPG".

LARPs, CRPGs, MMORPGs have all staked their claim to the term, and in the case of the CRPGs and MMORPGs have reached far, far more people than traditional tabletop RPGs have. It seems somewhat strange to suddenly declare a whole bunch of games "not-RPGs" when the term has already been diluted significantly.

What's more, people are always going to come up with new ways to reimagine the tabletop roleplaying format, and to growl and snarl at them and demand that they stop calling their games RPGs - despite the fact that said games are designed by roleplayers, heavily influenced by the format and design of other RPGs, marketed to roleplayers, and whose audience is 99% roleplayers - seems a quixotic gesture at best.